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).