Does anyone else sometimes feel like DMing is such a thankless role sometimes?
So I am DMing a homebrew campaign for a party of 5. Since session 0 I made it clear that it was a story driven campaign, that details mattered and that I valued role-playing and attention to character. People had a separate character sheet to write with their backstories, objectives, fears, appearance, jobs, etc. When explaining the world they are transported to I also made it clear that the quests are tied to NPCs, so understanding their motivations and mindsets was part of the game. Session 1 goes okay. But from session 2 onward (we are currently going to session 4) things start to fracture within the group. Some people care about the NPCs and their stories and the world, some people are just there for the joyride. The party does not communicate well, does not make plans, each one acts according to their own mindset and things generally don't go smoothly.
Now in session 3 the actions of the players cause the death of an NPC. Part of the group is frustrated because they didn't get to explore the story and uncover more details, part is justifying their actions and not caring. Then when I'm thinking of having a talk with the group as a whole about communication/collaboration in the party in preparation to the 4th session, one of the players just sends me an email saying that she is quitting because she does not mesh well with the other players (she is one of the ones who care about the NPCs and story and such). No, "hey can I talk with you or the other players?", just "I'm out". I made the suggestion of separating the group into 2 smaller parties, but no reply yet.
Regardless of all that, I keep thinking that I'm a bad DM or something. I don't know what else I could have done or should do now. Do a session 0 to explain the expectations and tone of the campaign? I did that. Should I have talked to the players during the 2nd session? I feel a bit bad about policing the way people play, but was willing to have a talk with everyone before session 4 since session 3 was so frustrating. And the thing is, I've been trying to DM this specific campaign since a couple of years and things always got in the way (the group split because people were too busy, I did a one-shot and was preparing to do the campaign but players get too attached to the one-shot characters and I end up making the one-shot a different campaign). When I finally get the chance to do this campaign, this whole thing happens and now I feel like I lost the will to keep writing and planning when most players that are left don't care as much about the story and the characters.
Okay, sorry for all the ranting, just wanted to let it all out and see if other DMs feel the same way or if I'm just a bad DM really.
Doesn't sound like you are a bad DM. It sounds like a misalignment of expectations between you and the players, or at least with some of them. There are so many different ways of playing DnD, some people love a more RP heavy game with mystery, political intrigue, etc. while others are perfectly happy to sit down with friends, roll some dice and go smash some orcs (the old "beer and pretzel" style of game). Sounds like you might have a couple of the latter. Neither one is better or worse than the other intrinsically, but it is important the players and the DM are on the same page. Hard to tell, exactly, without knowing the players and their backgrounds (are they new to DnD?) but I think this could be the root of the problem.
And, yes, DMing is a thankless role at times, people who have not DM'ed generally don't appreciate the time and work that goes into it, but it makes it worthwhile when a player comes up after a session and says "dude that was great, I had so much fun tonight." Doesn't always happen, but it's those moments that make it worth it.
I'm sorry you are going through this. You are not a bad DM. Sounds like you did everything that is usually suggested - a session 0, clearly outlined expectations. You also planned to have another conversation with them. Its easy to get frustrated when you have done these things and it feels as though half the table wasn't paying attention. (not to say that they weren't. I don't know your table).
My suggestion is to go ahead and talk to the players that haven't quit. It's important to see how they think the game is going and what their expectations were- even though you feel that you outlined it clearly. It's okay to reiterate what you hoped to see happen. It's also okay to remind them that this is supposed to be a cooperative game where the party of adventurers work together. Make sure all players are heard from. Going forward you can make any changes you feel will improve things.
Also remember that not all parties gel at once. It can take more than a few sessions for them to become a cohesive group.
I think most DMs have felt burned out at one time or another. If it feels right, put the game on hold and if you can join another table as a player. You may find it helps.
Hey, thanks for the answers. Regarding BigLizard's critiques I super understand where you're coming from. I guess I can try to explain better why I feel so unmotivated as a DM. So 3 of the players in this party come from a prior Pokemon Tabletop United campaign that I did. It was a long campaign with a homebrew region and it incorporated a lot of the players backstories into the plot. It was, in a smaller scale, not too different from the campaign I am DMing now, focus on story, NPCs with backstories and lots of opportunities for character development for the players. I managed to run this campaign till the end and most players in it loved this character involved, plot immersive aspect of the game.
