Posted this over on RPGnet but wanted to see the responses here as well:

I was wondering, what are your personal expectations of your players, in general, for you to be able to run a game?

I'll try to articulate with an example. For me, I don't want "lazy" players. I don't mean players who are relaxed or have busy work lives and can't do a lot of prep for things. That can be fine. I mean players who just want to show up to a game, roll some dice, and leave, without doing anything for it.

So, if I give some pre-campaign blurb, I expect that it'll eventually be read in some part. This, really, is to save me from info dumping all the time during the game, and to make character generation easier. I also like to do the occasional email with a question like "So, what do you think you might do for the next session?" or "Hmm, seems we're heading towards a war between factions: is that what's happening?" I actually expect answers to such things. If I set a pre-campaign world building and character making session, well, I want you there AND contributing.

This isn't to say people are "bad" gamers for not doing the things I want. I have, however, noticed that I, as GM, have more fun when players have at least some rudimentary grasp of a setting, and when they give me their ideas about what's going on in a game, not just at the table, but when they've been away from it for a while too. I like to hear things like "Yeah, I know my guy wasn't so useful this session, but I think soon he'll be the lynchpin for the next session!" Or whatever. It makes me feel a LOT better about how I run.

It's already driven one guy, I think permanently, from the group. He at least bowed out of the current campaign when he admitted he hadn't read anything or even the one or two emails that I'd sent (at his request!) explaining the game. I'm not planning to run any other games that DON'T require this, so I expect, he won't be really attending anything anytime soon.

Now, I know others will have different "rules." I guess what I want to ask here, really, is, under what circumstances from players will you take on the onus of running a game? What I wrote above are the circumstances for me. I had one entire group ho wouldn't do it, so I dropped them and started another, and that took a while to wring into shape, but I've done it, and I'm a LOT happier now.

You?

I don't set any expectations around playstyles - some people become heavily invested in character, others mechanics, there are a few who like digging around an imaginary world whilst others just want to blow off steam for a few hours and not think about the game till next time. I can accomodate all those and more in my campaigns.

The only rules I ask to be respected are behavioural. My fiance and I host and ask that people show tolerance for the dogs who wander in and out sniffing for snacks, not be abusive or threatening to anyone and not bring alcohol or drugs to the game. Thus far everyone's been cool with that and we've had a lot of fun.

I only run games for people I would sit down and have a few beers with. I will not take someone who repulses me just to get a game going.

Beyond that, I expect everyone in the group to contribute to the campaign by being an active player, both by turning up fairly regularly (although this is not a strict thing) and getting engaged with the action. Some folks are more passive than others, and I am okay with that, but someone who doesn't do anything on his or her own accord should probably find something else to do. Also, someone joining the game should be generally compatible with the playstyle. If you don't like heavily exploration-based, open-ended D&Desque games, I am probably not the GM for you.

In the last few years, I have been blessed with a very good group, so these problems don't really turn up very often - there are minor hiccups, like in everything human-related, but we can fix those via communication.

I'm easy. Don't get me wrong, there are any number of unpleasant and dysfunctional people I would not want to associate with for gaming or any other social situation. But when it comes to gaming specific stuff, lazy is fine.

Then again I tend to run very accessible games. I figure if the rules are so complicated a body can't pick it up in play after a session or two it's probably not the sort of game I want to run anyway.

Same goes for background fluff. I certainly see the attraction of a setting with deep lore and unique cultures but frankly I'm a lot more interesting in what the player characters are doing now than what happened to some NPC 200 years ago.

I am a pretty laid back GM and try to adapt my style to the group.

Quote from: Numa Pompilius;480731I was wondering, what are your personal expectations of your players, in general, for you to be able to run a game?

Regular attendance (though I'm not too exigent on that, as we play as long as we have 50+% of players), good behavior to everyone and basic politeness, willingness to have fun and be fun. Not much more. i'm not exigent regarding immersion, first person acting or other things. Ah, everyone brings drinks  and snacks because I already do a lot of work and also I host the game at my place.

QuoteI also like to do the occasional email with a question like "So, what do you think you might do for the next session?" or "Hmm, seems we're heading towards a war between factions: is that what's happening?" I actually expect answers to such things. If I set a pre-campaign world building and character making session, well, I want you there AND contributing.

Yeah, even a short answer is good enough for me.

Quote from: Numa Pompilius;480731I'll try to articulate with an example. For me, I don't want "lazy" players. I don't mean players who are relaxed or have busy work lives and can't do a lot of prep for things.

Minimally I expect the players/DM to show up and actually pay attention during the game session.

But over the years I've had the misfortune of playing rpg games with many really flaky players whom hardly showed up at all, and/or spent most of the game session playing video games, chatting constantly on their cell phone, netsurfing, playing guitar (without an amp), reading something else, etc ....

Quote from: Numa Pompilius;480731So, if I give some pre-campaign blurb, I expect that it'll eventually be read in some part.

