D&D 5E DM Quits The Game

[Xorne]

I read the first post, and about a page of responses, but I'm just returning to EnWorld, so forgive me if this has been said already.

I've been DMing for 31 years now--and there's one thing screaming out at me as a good reason to walk away from that game. You *waited to start* longer than my group has to play each week.

We have 2 hours, from fart to flush. That's how long we have secured each week to get away from our wives/families before it's time to get back to reality and responsibilities. We start at 6:30 PM, period. If we don't start till 6:45 PM, then we play 15 minutes less. At 8:30 PM we're done--even if someone just rolled to hit--we'll roll damage next session. (Okay I'm kidding there--but I make sure not to start an encounter that won't finish it time, even if it means stopping 10 minutes early.)

Playing D&D with your friends isn't a job--that much is true--but it's 5+ people coordinating their FREE TIME to play a game together. If you're an hour late to our game and didn't give warning, you just let me know that you don't care about my limited free time. I work very hard, put in a lot of hours, and have to travel several times a month for my job. We're all adults and since the age of 16 I've had enough respect for other peoples time to not be late.

When your players can't show up ON TIME to the game session--THAT is how they are showing utter disregard for your prep time and away-from-the-table commitment a DM makes.

Going off track? Not playing fast enough? Not finding your adventure fun? That's D&D, and a sign that you should figure out where the disconnect is, or when you should just chill.

But if someone doesn't respect everyone's time enough to show up when they agreed to show up, that's something to get upset about, in my opinion.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I was not having fun so I pulled the plug. Anyway what would you have done and what would you do?

Calling it quits is the right thing to do. Life's too short and full of other activities to spend time on recreation that you don't enjoy.

This article may be helpful to you: http://theangrygm.com/the-third-lesson-costly-opportunities-and-harsh-realities/

I've been DMing for 31 years now--and there's one thing screaming out at me as a good reason to walk away from that game. You *waited to start* longer than my group has to play each week.

This is a great reason why Zardnaar should not feel in the slightest bit guilty for walking away from the game. If players can't show up on time they are probably not going to be unduly crushed by the DM choosing to do something else with his free time. If they are crushed, tough luck.

 

[Mercule]

Yeah. I'd have called the session long before you did. I've got one player whose job occasionally keeps him late. We might hold the game a few minutes, but probably not. In fact, that's how my daughter ended up joining the group -- he called ahead (yay) to say he was going to be at least 2 hour late, if present at all (boo), so the group added a sorcerer in place of the wizard.

I used to have a player who would show up late or cancel at the last minute due to events on EverQuest. After much ribbing about having weird priorities (hanging out, in person, with folks he's known for years vs virtual meet-ups), I had to give him an ultimatum.

As far as having a timeline goes... wow. In 30+ years of GMing, I've never set a real-world timeline. Not even for the periodic pick-up game when the college gang gets together. It's just obvious, to me, that it's a recipe for disaster. That isn't to say that I don't have rough expectations about how long it'll take to get through a published adventure, or that I never add in-game pressure on the characters.

As much as I say that I believe in GM authority, that authority isn't absolute. The other players come with their own goals and wants. Those flat-out won't match up with yours exactly. Ever. That doesn't mean you have to run a game you hate -- I'm a big believer in "no hard feelings, but let's play Risk". Honestly, each of the players is going to have slightly different goals, too. That's why many GM sections, in D&D and elsewhere, have a breakdown of "player types".

The better a GM is, the better he can read the various players and serve their needs, without stepping on anyone else's fun (including his own). IME, that takes a combination of rules mastery, people skills, and just enough preparation.

Your intent to use a session 0 is a good one. Explicit is better than implicit, when it comes to expectations. A couple of caveats, though. First, during Session 0, everyone has a voice. It's time for the GM to "lay down the ground rules". There may be some things that you lay out, as GM -- for example, after playing Vampire, I realized that the final arbiter of moral labels had to be the GM, save the politics for later, this is a game and needs a consistent standard. Some players might have similar hang-ups, like "I hate Planescape". Just because they've all agreed to let you GM doesn't mean that you get to GM whatever you want.

Really, Session 0 extends beyond a single session. Maybe it's better to say that there's stuff before Session 0. The earlier in the process, the more say the players have. The group may not even have agreed upon a GM, yet. Or a system, for that matter. As you get closer to the start of play, the GM starts to put bumpers on the options so that there's enough structure for him to work with it.

The short form of the above is that, as much as I believe that the "GM is God" method leads to the best games for all involved, it's a trust that's earned, not claimed. If you try to claim it, it'll break your game. It sounds like you may be taking liberties to which you're not yet entitled. I'm not there, so I can't say for sure. I just feel the need to give you the caution.

 

[Eltab]

I have a player who takes for-ev-er to make a decision (unless his Wizard just leveled-up and has a cool new spell he wants to try out). I have been training myself to read off the Initiative Chart and say this: "Z, your turn, and X, you are up next; get ready." I do this to all the players so I don't look like I'm singling anybody out.
It works; people think over what they want to do - and sometimes ask each other for advice - while I'm adjudicating Player Z's actions.

 

[SwivSnapshot]

After reading the initial post, I was reminded of something, and your post hits right on that point.

I just finished Of Dice and Men by David Ewalt. In one of the last chapters, David goes to Gary Con and he gets into a game with Frank Mentzer (One of Gary Gygax's original players and the author of the 1983 Basic D&D Box set). After the game he takes Mentzer out to eat and starts asking him questions. Mentzer's answer to his first question I think applies to this thread.

Mentzer said, "...you must communicate. Talk between the players and game master. Find out what they want from the game... You must have your sensors out, find out what grabs people, and cater to it. The ideal game is a player-driven game."

He goes on to say that as DM you are setting the stage, and letting your players come up with the story.

Another quote, from Frank Mentzer, I think is worth mentioning, and I simply can't do it justice paraphrasing it.

"Some of the worst games are when somebody has a great, grand, and glorious vision, and they want victims to walk out and play their roles with no input in what happens."

Off topic, but a friend of mine was lucky enough to sit in on one of Frank's sessions at Gary Con III. He had always been the the loose cannon player of our group and drove us nuts, but after that game he became one of the best DM's I've had. He stopped worrying about the game mechanics or if the rules allowed a PC to act a given way, and began to focus on building a shared story with the players. Someday I should be so lucky....

 

[Olaf the Stout]

* Unless you're paying them a fair wage, players will never be on time for any number of reason you can't control.

I disagree with that. I think that if you all agree to game at a certain time you should arrive ready to game by that time (within reason, I'm not advocating going off at someone for being 5-10 minutes late).

If you're going to be late you should be calling or texting to let everyone know when you expect to arrive so they can either get underway or at least know how far away you are. Gaming shouldn't be any different from any other social gathering.

Obviously some groups will have a harder or softer start time than others. Some groups may have a "start" time of 2pm, but really gaming doesn't really start until 3pm, so everyone arrives sometime between 2pm and 3pm. Other groups may start at 4pm sharp and if you're not there by the start time then too bad.

My group plays fortnightly on Wednesday nights. The start time has varied a little from week to week, but everyone generally arrives about 6pm - 6:15pm. Sometimes people will be late, but everyone generally lets someone else in the group know if that's going to be the case. There have been times where players have been late 30 minutes or more, but in those rare instances the player has contacted the group to let them know not to wait for them to start.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

In our games we have:
A) A start time.
B) An end time.

There's zero expectation that the party should be doing xyz in accordance to the clock on the wall.
Yes, I have a rough idea of how much content well likely get through in an evening. And I know how much time we waste BSing etc.
So I usually have 4 hrs worth of stuff prepped & only use 3 hrs of it.
After that? Same time, same place next week....

Totally agree with this. My group are the kings of analysis paralysis and stuffing around. I'm not sure there's ever been a session I've DM'd where we've gotten through more stuff than I expected to get through.

There have been several sessions where they took a left turn and I was expecting them to go right, so we covered stuff I didn't expect to (and often had to make stuff up on the fly).

That's ok though. It just means I've got less stuff to prep for next time.

The analysis paralysis stuff annoys me (just make a bloody decision! ) and I can also get frustrated when the game gets sidetracked too often into non-game discussion (i.e. this cool thing I saw on YouTube, etc.) but most of the time it isn't too bad.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I disagree with that. I think that if you all agree to game at a certain time you should arrive ready to game by that time (within reason, I'm not advocating going off at someone for being 5-10 minutes late).
.

Agreed. If I met a player who didn't make an effort to be on time unless I paid or otherwise compensated him/her? They'd find a new group with haste. My friends and I are on time because have a bare minimum of respect for each others' time, and we're all there to have fun. If someone needs to be compensated to not be a jerk, I don't have time for them either.

 

[Imaculata]

I tend to be really loose with the appointments I make with my players. When we plan a session, we agree on a rough time when we want to start (For example, around 18:00 till 23:00). We also agree on having diner together, and then they usually show up around that time. They may be an hour later, but they usually call me if that is the case. It doesn't really matter if they are a bit late, because I already have the whole evening reserved for D&D, so one hour later, or two hours late, it doesn't really matter. We'll start when they are all here. Fortunately they all arrive with the same car, so it's never just one person who is late.

Real life commitments go first, so people can be late due to circumstances, its fine. But, if one player is consistently late, simply because he doesn't leave his house in time, that should be addressed. It's a shame if everyone except one specific player always shows up on time, and you all have to wait for him.

 

[devincutler]

Several comments as someone who has played for 41 years now and DM'd well over 98% of that time:

1st - While the ideal situation in D&D is that the players get to play in their playground (the campaign world) and do whatever they want however they want, I find that expectation just as realistic as the DM completely railroading people. D&D has to be a cooperative experience and THAT INCLUDES THE PLAYERS COOPERATING WITH THE DM. DMs put a lot of work into providing a fun and exciting session, especially if they do their own homeworld and scenarios (as I do). The players have an obligation not to do everything the DM wants them to do but to at least have enough respect to see what the DM has set out before them and try to make a run with it.

Having the DM prepare an elaborate setting or scenario and then, 10 minutes into the session, having the players decide to turn the other way and do something else is, IMO, the height of disrespect to the DM and his preparation time. Yeah, if your DM constantly wings it...then fine. But otherwise...no.

I have seen players spend 2 hours at the start of the campaign basically declaring that their PCs have no reason to like or adventure with each other. Really? What's the ing point other than to derail things from the start.

We had a Champions campaign where one guy would ALWAYS take the disadvantages HATES AUTHORITY FIGURES and LONER and would put the maximum disadvantage points in each. Every session was spent trying to get this guy's superhero to come on the adventure, and we'd waste half the night doing it. Finally we just said screw it. We told the player he had an obligation as a player to meet the DM and other players half way. So if he wanted to play such a PC, then we'd just notify where we were going and be on our way and if the player wanted to spend the session watching us beat up the villains...that was fine with us.

In any event, IMO the best way to have DM preparedness but allow the players to determine their own way in the campaign is to ask them, once a story arc or scenario is finished, what THEY want to do next. Then, between sessions, you, the DM, can prepare. But that means the players are now bound to go through with the path THEY chose.

2nd - As a DM, however, you have to meet the players halfway as well. No battle plan survives first contact, and no scenario ever goes exactly as the DM planned. As such, you have to be prepared if the PCs (and players) dink around and don't get everything done on time. Frankly, as a DM who uber-prepares every session just like a published scenario (stat blocks, text blocks, full maps, etc.) I don't mind if the players take a long time to plan and do thing in terms of real life time. That just means I have more time to prepare and develop the next scenario(s) before they finish this one. So if the players want to dick around, while I agree it is a little disrespectful to the DM, you should view it as a chance to relax and squeeze more sessions out of your hours of preparation.

3rd - Same with combats. Yes, slow combat is a drag. And fortunately, 5th edition speeds it up quite a bit compared to earlier editions (esp. 3rd). My current 3e group is comprised of 5 PCs, all spellcasters, and 3 cohorts, 2 of which are spellcasters. And of these, 3 are druids/clerics with access to every divine spell in the game and one is a wizard with massive spell books. So it can take 1-2 hours just to pick and memorize spells! I used to sweat it, but bow I don't care. If the players don't mind, then I simply watch videos on my laptop or listen to music or even take a snooze and they can wake me when they have chosen. No skin off my back and, as said before, it just means my scenario lasts for more sessions, easing the pressure of preparing the next one.

In combat, these same players can be slow. Even when they are not, just adjudicating spell effects can take forever. Try a dispel magic on people with 20-25 spell effects on them. Or a confusion spell on 12+ monsters. But they went into this situation knowing that playing spellcasters slows the game down at higher levels and having cohorts does as well. They went in with their eyes wide open and I am fine with that.

4th - As far as players doing their own thing. Nope. Isn't allowed in my game except in very limited circumstances. Having 4-5 players sit around while 1 player goes off to do crap is a nonstarter at my table. I won't allow it. If it has to be done, we can do it via email between sessions or in a side session before or after the rest leave. Again, this is a matter of respect...in this case the players respecting the other players. Now, obviously if the players agree that 1 PC should go ahead and scout, that's different. But having 4 PCs visit the temple to research info for the quest and having 1 PC go off by himself to start a robbing spree is not acceptable.

tldr: The game is not just a sandbox for the players. The DM needs to meet the players halfway, but the players need to meet the DM halfway as well.