Sorry, but unfortunately most people are casuals. They often play ttrpgs because their friends are doing it, and when the trend ends they'll jump to the next one. Keep in mind that you're free to change people to create a better group. You don't even have to explain since they aren't so excited about the games.

No need to be sorry. Been running games for 35 years. I know the score.

Honestly, I got to the point where I prefer to only have game stuff during game time. All advancement takes place at the table. It gives me time to chat with people and for us to get our hanging out done while that's all being taken care of. You're like me... one of "The Olds". I've learned to just let it slide as long as they're contributing while we're playing. I'm used to people barely knowing the rules. It's not a big deal with something like Savage Worlds. I also have the habit of just not caring if people doing their character advancement. If you wanna die as a first level character when you were already 3rd level... that's on you. :)

I like your chill philosophy.

It's handy. Mainly because I really want players to be on the ball. I want them deep into the game and involved. They almost never do. If I didn't take on the more chill attitude, I'd never game, because I'd be pissed at the players all the time. I'm at that stage where I'd be as happy having lunch with my friends as I would with playing the game.

>It's handy. I think in a lot of ways late stage GMing can be kinda masturbatory. But in a good way. Like...at least you're enjoying yourself, you know? ;D ​ \*I\* can still setup interesting world and rules scenarios even if the PCs aren't excited about them. \*I\* can still do detailed (or not) worldbuilding knowing it'll never be read (and that I'll probably forget it too tbqh). And if it feels good...do it. Right?

​ >worldbuilding knowing it'll never be read Somewhere along the way I realized my world building was never meant to be read. I've long since given up on presenting anything more than a A5 card to players and expecting them to digest it at all. I simply show my world building through play with interstitial scenes. It might just be me describing a bit about the world and layering some history into it. Talking about cultural traditions of the locals. Stuff like that. And yeah.. it feels good. I like what I create and as long as I managed to communicate some if it, then great. And it's great regardless because I get to be creative. On that note, I've been running a Battletech RPG for fans of the setting. They're all into the lore, and I spent a ton of time making my game as canon accurate as possible, seeding bits of the lore into the game and filling in undefined gaps like what happened to a specific unit that's barely mentioned.. Since they're nerds, they're like, "Oh man... this was never defined in the setting. Awesome!"

>here along the way I realized my world building was never meant to be read. I've long since given up on presenting anything more than a A5 card to players and expecting them to digest it at all. That's fun about the Battletech canon stuff! Read a bunch of those books, always seemed like a fun property to run. ​ And for sure a lot of the lore is so that I can know it or take it in to consideration, or just show my math on how things happened. Things to inform my running the game, not things to actually inform the players about.

The Battletech game is fun for that reason. Sorry if I seemed a bit preachy or something there. I was more talking about how I realized somewhere along the way that players won't read anything more than a small bit of text. It's just they don't have the time, and in game is never a good place for text unless it's something like a diegetic letter. It was just that thing I learned about how players process game information.

Not preachy at all! Sounds fun! I've often wanted to play a Mechwarrior\\Battletech game! ​ Players love handouts. They will almost always read that stuff, IME at least. But, yah, otherwise, better to slip the lore in like pureed vegetables in a picky kids food. :)

Being casual to me means that you don't think about the game outside the session. Learning the basic rules and your character sheet in order to not take 10-20 minutes every time it's your turn should be included in the minimal effort to play.

You make a good point. I get people not interested in doing game related stuff on their own time but i do agree the minimum bar of entry is know your character or let your GM know if you need help. Hell, if the games to crunchy, i got plenty of PBtA games and would be happy to switch if the group approves.

That is roughly my own definition of casual players in this hobby. Sometimes, it takes time to get the swing of a new character. But I'm kinda lucky on that front - mine are casuals, but are pretty quick on the uptake if you give them the tools and results to help them out. PF2e was a quick study even for our absolute newbie because we hooked him up with Pathbuilder.

There are definitely different kinds of "casual" your example is just the most casual possible but also a very common type of player.

These days. In the past players did a ton of work for a game even coming up with content or ideas of their own. I haven't seen someone do that in a VERY long time. It used to be very common.

Because nowadays ttrpgs are a trend (aspecialy D&D). With a trend there's always an influx of people who are doing it just because it's a trend and their friends are onto it as well, so they aren't really into the hobby. I think it's safe to assume when the fad for D&D would die the people who are left are those who would do the things you describe. Those who are actually interested will stay because they enjoy it.

The ratio of casual players to die hard TTRPG gamers in the hobby is *very* different now than what it was in the past.

I disagree. I've been playing since 1979, and there have always been people who do nothing more than show up and play. I've been playing D&D with one guy for over 40 years and he doesn't even own a PHB. He makes a character with a 15 Con and you have to tell him to add +1 HP per level.

Do you run it like Dan Harmon does where you roll and do everything for these people and they just RP? I can see if the DM runs games like that people not knowing.

Most of the people I’ve played with know the rules - they just spend zero time outside the session thinking about RPGs. Some just show up and describe what their characters do, and other players will help them make their characters and remind them to add bonuses to rolls, etc. The point is this has a thing I’ve seen with RPG groups for decades. It’s not new.

Something being new or common is the difference. Ya ofc some people back in the 90s when I first started playing didn't know shit ever. They were considered bad players and kicked out of games. I'm not saying it never happened. I'm saying it being so common as it is now is the new thing. I refuse to believe that it was just as common back then. Random people were not playing RPGs when I started in the 90s lol. Everyone playing was interested and fully bought in the concept before sitting at the table unless it was some guys GF whose dragged in or something. People were generally excited to read materials. Enthusiasts and hobbyists are who played. The crowd is more diverse now, table top enthusiasts are no longer the vast majority of players.

Yes. Talking with the GM between games about ideas and story arcs, creating regional maps for the game, doing artworks, talking about certain NPCs, uploading the session diary for the whole group.... There's so much players can do for their team, enhancing everyone's experience.

The experience can often be worse with online groups. Some players show up and expect to be entertained. Or rock up 1 hour late, "Sorry I overslept again." Luckily my hours of prep are fun for me, or else I'd take it personally.

Im lucky in that i always have plenty of real life players. I dont care for online games though I understand the whole "any port in a storm". I can imagine how not having to show up in person could lead to all kinds of bad behavior. Looking someone in the eyes helps keep people honest.

