What keeps uninterested players showing up each session?

[Theory of Games]

Yes and no.

Yes. One of the great things that taught me about this was DMing at cons. Getting a group with all joke character names and just beer and pretzels play used to get to me - until I just realized they were all just here to have fun, they just did it different from the groups I normally were with. I adjusted to their style and all was good. I had a blast, running in a way that wouldn't have worked at all for either of my usual groups. Have been exposed to a bunch of other play styles at cons, FLGS games or just through new-to-me players over the years.

But, no. You throw one person with a radically different style onto a table that's otherwise aligned and unless that person is you, it's not reasonable to expect that you and everyone else who was around the table will change their playstyle to match the one. Not saying their style isn't valid - it is - but they need to either align enough so that the Venn diagrams of playstyle is mostly overlap, or it would be best if they found another table.

In other words, people can have valid and different play styles, but if they conflict with others at the table, that still can be disruptive.

I never mentioned people having to change their playstyle for someone else. My comment focused on players being tolerant of different playstyles. Also when I mention playstyle it comes from the 7-8 ttrpg playstyles identified by WotC and explained by Robin D. Laws.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I never mentioned people having to change their playstyle for someone else. My comment focused on players being tolerant of different playstyles. Also when I mention playstyle it comes from the 7-8 ttrpg playstyles identified by WotC and explained by Robin D. Laws.

I actually think differences in playstyles to some extent is good for the table. It's what adds flavor to the game. It only becomes a problem if it expands to irritating other players.

 

[damiller]

I wonder how many folks read that and say, “yeah…not me.”?

I hope all of them.
that don't play in the games i run.

I've tried preinterviews, questionaires, I've tried talking about playstyles, giving quizzes about playstyles, and none of that worked.

Then I started thinking about what I really wanted from the people who showed up at the game I was running. I edited the list over and over, till I came up with 3-4 non negotiables. (the last one is "know the basic rules of the game")

In the end I have been very happy with the results. I have players who do the things I am looking for in a player, so why wouldn't I be enjoying myself? I consider it a win-win for everyone involved in the process. A player can look at that list, and decide if they can meet those wants/needs I have, and if they don't, we don't every have to have the agonizing discussion about playstyles, personality styles, or being booted from a game.

On the other side (Gm side) it gives me a way to address specific behaviors that are ruining my fun. I can say to a player, "hey I've had to remind you x number of times what is going on in the session, are you sure this is a game/time you can make a priority?"* I don't have to talk about vague impressions. I can point out something specific that does not work for me, ask if it can be addressed, and can then remove the person if it can't be worked out.

*because I am not playing with anyone who cannot be aware of what is going on in the game. I don't ask that players "pay attention" in the sense of doing nothing else while they wait their turn, but I expect them to know what is going on in the game, be ready to act on their turn, and not require me to summarize what has been going on at the table while it wasn't their turn. If that happens I will not run a game for them anymore.

 

[nyvinter]

Second, I've seen good roleplayers who just didn't grasp the rules, but had fun. But being disengaged and not even there for the wargaming and looting aspect makes little sense. Perhaps those particular players were newer? EDIT: Or are the sibling/significant other/good friend with another player and they are the draw.

Speaking as someone who started playing in the 80s, fights and loot were fun the first year or two. Now long fights — and I struggle with fixed order because of the repeatedness of it — and dungeon crawls are what interests me the least about playing RPGs. So no, I don't think it's about new or old players. But I also didn't start out playing DnD until way later.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wonder how many folks read that and say, “yeah…not me.”?

I'd feel good about the first and last, but were I honest, the middle is sometimes difficult.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I actually think differences in playstyles to some extent is good for the table. It's what adds flavor to the game. It only becomes a problem if it expands to irritating other players.

There can be issues when the styles mean the players are pulling things in opposite directions, or when what someone is all about is the thing another person finds terminally boring or annoying. Its a real problem when there's more than one of both.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

There can be issues when the styles mean the players are pulling things in opposite directions, or when what someone is all about is the thing another person finds terminally boring or annoying. Its a real problem when there's more than one of both.

Its also down to the players themselves, some players are more tolerant of differing play styles than others on a very basic level.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its also down to the players themselves, some players are more tolerant of differing play styles than others on a very basic level.

Its not always intolerance, though. Sometimes its just deep disinterest in a play element that eats up a lot of time in a campaign potentially. Consider people who just do not care about combat or investigations, for example, in a game that's going to have any significant amount of those.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Its not always intolerance, though. Sometimes its just deep disinterest in a play element that eats up a lot of time in a campaign potentially. Consider people who just do not care about combat or investigations, for example, in a game that's going to have any significant amount of those.

The depth of the disinterest isn't super relevant, the sitting down at the table and the emerging conflict with the other participants is.

There's no level of disinterest that warps the social contract around it, just levels of interest that preclude the formation of that contract. Tolerance is your ability to abide by the compromise inherent in the contract.

(e.g. "I only play in games where combat doesn't occur" is a valid statement, "I'm in this game and so combat is now prohibited or met with endless passive agression and tough cookies to Greg the combat lover" is not.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

The depth of the disinterest isn't super relevant, the sitting down at the table and the emerging conflict with the other participants is.

But for the topic of this thread, it is. I'm not going to cause a ruckus because an investigation is going on and I'm not interested in it, but I'm also probably going to be kind of disengaged, so if that bothers people, my disinterest is, indeed a problem.