Players 'checking out'

[ad_hoc]

Are people okay with players who 'check out' or aren't engaged during play?

I expect everyone at the table to be engaged during play (all of it).

The sort of player who only pays attention when it is their turn is the same sort who just waits for the chance to talk during a conversation without actually listening. I don't want to hang out with either.

I expect everyone at the table to listen to whoever is talking and thinking about what they can do next that will enhance everyone's enjoyment.

The quickest way for a game to die in my experience is for there to be selfish people at the table taking up space figuratively and literally.

I have no tolerance for that sort of thing anymore (if it is their regular attitude. If they're just having a bad day or whatever that's fine).

Are people really both okay with this sort of thing and expect it/find it common in their games?

[Townopolis]

I expect and am okay with people checking out when they're not in a scene at all. If the scouts are scouting, the rest of the party gets to take a break from thinking about their next moves and how they're going to overcome challenges for a few minutes. Same when the faces are negotiating with someone, the scholars are researching, the top muscle is dueling, etc.

Both as a player and a DM, I see these times as an opportunity for the "benched" players to decompress, and I consider them particularly valuable when the party has been running through some high-stakes situations but still has stuff to do.

The price is that whomever was doing stuff must gets to recap the situation IC to the rest of the party, which I'm perfectly fine paying.

In the thread this topic is splitting off from, some very good points were made about making non-combat challenges larger than a single scene--having them encompass exploration and negotiation elements both and having them take place over larger stretches of time with flashbacks and cuts as needed. I'm absolutely behind this; it makes better challenges. I also need to just lean back and space out every now and then, and scenes where your character isn't there are, imo, a valid place to do so.

[JonBeowulf]

For starters, you are always welcome at my table.

I don't necessarily expect everyone to be fully engaged, but I expect everyone to be at least halfway paying attention.

I don't mind if some of the players are only half-listening while the spotlight is on someone else. Don't know anything about magic? Then I don't expect you to pay that much attention while the group's "arcane specialist" takes care of it. Got no prof's in social skills to go along with that crappy CHA score? I don't expect you to be active while the bard, sorcerer, and/or paladin talk to <whoever>. You certainly can be (and it'll probably lead to some fun RP) but it's not expected.

Having said that, I don't expect you to be present during the entire thing and then ask, "what happened?"

I expect full attention during combat. I've got a concrete rule in my Session 0 notes:

You have 30 seconds to tell me what your character is doing or it stays where it is and takes the dodge action.
Some players immediately don't like it, but they see the reason for it after a couple of sessions.

[Kane0]

Are people okay with players who 'check out' or aren't engaged during play?

Yeah. One of my players is actually quite a good sketcher so its always fun to see what he doodles. I suspect that he deliberately made a basic ass champion so he could spend more time drawing.

If people want to entertain themselves while they are sharing the spotlight with someone else thats fine by me as long as it isnt disruptive to the others. I want to have fun too after all, and I trust my players to be adult enough to tell me when there is a problem.

Edit: also, one of me keeping 3-6 other people at the table fully engaged and entertained for multiple hours straight sounds like a sisyphean challenge. As long as theyre still sort of paying attention and we dont need to retread info all is well.

[Carlobrand]

I will freely confess that when I was a young man pulling double-shifts to earn for my family, I would go to games and not infrequently fall asleep at the table, and my fellow gamers would let me sleep until some situation came up where they needed me - usually combat. Then they'd wake me and I'd pitch in. I was a pretty good tactical combat player, and I was generally playing some sort of fighter, so most of the actual interactions were handled by the high intelligence and high charisma characters, of which I was neither, so it tended to work out.

[Lunali]

You have 30 seconds to tell me what your character is doing or it stays where it is and takes the dodge action.

We use a similar rule, though it's modified a bit. You have 30 second to start to tell what you're doing or start asking questions that can't be related to you not paying attention. The first part is because sometimes it takes longer than 30 seconds to say and roll for everything in your turn and I'm pedantic. The second part is because we have newer players in the group who often have questions about their abilities or combat rules.

[Cheesegear]

Are people okay with players who 'check out' or aren't engaged during play?

In my experience, a lot of players play the game because a big part of it is the social aspect of D&D. You get to sit around with your friends for a few hours a week and play a game.

Sometimes, the game isn't very interesting:
DMs aren't perfect - sometimes the scene sucks.
Players aren't perfect - sometimes they don't know what to do in a scene, so they opt to do nothing and wait for another player to take the lead.

The session has faltered. Someone doesn't care anymore.

You can't make them care.
You can't make them participate.
You can't make their character's decisions for them.

All's you can do is try and keep telling the story, keep engaging the other players, and hopefully they come back into the game in 15-30 minutes when you get to the next scene or scenario.

And you know what, if someone is having a ****ty day, if someone does have more important things on their mind to be worrying about, then maybe, just maybe, hanging out with their friends is something that they should be doing. I would rather that person hang out with us, on their phone, and at least hear some jokes and tell some stories - even sporadically - than spend the night at home in the dark.

People...For lack of a better term, are human. They're just not going to pay attention, all the time, especially when they're not involved and/or not interested. Especially when they're adults with lives. Sometimes, just sometimes, a game of make pretend with dice and some toy soldiers maybe just isn't going to be a thing they particularly care about that day. But they still showed up because they're expected to show up because they said they would.

If they didn't care about the game at all, then they wouldn't even show up. They'd ghost. They'd cancel 30 mins. before the session. Someone who shows up, actually gives a ****, even if they don't participate. If they care enough to show up, then I care enough for them to be at the table, and I care enough to re-engage them if I can. If I fail to re-engage them, they'll stop showing up of their own accord.

[Theodoxus]

Are people okay with players who 'check out' or aren't engaged during play?

I am. Though it is with the unmentioned social contract that they won't be disruptive to the game while doing so. If two or more players are 'out of a scene' and want to talk, that's fine - move out of the table area to do so and it's all good. I'll ask them to move away if they don't do it on their own.


I expect and am okay with people checking out when they're not in a scene at all. If the scouts are scouting, the rest of the party gets to take a break from thinking about their next moves and how they're going to overcome challenges for a few minutes. Same when the faces are negotiating with someone, the scholars are researching, the top muscle is dueling, etc.

I honestly prefer this over one of my pet peeves: players who butt in on plans/extrapolation/exposition when their characters aren't "in the room". Don't give hints or ask questions for other players to hone in on if your character isn't actively present. Go 'tune out' and stop making me put you in time out!


Also, one of me keeping 3-6 other people at the table fully engaged and entertained for multiple hours straight sounds like a sisyphean challenge. As long as they're still sort of paying attention and we don't need to retread info all is well.

Honestly, I don't mind if another player does a micro re-cap for someone who checked out for a scene. <I> don't want to rehash it though; on the plus side, it does allow me to see if the players are picking up what I'm putting down - and if there is a misunderstanding, it's a great time to circle back to "what I meant was..."

[Hytheter]

I'm fine with people being less attentive during moments that don't involve them. Party splits are an obvious example. I don't think they should tune out entirely, but if you aren't involved in the game I don't expect you to give it 100% of your attention.

Combat is not one of those times, and checking out during combat is unacceptable. I don't care if it's not your turn. You could be attacked at any moment. You might require a save. Someone might provoke an opportunity attack or otherwise allow you a reaction (example: Order Cleric). You could be healed, buffed, or otherwise affected in all kinds of ways. And of course, the game state is constantly evolving in ways that you are expected to be aware of. It might not be your turn but you are always involved, you are always playing, and I expect you to pay attention for the whole thing.

[Tanarii]

I don't allow electronic devices at the table, because they encourage checking out. But I also run very fast paced combat by the standards of these boards. Generally speaking, checking out when it's not your turn isn't the best idea unless the DM allows you to take all the time you want to catch up on the current situation when your turn begins and make a decision on what to do.

[Garresh]

As long as they're not disruptive, I don't care. I'm an introvert who gets overstimulated easily. I have a pretty good reputation as a dm(never had anyone leave unless they had to move), but I know not every scene will speak to everyone. If I'm educating the hardcore roleplayer cleric on the history of their church(because they're actually interested not cause I'm gonna force exposition), I don't expect the greedy rogue to be balls deep. Some players just wanna play a combat beatstick too. If they're not disruptive I don't have issue with it. As long as people aren't trampling on others fun, it's all good.

[Cheesegear]

I don't allow electronic devices at the table, because they encourage checking out.

Several of my players use D&D Beyond, which means that phones and tablets are unfortunately a fact of life.


But I also run very fast paced combat by the standards of these boards.

I've never had players check out during combat - not that I've observed, anyway. My players only ever check out during roleplaying and story-heavy scenes.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, if you've got an encounter where a few characters are doing all the heavy lifting, which can be common during an social interaction with NPCs or some kinds of exploration, it's much easier for those not engaged to check out.

Personally I'm not a fan of extended solo or duo 'scenes', especially ones where it's just about generic NPC interaction as opposed to an actual encounter with decision points. But for some tables that kind of thing is their bread and butter. That's when you start having to think about things like spotlight sharing and if checking out when it's not your "turn" matters.

[Glorthindel]

Combat is not one of those times, and checking out during combat is unacceptable. I don't care if it's not your turn. You could be attacked at any moment. You might require a save. Someone might provoke an opportunity attack or otherwise allow you a reaction (example: Order Cleric). You could be healed, buffed, or otherwise affected in all kinds of ways. And of course, the game state is constantly evolving in ways that you are expected to be aware of. It might not be your turn but you are always involved, you are always playing, and I expect you to pay attention for the whole thing.

Combat is a tricky one. You are right - in an ideal world where the players keep focus. However, if some players are ditherers, and the DM is not keeping a tight reign on proceedings it can be the most unquestionably dull moment of the night.

For example, I was in a game last night where two of the four players were ditherers. One was a spellcaster (who kept changing his mind and reconsulting the PHB on his turn), and one who just had to talk through every element of his turn and second guess every decision (which was proposterous, we were fighting in a large open room, and he was a ranged character, just pick your target and shoot for ****s sake). And the DM wasn't helping, as he wasn't shutting down a lot of the delays. In contrast, each of my turns I knew what I was doing, had pre-gathered my dice, and was done in 10-20 seconds every time. Despite the best will in the world I was checking out fast.

[Hytheter]

Yeah, that's fair. I guess my point comes with the caveat that things are actually happening during the combat and it's not just stalling out because the turn player can't make a decision.

Though perhaps they'd reach decisions faster if they were paying more attention. :P

[da newt]

"I honestly prefer this over one of my pet peeves: players who butt in on plans/extrapolation/exposition when their characters aren't "in the room". Don't give hints or ask questions for other players to hone in on if your character isn't actively present. Go 'tune out' and stop making me put you in time out!"
This is one of my pet peeves as well, but in my case the opposite of Theodoxus - why can't I give suggestions to my teammate Player to Player? Why exclude me from the game when my PC isn't in scene?

I'm also fairly extroverted and believe that one of the ways that are a good teammate / you show respect for others and the game is by paying attention to the game even when the 'scene' doesn't revolve around you. How disrespectful and selfish can you be to tune out just because you're not in the spot light?

I also dislike electronics at the table for anything other than the game (or game related meming), and get those gall dern kids off my lawn!

But I also acknowledge that everyone is different - to each their own.

[Theodoxus]

Player to player, like "hey, remember when X happened, bring that up, it might help" is fine. The character probably has a better memory than the player. :smallwink:

Character to Character, like "Brometheus, ask the general why the army just stopped at the river and didn't help the citizens of Morgansville", when Brometheus is in another plane of existence, isn't.

Even worse: DM: "Brometheus, you see a a glowing sword laying on a sarcophagus. Roll Int (arcana) to determine if this is one of the set of Nan'zou". Chad, playing Brometheus rolls a 6. "Uh, 8." and then Derek, playing Menithis the Magnificent Mage, whose character is currently in a different part of the city buying supplies rolls a 14 and shouts out "I got a mod 20, is it part of the set?"

Like seriously?

[Havlock]

...one who just had to talk through every element of his turn and second guess every decision (which was proposterous, we were fighting in a large open room, and he was a ranged character, just pick your target and shoot for ****s sake).

Soooo this. This right here. I've got one of those players too and it drives me absolutely nuts. You're a one trick pony so shoot your damned xbow already. This is not something that requires deep analysis but if you really need to study the field for five minutes before making a decision, for gawd sakes study it *before* your ****ing turn comes up!

