Quote from: Ronin;651176Then a couple times in my case having people that don't want to do any kind of reading, or what not to help themselves understand the setting and/or rules. (Oh and by reading I don't mean large portions of books, or even chapters. I mean a couple of paragraphs. Which has always astounded me.)

I have encountered this more than a few times. Enough in fact that I sometimes wonder if a majority of players just want a generic setting of the appropriate genre and most of those lovingly crafted RPG worlds are either a waste of time or just a marketing attention-grabber for the GM.

Of course the problem can just be partly solved by doing what Bioware does with its computer RPGs: dish out the lore in tiny doses over time. I don't think this is what many GMs had in mind though when they picked up "Textured Richness: The RPG of Astounding Cultural Detail."

Quote from: Arkansan;651176I have heard from other players in my area that it is hell to get anything other than a Pathfinder game going.

Yeah, this is what makes me wonder. In these days of shrinking participation in the hobby and diminishing time to game for adults, is there a case for managing our expectations, bowing to the seemingly inevitable and rallying to the top games?

My group will play anything I throw in front of them.

Depends what you recruited the players for.

If they all came in for old school D&D, you'll shake some loose if you switch to GURPS later.

I've actually had such players leave (over a 3 -5 session minicampaign no less) and want to come back when I'm running OD&D again. They want what they want; not much you can do about it and no reason to resent them.

That said, I don't like hearing 'how well I run a game' if the player in question wants me to only run that game.

Yes, I'm in the odd position of wanting to shitcan much of my group. I'm ready to play something else.

My players are open to most things as long as they don't have to deal with a crunchy system – but then I'm a rules light bloke myself, so this isn't really an issue. However, even with a system as light as say 2FT, they really can't be bothered to learn the combat options – so they describe what they are doing and I tell them what to roll (again, not really a problem).

Setting they will absorb, but prefer this to be through play, rather than reading anything more than a list of bullet points to get them orientated. Personally I think this is the best way to introduce setting anyway. And as a GM, I don't really want to read a hundred pages of the world building notes for the game designer's never to be published novel. I would prefer details of everyday, food, music, and religious festivals that the PCs will come into contact with; rather than a detailed 500 year history of the kingdom, which no one living there would actually know aside from a handful of scholars.

One thing my players hate is chargen that takes more than 15 minutes. Anymore than that and they want me to provide pre-gens. All the above might make them seem like 'casual players', but they are anything but. They are committed and involved players but are really not on for learning vast chunks of rules and setting before they can play.

While I think there is a place for games with involved mechanics and heavy setting (however you would define that) for those who like that sort of thing, I think the hobby loses out by not having more leaner games with a quick set up time.

Overall I think I've been fairly lucky, as over the years I've only had one player refuse to play something I ran. He wanted fantasy only, and wouldn't play horror or sf - so even that was a genre thing rather than being committed to a specific system.

I agree that what game the group is built around plays a role, and I don't often see groups formed with no particular game in mind. I'm not sure we have to bow to the most popular games, with play by post, skype, google+ and the like I think in some ways the options for putting together groups around games that may not be that popular are wider than ever. I do think that we may have to open up our perception of what game night is, I don't ever see face to face table top gaming going away but I do see more people adding some degree of online play to their schedule. I think this is particulary true with adults, I mean I have a 10th the time to game now at 23 than I did at 18 and I don't see that number getting any better. My core group is getting increasingly scattered, the other groups in my area play shit I don't like and the older I get the less inclined I am to play, much less run, games I don't like. I see play by post gaming and the like becoming a much larger portion of my hobby, I prefer sitting around the table and playing face to face but I am willing to loose some of that aspect not to have to fuck with playing games I am not intersted in, not to mention that it can be easier to get a game going schedule wise this way.

I have found it extremely hard to get many folks to play a superhero campaign.  No one wants to be pried away from fantasy.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;651129I'm starting to feel unusually blessed. I've never really had trouble finding players willing to try games other than D&D or some other top tier property. At worst they've balked at one particular game, but then been willing tro try some other unusual thing.

But then I read a lot of stories out there in internet land that go like this: "I always wanted to try [game X], but no one wanted to give it a shot," or "No one around here wants to play anything but D&D."

Is this really a consistent, notable phenomenon, or the internet gripe echo chamber at work? If it is a major issue, what's going on and how can it be aleviated? Should it be fixed or should we just make sure we're always ready to settle for running whatever the top 3 games are in our personal style?

