It's was for players to communicate what potentially triggering elements they're okay with, which ones they'd like to keep veiled and which ones they do not want in the game at all. I like to have it all written out for players to go through, because it gives them a chance to share their triggers in private, and ensures a number of elements are covered.
I don't think the form would have changed their attitude. What threw me off is that they were the most open to potentially troubling elements (genocide, child/animal abuse, etc) but offered no clarity. Which is on me. I burrowed the form from someone else, and didn't adjust it to require more detailed explanations. They also said they were okay with an NC-17 rating in the game, which again, is on me. I didn't remove that option from the form. But it did seem weird to select that answer as I had already established there would be no explicit sex or graphic gore or violence, which I feel is the cut off for NC-17.
I suppose, on reflection, it's possible the form did bother them, because they felt there was a possibility of a more intense game, but now they see that won't happen. I don't know. My feeling about their responses to the consent form are highly subjective, and less defensible. This is a silly thing to say about a form, but it just seemed like they blew through it, selecting green for almost everything, and offering no further explanations, expect in the section asking "is there anything in particular you would really like to see happen in the game?" to which they responded with a one word "no," which felt very ... enthusiastic. Like asking a teenager which ride they're most excited about going on at Disney World, and having them respond "none of them." Weird to me, but I fully appreciate why anyone reading this explanation would be like "Wow, you need to relax."
I see value in seeking out what may/may not be acceptable in a game for people that you are unfamiliar with. I might point out that if you are uncomfortable with certain content, maybe it shouldn't be included in the Ala Carte menu that you are asking consent for. Flatly stating that you're unwilling to run certain content might be encouraged.
Your reaction to their response is driven by the perspective that you've shared here. Another point of view to consider might be that they didn't have any requirements of what you put into the game. They may want to be passive participants, more than active drivers of the world. I have players that are hesitant to make minute decisions about their PCs, simply because they know that if they say that they, for instance, worship a particular deity, that deity has to exist in my game world. Some people are just not comfortable asking people that they are unfamiliar with to do specific things for them. They might feel that they are being pushy or demanding, and were taught that this type of behavior is unwelcome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Anyone who gives you advice on how to better accommodate these problem players is 100% wrong. You were clear about what kind of game you were running, and these players are not a good fit. Drop them. You don't owe them anything. Two enthusiastic players is more than enough to run a game. And that's not even accounting for the fact that the enthusiastic players are people you actually know and have played with before. If anything, you should be thinking about them.
Solving the (minor) problem of a small party is going to be much, much easier than trying to figure out how to engage two players that aren't interested in anything you're selling. And if you ultimately feel like you need a larger group, there are more than enough players out there to recruit.
I’m not treating them like objects. I’m treating them like adults who applied to and agreed to a game where having a backstory was an upfront requirement. And who, since joining, have given little to no response to my messages. I’ve asked if everything is okay, if they need help, etc. Nothing. The lack of backstories is a symptom. The real problem is their unwillingness to communicate.
Your experiences are valid, but they are your experiences. You seem to have trouble understanding that other people have different experiences and preferences for the sort of game they want, and that they are allowed to have those.
I would not feel comfortable running a session of a long term campaign with players who’s backstories I don’t know or who don’t have one at all. I plan my games using players’ backstories, so I can give them hooks that work for their characters, and facilitate fun and dramatic moments. I enjoy that.
I would not enjoy trying to figure out, on the fly, how to provide hooks and character moments for characters having just learned their backstory, or with nothing to go on but a class and race. That would stress me out, especially because I know I would be giving more attention to the players who provided me backstory. I would not be having fun in that scenario. I think it’s incredibly unfair to suggest that makes me a poor DM.
Fill out a form, and do an interview, here is a homework assignment.. do all this stuff and you can come to join us to play D&D. What your doing isn't "wrong" ...
To be fair, those are pretty reasonable requests for veteran D&D players: read some lore on the campaign setting, write a backstory that fits with it, and let me know about any problematic topics you'd like to avoid. The problem is approaching all that with players who are new to D&D. If you don't spend the time explaining all of it and basically holding their hand through the creation of their first character, they could very well decide, "I'm in over my head here, I have no clue what's going on, this really isn't the thing for me." If you opened up your invitation to players with no D&D experience, then it's reasonable for the new players to expect the DM to provide an introduction before assigning tasks to them.
