How well do you curate your gaming group. What are your criteria?
Quote from: tenbones;1122088How well do you curate your gaming group. What are your criteria?
Easy peasy- if I would not hang out with you outside of gaming you're not gonna be at my house rolling funny dice pretending to be an elf starship captain.
Quote from: Gorilla Feet;1122090Easy peasy- if I would not hang out with you outside of gaming you're not gonna be at my house rolling funny dice pretending to be an elf starship captain.
That's the floor.
Interested enough in the game to show up reasonably often--especially since we are fairly lax about how often is reasonable and are equipped to handle a varying roster. So if can't clear that low bar, no point in trying.
Then there's a "chemistry with the group" thing, or "good fit"--however you want to put it. That's hard to pin down, and can't say for sure until we try it with some people. Any time I've had multiple groups (such as now), I've had people in each group that would not be a good fit for the other, while most could move freely back and forth with no real problems.
But then, we are mostly causal players. It's 20% social, 20% food, and 60% gaming.
Yeah - for me, socializing, being "friends", etc. are all secondary to the act of gaming itself.
It's hard for a lot of gamers to understand that, especially those that are casual or new to gaming. I recently cut a couple of players from my group that I've known for decades, not because I didn't like them or anything - but because I got tired of them just "being there" to socialize and not actually GAME. It greatly impacted the ability of my group to take the game to "the next level". And frankly, I'd rather give their spots to people that were into the endeavor more than an excuse to be away from their wives and commit nothing to the game itself.
Conversely, getting a couple of noobs into the mix, and they're in hog-heaven because they're not used to the freedom of play I allow (experience = bandwidth), but they still have a lot of to learn... because they've developed a lot of modern gaming habits, where video-game logic rules, instead of actual roleplaying with common-sense in the conceit of the game. They have a hard time distinguishing my description of a person/place/thing from the "The GM is PROMPTING me to do/feel/engage ". When in reality I'm just describing things with detail.
But yeah - sometimes I've let personal feelings about someone due to "time served" get in the way of the game itself. And I've decided I'm not doing that anymore. We can be friends outside of the game. We can be friends inside of the game - as long as you're here for the same reason I am. It seems to be a weird thing to explain to people that feel otherwise - like they're entitled to my time and effort to entertain *them* first, and their participation is considered discretionary at best.
Negative Ghost-rider.
That kinda touches on one of my pet peeves.
"Best Friend" like I should rank them with the one(s) insisting expecting to be at the top.
My only ranking is Friend or Acquaintance.
Maybe that makes me a bad person.
I'm not going to change my gaming to cater to a "Best Friend's" specific wants when everyone else is fine.
Quote from: tenbones;1122100Yeah - for me, socializing, being "friends", etc. are all secondary to the act of gaming itself.
It's hard for a lot of gamers to understand that, especially those that are casual or new to gaming. I recently cut a couple of players from my group that I've known for decades, not because I didn't like them or anything - but because I got tired of them just "being there" to socialize and not actually GAME. It greatly impacted the ability of my group to take the game to "the next level". And frankly, I'd rather give their spots to people that were into the endeavor more than an excuse to be away from their wives and commit nothing to the game itself.
Conversely, getting a couple of noobs into the mix, and they're in hog-heaven because they're not used to the freedom of play I allow (experience = bandwidth), but they still have a lot of to learn... because they've developed a lot of modern gaming habits, where video-game logic rules, instead of actual roleplaying with common-sense in the conceit of the game. They have a hard time distinguishing my description of a person/place/thing from the "The GM is PROMPTING me to do/feel/engage ". When in reality I'm just describing things with detail.
But yeah - sometimes I've let personal feelings about someone due to "time served" get in the way of the game itself. And I've decided I'm not doing that anymore. We can be friends outside of the game. We can be friends inside of the game - as long as you're here for the same reason I am. It seems to be a weird thing to explain to people that feel otherwise - like they're entitled to my time and effort to entertain *them* first, and their participation is considered discretionary at best.
Negative Ghost-rider.
How do you handle people who are super invested in the game, but kind of shitty to hang around? Do you prioritize the fact that they're there to game or do you cut them loose?
As for my answer, over the years, I've found "enthusiasm" to be the #1 valued trait, followed by "perspective" to balance it out. If they aren't awful to be around, everything else falls into place.
I curate my gaming group from those curated friends that are interested in gaming -- YMMV.
Quote from: dkabq;1122140I curate my gaming group from those curated friends that are interested in gaming -- YMMV.
Yeah, that's pretty much me.
"curate"?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1122149"curate"?