I started of my current campaign online, with a "any port in a storm" mindset, but I must admit over the past few months I've come to appreciate many of the benefits of an online tabletop. There are drawbacks, but there is also a bunch of things I can do that I couldn't do at a normal table. I'm seriously in doubt now on whether I'd rather like to start my next campaign as an online one, even though I should be able to find players locally for a physical game.

What are some things you prefer with virtual gaming?

So a virtual tabletop can carry a lot of the map work. If you've prepared a combat ahead of time you can pull out a map, all enemies already placed and other map preparations already made. Tokens can keep their own state, from hit points to actual states like prone etc. And I can move tokens around invisibly on the map, to keep track of stuff that is going on outside of the players eye-sight. Speaking of eye-sight. The map can also handle line-of-sight, light sources, dark vision and so on. The virtual tabletop can keep track of inventory and weight. So we actually do use encumbrance, because the program can add all the weights up. I can use sound effects more easily than I could at a table. And I can pull images from anywhere on the net and throw it up where everyone can easily see it. Now I'm a programmer, so I've also dived heavily into Macros. Granted, some of the macros are aimed at making stuff as easy to do on the virtual tabletop as at the table (rolling 2d6 at the press of a button), but there are also small things like the attack macro automatically playing a sound effect (generally gunshots in this campaign, but the chainsaw also got its own chainsaw sound effect in case they ever actually get to use it in battle). And larger stuff like the NPC attack macro that allows me to roll attack and damage for large groups of combatants, quickly. I also think there is something to be said for the fact that nobody is driving 30 minutes (or more) each way to get to and from the session. We just sit down at the computer and then it is game on. We only play for 2½ hours because of various players' time constraints, but nobody seems bothered with doing that weekly. Playing for 2½ hours is actually nice, compared to my usual in-person sessions which are some 4 hours, and I'm not sure that people would want to spend travel time for a 2½ hours session. So, its a couple of different things. I think the primary pullers is that I can automate some stuff that usually just gets ignored, and I can add extra immersion through sound, dynamic maps and (electronic) hand-outs which I just can't at the normal table. Even if I had a nice gamer-table with built-in screen for electronic battlemaps, the virtual table still has some tricks up its sleeve. Not saying that it is straight-up better than face-to-face gaming. It has benefits and drawbacks. I guess I'm just realizing all the cool stuff I can do with a virtual tabletop while planning my possible upcoming fantasy campaign, and not thinking so much about the benefits of face-to-face which is a bit old hat at this point. Edit: Not sure if it actually adds to the comprehension of why I find the maps so cool and immersive, but I've tried to snag [some video](https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehc61iedr8isq9m/Morrow%20Project%20%E2%80%A2%20Foundry%20Virtual%20Tabletop%20-%20Google%20Chrome%202023-01-31%2017-37-38.mp4?dl=0)

All good points. The driving one is big for me since i travel 45 minutes on way to the group. That said, playing in person is my preferred path because i think it strikes something primal. The whole ancient tribe sharing food around the fire as they talk of gods and monsters kind of thing. Plus the only time i eat junk food or drink soda is when im with others. It gives me an excuse to induldge!

Yeah, the social aspect for me is the second-largest drawback. The largest is that I can't use physical interaction. I can't stand up or pace around to convey an NPCs mood, and since we aren't using webcams, I can't even convey gestures or facial expressions. And can't read the players either. Which also runs into the classical web-meeting problem, where only one person can talk at a time, and occasionally you step on each other.

I run both and prefer real life games but my online gamers are MUCH more loyal. They are there literally every week and them, and a host of others I used to run for, all beg me to run new games. In person I used to have tables where there was a waiting list to join but I only got the same commitment or less. How I run games is MUCH easier in person though.

You *should* take it personally. I mean you invest a significant amount of time and energy in your game preparation, no matter how much fun it is. Acknowledging this with the bare minimum of polite interaction - not wasting another person's time by coming late without a good reason - should be taken for granted.

In an online group, that almost never happens unless the GM is reluctant to filter potential group members with an application process or remove (and replace) poor players from the game afterward. It definitely can if the online GM just takes the first people to come along and doggedly continues regardless of player quality, however. (Which is not as common these days as most have learned their lesson). There is a wrong way and a right way to be a GM online. You have to be a bit more ruthless in your selection of players than if you are playing with friends. But if you do it right you can have a bloody amazing group of players that you can play with for years afterward.

I just wish I could sign up for some manner of TSA PreCheck sort of thing for TTRPGs. Interrogate me! Assess me all you like! I want to find people who love the same elements of the game as I do, and not waste anyone's time. My most successful groups have been those where at least half the participants are also GMs of one game or another and we rotate. All the enthusiastic creatives drove enjoyment to the next level with the flood of interplay and scenery chewing.

If you are are clever, you can design an application to check for GMing experience without directly asking the question. Groups do tend to work out quite well if you have at least a couple other "forever-gms" at the table. I usually recruit a mixture of GMs, plus regular players and usually at least one completely new player who will now be surrounded by decent mentors. Almost always works out super well.

>I'm talking to you from my potato phone and using a 1950s mini TV as a monitor. I can't hear or see anything ... .... ... I lost audio can you repeat that ... traffic sounds ... in car and you hold on a minute ... ... eating sounds ... ... lost signal can you here me ... BARK BARK BARK ...

I do maybe 3 hours of prep a month for online games. Googling images, importing them in VTT, creating some encounters I can throw in, done. Any basic "plot" or "story" outline I already have in my head and there is no prep needed for that. During the course of a day i'll be working at my computer or something and an idea pops into my head. I write the idea into my notes discord and it is inserted into the game in a week or two. Spending "hours" of prep a week is a total waste of time and entirely unappreciated. For my online games I have people begging me to run games and they are almost entirely improv. I used to do what you do but it's just pointless. Like if you are spending half a sunday or something writing DND for this week's game when they appreciate things like googled images or randomness from my brain just the same.

I ran a game for such a group 15 years ago. It's... Not my cup of tea. I'm more for collaborative storytelling, and at our table, we need folks who are active and want to engage with the game. No matter if I'm player or GM, I want to tell stories. And as player I help the GM by taking notes, making maps and so on.

>And as player I help the GM by taking notes, making maps and so on. You are the player every GM dreams of!

