This may have something to do with the truism of "if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it." If people are content with what they have, there's no reason to take a risk unless the new thing really excites them.

If you're excited by a particular system, is it possible to lend the books to a player or two to check it out and see if they get excited about it? If the game is based on a particular kind of setting, you might even get them to read the literature.

Quote from: jeff37923;822077Oh, fuck this.

"Someone doesn't want to play My Favorite Game so obviously they are close-minded! Probably a bigot too!"

Before weeping and wailing, try thinking about other possible reasons why people may not want to play a game.

I do think people are too quick to whine when gamers don't try a new thing. Personally I just see the reluctance as an outgrowth of both the thing I mentioned in my previous post (which isn't bad on its own, it is what motivates people to do things like learn everything they can about a topic that interests them) and the fact that systems take time to learn and master. When you ask someone to switch to a new system, you're asking for a time investment.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822085When you ask someone to switch to a new system, you're asking for a time investment.

Not so much asking them to 'switch' as just give it a try... even that can be like asking for their first born child.
It's not much of a time investment to sit down as a Player and try something new once in a while. Players are notorious for not being willing to read the rules or setting material... which is fine by me, if I want to run a game I'll fill them in as we play.

I pushed back when my old group wanted to play 4e... but I was willing to try it if for no other reason that to shore up my complaints against it. It didn't involve any 'time investment' on my part... unless you count the handful of sessions we spent playing that instead of something else.

Why wouldn't you count the sessions spent playing as a time investment? I've run into this all the time and not just games, movies, books, TV shows, anything someone makes their own Personal Jesus entertainment wise often gets upset, even offended if you tell them it doesn't look like something you'd be interested in and accuses you have being "close minded" as if I don't know my own tastes well enough to make a decision based on observation and past experiences.

It comes out sounding like "You can't decide you're not interested in, for example, seeing this movie without seeing the movie." which is kind of ridiculous. No one consumes every single piece of media they encounter, plays every game and listen to every bit of music. The time spent on making myself do something I'm not interested in time I could spend doing something I'll enjoy or experiencing new things that I am interested in. No one has infinite time.

Quote from: Simlasa;822088Not so much asking them to 'switch' as just give it a try... even that can be like asking for their first born child.
It's not much of a time investment to sit down as a Player and try something new once in a while. Players are notorious for not being willing to read the rules or setting material... which is fine by me, if I want to run a game I'll fill them in as we play.

I pushed back when my old group wanted to play 4e... but I was willing to try it if for no other reason that to shore up my complaints against it. It didn't involve any 'time investment' on my part... unless you count the handful of sessions we spent playing that instead of something else.

I love trying new systems, and I have a financial interest in people trying new systems, but I just can't hold it against someone if they want to stick to d20 or GURPS when that is what they've been playing for ages. If they don't want to try something new, I think it is unhelpful to guilt them into doing so.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;822081This may have something to do with the truism of "if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it." If people are content with what they have, there's no reason to take a risk unless the new thing really excites them.

That's pretty much how I see it. I know what I like and I don't need a lot of variation to be happy. Admittedly not the most exciting attitude, but it works for me. We can't all be eccentrics and inventors, and they generally don't have much time or motivation for regular gaming anyway.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822093I love trying new systems, and I have a financial interest in people trying new systems, but I just can't hold it against someone if they want to stick to d20 or GURPS when that is what they've been playing for ages. If they don't want to try something new, I think it is unhelpful to guilt them into doing so.

This makes you a good dude in my book:)

Quote from: Simlasa;822088It's not much of a time investment to sit down as a Player and try something new once in a while.

I would dispute this. I try new systems all the time, but it always requires additional amount of time to do. If you are a gamer and play once a week with your friends, and you've been playing the same system for a long time, then when someone asks you to try a new game, they are requesting an investment of your time in a new system. It is fairly easy to try a new game, but I can see how someone who just wants to get in their weekly session, might not want to blow it learning a new game they have little interest in. Five hours at the table playing a new game is absolutely a time investment. Everyone has a different threshold for how much they are willing to risk on a new system. Some folks are cool trying 1 system every week, others are okay trying new systems once in a while, and some found what they like and don't see any reason to spend five hours on something new.

Gamers are people.

I try to keep it down to about 3 systems that I'll run at any time, simply because I don't want to try and remember the minutae of rules for more systems than that.

Still, I'm happy to try out pretty much any RPG as a player.

I've found games tend to fall into two groups: those who find a game they like and generally just play it and those who like variety and tend not to stay with any one game for long ("long" is pretty variable, however). Those in the second group are generally far more willing to try something different than those in the first group. Different strokes for different folks.

Back when I was younger had had a lot more free time (and available cash) I could satisfy my desire to play D&D and still had time and money to try try other games. Some weeks I ran D&D, some other game, and played in yet another. Now I am lucky to free up one afternoon/evening a week to play and want to spend that time running one of my fantasy worlds using a old school D&D system because that's what I know I really enjoy.  I also lack the time I once had to learn new systems and the medical bills mean I have to greatly limit my game buying.  I have neither the time or money to try things that I don't thing will interest me at least as much as what I'm currently playing/running.

As an "old gamer" - I don't think age has a thing to do with it other than garner experience in different ways of task resolution, and having the experience and critical skills to know what you like and why.

Ironically I've come to the idea it doesn't matter one shit if someone likes/doesn't like a game: it's more important to get GM's that are passionate about running a game they like, and selling it to players. Period. If they don't like it - then there's no game.

Who's having fun now?

I have plenty of games my players refuse to play - so we don't play them. Some for perfectly fine reasons, others for stupid reasons. Where the rubber hits the road is where people are willing to put their preconceptions aside and just go for it.

A corollary of this is: we need more people to GM. And a passionate GM is better than a limpdick GM who does it "because no one else will." If I'm playing I want a GM that's gonna sell me on his shitty make-believe world, and show me in-game why it's actually awesome. I try to do that with every campaign I run.

It helps I'm a system whore too.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822093If they don't want to try something new, I think it is unhelpful to guilt them into doing so.

I certainly wouldn't advocate that... but I remain skeptical that trying a session or two of a new game is much of a price to pay when your gamer buddy buys the thing and want's to give it a whirl.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;822049I'll try any* game at least once.

...


*=obvious exceptions apply : FATAL, RaHoWa, Maid, etc.

Hmm, I'll have to say I'd give Maid a try with a bunch of hot chicks as the players.

To the OP, gamers are narrow close-minded fucks like everyone else, just about different things, and with many that includes type of game, specific game, specific narrow limited aspect of the one game they only play.

My response always is "Ok, will let you know when we play it, but we probably won't."

Quote from: Simlasa;822125I certainly wouldn't advocate that... but I remain skeptical that trying a session or two of a new game is much of a price to pay when your gamer buddy buys the thing and want's to give it a whirl.

Well one or two sessions is an average of between 4.5 and 11 hours of my time as a player. Lets conservatively call that 6 hours. 15 years ago I used to bill out at about $100/hour. Since then I've acquired a graduate degree in my field and 15 years of industry experience. So I should be billing out at a significantly higher rate. But for the sake of discussion let's use the 15 year old rate of $100/hour. Asking me to spend $600 to do something I don't have much interest in doing sounds like a fairly high price to pay to indulge someone else. What's that buddy done for me lately?