A few weeks ago, I stumbled on this Reddit
post from Vesper3556. "What's the point of DMing? And was my experience typical?" This person recently ran
their first campaign, which lasted about six
months and then fizzled out. They said that everybody
seemed to have fun, but the players just kind
of didn't engage with stuff. The DM put a lot of effort into creating an interesting world and
interesting encounters, which the players then ignored in
favor of fighting and looting. There's a quote here that
I really wanna highlight, because I think it cuts to
the heart of this issue. The DM says, "Eventually,
it felt like I was just providing them with content
to consume and entertain, rather than it being a collaborative and emergent experience." This person posted about this problem because they had seen a lot of complaints from DMs having similar experiences, and wondered if this was
just the way things are. Not a failure on the DM's part, but "a weakness in the game itself." Are DMs always going to be
more invested than players? Is it our lot in life to pour
our heart and soul into a game that players merely tolerate? I've been thinking about
this question a lot. D&D in particular is a game
that puts a lot of weight on the game master's shoulders, and even for people who
enjoy those responsibilities, it can be really disheartening
when you work so hard and your players just don't seem to care. This kind of experience
drives some people away from running games completely, even if they're really
passionate about it, or perhaps especially if they're
really passionate about it. Now, it's worth noting that people don't tend to go on Reddit to talk about how good their games are. It's like reading Google
reviews for a gas station, nobody writes one unless something seriously
abnormal happens. The same thing is true in
spaces like D&D subreddits, they tend to have a negative slant, because those are the
people who need advice. So even though I do think
this problem is pretty common, that doesn't mean it's happening
at the majority of tables. I promise you, plenty of
people have great games where everybody's happy. In my opinion, there are three factors that lead to experiences like the one that Vesper3556 described. By correcting these
three things, you, too, can be one of those people who's too busy enjoying your campaign to
post about it on Reddit. (gentle music) To quote my favorite talking hat, "Not all your friends are D&D friends." No amount of communication,
no perfect session zero, no incredible feats of Dungeon Mastering, can make a game right for
an entire group of people who don't want similar things. If you were hoping that
this video would provide you with the magic bullet
solution to forcing people to care about something
they don't care about, I'm sorry to disappoint
you, but that is impossible. The DM in this Reddit post made the extremely common
mistake of thinking that just because the
players were their friends, they would have a good dynamic
together at the game table. But as they share in the post, the DM was focused on
worldbuilding and roleplay, and the players were focused
on combat and looting. The DM worked hard on creating
a fully fleshed-out world for players who didn't even
wanna have backstories. These are two fundamentally
different types of D&D players. And neither of these types
of gameplay are wrong! But they are wrong for each other. In this case, it was like the DM was
preparing a five-course meal for players who wanted to
come over for cocktail hour. Then the DM got frustrated because the players didn't touch the food, and instead went hunting
through the fridge for mixers. If you wanna prepare a five-course meal, you need to invite guests who are foodies. And if all your friends
are cocktail people, you need to either learn to
enjoy making craft cocktails, or make a few new friends whose interests align better with yours. Now, it isn't always this black and white. I enjoy running a lot of
different kinds of games, so for me, this just means
that I have certain people that I am more likely to invite
to certain types of games. I know which of my friends
will enjoy a dramatic, roleplay-heavy, emotional game, and I know which of my friends will thrive in a more
light-hearted, comedic one. I've also learned to not invite someone to a long-term campaign until I've played with
them in a one-shot or two, so I can get familiar with
their style and their interests. I know this can be a
tough pill to swallow, especially for people who want
a very specific kind of game. It means that you might
not get to play D&D with some of your friends at all. And if you have limited access to players, it might even mean that your options are playing with the wrong
people, or not playing at all. And I get it, that sucks! But you are setting yourself
up for disappointment if you start a game with people who don't want
the same things you do. There are people out there who
are desperately seeking a DM who will make a five-course meal for them. But you won't find them
if you keep playing with a group that isn't hungry. Metaphorically. You know what I mean. After the break, two more
factors that stop DMs and players from sharing an amazing game. But first, today's sponsor. (ominous music) (monster roaring) - Who dares disturb the Map Dragon's lair? - I was just checking out your hoard. I was told that you have the most impressive collection
of maps in the land, but I think Czepeku Maps
might have you beat. - I have never heard of such a beast. - Oh, they're not dragons. They run a Patreon for
hand-drawn fantasy maps and tabletop battle maps. Their subscribers get to request and vote on which maps get made next! And you can get print-quality files, or download animated maps
that are already set up for your favorite VTTs. - Surely they cannot
have more maps than I. I sleep in a nest of maps. Maps litter the cavern floor. - Yeah, that seems kinda
a fire hazard, honestly. But Czepeku releases new
map packs every single week. Not just a single map, but tons of variations
for things like seasons, time of day, and weather effects. Their full archive is
more than 5,000 maps! - Hmm, if I defeat this Czepeku Maps, my hoard will truly be unrivaled. Where must I go to burn their flesh and take their treasures? - You don't actually have
to burn anybody's flesh. You can check them out and even buy individual
maps at czepeku.com. Or get access to the whole
archive for just $5 a month. - But what if I want to
burn someone's flesh? - Oh geez, would you look at
the time! I'd better be going! Okay, let's assume that
you have selected players that you think are actually interested in the same kind of game as you. Step one, check. But even with the right players, you still might experience
different levels of investment. Vesper3556 says they were
looking for their players to get invested in the story, and interested in making decisions and affecting the world around them. They set up this image of players passively consuming the
content that the DM creates, instead of sharing in
the creative process. Several commenters related to this, even ones who said they had good players who were engaged and interested. The top rated comment on this thread says "DMs just like DnD more." Now, I don't know whether
or not that's true. I suspect that this varies