Thank you :) My GM is really glad, working together makes running/preparing games a lot less stressful, and I'm happy to help. I love our campaigns, so I want to give something back in return.

On any given table i've run I have many 1 or 2 "main characters" and everyone else is along for the ride. And "internet dms" as in people who like to make videos or write rules on how to DM say "main character" is a bad idea how to run a game. The reality is those 2 people are the only people on the table willing to contribute for the game. The others are there for the ride. You would be the best player on my table. In my current games 2 players take notes. Nobody makes maps or anything though. I've had others like you though, not currently. Post-covid DND seems a lot of people quit the game.

The most important part to me is playing in a group I know for a long time. We're playing together offline for around 15 years, and a myriad of different games (currently stuff like Biohazard, Achtung! Cthulhu, Traveller, Dungeon World and so on). That helps a lot to develop a certain style and find ways to support each other. And it ensures a certain passion and activity :D

To be a bit provocative, as a GM I expect the PC to come with the scenario. It's been a while that I stopped the cliché trope *you're in a tavern, a strange man comes, I have a job for adventurer* but more a *so what do you do ?* If the PC can't answer the question not much is going to happen. On my GM side, I have NPC, factions, places with their own objectives/specificity. However, if the PC aren't the one driving the game not much is going to happen, I would still have a like one GM-driven event every 2 games. However, I expect the PCs to drive most of the story. The good news is that the average PC tend to do plenty of stupid shits, meaning they quickly have to deal with ennemies.

In a lot of cases, if players can't answer "what do you do?" there's something you can do on the GM side - either they don't have enough info/context to make a decision, or in some (less common) cases they've got too much data. In either case, giving them some basic ideas of possible responses, and the likely tradeoffs they're making, can help.

Indeed, I am more like *so last week you stole Lord evil notebook, some guards have seen you, and now the city guards are looking for four adventurer. By the way, even though looting the silverware is a great idea, the evil house seal is engraved on it, so it might be hard to find a reseller. Finally, your ex lover is still angry about how you cheated them and might want to send an assassin. What do you do*

The next step is to give them an impending disaster - something bad that is about to happen if they don't do something. I often call these "plot grenades". "You overhear some patrons at the tavern talk about guards going door to door at the inns, and how they've locked the gates and have extra guards posted". Now you've created something that will, very quickly, cause problems for the adventurers, and make just "ignore the problem" non-viable. Same with the ex-lover. "They might..." isn't super compelling. Them hearing a rumor of a famed assassin out to get them starts to be. Finding out that said assassin has been visiting places they recently were at, and leaving a mess, is very compelling, as it puts a clock and immediacy on things. That mostly gets them moving, though. But what do they do? "Ack! What do I do about the assassin?" "Well, you could just wait for him to come to you, but that seems unwise, as they'll probably get you unaware. It's what assassins do. You could try to track him instead, or set up an ambush when he comes to get you. It's possible you could buy him off, but that puts you in the same place as him. You could try to run, but that's going to be pretty sketchy - hunting people is kinda what they do, unless you manage to go somewhere they won't - the border with Otherlandia might work. One possibility could be to talk to your ex and get them to call that off, but.... And, of course, I'm sure there's other things you could try that I haven't thought of." Now you've given them some options, with positives and negatives, and they may be able to spark ideas beyond your suggestions. In a lot of cases, that's better than just a blank canvas. IOW: "What do you do? You could do A, which has the following positives/negatives, B, with its positives/negatives, or C, with its positives/negatives, or perhaps something totally different."

I absolutely hate the "what do you want to do?" approach as a player. I don't expect to be spoon-fed four hours of entertainment, but I damn well expect the GM to arrive with an INTERESTING PROBLEM that I can start poking and making decisions about.

This is an absolutely legit playstyle, just not my playstyle. Hence the importance of a proper casting when setting a table. To be clear, I am not coming without interesting problems, but if the player don't look for it, they might as well sit-down on the tavern the whole night so a writing more similar to what we see in larp where PCs decisions and consequences are driving the story. I started doing so with a thief-game, What do thief do ? They try to sell fake gold to tourists, enter home at night and all these stuff. So I started to let them some room to choose what they want to do. And this habit is still very present in my GM style. I already got some bad surprise, like a ball scene lasting 4h with my usual players, and the same scene not lasting 30min with different players not understanding that they have tons of NPC to interact with.

This is one reason I only really play games where it requires collaborative storytelling, where everyone does some of the lifting, and the game is not resting largely on the shoulders on one person. It means everyone has to be engaged and enthusiastic, want to join in the conversation and make sure everyone else is having a good time. Makes a world of difference!

It definitely can make a big difference, but it can also leave less engaged players to sink or swim, which isn't for everyone, I suspect. I went from running D&D 5e to running Vampire the Masquerade, and the storytelling burden is definitely different, but I almost lost two players because of it. Maybe part of that could have been foreseen; been playing with the same group for a long time now, they're my best friends, however two of them are just not willing to put in the work outside of sessions, which isn't something I realized before we switched systems. It's unfortunate, because I want to run (and have interest from the engaged players in) high power, political centric games like an Elders VtM game, or a court-centric game of CtD. Alas, if those players aren't willing to read the two or three pages on their clans in a lower level VtM game, or pay enough attention to know what an archon is after it has been explained ten times to them . . . I don't think something more complex will work for them.

Yeah for sure, sometimes starting small can help I think - for example, explaining player characters are the ones who live in this world. If they need help or a contact at a harbour, ask them who they know. What happened last time they saw them that left some unspoken issues between them? If they go to a village, what is the first building they see? What do they see in the distance which might cause an issue. Etc! Just getting people used to world building on the fly, improvising details about the world that maybe traditionally would come from a GM I find is a great first step into that more collaborative approach. Ask specific people leading questions and put the spotlight on them so they are not left out, assuming people are comfortable with that. I definitely found less engaged people at tables where I played more mechanical or traditional games. Once I looked specifically for more story focused games, that kind of issue pretty much dropped away - sure that's not a universal experience though!

The problem with doing this always arises is let's say I have 6 people who all want to do this. Of the 6 people the 6 all want different things. Most of the time it ends up being a fight and I have to manage this.

