How to get players interested again?

[Umbran]

As others have said, talking to people is good. Ask them what it is about the game that might not be thrilling them so much. Ask them what could be done differently that might perk them up. Ask them if there are important things in life that are taking priority - can you change the day you play to make things easier for them? And so on...

One thing that might help, paradoxically, it to play less often. I don't know the situations of the people in your group, but six to eight hours a week is a lot for many modern adults to commit to. Folks have other things to do in life, and may be running into conflicts. When your game runs frequently, it may be hard for them to keep it high in priority - there's always next week, so missing one session's not a big deal.

So, you might try running every other week. Give folks space for other things, and through scarcity, make each session count that much more.

 

[scourger]

We had similar issues with our group in the past, and I wish we had them again. As it stands, only 3 of us now get together to play weekly, which turns out to be more like every other week or once a month after cancellations. And, we've switched to Savage Worlds, which is great overall. But, like I said, I wish I could turn back the clock 10 years to when we had about 8 players and were more focused on 3.0 D&D, warts and all. In retrospect, I would have taken greater pains to keep that group going because it was short-lived after all. Real life happens.

That said, you might want to give Savage Worlds a try. It is much, much easier to run and yet remains complex enough to be engaging to play. I don't have the "D&D hangover" after I run it, and the much easier mechanical preparation allows me to focus on the story more. For me, the shine is off the penny for any given game after about 3-6 months; so I need to let it lie a while and recharge while playing something else. Savage worlds allows that style of play more easily for us, although I really enjoyed several d20 games in non-fantasy genres (and would love to play some again). Perhaps you could try that, but you should be getting some of the same effect if you have rotating DMs.

More limited, episodic campaigns are easier to manage and accommodate fluctuating numbers of players more easily. An example would be a military campaign where the PCs get a new mission each week. Or a ship-based game where each week's adventure presents a mission away from the boat. Each episode can tie into a larger story, but there is a lot of room for one-off nightly adventures.

Our last gasp at 3.5 was a few years ago. After about a year of play, I was done. My character, cohort & familiar all died so there was nothing tethering me to the game; so I took a long break. I returned after about 6 months and took over another lapsed character. The game had dwindled from 5 players to 2. I missed one night and the other 2 players finally killed it. Turns out that the players who want to play something indefinitely are the hardest to please with the results. I hated the way it ended. The DM put forth a lot of time and effort, and it was his first DMing after about 25 years of playing. But, it probably went on too long. If we had taken a break between the 1st module and the 2nd, we might have made it to the 3rd. Now, we'll never know.

It's a fine balance, but I think it has to be struck. I agree with Robin Laws's advice: a game should have a beginning and an ending.

Hope you're able to find something that works for you & yours.

 

[S'mon]

Or, another option might simply be to shorten session length. My games nowadays run about 3-3.5 hours long. As DM, that's my limit anymore; my focus wanders after that, and the quality of the game goes downhill. It also makes playing a LOT more doable. Where someone may hesitate to take 6-8 hours away from family and other responsibilities, a 4 hour activity is a lot more manageable. And thirdly, it leaves everyone at the end of the session wanting more. Nobody is exhausted, nobody is bored or distracted. Even if they didn't get to "do" a lot in a given session, it was a short enough time that they can always expect "more" next time.

I just wanted to chime in on this with agreement. I switched from 5-6 hour sessions to 3-3.5 hour sessions, and I feel it has had a major beneficial impact on my game - I GM better, I don't get over-tired, and it leaves the players wanting more and looking forward to the next game. It also encourages me as GM to really try to make every minute top-quality, because there is no time to waste.

Partly it's getting old, partly it's that I have problems with chronic pain and my stamina is not great. But a lot of it is I think more general stuff like player attention fatigue and a ruleset (4e) which encourages lots of lengthy 'awesome' battles. A bit of awesome is... awesome... but there's a big danger of overload, like many modern Hollywood action movies, where the constant explosions all just merge together and lose impact. Keeping the sessions to 3 hours or so, with no more than 2 battles, really seems to deal with that problem.

 

[S'mon]

I wish shorter but more frequent sessions was more of a possibility but between work, family, and school we are limited on when we can play. But I completely agree that if it was possible it would greatly help the situation.

If you're playing long sessions weekly, I'd think your best bet was to stay weekly but have shorter sessions.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

IME, what I've found is usually the culprit, is the "same ol', same ol'" bugaboo.

What I mean is that everyone gets to a state where they know all the rules, characters, setting, dangers, etc. so well that it's like re-reading a Conan book that has had the main character names replaced; it's the same story, the same location, the same stuff all around...but only the names have been changed".

Switching to a different a game system will help this on the simple fact that everything is different. No longer is a climb check a simple matter of d20+stuff, beat TN. Now it could be a d100 checked against a stat, with bonuses for skill/equipment. Same result, just different methods of getting there.

Without switching systems, the GM needs to muss up the place, so to speak. In the next session, for example, just do something interesting and ignore any rules that get in the way. Say...have a spelljamming ship semi-crash land just outside some small town, with only one person on board. Make up a reason for why he's there on the spot and go with whatever lights up the players eyes when you start to describe things or someone lets out a "Cool...!" As I said, firk the rules; if there is no spelljamming rules in your system...*make it up*.

Remember, RPG's are supposed to be (IMHO) about *using ones own imagination*. So do that first, and the rest will fall into place.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I agree with the recommendations to talk to your players to find out if they're enjoying it (and why and why not), what they want out of the campaign, what could improve the game, etc.

Often when our group discusses the campaign as a group we'll get a number of non-committal, non-critical answers.

GM: What do you think of the campaign so far?
PC1: It's good.
PC2: It's going well.
PC3: Yeah, same.

I'd try to talk to each player individually and then with the group as a whole. Hopefully the anonymity of talking in private will allow issues to be presented that otherwise wouldn't arise in a group discussion.

I've also found that I'm more vocal if the GM asks very specific questions. "What do you think of the campaign so far?" is general so I'll tend towards a general impression. But if the GM gets specific, "I'm really trying to focus the campaign on investigation for this arc and work in elements of intrigue. Do you like all of the investigation or do you want more combat? Is the intrigue working? I feel like I may be too vague." It's easier to give appropriate responses for those issues.

And while it's a little late at this point, I think it's excellent to have status discussions about what the players liked or didn't like, what the GM was trying to accomplish, what the players want to see more of, and how the campaign is progressing after each session instead of when things get bad. As above, I find it easier to have an opinion when the GM asks specific questions.

 

[kitsune9]

I would try playing less. Eight hours once every two weeks works for my group and they are fairly consistent and driven.

 

[Verdande]

Have somebody else run a one-shot, in a different system if they want.

It lets you clear the air by letting somebody play exactly what they want, shakes up your roles a little bit, and gets a little fresh blood into the mix. You certainly don't run or plan a game the same way as the next guy, and it can be a lot of fun.

 

[steenan]

I'd expand on Verdande's advice.

Pause the current campaign for a month or so.

Run - or let other people run - a series of one-shots, each in a different system, setting and mood. Put at least one non-fantasy game and at least one indie game on the list.

After that's done, talk with your players. What they liked, what they didn't, what fun ideas they got. Discuss what kind of game they would like to play and what do they want from it.

If there are divergent expectations, your group is big enough to be split and one session every two weeks for each part is still often enough.

The Same Page Tool may be helpful when searching for some common ground.

 

[Tayne]

Speaking anecdotally, the switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder did wonders for my particular group's interest, but we were always rules wonks.