When I was new to D&D, I simply wasn't capable of writing an actual character backstory, because I didn't even understand where to start. I went into it with literally no knowledge whatsoever of pen & paper RPGs or even of most fantasy tropes (seriously... I didn't even know what a goblin was). My first character was a wizard with no backstory or personality whatsoever. As the game went along, and I started to understand the basics of what I was doing and how the game world worked, I started filling in those details, but it was not something I could have done on my own at the beginning. Of course, I was a total "spectator player" for a long time.
If these other new players are anything like that (and I'm making some assumptions here) it should probably be presented less as "I need this info about your character," and more like "what kinds of adventures would you like to play?" If they're having trouble with character backstories, but as a DM you still need a place to start designing the adventure, maybe you can use the player interests instead? If the players like the idea of dungeon crawls, or fighting giant monsters, or exploring strange and dangerous locations, I'd suggest that you can use that just as well as a backstory for the first mini-arc of the adventure. After that, you probably want something more to go on, and your players would be able to give it to you-- or they'd decide that D&D is really not for them.
But if you still feel like the PCs need to be fleshed out a bit, you could also consider running 1-2 sessions of "so you want to play D&D..." or "let's build a character..." for them, with no requirements to have something prepared yet, as a precursor to starting the actual campaign. You can even use those to present some scenarios that kind of represent your campaign setting to see how they react, and they can understand what they're getting into. I've even heard of DMs spending all of level 1 doing that. I understand that this doesn't necessarily appeal to you, and it may seem like you're being "unfair" to veteran players at your table who won't be getting the extra attention, but that's just the reality of having players who are brand-new to D&D.
Most of the posters in this thread seem much more interested in projecting their own opinions about the hobby itself onto this discussion instead of helping the OP resolve their specific situation.
No DM is obligated to run their game in a specific way. Running campaigns is hard work, as everyone here knows very well. Bringing new people into the hobby is an admirable goal, but it is 100% okay for a DM not to want to undertake the extra effort of engaging two inexperienced, unenthusiastic players.
Because that's the real issue here. The two players just aren't that interested. Not only that, but they agreed to a certain set of expectations and then refused to meet the DM even halfway. The OP already reached out to them several times and tried to help. One player doesn't even have time for the game. Asking players to be interested in the game you're running and available to play isn't an exclusionary standard. It's the bare minimum.
Most of the posters in this thread seem much more interested in projecting their own opinions about the hobby itself onto this discussion instead of helping the OP resolve their specific situation.
No DM is obligated to run their game in a specific way. Running campaigns is hard work, as everyone here knows very well. Bringing new people into the hobby is an admirable goal, but it is 100% okay for a DM not to want to undertake the extra effort of engaging two inexperienced, unenthusiastic players.
Because that's the real issue here. The two players just aren't that interested. Not only that, but they agreed to a certain set of expectations and then refused to meet the DM even halfway. The OP already reached out to them several times and tried to help. One player doesn't even have time for the game. Asking players to be interested in the game you're running and available to play isn't an exclusionary standard. It's the bare minimum.
OP's original ask was for our opinion on whether the players-in-question should be allowed some leniency or kicked to the curb. They literaly asked for our opinions, including yours....that's why they've been projected (see also: offered). So we have all attempted to Help the OP in our own way.
I can see your perspective for part of this conversation. No, one, single DM has an obligation to run a game. Let alone, run a game that isn't fun. Running a campain is only as hard as you make it. Choosing to do the hard thing is only noble if it is done for the greater good (see also: fun) of the participants, not for recognition or grandeur. If the players don't like it, they shouldn't be made to be enthusiastic. Brining new people into the hobby is absolutely an admirable goal. If we are presented the opportunity to be the only experience that some people get with the hobby, we might want to be understanding of how others react to our demands and requirements. Simply put...one might need to be better at reading the players', non-verbal communication, or absence of communication altogether. A good many problematic situations can be avoided this way.
Asking someone to be enthused in something that they don't like or have interest in, isn't a bare minimum. It's an unrealistic, and unachievable expectation. Players deciding that they don't want to be a part of this style of game is allowed. Players deciding that they don't have time for an amount of hours every week to devote to a new hobby is also allowed. Agreeing to something at face value isn't the same as finding out what the full extent of the agreement is, after the fact. If a DM makes a demand of a player that said player doesn't agree with, and the player acts suddenly put-off or unenthused they should be free to choose to not attend, communicate, or otherwise participate. Players should be able to change their minds without the fear of being made the BBE in this story. A DM should be prepared to deal with that in an appropriate manner.