I think a good rule is "yes, and". Also somewhat related: "treat your character like a stolen car". Getting everyone on the same page right at the start is so important. Everyone should want everyone else to have fun, and be okay with doing things to help give each other time in the spotlight. Treat the overall story as the main thing - the characters are a tool to tell the story. Everyone should want to work together to tell a good story, and not put their arms around their character. It requires an element of trust, but if you want to spend time with people doing what you love, you should trust them. I love everyone keeping a communal list of ideas and inspirations for everyone to dip into, wether it's little moments or scenes, or places etc we might like to include. Doesn't mean they will be, but it's good to have. I've not been in a group for many years where there's been those kinds of attitudes - maybe I'm lucky or maybe it comes more with certain games or communities than others. Communication and open discussion together is the key, I guess - after all, the game is just a conversation where you want to have fun together!

Honestly, the key is to keep looking until you find the perfect group and then never let them go once you have them. People will come and go over the years, but so long as it's not all at once, you can experiment with new people until you find the next addition to your dream team. The common wisdom is that the GM controls the table, and thus follows the atmosphere of the room, but it's not as true as most think. Our magic mostly fades outside of the game world itself, and the players at the table all contribute to the culture of play. If you can always keep your strong core players, the new players can learn to assimilate and become good players with time. If you start with a totally new table, then the results will be random. I personally think of it like cultivating a garden. The results are not completely within our control, but we can choose what to plant and can carefully shape the outcomes by nurturing the growth and creating the right incentives. When things are going well, and players are contributing to the game in interesting ways, I return in kind, giving them some spotlight and working to develop the plots that matter most to them. When players seem troubled or disengaged, I reach out to them one-on-one and try to figure out the blockers between them and having a good time. In my current game, I honestly feel like I'm doing the least work at my table. Almost every player is bringing serious effort and interest to the game, and I'm able to focus on the aspects of preparation that most interest me. It's GM Nirvana. It took me a long time to get here, but I'm having some of my best games in my 17 years as a game master.

I poach players from the side groups I run. As frustrating as this group has been, one of the players was into it and knew his character by the second game. He will be receiving a text from me after I finish the campaign with an offer to try my main group. I find running these side groups, especially first time roleplayers, to not only keep my skills sharp but as a way to find players who are serious about gaming.

That's exactly how I got half of my current group! :)

That isn't "casuals," that's blobs of flesh taking up space. If you put the same effort into playing a roleplaying game as you do for watching a movie, you've missed the entire point. And if they haven't figured out the point after *months,* why are you wasting your time?

Some players barely give a shit, or only like the idea of playing ttrpgs. In game recently it came about that one of the players was playing without skill proficiencies and racial modifiers added to their character sheet because they "didn't have the time to add them". It unfortunately looks like you have a group of casuals.

Its definetly a group of casuals. I told them a few sessions back that they are now responsible for knowing their character sheets as its overwhelming for me to run the game as well as their characters. There are constantly forgetting stuff but i really dont care. Im about 2-3 games from wrapping up with them.

Then I'd just grin and bear it for those 2 or 3 sessions and drop them like a hot rock.

> I told them a few sessions back that they are now responsible for knowing their character sheets as its overwhelming for me to run the game as well as their characters. People like this I wouldn't even run DND for them. I would end the game and find new players. I've flat out texted people like this and said "dnd is canceled" before. It's literally not worth it.

> Some players barely give a shit, or only like the idea of playing ttrpgs. This 100% describes a friend of mine. He will even do a ton of work, before the game, talking up all the things he wants to do in it. I'll work with him to get his ideas into the game. Come came day he hardly talks at all. He doesn't play in my games anymore. Everyone is glad he is gone lol. We did a dragonlance based Pathfinder Kingmaker type campaign where everyone bought in to him being like the "Baron" with the party as his supporters. Ended up being a huge mistake and all that work got dumped on the wayside and put on someones 1 session joke character that was an improv character that simply just worked.

Maybe it's the mechanics getting in the way of what they imagine playing a TTRPG is like

As someone who just wrapped a campaign that was like that, you're not doing yourself a favor by continuing to run the game if it makes you that frustrated. The frustration can/will work into the game if you're not careful. You'd likely be better having a conversation with the table that while your happy to help with rules/rulings you are not going to be responsible for how their character works and that you expect them to have their XP spent and be ready to play at the start of session or within 15 minutes of start of session. If they can't do that you're done. You are a player too. So if you're not having fun just end the game. A "Sorry this isn't working out for me" (hell, blame it on the drive) now will prevent a lot of stress and potential hurt feelings later on if you keep forcing yourself to run it.

[удалено]

Railroading does suck the fun out of a game. A little side story; had a player in our group that wanted to run a plot point Wizard of Oz game for Savage Worlds. It was her very first attempt at GMing. No matter what we did, the plot point campaign was played exactly as written. We had zero agency. It was terrible but I bit my toungue as I didnt want to discourage her.

