What keeps uninterested players showing up each session?

[bloodtide]

I found long ago that separating the Game from Hanging out Socially was a great idea.

For a lot of people, even more so adults, they don't have much "free time". Too often they only allow themselves a single time a week of free time. And if that single time is the RPG session, then that is their only time all week to hang out, socialize, relax and such.

So as DM...and now Social Event Planner and Controller...I stepped up to change this. An easy one is to simply plan at least one dinner out a week. Get the whole group together, plus spouses and others and go somewhere for dinner. This can nicely drain all the social energy from players, so when they show up...they show up to play the game.

My best plans...are the all weekend ones. Have as many people come over that want to on Friday night for the 'adult bonfire'. Most just sleep over the night. Saturday starts off with some dawn gaming, while the non-gamers sleep. Breakfast, hang out and Then have a plan to keep all the non gamers busy.....and game all afternoon. Break for dinner, have a plan for the night for the non gamers, and game all night. By Sunday...most people are both gamed and socialed out.

Even just the simple "game starts at 6pm, but the weekend social starts at noon". Let everyone come over. Sit around. Talk. Hang out. All afternoon. Then play the game.

 

[kronovan]

I haven't played or DM'd at an IRL 5e table in my city, where all but 1, maybe 2, of the players hadn't read the PHB front -to- back. The same's been true for earlier editions of D&D rules. On the other hand, I can't recall playing at an IRL table for any other TTRPG (doesn't matter which; Savage Worlds, AGE, FATE, CoC...) where more than a minority of the players have read them. That seems to make quite a difference, as IME every player is going to become distracted at some point, but they seem more able to remain functional with the session if they know the rules well. Which makes running campaigns for other than D&D, a big challenge. I find that if I can convince most, if not all, of my players to acquire at least the CRB PDF and learn it, the sessions run better dispite all the distractions that creep in. Consequently and more importantly, the players also tend to have more fun.

Players who've invested next to no effort in learning the rules, don't build their own PCs, who often don't know when its their turn, yet get distracted with text chatting or browsing websites, are red flags for me. I get that they want to socialize with folks around the table, but I can't help but feel there's better venues for that. As has been said, there needs to be some tolerance and expectation for distractions. But there's also needs to be some balance and IME it can reach the point where a player is abusing a game session for their need to socialize. Consequently, without some change in their approach they aren't welcome at my tables for long. If I'm 1 of the players at such a table, I'll leave if the GM and other players are cool with such an approach.

Something I learned being a trainer (teaching in computer labs or online) in the software biz, is to mix things up; real-time demos, hands-on, discussions, power points, videos, etc. With the point being that with a mix of activites there's a better chance to hold your audiences attention. Others have already mentioned that some players are more interested in certain aspects of a game session, so I try to ensure there's balance. I lean towards the sandbox /w plot funnels approach to campaigns, which give me potential for variety and a lot of room to manuever within. Social encounters, exploration and combat encounters, I try to fit into every session. If I'm running something prewritten (I usually homebrew), I'll alter it if it's too unbalanced for variety. At times I'll go to lenghts to give my players some agency and let them run the show, even if it significantly alters the planned session, or sessions. As long as it better holds there attention, keeps them engaged and entertained, it's cool by me.

 

[damiller]

Yeah I stopped joining pick up groups awhile back. I found a motley assortment of players with no other bond but enjoying RPGs is not enough. I want a curated group that enjoys the same play style, setting, system, etc.. So, I start with finding my ideal group. Usually, that a combination of organized play, one shots, cons, etc.. Meet people, have dicussions, see how it shakes out. Eventually, I find a solid group. I will play with friends and more casual players, but I know to temper my expectations. I usually dont join these unless my first needs are met. Then, I'll join up for the social aspect and enjoy the game for what it is.

i've played online now for like 13 years, and until like the last couple of years i really struggled to find players it felt like. But then I started writing my online campaign pitches like personal ads, and i've found players who meet those needs. For example:

I'm looking for players:
who show up at game time ready to play.
Who can prioritize the game during game time.
who doesn't cancel an hour or two before game time (emergencies understandable).

 

[payn]

i've played online now for like 13 years, and until like the last couple of years i really struggled to find players it felt like. But then I started writing my online campaign pitches like personal ads, and i've found players who meet those needs. For example:

I'm looking for players:
who show up at game time ready to play.
Who can prioritize the game during game time.
who doesn't cancel an hour or two before game time (emergencies understandable).

I wonder how many folks read that and say, “yeah…not me.”?

 

[MichaelSomething]

For some, it's a sense of habit or obligation. For those, you reiterate that they shouldn't play unless they actually want to and that leaving won't hurt your feelings.

Others may be running on empty themselves. They may a hiatus to recharge or understanding as they're going through some things.

 

[Blue]

A couple of separate thoughts.

First, more players means less spotlight time, so less player engagement. This goes triple in combat, where how long to get back to your character's turn is crucial.

Second, I've seen good roleplayers who just didn't grasp the rules, but had fun. But being disengaged and not even there for the wargaming and looting aspect makes little sense. Perhaps those particular players were newer? EDIT: Or are the sibling/significant other/good friend with another player and they are the draw.

Third, lot of potential neurodivergence there. Social anxiety or shyness, especially with the DM adding you and therefore other new people, could keep someone from speaking much. ADHD as many mentioned - heck, when we're fiddling with dice it's a fidget - it in no way is a distraction. ADHD was named absolutely wrong, it's named from what an observer sees (and often labelled as "problem"). There is absolutely no deficit of attention. We are always playing attention to something. The problem is, if the outside observer is the third most interesting thing going on, that attention is not on them. Could be some on the spectrum as well, I'm not as well versed in that aspect.