At some point, most every poster here was a new, inexperienced player that had no idea what this game was about, or how it worked. I'm willing to bet that a DM was willing to take the time, effort and energy to teach, encourage and allow most of us to play this game, even though it was hard on them. If a DM can't seem to find a way to include someone in their game, or to teach someone how to play, that might be another goal worth working towards. DMs might strive to be stewards of the hobby and good ambasadors to those that want to learn. Only focusing on what you are already comfortable with doesn't provide much opportunity for growth.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I'm not sure how you misread my post so badly as to think that I'm saying DMs should ask their players to manufacture an interest in their game. That's insane.
Players' level of interest in a campaign's premise will always vary. A game can then be adjusted to accommodate their different preferences and help engage less interested players, to a point, but it should always be done to improve the enjoyment of the group as a whole. Everyone here seems to agree that the DM is a part of that whole and their fun also matters. The OP also needs to accommodate two other players who don't seem to want to change anything about this campaign. Why again are we ignoring those players?
Players are obviously free to change their minds. They can choose not to attend, communicate, or otherwise participate in a game. Though doing these without explanation is obviously rude. There's nothing inappropriate about a DM then deciding that means that they can't play in their campaign. I would argue that the player has already decided they don't want to participate if they can't even communicate about what their problem is.
All I see here is a lot of DMs who are telling the OP that it is their job not just to try to welcome new players to the hobby, but also to bend over backwards for them and to tolerate what would be considered bad behavior in any other social setting.
You're also not going to make any net gains in the number of people interested in this hobby if your approach to recruiting and welcoming new players involves gatekeeping DMs or burdening them with unrealistic expectations. You're not going to entice anyone by throwing around words like "steward" and "ambassador" as though DMing was a sacred duty and not just a hobby. Don't impose your DMing commandments on others.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with trying to help people grow as DMs. However, considering OP's responses to the "advice" in this thread, I think all you've succeeded in doing is offending and disrespecting someone who wanted advice and reassurance, not unwarranted criticism.
There's nothing inappropriate about a DM then deciding that means that they can't play in their campaign. I would argue that the player has already decided they don't want to participate if they can't even communicate about what their problem is.
Have you ever agreed to do something, and later realized you hadn't fully understood it, and been hesitant to admit your ignorance? I have. More than once.
You're absolutely correct that the DM has every right to decide who is and isn't going to join their table. But if they aren't willing to do some amount of "bending over backward" (your words) for brand-new players, then I'd suggest that they erred in extending the invitation to brand-new players. And the question of whether the veteran players at the table were on board with that, should have also been discussed in session 0. There's nothing wrong with saying "some D&D experience required" or even "veteran players only" when you're trying to gather people for a D&D group. Brand-new players can and will do a lot of rude things even without realizing they're being rude (I'm currently DMing for 3 brand-new players so I can say this with absolute certainty). Some DMs don't really want to deal with that, and that's totally understandable (again, speaking from firsthand experience). But it's hard to reconcile that approach to DMing, with an invitation for brand-new players with no D&D experience to join the group.
So yeah, they can kick out the new players for "not holding up their end of the deal," or they can sit down together and try to figure out what went wrong... and maybe still part ways as a result, who knows? If that's already failed, or the players declined to even do that, then maybe these players are a lost cause. I haven't seen that from SylmareUmenan's posts, but he (she?) is the only one who can really answer that question. And since Session 1 should have happened by now (according to the original post) I'm honestly a little curious to know how it went.
But if they aren't willing to do some amount of "bending over backward" (your words) for brand-new players, then I'd suggest that they erred in extending the invitation to brand-new players.
This is just my experience, obviously, so take from that what you will. The second campaign I ever ran was pitched directly toward new players, advertised as RP focused, using player backstories, etc. None of those players had any trouble writing backstories or diving straight into RP. That game is still running over a year later, and we’re having a great time.
I’ve run other games in the same style with a mix of new and veteran players, and never had anyone balk at writing a backstory. I’ve had a few reach out and ask for help, which I was happy to give.
Running my games with new players has always been a positive experience for me. So, I saw no reason not to reach out to these players.