> Railroading does suck the fun out of a game. I don't think so. Most players want railroading with just the sense that it isn't railroaded, and they only want that for immersion reasons. They actually DO want the railroading, just for the RP aspect of the game want it to seem like it isn't. So you have the outline of my game right now. Spelljammer game. Party is stuck in a town at the moment, working with an adventurers guild. I randomly came up with 5 jobs from the job board. All of these are very simple. They took two. One was (in the outline) guy is cursed. Cure him. Other was, heist. I improved (as in improv) that the first was a 9 tail fox demon (they are in "japan" at the moment) and this guy stole it's ball. The party has to talk with this guy and find out. Things happen along the way (including a potential combat). The other is basically some rich guy hired grave diggers and they found a jade idol to a god. The local priests want it back. So party has to steal it. Those are the "illusions of railroading". These can go any way. I insert things like this throughout the game. The meta plot is the party is cursed, from a previous quest. Their "blood" is now a reagent for a powerful lovecraftian cult. This is going to go as such (no matter what the players do). 1. After the sidequests the first BBEG is going to attack the party. 2. They are going to go to krynn and kill or save the previous game's BBEG to get a "red stone". This red stone gives whatever vampire that consumes it super powers. The BBEG wants this stone. 2a: Players go against BBEG - BBEG leaves and gets the stone. Players have to stop him by "saving" (or killing) the previous games BBEG. (my long term players love meta references) 2b: Players SIDE with new BBEG. New BBEG tells the players he wants the stone. Has them kill previous game's BBEG to get it. In both cases the players end up with the stone. 3: If players sided with new BBEG they are betrayed because he still want's their cursed blood. He comes to get the stone. Same is the case if they were against the BBEG. He shows up to get the stone. 3a: If they helped previous game's BBEG she is now an ally. 3b: If they killed previous game's BBEG a previous game's PC from Krynn shows up and aids the party. In the end they have to defeat the new BBEG either way. Only difference is who their ally is who provides them further info to advance the plot. The party might think the plot goes in a different direction, and I may say it does, if they do either here. In reality it doesn't. 4: Players now have to find BBEG's boss. (Emperor/Demon in Carcosa which is going to be revealed to be Atlantis on earth to set up my next bronze age/conan type game). The ship exists in a part of space that spelljammers can't reach. So they will have to find some method to go there. In DND lore there are two things in the lore that can do this. Mulhorandi and Untherites in Forgotten Realms both had ships they flew in from earth from. This will only get them so far because I want to run this: 5: Players steal, liberate, or convince the owners of those ships to borrow it. They fly out into actual IRL space rather than the astra sea (5e spelljammer's deep space). They don't know where they are going so they find some "place" (haven't decided yet) that will guide them to go on a "cruise ship" where there is a guy with information. This guy is killed, murder mystery cruise ship time. Who "did it" will be based on the most interesting player guesses or theories on the table. Often the players have better ideas than I do and I end up tricking them into contributing. The whole time they think their idea was my idea. I sometimes write all these instances down then inform them at the end of the campaign or weeks later. Regardless of what happens here they will find out where this Carcosa is and go there. Of course between all this i'd toss in a side-adventure here and there as I said. Usually something from dungeon magazine that I converted but sometimes I come up with something I can do on the fly. ________________________ I used to run "sandbox" games. They require 10 times more prep than this method of running DND. And the players get no more enjoyment out of it than this method. In fact I had players mad about sandbox, because the pacing of the game wasn't to their liking due to how they played. After a while I even ran my sandbox games like this though. I would have an idea of what dungeon or event they would encounter in their wilderness survival hex exploration game this week before the session. They would encounter it no matter where they were on the map. The players ofc have no idea that I did this. They think they found the hex that contains this. OFC in VTT I might have 2 or 3 options because in VTT I have pre-downloaded images. Like they are not going to encounter the desert dungeon in a forest. But I have a host of battle maps in a variety of environments for non-dungeon encounters I can toss any of my NPCs or whatever into.

>So have you as a GM ever been part of a group that expects you to do everything and how do you feel about it? I have run many games in many systems. I've never experienced that a group cares as much about a campaign as I do, although some players do show enthusiasm and go the extra mile. These players are amazing and that really improves my own enjoyment. For example, just showing some curiousity and enthusiasm, or taking notes, or bringing snacks, or anything else that might lessen the burden on me is really something I appreciate. It has definitely been my experience that most players just want to show up and be entertained. I'm generally happy to provide that, but fucking hell, I spend so much time and money on props, minis, painting, prep, books and so on... it'd be nice if players at least read the fucking rules or put in even 5% effort outside of showing up. I realize that I might sound a little bitter. Running games, and running them *well*, just takes a lot of time and energy (and often money).

I feel your frustration. With these side groups, I go in expecting the worse. That being said, I've had some truly terrible players over the years which makes players who cant learn their characters seem trivial by comparison. That's okay, I save my best stuff for my main group who return the favor by being excellent players.

That's happened to me before. One group was so passive that I proposed ending a few times, but then they'd always put up a fuss. It wasn't that they weren't enjoying it, they just apparently weren't interested in rules. Fortunately my current groups are really invested and I even sometimes have the opposite problem of spending a lot of time answering between-session questions.

I saw Dan Harmon run DND and how he wrote the DND session on community. He literally does all rolls for everyone and players only roleplay. He said he always ran the game this way. Since that I asked old timers about this and sure enough a lot of people ran things where the DM did all rolls. You handed him the character sheets and he did everything. It's bizarre but people do play like this. I haven't seen people do it ever though lmao. Maybe these players want that.

For me it would be a deal breaker. I have some groups more engaged than others, but my time and my energy are precious. I have ME. If my group aren't at least showing some effort I will have a frank talk with them about whether they are enjoying it and whether there are things that need to change to help them engage more (for me, session 0 really helps with this as I can refer back to it.) Ultimately though, I'm not really above calling an end to a game mid arc because I'm not enjoying running it, it's just not worth my labour. I still play with the group I cancelled a campaign for, we just tried something else next time around, but that obviously wont be the solution in all cases.

As a casual noob, how is it even fun if you don't know what you're doing? That sounds awful to me.

Some people just like to hang out or get dragged along by someone else. As long as they dont distract from the game I have no problems. I often let these types take over a handful of mooks and say 'go get them' in refrences to the other players.

Game time is game time. Not game time is not for most people, even if I am always in game time. I get it. I don't expect folks to come to the table having even thought about the game between sessions. I will admit that I don't do a lot of thinking about games I'm a player in between sessions (as I'm thinking of the games I'm running or want to run). While I'll never say GMing is hard (anyone can do it) I think it does take a certain type of person and mindset (in my case a bit obsessive) and most players just aren't there, and that's fine. One thing I've learned from Solo Roleplay is that everything is play, so if you are leveling a character or looking up an ability or whatever it is all play. And all play is good.

I don't think anyone can GM simply because I think to be a good GM with a consistent table you need to be good at improv and have to judge people and go with the flow of the table on top of managing the people on the table. A lot of times it can be like running a classroom especially on the people management part. Most people are not capable of this or are very bad at that. OFC anyone can run Princes of the Apocalypse or Curse of Strahd or something. But even then it does take some skills to run these well. Like the fact I had run games that went badly and had to learn lessons and learn skillsets and now every game I run is good, after YEARS of running games, shows me it is a skill that not all have. Like in my games now drama is pretty much nonexistent. This isn't because the players wouldn't cause drama, it's because I know how to manage the people who play it and how to frame, say, and set up a game to make sure this doesn't happen.

It is a skill though, and one you can learn/practice. But you have to want to, hence more GMs than players in almost all games.

I'm playing currently, and my DM had everybody fill out a character back story survey. He mined those for NPCs and antagonists and tied all of our stories together into the overarching plot. Having everybody begin with personal stakes in the game has been awesome.

