How to make D&D fun

[danzibr]

One issue I, as a DM, have is making the game fun. In another recent thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?404483-Advice-for-first-time-DM&p=18991953#post18991953), I suggested a DM to new players not make sandbox game, and someone told me a sandbox is useless without toys, to which I replied my sandbox had toys, and essentially was told my toys were boring.

See, I put a lot of time into making a city for the players to explore. I could share my files if anyone is interested (maps, NPC info, quest stuff, city info, gather information check info, etc.). It was divided into districts, each district had its own information to provide, places of interest, its own culture (sort of). Even going into the town the party had things to do. Ultimately... nothing much happened. I mean, the campaign went on, but I had all this crap planned out and my players took no initiative, satisfied with drinking at the tavern rather than doing exploring. Oh, and if anyone asks, there were things tied into their back stories.

Basically, I think my problem is I didn't make things... engaging.

My major question is how do you DM's make the game fun for your players? I could also ask... what do you players find as fun?

EDIT: Oh yeah. I'm going to be planning an undead apocalypse campaign for the summer, and want to approach it with some fresh ideas.
Right now it'll all be set in a city. They work at some government place, are relaxing at the bar, zombie breakout occurs, defend/flee the bar. The city will have a military base, history museum with cool weapons (like Demolition Man), get partially flooded to allow for zombie gators and stuff.

[Seharvepernfan]

Just tell your players to get off their barstools and do stuff.

They might know damn well that you want them to do stuff, and they could just be immature about it. Lot's of younger players want to have their players do stuff that they aren't allowed to do yet, just so they can roleplay it (like booze, hookers, etc). Maybe they're just expecting you to hit them in the face with your PLOT hammer. Just poke em.

[GreatDane]

It sounds like you've got a metagame issue with the players. In D&D, metagaming means influencing what happens in-character with what happens (or is known) out-of-character. The standard D&D meta goes something like this: you are a character in a fantasy world, looking for adventure. Knowing that, player characters should go out and find adventure -that's the premise of the game. If the campaign is about saving a city from undead, then it's up to the players to come up with a character who has a good reason to fight waves of undead.

From what you're saying, it seems like your players are missing the second part of the D&D meta. Unless they're waiting for something to happen (IE, one of their characters' contacts will return with information in a few days) or they're intentionally roleplaying a layabout or a character taking a break, your players shouldn't be saying "my character goes out drinking" every ten minutes of real time because that's not the point of the game.

So, I would talk to your players as people and try to figure out why they're not going forth to seek adventure. While it is your job as the DM to provide interesting adventures, it ISN'T your job to get the PCs off their butts and out into the world, looking for trouble.

Credit goes to the Angry DM (http://angrydm.com/) and his article on metagaming (http://angrydm.com/2014/05/respect-the-metagame/) for some many of the concepts in this post.

[Telonius]

Even with sandbox games, it's good to have some sort of fall-back meta-plot (or at least some background drama) going on. Basically, this would be what happens if the players choose to do nothing. If they don't interact with the game world, eventually it's going to start interacting with them. They're at a bar? There's an argument that breaks out next to them. Do they intervene? If no, the argument starts to get out of hand and turns into a bar fight. Do they join in? If no, the Guard shows up and thanks them for not getting involved, maybe taking down names (as possible police informants in the future). The bar closes down for the evening because of the fracas.

Cue an encounter on the streets. Guy being robbed. Do they intervene? If no, a frantic friend of his meets them a few blocks down, asking if they've seen him. If they say no, the robber greets them and thanks them later, saying they might make some interesting contacts with the thieves' guild. A guard from before notices they've been talking to the thief and confronts them, threatening jail unless they turn informant. The thief sees they've been talking to the guard, and threatens them with death if they inform.

Presto! Instant plot hook that happened entirely as a result of them continually choosing not to engage with the environment or NPCs. At any point they could have chosen to follow another item of interest; that would have produced a different result. Eventually something will happen that interests them, they'll follow it, and you'll have a lot more meaningful interactions.

[Hellborn_Blight]

If players just wanted to up and leave a town or area that I wanted them too adventure in I casually tried some sort of attention grab to get them to stay. Things I've used in the past are an attempted assassination with cryptic note about the plot left behind, a beautiful and/or rich envoy imploring them to stay for a story reward for engaging in the plot, an annual festival that just so happens to be going on when they where about to leave and a tragedy thrusts the plot upon them, being falsely arrested for a serious crime or being earnestly arrested for a bar brawl and having to work off their sentence by completing the plot, an invitation to a high end social gathering where the plot makes an appearance.

Engaging players can be hard. Setting time tables is a good way to get them to be active in their non-dungeon plowing times. If they take up an adventure, make sure it has a sense of urgency and real consequences for failure. I don't TPK parties out of spite, well ever really, but I did have one party sentenced to death for purposely ****ing up a basic princess rescue because they thought it would be funny to try to deflower her... That might be a bad example though as, I never played with them again because I'm not running a game to be their aperture for vicariously living out sexual fantasys. Basicly, sometimes a player just wants to goof off, so you have to get the shocking grasp wand out and prod them to move their asses. If they just want to hang out in the tavern the bar brawl is awesome. If they fight the guard, that just means they are more in debt to the city and have everyone arrested, or “brought in for questioning” whether they did anything.

[OldTrees1]

Different players find different things fun.

I have run sandbox games with 2 different groups of players. The first group had enough self motivating goals that I didn't even need to include a metaplot(what would happen if the PCs don't interfere) although I did anyways. In contrast the second group had no such self motivating goals and politely asked me to railroad them more(to which I begrudgingly obliged with more toothy plot hooks). The key is to find out(by observation) how much these players want to focus on Player derived goals vs DM derived goals.

Also remember that there are differences in kind as well as differences in magnitude. Aesthetics of Play (http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/creative/game-design/mechanics-dynamics-aesthetics-r2983) is one theory that has been applied to video games. However the concept really is applicable to all kinds of play(although any discrete list will be prone oversimplification errors). Which aesthetics the player is looking for will shape what kind of fun they would enjoy. Most players probably come for Fellowship, however Abnegation, Fantasy/Expression, Challenge/Competition, and Narrative/Discovery would all be seeking something different(although you can often satisfy several types of players with the same game).

[thecrimsondawn]

I can give this advice. You can have the most epic quest, plot, or city made ever, and have even the most experienced of d&d players get bored. One thing that prevents or removes that boredom is vivid descriptions.
Work on describing what something looks like to players in a very detailed way, and how something may look to one player may look very different to another.

For example, a druid with no knowledge of what city life is like may see a statute of a human with an eagle head, ox legs, and bear arms that is a god of that realm or some great mythical creature of legend for that town.

To the druid tho you would describe a statue that is an abomination of nature, with animal parts sewn on and its body deformed, as well as some sort of cult worshiping this thing.

More then just that tho, you also need to make sure the players feel like there actions are worth there time invested.
If a paladin says I swing my sword at this monster, and rolls damage - that is all fine and good, but if you encourage the player to say how he is swinging his sword, what angle, what limbs, ect, you can give a description of how but he hurt it or glanced it, as well as maybe even having the monster loose an arm or something.
Players like to feel like they are doing something epic - even when the things they are doing may not be that epic at all.

A rogue steeling something a picpocket stole, and then slight of handing it onto someone else - then alerting a guard that you saw a trade off would be kinda dickish, but if you describe the chaos that that just caused in detail, not only do you create a role playing environment for that situation, but the other players whos turn is not up get to enjoy the humor of it as well.

[Scorponok]

If this happened with my players, I'd throw in a bar fight. PCs generally love that! :D

People get hurt, town guard comes running, and everyone gets thrown in jail for the night, where drunken brawler with a big mouth can open up some plot hooks for them to follow next morning. At least they get tossed out of the tavern.

[Nibbens]

One issue I, as a DM, have is making the game fun. In another recent thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?404483-Advice-for-first-time-DM&p=18991953#post18991953), I suggested a DM to new players not make sandbox game, and someone told me a sandbox is useless without toys, to which I replied my sandbox had toys, and essentially was told my toys were boring.

See, I put a lot of time into making a city for the players to explore. I could share my files if anyone is interested (maps, NPC info, quest stuff, city info, gather information check info, etc.). It was divided into districts, each district had its own information to provide, places of interest, its own culture (sort of). Even going into the town the party had things to do. Ultimately... nothing much happened. I mean, the campaign went on, but I had all this crap planned out and my players took no initiative, satisfied with drinking at the tavern rather than doing exploring. Oh, and if anyone asks, there were things tied into their back stories.

Basically, I think my problem is I didn't make things... engaging.

My major question is how do you DM's make the game fun for your players? I could also ask... what do you players find as fun?

EDIT: Oh yeah. I'm going to be planning an undead apocalypse campaign for the summer, and want to approach it with some fresh ideas.
Right now it'll all be set in a city. They work at some government place, are relaxing at the bar, zombie breakout occurs, defend/flee the bar. The city will have a military base, history museum with cool weapons (like Demolition Man), get partially flooded to allow for zombie gators and stuff.

My suggestion is wait for this thread to mature (a few more posts should be good) and invite your players to read it. After reading your initial concern and all the comments - have the players tell you which bell rung most loudly for them.

I'm sure you'll learn quite a lot about what type of players they are, what they consider fun, and what they would like to do in a D&D game. It never hurts to ask your players what they want out of the time they spend at the table.

[Maglubiyet]

Just tell your players to get off their barstools and do stuff.

No, MAKE THEM get off their barstools through the action going on around them!

[Crake]

Honestly, open world games require a certain kind of player. These players are self motivated, and make characters with goals and aspirations that they are looking to achieve. These players see their characters as another person in the game world, and don't expect the world to come to them, but instead make it their own, by actively persuing what they want. On the other hand, there are more traditional players who have flat backstories, characters with no personal motivations or drive and expect the game to just happen, and are just looking for a fun time with friends.

Now obviously these are some stereotypical extremes, and I'm not saying either one is the right or wrong way to play dnd, but open world games are not for everyone. In my most recent game, which happened to be an entirely player driven open world game with no central "plot" there were 2 players that basically fit both stereotypes to a degree. The active player was constantly looking for things to do, reasons to play, and as such had a much more fulfilling experience with it, going from a foreign barbarian learning the ropes of magic from a sleezy old wizard to, upon meeting one of the 3 immortals in the city (which she was unaware of for a long time), joined the adventuring guild he was in, and eventually became the face of the guild when the previous one retired, all while behind the scenes becoming a more and more powerful mage, summoning and dealing with demons and devils, became the favoured one of the most powerful fiends in my game, falling in love with the immortal, and using a spell to become immortal themself, and having a VERY complicated relationship along the way (no thanks to fiendish influence). All the while, continuing to interact with the game world, participating in the festive events, the guild held an annual "paintball" game that spanned an entire city district, buying thoughtful presents for guild members for midwinter, working with the guild alchemist/engineer to design a modern sniper rifle and revolvers, which she used as her spellslinger guns, doing things with her immortal boyfriend on my in game valentines. etc etc I could go on, there's an entire year of gameplay that happened.

On the other hand, the other player was very passive, had no aspirations of their own, only joined a guild in game for the benefit of NPCs that he could get to join him on adventures he couldn't complete on his own, never persued any love interests (despite "finding love" being the closest thing he had to any character goal) and interacted poorly with NPCs, resulting in his character being generally disliked and seen as something of a third wheel. Out of character, he always complained that the other player was "driving the racecar", but when given the steering wheel so to speak, the only things he did was go out hunting for magic item crafting reagents (I had players hunt for appropriate things for their item crafting rather than just being able to find it around town due to low magic). Eventually I introduced a plot to appease the player, since he wanted something to do, but couldn't come up with anything himself, but the game fell apart when the player lost most of his magic items to a living disjunction (despite getting more than quadruple the value of loot, which was liquidatable, so not halved upon selling, of what he lost). The other player and NPCs were even willing to reimburse the player his lost gear before splitting the rest of the loot, but he was more invested in his character's numbers, that were drastically reduced by his sudden loss of items, and couldn't bear even the possibility of it happening again. So he made a meta decision to get a bunch of undisjoinable benefits, ranging from inherent bonuses to fiendish grafts, for which he sold his soul, having to perform a bunch of deplorably evil acts, and alienating everyone he knew when they eventually found out.

Anyway, that was a bit of a rant, but the point is, as I hope I made clear, not everyone handles open world games very well. Some players simply need direction, and a goal given to them by the DM, rather than one they made up themselves.

[pwcsponson]

I suppose it's important to add that my group has been playing 3.5 for over a decade now. We were teenagers who went through the whole "lets build tropey archetypal characters" phase, you know the drunken dwarf, the sniveling goblin, the dumb barbarian. We played subjectively boring and trite characters because it was fun at the time and we didn't understand anything. We went through the meta-game phase where we would build overpowered crap because we could, and the DM didn't know better. A friend and I rolled a wizard cleric duo that used Divine Meta-Magic Persistent Divine Power with Polymorph for ultimate face rolling bull**** while the rest of the party consisted of fighters. And it was fun being the ones causing a massive paradigm shift. The other players caught on and we played Tomb of Horrors to get it all out. But now we just want to tell more serious stories, and we can because we have no interest in breaking the game and frustrating the DM nor breaking the narrative that we all agree we want. And that's all 6 of us unanimously agreeing that's what we want, including the DM.

And in my opinion, it's on the players to provide enthusiasm and interest. If they don't want to do anything, why are they even playing? Do they roleplay with each other? Do they actively seek anything out? If the goal is the do nothing, then did they accomplish it? If they did then the campaign is over! Anything else is pushing them to play something they have no invested interest in. They should have something, anything to warrant their existence as a player character and not some mook npc.

I hold the strong opinion that DnD is a collaborative story-telling game. The game has rules to provide an object reference point so that it's rewarding when we build our characters to overcome obstacles. But we build our characters to play them as a sentient being with wants, needs, and limits too. The characters aren't abstract numbers, just as they aren't a free idea put on paper. The rules ground the character, and the character justifies the rules. If I didn't want my own subjective role playing experience I'd play Diablo 3 or Dark Souls. If I didn't want rules I wouldn't be playing DnD (you know, a game with rules).

I observed a group of friends who's characters wanted to own a tavern. So after an adventure or two they spent all their gold to build a tavern, and retired from adventuring. The DM allowed it because it was a reasonable request. The campaign ended because the players decided on a concrete goal, and they achieved it, whether or not it was something the DM had planned in the long run.

There's a DM style called "say yes or roll dice", and I fully support it. My analogy is that everyone playing DnD is a chef adding flavors to the pot, but the DM is the head chef who can say no to certain ingredients. But if the DM never lets the players add anything, then why are they there? To eat the dish and never have an input? Inversely if the players never add any ingredients, then it should be no surprise when they get served a bowl of basic broth - if even.


Your players should be wanting to do things, on their own initiative. We make our fun.

Edit: I should address the idea that some people are at DnD to hang out and not play DnD. Which seems silly but understandable. I had a friend join in on our sessions because he just wanted to hang out. But he had no interest in playing the game in of itself. He never learned or retained the rules, he treated every situation like a video game expecting obtuse results (I walk up to an NPC and press A, what's his dialog?). He wouldn't pay attention and would talk about other things. And he just could never act in character. The problem with that is while our group enjoyed his company because he's our friend, he was actively dragging our fun down. We were there to play a game and he wasn't. We don't hold it against him, because we wanted him to have fun too, but not at the expense of everyones fun either. It's like you invite your friend to a party and he spends the whole time not socializing and saying the party sucks and how everyone should be doing something else. And while you don't respect him less as a friend, you start wishing he would leave so everyone else could enjoy themselves. If a player isn't doing anything to contribute, then he's wasting time that could have been productive otherwise, and if you force him to play a game he doesn't want to play, then no one has fun.

[Crake]

Edit: I should address the idea that some people are at DnD to hang out and not play DnD. Which seems silly but understandable. I had a friend join in on our sessions because he just wanted to hang out. But he had no interest in playing the game in of itself. He never learned or retained the rules, he treated every situation like a video game expecting obtuse results (I walk up to an NPC and press A, what's his dialog?). He wouldn't pay attention and would talk about other things. And he just could never act in character. The problem with that is while our group enjoyed his company because he's our friend, he was actively dragging our fun down. We were there to play a game and he wasn't. We don't hold it against him, because we wanted him to have fun too, but not at the expense of everyones fun either. It's like you invite your friend to a party and he spends the whole time not socializing and saying the party sucks and how everyone should be doing something else. And while you don't respect him less as a friend, you start wishing he would leave so everyone else could enjoy themselves. If a player isn't doing anything to contribute, then he's wasting time that could have been productive otherwise, and if you force him to play a game he doesn't want to play, then no one has fun.

When I mentioned it, I was more referring to when people do it as a group, using dnd as a tool for socialising, rather than as a means to create a meaningful stories and roleplay. Not my personal preference when it comes to playing, but others enjoy it

[pwcsponson]

When I mentioned it, I was more referring to when people do it as a group, using dnd as a tool for socialising, rather than as a means to create a meaningful stories and roleplay. Not my personal preference when it comes to playing, but others enjoy it

I agree that DnD is a great tool for socializing. But if I may remark that the "it" in "others enjoy it" doesn't actually mean anything. Of course they enjoy "it", "it" is having fun with friends. People enjoy having fun with friends; it's tautological. If "DnD = Tool to Socialize" then there are a million other things that fit that bill. Drinking, bowling, video games... etc. If no one has interest in playing (because all the players are just there to chill), and it's a problem, then the solution is simply to play something else. And logically playing something else isn't a problem, because it's quite clear that the unique qualities of DnD is unimportant to them as a whole - the game is just a means to an end. But if it is a problem and they don't want to change games, then they have to step up as players and play DnD for DnD. And if there is a strong rift (such as the DM actually wanting to DM and the players don't want to play) then the friend group might even split, because neither side now has agreeable conditions of engagement. Which happens all the time and is not unique to DnD.

Which is guess brings us back to the main point. If the OP's group couldn't care less, then he needs to find out why. If they just don't care for DnD, then the OP can either drop DnD and do what his friends do or get new players. If they do care, then both they and the OP might need to step up their game and find out what they really want from the game.

[jiriku]

Many players are passive -- to get them involved, you do need to offer plot hooks and drive story into the game.
As DM you are storyteller-in-chief. Are you a boring storyteller? If you suspect the answer might be yes, then improving your storytelling skills will pay off for you.
I try to put a lot of drama in the game. The orcs are invading. The prince is leading a rebellion. Caravans from the border towns have been missing for weeks. The ancestral imperial necklace may have an ancient curse on it. The character who is completely uninterested in romance finds that every attractive, single woman is interested in him.
Sandbox games and railroad games are actually pretty similar on the surface: they absolutely must have some interesting DM-created events in them all the time. The difference between railroad and sandox is that in a sandbox, interacting with the interesting stuff isn't required -- PCs have the agency to go elsewhere and do different interesting stuff, or to interact with the DM-provided stuff in unexpected ways.

[Sam K]

1. Find out what your players enjoy doing.
2. Let them do that.
3. ?????
4. Fun! (and profit)

[Crake]

I agree that DnD is a great tool for socializing. But if I may remark that the "it" in "others enjoy it" doesn't actually mean anything. Of course they enjoy "it", "it" is having fun with friends. People enjoy having fun with friends; it's tautological. If "DnD = Tool to Socialize" then there are a million other things that fit that bill. Drinking, bowling, video games... etc. If no one has interest in playing (because all the players are just there to chill), and it's a problem, then the solution is simply to play something else. And logically playing something else isn't a problem, because it's quite clear that the unique qualities of DnD is unimportant to them as a whole - the game is just a means to an end. But if it is a problem and they don't want to change games, then they have to step up as players and play DnD for DnD. And if there is a strong rift (such as the DM actually wanting to DM and the players don't want to play) then the friend group might even split, because neither side now has agreeable conditions of engagement. Which happens all the time and is not unique to DnD.

Which is guess brings us back to the main point. If the OP's group couldn't care less, then he needs to find out why. If they just don't care for DnD, then the OP can either drop DnD and do what his friends do or get new players. If they do care, then both they and the OP might need to step up their game and find out what they really want from the game.

honestly, I feel the same way, but I've also been on the other side, where everyone just wanted to hang out, while i wanted to actually delve into the game. Eventually I just started DMing myself to satiate my craving for a deep, roleplay oriented game, and just played with my other group as a means to hang out around a table taking part in a common activity.

Edit: that's not me DMing for myself haha :smalltongue: reading it, I realised it could be interpreted that way

[Doughnut Master]

As a big fan of sandbox play myself, I concur that it's tricky.

Things that have helped me:

Before the game, I make my players come up with some of their own character hooks. What's a secret? What's a goal? What's a fear that your character has? Sometimes, I also ask what they're interested in as players, to see what I can work into plots.

As for the world, I think it's important for the world to be alive, rather than a really interesting diorama. If you have notable people and factions and conflicting interests, let the world progress, even if the PCs do nothing. Maybe their favorite bar got burned down by a local organized crime syndicate? Not a bad hook, but they also may realize that had they been a little more active in getting to know their neighborhood, they might have been able to protect their NPC friends.

Worst comes to worst, I just roll dice and make stuff happen. I find that once PCs get that little push, they have a thermodynamically violating tendency to gain inertia over time. Then the problem becomes keeping them reasonably contained, an altogether much more difficult challenge!

-DM

[atemu1234]

No, MAKE THEM get off their barstools through the action going on around them!

With a cattle prod! No, wait, that's illegal...

[danzibr]

Thanks for the comments all!

I agree that DnD is a great tool for socializing. But if I may remark that the "it" in "others enjoy it" doesn't actually mean anything. Of course they enjoy "it", "it" is having fun with friends. People enjoy having fun with friends; it's tautological. If "DnD = Tool to Socialize" then there are a million other things that fit that bill. Drinking, bowling, video games... etc. If no one has interest in playing (because all the players are just there to chill), and it's a problem, then the solution is simply to play something else. And logically playing something else isn't a problem, because it's quite clear that the unique qualities of DnD is unimportant to them as a whole - the game is just a means to an end. But if it is a problem and they don't want to change games, then they have to step up as players and play DnD for DnD. And if there is a strong rift (such as the DM actually wanting to DM and the players don't want to play) then the friend group might even split, because neither side now has agreeable conditions of engagement. Which happens all the time and is not unique to DnD.

Which is guess brings us back to the main point. If the OP's group couldn't care less, then he needs to find out why. If they just don't care for DnD, then the OP can either drop DnD and do what his friends do or get new players. If they do care, then both they and the OP might need to step up their game and find out what they really want from the game.

honestly, I feel the same way, but I've also been on the other side, where everyone just wanted to hang out, while i wanted to actually delve into the game. Eventually I just started DMing myself to satiate my craving for a deep, roleplay oriented game, and just played with my other group as a means to hang out around a table taking part in a common activity.

Edit: that's not me DMing for myself haha :smalltongue: reading it, I realised it could be interpreted that way
This is a great exchange. Enlightening.

This may be the case with my group. I love my group very much (my group consists of my mom, my dad, my brother, and my brother's wife), but not all of them are serious about D&D. Yeah... let's just leave it at that. It's more of a way to hang out (oh, and it occurs over Skype as I live ~2 hours away). When my kids get older (right now they're 4 and 2), my wife and I plan on playing with our kids.

So... maybe it's easier to just call it quits for the next however many years. I mean, do like a board game over Skype or something.

[atemu1234]

Thanks for the comments all!


This is a great exchange. Enlightening.

This may be the case with my group. I love my group very much (my group consists of my mom, my dad, my brother, and my brother's wife), but not all of them are serious about D&D. Yeah... let's just leave it at that. It's more of a way to hang out (oh, and it occurs over Skype as I live ~2 hours away). When my kids get older (right now they're 4 and 2), my wife and I plan on playing with our kids.

So... maybe it's easier to just call it quits for the next however many years. I mean, do like a board game over Skype or something.

Wow. I feel like this game is turning into a familial tradition more and more.

What happened to the good old days when parents thought it taught you to cast satan and summon spells (something like that)?

[danzibr]

Wow. I feel like this game is turning into a familial tradition more and more.

What happened to the good old days when parents thought it taught you to cast satan and summon spells (something like that)?
Haha, uhh... can't talk about religions on here.

But no really, my parents let us play games since we were kids, starting with the good ol' Atari 2600.

[Naez]

Give them some sort of time limit. A good one I used recently is they were cursed while delving a tomb for some archaeologist. If they didn't figure it out in time and go get the thing to uncurse themselves, they all died. Of course the higher the level the campaign the easier it is for them to just shrug it off unless you DM fiat.

[Crake]

Give them some sort of time limit. A good one I used recently is they were cursed while delving a tomb for some archaeologist. If they didn't figure it out in time and go get the thing to uncurse themselves, they all died. Of course the higher the level the campaign the easier it is for them to just shrug it off unless you DM fiat.

I feel like this belongs in the sleeping in dungeons thread?

Anyway, Danzibr, honestly you could get the kind of game you seem to crave with three, two, or hell, even 1 player. Some of the deepest roleplay I've done has occured with very low player count, as the players and DM get much closer to one another during the course of the game. Plus, group mentality tends to kill RP I find. So if you can cherry pick the most enthusiastic of the players, and run little solo side sessions or the like (either parallel stories with different characters, or with the same characters during downtime). You could even run a more traditional dungeon crawling game with your main group, and then in between adventures, run a little open world game for those players which you can then use to determine where, what and why the next adventure will be run for the group as a whole.

Don't give up! :smallsmile:

[danzibr]

I feel like this belongs in the sleeping in dungeons thread?

Anyway, Danzibr, honestly you could get the kind of game you seem to crave with three, two, or hell, even 1 player. Some of the deepest roleplay I've done has occured with very low player count, as the players and DM get much closer to one another during the course of the game. Plus, group mentality tends to kill RP I find. So if you can cherry pick the most enthusiastic of the players, and run little solo side sessions or the like (either parallel stories with different characters, or with the same characters during downtime). You could even run a more traditional dungeon crawling game with your main group, and then in between adventures, run a little open world game for those players which you can then use to determine where, what and why the next adventure will be run for the group as a whole.

Don't give up! :smallsmile:
Haha, thanks for the encouragement :)

And suggestions! Yeah, I think I won't give up. I mean, worst-case scenario is I'll put it on hold for ~5 years then play with my kids. But... doing an undead apocalypse Pathfinder gestalt E6 campaign over the summer sounds like too much potential to waste.

[TheIronGolem]

For example, a druid with no knowledge of what city life is like may see a statute of a human with an eagle head, ox legs, and bear arms that is a god of that realm or some great mythical creature of legend for that town.

To the druid tho you would describe a statue that is an abomination of nature, with animal parts sewn on and its body deformed, as well as some sort of cult worshiping this thing.

Bad advice. Don't tell a player how their character feels about what they see. That's their decision.

[Lord of Shadows]

I have both DM'd and played with a group where one player has a tendency to disagree with how things are going. This player has done things such as having their character go to the back of the party (when their character was the only one trained in trap detection) and staying in town while the rest of the group goes to investigate or confront something dangerous (when their character was the healer). The other players (usually) grudgingly carry on, and this player then sits and fiddles with a hand-held device and wears earbuds. Sometimes, however, this results in that player holding the game hostage until they get what they want, so all the characters sit around a tavern table twiddling their thumbs. It's hard to tell at those times what is being said "in-character" and what is not. Nothing "in-game" affects this practice - x.p. penalty, loss of treasure share, etc. Out of game, this player is "involved" with another player, so everyone "makes allowances" for fear that if one is excluded, the group will lose two, which might mean the end of the group. This is an intelligent player, and it wouldn't be quite so bad, except that they have some.... "unusual" ideas about how RPG's are supposed to be played.
.