The Gaming Den

I've been giving this some more thought ...

First, some relevant (and possibly significant) facts of my particular situation:
(1) The settings I create are 1-time use only, and are created specifically for a particular campaign
(2) I've gone through quite the upheaval in my gaming group over the last couple of years, leaving me with basically having to recruit a whole new group. 3 players have moved out of state, I've had a significant (non-game-related) falling out with 1 player, and my other player is currently distracted with a host of life problems - these were the core of my group. I also try to keep a steady flow of new blood flowing through, and occasionally I find someone who isn't entirely objectionable.
Being that I pretty much only play 3.5, it's seems to be increasingly harder to find people who are willing to commit long-term; as PF and D&D4 are the mainstays. Given the kinds of douchebags that I keep finding, it almost seems like all I'm doing is simply catching all the rejects of other established groups.

---

I think that earlier I was conflating theme with tone/mood. My bad. Anyway ...
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that if a certain tone and mood of a setting is prevalent, then that should necessarily (provided you have player buy-in) produce PCs that are congruent with that tone and mood of the setting.
Using a previous example, if I hammer home a Shadowtech type of game, then there goddamn better not be anybody show up with a fucking Cyberpirate. Yet, this is the kind of shit that keeps happening. As much as I might want to, I can't very well punch the dude in the nose for being an idiot. But if I want to rebuild a group, this seems to be what I'm left to contend with.
Alas, "no gaming" is better than "bad gaming".

I just feel like I shouldn't have to just point blank say "<this> is what I'm running - play ball or GTFO". One would like to be able to assume people generally put forth a good-faith effort to get with the program (I know that I certainly try); but this hobby seems to be infested with intentional contrarians.

---

Sorry about the rambling. My frustration level on this issue makes it hard for me to order and express my thoughts in a succinct manner.

ACOS wrote:Being that I pretty much only play 3.5, it's seems to be increasingly harder to find people who are willing to commit long-term; as PF and D&D4 are the mainstays.

I think many folks here play Pathfinder because of this, and PF is fine as long as you play a caster.

Also first time tabletop gamers are quite likely to start with Pathfinder (the rest of the internet makes it sound better than 3.5 or 4e, which is why I started with it) if they don't go with 4e, and might just not join a 3.5 game because they think it's too different from PF.

Yes, there are many annoying fiddly changes, but I think if you call your game '3.P' and only incorporate some of the better aspects of Pathfinder (e.g. some of the new classes, the skill system) and allow players to select either the 3.5 or the Pathfinder version of any class, feat, spell, etc., you'd at least have a larger pool of players to pick from.

ACOS wrote:Call me crazy, but it seems to me that if a certain tone and mood of a setting is prevalent, then that should necessarily (provided you have player buy-in) produce PCs that are congruent with that tone and mood of the setting.

Yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to ask players to make characters that would fit in to your game.

ACOS wrote:I just feel like I shouldn't have to just point blank say "<this> is what I'm running - play ball or GTFO". One would like to be able to assume people generally put forth a good-faith effort to get with the program (I know that I certainly try); but this hobby seems to be infested with intentional contrarians.

In your case particularly, it might actually be that you are indeed recruiting primarily from a pool of rejects, and everyone is either a narcissist who plans on playing whatever tone they want regardless of what everyone else brings to the table or just jackasses who like ruining games.

But it's also possible that you're dealing with players who just don't think about it, and therefore never realized that they should be aware of things like tone or theme or making a character who meshes with the others. People who are this oblivious to how narrative works do exist, and they aren't necessarily terrible players if you can get them to grok the concept of thematic coherence.

So basically, you can feel however you want, but pragmatically speaking you do have to say what you're running and tell people who won't play ball to GTFO.

ACOS wrote: I just feel like I shouldn't have to just point blank say "<this> is what I'm running - play ball or GTFO". One would like to be able to assume people generally put forth a good-faith effort to get with the program (I know that I certainly try); but this hobby seems to be infested with intentional contrarians.

Sorry about the rambling. My frustration level on this issue makes it hard for me to order and express my thoughts in a succinct manner.

There's nothing as annoying as having to cater to that individual player who just wants to be a contrarian. In a group-based game, you need to learn to be ruthless about it, and hopefully they'll get the message.

I find that just explicitly talking to my players about it helps: it won't stop the guys who just want to be dicks, but it will stop the guys who are in the wrong game. A munchkin in a basketweaver game needs to find a new game, just like a basketweaver in a munchkin game does. In my board Ars Magica game, for example, we talked it over and looked at the sort of game we wanted to run, and it seemed that everyone except Heaven's Thunder Hammer wanted to play a grassroots spring start game, whereas he wanted to play a very high power superhero troubleshooter style game. Neither he nor I have any bad feelings about it, and I hope nobody else does either, but it was obviously not the game he wanted and so he left in a mutually agreeable way.

Asking "what sort of game do you want to play", and getting them to discuss it, really helps. If you can get them to talk to one another rather than just to you about it, that helps even more. Once your players have a sense of ownership about the game then they will often surprise you with how cooperative they can be.

Where I really feel sorry for people is for groups playing niche unpopular games or in small towns, where you can't just walk away and find a new game. To mangle the famous Canada Bill Jones quote, if it's the only game in town then you have to play it, whether it's fixed or not.