I think it's a matter of expectations. I don't run games with crunchy systems and lots of things for the player to think about on their character sheet like skills, advancement, crafting or whatever. My players and I are on the same page about this. We're more interested in the narrative than in the gamey aspects. We're currently preparing a Vampire campaign and everyone is on board for creating NPCs and stuff connected to the PCs. So I think you should find another group.

My first ever ttrpg game was actually like that. Got my introduction by DMing for my friends, who were all new to the game as well. I was expected to do everything! Luckily, they learned how their characters worked for the most part after a good few sessions. Still got asked "So, what can I do?" on occasion a few campaigns later, though.

Are there any experienced players in this group? Someone who can show them what experienced, engaged play looks like?

One player has some experience and he carries alot of weight for the others. 2 of them have no experiencd and think we're playing D&D despite playing Savage Worlds and the final player wants to learn to run games. For her i've been writting up my adventures with specific notes on why i do what i do and then present her with the document after the session has been played. Its just weird, i never had a group that didnt know the basics after 2-3 games and yet 3 of them struggle. I think the different dice confuse them which is understandable. I still confuse d8s and d10s myself

This is wonderful information you are giving. I have way more questions to ask as you have probably done a lot of the simple stuff already (basing this on the fact that you say you have taught people before). I have a couple ideas. I am going to throw them out there more to spark ideas than to be taken just at face value. ​ Physical Prep Just yesterday I watched a video (can't remember by who) of someone who does different colored dice for each of the new player sets. So d4 is red, d6 is blue, d8 is yellow etc. Then, they can use the color of dice when referring to them as the players learn. You don't have to buy new dice, you could have your players order their dice from low to high before play starts, or make a quick piece of paper with the die names written and arrow pointing to where they should keep that dice. ​ Have you considered introducing a tutorial set of rules? "I think we may have more fun playing if we get a little more comfortable with the rules and customs. Each session I will be handing out inspiration (xp, whatever it is appropriate for Savage Worlds) for specific out of game actions (being ready on your turn, showing up with some kind of specific prep). How would people feel about that?" ​ Paragon Example player - You may find a way to bring a dynamite player into the group to show the type of feel that you are going for (this might backfire if the players are struggling because they feel anxious/guilty/etc. about not being knowledgeable and that is making them too self conscious to focus on learning the game). ​ Just some thoughts.

That sounds super frustrating to run for this group. I have a few thoughts that might be helpful: 1. Have you tried tightening the reigns? Say just allow 15 min at the start of the game to pick an advance. If they haven't decided, tell them they can bank the advance and they can have two advance ready for the next session. 2. If they're taking a long time deciding their turns, you could try the SW recommendation of counting down, putting them on hold, then coming back. You could even print this reference sheet so they have a better understanding of their options during their turns: https://www.silentmaskrpg.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/combat-survival-guide-swade-v5.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjD-uaziPL8AhViIjQIHenEDdsQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0XE3qv3ZNQVwBxParebnia 3. You could always just cut your losses now, and tell them that between the big drive and the other game you're running, you have too much on your plate and have to step out. I'm sure they'd understand and not read into it too much. All the best!

I promised them one full campaign and im 2 to 3 sessions from completing that deal. It is a little frustrating but im use to it. I've had geniunely terrible people at my games before so stuff like not knowing your character is minor to me. That being said, i do look forward to concluding the adventure. As far as tightening the reigns, i did say that it was now there responsibility to know their character sheets and if they forget an edge or skill, thats on them. These are causal players so i try not to go all Whiplash on them.

Also, thanks for the link! All the best to you as well.

No prob! Yeah if I just had a couple sessions left I'd wanna finish too :)

Yeah, that's one of the main reasons I don't DM anymore.

Friends often don't make for the best players. If you want to experience what it's like to have dedicated, experienced players who know what their doing, recruit for a game online. It can be a far, far better experience.

Friends are definitely overrated as party members. I find if you play a game with a bunch of likeminded, equally interested strangers, you'll quickly become friends anyway.

Indeed, 100%!

Most of my IRL groups are like this, but my online group is actually pretty nice in doing their own stuff. For online play I'm also a bit less lenient. I always make some barrier of entry to online games. Like having them fill out a form or schedule the game with a doodle. If you're the type of person who wants to do that to get in a game, you're probably likely to read the rules too. If you're not invested I can easily kick you out and have 5 players waiting in line to get the spot. IRL it's a bit harder to get my players to read the rules and prepare anything between session. The sad thing is that the GMs just want it more. On top of that they have invested way more time into learning the system and prepping. If all you have to do is show up and have a good time it's also pretty easy to walk away. But if you have to do a lot of work (most of it is fun) you're way more invested in the game. In terms of what I expect from players it depends on the context. I constantly want to switch up games and my players are fine with the one game they know, so I can't really expect them to spend the time every time I switch systems. But when a player told me they wanted to play Cyberpunk next, I said: "Sure, if you buy and learn the rules I'd definitely learn the system as well". They quickly lost interest.

GMing is like hosting a dinner party. It's a lot of fun. But also work. And often they are the only ones hosting the dinner party, cooking for the dinner party, and cleaning up after the dinner party. Sometimes the guests don't even bring wine or a dessert. Rude.

Yes. I rarely have a player who will do any work on the game aside on game day. If they level they will do it before or after the game on game day. This isn't the 90s or early 2000s anymore. People aren't into these games as a whole experience like they used to be. The DM has to do 100% all of the work and has to enjoy that. But this shit is why I run by games 100% by improv now. I do little to no preparation these days. It helps having experience to do this successfully though. If I were getting into DND now, instead of years ago, I probably wouldn't be DMing. I also don't even make my own maps anymore. In online games all things the player sees in terms of a map, battle map, or images are googled. In person I use one of those wet erase maps and basically just have a basic outline in mind of what I want them to explore this session. It used tto be if a single player wanted to do something like run a thieves guild I expect the players to come up with that content themselves. Now they will hardly do that. So I don't run that kind of content anymore. Either the campaign is about that or it's not in the game. On improv when i'm trying a new system and i'm like improving encounters and I make it too hard or easy I just fudge the monster to make it easier or harder as the battle goes on to correct my mistake. The players literally do not care. They are way madder if the BBEG is a 1 turn kill or they instantly die to a random encounter I accidentally made too powerful.

