I don't know why I bother

[thegreyelf]

(cross-posted from RPG.Net)

I wonder why I bother half the time.

I spend a great deal of time and even money on my games, putting together props, visual aids, and resources to help everyone have a good time.

If I'm running a new game with which the players are unfamiliar I will put together resources to help them get a feel for the game and setting. Case in point: I'm gearing up to run an OD&D Hyborian Age game right now. I have put together rules booklets for the players as well as e-mailed them copies of everything they'd need (including an extensive but brief booklet I put together on Hyborian Age gaming--character classes allowed, races of the Hyborian Age, etc.) I sent them an e-mail with a list of where you can (legally) find all of Robert E. Howard's stories online (even in PDF format).

I recently sent an e-mail out to prepare for char gen this weekend. In it, I asked people to let me know what types of characters they wanted to play so I could prepare the proper resources for them.

Several of them got back to me and said, "What are the choices again? I haven't bothered to look at any of the stuff you sent." Others didn't even respond at all.

In the past I have even paid to have house rule documents professionally made, to look just like old-school adventure modules (with artwork and everything). I had one player not even bother to bring the house rules to the table and just demand to be told what he needed to know when he needed to know it.

I dunno. I'm just getting this frustration off my chest. I really don't know why I bother putting the effort in that I do, sometimes.

[premmy]

I can sympathise with your plight, partially based on personal experience.

I think that a 50-50% mixture of politeness and honest righteous indignation is the best remedy. Explain, once, in a determined tone of voice, that you've put quite a bit of effort into writing/printing/whatevering up all those copies, and that you did so exactly so players will not arrive to the table ignorant and waste everybody else's time and energy asking dumb questions.

Don't shout, don't lose your cool or your focus, but do not hide your indignation. "I find myself asking why the f u c k do I bother if my players are so g o d d a m n e d lazy as you, Pete." "If I could write 5 pages about just that, you can read 5 pages about just that. It won't break your bleeding eye."

You're entitled to about that much swearing; your lazy bastard players entitled you to it. And in some cases it might just tip them to get their act together.

[coffee]

I had a player once who couldn't even be bothered to read the players' rulebook. But she could assemble scrapbooks or do projects while at the table (while the rest of the players were actually paying attention.)

And then, when the lack of knowledge about what's going on in the game affected her, suddenly I was the bad guy.

And yet, with all that, we keep right on doing it. All for the love of the game, I guess.

[Deleted]

I've found that, when it comes to house rule documents, the shorter the better for increasing player compliance. This doesn't necessarily make for a better game for either side of the screen, but there it is.

I work in health care and face a similar conundrum every day. Everyone with patient contact is hammering the patient with information all day long. I've found the most expedient way to increase compliance is to keep it short and sweet. That's not the best approach for the patient's overall health, but if it gets them to take their meds in some way resembling proper use, that's what I have to do.

[thegreyelf]

Seems the general answer I'm getting across the board is that I just shouldn't put the work into games that I do. Same consensus on RPGNet.

[coffee]

I disagree; you should put work into your games. After all, it's a labor of love. Not doing the work can only degrade the hobby.

But you can educate your players to understand that they will get more out of the game if they actively participate.

Not all players are apathetic. I've had games where I wanted to read a house-rules document, or even a background, and was told "Oh, you'll pick it up." And then, since I don't have that info, I create a generic fighter (to feel my way around this strange world) and get accused of not fitting in.

It seems like you can't win. But that's just an illusion; you can win. You can get your players interested. Or you can find other players who are interested.

Old school gaming is about putting the work in. It's about "imagining the hell out of it", and getting your players excited about that -- that's another GM task that they don't tell you about. You need to be the cheerleader for your game.

I'm rambling and babbling, I know, but it looks like you're on the verge of giving up. And that would just totally suck for the hobby in general and for you in particular.

We need more good GMs, not less. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

[Deleted]

I agree with Coffee, you should continue to make the effort.

In time, most players will grow to appreciate your effort. These converts, so to speak, will encourage new players in your campaign to do the same. Thus, your campaign will blossom into the fully realized living setting you intend it to be.

Don't give up, in other words. Just keep chipping away and realize the fulfillment of your ideal my take longer than you might have hoped.

Again, going back to my experience in health care, once a patient has dealt with the initial flood (and I do mean flood) of information and used the medications for a short time; they are willing and even eager to know more about it.

You just have to take it in steps. Some may never be ready for the full load information, but most will be. Hang in there.

[aldarron]

As with most things in life, but especially with hobbies its the journey, not the destination. Why do so many spend hour after hour working in those little details that no one will notice or that won't make any difference in how well something functions - because of the love of the thing, because it brings the hobbyist pleasure to work on the pursuit of thier hobby. Some folks don't appreciate it? Their loss. Share it with those who do or at least take satisfaction in knowing you did the job you set out to do.

[Finarvyn]

As usual, Coffee is wise. Putting work into your campaign is good, but often the players won't appreciate it. That doesn't stop me from putting in the work, but it can be frustrating.

[billhooks]

What would happen if you asked one or all of your players what goes through their minds when you send them campaign materials? Maybe they don't give a crap about Robert E. Howard (or the Old School Renaissance, or whatever else you're enthusiastic about) but feel like "you're the DM" so they have to humor you or they don't get to play D&D. In any case, there must be some kind of disconnect between your and their expectations. Fundamentally I'm in agreement with coffee's post, but I think in order to know whether you should keep trying with this group and this game, or look for different players who are already into Robert E. Howard (e.g.) or stick with the group but just play "default D&D" with them -- in order to decide what's the best alternative I think you need for at least some of the players to spill their guts about what they really think.

[thegreyelf]

I asked them point blank if everyone was cool with my plan to run OD&D in the Hyborian Age. Nobody voiced any objections.

[billhooks]

Maybe they're just passive-aggressive? Oh well.

[thegreyelf]

Could be. Honestly, folks, I'm just venting frustration, here. I'm sure it'll be fine. Though I do fear the game will fall flat on its face due to players showing up with rote standard D&D assumptions and discover quickly that OD&D and the Hyborian Age are far from rote standard D&D as they are used to it.

[geoffrey]

One thing that occurs to me is that you could put little gems in the players' documents you send. Something along the lines of:

"Cimmerian PCs reared in the Viking countries have a natural +2 to hit and damage in melee, over and above other bonuses."

"Stygian magic-users get one extra spell per level."

Etc.

Hide some goodies in there, plus some secrets that can save their hides. ("Oddly enough, the juice of simple blueberries is the antidote for the deadly venom of the black cobra." Etc.)

Your loser players will sit-up and take notice when the astute ones are Cimmerian fighting-men or Stygian magic-users, running around with blueberries:

Player: "Hey, why the hell does Dave get +2 every time he takes a swing?"
DM: "Ha! I see you haven't read the players' guide I gave you. You missed your chance.

Player: "What the...? You mean everyone in the party except for Dave and Melissa are dead? And all because they ate some blueberries they were carrying around? I would still be alive if I had had a freaking blueberry?"
DM: Yep. So sad.

Etc.

If, on the other hand, ALL you players are losers, then they'll sit-up and take notice when the NPCs keep TPKing them because the NPCs take advantage of the special rules that the players don't.

Under NO circumstances would I reveal any of your houserules during play. I'd simply say, "It's in the players' manual I gave you." After a TPK, if the players wanted to spend 15 minutes studying the players' manual, I'd let them. Then it'd be time to roll-up new characters.

In a nutshell, mercilessly DM a world in which those without knowledge of your house rules die swift deaths for their ignorance.

[chgowiz]

Greyelf - I share your pain, but I also do make sure that monsters take full advantage of the rules so that if the players don't use it, the monsters will.

I will also remind players of things prior to the games.

I also think that if players can't read the materials, then they don't play the game. I know that if I did all that work, and people wouldn't even bother to take the time to read it, I'd probably not game with them. OTOH, knowing how people's nature is, I'll also try to shorten things as much as I can - a page or two, if possible. If I had a complete new ruleset, I'd probably set aside a full game day to chargen and do some runthrus if I was basing a campaign on it.

You should keep writing if it's for you. I know you're venting, but I think you should stick to it. You're a great writer and I enjoy your stuff.

[thegreyelf]

Part of me is wondering if I'm not suffering burnout with my Sunday group. We've been together in some form or another for almost 10 years, now, and after awhile peoples' idiosyncracies start to wear on you, particularly when players come and go and the chemistry isn't the same as it was when the game started (not that it's BAD, mind you--it's just not what it once was).

[coffee]

I hear ya. I've been there.

[Deleted]

I'm with you, 100%. One of my players (& a very good friend, I might add) is one of the most argumentative people who ever terrorized a gaming table. Now, he's played D&D for almost 35 years (so he's no young noob), but ever since 3.+ came around, it's like he forgot what playing in a no-holds-barred D&D game is like; it's almost as if he's become down-right spoiled.
3d6 six times, arranged to taste isn't good enough ("How can I play a Magic-User with an Intelligence of 12?!"); Hit dice isn't enough ("1d8 for Fighters...phht"); encounters aren't "balanced enough" ("my character died because you put our 1st level party in front of ""gasp"" a 3rd level elf; that's not fair!"); & so on - you get the picture.

Now, as I said, the guy is a great friend, but a miserable player if things don't go his way; I'm really at a loss at what to do about it...

[coffee]

Sounds like all of us need a new set of rules, sort of a social contract for gamers. I've seen some out there before, but it's the kind of thing that needs repeating periodically.

Things like:

Remember, it's a game -- have fun and don't sweat it.

or:

We're friends first and gamers second -- don't let the game destroy the friendship.

And the always popular:

Hey, if you wanna play 3e, go ahead! But let me play my game, okay?


(Okay, that last one is a bit argumentative, but the others are still valid.)

[waysoftheearth]

I think most of us have experienced this (or variations of this) problem at one time or another.

Something to keep in mind is that everyone has their own, personal passion. It's probably a mistake to assume that everyone at the D&D game table is as passionate about D&D as the membership of this board. Most are probably not.

I too went to a lot of effort to produce, print and bind a house rules booklet for each of the players of my current game. I think one player of six actually skimmed through it. The rest didn't even bother to take their personal copies home with them. They simply find it easier to ask me than to find something in a booklet. At least they do occasionally look at the tables of experience points and equipment costs -- but that's it.

From this I have concluded that the most economical strategy is to keep player hand-outs to a bare minimum. The One Page Manifesto comes to mind... if a player actually asks for more than the one page overview, then it is worth producing one more page on that subject matter.

Of course it's not all about economy of effort and efficiency. You shouldn't let any of this stop you from producing as much material as you desire for your own enjoyment. As someone else already pointed out, it's about the journey as much as it is the destination.

On the other hand, it is nice to have others -- particularly your peers -- appreciate your passion occasionally. I guess that is partly why we are all here, isn't it?

Don't give up. Fight On!

[thegreyelf]

I've always hated the theory of a "social contract." I think it turns a game into some sort of official organization requiring labor and all sorts of other things that just aren't fun. It's WAY too academic and serious for what amounts to an informal hobby. The very sound of it makes my jaw clench, and if I were to suggest to my players (in any of my three groups) that we should have a "social contract" of some sort, they'd all look at me like I'd just failed my final SAN roll after reading the Necronomicon. Many would then laugh out loud. Others would go, "Are you f***ing kidding me?" And one or two would probably go, "Well, that cuts it. I'm done with this group."

[chgowiz]

Nov 11, 2009 7:03:48 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

I've always hated the theory of a "social contract." I think it turns a game into some sort of official organization requiring labor and all sorts of other things that just aren't fun. It's WAY too academic and serious for what amounts to an informal hobby. The very sound of it makes my jaw clench, and if I were to suggest to my players (in any of my three groups) that we should have a "social contract" of some sort, they'd all look at me like I'd just failed my final SAN roll after reading the Necronomicon. Many would then laugh out loud. Others would go, "Are you f***ing kidding me?" And one or two would probably go, "Well, that cuts it. I'm done with this group."

QFT. I always think that perhaps I'm too naive or simple because I don't get into long discussions on game mechanics, game theory/design and the social aspect.

I recognize that there is an interaction and you have to have some people skills, but at the end of the day, I really just want to throw dice, explore a world together and have some fun/laughs and even some serious/Ohcrap moments with people who game in compatible ways with me. That's it. The rest is neat to read, but I always feel a little lost because I don't connect with those types of discussions.

[coffee]

Nov 11, 2009 7:03:48 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

I've always hated the theory of a "social contract." I think it turns a game into some sort of official organization requiring labor and all sorts of other things that just aren't fun. It's WAY too academic and serious for what amounts to an informal hobby. The very sound of it makes my jaw clench, and if I were to suggest to my players (in any of my three groups) that we should have a "social contract" of some sort, they'd all look at me like I'd just failed my final SAN roll after reading the Necronomicon. Many would then laugh out loud. Others would go, "Are you f***ing kidding me?" And one or two would probably go, "Well, that cuts it. I'm done with this group."

Shows what they know -- you already do have a social contract. It just isn't explicitly stated. We all operate under certain "rules of conduct" (maybe that'll go down better than "social contract"). For each group they're different, but they're there nonetheless.

They go by many names, custom, bylaws, "how we do things around here".

This forum, for instance, has a very real social contract: It essentially boils down to "express your opinion, but be considerate of others". I think we can all remember instances in which that contract was violated -- and the aftermath thereof.

So, if you don't like the phrase, that's fine. But the principle is still in place, whether you call it that or not.

And all I'm suggesting is that such things be brought more out into the open. Just because somebody joins your group doesn't mean the group has to change it's social contract. New members can be taught "how we do things here".

[thegreyelf]

It could be the phrase that sets me off, I'll admit. It's become a "buzz term" for the younger generation of gamers, and I've always gotten rankled by buzz words and terminology. It also smacks of applying social theory to gaming, which is fine amongst academics studying those things--I just don't like it invading my personal gaming space .

That being said, "how we do things here," sounds much better to me and your point is a good one.

[coffee]

Nov 11, 2009 13:25:34 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

It could be the phrase that sets me off, I'll admit. It's become a "buzz term" for the younger generation of gamers, and I've always gotten rankled by buzz words and terminology. It also smacks of applying social theory to gaming, which is fine amongst academics studying those things--I just don't like it invading my personal gaming space .

That being said, "how we do things here," sounds much better to me and your point is a good one.

Hey, I hear ya on that. I can't think of any right now, but there are some buzz-words out there that get to me, too. If I had known that I definitely would have chosen a different term. (I didn't know the kids had adopted that one -- I don't tend to pay much attention to the kids these days.)

[thegreyelf]

Yeah, over at RPGNet, the amateur social theorists *love* to go on and on about social contracts at the gaming table.

[coffee]

See, now, I just stay the heck away from RPGNet.

I like it here just fine!

[jjarvis]

Sometimes I wonder why the heck I bother too. here are folk I play with that do not ever open the rulebook between game sessions and will never read a campaign doc.

Conversely I've played with DMs that have handed me a pretty cool and comprehensive campaign doc and then never bothered bringing any of it into play at all; one DM gave us a doc on MesoAmerican-like setting, I talked to DM several times before game all excited about the campaign, 2 days later at the first session he had changed his mind and wanted to run a completely different campaign.

Do what you what you like and enjoy, others will notice if you do it well.

[Finarvyn]

Nov 12, 2009 14:20:31 GMT -6 jjarvis said:

Sometimes I wonder why the heck I bother too. here are folk I play with that do not ever open the rulebook between game sessions and will never read a campaign doc.

A lot of my players are like this, and what happens is we spend time at the start of the game session getting campaign info into their hands. Cuts down on the time we get to actually play, but I guess that's the choice they make.

[Falconer]

I have found that serious players who are hardcore into it—who buy the rulebooks, read them, think about their characters a lot, and email me during the week about the direction of their characters or the campaign—are much more trouble. They find themselves unwilling or unable to suppress their opinion on anything and everything, and they argue a lot during the session.

I personally much prefer casual players. They couldn't care less whether the DM wrote his own rule set from scratch, or used this or that edition of this or that published game. That means they won't give the DM any trouble about it, but it also means they won't truly appreciate the work he put into it. I'll take that trade-off.

They also won't care about the world or its backstory until they develop a sense of ownership through their personal experiences therein. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a feeling of depth; however, the DM should avoid being heavy-handed with his story. Ultimately, the goal is a story and a world that grow cooperatively and organically out of the game, not vice-versa.

In my last campaign, though the characters traveled far and wide and had many adventures, I never made a world map until the players started hitting name level and were ready to start carving out baronies. At that point, we spent a session together creating the world map as a cooperative effort. (Even then it wasn't a world map, per se, just the region the group had been adventuring in.) Not necessarily the best way to go about it, but it was fun. Regards.