D&D General Matt Colville on the “Forever DM”

[tetrasodium]

My honest answer? "Hey, man, can you at least give it a try? Everything we do was new to us at first. I know that change is uncomfortable, that's part of human nature, but I'm really excited for this and I'd love you to join us."

If the person still doesn't want to? I strongly reconsider how much I want to be friends with that person, because FRIENDS are willing to try things with their other FRIENDS, to at least give new things a chance.



In my experience in a "D&D ONLYYYY!!!!!" group, what will happen is either (A) no one picks up the baton and there is no gaming until you, the forever DM, take up the baton again; or (B) someone half-asses some DM-ing and you remember why you didn't bother to be a player.

Cynical? You betcha.

After I converted my group to D&D-mostly-but-we-also-try-other-things, now when I am burned out an need a break, someone will run a mini-series of (not-D&D) and that works great.

I'd add C: one other person else will, but it's only an option through technicality because they are not at all good at it.

That goes back to the perma GM who is stuck or they ultimately walks on a group of friends. The last group I walked from that person was one of two wall flowers who would gm if forced but the game became an excercize in main character+sidekicks with the main character being a fairly textbook dating the gm trope scenario with one's kid & the other's boyfriend depending on who picked it up. Last I heard from them it floundered a bit and I had no interest in going back to run 5e or play the role of a sidekick like robin.

 

[GrimCo]

At the moment we do get together with some friends for games, but it includes spouses that are not at all interested in TTRPGs and it's pretty hit-or-miss who can make it. I would also say that it just depends on the group. If you have a busy job and especially if you have kids? A game night can be a luxury a lot of people can't afford. Maybe at some point I'll float the idea on an off-night if anyone is interested but at the moment it's really just a question of finding time. Well, and I'm an introvert by nature so sometimes I just want a quiet night at home.

Feel you. In the same boat. We had around 30 sessions last year - for us, that's great year (there were years with 8-12 sessions only). This year? 50% session cancellation rate so far. We do hang out (gaming group is also close knit friend group, we have kids of similar age so it's more family hangout times), but, spouses are more for casual board games, or just eat, drink and chill hangout type (if it's only us adults). And on occasion that grandparents take kids for a weekend? Game gets out of window at light speed, time for quality couple time without kids.

 

[el-remmen]

At the moment we do get together with some friends for games, but it includes spouses that are not at all interested in TTRPGs and it's pretty hit-or-miss who can make it.

I am sympathetic to this and understand the difficulty of scheduling (as a matter of fact I am about to propose a schedule change for my group getting together tonight).

I am in exactly the same position (spouses not interested in TTRPGs, including mine) but we find a way to make it work. And the benefit of a casually try a different game off-night, is that not everyone needs to be there and you can maybe include someone else who can’t commit to regular game day/night.

I would also say that it just depends on the group. If you have a busy job and especially if you have kids?

I’ve got both. Luckily my kid is a heavy sleeper and we just have adult game nights after she goes to bed (though she likes when the “uncles and aunties” come early to wish her goodnight).

sometimes I just want a quiet night at home.

so do we all! No one saying play every off night, just once a month or whatever!

But I get it, everyone has their own priorities and it can be tough. No reason not to try though!

 

[SteveC]

My honest answer? "Hey, man, can you at least give it a try? Everything we do was new to us at first. I know that change is uncomfortable, that's part of human nature, but I'm really excited for this and I'd love you to join us."

If the person still doesn't want to? I strongly reconsider how much I want to be friends with that person, because FRIENDS are willing to try things with their other FRIENDS, to at least give new things a chance.

This is such an important point. I've never been in a situation where I wanted to run a game for a while and the response was just "No, D&D or nothing!" I think it's because I run a game with friends who genuinely care about each other. We did a Daggerheart game last year and the GM was new and used some tech to run the game that I didn't particularly care for. BUT I had fun with friends and learned about the new game. I can't think of a situation where I wouldn't be doing that.

 

[el-remmen]

The only time I have said no to trying a game with friends is when I have tried it already and really didn’t like it and felt like everyone else would have a better time without me there. There will be other nights!

 

[SkidAce]

For many groups, convincing the gang to even TRY anything other than D&D can be a tough sell.

If your group plays other games, has fun, but always comes back to D&D . . . well, you're ahead of the curve! I'm certainly jealous!

D&D 90% of the time, Shadowrun, Fate, and Monster of the Week for the rest.

 

[The Soloist]

People will do to you what you let them. No gaming is better than being forced to GM for a group that doesn't want to play anything else than a single RPG you are tired of. More so if no one else in the group wants to GM. You shouldn't let yourself be a Forever GM if the situation is detrimental to you. Prioritize yourself and get out of that abusive relationship.

 

[The Firebird]

Transcript? I can’t handle listening to that guy.

Youtube has generated transcripts, but they basically suck for reading through. I've used some other tools to generate them, like here. That site at least has longer in between timesteps so it is a little easier to read. But transcribing the voices directly doesn't have nice paragraph breaks or punctuation. They do have an AI-generated summary, which can give you something a bit better than a tl;dr.

In my experience in a "D&D ONLYYYY!!!!!" group, what will happen is either (A) no one picks up the baton and there is no gaming until you, the forever DM, take up the baton again; or (B) someone half-asses some DM-ing and you remember why you didn't bother to be a player.

Cynical? You betcha.

After I converted my group to D&D-mostly-but-we-also-try-other-things, now when I am burned out an need a break, someone will run a mini-series of (not-D&D) and that works great.

I've not had "D&D Only" as a response. I have had "I'd prefer to play 5e", and I've chosen 5e before to cater to player preferences. The longer I play, the more that seems like a mistake.

 

[The Sigil]

There are kind of two different intertwined threads going on in this video:

1. Trying out RPGs that are not D&D.

2. Playgroups where the players expect the DM to do the prep work but they do not want to do any work other than show up. (This is the "Forever DM" or "my players would never run").

Note for #2 he explicitly excludes DMs that WANT to do the prep work and enjoy DM'ing. He's really talking about group dynamics where most of the group "expect" to be able to "leech" off the work of someone else.

His hypothesis seems to be that there is a correlation between a group's willingness to try RPGs that are not D&D and the willingness of all players to "contribute to the group" (by "running" or by "being the DM"). Of course, there's the correlation versus causation question - does trying out new RPGs with your group cause more players to be willing to take on the DM mantle, or does more players being willing to take on the DM mantle cause a group to try more games? (Matt's comments tend toward concluding it's the second, but then spends time trying to convince people to try new RPGs, which is kind of backwards - if the cause of not trying new RPGs is that players don't want to put forth effort, encouraging them to put in the effort to learn a new game seems kind of self-defeating).

I think rather than talking about all the different games one might try in an attempt to "convince" players to put forth the effort required to try one, he might have had better luck focusing on the anecdotes of DM's talking to him about being sad their friends will never run a game because they'd like to play once in a while. I think you'll have better luck getting players to empathize with their DM friend than trying to encourage them to do something they've already shown they don't want to do because "it's fun" or "it's different" or "it's exciting" - instead it should be "because you don't want to burn your friend out."

 

[KYRON45]

It never occurred to me that people, especially here, would have such a hate on for Matt. He's basically the distilled version of the GenX GM,but who is actually good at it instead of just believing he is good at it.

If there is a thing to be hated, people will hate it.