ACOS wrote:this hobby seems to be infested with intentional contrarians.

qft

ACOS wrote:(1) The settings I create are 1-time use only, and are created specifically for a particular campaign

lets focus on this, one-time use is not a campaign. you should probably just back off form trying to create a setting and just work on loosely connected adventures and let the setting evolve as it goes and as is needed.

make a general world map with some main continent to start on. populate the local area and any area you will mention soon and the area between them.

then just let shit come as needed. practically making a bunch of connected one-shots. if it begins to peter out then you don't have too much time invested and wasted.

shadzar wrote:

ACOS wrote:(1) The settings I create are 1-time use only, and are created specifically for a particular campaign

lets focus on this, one-time use is not a campaign. you should probably just back off form trying to create a setting and just work on loosely connected adventures and let the setting evolve as it goes and as is needed.

make a general world map with some main continent to start on. populate the local area and any area you will mention soon and the area between them.

then just let shit come as needed. practically making a bunch of connected one-shots. if it begins to peter out then you don't have too much time invested and wasted.

I think he means one campaign use only.

doesn't matter. wasting time on developing for some group that doesnt want the material is still wasted time. just let a world evolve around the game and then offer that with the blanks filled in to a group that actually cares about something other than playing Gauntlet with RPG rules.

So, I guess the consensus is that I need to stop beating around the bush and just be blunt?
Of course, the last time I did that, I got accused of telling the player how to play his character - we parted ways after what snowballed from that.

Eh, after reading this thread, I think I'm still deep in the DM burnout.
I'm just jonesing for game, but I'm still a bit gun shy given my last couple of games.

Wiseman wrote: I think he means one campaign use only.

That would be correct.

ACOS wrote: Sorry about the rambling. My frustration level on this issue makes it hard for me to order and express my thoughts in a succinct manner.

I feel for you man. I hate running into those PCs that seem determined to make some character concept that will not fit the setting no matter what. Those guys are so annoying.

ACOS wrote:So, I guess the consensus is that I need to stop beating around the bush and just be blunt?
Of course, the last time I did that, I got accused of telling the player how to play his character - we parted ways after what snowballed from that.

Eh, after reading this thread, I think I'm still deep in the DM burnout.
I'm just jonesing for game, but I'm still a bit gun shy given my last couple of games.

Wiseman wrote: I think he means one campaign use only.

That would be correct.

Having your players make their characters together might feel like you're wasting time - you're using a session where you could be playing on character creation.

But psychologically you're investing your players in the setting. People working together will subject themselves to group norms in very short order. Very few personalities will resist the 'majority'. And usually you can 'nudge' them back into position. When they bust out MC Killzalot, you can say that you're aiming for a more serious tone.

If they don't want to update the character at that point they're going to be trouble. In general, you can still let them finish and perhaps play whatever portion of a session you have left, but don't invite them back.

There are very few people that will sit down with a group and make a disruptive character. Just as there are few people that will tell a stranger in person to suck a barrel of cocks. Using the case that people don't REALLY want to be jerks in 'real life' when they are capable of avoiding it most of the time will take care of most of these issues.

There's a lot of good advice in this thread generally, so let me just add one more piece:

It is my experience that there is a very strong correlation between being a disruptive presence at the gaming table, and believing in a strict GM/player division of spheres of control. People who view their character sheet as sacrosanct but don't want to have any input into group dynamics or overall plot and story tend to be the ones who cause trouble.

In other words, if someone's reaction to "I'm sorry, MC Killzalot isn't appropriate to this game" is "would the group be interested in playing a game in which he is appropriate?" then you can do business with that person, because they evidently understand that gaming is a collective thing. If their reaction is "Hey, I don't tell you which plots to run, don't tell me how to play my character" then alienating that player might not be such a bad thing anyway.

I feel like I should note: I have no problem at all incorporating things like MC Killzalot into my games. I get why Mearls shouldn't have been the one to take on that role in the demo game (and why he thought it was a good idea) but it's not actually a problem in game. Not for me.

I mean, player X not liking how player Y is doing their character can go suck a dick, basically. People are allowed to have fun in their own way at D&D, unless their fun requires other people to conform to it.


But then, I also like to liven up games now and then, so wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.

I agree - there are lots of games where a particular character is appropriate. But there are also games where a character concept is disruptive (to the mood, if nothing else).

That's the problem with Captain Hobo, to a degree - even if there is no problem with the mechanics, the 'flavor' is toxic to the atmosphere.

There's a pretty cool French language short movie (with subtitles) of a casual gamer that 'ruins' the game for some VERY SERIOUS players. While we're supposed to laugh at the serious players, there can be problems with differing ideas of what is fun. Developing a group consensus is an important first step.

The DM is going to have an easier job if the table has bought into his vision - the majority of players works to reign in any 'outliers'. It's well known that any group will develop it's own norms of behavior. Studies have shown that they'll choose an answer they know is wrong in order to conform with a group.

So if the GM is the one saying 'no, your character doesn't fit' that's always going to involve more of a 'clash of personalities' than one of the other players saying 'that character seems silly - I'm not sure we'd want to be seen with him'.

ACOS wrote:Eh, after reading this thread, I think I'm still deep in the DM burnout.

just create your world on the side until you find players that want to play it. while you are having players go in and out just play one-shots. you get to play, you get to create your world/setting, nobody can destroy part of it so you have to start over...