How to Delay or Avoid GM Burnout

[aiouh]

Just like with any romantic relationship or life partnership, resentment builds up because of communication issues or needs not being adressed.

You're allowed to talk to your players outside the game on a meta-level. I am sure they understand that you are someone who wants to have fun as well and you can find a common ground together.

 

[payn]

Sometimes your best friends make the worst gamers. Not to make that sound so awful but the real point is you gotta make do with what ya got. That means compromise all around cause it’s never gonna be perfect.

 

[AnotherGuy]

My advice (short of changing your group)

1. Dial down on the complexity of the system;
2. Have your players flesh out the desires/goals/flaws/bonds of their characters;
3. Take note of the style of play preferred by the players; and
4. Build your adventures with (2) and (3) in mind ALWAYS.

As DMs we often fall into the trap of RPGing a version of Sid Meier's Civilisation and then wondering why the players are not as engaged. It does work for some groups but generally speaking if you want to get player buy-in learn to build your setting (that's your fun) with the PCs desires in the mix (their fun).

 

[The Soloist]

My group is a difficult situation. First, one of my players is my wife. She loves gaming, and basically won't find another group without me because of social anxiety. Second, another player is my next door neighbor. He's a fine enough guy to play with. Third, the two remaining players are totally fine (even GREAT) players, they just want different things in a session than the other two want.
I'm also living in a small town where I've struggled to find anyone to play with. I know that seems difficult to imagine now that D&D is at peak popularity, but try to imagine: no responses on social media "looking for games" groups for over a year; empty tables at D&D events at FLGS.
Until this group got together, I thought I would never play RPGs in person again.

During the end of the d20 era, I faced a similar situation. My wife and a good friend wanted just to have fun, but every other player we brought on board didn't fit with them.

Our solution was to play with just my wife and our friend. They each played two characters. One character was their main character and the other character was a secondary character. just like in a tv show. Once in a while, I made sessions were the secondary characters could shine and the primary character took the back seat. It was fun and worked very well.

 

[TheSword]

Read this

Manage Expectations So They Don't Manage You

Are expectations (of you or others) running your life? Learn how to manage expectations before they start to manage you.

alliworthington.com

Then make a decision to either:

• take a break from gaming
• moderate your expectations of yourself and your players.
• split your group into two to cater differently to the two different styles

This is not an isolated case. This has been going on for years. Every group you’ve mentioned has failed to meet your expectations. Every game system has failed to meet your groups exceptions. It suggests that the problem is not the system or the people - it’s how you feel about those things.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, I get it. It's the only face to face game you have. But you keep going down this road with posts here. Time to take a break with this group as it is currently composed and the way it is currently behaving.

 

[prabe]

This is just simply not true. I'm running four different games right now where every session all the players show up excited, ready to give it their all, deeply invested in the world and their characters, and so interested to see where it goes.

I achieved this by advertising specific narrative games with set playbooks & mildly defined but also highly joint-world building creativity; stating that expectation up front; and a clear pitch of what the players should anticipate the premise and themes of play being.

Heck, in my Monday game one of the players flat out does more work on logistics and the world then I do; two are more invested in the mysteries of the setting then I am; and one aggressively sets and pursues both goals and relationships that drive so much stellar play.

I agree that the idea that the players never care much about the setting or anything in it is at least not inherently true. I have a player at my tables who arguably does more to keep the games running than I do, and I'm pretty sure that all of the players care some about the setting--they certainly engage with it kinda hard.

 

[zakael19]

Apparently it is true for some of us and we would thank you for not minimizing our experiences.

Its fantastic that you have the greatest gaming experience ever with each and every group of players you have ever played with. But CLEARLY that is not the case for everyone who has, is and ever will play.
It's obvious with just the few responses so far that it is true to some extent (as are most human experiences) for other people. Not to mention the various corners of the internet where you can go to read gaming horror stories.

Finding the right group is a process. Keeping that group together is a process. It would be great if we could all wake up one day and stumble onto the best gaming experience's ever; but...and I'm no mathelete...it seems statistically unlikely that it will happen for all of us every time. Not to mention that we all have different thresholds for the level of nonsense we will put up with from our players in the same way players have for DMs I'm sure.

Love the game your with, until its not the one you fell in love with anymore.

I was replying to your own universal statement about player engagement with setting, which doesn’t match my experience. I’ve had plenty of negative, or perhaps less than excellent sets of players in the past. My current games I took specific steps to ensure a similar level of passion and engagement across the board; and I simply stop running games I don’t find enjoyable.

OP’s situation is endless and different, but I’m a little tired of people accepting that their own sub-par or stereotypical experience means that it’s just How It Is.

 

[KYRON45]

I was replying to your own universal statement about player engagement with setting, which doesn’t match my experience. I’ve had plenty of negative, or perhaps less than excellent sets of players in the past. My current games I took specific steps to ensure a similar level of passion and engagement across the board; and I simply stop running games I don’t find enjoyable.

OP’s situation is endless and different, but I’m a little tired of people accepting that their own sub-par or stereotypical experience means that it’s just How It Is.

Just like the rest of us are tired of people with great experiences feel the rest of us must be doing it wrong.

It’s all opinions.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

You have been on here about this before and if you are just venting, that is ok. You have gotten a lot of good advice here in the past and already in this thread.
You are more passionate about this than your players, but you are unhappy with the results.
You could stop, and play an rpg like boardgame, like Gloomhaven.
Run an rpg, like Diablo, you set up locations with set encounters and have a bunch of quest givers and clues that lead from one to the other. Plug and play from published material or use random table to create dungeons procedurally, up to a level where you feel that encounter design gets too much and stop and reset. If that is acceptable to you.
Your players will clearly not step up to your expectations.

What I really do not understand, is why you keep doing the same thing, over again and expect a different outcome.