[Thunderous Mojo]

Are people okay with players who 'check out' or aren't engaged during play?

Out of curiosity ad_hoc, when was the last time you played a PC and didn't DM?

A DM is always engaged in a D&D game. Players aren't. In Zoom games, I will confess there are times when I have decided that "So and So has this" and tuned out, when I am playing a PC.

I also DM for players that have young children.
Sometimes, Players have to feed their children, or respond to a request for their attention, or a loud thud or crying from the next room.

As a DM I'm not going to tell a parent that they cannot get up and make lunch for their child when their turn is 3 turns away.

[MoiMagnus]

"It depends".
IMO, the most important is to have all the players (GM included) on the same page.

There are sessions where peoples will go take some water or whatever (so leave the room, or leave their computer screen) at the middle of a scene where they're not particularly active. In those sessions, not a lot is done in-universe, because peoples tend to crack joke or go meta (or rule-discussion) every now and then. But not everything is about the game and just being together is fun enough.

There are sessions where we really want to finish the scenario before some specific time, or we just want to progress. In those sessions, everyone understand they have to keep focus, play fast, and that the GM is trying its best to maintain player engagement and a good pacing.

[strangebloke]

Of all the problem players you could have at your table, this seems like one of the least. They show up on time consistently? They don't smell bad? They're not disruptive? They know how the system works? They aren't spotlight hogging? They don't quarterback? They bring snacks???

Man.

Saddle that unicorn before they run away. Who cares if they check out from time to time? DND isn't a religious vigil, you're allowed to take breaks. As long as they know what to do when it is their "turn" in one sense or another, I'm happy.

I'll go even further: if an otherwise good player is checking out from time to time its often a symptom of other problems at the table. Maybe they're checked out because the spotlight hog is roleplaying with his NPC girlfriend again. Maybe they're checking out because they're literally not in the room. Maybe they're checking out because the combat is a slog because the druid's turn is taking fifteen minutes.

[ad_hoc]

So, I think there is a lot of group-think going on here so I'll let you know that it is possible to have a game where everyone is engaged and listening to each other. It probably seems like the norm to you not to be but it isn't.

I get it though that it is for some. I once had a new player show up to a game with a book and he would read when it wasn't his turn to speak. It was shocking.

For many of you who think checking out is fine as long as it isn't combat I recommend trying out a game that is all combat on game night and see how well the group responds to it. Other games might be a better fit for the group.

Otherwise I encourage trying to get through an entire game where everyone is engaged. See if you can change the group norms, if only for a single night. Have everyone listen to each other and have the DM engage with everyone in each scene.

I've had my fair share of sessions where people are checked out too but I'll never play with people like that again.

[strangebloke]

So, I think there is a lot of group-think going on here so I'll let you know that it is possible to have a game where everyone is engaged and listening to each other. It probably seems like the norm to you not to be but it isn't.

I get it though that it is for some. I once had a new player show up to a game with a book and he would read when it wasn't his turn to speak. It was shocking.

For many of you who think checking out is fine as long as it isn't combat I recommend trying out a game that is all combat on game night and see how well the group responds to it. Other games might be a better fit for the group.

Otherwise I encourage trying to get through an entire game where everyone is engaged. See if you can change the group norms, if only for a single night. Have everyone listen to each other and have the DM engage with everyone in each scene.

I've had my fair share of sessions where people are checked out too but I'll never play with people like that again.

It's pretty arrogant to assert that the entire collective of DMs here simply have never experienced "True Engagement(TM)" like you.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't expect everyone to be 100% engaged with whats going on at all times, nor do I think that's particularly realistic to maintain. In practice players will lose focus writing notes, checking their abilities etc. and that's fine, checking a phone or something every now and then is whatever.

As long as it isn't apparent you're not paying attention for any reason other than looking at your sheet/looking up an ability etc. I don't mind. If it's clear that you're checked out, or playing a game (had this happen a few times) well then that's not okay and frankly a little hurtful when running takes so much time and effort.

Something I do to increase player engagement is recaps. At the beginning of the session I roll a die to decide who will recap what happened last session, I never do the recap myself. Since the players know they could be chosen to recap in front of everyone, then everyone pays attention (for the most part) even when it's not strictly about their character. Assuming the recap isn't horrifically butchered, they get an inspiration when they're done.

All the groups I've done this with take it with good spirits and it ensures a certain level of engagement, I highly recommend it.

[EggKookoo]

How do you know they're not listening?

My daughter has mild ADD. When she's in school and the teacher is talking, she'll doodle. I did the same thing when I was a kid. Back in my day (along with uphill both ways in the snow), teachers didn't know how to deal with it and I would get punished. My schooling experience suffered a lot.

I was pleased when back in 3rd grade or so, her teacher sent us a note saying she noticed that my daughter doodled and such while she (the teacher) talked, but she noticed that she still could follow the discussion and answer questions at least as effectively as the kids who "properly" paid attention. The teacher told us she understood what our daughter was doing and was okay with it as long as her academic and social skills kept up. And they did -- she's doing much better in both aspects than I ever could have. Her teacher also warned us that later teachers might not see it this way and we might need to explain the situation, but two grades later she's doing fine.

For myself, I also doodle during meetings at work. It actually helps with retention. If I don't have a "thing" to focus my ADD brain on while you're talking, it'll jump from thing to thing and thought to though and I'll stop paying attention.

My daughter plays in my D&D campaign now. She does the same thing, churning out doodle after doodle while we play. But she's always aware of what's going on, or at least needs no more reminding or prompting than the other players who don't have a fidget.

She takes after me in this regard. If I sat at your table, I would probably appear to be distracted when you're interacting directly with another player for any length of time. But I'd be following what's happening. I just wouldn't always be openly displaying it.

[Aliess]

For us it depends on the game.
3-4 hour one shot at somebody's house or a convention? Yes, I'd hope everybody is engaged and if not work to draw them back in.
Our weekly discord game? No chance. Someone will always be trying to put down kids, sort out life admin or zoning out because they got up early for work, had a terrible day and only got home five minutes ago. It's not ideal but it's the only way we're going to get a regular game in and as mentioned above half the fun is the social aspect of being in a call with friends.

[Tanarii]

Other games might be a better fit for the group.
Having run board game days many times, I can tell you that any adult board game with more than 2 players result in players checking out at some point. Every single one. Only some non-board card games seem immune to this result. (Note that multiplayer MtG is not one of them.)

This includes common and popular games like:
Risk
Axis and Allies
Descent
Dungeon!
Civilization
Airplane

For one that's more modern: Gloomhaven

The only exceptions I've seen are kids games like Fireball Island or Mouse Trap, with relatively quick turns and exciting things happening to the entire board that affect a players piece periodically.

Put up a battlemat in D&D, instead of a white board or theatre of the mind, and suddenly it becomes a real battle for a DM to prevent slow turns and checking out. If the DM doesn't make an effort, it's very likely combat will be treated like an adult board game, and checking out will occur. In the face of a board and tactical thinking while waiting for the most up to date current situation information, it's the norm, not the exception.

[Demonslayer666]

I really dislike it when another player wastes everyone's time and asks what's going on because they were not paying attention during other player's turns. It requires minimal effort to extend everyone else at the table that courtesy.

Very similar to my other pet peeve: "why are we in this dungeon again?"

[heavyfuel]

I 100% don't care if you check out while you're not in the scene.

If it's a social encounter and you don't feel like participating, at least try to pay attention. I don't want to repeat everything the NPCs just said because you are lazy.

For an exploration encounter or a "pre combat" situation, usually I want everyone brainstorming ideas and plans, even the dumbest idea can lead to a good plan.

During combat encounters, you can check out for a bit right after your turn to go take a leak or something, but try to be back before your next turn cuz otherwise I'm delaying your turn.

[Dork_Forge]

I'll add in that I also use breaks, there's one mid session break that's usually 15-25 minutes long. That allows for people to go to the bathroom, grab snacks, take care of real life stuff like kids or change the laundry etc. It also allows people a break from focusing, which I think really helps.

The break may seem long, for clarification my sessions (inc. break) are normally 4+ hours.

[pwykersotz]

I mostly agree with the ad_hoc, but with some caveats. I feel the frustration, I've experienced it too. I have no problem if real life rears it's head or if someone is just tired one day but shows up anyway. But if you are regularly just not engaged and I have to remind you constantly what is happening to the detriment of game flow for the other players, I'm going to talk to you about it, see if I can do anything to help make the game more fun for you, and see if there are any problems that need addressing. But if that fails and you don't seem willing to at least try to be more involved, then one of two things is going to happen. Either I'm not going to put any effort into your character or choices either (and I'll tell you about this directly), or you'll be asked to leave if you're not willing to be part of the shared experience.

My best friend does this. He browses memes on his phone when it's not his turn and has to have the whole scene re-explained to him every time he's called on. He is unwilling to change, so he is no longer a player in my game. His desires for a D&D game are just in a different place. He likes his single or dual player play-by-post games. It lets him take his time and engage with content at his leisure.

I think it all just comes down to expectations. If I'm running a beer and pretzels game to hang out with friends, then as long as we are all spending time together, it's cool. If I'm running a character driven adventure, I expect a little reciprocation for the effort I put in. But if someone is ignoring most of game, I'd probably rather just do something they're interested in rather than try to drag them along into my thing. And if I'm excited to play the game, I'd rather not have someone there who is dragging things down through willful inaction.

Edit: Further clarifications in this thread have shown me that I do not, in fact, mostly agree with ad_hoc. Only my preconceived idea of his position.

[Thunderous Mojo]

So, I think there is a lot of group-think going on here so I'll let you know that it is possible to have a game where everyone is engaged and listening to each other. It probably seems like the norm to you not to be but it isn't.
As a reader, my take away from this paragraph, is rather than engaging with the differing opinions expressed by others, you instead elected to lump our views together and reject them as 'group-think'.

As the writer, were you trying convey this tone?

As a DM, I am always willing to learn new methods of generating interest in Players, and keeping that interest, so I would love to read any advice you have.


I really dislike it when another player wastes everyone's time and asks what's going on because they were not paying attention during other player's turns. It requires minimal effort to extend everyone else at the table that courtesy.
I agree in principle with this, but in practice, everyone's attention is attuned differently. One can't assume that someone else's Attention operates in a similar, nor exact manner as One's own Attention.

Most people are Visual learners, very few are Auditory Learners; yet most 'Traditional' methods of DM-ing are geared towards Auditory Learners.

Some people are not Visual Learners at all.

Maps, do very little for me, in terms of conveying information, same for graphs. I'm an Auditory Learner with strong Relational Reasoning, but poor Spatial Reasoning. I'm good at Theatre of the Mind D&D.

My Spouse, is a Visual Learner, with Strong Spatial Reasoning.
Auditory Presentation is the communication method she least responds to.
My spouse dislikes TotM games...she loves maps.

For a DM's Scenario to attract and keep both mine and my wife's Attention, equally, the DM must design the Scenario and, (more importantly), the Presentation of said Scenario, in a manner that appeals directly to multiple forms of Attention.

This is time consuming; both in terms of content creation, and in play, and thus the whole session isn't ran that way.

[Sigreid]

I don't personally mind if people check out for parts of the game that don't interest them. I don't go back and rehash though. If you weren't paying attention and don't know what was going on, neither does your character.

I mean, as an example, I've personally been in games where one or more of the other characters have decided they were very interested in some random NPC that didn't attract me at all. So I let them run with it. They let me run with it when I want to go off on some random tangent as well.

[Havlock]

I don't disagree that the DM should tune their style to engage different learners .. and if someone's running a tangent then sure, let them.. and of course real life interjects from time to time... I doubt anyone takes issue with any of these.

Where I do take issue, is with a player that chronically disrespects everyone else at the table because they can't be bothered to *try* paying attention. For those players, I agree with adhoc, maybe something other than dnd is your thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are people okay with players who 'check out' or aren't engaged during play?

I expect everyone at the table to be engaged during play (all of it). How big is your play group? I have 6 to 8 PCs to manage in an on line format in one game, and 5 in another. The level of engagement varies. In person it's easier to stay engaged.


I expect everyone at the table to listen to whoever is talking and thinking about what they can do next that will enhance everyone's enjoyment. I appreciate players who do that, because that is how I play. But not everyone is me. (Which is probably a good thing).


I have no tolerance for that sort of thing anymore (if it is their regular attitude. If they're just having a bad day or whatever that's fine). If they show up and aren't into the game and all of the others are, have them assist the DM. I've done that before, it can work out very well.