So when I was starting to prepare for this present campaign I called these 3 players, plus another player from the one-shot that became a campaign and he brought a friend. During session 0, I was clear about the tone of the campaign as I said beforehand, so I thought no one entered the campaign no knowing what kind of DM I am or what kind of campaign I tend to DM. I can do less plot driven, more side-questy campaigns, and wouldn't mind if all the players were into it. Specially if that was what they wanted, I wouldn't DM this particular campaign and would do something else.
What makes me frustrated is seeing that there are both types of players in the party (immersive and just there for the ride) and this is causing the party to have very different levels of enjoyment to the point of one of the players deciding to leave BECAUSE of the lack of immersion and character development.
I will say, you are only 3 - 4 sessions in. It takes time for people to get into the groove of a new character. Even if they have played a lot before, they can be struggling. Maybe they decided to do something with a character they have never done before and it is proving harder than they thought, so then they are having a hard time engaging. It's definitely rough that one of your players want to quit instantly without resolving anything both IC and OOC but it could be that she can't see a way that her character could stay either.
So to echo what other people are saying, definitely you are not a bad DM! Maybe this set of characters is just taking longer to gel into a cohesive party.
Just catching up and the player replied she would be okay with diving the party in 2. So I guess I was just preparing for the worst case scenario in my mind and getting stressed, haha. But now I can better cater to each party's preferences and things will be less awkward.
Thanks sooo much to everyone that replied and listened to my petty problems. You guys are awesome and I'll be taking your suggestions when planning the sessions from now on.
Glad you've found a resolution. I just wanted to mention that it's more likely that the person leaving had a problem with one of the other players and simply didn't like being around them more than it being down to in-game reasons, in my experience.
D&D is a social game with real people at its core. People are different and react differently to many situations. In my opinion, in order to maximize everyone's gain from social games such as D&D, setting the group up for success from the get-go helps achieving the desired result. In my experience this starts with gathering a group of people that mesh well on a personal level (and perhaps even enjoy the same things).
What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe it is a result of your DMing skills, but of your players' choices and perhaps their incompatibility. If people don't see eye to eye, and don't prioritize the group's overall fun over their own individual pleasures, then it doesn't matter how good you are at DMing. Problems would arise eventually. Good to hear she's giving it another chance, and awesome to hear that you're a DM who cares so much about your game that you're willing to put in the extra effort to make things work. The world needs more good DMs like you :)
This is the sort of story I hear more and more these days and I have a theory about it, but your probably not going to like it. I'm actually hesitant to point it out because generally speaking D&D culture is such these days that giving advice is often seen as an attack. So I make the disclaimer that its not my intention to attack anyone or anything.
The basic issue as I see it is that as much as people want it to be, D&D is not theatre, as the DM you are not a storyteller and the concept of role-playing doesn't have anything to do with in-character method acting. It's a tough pill to swallow for many modern gamers who enter the hobby because in modern RPG culture, this is actually the sales pitch of D&D and its exemplified by the successful execution of exactly that method/approach to D&D on Youtube shows like Critical Role. I'm sure there are some well-disciplined groups out there that get together and can create that sort of game/experience so its not impossible to pull of in your house game.
However
The reality of D&D as a game, as an experience and as what you can expect at your table is going to be quite different and curving the expectations to the reality is going to give you a much better experience.
So what should your expectations be? Well there is a lot of wiggle room here, but the basics of it is that D&D is a fantasy adventure game and you have to always remember that. If you look at the content that is actually written for D&D, adventure modules, you get a clear picture about what D&D is about, how stories in D&D work, what the lay of the land is in terms of concepts and methods that work within the confines of the game.
What you're asking from your players is for them to be method actors that see the world through their characters' eyes and act in a dramatic fashion pursuing goals as if they were playing actual people, but the reality is that your players are... well players.. in a game. They are not actors in a theatre show.
My advice is to create great villains with evil plots, create locations for the players to explore, let them fight the bad guys, find magic items and treasure. That is D&D. Let D&D be what it is rather than trying to make it something more.
I disagree with a lot of your explanation.
Some play groups are fine with the role-playing that involves character acting. Some play groups go for just the hack-and-slash of "classic" D&D.
I make this clear before every game I DM, and with every new group I assemble. D&D to me is storytelling. I'm in it as a DM because of my love for improvisation theatre, and I make it clear to all my players that:
They have to be able to carry the story on their own. If they just look at me and expect from me to detail every part of the story without their interaction, and acting in the world, than I will be burnout in seconds.