So yeah, they can kick out the new players for "not holding up their end of the deal," or they can sit down together and try to figure out what went wrong... and maybe still part ways as a result, who knows? If that's already failed, or the players declined to even do that, then maybe these players are a lost cause. I haven't seen that from SylmareUmenan's posts, but he (she?) is the only one who can really answer that question. And since Session 1 should have happened by now (according to the original post) I'm honestly a little curious to know how it went.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but if not, I would say yes, they did decline, if simply by lack of response.
I explained in several of my responses to this forum post that I’ve messaged these players numerous times. First to make sure they were okay with everything in the game pitch, to which they said yes. Then to make sure they were okay with everything discussed in session 0, to which they said yes. I reached out a few days later to ask if they needed any help with character creation or backstories. One did not reply, the other just said no. The next day, I messaged the group to confirm the date for session 1. Everyone, including these two players said yes.
At that point, I messaged them both again to ask about backstories and offer my help. This is when one of them stated that she could no longer commit to the game. I said I was sorry to hear that, and said she was free to message me if things changed and she had more time. She then left the server and DnDbeyond game of her own accord. The other player thanked me for the offer, and said they would have their backstory done by Sunday. That was last Sunday; it was not done. They had agreed to a .5 session on Tuesday to bring their character to the starting point of the campaign, and I figured that would be a perfect time to sketch up a quick backstory.
A half hour before the mini-session they messaged saying something had come up and they couldn’t make it. I responded that I understood completely, and to let me know if they were still good for session 1. They said yes, and that they would let me know if anything changed.
Session 1 time rolls around, no message and no show from that player. I will say here that I had recruited two more players, since 1 had officially dropped the game. So we were at a grand total of 4 and the session went great.
I messaged the player again saying we missed them at session 1 and that I hoped everything was okay. I have heard nothing from them yet.
SylmareUmenan - lots of details there that I didn't get from your earlier posts (probably my fault, really), so thank you for taking the time to write that all up. Seeing it all laid out like that I have to agree, it does sound like you went out of your way to try to get your new prospective players "up to speed," so to speak. You offered direct help setting up characters and backstories, and scheduled an extra session for it, but it still didn't work out. It doesn't sound like anything else you could have done, would have made a difference. I'm sorry to hear that it fell through on you, and I'm glad you were able to find other players instead. I hope my posts didn't come off as too insulting or combative.
I'm not sure how you misread my post so badly as to think that I'm saying DMs should ask their players to manufacture an interest in their game. That's insane.
Because that's the real issue here. The two players just aren't that interested. Not only that, but they agreed to a certain set of expectations and then refused to meet the DM even halfway. The OP already reached out to them several times and tried to help. One player doesn't even have time for the game. Asking players to be interested in the game you're running and available to play isn't an exclusionary standard. It's the bare minimum.
Players' level of interest in a campaign's premise will always vary. A game can then be adjusted to accommodate their different preferences and help engage less interested players, to a point, but it should always be done to improve the enjoyment of the group as a whole. Everyone here seems to agree that the DM is a part of that whole and their fun also matters. The OP also needs to accommodate two other players who don't seem to want to change anything about this campaign. Why again are we ignoring those players?
Absolutely agree with most of this, however, I'm not seeing any suggestion that any player be ignored.
Players are obviously free to change their minds. They can choose not to attend, communicate, or otherwise participate in a game. Though doing these without explanation is obviously rude. There's nothing inappropriate about a DM then deciding that means that they can't play in their campaign. I would argue that the player has already decided they don't want to participate if they can't even communicate about what their problem is.
Many here agree with this as well.
All I see here is a lot of DMs who are telling the OP that it is their job not just to try to welcome new players to the hobby, but also to bend over backwards for them and to tolerate what would be considered bad behavior in any other social setting.
You're also not going to make any net gains in the number of people interested in this hobby if your approach to recruiting and welcoming new players involves gatekeeping DMs or burdening them with unrealistic expectations. You're not going to entice anyone by throwing around words like "steward" and "ambassador" as though DMing was a sacred duty and not just a hobby. Don't impose your DMing commandments on others.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with trying to help people grow as DMs. However, considering OP's responses to the "advice" in this thread, I think all you've succeeded in doing is offending and disrespecting someone who wanted advice and reassurance, not unwarranted criticism.
I'm not wholly conviced that the OP is actually offended by any of the conversation that has been had here. If that is the case, I trust that they would likely excercise their ability to speak to that offense or perceived disrespect themselves. I feel that much of what has been suggested as something to consider has been taken as what one *has* to do. Which isn't what is being put forth. In fact, it's the furthest from it.