Are people really both okay with this sort of thing and expect it/find it common in their games? That's such a broad question, that is complicated by the significant difference between VTT play and in person play.
Which is it that you are referring to?

Having said that, I don't expect you to be present during the entire thing and then ask, "what happened?" I expect full attention during combat. As do I, for the same reason. (I have a similar rule). And I have three players who I'll now and again interrupt with "OK, give me a decision or you dodge" lately. One of them I spoke to after the last session: "I don't need you, during combat, to go into this monologue of what your options are. I require that you consider those and update them continually as the others, and then when it's your turn, tell us what you are doing. As usual, you get two questions to ask me to determine facts before telling me what you are doing: and if you have not been paying attention, that's on you." I've been playing D&D with him since 2017. He's been better about that mostly, but I still now and again prod him "Make a decision or dodge." (And I like this guy).

One of my players is actually quite a good sketcher so its always fun to see what he doodles. I suspect that he deliberately made a basic ass champion so he could spend more time drawing. Your table is lucky. I wish we had one.

In my experience, a lot of players play the game because a big part of it is the social aspect of D&D. You get to sit around with your friends for a few hours a week and play a game. That's how it started for me in High School. Some friends I knew in math class and from the soccer team invited me to play D&D.

People...For lack of a better term, are human. Wait, do you have a citation for this? :smallbiggrin:

If they didn't care about the game at all, then they wouldn't even show up. They'd ghost. They'd cancel 30 mins. before the session. Someone who shows up, actually gives a ****, even if they don't participate. True in most cases in my experience, with a couple of notable exceptions. ONe of them I turned into an assistant DM. (She ended up being a bit more than that for a while after a few sessions ... man, that's over 3 decades ago).

if some players are ditherers, and the DM is not keeping a tight reign on proceedings Hence my table rule during combat. Out of combat I don't keep that kind of pressure on.

For example, I was in a game last night where two of the four players were ditherers. One was a spellcaster (who kept changing his mind and reconsulting the PHB on his turn), and one who just had to talk through every element of his turn and second guess every decision (which was proposterous, we were fighting in a large open room, and he was a ranged character, just pick your target and shoot for ****s sake). Those kinds of people end up getting "Make a decision, please" from me as a fellow player if it is during combat.

Of all the problem players you could have at your table, this seems like one of the least.
They show up on time consistently?
They don't smell bad?
They're not disruptive?
They know how the system works?
They aren't spotlight hogging?
They don't quarterback?
They bring snacks??? nice points, but someone who drags combat to a crawl is being disruptive. Well, that's my take.

Maybe they're checking out because the combat is a slog because the druid's turn is taking fifteen minutes. DM and druid need to work on that if he's a summoner. Last night, we hd 6 berserkers running around due to a horn of Valhalla; the player who summoned them was exposed as being awful and managing a small team. We ground through it but that sure slowed things down. A couple of the other players pitched in to share the burden of running the added allies ... and I was grateful, as the DM. :smallsmile:

I'll let you know that it is possible to have a game where everyone is engaged and listening to each other. A lot of my games in high school and college were like that. This was back when dirt was new and electricity was recent. :smallbiggrin:

I once had a new player show up to a game with a book and he would read when it wasn't his turn to speak. It was shocking. Time for a little tête-à-tête with this player.

Otherwise I encourage trying to get through an entire game where everyone is engaged. See if you can change the group norms, if only for a single night. Have everyone listen to each other and have the DM engage with everyone in each scene. I find that this is easier to do in person; on line play makes this impossible to police effectively.

It's pretty arrogant to assert that the entire collective of DMs here simply have never experienced "True Engagement(TM)" like you. I tried not to laugh. I failed. :smallcool:

Our weekly discord game? No chance. Someone will always be trying to put down kids, sort out life admin or zoning out because they got up early for work, had a terrible day and only got home five minutes ago. It's not ideal but it's the only way we're going to get a regular game in and as mentioned above half the fun is the social aspect of being in a call with friends. Yep. On line play gets interrupted by my wife a lot, and if only she liked to play D&D ... but she doesn't.

I really dislike it when another player wastes everyone's time and asks what's going on because they were not paying attention during other player's turns. It requires minimal effort to extend everyone else at the table that courtesy. As a DM and player I find a way to have a discussion with these people.
Very similar to my other pet peeve: "why are we in this dungeon again?" Best answer to that is: "To feed you to the dragon. That's why the game is called Dungeons and Dragons" :smallbiggrin: That helps to see if they are paying attention.

[strangebloke]

nice points, but someone who drags combat to a crawl is being disruptive. Well, that's my take.

For sure, I just don't necessarily think that a player who's "checking out" occasionally is more likely to be guilty of this. I've had players who nominally payed attention, but weren't aware of their options and hadn't really planned ahead. My player who's most guilty of checking out is also one of my most tactically sound players, and he's able to make a decision very quickly most of the time.

Basically its something that can compound other issues and is slightly annoying in and of itself, but all things considered its not the worst.

One of the problems here is that there's probably significant disagreement about what "engaged" means. I've had players who were clearly playing games in the background during social encounters (online game) but were still paying enough attention to follow the flow of discussion and jump in when they had something to say. Conversely I've also had players who just sort of... never seemed to remember anything important.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Where I do take issue, is with a player that chronically disrespects everyone else at the table because they can't be bothered to *try* paying attention. For those players, I agree with adhoc, maybe something other than dnd is your thing.
My experience has been, if someone wants to play D&D, but cannot seem to pay attention, then usually some neurodivergence is involved, and allowances should be made.

Or they are drunk...in which case allowances should be made.🃏

If someone chronically can't seem to pay attention and they lack enthusiasm, then it is quite possible they don't actually want to play. In which case, they shouldn't be playing.

The scatterbrained, enthusiastic player can be lovable.
The uninterested, comatose body of someone's Significant Other that would rather be doing anything other than play D&D...yeah they should be set free.🃏

[KorvinStarmast]

One of the problems here is that there's probably significant disagreement about what "engaged" means. We have an accord. :smallsmile:
(But I wanted a Corvette)

[Tanarii]

Most people are Visual learners, very few are Auditory Learners; yet most 'Traditional' methods of DM-ing are geared towards Auditory Learners.

Some people are not Visual Learners at all.

The core assumptions of this commonly held educational theory have been fairly thoroughly disproven. Almost everyone learns through multiple mediums, and the outliers for any one individual are nowhere near as strong as the theory holds.

[strangebloke]

The uninterested, comatose body of someone's Significant Other that would rather be doing anything other than play D&D...yeah they should be set free.🃏

This is why (to my shame) I actually had a "no girls" rule at my table in college. There was a string of like 4-5 girlfriends who insisted they wanted to play with the guys, but had no real interest in anything other than the social element, which became very disruptive at points. Obviously the actual problem was the 'signficant other' part rather than the 'girl' part, and I've since learned to be smarter about this sort of thing. Most of my players these days are female, and most of them are really really good!

[Keravath]

I think Cheesegear did a great job of covering many of the reasons why folks are not paying attention 100% of the time. Sometimes the player isn't into it, sometimes the scene doesn't involve them, sometimes the DM isn't making it interesting enough or the player just finds the particular interaction boring. It is generally not their fault.

There are other reasons. When I am playing, I find that I have to tune out a bit from time to time or I tend to dominate the play. My characters always have ideas on what to do, what action to take, but it isn't a party of one. I've found that if I am talking, much of the time the others appear content to go along for the ride but if I don't say anything, it takes some encouragement, but some of the others in the group will jump in. So, I specifically try to avoid jumping in and also encourage others to contribute their ideas and one of the better ways to do that is to appear pay a bit less attention when not playing a primary role in the scene.

In addition some folks are just quieter than others. If they don't feel like jumping in to be heard over your noisy players then they sometimes tune out because it isn't worth the effort for them to make themselves heard. So from a DM perspective, it is important to try to engage every one of your players, even the quieter ones. Don't let the noisy ones constantly dominate the play.

[Garresh]

I'll go even further: if an otherwise good player is checking out from time to time its often a symptom of other problems at the table.

I really don't agree at all. It's a mentally taxing game. Introverts, people with adhd, or just people who get overstimulated will check out. I do it as a player too, but keep one ear in the game still. It's not an insult or disruptive. I feel like if a DM expects perfect attention at all times they probably need an ego check. Nothing will drive your players away like forcing something. If you just tell your story and engage with people when they show interest, they WILL get sucked in. It's like skyrim. People do everything they can to ignore the quest but then suddenly get sucked completely in. Extreme example, but if they're not disruptive who cares?


This is why (to my shame) I actually had a "no girls" rule at my table in college. There was a string of like 4-5 girlfriends who insisted they wanted to play with the guys, but had no real interest in anything other than the social element, which became very disruptive at points. Obviously the actual problem was the 'signficant other' part rather than the 'girl' part, and I've since learned to be smarter about this sort of thing. Most of my players these days are female, and most of them are really really good!

That's funny. I always have better experiences with women at my games. They're usually more invested in roleplaying than guys. Though I've had some who remember all the noncombat stuff but forget the combat stuff. Actually the most skilled player I had was a girl. She actually was new, read most of the phb, and immediately applied it in super creative ways. Was honestly awesome to watch.

I think the SO thing can be a problem, but maybe it's my age/social circles but most SOs of geeks tend to have overlapping interests. I've had some who were less invested but never to the point of being a problem.

inb4 cries of misogyny(It kinda was though, but that's okay. mistakes happen)

[Xervous]

We have an accord. :smallsmile:
(But I wanted a Corvette)

About the guys you hired to paint the porch(e) out front...


Reading in class, doodling in class, past a point being asked to sit and stare at a performance that demands an ounce of your gray matter can feel like you’re the one servicing the performer. Focusing on other things has been defined as a rude act in school and other settings. I’m not going to fault players for glancing elsewhere during the graduation ceremony so long as they picked up the few relevant details to follow at the coming party.

I read the better part of a Malazan book during my college graduation, made it up to the stage without a fuss and all the accompanying jazz. Back patting speeches, hollow monologues of canned optimism, and a multimillionaire speaker who had attended the college and graduated on a specific clause to get around his 2.2 GPA.

I’d draw comparisons for unflinching audiences, but I wouldn’t get past game shows with studio audiences since military parades are goose stepping towards politics.

In closing. Is the appearance of not paying attention undesired, or is it just not paying attention that is undesired?

[Dork_Forge]

In closing. Is the appearance of not paying attention undesired, or is it just not paying attention that is undesired?

Both to some degree, if I can hear you playing a game in the background that's undesirable. If you're not going to pay attention you should do so in the least disruptive manner possible.

If you have to ask a question because you weren't paying attention, that's not okay. It eats time and frustrates other people, particularly the DM.

If you can not pay attention whilst still following along and not being disruptive or distracting then that's ideal.

My partner and I suspect that I have some degree of undiagnosed ADD, I find it very hard to focus on a single thing for a longer period of time. Using hand fidgets like spinners, infinity cubes or playing with my pocket knife do wonders (I wish I could draw). Likewise I may refresh this or another forum whilst playing. The key thing is that I'm always aware of what's going on and I either choose to do something that can't be heard or mute when not speaking (entirely play and run online).

[SirDidymus]

It might not fly in all games, it's something OP talked about in the thread that spawned this, but there have been times I checked out in character. I was playing an impatient barbarian and discussions lasted longer than he was comfortable with. He stopped paying attention so I did too. I was 100% okay about missing some details and wouldn't have expected a recap. Granted, this was AL, so things were a little more linear than other games I've been in. Missing details wasn't really a big deal.

[Theodoxus]

I don't personally mind if people check out for parts of the game that don't interest them. I don't go back and rehash though. If you weren't paying attention and don't know what was going on, neither does your character.

Exactly. If they're bummed they missed something, or worse, have FOMO, then it's just incentive to pay more attention next time - and maybe ask your buddy (quietly) what you missed.


It might not fly in all games, it's something OP talked about in the thread that spawned this, but there have been times I checked out in character. I was playing an impatient barbarian and discussions lasted longer than he was comfortable with. He stopped paying attention so I did too. I was 100% okay about missing some details and wouldn't have expected a recap. Granted, this was AL, so things were a little more linear than other games I've been in. Missing details wasn't really a big deal.