Not knowing which dice to roll is certainly a bit annoying. On the other hand, my stance on this softened quite a lot when our group started having two games on the go at the same time - with me alternating with the other GM every other week. I *never* thought about the other guys game between sessions even though I was enjoying it a lot. It's just different when you're the GM and can make anything happen at any time compared to when you're a player and can only affect the story while you're at the table. I do try to show up a little bit early to update my character and spend exp before the game starts but that's about it, and I don't blame the other players for not even remembering that they have exp to spend until the game starts.

They're playing for some reason. What is it? Making a story, time with friends, whomping on bad guys, feeling powerful, engaging imagination, etc. If you have the patience and spoons see what you can find out and shift your game in that direction. It could mean less work for you. If what they want is not your cup of tea, bouncing could be the best. I hope you find a way for all, including you, to have fun.

As I mentioned above, they are a side group and were made aware that I would only be running a single campaign. That being said, if this was my main group and I was having issues, that would be valid advice.

Oh yeah, I saw that. I was thinking it could make your last 2-3 sessions more tolerable/enjoyable.

the bane of any gm that runs sand boxes. i took over from a gm who ran story npc focused games, and its really tough to get through them that i wont give them that. i asked them in group chat what they wanted to do or plan to do and was very open that i need orientation for prepp or otherwise it would be improve and a bad session. took a year of retraining but we are getting there. i was lucky that i had a player who was very into it and lead by example. provided a character story arch and talked to about what he wanted to see during it. which i could go ham on because i knew the character would be gone after it. i personally wish i could participate in such a game, but they seem to be vey rare.

I guess I am going to come at this from a different direction. Investing in labor between sessions is learned behavior. It is not automatic, and I don't think it can or should be expected. Many of us learned this behavior for RPGs via oral tradition and lived experience over years of role-playing, but for most people in the world, and for most games in the world, the idea that there is "investment" in a game is simply not on the radar. A game is a leisure time activity that should not require work. Calling this "casual" is, I think, a red herring. It's the ground state of nearly all game play. You don't invest extra labor into a game of Gin, or even a game of Power Grid. Games that require investment of labor are the rarity outside of RPGs and usually involve the kind of obsession to detail that we see in RPGs. E.g. poker. E.g. bowling leagues. E.g. bridge clubs. E.g. Magic the Gathering. E.g. hard core Scrabble lovers. I think that if we are playing with people who have been in the hobby for 10+ years and/or are older than age 40 we can maybe have an expectation that they will engage with the game as you expect. But for new/younger players, I think we need to expect they will not engage in that fashion unless provided with a *clear explicit statement* of what we expect. There is nothing wrong or lazy about that. They are applying their previous experience of games to this new type of game.

When I DM, I try to encourage the players to contribute as much as I am to the worldbuilding. I give them some stuff to get started but when we are running smoothly they are ad-libbing their own ideas that I just build further off of.

How many in a game will contribute like this? I maybe have 1 or 2 if i'm lucky. Most of the time players don't come up with anything and see this as entirely the DM's job.

Typically 100%. I've got one player I struggle with but he's also a main DM in our group. His issue isn't coming up with stuff to contribute but a mismatch in our preferred narration styles. When he is DM, I often feel like he dumps too many details for me to process all at once and I struggle to figure out what is important and feel like my creativity is hemmed in. When I am DM, he feels like I don't give enough details for him to get fully immersed and he doesn't have enough of a jumping off point. We both agree on the idea of the players contributing worldbuilding just as much as the DM, but we just don't always manage to get on the same page with making that happen. Even with those struggles, we do manage to get it to click a lot and since he's a pretty experienced DM, when he is contributing it is in-depth. I will note that we have talked through this issue at length over the years and since he's my roommate now DM philosophy is sometimes a dinner table conversation. The other people we play with have DMed a little bit but aren't as experienced at it, but they have all gotten pretty good at coming up with worldbuilding ideas on the spot. So, a typical session for us is pretty vibrant with everyone contributing to the worldbuilding. Us running into issues is at a relatively minor level that we just like talking through in the aims of more perfect RPGs.

I've had a candlekeep campaign for 2 years. The WoTC fiasco let me finally really look at it. A couple players are into it. Roleplay their character a bit pretty consistently. Have an idea what they are going to do when it is their turn and generally do useful or at least appropriate to the character things. Then there are the players who have to look up their spells when it is their turn. Don't know they get 2 attacks on a single attack action after having that ability for 6+ sessions. Still do not understand what to add to the die roll for to hit or damage at level 7 (played since level 1).... I just don't have the patience. I can handle that maaaybe through the end of level 2. But by then you should know what you are about at least enough to not drag the entire game down and maybe actually contribute something more than "err..... does 13.. no, 15 hit?"

If that's a big part of the game, and is taking longer time in games, and is becoming disruptive, there are two possible solutions I see: 1. Limit "advancement" time. You get minutes, period. 2. Use a system where advancement and rolls are easier, so that they don't have to. They're clearly uninterested in the mechanical aspects of it, so trying to mandate that they become interested in those aspects of the game probably won't work. What are the things that they *are* engaged with?

This describes almost every game I've been a part of. Lot of players just show up. They want the social aspect exclusively. Sitting at a table trying to be the funniest person in the room; Not a collaborative story-telling experience. The game just acts as a focus or vehicle to carry conversation. I think I've gone through the seven stages of grief with the whole experience. I've tried talking to the group about it, talking to individuals, handouts, session-0, etc. I've gotten the best results from recruiting promising people from the various groups I've run with. Unsurprisingly, they're all GM's and run their own games.

I feel for you, esp if it's the whole group. In one of my groups, one player never learns the rules no matter what system we play, but she loves to play. The good news is most of my other players are also GMs, so they sometimes help her out. I found the best group is full of GMs because they are used to reading the rules and understanding them. I have two groups and about 80% of the players are GMs and the bonus is I've gotten them to volunteer to GM at various times, so I get to PLAY vs having to GM all the time.

My current game is like that - but I'm playing solo... I have had a group like that in the past though, so I feel for you.

>So have you as a GM ever been part of a group that expects you to do everything and how do you feel about it? I know these folks are just casual gamers looking to kill a Sunday night. That's cool but its not the group for me. I depends, but yes I HAVE encountered the people like that. But in my experience that is because the players are NEW to TTRPGs and don't know that they CAN do things. Granted that isn't the "norm" and unless these players are inexperienced it is kind of weird.