Fourth, hybrid in-person/online has all the worst of both and some new worsts just for the hybrid. I've used that for gaming, for profession meetings, for trainings and classes. It should be called words that would make Eric's Grandmother blush.

Fifth, it's a death spiral - once you're disconnected, it takes time and effort from others to disconnect, often the DM, which is again taking spotlight time from others and causing them to be more likely to disconnect.

You asked who's been that player and I have. I was in a 4e mid-paragon game with one player with descision paralysis would needed to evaluate every power every turn in combat (fair enough, they all were unique, with different areas of effect, and combat was fairly dynamic) but it got to any meaningful combat lasted a session and a half. Everyone disconnected before their turn came back around, and then required updates on which foes where hurt, who still had what conditions (this was pre-VTT) including whihc foes, and those recaps made it longer. Good 30-40 minutes between turns, and since it was online it was easy as pie to wander off visiting other web pages.

I'm glad you had fun, but that's the group I'd rather harvest good players/DMs from and start another game than play in long term, personally.

 

[Blue]

Hey! I get to toot the horn again: Different players can have different playstyles.

Some people like combat. Some like social interaction. Some like puzzles. Some like saving bystanders from danger. Some just like hanging out with friends. So many flame wars and BS arguments originate with somebody being unable to tolerate another's play style. But arguing and complaining IME only makes things worse.

Learn to accept your fellow gamers for how they play because no playstyle is superior to any other. ALSO. Usually you need to fish around the community testing tables until you find a group that fits your playstyle. IME I've never met a group that was perfect but I did learn very quickly to accept how other gamers play which helps me fit in at just about any table.

Yes and no.

Yes. One of the great things that taught me about this was DMing at cons. Getting a group with all joke character names and just beer and pretzels play used to get to me - until I just realized they were all just here to have fun, they just did it different from the groups I normally were with. I adjusted to their style and all was good. I had a blast, running in a way that wouldn't have worked at all for either of my usual groups. Have been exposed to a bunch of other play styles at cons, FLGS games or just through new-to-me players over the years.

But, no. You throw one person with a radically different style onto a table that's otherwise aligned and unless that person is you, it's not reasonable to expect that you and everyone else who was around the table will change their playstyle to match the one. Not saying their style isn't valid - it is - but they need to either align enough so that the Venn diagrams of playstyle is mostly overlap, or it would be best if they found another table.

In other words, people can have valid and different play styles, but if they conflict with others at the table, that still can be disruptive.

 

[MNblockhead]

Oh I don't know if rules weight is the problem. I play D&D with my Netrunner and board game friends. We like rules, we routinely set aside an hour to learn new rules before doing the ostensibly fun thing.

Much more, it seems to be that the game serves a lot of purposes. Some of my players want to pick a theme, do thematic things to demonstrate that theme, and are only marginally interested in the rest of what's going on. The cowboy warlock wants to shoot gun, ride horse, and has randomly become invested in the ongoing survival of one NPC. Some of my players want to build stuff, either a base or relationships, etc.

When we're not doing those things, they really don't care, and settle back from being directly engaged in the activity to "being around my friends" and that's nice in it's own way, but doesn't lead to greater investment in the game.

Yeah, in my group, rules crunch helps engagement. I would find it tedious to just be improve acting for hours. But it does require players who make and effort to know their characters and understand the rules. Having players who are invested in the game's rules makes my running games far more enjoyable for me. It allows me to focus on the story and running the NPCs. It also keeps things running smoother when I can lean on a players to help me remember the rules. I realize not all players are into that. They would much prefer that the DM be the expert on the rules and they just have to say what their character does. Some DMs do a great job with with such players. I don't. If I have a group that is just not interested in investing time into learning the rules, I would rather play a rules-light game. But I find those systems best for one-shots or mini campaigns.

 

[MNblockhead]

I hate those players, and purge them when I identify them, keeping in mind that everyone has a zombie night.

But the key, IMO, is your choice of system. 5e, where the PCs are not likely to lose, and its just a matter of attrition, is inclined towards disinterest between your turn.

But using a brutal system where party survival hangs in the balance, and teamwork is essential will do a lot to keep players focused.

I still really enjoy D&D, but I'm finding combat much more engaging with Warhammer. I really requires players to pay attention. The crunch can be a bit much when playing pen and paper, but running it using Foundry is great. Takes out the more tedious calculations and look ups, and speeds up rolling on random tables, and by speeding up that part you really need to think fast on what you are going to do on your turn and pay attention to what's happening in the battle. Things can go bad very quickly. Also, some good tactics and a bit of luck can change things in your favor quickly. I also love how the injury rules make what happens in one battle have real effects on your effectiveness in future battles. You don't just long rest to and start the next day in tip-top shape.

 

[MNblockhead]

i've played online now for like 13 years, and until like the last couple of years i really struggled to find players it felt like. But then I started writing my online campaign pitches like personal ads, and i've found players who meet those needs. For example:

I'm looking for players:
who show up at game time ready to play.
Who can prioritize the game during game time.
who doesn't cancel an hour or two before game time (emergencies understandable).

This is the way. I got my current group of players but putting out a call for players in a number of Meetup pages for local gamers. I gave a (perhaps overly detailed) pitch of my campaign world. I also gave character building options that would be allowed or not allowed. And I explained how I run my games and how scheduling would work. After some back and forth over e-mail, I ran a session zero. I've been playing with my current group for out 10 years. All joined through that call for players or were invited by one of the players.