Sometimes it can be difficult.

In my opinion, some players are way too anal retentive about what game system they will play.

Personally I will play anything if the gm is good, and the group is fun.

When I GM though, I do like to pick the system I will use.

More often than not I end up running a system I don't really care for just to please the anal retentive selfish players.

Quote from: Bill;651420More often than not I end up running a system I don't really care for just to please the anal retentive selfish players.

I don't do this anymore. I have been much happier since then. If players are not interested in a game that I want to run, then I simply play in other games. I can play just about anything with a good group, but if I'm running the game and putting in the prep time, I really have to love what I'm running.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651423I don't do this anymore.

Me neither.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651423I have been much happier since then.

Me too.

Quote from: Bill;651420In my opinion, some players are way too anal retentive about what game system they will play.

Interesting isn't it? I mean in a world where most here have said their players 'never read the rules', 'don't have to read the rules', and even 'shouldn't read the rules'. You'd think no one would care what game system they are playing.

Or it might be the case that people are paying more attention than most here think.


In any case, to the OP...

We don't have any issue with experimenting, all it takes is someone who wants to try something.

The exception is when it's something that's already been tried and rejected. So anything that is D&D related would get shot down immediately by nearly everyone at the table, as would RAW Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, Deadlands, etc. All those have already been attempted. It would have to be something new.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651423I don't do this anymore. I have been much happier since then. If players are not interested in a game that I want to run, then I simply play in other games. I can play just about anything with a good group, but if I'm running the game and putting in the prep time, I really have to love what I'm running.

I am still in the irritated phase.

Eventually I will stop running things that are not my first choice.

It's mainly my fault for not insisting and being too agreeable.

Quote from: gleichman;651432Interesting isn't it? I mean in a world where most here have said their players 'never read the rules', 'don't have to read the rules', and even 'shouldn't read the rules'. You'd think no one would care what game system they are playing.

Or it might be the case that people are paying more attention than most here think.


In any case, to the OP...

We don't have any issue with experimenting, all it takes is someone who wants to try something.

The exception is when it's something that's already been tried and rejected. So anything that is D&D related would get shot down immediately by nearly everyone at the table, as would RAW Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, Deadlands, etc. All those have already been attempted. It would have to be something new.

Many players pay attention to the rules, I am sure we all agree about that.

Regardless, I know many players that have irrational restrictions on what they will usually play.

Such as,

'If it uses a d20 I don't like it'

'No Feats, I don't like it'

'No skills? wtf!?'

'Why not just use Pathfinder?'   (for every setting period)

'Couldn't recreate my exact character from previous version'


crap like that

Quote from: Bill;651440Regardless, I know many players that have irrational restrictions on what they will usually play.

Such as,

'If it uses a d20 I don't like it'

'No Feats, I don't like it'

'No skills? wtf!?'

'Why not just use Pathfinder?'   (for every setting period)

'Couldn't recreate my exact character from previous version'


crap like that

Those all look valid to me although I would be on the other side of the fence on a couple of them (#2 and #4).

My approach would be different as I describe in another thread. My group might do the experiment (again unless its a system that's already been rejected) and we'd just note what we didn't like going into it and see if those things actually mattered when we finished the first session.

They typically do.

Quote from: gleichman;651447Those all look valid to me although I would be on the other side of the fence on a couple of them (#2 and #4).

My approach would be different as I describe in another thread. My group might do the experiment (again unless its a system that's already been rejected) and we'd just note what we didn't like going into it and see if those things actually mattered when we finished the first session.

They typically do.

Its really annoying when everyone in the group wants to play a different system.

When others GM, I play pretty much anyhting that is not really out on left field. Can't recall ever saying "I don't really want to play that'  other than Toon.

When I GM I like to pick the system.



Forgot to say, I disagree that any of those are valid.

Sure, everyone has preferences.

But those reasons are petty to me.

Quote from: Bill;651449Its really annoying when everyone in the group wants to play a different system.

Never had a problem with it. We've always gone with what most want to play, and if someone really doesn't want to join it they can find another group. Haven't seen the latter in decades.

Quote from: Bill;651449Forgot to say, I disagree that any of those are valid.

Sure, everyone has preferences.

But those reasons are petty to me.

You're on record as not caring about mechanics, and being willing to override them on whim when desired. Of course those are petty reasons to you.

For those however who actually care about and follow the rules, such things are very important indeed.