SylmareUmenan, thanks for the followup. I does appear that your two prospects self-selected. I can appreciate you putting forth a good faith effort to work with them, even though it didn't work out. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I see value in seeking out what may/may not be acceptable in a game for people that you are unfamiliar with. I might point out that if you are uncomfortable with certain content, maybe it shouldn't be included in the Ala Carte menu that you are asking consent for. Flatly stating that you're unwilling to run certain content might be encouraged.
Your reaction to their response is driven by the perspective that you've shared here. Another point of view to consider might be that they didn't have any requirements of what you put into the game. They may want to be passive participants, more than active drivers of the world. I have players that are hesitant to make minute decisions about their PCs, simply because they know that if they say that they, for instance, worship a particular deity, that deity has to exist in my game world. Some people are just not comfortable asking people that they are unfamiliar with to do specific things for them. They might feel that they are being pushy or demanding, and were taught that this type of behavior is unwelcome.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
That video Kaavels posted was awesome.
Anyone who gives you advice on how to better accommodate these problem players is 100% wrong. You were clear about what kind of game you were running, and these players are not a good fit. Drop them. You don't owe them anything. Two enthusiastic players is more than enough to run a game. And that's not even accounting for the fact that the enthusiastic players are people you actually know and have played with before. If anything, you should be thinking about them.
Solving the (minor) problem of a small party is going to be much, much easier than trying to figure out how to engage two players that aren't interested in anything you're selling. And if you ultimately feel like you need a larger group, there are more than enough players out there to recruit.
I’m not treating them like objects. I’m treating them like adults who applied to and agreed to a game where having a backstory was an upfront requirement. And who, since joining, have given little to no response to my messages. I’ve asked if everything is okay, if they need help, etc. Nothing. The lack of backstories is a symptom. The real problem is their unwillingness to communicate.
Your experiences are valid, but they are your experiences. You seem to have trouble understanding that other people have different experiences and preferences for the sort of game they want, and that they are allowed to have those.
I would not feel comfortable running a session of a long term campaign with players who’s backstories I don’t know or who don’t have one at all. I plan my games using players’ backstories, so I can give them hooks that work for their characters, and facilitate fun and dramatic moments. I enjoy that.
I would not enjoy trying to figure out, on the fly, how to provide hooks and character moments for characters having just learned their backstory, or with nothing to go on but a class and race. That would stress me out, especially because I know I would be giving more attention to the players who provided me backstory. I would not be having fun in that scenario. I think it’s incredibly unfair to suggest that makes me a poor DM.
To be fair, those are pretty reasonable requests for veteran D&D players: read some lore on the campaign setting, write a backstory that fits with it, and let me know about any problematic topics you'd like to avoid. The problem is approaching all that with players who are new to D&D. If you don't spend the time explaining all of it and basically holding their hand through the creation of their first character, they could very well decide, "I'm in over my head here, I have no clue what's going on, this really isn't the thing for me." If you opened up your invitation to players with no D&D experience, then it's reasonable for the new players to expect the DM to provide an introduction before assigning tasks to them.
When I was new to D&D, I simply wasn't capable of writing an actual character backstory, because I didn't even understand where to start. I went into it with literally no knowledge whatsoever of pen & paper RPGs or even of most fantasy tropes (seriously... I didn't even know what a goblin was). My first character was a wizard with no backstory or personality whatsoever. As the game went along, and I started to understand the basics of what I was doing and how the game world worked, I started filling in those details, but it was not something I could have done on my own at the beginning. Of course, I was a total "spectator player" for a long time.
If these other new players are anything like that (and I'm making some assumptions here) it should probably be presented less as "I need this info about your character," and more like "what kinds of adventures would you like to play?" If they're having trouble with character backstories, but as a DM you still need a place to start designing the adventure, maybe you can use the player interests instead? If the players like the idea of dungeon crawls, or fighting giant monsters, or exploring strange and dangerous locations, I'd suggest that you can use that just as well as a backstory for the first mini-arc of the adventure. After that, you probably want something more to go on, and your players would be able to give it to you-- or they'd decide that D&D is really not for them.
But if you still feel like the PCs need to be fleshed out a bit, you could also consider running 1-2 sessions of "so you want to play D&D..." or "let's build a character..." for them, with no requirements to have something prepared yet, as a precursor to starting the actual campaign. You can even use those to present some scenarios that kind of represent your campaign setting to see how they react, and they can understand what they're getting into. I've even heard of DMs spending all of level 1 doing that. I understand that this doesn't necessarily appeal to you, and it may seem like you're being "unfair" to veteran players at your table who won't be getting the extra attention, but that's just the reality of having players who are brand-new to D&D.