I've purposefully made characters like that. MY most egregious was a half-orc barbarian who had zero patience. If negotiations weren't going anywhere after a 30 second conversation, he'd make a ruckus. If it was in a tavern, he'd start a fight, if it was in a shop, he'd make a mess.... of course the DM had total buy-in, and the other players quickly picked up on his habit of getting bored and destructive. If there was going to be a tense negotiation, the party Wizard would have his pet owl taunt me. I'd play squash the owl outside while they talked. The Wizard wasn't even mad the few times I 'won' and he had to go spend 25gp on materials to resummon it.

But anytime I check out like that, I find it far more fascinating and enjoyable to try to suss out what I missed through current discussions - for me, my character never gives a rat's ass. Lead him by the nose all day long, as long as he gets to kill something - goblins, giants, dragons, owls... he's happy.

[False God]

The first thing I learned about this is what what I think of as "checking out" isn't necessarily a person checking out. The fact that a player's eyes are not glued to the table or boring holes in the forehead of whoever is speaking doesn't necessarily mean that person is checking out.

I'm personally something of a multitasker, if I can be doing multiple things, especially things with my hands, I can actually pay better attention. This is why I often host and cook for my games. I actually listen better and remember better while I am also cooking. Puzzles and fidget devices (quiet non-clickly ones) are also acceptable, but not as good as full-body doing.

BUT, I do expect people to be ready to go on their turn. I can live with "What I see may not be the full story." but I do expect that when an NPC addresses your character, or the DM declares someone is attacking you, or your ally is doing some healing/buffing/AOE stuff that might affect you and you could choose to have a response, you should be able to react, if at least to say "Nah I'll take the hit." or "No, I ignore the guy attempting to chat me up."

I will also not repeat myself (within reason), nor do I expect other people to repeat themselves, nor is the guy taking notes your personal homework buddy, they're taking notes because they want to and that may be a result of you being too lazy, but their notes don't exist for your benefit.

Being "checked out in character" is fine. The player clearly has no interest in this portion of the game, and neither does their character. Totally fine with that. It IMO, adds to party role protection. People enjoy different parts of the game, nothing wrong with that. Though I may personally as the DM take some extra steps to ensure they're enjoying the game as a whole, even if the "talking to the nobles" bit wasn't their thing.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The core assumptions of this commonly held educational theory have been fairly thoroughly disproven. Almost everyone learns through multiple mediums, and the outliers for any one individual are nowhere near as strong as the theory holds.

Who said anything about solely learning through a single medium...I didn't. I do agree that stating that people learn only through a single modality is apparently disproven.

People do have personal preferences though.

The current state of research shows that presenting material in multiple ways is the best way to enhance retention. Capturing Attention is about novelty and surprise, research indicates.

Ultimately, a DM needs to provide the same information through multiple modalities of communication, while adding some element of novelty or surprise to rope people in.

Which, is a lot of work, and typically the whole session isn't designed that way.

[Sigreid]

So having thought about it, I think the best way to articulate my overall position is that the group is composed of different people. Different people are going to find different activities in game more or less interesting. When I'm the DM, I try to give elements that are keyed to the interests of each party member, which by necessity means that some of the other players aren't going to be interested in it. If, in those instances they are willing to sit quietly and not disrupt the interested group members following their interest, that's fair. I'd rather that then cut out the parts that x person likes because y person isn't into it.

[Tanarii]

The current state of research shows that presenting material in multiple ways is the best way to enhance retention. Capturing Attention is about novelty and surprise, research indicates.
Presenting them in different ways works because learning styles are a neuromyth, and multiple ways of getting information creates extra connections between information stored. Basically, it's exactly because using individual learning styles don't have any special enhanced effect on learning.

No idea on novelty and surprise though. Certainly capturing attention requires some kind of special something. Otherwise people wouldn't check out. On the other hand, "that makes sense" is how myths arise, so I probably shouldn't use that as my basis for assessing it. :smallamused:

[EggKookoo]

No idea on novelty and surprise though. Certainly capturing attention requires some kind of special something. Otherwise people wouldn't check out. On the other hand, "that makes sense" is how myths arise, so I probably shouldn't use that as my basis for assessing it. :smallamused:

Hm, passes the sniff test...

[Cheesegear]

The core assumptions of this commonly held educational theory have been fairly thoroughly disproven. Almost everyone learns through multiple mediums, and the outliers for any one individual are nowhere near as strong as the theory holds.

The problem is that those who show an affinity for a particular learning style, actually prove that they are deficient in learning in other ways (e.g; as per autism or ADHD). That's actually a bad thing.

Saying 'I'm a visual learner', is not a thing. Because humans have eyes, and eyes are designed to receive information.
Saying 'I'm an auditory learner', is also not a thing. Because humans have ears, and ears are designed to receive information.
Saying 'I have emotional intelligence', is also not a thing. Because humans have sympathy and empathy.

Those who don't have those things are classed as having physical and mental disorders and illnesses. When you say 'I'm a visual learner,' Well yes. If you weren't, that would be weird. Because you're a human, and all humans are visual and auditory learners, because that's how senses, work.

But yes, the more senses you can fire off, and the more you can tie information to emotion and experience, the better people remember information. That's why similes and metaphors work so well, because you tie a complex idea to a similar idea that the person has already experienced before. That's why people watch TV and movies with the subtitles on, even when they speak the language. When you can hear and see the dialogue, you can understand it better than simply one or the other, alone.

Two people can say something identical; But if you are indifferent to them as a person, and you like someone else. You'll remember what the person you like, said. This is how things get memory hole'd. You were definitely told a thing. You might be able to remember it if you're reminded about it. But you wont be able to recall it off the top of your head because your brain isn't connecting it to anything else. Chewing gum whilst studying, helps you remember something when you chew gum again. Unfortunately chewing gum is banned in exams, so that's not actually helpful in current year, because most (all?) Universities don't even let you do that anymore. It's also why acronyms and mnemonics actually work. The more connections you can form to a single idea, solidifies the idea in your brain.

And that's why I like battle maps and miniatures.
I can describe the scene. I can present information. But I also throw down miniatures. That way when I describe something in detail, the players have a diagram to help them, rather than trying to just theatre of the mind it. You can do theatre of the mind. But that just means that everyone is going to have a different idea of what's going on. And the more information you throw at the players at once:

Four Kobolds, two Winged Kobolds, two Dragonborn Cultists, and a Dragonborn Veteran. The Winged Kobolds are flying 30 ft. up, the Dragonborn are 20 ft. behind the Kobolds which are 30 ft. in front of you. Each creature is spaced 10 ft. from any other creature. Go. I have set the scene. I told you what's happening.

But, that's going to get real complicated in less than two rounds because of the bombardment of complex information and changing circumstances. You have to have a diagram. Not because people are 'visual learners'. But because processing the amount of changing information in real time is simply too hard for most people...Although, some people can do it, and those people are going to be really good at everything they do, not just D&D.

And that brings us back to checking out during gameplay (oof, about time). Roleplaying is hard. Roleplaying is complicated. Especially for nerds with bad social skills who lack empathy and sympathy for other people which means they can't roleplay anyone except themselves. If they, themselves would stand in a corner of a bar and talk to no-one on a Friday night, then that's what their character would do, too, because they can't think of anything else to do. Because they, themselves, as humans, lack intelligence, charisma and insight to start conversation with a real person, let alone a fictional one:

'I don't know what to say. So I will say nothing. Someone else have a turn.' *Gets on phone*
...Yeah. I know you don't know what to say. I know you would say nothing. But what does your character say?

[ad_hoc]

Having run board game days many times, I can tell you that any adult board game with more than 2 players result in players checking out at some point. Every single one. Only some non-board card games seem immune to this result. (Note that multiplayer MtG is not one of them.)

This includes common and popular games like:
Risk
Axis and Allies
Descent
Dungeon!
Civilization
Airplane

For one that's more modern: Gloomhaven

The only exceptions I've seen are kids games like Fireball Island or Mouse Trap, with relatively quick turns and exciting things happening to the entire board that affect a players piece periodically.

Put up a battlemat in D&D, instead of a white board or theatre of the mind, and suddenly it becomes a real battle for a DM to prevent slow turns and checking out. If the DM doesn't make an effort, it's very likely combat will be treated like an adult board game, and checking out will occur. In the face of a board and tactical thinking while waiting for the most up to date current situation information, it's the norm, not the exception.

I've been active in board game communities for many years. I've played a ton of hobby games.

First thing I'll say is that the games you listed I would check out in too because I think they're all terrible.

Second thing is that I've played a ton of games where everyone was engaged in the game. It's the mark of a good game. That said, unless social interaction is a main mechanic of the game it's less of a problem in a strategy board game as long as they're taking their turns at a reasonable rate and playing reasonably well. D&D is a cooperative storytelling game. If people check out then what is it you're actually doing?


I really don't agree at all. It's a mentally taxing game. Introverts, people with adhd, or just people who get overstimulated will check out. I do it as a player too, but keep one ear in the game still. It's not an insult or disruptive. I feel like if a DM expects perfect attention at all times they probably need an ego check. Nothing will drive your players away like forcing something. If you just tell your story and engage with people when they show interest, they WILL get sucked in. It's like skyrim. People do everything they can to ignore the quest but then suddenly get sucked completely in. Extreme example, but if they're not disruptive who cares?


It's not my job to suck people in.

I think this is part of the issue people are having here. Thinking of it as though the DM's job is to entertain people. Everyone's job at the table is to entertain and support each other. That's why players who check out are bad news. They're selfish and take the energy out of the room.

When I DM while I enjoy it I have trouble keeping up cognitively all the time, esp. as the night wears on. I expect the players to jump in and keep the flow going. The DM should never feel burdened to entertain others unless they're getting paid to do so.

I want to 'drive away' the problem players. They shouldn't feel 'forced' they should want to be contributing to everyone's fun. If they're selfish I want them gone as quickly as possible.

[Tanarii]

D&D is a cooperative storytelling game.
No it is not.

Feel free to play it that way. But that doesn't mean that is what D&D is.

[Dork_Forge]

It's not my job to suck people in.

I think this is part of the issue people are having here. Thinking of it as though the DM's job is to entertain people. Everyone's job at the table is to entertain and support each other. That's why players who check out are bad news. They're selfish and take the energy out of the room.

When I DM while I enjoy it I have trouble keeping up cognitively all the time, esp. as the night wears on. I expect the players to jump in and keep the flow going. The DM should never feel burdened to entertain others unless they're getting paid to do so.

I want to 'drive away' the problem players. They shouldn't feel 'forced' they should want to be contributing to everyone's fun. If they're selfish I want them gone as quickly as possible.

Assuming that people are selfish and problem players just because they don't retain 100% focus in a game that usually lasts hours is ridiculous.

If they're not being disruptive and no one else at the table minds... so what? You don't know why they do it, and as long as they can play their character well without actually causing disruption or slow downs why should they change?

You can't keep up as a DM throughout an entire session, how would you feel if players acted this same way towards you because you can't stay switched on 100% of the game time?

TBH this seems like a very odd kind of gatekeeping that would cull probably most of the playership.

And to address the bolded part... as the DM yes, yes it is to a very real extent. If you treat it as a cooperative story game that sentence makes even less sense, you're saying that the narrator and director of the world isn't responsible for creating investment in the story.

[Kane0]

It's not my job to suck people in.

I think this is part of the issue people are having here. Thinking of it as though the DM's job is to entertain people. Everyone's job at the table is to entertain and support each other. That's why players who check out are bad news. They're selfish and take the energy out of the room.

When I DM while I enjoy it I have trouble keeping up cognitively all the time, esp. as the night wears on. I expect the players to jump in and keep the flow going. The DM should never feel burdened to entertain others unless they're getting paid to do so.

I want to 'drive away' the problem players. They shouldn't feel 'forced' they should want to be contributing to everyone's fun. If they're selfish I want them gone as quickly as possible.

I'm glad you have enough of a player pool that you can afford to be so choosy. Not all of us are so lucky.

[False God]

It's not my job to suck people in.
I'm taking this as "It's not my job alone to suck people in." Because taking it as the words on the page makes no sense because yes, yes that is the DM's job. Sure, everyone has some responsibility for ensuring table fun, but the DM knows things the players don't and controls the game in ways the players don't.


When I DM while I enjoy it I have trouble keeping up cognitively all the time, esp. as the night wears on. I expect the players to jump in and keep the flow going. The DM should never feel burdened to entertain others unless they're getting paid to do so.
As someone who experienced this in the past, I would suggest shorter sessions. I really do appreciate that 5E AL has defined a "session" as about 3 hours. I have no problem ending a session when I cannot mentally keep up.


I want to 'drive away' the problem players. They shouldn't feel 'forced' they should want to be contributing to everyone's fun. If they're selfish I want them gone as quickly as possible.
But, without analyzing and addressing why they're checking out, you're just driving off people who may not be clicking with the game. Sure, that may be a fine reason not to play with them in the group, but the optics of your statements read an awful lot like you want to put the minimum amount of effort into running a game while getting the maximum amount of effort out of your players.

[ad_hoc]

No it is not.

Feel free to play it that way. But that doesn't mean that is what D&D is.

"The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery."

"In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together..."

D&D 5e PHB pg 5.


Assuming that people are selfish and problem players just because they don't retain 100% focus in a game that usually lasts hours is ridiculous.

If they're not being disruptive and no one else at the table minds... so what? You don't know why they do it, and as long as they can play their character well without actually causing disruption or slow downs why should they change?

You can't keep up as a DM throughout an entire session, how would you feel if players acted this same way towards you because you can't stay switched on 100% of the game time?

TBH this seems like a very odd kind of gatekeeping that would cull probably most of the playership.

And to address the bolded part... as the DM yes, yes it is to a very real extent. If you treat it as a cooperative story game that sentence makes even less sense, you're saying that the narrator and director of the world isn't responsible for creating investment in the story.



I'm glad you have enough of a player pool that you can afford to be so choosy. Not all of us are so lucky.


This is why I say that it is a matter of group think.

I made this thread because the idea that this sort of behaviour is common place is bizarre to me. It was said by posters in another thread as though it was a law of nature.

I've seen it happen in individual cases, but that sort of player was an outlier.

This isn't something that you should be expecting to happen.

Assuming this is just the way gaming is will no doubt have you run into problems with the way the game is designed. I see this where someone says such and such rule is bad or broken when really it is their approach to the game that makes it that way, not the other way around. The solution is to either examine why that is and change how you play or change the rule. It doesn't mean the game doesn't work.

The game assumes everyone is on board and are interested in each other's fun.

I encourage you to have a talk with your group and set some group norms and expectations. Find out how you can play the game so everyone is involved and engaged. You might find that you can play in ways you hadn't imagined before and have an even better time.

[Dork_Forge]

This is why I say that it is a matter of group think.

I made this thread because the idea that this sort of behaviour is common place is bizarre to me. It was said by posters in another thread as though it was a law of nature.

I've seen it happen in individual cases, but that sort of player was an outlier.

This isn't something that you should be expecting to happen.

Assuming this is just the way gaming is will no doubt have you run into problems with the way the game is designed. I see this where someone says such and such rule is bad or broken when really it is their approach to the game that makes it that way, not the other way around. The solution is to either examine why that is and change how you play or change the rule. It doesn't mean the game doesn't work.

The game assumes everyone is on board and are interested in each other's fun.

I encourage you to have a talk with your group and set some group norms and expectations. Find out how you can play the game so everyone is involved and engaged. You might find that you can play in ways you hadn't imagined before and have an even better time.

Writing off the raft of responses you've received as 'group think' is just disrespectful at best.

This has nothing to do with mechanics, please don't extend it there. This has to do with your expectations of your players.

Being on board with the game, and interested in everyone's fun is in no way shape or form exclusive from not having 100% attention and engagement across multiple hours.

I will put this out there though:

What makes you think that your opinion and experience are the way that things should be done? What drives you to put your own thoughts on a pedestal and write off the masses that don't agree with you as group think?

If you look up the term you keep bandying around you'll find that part of the definition that comes up is a lack of critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives.

Reading through this thread the lack of reasoning and considering alternatives doesn't seem to be coming from the majority of posters that are writing posts discussing the topic, relating their experiences and drawing parallels to education.

In this thread the one that seems to not be evaluating things critically and considering alternatives is the one dismissing anything that doesn't match what they think. Y'know: You.

And my games run well with high levels of player satisfaction all round, so thanks but I don't think I'll do that.

[Pex]

When encounter involves the whole party, everyone should pay attention. When the DM is spending 5-10 minutes individual time per player or the party is split during all that is not combat or dungeon exploring phases, it's perfectly fine for the players not involved at that particular moment to get food and drink, use the little paladin's room, or have a quiet conversation with each other that doesn't disrupt the game play about whatever they want.

At the minimum all players need to be engaged with the game in combat. PCs' lives are in danger at that point. If you don't know, learn. Learn the rules. Learn your character. Learn strategies. Your fellow players will help you. Pay attention when it's not your turn. For everything else, a player may not want to be actively involved in dungeon mapping, talking to NPCs, etc. If the other players are ok with that, fine, but they aren't wrong for wanting players who actively participate in such matters. For the player who is passive in these matters he still must know the Campaign Plot. He needs to comprehend what the party's goals are and the means to accomplish them.

[Cheesegear]

It's not my job to suck people in.

It literally is:
1. The DM's job is to create engaging content.
2. The player's job is to be engaged.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works on the player's side. Because it's the players who have agency. Players can't be engaged if your content sucks, for whatever given value they have, not the value that you have. You don't use your content. The players use your content, and once your players don't want to use your content anymore, you've lost them. Otherwise you end up railroading them into the content they don't want to deal with. If your players aren't engaged by your content. First step, don't force them to. Second step is to write better and/or more relevant content for your players. How you go about doing that, is up to you.

Before you is a waterfall that...
'Lame. We go around it.'
Oh. Okay. I mean I wrote some text for this...
'Yeah, and we're skipping it. Waterfalls don't interest us. We have a princess to save and screwing around in a waterfall doesn't get us closer.'
Uhh...Sure, I guess. *Throws two pages of scenario in the trash.*

'If you build it, they will come,' just isn't true.

[ad_hoc]

Writing off the raft of responses you've received as 'group think' is just disrespectful at best.

This has nothing to do with mechanics, please don't extend it there. This has to do with your expectations of your players.

Being on board with the game, and interested in everyone's fun is in no way shape or form exclusive from not having 100% attention and engagement across multiple hours.

I will put this out there though:

What makes you think that your opinion and experience are the way that things should be done? What drives you to put your own thoughts on a pedestal and write off the masses that don't agree with you as group think?

If you look up the term you keep bandying around you'll find that part of the definition that comes up is a lack of critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives.

Reading through this thread the lack of reasoning and considering alternatives doesn't seem to be coming from the majority of posters that are writing posts discussing the topic, relating their experiences and drawing parallels to education.

In this thread the one that seems to not be evaluating things critically and considering alternatives is the one dismissing anything that doesn't match what they think. Y'know: You.

And my games run well with high levels of player satisfaction all round, so thanks but I don't think I'll do that.

They are the majority of posters here. On a board where like minded people post and people who are not like minded typically don't.

This board makes up .001% of the 5e player base.

The idea that just because 10 people agree on something that it makes up the majority is preposterous.



It literally is:
1. The DM's job is to create engaging content.
2. The player's job is to be engaged.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works on the player's side. Because it's the players who have agency. Players can't be engaged if your content sucks, for whatever given value they have, not the value that you have. You don't use your content. The players use your content, and once your players don't want to use your content anymore, you've lost them. Otherwise you end up railroading them into the content they don't want to deal with. If your players aren't engaged by your content. First step, don't force them to. Second step is to write better and/or more relevant content for your players. How you go about doing that, is up to you.

Before you is a waterfall that...
'Lame. We go around it.'
Oh. Okay. I mean I wrote some text for this...
'Yeah, and we're skipping it. Waterfalls don't interest us. We have a princess to save and screwing around in a waterfall doesn't get us closer.'
Uhh...Sure, I guess. *Throws two pages of scenario in the trash.*

'If you build it, they will come,' just isn't true.

Yikes.

They better pay me $50/hr if they want that kind of treatment.

[Cheesegear]

Yikes.

They better pay me $50/hr if they want that kind of treatment.

Ah. I see. You're not actually interested in engaging your players. You expect your players to be engaged no matter what you do. Because you spent time and effort creating content and now the players are obligated to run at it whether or not it's actually good and/or interesting content. The players must be engaged because you made it. Understandable motive. You spent time and effort on something and the players don't give a ****. How hurtful, that sucks.

Am I so out of touch?
No. It's the players who are wrong.

Now the thread makes sense.

[Dork_Forge]

They are the majority of posters here. On a board where like minded people post and people who are not like minded typically don't.

This board makes up .001% of the 5e player base.

The idea that just because 10 people agree on something that it makes up the majority is preposterous.

The idea that because people disagree with you it's wrong and 'group think' is preposterous.

Was there a reason you decided to highlight the posters here? You posted on this forum, I posted that reply on this forum. Though I'm pretty sure you'd receive similar responses on any other board, because what you're basically doing is labelling an unrealistic expectation as 'badwrongfun'


Yikes.

They better pay me $50/hr if they want that kind of treatment.

As a paid DM, I don't think you really understand what DMing as a service means.


Ah. I see. You're not actually interested in engaging your players. You expect your players to be engaged no matter what you do. Because you spent time and effort creating content and now the players are obligated to run at it whether or not it's actually good and/or interesting content. The players must be engaged because you made it. Understandable motive. You spent time and effort on something and the players don't give a ****. How hurtful, that sucks.

Am I so out of touch?
No. It's the players who are wrong.

Now the thread makes sense.

This, allllll of this.

[strangebloke]

The Dungeons and Dragons session has reached its sixth hour. The food on the table is spent, the players fatigued, but they persevere. The vigil must not be cut short. Jerry has had to pee for two hours, but he violently suppresses his urges; this is a table where only true engagement is tolerated. The dungeonmaster himself grows weary, unable to press onward with the same clarity of thought. The players step in as they can, pushing past their own weariness to come up with helpful suggestions to keep the flow of the narrative progressing. The narrative develops. The sixth hour ends, and the players sigh. Another session finished.

But all is not well. The Dungeon Master approaches Larry after the session, before he walks out.

"I saw you checking your phone," The DM says seriously.

Larry winces and smiles. He already knows what's coming. "My wife's expecting," he explains. "Things are getting down to the wire, I can't just leave my phone on silent."

The DM nods in understanding, and pats Larry on the shoulder. "Understood." He pauses. "But don't come back next week."

Larry's choked up, but accepts it without reply and leaves into the dark of the night. The DM sighs. Moments like these are always painful, but they are required to ensure a truly engaged table, and he has to believe that this is worth it.

[ad_hoc]

Ah. I see. You're not actually interested in engaging your players. You expect your players to be engaged no matter what you do. Because you spent time and effort creating content and now the players are obligated to run at it whether or not it's actually good and/or interesting content. The players must be engaged because you made it. Understandable motive. You spent time and effort on something and the players don't give a ****. How hurtful, that sucks.

Am I so out of touch?
No. It's the players who are wrong.

Now the thread makes sense.

I have no problem. Like I said earlier, I have seen players who aren't engaged in the game but they are few and far between. 95% of the people I play and have played with are great and the ones that aren't are promptly removed.

I'm also not friends with those sorts of people outside of playing games too.

As far as engaging in the available content in the world, no they don't need to engage with all of it. That is an entirely different type of engagement than what this thread is about. As far as the specific example of the waterfall, I would expect players would engage with that encounter more often than not because they want treasure and there is a high likelihood that there would be treasure behind a waterfall. If they instead decide that they don't want to risk an encounter that will drain their resources and potentially cause them to fail their objective that's fine too. Both decisions will have consequences and are valid choices to make.


What drives you to put your own thoughts on a pedestal and write off the masses that don't agree with you as group think?

I don't see any masses.

There are 10s of millions of 5e players. 10 people on a forum are not 'the masses'.

If your games are perfect you are free to ignore me. If you're struggling with the game, as many people here are, then this might be advice worth taking.

[Amdy_vill]

Are people okay with players who 'check out' or aren't engaged during play?

I expect everyone at the table to be engaged during play (all of it).

The sort of player who only pays attention when it is their turn is the same sort who just waits for the chance to talk during a conversation without actually listening. I don't want to hang out with either.

I expect everyone at the table to listen to whoever is talking and thinking about what they can do next that will enhance everyone's enjoyment.

The quickest way for a game to die in my experience is for there to be selfish people at the table taking up space figuratively and literally.

I have no tolerance for that sort of thing anymore (if it is their regular attitude. If they're just having a bad day or whatever that's fine).

Are people really both okay with this sort of thing and expect it/find it common in their games?

