What keeps uninterested players showing up each session?

[Meech17]

I can sympathize with those with ADHD, and I can sympathize with down time in games. I understand that I'm probably an outlier. I've been really hungry to play so I was eager to join in and get going. And being dropped in as an outsider, I also enjoyed trying to keep track of what was happening and piece together the story threads. If the party splits and players 1, 2, and 3 are playing Pokemon Go while players 4, and 5 are having an aside with the black smith, I don't think anyone would blame them. And if they did I'd agree with @nevin that they're being uptight.

I think this goes beyond that though. It's one thing to check your phone, shoot off some texts, browse EN World while waiting for the combat rotation. But if it comes back to your turn, you're caught totally unprepared, and have to ask for a recap of what happened between now and your last turn I feel like that turns into bad manners. It was a 3.5 hour session, and we spent 2-2.5 of those hours in a single combat encounter. I know 5e catches a lot of flack for being slow but I can't help but feel like if people were more prepared, knew their abilities a bit better, and paid just a little more attention we would have gotten through it way faster. Having to re-explain the board state on every other player's turn ate up a lot of time and got to be really tedious.

Was this a home game or at a store?

This was at the DM's home.

Usually, its just getting the chance to hang out with friends. The social outlet is way more important than the game to them.

I was thinking this was the case but I don't know. I think I'd be trying to find another venue to socialize with my friends if I wasn't enjoying the game enough to be engaged in it. If my main goal was to socialize I'd think the game would get in the way of that.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I still say cellphones suck at the game table.

 

[payn]

I was thinking this was the case but I don't know. I think I'd be trying to find another venue to socialize with my friends if I wasn't enjoying the game enough to be engaged in it. If my main goal was to socialize I'd think the game would get in the way of that.

Yes and no. I think they still like the game and care about it, but not your level of comprehension. Apps, computers, etc.. often allow people to be pretty lazy. If all else fails, you can lean on other players/GM.

 

[overgeeked]

I think this goes beyond that though. It's one thing to check your phone, shoot off some texts, browse EN World while waiting for the combat rotation. But if it comes back to your turn, you're caught totally unprepared, and have to ask for a recap of what happened between now and your last turn I feel like that turns into bad manners. It was a 3.5 hour session, and we spent 2-2.5 of those hours in a single combat encounter. I know 5e catches a lot of flack for being slow but I can't help but feel like if people were more prepared, knew their abilities a bit better, and paid just a little more attention we would have gotten through it way faster. Having to re-explain the board state on every other player's turn ate up a lot of time and got to be really tedious.

Sure. But at some point you have to recognize that's literally saying, "If only you'd pay more attention to the tedious thing it would be less tedious." They're not paying attention in the first place because it's tedious. Their not paying attention makes it more tedious, it's not the origin of the tedium. Again, "30 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours."

There's a real push and pull between "pay attention despite this thing being boring" and "make the game less boring."

I honestly think that's one reason the OSR is doing better than ever lately. People come in with 5E get bored and burnt out, then discover lighter, faster games in the OSR and jump ship.

All kinds of other games do not have this problem. Lighter games and just about anything that doesn't emphasize combat as much as D&D, and/or doesn't have such heavy rules for combat that make things slow to a crawl.

 

[Pedantic]

Oh I don't know if rules weight is the problem. I play D&D with my Netrunner and board game friends. We like rules, we routinely set aside an hour to learn new rules before doing the ostensibly fun thing.

Much more, it seems to be that the game serves a lot of purposes. Some of my players want to pick a theme, do thematic things to demonstrate that theme, and are only marginally interested in the rest of what's going on. The cowboy warlock wants to shoot gun, ride horse, and has randomly become invested in the ongoing survival of one NPC. Some of my players want to build stuff, either a base or relationships, etc.

When we're not doing those things, they really don't care, and settle back from being directly engaged in the activity to "being around my friends" and that's nice in it's own way, but doesn't lead to greater investment in the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I honestly think that's one reason the OSR is doing better than ever lately. People come in with 5E get bored and burnt out, then discover lighter, faster games in the OSR and jump ship.

All kinds of other games do not have this problem. Lighter games and just about anything that doesn't emphasize combat as much as D&D, and/or doesn't have such heavy rules for combat that make things slow to a crawl.

I'm gonna say this is overly general. I have some of the same problems you and others have discussed when not GMing (no surprise since I'm pretty sure I have undiagnosed ADHD) but simpler, lighter games tend to reduce my engagement so I drift out even more.

 

[Umbran]

This game was full of all of that. I was one of five players at the table, and there were three players filling in over Discord voice chat. I was honestly a little surprised how stacked it was, considering the DM was out shopping for more players. It started to make sense however as we played. Myself and one other player were really the only ones driving the session.

So, with respect, this shouldn't make sense. More players will typically slow down play, increase the time each player has to wait, and increase the likelihood that they will disengage. So, by adding you, the GM made the problem harder to solve.

When you have an issue with a dynamic between people, adding more people to the dynamic is rarely going to be a viable solution to the problem.

 

[Meech17]

So, with respect, this shouldn't make sense. More players will typically slow down play, increase the time each player has to wait, and increase the likelihood that they will disengage. So, by adding you, the GM made the problem harder to solve.

When you have an issue with a dynamic between people, adding more people to the dynamic is rarely going to be a viable solution to the problem.

Like I said. I was surprised. I have five players at my table and have zero desire to add another. I couldn't imagine having seven, and on game day going "You know what.. I should see if I can pick up one more."

Where it kind of made sense though, was in the fact that six of the seven players were seemingly uninterested in making decisions outside of what to do in combat, or shopping when we got to town.

The other active player made most of the decisions, with me piping in to ask questions and offer my opinion derived from my limited understanding of the campaign.

If I wasn't there I feel as though he would have been the only one steering the ship, and I can see as a DM how that is something you may want to avoid. It seems like it's natural to have some active participants, and some passive participants, but a 1:7 ratio doesn't seem productive.

I'm willing to admit that maybe it only makes sense because I was trying to find an excuse to make it make sense

 

[Lanefan]

Any idea how much social contact the rest of the players have with each other outside of game time?

If it's little or none, then that game is really just a backdrop for them to get their socializing in. I've been in (and sometimes run) games like that, and it's frustrating for the DM. The exceptions, though, are if it's a gonzo or one-off game to begin with, and-or if it's intended to be an unusually long session in which case informal breaks can be a useful thing.

As a player, I'll sometimes "check out" for a bit when I'm not involved in what's going on e.g. while someone else's PC is doing a bit of solo scouting, but I still try to pay enough attention such that I'm ready to go if-when called upon.

 

[grimmgoose]

I run two groups, and I've got 2.5 players (one is 50/50) that are just there for the socials. One of them straight up told me, "I don't really like D&D, but I'm here to hang out with friends because this is the only consistent social outing I have."

I don't love it, but from my perspective, the social aspect of a small group of human beings sitting down and letting our imaginations run loose is more important than the actual D&D going on, so I'm okay with it.

I know what aspects of the game does engage them, so I throw those in from time-to-time. I got the other members of the group to raise my ego (I gotta love the notetakers )