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/curate2
After over 40 years of gaming I gave up on gaming groups. Strictly a solo act now.
Quote from: Gorilla Feet;1122090Easy peasy- if I would not hang out with you outside of gaming you're not gonna be at my house rolling funny dice pretending to be an elf starship captain.
Agreed and seconded. Anyone interested in joining needs to act and behave like a responsible adult. As well as no edition warring. The second gets one immediately booted from our gaming table. I don't understand the strangeness of say hating 5E, going on a rant at a 5E table then expecting the group to simply shrug and accept that kind of behavior. Let alone joining a table where ones hates the edition of the rpg. We are also not a X-card kind of table nor I have arachnophobia yet I'm going to joing a campaign where Drow and Lolth are the main antagonists and the DM is going to change everything ti suit my and my needs alone table.
i'll play with anyone but i will not filter my language for you or cater to your feelings at all, act like a tumblerina get treated like one, if you can't handle that theres the door. if you make a special snowflake character expect npcs to treat you like you've got 7 heads.
Quote from: Slipshot762;1122170i'll play with anyone but i will not filter my language for you or cater to your feelings at all, act like a tumblerina get treated like one, if you can't handle that theres the door. if you make a special snowflake character expect npcs to treat you like you've got 7 heads.
I assume you have no problem if they ask you to leave too then.
I have a variety of gaming groups, one is basically old friends and their families and is primarily social and invitation only. Others are via my Meetup and so are open to new members. Dealing with the occasional weirdo can be an issue. If they are not fun to be around they end up on the wait list.
Forever.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1122133How do you handle people who are super invested in the game, but kind of shitty to hang around? Do you prioritize the fact that they're there to game or do you cut them loose?
Definitely a balancing act. I have a guy like that in my group now. He's *SUPER* invested. But he's like an asshole. No one denies he makes moves in the game and can drive things quite a bit. As a GM - he's a goldmine. And honestly he's a really nice guy outside of the game. In the game his characters tend to be "power-gamey" and he simply can't resist going for the obvious power-move that puts himself (and everyone else) in jeopardy. He's known for his "asshole characters". But he's a genuinely good guy. But I'm gonna say - there have been times where I've considered the ejection button on him...
People that are actually full-blown assholes... are generally not welcomed by me if I can't simply have a civil game and if you're an asshole out of game. I mean we have to have some standards. Being social is part of the game, but even as a secondary function it can eclipse the primary. And as the GM you gotta maintain the chemistry of the group.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1122162After over 40 years of gaming I gave up on gaming groups. Strictly a solo act now.
This is an example of "extreme curation".
Quote from: sureshot;1122166Agreed and seconded. Anyone interested in joining needs to act and behave like a responsible adult. As well as no edition warring. The second gets one immediately booted from our gaming table. I don't understand the strangeness of say hating 5E, going on a rant at a 5E table then expecting the group to simply shrug and accept that kind of behavior. Let alone joining a table where ones hates the edition of the rpg. We are also not a X-card kind of table nor I have arachnophobia yet I'm going to joing a campaign where Drow and Lolth are the main antagonists and the DM is going to change everything ti suit my and my needs alone table.
This, the first hurdle and easiest to clear is to ask them of their opinion of the X-Card, and the stupid toolkit, if they think it's a good idea then ]I won't risk playing with them, either at my table or theirs. This also rules out most of the people I wouldn't want to hang with.
Then there's the "everything is political" assholes, those who can't leave their politics at the door will find themselves on the outside of the same.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1122183I assume you have no problem if they ask you to leave too then.
From his house? At his table? LOL
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1122183I assume you have no problem if they ask you to leave too then.
They are not parallel concerns, or at least not automatically so.
There are a ton of hard lines and soft preferences that I have for games that I GM and games that I host and games where I'm the primary organizer--but would not apply when I'm simply a player. Lots of unrestrained "language" is one of them. My game, it isn't going to have it. But if that's the only impediment to me fitting into a group, it wouldn't bother me at all. Everyone can have their language and I'll just be fine. I'm not even faking it to fit in. It really doesn't bother me.
The only way I'd run a game in that setup is if the group already existed, but then ask me to wear the GM hat for a campaign. Sure, some of my other preferences and hard lines might arise (e.g. genres I'm willing to run), but if we can navigate those, then the group can carry on as before.
Reciprocal for "my game, my rules" or "my house, my rules" is that when you go play in someone else's game or house, they get the same consideration.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1122183I assume you have no problem if they ask you to leave too then.
if they are hosting yes, by all means, don't wanna be where i'm not wanted
Greetings!