In my experience, many players I've gamed with will rarely ever read extra stuff given to them.  Even if I loaned them an rpg setting book to read, they will rarely ever read it.

When it's my turn to DM for the club.  Which is roughly every 8 months, but I claim more sessions a year than any of our other DM's.

Since we don't have to worry about rotating members ('cept every few years or so) it's a non-question for me.

You guys rag on me for having such a closed mind as far as gaming goes, but when I read about your troubles gaming with random people, or it being a question of whether or not your players are "lazy", "bad" or just plain "hostile" - the more and more I'm happier with all the club's decisions no matter how much you guys rag on me on this forum.

What conditions? I want to have a good time with those particular people. The rest is just dressing.

Stuff like:

QuoteRegular attendance (though I'm not too exigent on that, as we play as long as we have 50+% of players), good behavior to everyone and basic politeness, willingness to have fun and be fun. Not much more. i'm not exigent regarding immersion, first person acting or other things. Ah, everyone brings drinks and snacks because I already do a lot of work and also I host the game at my place.

That sounds reasonable to me. What I'd expect of any endeavor, a party, a dinner together, etc I'll expect from the time we spend together playing a role playing game. Phone if you don't show up. Try to follow what's going on. You know, basic respect and politeness stuff.

If it's a Thursday and you have signed up on my sign-up sheet, I am DMing.

Sign up sheet: http://warhorn.net/GamesAndStuffLFR/schedule/month.php

(Mine are the Planescape games)


Other than that, if I invite you to a special game of some kind, then I guess I am also DMing.

That we all agree on the goals and style of play or are at least aware of the majority of attitudes and agree not to disrupt play because the overarching style doesn't mesh. Best not to play at all in this case but sometimes it can work especialy with the quiet type that just likes to roll the bones occasionaly.

Maturity... ie., attentive play (no other attention draining devices at the table), no snarcky out of game cross table chatter (the second doctor was the best by far dude), read any background material ( I promise to keep it short and relevent!), know your character, at least a smidgen of system knowledge (this is a d.20...this is a d.10).

What system one uses will play into this as well so best to talk to all concerned before making any decisions.

All of this is best laid out before play even begins. The more selective you can be regarding who is in the group and the clarity of play goals, the more focused and satisfying the experience may be for all.

Start from an embryonic state and build accordingly.

Settling for less than the best will reap like results.

Mine are:

• Turn up ready to play.
• Bring some snacks and drinks (though I provide some myself).
• Have a good game.
• Go home safely.

You know, I think of myself as so open minded.

But I am so friggin' uptight and particular in this one thing.  I run only my ruleset, only my setting, I insist on Sunday night play, we cook dinner for one and all, then drink wine and play until about midinght.
I screen players carefully, I have removed 3 players from the game in the last 4 years alone, the kill ratio is getting legendary, and I have a 3 year old.

Yet one group is in year 16, the other in year 9.  And the second one, which is larger, has a waiting list.

In the case of the DM, I expect them to show up unless they tell everyone they can't make it and cancel the session.  Though this does not always happen especially when the DM is also a total flake.

In my previous 4E Encounters game, the DM didn't show up quite a few times.

In a very short lived Pathfinder game I played in, the DM stopped showing up one day without notice.  The last time I ran into this particular DM in person (quite recently), he would not explain why he abruptly stopped showing up.

I play with friends, but I have a few basic rules.


1) Show up regularly when games are planned.

2) You play heroes. They can be scoundrels like Han Solo, but the end of the day they're people who will help and risk their lives to help others. If you want to play a villainous game, find someone else to GM.*

3) Keep the distractions to a minimum.

4) Give me feedback. I can't run a good game unless I know what direction you want to take it.


5) As a player you get lots of input, You can vote on several campaigns and systems I'm ready to use at a given time, but I draw up the list based on campaign ideas I am ready and willing to run. If I am not interested in a game or have no ideas for a game I won't be running it at this time.


Addendum: If you say a "kid" (usually my nephew or niece) can't play in the "adult" game. Then don't expect to get to play in their games. That's simple fairness.


In return I promise to show up every time. Barring reasons beyond my control. (Health issues, holidays that impede gaming, a few necessary breaks for things my family needs done.)  I will let you all know at the soonest opportunity.

I promise to make it exciting and fun, and am willing to correct mistakes I make, I also promise to not arbitrarily undo important things to your characters you've worked hard to obtain.

I promise to stick to a single game, with only occasional "breaks" for other games to let my brain rest from that campaign. Example: I am running Atomic Highway, sometimes I need to try say D&D Cyclopedia for a session or two--that is not ending the Atomic Highway game. Merely taking a temporary break. These breaks will never be extensive until an important arc of the campaign or the entire campaign ends.



*I do sometimes have ideas for villainous games--albeit lately I've mostly wanted to run or play in Necessary Evil. That's a bit of a different context.