a lot from table to table. But there is a sort of obvious issue here, which is that we tend to care more about stuff that we
had a hand in creating. That's why everyone loves telling stories about their own D&D games, but not everyone loves listening to them. So when a Dungeon Master
creates an entire world and then presents it to their players, it's unlikely that their players will be as passionate
about it as they are. If you think about it, it's kind of weird to shut players out of
the worldbuilding process, and then suddenly expect them to become collaborative
storytellers once the game begins. Maybe they don't feel
inclined to participate in writing the story, because they weren't
invited to participate in writing the set-up. When you have created
the entire story so far, what else can players do but consume it? That's why I'm increasingly interested in involving the players in worldbuilding. Let each player create their
own character's hometown, let the Wizard tell you
about the magic school where they were trained, let the player with the
Soldier background come up with the details of which
countries are at war and why. Not only does this give
players a stake in the world, but it also shows you what
they're interested in. When I created my character
Penelope's hometown, which is a cute little
underground farming village, I included a big, spooky lake
that was rumored to harbor some terrible beast in its depths. This tells my DM that when
we visit Penelope's hometown, I don't need it to be a
little farmer's market, cottagecore shopping session, I'm interested in something
ominous and dangerous there. Likewise, I think there's very real value in asking your players specifically, "What kind of story do
you wanna tell together?" If the whole table brainstorms and decides that they wanna play a game where they're the crew of a pirate ship, seeking a legendary treasure while on the run from the royal
navy, then you know for sure that they will be invested in that game. Because, they're the ones
who came up with the idea in the first place! Hey, just a quick note from editor Ginny — I
sort of pitched this like a universal solution, and that is not accurate. Not every player is going to enjoy world building. Some of them will feel like it’s just extra
homework, or won’t have ideas, or will feel too much pressure. This is not gonna work for every table. But, it might work for yours! It’s an option, it’s a tool in your toolbox. Okay, back to the Ginny who got more sleep. Of course, as Reddit user
CaronarGM so aptly commented, "You can lead a player to plot, but you can't make them engage." You can try to only do the
essential worldbuilding, you can invite players to create
the setting alongside you, but even then, it's up to your
players, session by session, to decide how they want to engage. So the final, crucial factor
is managing expectations. That feels like a buzzword, so let's talk about what
that actually means. When I say "managing expectations," I mean that DMs and players need to agree on what this game will be like. What will sessions look
like and feel like, what are your goals for the game, what does each person need to do in order to fulfill
their role at the table? Most obviously, this allows people to actually meet those expectations. Your players can't read your mind, so they won't know that you want them to, say, write thoughtful backstories
if you don't tell them. But another important part of communicating your expectations
is that it gives others the chance to recognize if
they don't want to meet them. Sometimes communicating clearly means that somebody decides
it's not a good fit. And that's a good thing! Because the alternative
is someone playing a game that they don't enjoy, filling
a seat that could be filled by someone who actually
wants the same things you do. In the case of the DM who
made this Reddit post, their players needed to know
that they expected backstories, they expected roleplay, they
expected character growth. And if they aren't interested
in that kinda game, knowing about these
expectations in advance allows them to say, "No thank you, that's not the game for me." It's worth mentioning that the DM wrote, "The players seemed happy
with most of the sessions," but I can't help but wonder if they ever actually asked them. It's pretty tough to give
players what they want if you don't know what that is! Now, I think a lot of people pay lip service to this concept, but still don't know exactly
what it looks like in practice. So I'll give an example of an exercise that I recently tried
in my own session zero for a new campaign. In this exercise, we went around the table and I had every player share one thing they would like the game to be, and one thing they would
not like the game to be. Players said things like, "I
want the game to be heartfelt, and I don't want it to be grimdark." But they also said things like, "I want it to be spontaneous, and I don't want it to be restrictive." This left me with very clear information about what to shape the game
around, and what to avoid. And thankfully, these
descriptions largely matched up between the whole group. But if one person had said, "I
really want a grimdark game," then part of managing expectations means being willing to say, "This might not be the
right game for you." But there's one more thing that I don't think
enough people talk about, and that's DMs managing
our own expectations. The fact is, your players
cannot possibly engage with, fall in love with, or
pay complete attention to every single thing
that you want them to. There will be times when you create things
that players ignore, or actively mess up. And there will be things that
you want from your players that even the best of
them can't or won't do. Yes, if you communicate your
expectations to your players, they will be more likely to meet them. But if you're only going to enjoy DMing if everything goes exactly
like you imagine it, then you should probably not DM! This is an improvised game, shaped by a half dozen different people with different interests
and personalities, and guided by random dice rolls. You will never have
complete control over it. So part of being satisfied with your game is just accepting that. So, what is the point of DMing? Is it even possible to have a game where the players are as
invested as the DM is? In my humble opinion... kinda? It helps to play with people who want the same kind
of game that you want, but it's also important to
meet people where they're at. It isn't your job to provide a
story for players to consume, but likewise, it isn't their job to be exactly the player
you tell them to be. We're all here to have fun, which usually means meeting in the middle. I think a lot of us have this fantasy of
the perfect D&D table, and sometimes chasing that fantasy can get in the way of enjoying
the table that we have. A D&D party is a pretty
big number of people to all magically want
the exact same things. Everybody's gonna have
to compromise a little. As one Redditor commented on this thread, "While no D&D is better than bad D&D, pretty good D&D is better than no D&D." Those sure sound like
words of wisdom to me! If you're feeling inspired
to communicate clearly with your new players, or even
with players who aren't new, make sure to check out this video next. It's all about what to
cover in Session Zero to make sure that you and your
players are on the same page.