D&D is not just sitting, listening to the DM, tell you are rolling a dice, and see whether the result is positive or negative. That's just boring as f.... Why would you even want to play D&D if that's what you want? 90% of the time you will succeed in combat as a player, that's just how the game works. The part where it actually gets interesting, is HOW you tell this story. The rolling of the dice should be a side-effect, not the main purpose.
I will go for a 50/50 mix in combat/social. But even combat can and should be social
But it's not because i disagree to your opinion, that I'm not respecting your opinion. If that's what you want to do, great. But just not at my table. As a DM we often tend to feel way to responsible for how other people feel at the table, and we take away any responsibility from them. I often give constructive feedback on how someone could roleplay better. Because a lot of players are in the game, because they love something like critical role, but offcourse the mismatch in expectation is the skill in actually acting. So I make this clear, and I give feedback on how they might improve it, with baby-steps. As far as I see now, most of them not acting/going-in-character is because they feel unsure.
In other words:
Often we see the role as DM as: creating a beautiful world, and providing the story
Where I see it as: I give a structure, for players to write their story in (as storytellers, not dice-rollers), and my main role as DM is providing advice/feedback on how they can improve in their favorite hobby
Now you might disagree. That's fair. But currently I'm DM 6 campaigns, for 30 different people without any quitters, and I see this as proof that my approach is in the right direction.
The only thing I will add as something I have learnt is that I generally don't throw my players into the meat of a DnD campaign in session 1, from experiance I have found that the first 15-20 sessions (roughly up to level 3/4) are the party forming, gaining some cash and just getting to know one another. It is also the time that the DM and players mesh in terms of the kind of game they want to play, yes as a DM you can set expectations but once you actually get into the meat of it you can find that the game itself shifts and forms and becomes something different to what you envisaged as the players get hold of your world.
So generally as a rule these opening sessions for me are about scene setting and giving the characters a series of encounters that are not really linked to the big bad or the overall themes of the campaign, or in fact any players backstory. This way I can gauge how the players will react to subtle storylines but also show and help them experiance the ind of game I want to play without risking them killing a key NPC just because they are learning about the world, game and their place in it and how there characters react.
You as the DM is not the story teller, the players are. You set up the environment and act as the referee.
If the players kill an essential NPC or cause a disaster then its up to your to show the ramifications of their actions. You reward players who think of the world or roleplay to encourage treating the world as a real place. Put up a message board with quests and new things going on in town or a town caller and use the innkeeper as a source of information for the players to let them know what is going on. Build a sandbox, have the maps and quests ready and let the players go to it. Adjust the world to what they do. If they keep *****footing around in a dungeon, then have the monsters flee w/ treasure, join another faction or maybe they put up a lot of traps to protect their home. Don't just let the players go in, attack, long rest outside and come back without any consequences, the monsters aren't dumb, they will react.
For example, If the players made it where a magical meth lab is able to sell its magical dust to the world, then every day they are operating and the party comes into town describe how the streets are more empty, you see a bum -no wait its the blacksmith who fixes our armor bumping into a wall. Items aren't for sale. People they need are dying. Towns are no longer defended and they caused the mess. Let them figure out how to fix it or let them kill the world and move on. When they can't buy spell components or gear and all of a sudden its a nightmare to get to town, and then at night they have magical meth head inn keeper and his staff slipping meth into their food to make them easy targets to rob, they'll realize Ooppsie.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does anyone else sometimes feel like DMing is such a thankless role sometimes?
So I am DMing a homebrew campaign for a party of 5. Since session 0 I made it clear that it was a story driven campaign, that details mattered and that I valued role-playing and attention to character. People had a separate character sheet to write with their backstories, objectives, fears, appearance, jobs, etc. When explaining the world they are transported to I also made it clear that the quests are tied to NPCs, so understanding their motivations and mindsets was part of the game. Session 1 goes okay. But from session 2 onward (we are currently going to session 4) things start to fracture within the group. Some people care about the NPCs and their stories and the world, some people are just there for the joyride. The party does not communicate well, does not make plans, each one acts according to their own mindset and things generally don't go smoothly.
Now in session 3 the actions of the players cause the death of an NPC. Part of the group is frustrated because they didn't get to explore the story and uncover more details, part is justifying their actions and not caring. Then when I'm thinking of having a talk with the group as a whole about communication/collaboration in the party in preparation to the 4th session, one of the players just sends me an email saying that she is quitting because she does not mesh well with the other players (she is one of the ones who care about the NPCs and story and such). No, "hey can I talk with you or the other players?", just "I'm out". I made the suggestion of separating the group into 2 smaller parties, but no reply yet.
Regardless of all that, I keep thinking that I'm a bad DM or something. I don't know what else I could have done or should do now. Do a session 0 to explain the expectations and tone of the campaign? I did that. Should I have talked to the players during the 2nd session? I feel a bit bad about policing the way people play, but was willing to have a talk with everyone before session 4 since session 3 was so frustrating. And the thing is, I've been trying to DM this specific campaign since a couple of years and things always got in the way (the group split because people were too busy, I did a one-shot and was preparing to do the campaign but players get too attached to the one-shot characters and I end up making the one-shot a different campaign). When I finally get the chance to do this campaign, this whole thing happens and now I feel like I lost the will to keep writing and planning when most players that are left don't care as much about the story and the characters.
Okay, sorry for all the ranting, just wanted to let it all out and see if other DMs feel the same way or if I'm just a bad DM really.
Doesn't sound like you are a bad DM. It sounds like a misalignment of expectations between you and the players, or at least with some of them. There are so many different ways of playing DnD, some people love a more RP heavy game with mystery, political intrigue, etc. while others are perfectly happy to sit down with friends, roll some dice and go smash some orcs (the old "beer and pretzel" style of game). Sounds like you might have a couple of the latter. Neither one is better or worse than the other intrinsically, but it is important the players and the DM are on the same page. Hard to tell, exactly, without knowing the players and their backgrounds (are they new to DnD?) but I think this could be the root of the problem.
And, yes, DMing is a thankless role at times, people who have not DM'ed generally don't appreciate the time and work that goes into it, but it makes it worthwhile when a player comes up after a session and says "dude that was great, I had so much fun tonight." Doesn't always happen, but it's those moments that make it worth it.
I'm sorry you are going through this. You are not a bad DM. Sounds like you did everything that is usually suggested - a session 0, clearly outlined expectations. You also planned to have another conversation with them. Its easy to get frustrated when you have done these things and it feels as though half the table wasn't paying attention. (not to say that they weren't. I don't know your table).
My suggestion is to go ahead and talk to the players that haven't quit. It's important to see how they think the game is going and what their expectations were- even though you feel that you outlined it clearly. It's okay to reiterate what you hoped to see happen. It's also okay to remind them that this is supposed to be a cooperative game where the party of adventurers work together. Make sure all players are heard from. Going forward you can make any changes you feel will improve things.
Also remember that not all parties gel at once. It can take more than a few sessions for them to become a cohesive group.
I think most DMs have felt burned out at one time or another. If it feels right, put the game on hold and if you can join another table as a player. You may find it helps.
Hey, thanks for the answers. Regarding BigLizard's critiques I super understand where you're coming from. I guess I can try to explain better why I feel so unmotivated as a DM. So 3 of the players in this party come from a prior Pokemon Tabletop United campaign that I did. It was a long campaign with a homebrew region and it incorporated a lot of the players backstories into the plot. It was, in a smaller scale, not too different from the campaign I am DMing now, focus on story, NPCs with backstories and lots of opportunities for character development for the players. I managed to run this campaign till the end and most players in it loved this character involved, plot immersive aspect of the game.
So when I was starting to prepare for this present campaign I called these 3 players, plus another player from the one-shot that became a campaign and he brought a friend. During session 0, I was clear about the tone of the campaign as I said beforehand, so I thought no one entered the campaign no knowing what kind of DM I am or what kind of campaign I tend to DM. I can do less plot driven, more side-questy campaigns, and wouldn't mind if all the players were into it. Specially if that was what they wanted, I wouldn't DM this particular campaign and would do something else.
What makes me frustrated is seeing that there are both types of players in the party (immersive and just there for the ride) and this is causing the party to have very different levels of enjoyment to the point of one of the players deciding to leave BECAUSE of the lack of immersion and character development.
I will say, you are only 3 - 4 sessions in. It takes time for people to get into the groove of a new character. Even if they have played a lot before, they can be struggling. Maybe they decided to do something with a character they have never done before and it is proving harder than they thought, so then they are having a hard time engaging. It's definitely rough that one of your players want to quit instantly without resolving anything both IC and OOC but it could be that she can't see a way that her character could stay either.
So to echo what other people are saying, definitely you are not a bad DM! Maybe this set of characters is just taking longer to gel into a cohesive party.
It sounds like you got a table full of Old School gold-and-glory players, who want to kill monsters, level up, and get treasure.
Just focus all your energy on a fun, challenging, and detailed megadungeon and leave out the fluff.
Just catching up and the player replied she would be okay with diving the party in 2. So I guess I was just preparing for the worst case scenario in my mind and getting stressed, haha. But now I can better cater to each party's preferences and things will be less awkward.
Thanks sooo much to everyone that replied and listened to my petty problems. You guys are awesome and I'll be taking your suggestions when planning the sessions from now on.
Glad you've found a resolution. I just wanted to mention that it's more likely that the person leaving had a problem with one of the other players and simply didn't like being around them more than it being down to in-game reasons, in my experience.
D&D is a social game with real people at its core. People are different and react differently to many situations. In my opinion, in order to maximize everyone's gain from social games such as D&D, setting the group up for success from the get-go helps achieving the desired result. In my experience this starts with gathering a group of people that mesh well on a personal level (and perhaps even enjoy the same things).
What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe it is a result of your DMing skills, but of your players' choices and perhaps their incompatibility. If people don't see eye to eye, and don't prioritize the group's overall fun over their own individual pleasures, then it doesn't matter how good you are at DMing. Problems would arise eventually.
Good to hear she's giving it another chance, and awesome to hear that you're a DM who cares so much about your game that you're willing to put in the extra effort to make things work. The world needs more good DMs like you :)
I disagree with a lot of your explanation.
Some play groups are fine with the role-playing that involves character acting. Some play groups go for just the hack-and-slash of "classic" D&D.
Yeah, I mainly disagree about that theory.
I make this clear before every game I DM, and with every new group I assemble.
D&D to me is storytelling. I'm in it as a DM because of my love for improvisation theatre, and I make it clear to all my players that:
But it's not because i disagree to your opinion, that I'm not respecting your opinion. If that's what you want to do, great. But just not at my table.
As a DM we often tend to feel way to responsible for how other people feel at the table, and we take away any responsibility from them. I often give constructive feedback on how someone could roleplay better. Because a lot of players are in the game, because they love something like critical role, but offcourse the mismatch in expectation is the skill in actually acting. So I make this clear, and I give feedback on how they might improve it, with baby-steps. As far as I see now, most of them not acting/going-in-character is because they feel unsure.
In other words:
Now you might disagree. That's fair. But currently I'm DM 6 campaigns, for 30 different people without any quitters, and I see this as proof that my approach is in the right direction.
The only thing I will add as something I have learnt is that I generally don't throw my players into the meat of a DnD campaign in session 1, from experiance I have found that the first 15-20 sessions (roughly up to level 3/4) are the party forming, gaining some cash and just getting to know one another. It is also the time that the DM and players mesh in terms of the kind of game they want to play, yes as a DM you can set expectations but once you actually get into the meat of it you can find that the game itself shifts and forms and becomes something different to what you envisaged as the players get hold of your world.
So generally as a rule these opening sessions for me are about scene setting and giving the characters a series of encounters that are not really linked to the big bad or the overall themes of the campaign, or in fact any players backstory. This way I can gauge how the players will react to subtle storylines but also show and help them experiance the ind of game I want to play without risking them killing a key NPC just because they are learning about the world, game and their place in it and how there characters react.
You as the DM is not the story teller, the players are. You set up the environment and act as the referee.
If the players kill an essential NPC or cause a disaster then its up to your to show the ramifications of their actions. You reward players who think of the world or roleplay to encourage treating the world as a real place. Put up a message board with quests and new things going on in town or a town caller and use the innkeeper as a source of information for the players to let them know what is going on. Build a sandbox, have the maps and quests ready and let the players go to it. Adjust the world to what they do. If they keep *****footing around in a dungeon, then have the monsters flee w/ treasure, join another faction or maybe they put up a lot of traps to protect their home. Don't just let the players go in, attack, long rest outside and come back without any consequences, the monsters aren't dumb, they will react.
For example, If the players made it where a magical meth lab is able to sell its magical dust to the world, then every day they are operating and the party comes into town describe how the streets are more empty, you see a bum -no wait its the blacksmith who fixes our armor bumping into a wall. Items aren't for sale. People they need are dying. Towns are no longer defended and they caused the mess. Let them figure out how to fix it or let them kill the world and move on. When they can't buy spell components or gear and all of a sudden its a nightmare to get to town, and then at night they have magical meth head inn keeper and his staff slipping meth into their food to make them easy targets to rob, they'll realize Ooppsie.