Most of the posters in this thread seem much more interested in projecting their own opinions about the hobby itself onto this discussion instead of helping the OP resolve their specific situation.
No DM is obligated to run their game in a specific way. Running campaigns is hard work, as everyone here knows very well. Bringing new people into the hobby is an admirable goal, but it is 100% okay for a DM not to want to undertake the extra effort of engaging two inexperienced, unenthusiastic players.
Because that's the real issue here. The two players just aren't that interested. Not only that, but they agreed to a certain set of expectations and then refused to meet the DM even halfway. The OP already reached out to them several times and tried to help. One player doesn't even have time for the game. Asking players to be interested in the game you're running and available to play isn't an exclusionary standard. It's the bare minimum.
OP's original ask was for our opinion on whether the players-in-question should be allowed some leniency or kicked to the curb. They literaly asked for our opinions, including yours....that's why they've been projected (see also: offered). So we have all attempted to Help the OP in our own way.
I can see your perspective for part of this conversation. No, one, single DM has an obligation to run a game. Let alone, run a game that isn't fun. Running a campain is only as hard as you make it. Choosing to do the hard thing is only noble if it is done for the greater good (see also: fun) of the participants, not for recognition or grandeur. If the players don't like it, they shouldn't be made to be enthusiastic. Brining new people into the hobby is absolutely an admirable goal. If we are presented the opportunity to be the only experience that some people get with the hobby, we might want to be understanding of how others react to our demands and requirements. Simply put...one might need to be better at reading the players', non-verbal communication, or absence of communication altogether. A good many problematic situations can be avoided this way.
Asking someone to be enthused in something that they don't like or have interest in, isn't a bare minimum. It's an unrealistic, and unachievable expectation. Players deciding that they don't want to be a part of this style of game is allowed. Players deciding that they don't have time for an amount of hours every week to devote to a new hobby is also allowed. Agreeing to something at face value isn't the same as finding out what the full extent of the agreement is, after the fact. If a DM makes a demand of a player that said player doesn't agree with, and the player acts suddenly put-off or unenthused they should be free to choose to not attend, communicate, or otherwise participate. Players should be able to change their minds without the fear of being made the BBE in this story. A DM should be prepared to deal with that in an appropriate manner.
At some point, most every poster here was a new, inexperienced player that had no idea what this game was about, or how it worked. I'm willing to bet that a DM was willing to take the time, effort and energy to teach, encourage and allow most of us to play this game, even though it was hard on them. If a DM can't seem to find a way to include someone in their game, or to teach someone how to play, that might be another goal worth working towards. DMs might strive to be stewards of the hobby and good ambasadors to those that want to learn. Only focusing on what you are already comfortable with doesn't provide much opportunity for growth.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I'm not sure how you misread my post so badly as to think that I'm saying DMs should ask their players to manufacture an interest in their game. That's insane.
Players' level of interest in a campaign's premise will always vary. A game can then be adjusted to accommodate their different preferences and help engage less interested players, to a point, but it should always be done to improve the enjoyment of the group as a whole. Everyone here seems to agree that the DM is a part of that whole and their fun also matters. The OP also needs to accommodate two other players who don't seem to want to change anything about this campaign. Why again are we ignoring those players?
Players are obviously free to change their minds. They can choose not to attend, communicate, or otherwise participate in a game. Though doing these without explanation is obviously rude. There's nothing inappropriate about a DM then deciding that means that they can't play in their campaign. I would argue that the player has already decided they don't want to participate if they can't even communicate about what their problem is.
All I see here is a lot of DMs who are telling the OP that it is their job not just to try to welcome new players to the hobby, but also to bend over backwards for them and to tolerate what would be considered bad behavior in any other social setting.
You're also not going to make any net gains in the number of people interested in this hobby if your approach to recruiting and welcoming new players involves gatekeeping DMs or burdening them with unrealistic expectations. You're not going to entice anyone by throwing around words like "steward" and "ambassador" as though DMing was a sacred duty and not just a hobby. Don't impose your DMing commandments on others.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with trying to help people grow as DMs. However, considering OP's responses to the "advice" in this thread, I think all you've succeeded in doing is offending and disrespecting someone who wanted advice and reassurance, not unwarranted criticism.
