D&D 5E DM Quits The Game

[Bleys Icefalcon]

As the DM in most versions of our game anyway, you're in charge. But, you have to take into account their personalities, wants and desires as well. If they want to spend time discussion things - that are important to them, though not your carefully prepped scenario - so what? - I don't stop it. As other have pointed out, have a random encounter or patrol show up at some point if it seems to take way too long.

The biggest issue I saw was the level of absolute control you seem to want to exercise. If I tried the whole "If you wander off the roads, the penalty is death" trick with my characters, the last place you'd ever find them is on a road. They'd see through such a contrived effort on my part to control where they went and how they got there they immediately, and wouldn't put up with it. Over the years it has come to my attention that if I am more flexible, and allow them to get there, at their own pace, in whatever fashion - where ever that is, the games go much smoother. Indeed I have had entire, heavily detailed scenarios - hell, entire quests - go to places I was completely unprepared for because of the choices of my players. As their DM, it is my job to roll with those punches, not throw up my hands and quit. Some of the best games I have ever participated in were off script, almost entirely improvisational - prep work be damned.

 

[Bawylie]

Good for you for quitting. DM-ing a game you don't enjoy is 10x the emotional and mental drain of DM-ing a game you do enjoy. And it's no favor to anyone to keep going if you loathe it.

That said, I'm sure you'll get your mojo back in very short order.

---

I wasn't feeling up to running a session very recently. And I was going to cancel. Then an insightful friend advised me to draw out the complex on a battle mat. I did, and my interest and passion shot right up. My insightful friend could see what I, in that moment, could not. That I engage this game on multiple levels and enjoy it's different facets in different ways. And a little change in focus was all I needed to get me going again.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Orlax]

I pretty much never prep. I know what types of things are around the players, I generally know what my big bad guys are doing around the same time. My big thing when I run games is that I let the players do whatever they want. If they want to spend the whole session going over the events of a single day in town where all they did was try and track down rumors of a magic sword then I'll run that session happily and I'll kick in a few fun encounters on the way to finding the rumors of the sword. Maybe the city has a general infestation of some kind of monster, or there are some thieves that they to assault the party, or they need to talk some wizard into giving them a seemingly innocuous tome that actually acts as an encryption key for the directions to the treasure they are looking for. Then after that short adventure we can have fun encounters trying to go get that sword, should they decide the rumors are good enough to go on. If on the next day they abandon that quest hook, and decide to go about a normal day in town I'll quickly find some kind of adventure hook for them to grab onto for the session (maybe in their meanderings around town they find a vampire's hideout, or some entrance to a secret tunnel system under the city they are in. Every so often I'll ask my players to get on the rails to a more produced adventure (for when I've picked up a short published adventure that will fit into my game) but even in the execution of that I will give them some free choices as to what they do along the way and I will consistently thank them for getting on the rails.

I think a large portion of the problem here is having to high an expectation of the players. Sometimes the player will take 10 minutes to make a decision their character made within 6 seconds. That's totally fine, they don't need to be a super genius to play a super genius. They have the luxury of being able to stop in game time to really figure out what they want their characters to do.

Also given prior knowledge of zard's gaming habits I'm surprised he hasn't hit DM burnout faster.

 

[Miladoon]

As long as I have Led Zeppelin playing in the background I am good.

Everything everyone else post is good advice, too.

and yes, right now, I am good.

 

[Zardnaar]

As the DM in most versions of our game anyway, you're in charge. But, you have to take into account their personalities, wants and desires as well. If they want to spend time discussion things - that are important to them, though not your carefully prepped scenario - so what? - I don't stop it. As other have pointed out, have a random encounter or patrol show up at some point if it seems to take way too long.

The biggest issue I saw was the level of absolute control you seem to want to exercise. If I tried the whole "If you wander off the roads, the penalty is death" trick with my characters, the last place you'd ever find them is on a road. They'd see through such a contrived effort on my part to control where they went and how they got there they immediately, and wouldn't put up with it. Over the years it has come to my attention that if I am more flexible, and allow them to get there, at their own pace, in whatever fashion - where ever that is, the games go much smoother. Indeed I have had entire, heavily detailed scenarios - hell, entire quests - go to places I was completely unprepared for because of the choices of my players. As their DM, it is my job to roll with those punches, not throw up my hands and quit. Some of the best games I have ever participated in were off script, almost entirely improvisational - prep work be damned.

I got the idea ff the King of the Murgos book and historical Japan where foreigners were restricted to Nagasaki and even ship wrecked sailors could be put to death. The Empire doesn't really want spies/foreigners wandering around the empire so they are only allowed in free ports and on the road to the capital.

There not really very many nice places on my world as such and the plot hooks I dropped were not picked up on. Stormreach from Eberron is somewhat nice they didn't want to go there, the Paladin was not interested in a holy avenger plot hook, and the pCs were offered a liberated city to run as their personal domain and they were not interested in that either. There are nice places out there one faction is nice but the PCs don't like them despite it being one place where they can get things like clerical healing.