Well, in the Adventurer League games I periodically attend, as a *player*--I have to deal with all kinds of morons, as well as some cool people. In my home games, it is very different. Loony, Leftist snowflakes are not welcome. I generally run a Conservative group of dinosaurs, and well, I am the SHARK God-Emperor. Everyone gets along well with me. If I don't like them, they are fucking gone. *Laughs* Everyone at the table knows that it's my house, It's my campaign world, and I'm the DM. I can be a bit authoritarian. *Laughs*
I actually am very kind, gracious and fun. I encourage my friends to speak up, ask questions, and also to argue freely about rules and such, even including disagreements with my own interpretations, outside of the game session. I don't like jackasses though, or nonsense. Respectful, mature, fun, sincere, it's all good.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: dkabq;1122161https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/curate2
Both definitions refer to collections of
things, not people.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1122219Both definitions refer to collections of things, not people.
People are things with autonomous moral agency.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1122149"curate"?
Didn't he have an egg? Good in parts?
Quote from: Gorilla Feet;1122090Easy peasy- if I would not hang out with you outside of gaming you're not gonna be at my house rolling funny dice pretending to be an elf starship captain.
This should be on a t-shirt at game shops. As to why, it's because I game with my wife and best friend in my home, with my pets around. Their safety and comfort trumps any nerdly needs.
Quote from: tenbones;1122088How well do you curate your gaming group. What are your criteria?
Strangers find me who are interested in, or say that they, role-play. Then I vet them to see how well they role-play.
Quote from: tenbones;1122088How well do you curate your gaming group. What are your criteria?
1. No politics.
2. No religion.
3. Have your character sheet and know what's on it & how it all works.
4. Know what you want to do during combat (what weapon or spell, and the effect [roll to hit & damage dice at the the same time]) so combat flows faster.
5. Know what social skill you lean to in order to keep the narrative moving along.
6. Not sure of your spell? Get skipped.
7. Work as a team as often as possible.
8. Nice puns get bonuses; +2 for D&D, or Inspiration for D&D 5e.
Players have to show up regularly. They have to be basically functional as human beings, and not socially retarded to the point of making me not want to have them around.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1122439Players have to show up regularly. They have to be basically functional as human beings, and not socially retarded to the point of making me not want to have them around.
This ^ is my personal bedrock-foundation standard as well.
But... there are some things I've noticed in the last decade.
I've found my own criteria as a GM has changed, in terms of what *I* as a GM want and the those of the playerbase, including those of many of my players have tilted as well. If I'm GMing I'm wanting my games to get to a very "high" level of play, I don't necessarily mean that *literally* I mean that figuratively. I'm putting in the work to create very detailed sandboxes. I want my players to have maximal freedom. I've found that a *LOT* of players new to roleplaying, that are used to just doing linear modules etc. will often vapor-lock when confronted with this very different level of play. This is not to say that they don't have "obvious" things to do. It's that they take *every* interaction with every NPC as some kind of explicit prompt from me as the GM as a covert directo to "DO THIS INSTEAD".
It's fine. That's how you learn how to sandbox. It's the players that *don't* learn, that get so vaporlocked *because* this kind of gaming is too detailed, and apparently can be too intense that the problems arise. Because they as players are really there for ulterior reasons: they wanna hang with people/socialize/escape from their SO's, or just want to do dot-to-dot adventures with cookie-cutter Bob The Fighter characters.
And sometimes, because of friendships, other associations, this overt conceit of gaming with me gets lost. Despite me being completely upfront about it. And I do *realize* it's a lot of ask for on my part - I game weekly. That's non-negotiable. My sessions are like going to a lesson, playing in a sports-league, or anything else I take with a modicum of intensive pursuit. And that's what I curate for: I want adults that want to play to the level I intend on GMing. Yes, we can be friends. Yes we can socialize. Yes we can do both. But when it's game-time, I want engagement with people that want to engage. I find that level of engagement to be "difficult" for a lot of gamers these days. But because I also realize that what I want at my table is a little more high-octane than most GM's, I always leave that GM chair wide-open for anyone else that wants to GM instead in of me.
I also advocate for my players to tell me "they're not feeling it" on any given campaign (which just happened last week in fact), to which is ultimately the player's veto which I take very seriously. To the point where I refuse to GM anything my players agree not to play - so I don't want people think I'm some iron-handed asshole, though at times I do resemble that. I recognize my particular style of GMing may not be for everyone. My goal is for everyone to have fun at the level I'm willing to run things. Or find a GM that wants to run things at the level they're willing to play (which may exclude me and often does as some of my players do play in other groups that are far more casual).