Have you ever agreed to do something, and later realized you hadn't fully understood it, and been hesitant to admit your ignorance? I have. More than once.
You're absolutely correct that the DM has every right to decide who is and isn't going to join their table. But if they aren't willing to do some amount of "bending over backward" (your words) for brand-new players, then I'd suggest that they erred in extending the invitation to brand-new players. And the question of whether the veteran players at the table were on board with that, should have also been discussed in session 0. There's nothing wrong with saying "some D&D experience required" or even "veteran players only" when you're trying to gather people for a D&D group. Brand-new players can and will do a lot of rude things even without realizing they're being rude (I'm currently DMing for 3 brand-new players so I can say this with absolute certainty). Some DMs don't really want to deal with that, and that's totally understandable (again, speaking from firsthand experience). But it's hard to reconcile that approach to DMing, with an invitation for brand-new players with no D&D experience to join the group.
So yeah, they can kick out the new players for "not holding up their end of the deal," or they can sit down together and try to figure out what went wrong... and maybe still part ways as a result, who knows? If that's already failed, or the players declined to even do that, then maybe these players are a lost cause. I haven't seen that from SylmareUmenan's posts, but he (she?) is the only one who can really answer that question. And since Session 1 should have happened by now (according to the original post) I'm honestly a little curious to know how it went.
This is just my experience, obviously, so take from that what you will. The second campaign I ever ran was pitched directly toward new players, advertised as RP focused, using player backstories, etc. None of those players had any trouble writing backstories or diving straight into RP. That game is still running over a year later, and we’re having a great time.
I’ve run other games in the same style with a mix of new and veteran players, and never had anyone balk at writing a backstory. I’ve had a few reach out and ask for help, which I was happy to give.
Running my games with new players has always been a positive experience for me. So, I saw no reason not to reach out to these players.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but if not, I would say yes, they did decline, if simply by lack of response.
I explained in several of my responses to this forum post that I’ve messaged these players numerous times. First to make sure they were okay with everything in the game pitch, to which they said yes. Then to make sure they were okay with everything discussed in session 0, to which they said yes. I reached out a few days later to ask if they needed any help with character creation or backstories. One did not reply, the other just said no. The next day, I messaged the group to confirm the date for session 1. Everyone, including these two players said yes.
At that point, I messaged them both again to ask about backstories and offer my help. This is when one of them stated that she could no longer commit to the game. I said I was sorry to hear that, and said she was free to message me if things changed and she had more time. She then left the server and DnDbeyond game of her own accord. The other player thanked me for the offer, and said they would have their backstory done by Sunday. That was last Sunday; it was not done. They had agreed to a .5 session on Tuesday to bring their character to the starting point of the campaign, and I figured that would be a perfect time to sketch up a quick backstory.
A half hour before the mini-session they messaged saying something had come up and they couldn’t make it. I responded that I understood completely, and to let me know if they were still good for session 1. They said yes, and that they would let me know if anything changed.
Session 1 time rolls around, no message and no show from that player. I will say here that I had recruited two more players, since 1 had officially dropped the game. So we were at a grand total of 4 and the session went great.
I messaged the player again saying we missed them at session 1 and that I hoped everything was okay. I have heard nothing from them yet.
SylmareUmenan - lots of details there that I didn't get from your earlier posts (probably my fault, really), so thank you for taking the time to write that all up. Seeing it all laid out like that I have to agree, it does sound like you went out of your way to try to get your new prospective players "up to speed," so to speak. You offered direct help setting up characters and backstories, and scheduled an extra session for it, but it still didn't work out. It doesn't sound like anything else you could have done, would have made a difference. I'm sorry to hear that it fell through on you, and I'm glad you were able to find other players instead. I hope my posts didn't come off as too insulting or combative.
Absolutely agree with most of this, however, I'm not seeing any suggestion that any player be ignored.
Many here agree with this as well.
I'm not wholly conviced that the OP is actually offended by any of the conversation that has been had here. If that is the case, I trust that they would likely excercise their ability to speak to that offense or perceived disrespect themselves. I feel that much of what has been suggested as something to consider has been taken as what one *has* to do. Which isn't what is being put forth. In fact, it's the furthest from it.
SylmareUmenan, thanks for the followup. I does appear that your two prospects self-selected. I can appreciate you putting forth a good faith effort to work with them, even though it didn't work out. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad