I've been playing D&D since 2nd Edition. To this day, I've never had a game with full wilderness rules, nor a game that didn't grind to a halt while someone looks something up (the latter is gotten worse and worse over the years as more and more players embrace complex class features without ever reading the basic rules). Almost every player separates from their group in search of that stupid "spotlight" that has somehow become more important than teamwork, even though classes were invented to get players to work together in a fully-cooperative game. Fully co-op games were almost non-existent before D&D; it's what makes this game special.

I thought that if I sufficiently challenged players, they would be forced to depend on each other to survive, and that they would learn mechanics to try and gain advantages over my creatures.

They didn't. All players were warned ahead of time, repeatedly, as individuals and together, that the campaign would be heavy on rules, lore, and challenge. I tried with three different groups, and the final one was the worst one. The Starter Set is supposed to take around 5 to 7 sessions. After 16 sessions, we almost finished the adventure. Each player had died 2 to 5 times. There were four TPK's in a row JUST in the first dungeon. Bear in mind, I made no houserules.

Having made it clear that it would be rules-heavy, I still had to deal with "creative" players getting frustrated by a DM that didn't say Yes to every idea they had. No, you can't one-shot the dungeon by using the Command spell with "negotiate." No, you can't hit all the goblins with Thunderwave through an arrow slit because it doesn't go around corners. No, the iron strongbox isn't going to open for you just because no one brought thief tools. Only one player tried the wilderness rules. Others rudely ignored my words, and one tried to circumvent it altogether with supposedly clever inventory management (nope; it was cheating). So strong was their desire to continue avoiding game mechanics they had never even tried...

Everyone at the table is supposed to get the game they want eventually. After decades of patience, I tried to show everyone what I wanted, and all I found was conflict. I've played with everyone I know, and I've finally given up.

Have any other DM's hit this point? Did you find motivation to run the game again?

I have exactly the game I want. My players engage with the rules, roleplay, and do creative stuff as well. I couldn't really be happier with them. We're currently at level 14 after 2 years of play. But they have learned rules over years of playing. Not one of them had full tactical mastery in the first ten sessions. It's not realistic to expect it. They're learning to roleplay, and combat is just one aspect.

You talk about being heavy on rules, and that there were a ridiculous number of TPKs as if you object to that: this is you complaining about that you got what you wanted, and you didn't like the outcome. You want the players to be "challenged" which to you means going ham on difficulty and doing your best to kill them with monsters. To "beat" you (and the players and DM should not be competing this way, honestly) they need to play the game a specific way that you consider to be correct. But the outcome - which presumably you don't want - is that the PCs get TPK'd over and over. Since you've set it as "challenge mode" this is one of the natural outcomes of the system you are putting forth.

You need veteran players if you want to run this kind of game. I don't think you have that.

The rules exist in DnD to facilitate everyone having a good time playing an RPG. It sounds like you're trying to run it like an online MMORPG where all challenges are static, and you expect players to "play well," (whatever that means to you) and min-max in order to beat some kind of perceived challenge. But you know what's true of MMORPGs? You die a bunch of times before you kill bosses. So you're running what sound like newbie players into meat grinders, and giving them no slack. And this is the STARTER set, e.g. these are new players. They don't know the rules. You have *decades* of experience and you want new players to out-mechanic you somehow.

If you try to enforce a game style that your players don't want, of course they'll not have a good time. Punishing players for not having brought thieves tools, when there's no way they can know that they should bring thieves tools (unless you consider that every party must have tools by default, in which case you might as well do away with the need for them, since this can only punish less prepared players) is just odd. Let them smash the box open on a rock. Everyone will have more fun.

Well, I suppose I should be clear that half the players at the table had been playing about as long as me (one is my brother, two are my best friends since high school), and the other half were pretty new (coworkers, friend of a friend).  The one person who was brand-new and had never played before was hands-down my very best player at the table.  He'd actually read the Combat and Spellcasting chapters in the players' book of the game people say they love, a feat not accomplished by some that have spent thousands of dollars on this hobby over the course of years.  And, he was the only one who had tried to break the iron strongbox open, by throwing it against the wall.  I applied the DMG material mechanics, roll failed, and no one else tried.  But, he really blew my mind at how little his Life Cleric healed everyone.  He did it like once.  Out of combat.  An ally of his died in the fight against the Black Spider because he didn't lay down HP even after they were at 0, and it wasn't the first time he relied on Death Saves.  And it was because people on the internet told him to play like that.

I'm telling you, years and years I've spent bending games for the players.  Many different systems and editions therein.  I've had amazing sessions on both sides of the DM screen.  I'm not looking to have my opinion corrected.  I'm asking if there's anyone else out there who feels like they're not going to find what they're looking for anymore in this game, and if they found something else instead.  Cuz, I know this game pretty friggin' well at this point.  It needs to evolve for me.  Not them.  Me.  I'm desperate, Internet.

It would be too bad.  I actually love the game and still like learning lore and cool tactics and stuff like that.

Never.

That is, I never give up on the game that I want. However...

for a bit over three and a half years I ran a weekly 6 or so hour game at a public venue that required me to allow anyone to play. That meant whatever character's they brought, I had to deal with. Whatever personalities they brought, whatever skill level they brought, and, worst of all, I pretty much never knew them.

This was 1e and 2e era,  when Dragon was dropping new crap constantly.

Then during the week, I got to do 40 minute sessions every other day with a group of the same people.

I learned from that the importance of hearing the players -- more than just in what they said they wanted but from what they enjoyed and maybe didn't realize they were, and so ultiately I became a Dm that ran a game I loved and wanted because I didn't get caught up in how things were supposed to go and what risks and all that.

And yet...

I have only ever run homebrew worlds, and around 80% (and I am likely low there) homebrew adventures, only occasionally using a published thing.  Every time we tried one of those, I was disappointed, and the players had a bad time, and so we dropped them.

I am also not super crunchy, but I do like some crunch, lol.  Players don't like meticulous record keeping and they do like just winging it -- it is kinda my job as DM to note that no, they will not be pouring this entire Dragon's hoard (of gold painted copper pieces, but they don't know that yet) to the market,because they can't carry it all.  Sheesh.  And yes, if you want to get that special thing you have to go to the special master of it and let him teach you and there, now you can go up some more levels before having to come back.

None of which may help you out, and sorry if they don't.

I have still never gotten to do my hundred floor dungeon that I spent 9 months crafting. Apparently my cackling puts Players off, and without players, you are kinda stuck doing solos by yourself and for me as a pretty much only a DM sort, that really freaking bites.

Haven't given up before, but got very very close. GM burnout is a real thing, and it's scary. In my first campaign, I never got to the point where I felt like the players were actually engaged. It felt a bit overwhelming too, because I was DMing for 7 players. But since then I have resigned as a DM in that group and have started GMing other players, which is much less overwhelming (now I'm only GMing for 4 players). Also, this is something most players don't realise, but as a GM, I can tell when another GM is feeling burnout. The more you GM, you more obvious it gets.

Separately, sometimes my group got into arguments. The friend group weakened, so DMing for them felt awkward. I did manage to finish my most overwhelming campaign (which was the first campaign I ran) but I didn't seem to enjoy it as much as my players. 

My group is trying to play Vox Machina and I like a world build of complex interactions and they want Scobby Doo. I work with it to make sure everyone has fun including myself.

There are not enough likes for this.  Thank you

Quote from simplete >>

But, he really blew my mind at how little his Life Cleric healed everyone.  He did it like once.  Out of combat.  An ally of his died in the fight against the Black Spider because he didn't lay down HP even after they were at 0, and it wasn't the first time he relied on Death Saves.  And it was because people on the internet told him to play like that.

 This is a player running his PC the way he likes to. He clearly understands the mechanics of the game; he just didn't want to heal at that time. Why should he not rely on death saving throws if he thinks that is the right thing to do? He'd read the rules, knew the risks. Frustrating for the dead player, but perfectly OK.

It's fine to have expectations for the type of game being run. I once ran a campaign where one player never wanted combats, from level 1 up. Another decided he wanted to be a pacifist at level 6 and gave away his +1 Greatsword. I realised a couple of sessions later the campaign, which had run for a year, was no longer in any way viable. I took 2 players with me, found 3 more and now I have my ideal campaign. Last week they (level 14 after 2 years) spent 5.5 hours fighting a homebrew mecha-dragon that had 1200 hit points, 6 legendary actions, and 5 legendary saves and they loved it. But they love the combat because while they all know the rules very well, they also get to try out stuff and I'll bend those rules to reward ingenuity.