The campaign was revolving around a fantasy type East India Company/fallen empire, a LE empire of Hobgoblins allied with King Snurre, war and lost technology from the ancient past.

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

... and the plot hooks I dropped were not picked up on. Stormreach from Eberron is somewhat nice they didn't want to go there, the Paladin was not interested in a holy avenger plot hook, and the pCs were offered a liberated city to run as their personal domain and they were not interested in that either. There are nice places out there one faction is nice but the PCs don't like them despite it being one place where they can get things like clerical healing.

So... when the players don't pick up on the hooks you give them... how about you ask the player what they would like to do? (That's the "Communication" part I was briefly talking above.)
I know it sounds a bit unusual but: just try a bit meta-gaming. Talk directly to the players. It could be someting like: "So, guys, in the last sessions I have given you some clues about things that you can persue. It is quite a lot of work for me to prepare for every possible route you take. Therefore I would like to give you three possible paths or adventure opportunities you can take. You can discuss in character which of those paths you choose. This way I don't have to prepare whole adventures for you that you avoid anyway. And you will have still the choice about what you want to do - it will be just a bit more guided."

Your campaign premise sounds cool and I think that you and your party will enjoy the trip more when you talk openly about what you want to do in a game of D&D.

 

[Demonspell]

So... when the players don't pick up on the hooks you give them... how about you ask the player what they would like to do? (That's the "Communication" part I was briefly talking above.)
I know it sounds a bit unusual but: just try a bit meta-gaming. Talk directly to the players. It could be someting like: "So, guys, in the last sessions I have given you some clues about things that you can persue. It is quite a lot of work for me to prepare for every possible route you take. Therefore I would like to give you three possible paths or adventure opportunities you can take. You can discuss in character which of those paths you choose. This way I don't have to prepare whole adventures for you that you avoid anyway. And you will have still the choice about what you want to do - it will be just a bit more guided."

Your campaign premise sounds cool and I think that you and your party will enjoy the trip more when you talk openly about what you want to do in a game of D&D.

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."

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

I think that D&D and especially the part of the DM is often misunderstood. Many people think that the game will unfold itself in a natural, almost magical way when you play and everyone knows exactly what they should be doing. You can go to an evening of D&D with this mindset and sometimes you will have a great time. But more often what you experience at the game table will be disappointing. You will ask yourself "Why didn't the story/atmosphere/etc. unfold just as I wanted? Why haven't the others played the game like they were supposed to?". And you will stay disappointed if you don't realize that nobody can fulfill the other's expectations without knowing what those expectations really are. D&D is in its core a highly social game. But interestingly enough that keeps being forgotten (or let's say, just not talked about that much). Some people don't realize that in order to have a fulfilling game you have to talk about what and how you want to play.

Its the easiest thing in the world really - but often neglected. And I'm not sure why this is the case. Maybe because the DM's guides didn't touch upon this as much as they should? Maybe because how we learned the game from other people?*


---
*
I certainly had to learn this through gaming experience (and getting older). In highschool (or the equivalent of it in my part of the world) I was often frustrated that my players were (in my opinion) either too dumb to appreciate my story, too inattentive to read the clues right that I had given them, or too lazy to be involved in the history of my game world. I paused for several years after school. Later I tried to pick the game up again and started to learn about DMing techniques and the underlying (social) mechanics of a TTRPG. This is the time where I started playing 4E because it was so "gamey". Now this whole thing started to feel like a real game - a social event with your friends while all of you have a good time. (But I digres...)

 

[Demonspell]

I got the idea ff the King of the Murgos book and historical Japan where foreigners were restricted to Nagasaki and even ship wrecked sailors could be put to death. The Empire doesn't really want spies/foreigners wandering around the empire so they are only allowed in free ports and on the road to the capital.

There not really very many nice places on my world as such and the plot hooks I dropped were not picked up on. Stormreach from Eberron is somewhat nice they didn't want to go there, the Paladin was not interested in a holy avenger plot hook, and the pCs were offered a liberated city to run as their personal domain and they were not interested in that either. There are nice places out there one faction is nice but the PCs don't like them despite it being one place where they can get things like clerical healing.

The campaign was revolving around a fantasy type East India Company/fallen empire, a LE empire of Hobgoblins allied with King Snurre, war and lost technology from the ancient past.

It sounds like an interesting setting, but you seem to want something from your players and they aren't interested. Maybe its time to find out what they do want.

Additionally, maybe you could be more flexible. Have different ways for the party to take on their quests. My players frequently take tangents that have nothing to do with my story plot, but I always manage to find a way to incorporate their tangent so they eventually end up where they need to be in some quest they refused earlier. I haven't yet done anything that requires completing a mission by a specific time, but if the players decided not to take the mission they would have to live with the consequences and the world would continue around them.