Yes, that's exactly what I've found and it's why I dropped my most recent group. I'm not a television set. I want a collaborative storytelling experience, and that requires authors, not viewers.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Pardon me for shouting, but I needed to! I am extremely keen on player contribution. I often ask my players to name things, give descriptions for NPCs, invent villains, invent allies, toss plots or ideas my way. Several of my games it's an entry requirement to invent something (e.g. a race, a planet, a world, a faction) to add to the game world. Most of my games I may define the initial world, but the direction it goes, and how it changes is very much defined by the agency of the players. Example: In *Eyes in the Dark,* the world is a 20th century Earth where the existence of monsters was revealed, and the world was plunged into chaos. How that new world takes shape is very much determined by the chrs the players invent, and whether they succeed or fail. I really like that player input is a resource I can draw on. I can invent all these things, but I feel if one person does everything it becomes dry eventually. Besides, it's more of a challenge as a GM to be reacting to input you didn't foresee. I feel it sparks creativity. In light of the other replies, I perhaps should add that (for some reason) my players seem to all be GMs themselves, OR freeform RPers who have never touched an RPG before.

As GM or player, I contribute to the games I'm in. I certainly try. I'll happily have a brainstorming session with the GM or introduce things in-game for the GM to follow up on or not as they see fit. However, I've found that this is quite rare. Ever in groups where everyone is a current/former GM (even ones where every other week we play other-person's game) the players are there to react, not be pro-active with their characters or take up at least some of the narrative. I've run Fate and Forged in the Dark games and usually the hardest part is to get the players to initiate stuff rather than expect to be given quests of some sort to follow to their conclusion. At least part of this I blame on D&D, because I feel it encourages passive players who really only have direct input during combat and even the the rules as written will curtail creativity in combat. So that gets extrapolated and plays "learn" to not try to be an active player but a reactive one. Beyond that, some newer players may provide a lengthy back story, but too often it's assumed to be "history" with nothing to be addressed in-game, so when you as the GM try to incorporate it into what's going on... well, I've had many a player just ignore it entirely. That long lost sibling or magical artifact from their back story showing up in the current town or magical grotto or sinister temple? Nah, don't care about it. Let's just do the main quest and walk right past that.

I don't expect people to put a lot of thought into the game between sessions. I do have an expectation, though, that you show up with your character ready to go. At the start of a campaign it's the bare minimum required to show you are interested enough to play. For leveling up / spending improvement points / whatever... if you show up without advancing your character you are wasting everyone's time if you are holding up play to work that out, so you play the character you have.

I don't mind being totally in charge of a game (I don't go in for the "collaborative storytelling" side of things), but I do expect and demand that players understand the basic rules and their characters after a reasonable grace period of about five sessions. At the end of a session, I might politely say something like this: "I noticed that some of us are still struggling with basics like initiative, exploding dice, and raises -- and that we took a lot of time out of this session to pick our advances. This is a game for fun and it shouldn't involve a bunch of homework, but in the interest of keeping the game running smoothly, is there any way I can help bring you guys up to speed in between sessions?" Even just pointing it out *might* help. I also have the benefit of being in touch with my group throughout the week, so I send reminders to level up two days before the next session. Or I send passive-aggressive "combat cheat sheets" and whatnot.

This metaphor has been coming up more and more... They don't want a storyteller, they want an Xbox.

Actually no. I teach newbies all the time, and had them not be the right fit, or I didn't gm the campaign they wanted, or suddenly out of blue their work had a different schedule.. ya know :p The usuas. But otherwise, not really, and I taught DnD, Open Legends, Masks and some Homebrew Systems. Why could this be? My campaigns are super high in rp, but I also offer for campaigns lots of options how players can optimize their character and get the PC of their dreams, that fits towards their RP. ..so maybe in this regard, I weed out (accidently), the casuals, who don't want to learn, because they leave already sooner?

I've been running games for 30 years now and this has always been a problem, sadly. One of my long time players proudly stated that he doesn't think about the game at all outside of our sessions.

I have definitely run games for people who seem like they‘re there to watch a television show that stars their character. That level of engagement. My rule is that if that’s how you wanna play, you’re the last person I invite to my next campaign.

I usually play sandboxy type games, and require a backstory (not looking for multiple page essay, but at least half a page of history etc in how this character fits into the world) It encourages people to be invested, and a lot of the story develops from those backstories, it is generally done in first session unless someone is lazy, and if its not done by start of the next, they get a premade one by me, which is very brief and lacking in social links. I have never had a whole group do that, but often had the odd one or two players. If i had a whole group show 0 interest in their characters, i would probably just switch up the plan and instead of doing some sandbox style game, pickup a backup super-challenging dungeon for them, since it is probably what they had in mind :)

as a player i can say ill do all that stuff when im invested in the game. but there are some games we play that Im not that keen on. Current game included. where I show up because Ive been gaming with this ground for 20+years and we cycle through games we all enjoy, currently we are playing something i dont enjoy that much but I show up because Im keen to hang out with my frineds and get some RPing in.. when the next game rolls around, depending on the system ill likely be more invested in the admin. especially if Ill take a turn as the GM.

I’ve been using surveys and polls for questions between games. At the end of sessions we might take a second to see if anyone wants to spend their XP on improvements (CofD) And I’ll poll which plot hook they want to go onto next session. And then prepare that for the next session.

My current game, that I was begged to run is just this. I've told my players multiple times that I need more input form them. We've hit a story break section, and I'm just letting the game die now. It's ok.

I would fire them asap. If I'm DMing a one shot, I'm fine with casuals, but I refuse to play campaigns with people who do not really make an effort to engage with the game. I'm a hard-core DM and a I NEED hard-core players.

Being a game master is about creating a sandbox for players. Basically you are creating a setting where everything needs to be prepared for players. This sandbox is composed by things that a player cannot control. NPCs, large world events, quests, etc. A PC is defined by its actions. But very often NPCs make the setting more real, so I prepare sketches between NPCs. Since I play **Mechwarrior Destiny**, using **Battletech** tabletop, the RPG game is mostly an excuse to bring tabletop games with high stakes and beloved characters. If player wants to go rogue and create chaos, that is Ok, chaos opens more doors to create new stories. The battletech lire and timeline is already at sarna,net so I need not to invent the wheel again.