A case in point: after the rogue managed to get teleported onto the dragon's back and pass an Acrobatics check, the cleric used Call Lightning. The rogue has a lightning sword. They asked if they can combo their turns: I allowed him to catch the lightning and channel it into the sword and deliver it as a mega attack. Together they did something like 150 damage. How did they do so much?

• The rogue is a Swashbuckler, so had Sneak Attack, and bonus damage from a magic sword
• The rogue has levels in Battlemaster and made it a Menacing attack
• The rogue has Elven Accuracy
• The cleric used Destructive Wrath and maxed out the 5th level Call Lightning
• The rogue used a magic sword ability called Ultimate Technique to max his dice
• We use the commonly used homebrew crit rule for maxing dice+dice

So what we got was an IMMENSE cinematic moment of the rogue, riding a dragon, catching the lightning and then channelling it down through his sword into the dragon's back. I let this work as an Attack of Opportunity using the rogue's reaction. RAW? No. But did it use their knowledge of the rules? YES! They are total min-maxers, but what do I care about being completely RAW when we're using a CR45 homebrew mecha dragon because there are no single monsters that can challenge a 6 man level 14 party on a long rest? It's the best of both worlds.

Maybe the thing that would help you find your game is if you guide the players in what they can do a bit more? So suggest tactical actions to them if you think they don't know them.

• "If you move one square up, you'd have flanking." "What's flanking?" "You get advantage on the attack!"
• "You could Shove that guy if you want to get him away from the cleric."
• "You look across. The barbarian is bleeding out on the ground, he's on his last death save. You sure you want to cast Light?"

Rather than taking a "You didn't learn/remember the book, so fail," mentality it's your job as DM to guide the players to learn the rules. That is a core part of what a DM does. You want them to play strategically, so show them the benefits. If they don't know about Flanking, because they forgot about it, then showing them it works once or twice will mean they learn it. My guys have been playing 5+ years and still don't think to Shove an enemy over before making attacks. But that's OK. They all have fun, and it sounds like your players (who stuck it out for 16 sessions) were having fun anyway.

Quote from simplete >>

Everyone at the table is supposed to get the game they want eventually. After decades of patience, I tried to show everyone what I wanted, and all I found was conflict. I've played with everyone I know, and I've finally given up.

Have any other DM's hit this point? Did you find motivation to run the game again?

I've been frustrated and burned out due to my players, sure. But one of the reasons I think there isn't as much identification with your particular situation is that I'm not sure how many people would have the longsuffering to run a game for decades with players who weren't a good fit. That's quite unusual.

To be honest, I find it harder to play with people I know. My in-person home group has some of my closest friends and includes my spouse - and while they are my people in nearly every aspect of life, they just don't have the same gaming preferences I do. They like sillier games with lower stakes and more flexible rulings. I...don't. Expecting their preferences to change just isn't realistic, so instead I decided to embrace them for what they are and turned to the internet to find a group of players whose ideal D&D matches mine. It took a little work, but I now have a solid group of people I've never met in person with whom I can play my kind of D&D. I view my home group as mostly a hangout opportunity with D&D flavor, and my online group is where I can really dive into the D&D I love.

I'm pretty selective when I play with people, and especially when I recruit for my own campaigns. I'm very clear about the game I intend to run and I only extend offers to players I think would enjoy my DMing style. Even still, I've run into players who didn't know their own playstyle preferences until after we started, and I ended up having conversations with them about whether we could find a happy medium. When we could, I made the best of it. When we couldn't, I either bowed out of the campaign or encouraged them to find another table that could meet their needs better than I could. With strangers online, it's a lot less awkward to have those conversations since you can part ways amicably with the knowledge that some groups just aren't the best fit for some players. With people you know, that's a lot harder.

Burnout is real, especially when you feel like you aren't on the same page as your players. In my experience, having honest conversations, taking a break, and trying new things with new people tends to cure it. Good luck!