It really depends on the player. I have had players who I thought were checked out at my table but weren't and ones who are but still known when to engaged. its really up to how the player is at the table

[strangebloke]

I have no problem. Like I said earlier, I have seen players who aren't engaged in the game but they are few and far between. 95% of the people I play and have played with are great and the ones that aren't are promptly removed.

I'm also not friends with those sorts of people outside of playing games too.

It would really help if you would actually define your terms. I think everyone agrees that there's some level of player engagement that's to be expected. I further expect that a DM's expectations for engagement vary to some degree because of different table culture.

I don't see any masses.

There are 10s of millions of 5e players. 10 people on a forum are not 'the masses'.

If your games are perfect you are free to ignore me. If you're struggling with the game, as many people here are, then this might be advice worth taking.

This doesn't entitle you to insult others by saying "You're a drone mindlessly following this subforum's groupthink."

Which, uh. What is this forum's groupthink, anyway? Have I missed that somehow? I didn't know we all agreed on anything beyond some extreme basics like, "The PHB ranger was a bit clunky."

[ad_hoc]

It would really help if you would actually define your terms. I think everyone agrees that there's some level of player engagement that's to be expected. I further expect that a DM's expectations for engagement vary to some degree because of different table culture.


In another thread I talked about Charisma checks as group checks. Everyone in the social encounter being part of the check. Someone responded and then had agreement with a couple others that it is expected for people to 'check out' during social encounters and it is a punishment to have them roll.

I wasn't prepared for that response. It was bizarre to me that it was a thing that would be not only acceptable but expected in a game. I got the feeling that they had not thought of playing the game in a different way either.

So I figured I would make a new thread and see if that is the experience of others on the board and to offer up a different way of playing.

To me it is like people who don't really listen during a conversation, they just wait for their turn to speak. When I play D&D I expect everyone at the table to be engaged, listening to each other, and working towards others' fun and enjoyment.

Seems like that is not the case with most people on this board.




This doesn't entitle you to insult others by saying "You're a drone mindlessly following this subforum's groupthink."

Which, uh. What is this forum's groupthink, anyway? Have I missed that somehow? I didn't know we all agreed on anything beyond some extreme basics like, "The PHB ranger was a bit clunky."


This forum is largely an echo chamber.

Which is fine, it's just weird when some people think the style of play and views represent the 5e player base as a whole. That's where the group think comes in. Not playing the game a certain way, but thinking that is the only way to play because of a lack of exposure to other things outside of the group.


To be clear a group could be right about things or have the best take on something. Everyone having the same or similar experience doesn't mean they are wrong. I also pop in here from time to time to expose myself to this different perspective and experience. Why I'm here.

[False God]

This forum is largely an echo chamber.

Forums are always an echo chamber when people disagree with you.

[Cheesegear]

In another thread I talked about Charisma checks as group checks. Everyone in the social encounter being part of the check.

What I said was that I wouldn't punish the other players for something that another player and/or character, is bad at. That's what a group check, is. 50% of you must pass or the whole group fails. It is collective punishment, and collective reward. That's why group checks often feel unfair to players who have built their character around a specific concept. Being good at something is waste of time if the DM consistently forces group checks.

A Noble Bard with 16+ Charisma with Proficiency/Expertise in Deception and Persuasion is forced to make a group check with the Wizard and the Barbarian who both used Charisma as a dump stat. That's so weird. That makes the Bard pointless. The group may as well just draw steel since they're better at that as a group.

However, I find it weird that you compare the earlier waterfall scenario, differently:

A player or party can opt out of the waterfall.
But they can't opt out of the conversation.

Both the waterfall, and the conversation, are content, that your players are free to disengage from, if they so choose.

Now, there is a contention of why your players disengage:

There is the very real 'People are human, people have lives' reason. The players aren't engaged in your content, because they have other things to worry about. I think almost everyone can agree with that - and if you don't agree with that, I wouldn't want to play at your table.

But, there is the second reason people check out; The DM sucks. Not all the time. Not every session. But this scene. This encounter. The DM has just dropped the ball and the players couldn't give a ****. It doesn't matter if it's a combat, social or exploration.

A player or party ignores the waterfall. Go around it. Exploration is dumb.
A player or party is invited to a banquet. They ignore it. Roleplaying is dumb.
A player or party is subjected to fight Kobolds when they're Level 11. This is so dumb.

All of these things are the same thing. The player(s) are checking out because they're not interested in the DM's content. Full stop. If you want them to be engaged, you have to give them content they want.

Your job is to provide engaging content. Not the content you want to make. If the content you want to make, doesn't engage your players, you probably shouldn't be the DM. If you consistently make content that doesn't engage an individual player, they'll usually leave of their own accord. I see no reason to kick them. As I said the first time. If a player shows up, they care, even if just a little bit. If they care to show up, and they're not disruptive, they're welcome at my table. End.

[EggKookoo]

Forums are always an echo chamber when people disagree with you.

Yeah, and forum are always echo chambers when... wait, ALMOST GOT ME THERE!

[Townopolis]

If the content you want to make, doesn't engage your players, you probably shouldn't be the DM.

Alternate recommendation: find a different group with tastes that more closely align with yours.

And, if the first group is your friends group, then you may also want to consider that your friends don't have to be your D&D group. Obviously, playing D&D with your friends and is common and valid, but it is not the One True Way.

...

As for the rest of this thread, I think people have different ideas of what checking out means and different standards for everyone's contribution, and I think that's fine. Some games go so far as to declare the DM "just another player," and write rules to ensure the players get to dictate what the villain can and cannot do. Those rules make me wonder if those game designers had a lot of real awful GMs in their formative gaming experiences, but I digress. There are many styles of how to play.

It does suck when your table doesn't share near the level of investment that you do, and that's why I totally recommend shopping around for a group that shares your wants and standards. That doesn't mean the other groups are invalid, though, just not for you.

Nobody needs to make everyone else play their way. I mean, I don't care what most people here think about the Gritty Realism rest variant. You're not at my table, and you can use the objectively inferior standard resting rules if that's what floats your boat.

[Cheesegear]

I think people have different ideas of what checking out means and different standards for everyone's contribution, and I think that's fine.

A player chooses to do nothing because:

They might choose to do nothing because another player has a really good idea, or is roleplaying really well, and it would actually ruin the flow or the scenario if another player was to interrupt.
They might choose to do nothing because another player, mechanically, is just handling the challenge better than they would.
They might choose to do nothing because what they want to do is the same as what another player wants to do, and the DM just called on the other player, first. Sometimes two characters can't do the same thing because it's a one-person job. A lot of DMs frown upon dogpiling Skill checks (myself included). If I wanted a group check, I would've asked for one.
They might choose to do nothing because of paralysis of indecision. They are simply waiting for the DM to give a prompt that interests them, or they're waiting for another player to 'overrule' and decide on a course of action that they can actually latch onto.

The player is not participating in the encounter because for whatever reason, they are choosing not to. On purpose. They actually are using their agency...To do nothing. Players can do that.
Alright, that's Player A. Player B, what did you want to say?
'Player A already said everything I wanted to say. I have no questions. Are we done, here?'

A player checks out, when they do nothing because they don't even care to do anything. It's not simply that they aren't participating in a scenario. It's that they aren't even paying attention. However, in my experience, a player is who literally 100% not paying attention, is very rare. A player might be on their phone the entire time.
Alright, Player A was talking for six minutes. Player B, pay attention.
'Yeah. Dude wants us to rescue his daughter. Gnolls. Probably some demon involved. Reward when we get back. Got it.'

Well, yes. That's the entire last six minutes summed up concisely. He doesn't know the father's name. He doesn't know the daughter's name. He doesn't know what the reward is. But he knows what to do and where to go. Yep. You got it. As other posters have said, being on your phone doesn't necessarily mean that you're not listening.


It does suck when your table doesn't share near the level of investment that you do, and that's why I totally recommend shopping around for a group that shares your wants and standards.

Some people don't have the freedom of choosing who they play with. Sometimes, a player is the host. You can't kick out the host. Sometimes, you've kicked out too many players already. Kick out one more and the group might start to resent you and/or fall apart. Sometimes you have partners - if you kick one out you kick both out, and you actually like one of them. Sometimes, you live somewhere where the group you have, is the group you've got. The pool of players in your area just isn't that big. You can compromise, and try to make both content you want to make, and content your players care about.

Or, you can go the other way; 'Bad D&D is worse than no D&D,' and just quit, I guess.

[Kane0]

Understandable motive. You spent time and effort on something and the players don't give a ****. How hurtful, that sucks.

Am I so out of touch?
No. It's the players who are wrong.


I shouldnt have laughed, but I did.



I don't see any masses.

There are 10s of millions of 5e players. 10 people on a forum are not 'the masses'.

If your games are perfect you are free to ignore me. If you're struggling with the game, as many people here are, then this might be advice worth taking.

Once again I wish for some sort of poll/vote function on this forum.

Edit: ad_hoc, do you have breaks during a session for smokes, food, toilet etc?

[Townopolis]

Of course there are reasons you may not be able to shop around, or even after shopping can't find the group that's just right. My point is only that if you can shop around, you should.

And, if you choose not to, that's your choice. I'm not your mother (and, even if I were, mother does not always know best).

[TyGuy]

Ah. I see. You're not actually interested in engaging your players. You expect your players to be engaged no matter what you do. Because you spent time and effort creating content and now the players are obligated to run at it whether or not it's actually good and/or interesting content. The players must be engaged because you made it. Understandable motive. You spent time and effort on something and the players don't give a ****. How hurtful, that sucks.

Am I so out of touch?
No. It's the players who are wrong.

Now the thread makes sense.

I mean, I can sympathize with a lot of parties in this thread including OP. Have I stacked dice and spun dice like a top? Many times. Sometimes the other players are having a scene I don't find entertaining, not a big deal. But I've also never needed a catch-up as a player. That behavior is super rude in my book.

I'm also hella burnt out by my lazy selfish players. They offer little more than their presence. I've tried so many times and in so many ways to get feedback. They offer so little input. Most responses are "I like whatever" "whatever's good" "I'm down with whatever". But then the sessions are filled with one or more person being deeply distracted or tuned out. The way they often play D&D like a videogame combined with their behavior makes me think they really expect an experience like a videogame or movie where I'm expected to show up with entertaining content that they can interact with and that's how the fun happens.

I think I've seen enough tables to understand just how much the players are capable of elevating and draining the game. While the DM does have to do the heavy lifting because of worldbuilding/ running the adventure, there's so much more players can do than what I've seen in my average table experience.

Ultimately, everyone gets out what they put in. And I don't think that's fully understood by most casual players. So I understand OP's low threshold because I've seen the downward spiral from each little slowdown and mental checkout.

[Cheesegear]

1. Opting Out
This is when the DM presents a scenario that the player(s) simply don't want to do.

The Duke has invited you to a banquet; They're not going.
The party comes across a waterfall; Who cares, ignore it.
The party comes across an Ogre attacking a man and a woman on a cart; Not their problem, they Stealth around and continue to their destination.

This is typically rare. Usually, if the DM puts a scenario in front of the players, they're usually going to be incentivised to run it through. Story, XP or Loot. The vast majority of situations a party faces, the DM makes them face intentionally for a reason. However, when a DM makes the player(s) go into a scenario that they've already chosen not to do, that's called railroading. It's bad.

However, it does suck when you've spent 45 minutes designing a scenario and your players just consciously or unconsciously ignore it. Suck it up. Move on. Hopefully you can Quantum Ogre the scenario back into the game (if they've ignored unconsciously and don't know what they just skipped), or you can use your excellent DMing skills to make up a different scenario with the same CR on the fly to replace it.

2. Non-Participation
The player(s) have chosen to participate in the scenario. But due to lack of IRL player intelligence, charisma or empathy, they don't know what to do. Due to lack of in-game, mechanical ability, they feel - rightly or wrongly - that if they chose to do something, that they would fail at that thing, or make things worse. Let other player(s) handle the situation - for now. If there's a chance that the player ends up being able to have input later on in the scenario, they'll do it, then. But right now? They're standing in the corner, doing and saying nothing, they're letting another player take the lead. Yes. There's even a chance that even though the player is in the scene, they might end up doing literally nothing the entire time, because they simply have nothing to add or say to the scenario. They're staying out of the combat because they have low HPs and are trying not to present themselves as a threat. They will wait at the foot of the waterfall in case somebody slips and falls - they don't want to slip and fall.

When you punish player(s) for non-participation, they can grow resentful. When you punish other player(s) for other player(s) non-participation...That's really bizarre.

However, it does suck when you've spent 45 minutes designing a scenario in which that character uses their Backstory and/or mechanical ability (e.g; Paladin's Divine Sense) that you feel that the player(s) could easily defeat. But they make the challenge so much more difficult than it needs to be because they lost track of what they and/or their character can actually do in any given situation.
(e.g; Don't you have Mending? Couldn't you have solved this like five minutes ago? '****! I forgot I had that. I never use it.')

3. Checking Out
a) The player is otherwise occupied and not paying attention. Why? There are many reasons for this. You'd have to talk to them.

b) The DM is not creating interesting content and they don't care, even when they're in the scene. Why? There are many reasons for this. You'd have to talk to them.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If your games are perfect you are free to ignore me. If you're struggling with the game, as many people here are, then this might be advice worth taking.

Earlier, upthread, I truly thought the patronizing tone of your post was unintentional. You have since clarified that it is a deliberate choice, in response to a chorus of unexpected replies in another thread.

I'm going to skip the expected, chimpanzee-esque, verbal beatdown of a self anointed savior, come to teach us savages here at GitPG, how to play correctly, and point out you haven't actually provided any advice.

Only Play with Self Motivated Players, that have no other distractions and remove anyone else, isn't exactly a technique to improve one's DM-craft.

It is more akin to buying a Sid Meier Civilization Strategy Guide and finding all the guide contains is the following: " Restart the game until you have perfect conditions".

As a practical minded DM, I actually would love to have a thread where we discuss techniques to increase engagement during conversations.

My 5e specific advice is:

* Encourage PCs to have a balanced allotment of skills.

* DM's should use reasonable DCs. Nothing disincentives someone more than realizing that you can't succeed.

* For Social/Exploration a DM should have failure on an interaction open up another avenue to explore. Examples:

A rude dismissal by Duke Downton, because a PC failed to follow etiquette, might make the Footman, (that secretly wants to abolish the caste system), Friendly towards the group.

Failing a Dexterity: Lockpick check might break the lock on a chest, requiring someone to smash the bottom of the chest to gain access to the contents. The group automatically finds the hidden false bottom and bypasses the trapped lid.

* if a player says something truly inspired, have them succeed...no roll required.

[Corey]

It is more akin to buying a Sid Meier Civilization Strategy Guide and finding all the guide contains is the following: " Restart the game until you have perfect conditions".


But that's exactly how I used to play Civ!!

[Kane0]

But that's exactly how I used to play Civ!!

Its a very common problem with speedrunners of all games too, so much so they can burn out or lose their edge on other parts beyond the start.

[TyGuy]

3. Checking Out
a) The player is otherwise occupied and not paying attention. Why? There are many reasons for this. You'd have to talk to them.

b) The DM is not creating interesting content and they don't care, even when they're in the scene. Why? There are many reasons for this. You'd have to talk to them.
And after the talks have been had. After discovering that getting the check-out players to discuss what would be more engaging is worse than pulling teeth. Or that nothing can be done, they're simply phone addicts or not that into D&D in the first place. Then what?
Maybe I missed it, but I'm not seeing a lot of sympathy for the fact that there are problem players or simply players that aren't a good fit for every table.




Only Play with Self Motivated Players, that have no other distractions and remove anyone else, isn't exactly a technique to improve one's DM-craft.

No, but it IS a way to improve the game experience when pursuing a specific experience/atmosphere. By curating the roster, you are increasing chances that everyone is showing up to play the same type of game.

A major source of my current bout of DM-burnout is the fact that my table has different people wanting different games. One guy's been playing for 2 years and still doesn't understand the game or care to learn it; he's just showing up to hang out with friends. One wants to "beat D&D" with softball encounters and an OP PC to flex the hardest power fantasies. One cannot and will not give the game his attention, and will check out so hard into phone games or imgur that he misses key information in combat; like his own PC getting abducted or knocked unconscious.

There's a saying that you can't please everyone all the time, but you can please some people some of the time. But by chasing all the disparate targets for players that are going to take it for granted anyways and contribute very little, by putting in so many hours building sessions for penis drawings on the map and repeating myself because someone was starting a load of laundry... I'd rather start over with a table of people that generally want the same experience.



If you don't like the hand your dealt, stack the deck. Ad_hoc may have a much lower threshold than what most tables find palatable. But players are major contributors to the game experience. If someone has the option to sort the table with people that get along and are on the same page, that's a legitimate strategy for a fun TTRPG experience.

[False God]

And after the talks have been had. After discovering that getting the check-out players to discuss what would be more engaging is worse than pulling teeth. Or that nothing can be done, they're simply phone addicts or not that into D&D in the first place. Then what?
Maybe I missed it, but I'm not seeing a lot of sympathy for the fact that there are problem players or simply players that aren't a good fit for every table.
Because they're not the point of the discussion. We have solutions to those people. Those solutions work. What's to talk about?

The things worth talking about are the things there aren't good solutions for. The things that may require different approaches to understand if the problem is "I'm on my phone because I like TikTok more than breathing." or "I'm on my phone because I'm new and shy.".

I think we can all agree that once we've understood someone is just a problem, it's okay to give them the boot. I think we all can agree that people can be a bad fit for a table/game/group/campaign, but that doesn't make them a bad faith actor.

We might not all agree how to determine the difference between a bad faith actor, a bad fit player, or a simple lack of engagement. That's where the discussion is.

[strangebloke]

yeah, this is the problem of not defining terms. There's obviously players who are disruptive because they're constantly disengaging, particularly troublesome in combat when a disengaged player wastes time every single turn. It's an annoying quality, and one you want to avoid as much as possible. If someone refuses to improve in this regard after multiple conversations, I could see asking a player to stop coming back. Bad DND is worse than no DND.

At the same time though, that's very much the nuclear option. People online act as though kicking a player is some trivial thing that can be done at a moment's notice, but imo that's just typical "internet tough guy" syndrome. "I wouldn't ever tolerate such behavior, I'd kick the player. At my table my players do as I say." I personally feel that such talk is just posturing that's impractical in real play. Kicking a player can ruin a friendship or indeed ruin an entire campaign. Sometimes the problem player is the host and kicking them would be incredibly disruptive to the group. Sometimes the player is a friend and would be personally hurt to be kicked from a game. Sometimes the player maybe be better established in the group than the DM, or sometimes they might be boinking one of the other players (or the DM!) Sometimes (I would argue, most of the time) you simply can't replace a player because there's already only three people showing up regularly.

A player would have to represent a major disruption before I would seriously consider kicking them.

And the key thing is, here, what's being discussed is a player who just doesn't want to interact with certain social situations because what's happening isn't interesting. That... isn't even a problem. If anything I would rather have a player who's disinterested in social interaction than a player who forces themselves into situations where they're not wanted.

Hint: if someone's not engaged in a social interaction 4 times out of 5 its because they don't want to challenge a more confident player, regardless of what their builds look like.

[Tanarii]

"The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery."

"In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together..."

D&D 5e PHB pg 5.They can claim that it is about storytelling all they want. But there is no requirement for the DM to run a game in which the players make decisions about the world or events within it instead of what their characters will do.

[sethdmichaels]

Yeah. One of my players is actually quite a good sketcher so its always fun to see what he doodles.

speaking as somebody with a touch of ADD, it's possible having something to do with his hands and eyes while he's not rolling dice actually makes it *easier* for him to focus on the game!

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm glad you have enough of a player pool that you can afford to be so choosy. Not all of us are so lucky. This right here is a part of the disconnect with the "kick the player" and "find a new group" advice I see here and at RPGSE.
The assumption that there is a large pool of players who will fit one's game is often erroneous.
That there are not enough DMs to go around seems to be assumed.
And it's been my experience.

"The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game You'd have done better to quit while you were ahead.

The game assumes everyone is on board and are interested in each other's fun.
The publishers do and it is both rational and self serving to do so: to publicly admit that small group dynamics is often an obstacle to fun play in this game would be counterproductive to sales numbers going up. :smallwink:

It literally is:
1. The DM's job is to create engaging content.
2. The player's job is to be engaged.
Not job, group role. We do this as a leisure activity.


The players use your content, and once your players don't want to use your content anymore, you've lost them. See my point above about DMs being in short supply.

'If you build it, they will come,' just isn't true. I agree. The Alexandrian has a good idea, though: don't prep plots. That article has much good advice in it.

They better pay me $50/hr if they want that kind of treatment.
I'd like to be a DM for pay, but I have a day job so I don't pursue that dream.
Also, my wife would be upset with me if I did that.

The Dungeons and Dragons session has reached its sixth hour. The food on the table is spent, the players fatigued, but they persevere. The vigil must not be cut short. Jerry has had to pee for two hours, but he violently suppresses his urges; this is a table where only true engagement is tolerated. Normal people take breaks about around the 2 hour mark, in my experience. The scenario you set up was amusing to read, but does not reflect any group I've ever played with. DM finds "good point to take a ten minute break" between encounters if he want to keep his players engaged.
That's also my experience.

Edit: ad_hoc, do you have breaks during a session for smokes, food, toilet etc? I am not ad hoc, but at my age, I kinda have to at the 2 hour point, plus or minus a bit. The bladder is only gonna put up with so much stress. That was true back in the day also, when I could hold it for half a day even though I had three beers. We'd still take a break a couple of hours in, often so that the DM could get some water and reset their brain since they have to talk quite a bit.

But I've also never needed a catch-up as a player. That behavior is super rude in my book. I tend to agree.

Ultimately, everyone gets out what they put in. And I don't think that's fully understood by most casual players. So I understand OP's low threshold because I've seen the downward spiral from each little slowdown and mental checkout. The short attention span generation conversation won't be a useful side quest here, but my dad had similar complaints about my generation vis a vis the TV (aka idiot box aka the glass teat per Harlan Ellison).

When someone won't pay attention, I tend to ask them why they won't (during a break, see above).

[Cheesegear]

And after the talks have been had. After discovering that getting the check-out players to discuss what would be more engaging is worse than pulling teeth.

90% of the time what's engaging is combat. Combat has very clear goals and what a player can - or can't - do is very clearly defined by way of numbers. The player knows exactly what to do, and how to do it. Engage. Make it so.

What players who check out during roleplaying want, is combat. They want to be rolling dice, not talking about talking.

They don't want to a meandering conversation about why the lady wont give them the key. They don't want to figure out what the lady wants, nor her hopes and dreams, and they definitely don't care about her life story or her family. She's a fictional NPC. And most likely, an NPC that they will never, ever interact with ever again.

Why do I care about this lady!? I just want the key!
...This kind of thing leads to players playing Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil characters. Who just demand the key straight up, then do an unarmed strike for 1+STR (ideally, non-lethal) damage (Commoners have 4 HPs), and then just take the key. But then you have DMs who ban this playstyle because playing a Neutral/Evil character almost always means that the players will use their agency 100% of the time, and not give a damn about the DM's story or how the plot wants to go...That can mess up the DM's pre-planned story, and DM's don't like that.

But also see the point that's been nailed into the ground about how players might not care about your content, and they're just going to do what they want to do. Which means planning your story too far in advance is doomed to fail.

You can exemplify this in a video game, where you just start skipping cutscenes and skipping dialogue. I don't care that the game is fully voice-acted. Can we just hurry the **** up!? I don't care about the dumb plot. I just want to kill robots and zombies! At least in a video game, the vast majority of dialogue choices are usually pre-scripted and you can just pick the one you like (and if you make a mistake, you just reload).

In a roleplaying scenario, you have to know what to say. I know I keep bringing it up. But the player has to have intelligence, charisma and empathy. If the player doesn't have that, and they don't know what to say, they'll start getting angry or bored, or just disinterested. They don't want to be punished for saying the wrong thing. But they don't know the right thing to say and/or do, either. Just like they wouldn't in real life. They don't want to play a social game of hot potato because that's already what their real life is already. Can we please just do a simple dungeon crawl? I don't want to play your game where the Duke is evil but if we kill him we find out he's not actually evil and there's also a puppet master, but also it has to do with the price of tea, which is being inflated due to economic circumstance which is also being caused by social circumstance, which ties back to the Lich's evil plans, and he's actually doing it at the behest of a Deity who is in competition with another Deity who is trying to enrich the lives of Commoners, but they can't be enriched because the Duke at the start of the chain is Evil.

I don't want to feel like I've been called into my boss' office, and I don't know if I'm about to be reprimanded or praised. And if I am reprimanded, I have to know what to say in order to mitigate the damage...
Can't we just do dungeons, and fight Dragons!?


One guy's been playing for 2 years and still doesn't understand the game or care to learn it; he's just showing up to hang out with friends.

I have no particular issue with that. It can be annoying. But I'd rather that guy sit at our table than be alone.


One cannot and will not give the game his attention...

If a player is 100% not paying attention, then you ignore them. You stop giving them your attention.

One thing I like to do is skip turns on purpose. If the player actually is paying attention, they will notice and demand to get a turn. If they don't notice that their turn was skipped, then they don't care and you continue skipping them.

[ad_hoc]

The publishers do and it is both rational and self serving to do so: to publicly admit that small group dynamics is often an obstacle to fun play in this game would be counterproductive to sales numbers going up. :smallwink:

Here's the thing though.

It isn't. Not for most people.

That's why sales started skyrocketing in 2014 and haven't stopped.

It is an issue that your group dynamics form a barrier to having fun. The problem isn't with the game. It's solving the group dynamics. D&D game design doesn't, shouldn't, and can't teach people social skills. Still, the act of playing is a good place for learning those skills even though it can be rough going.

The take away message - Your group may have toxic behaviours but it doesn't have to be that way. Most people's groups aren't like that.

[strangebloke]

This right here is a part of the disconnect with the "kick the player" and "find a new group" advice I see here and at RPGSE.
The assumption that there is a large pool of players who will fit one's game is often erroneous.
That there are not enough DMs to go around seems to be assumed.
And it's been my experience.

Yeah.

Far and away most people play with their IRL friends, and friends they make through mutual acquaintances through playing the game itself. This isn't a massive group of people. Usually only one or two people have the inclination and talent for DMing and most people will play in most of the available campaigns their friends run.

This changes if you're running with a large pool of players, something like AL, but that itself requires you to accept everyone.

As I said before, saying "just ban them" is typical internet tough guy posturing. The real world makes this far more difficult.


You'd have done better to quit while you were ahead.
Normal people take breaks about around the 2 hour mark, in my experience. The scenario you set up was amusing to read, but does not reflect any group I've ever played with. DM finds "good point to take a ten minute break" between encounters if he want to keep his players engaged.


Oh I agree. In fact a lot of the sessions I run are extremely quick 2-hour affairs, mostly because that's easier to fit into everyone's schedule. The scenario I was describing was mostly an argument by absurdity, taking the idea of "engagement" to a (perhaps illogical) extreme. This is a leisure activity, and if given the choice I'll always take someone who's fun to be around but has poor attentiveness and system master over a very knowledgeable and attentive jerk.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A major source of my current bout of DM-burnout is the fact that my table has different people wanting different games. ... I'd rather start over with a table of people that generally want the same experience.

I'm sorry about this....I've been there. My main D&D group consists of friends that have played together for over 20 years....and honestly this group,( in a campaign that at this point has been going on for 7 years), is so fractious it drives me nuts as a DM.

The nigh same group, with different characters, in a campaign ran concurrently with the aforementioned campaign...runs smoothly.

Even if you fire your current group, and assemble the 'Dream Team' of D&D players, there are no guarantees that the social dynamics will remain the same for future games.

As a practical minded DM, I would like practical advice...and sadly this thread is missing it. Should another thread be started so we can share this type of advice?

[ad_hoc]

I'm sorry about this....I've been there. My main D&D group consists of friends that have played together for over 20 years....and honestly this group,( in a campaign that at this point has been going on for 7 years), is so fractious it drives me nuts as a DM.

The nigh same group, with different characters, in a campaign ran concurrently with the aforementioned campaign...runs smoothly.

Even if you fire your current group, and assemble the 'Dream Team' of D&D players, there are no guarantees that the social dynamics will remain the same for future games.

As a practical minded DM, I would like practical advice...and sadly this thread is missing it. Should another thread be started so we can share this type of advice?


My advice is that you're not going to find game specific advice that will address these things.

It's not always fun but it's good and helpful both in D&D and in life to have open conversations with friends (and family) about what everyone wants, what is acceptable behaviour, etc.

For example, when forming a new D&D group one of the things I talk about is what people's goals are. Then I say that I would like everyone's goal to be to have everyone else at the table have fun. Then we talk about that.

Don't play with selfish people. Try your best to distance yourself from them. If able to let them know why their behaviour is not acceptable and how they can change. But don't accept or endorse it.

This isn't D&D advice. It's relationship advice. People have toxic relationships with each other and learning how to have healthy ones takes skill and work.

You're not really going to get it on a D&D forum.

[Townopolis]

I have--honestly--been able to use the "part ways" strategy to deal any problem player or DM I've encountered who doesn't want to change.

I also think that "part ways" comes up so often because threads asking for advice often start with the person asking having already tried everything else and being at their wits' end.

Oh, and most people's practical understanding of how to deal with problem players and disagreements at the table boils down to the following generalized concepts.

-First, talk to the person you're having a problem with--preferably outside scheduled session time. Nobody likes being called into the principle's office, and that's what being pulled aside feels like; it's a good way to get someone to dig in their heels, so really only useful if you want to justify kicking them out later with "well, I tried" later.

-Try to figure out what The Problem is from their perspective. Depending on how able/willing you are to part ways with this player, you may have to accept that the problem isn't something you can make go away. Examples include: they're always exhausted from work, they have small children they need to take care of, they just don't want what you want and are unwilling to make concessions and are fully aware of the fact that you cannot part ways and are willing to abuse that fact because they don't actually care about you at all. Obviously, some of these examples are more sympathetic than others.

-If the problem is one that can be dealt with, strategize with the other person on how the two of you are going to deal with it. Come up with a plan that gets buy-in from both of you.

-Only involve the rest of the group if it seems useful and if the other person is cool with it. Even if other players are the ones bringing up The Problem, if you're the group member taking on tackling The Problem, it should be between you and whomever is having The Problem.

-Check in with the other person later. Again, this should preferably happen outside normal game time. See how they think things are going. If either of you are dissatisfied with how things are going, go back to strategizing. If things have improved, and they're not miserable with the changes, checking in is still important so that you can thank them for working on it and reinforce how much better things are.

-Be open to the possibility that you are the problem, especially if the other person suggests so. Do not immediately accept it, but take time to reflect when you're away from them and ask AITA? If you realize you are, then figure out how to strategize from this perspective. Involve as many members of your group as you're comfortable with in this strategy, and still follow up with them if you're able later to see if any problematic behavior you have discovered in yourself has improved.

-If the problem cannot be solved, and it isn't a problem with your own behavior, strategize with yourself on how you're going to protect yourself from it. This will likely involve reframing game night for yourself--perhaps from "I'm going to run an epic campaign" to "I'm going to throw some encounters together that the gang can stomp on while exchanging questionable jokes and tagging each-other in memes"--and may well involve reducing the amount of energy you commit to the game. Those aren't the only options though, and you should take some time to think about what specific strategy will work best for you.

-Also, a lot of the time, no D&D is better than bad D&D.

[Thunderous Mojo]

This isn't D&D advice. It's relationship advice. People have toxic relationships with each other and learning how to have healthy ones takes skill and work.

You're not really going to get it on a D&D forum.

Are we stating the DM-ing isn't a skill set, and thus one can never enhance their DM-ing skill?

I'm certainly not got to receive advice in this thread, that is clear. 🃏

The thread was started with the premise of players 'checking out', wasn't it? It wasn't started to discuss relationships so toxic, that severing those relationships is the only reasonable course of action.

Do we need 4 pages+ to discuss irredeemably toxic dynamics?
I don't think so.

Be well all, and Good Gaming!

[Man_Over_Game]

Are people okay with players who 'check out' or aren't engaged during play?

I expect everyone at the table to be engaged during play (all of it).

The sort of player who only pays attention when it is their turn is the same sort who just waits for the chance to talk during a conversation without actually listening. I don't want to hang out with either.

I expect everyone at the table to listen to whoever is talking and thinking about what they can do next that will enhance everyone's enjoyment.

The quickest way for a game to die in my experience is for there to be selfish people at the table taking up space figuratively and literally.

I have no tolerance for that sort of thing anymore (if it is their regular attitude. If they're just having a bad day or whatever that's fine).

Are people really both okay with this sort of thing and expect it/find it common in their games?


A rogue player at my table spends most of his time zoning out on his phone. He plays a rogue specifically because it's simple and he knows how to play it. He pays attention when he has to be involved, and otherwise doesn't pay much attention.

He explained that he just wants to be around people having fun, and mostly just wants to relax with us.

Sure, it's not great, but he's certainly not the worst player I've had in a party. For contrast, we have another player playing a silent Mary-Sue that is involved with every single scene and yet refuses to really interact with any of us or do anything pertaining to the mission. It's very clear she doesn't care much about working as a group or playing together.

Between the two, I'd prefer the sleepy rogue. At least when he doesn't contribute anything, it's because he's clueless and not careless.



Although I realize this brings up an important point of DnD: There isn't a bad way to enjoy the game, there are just bad ways to play for certain tables. I might not like our 'silent protagonist', but the table is accepting of her behavior and she's still having fun, so I'm the one that needs to get over it.

[GravityEmblem]

Well, let's just say that I play with preteens and leave it at that.

In all seriousness, I don't mind that much...we're all good friends, so D&D is almost just a hangout day that we play D&D at. I still prefer for them to stick at the table and be engaged, but I don't push too hard. I'm not opposed to stopping the D&D and just chilling if people seem to be getting loopy. Of course, when I'm the DM, I can exercise powers I don't really have as a player, eg. pumping a player for their action, directly addressing a player who's a bit distracted, or just moving on. I'm quite proud of providing lots of opportunities for all the characters--two of the players aren't as excited role-players (their characters tend to be a little more generic and less boisterous, personality-wise) as the others, so I work very hard to engage them.

[Garresh]

Just wanted to chime in that there's nothing wrong with bypassing optional content. I had a session where the players saw smoke on the horizon, but decided to avoid it for logical reasons. They were already somewhat concerned about other groups claiming the bounty they were after and decided they didn't wanna risk losing time getting involved in someone else's crap.

I was a little annoyed but tbh who cares? Can't knock them for keeping their eyes on the prize. They missed some worldbuilding and a fun combat encounter but eh.

[Xervous]

Just wanted to chime in that there's nothing wrong with bypassing optional content. I had a session where the players saw smoke on the horizon, but decided to avoid it for logical reasons. They were already somewhat concerned about other groups claiming the bounty they were after and decided they didn't wanna risk losing time getting involved in someone else's crap.

I was a little annoyed but tbh who cares? Can't knock them for keeping their eyes on the prize. They missed some worldbuilding and a fun combat encounter but eh.

I’ve had my players skip the rest of an arc they were riding comfortably up until that point. How should I have known the 1% survival rate region for crazy adventurers was more interesting (and apparently less threatening) than the wereshark pirate armada?

The main detail was that such a content skip had been established as acceptable and normal in session 0. The players knew it was an option, I knew it was a possibility, and they decided that one thing sounded more interesting than the other.

[Easy e]

I am fine letting folks chat and joke around at the table together. After all, that is ultimately what we are there for.

However, if they are disengaged, I pull them back in and get them all moving together as well. A distracted player means it is time to up the stakes, change the scene, or make something happen; preferably to the distracted player!

[KorvinStarmast]

It is an issue that your group dynamics form a barrier to having fun. I have no idea what you are talking about, since my groups don't have this problem. I was, in part, addressing the matter that you and I seem to agree on, which is that a game can't resolve a social dynamics problem. And it can't. First step is 'resolve small group dynamics' second step is 'return to game or try a different leisure activity together'
But for the publisher to admit, publicly, that some people have issues that are detrimental to their game form would be self defeating even if it is true. (See also grief play and toxic players in games like League of Legends that game companies take various measures to mitigate or reduce since that negative experience makes for a significant barrier to entry).

Sad fact of life: a lot of gamers have crap for social skills. :smallannoyed:

RL experience. My son got to play D&D with his sister and friends in junior high and high school. Me DM usually. Pre 3.x. Got to college, began to play 3.x and was disgusted with the toxic environment at the game tables. More arguing than playing. He stopped playing D&D 3.x thanks to toxic behavior of people at the table.
His musing after the fact: "Why did these people want to argue with the DM? Why didn't they just play?"
He's played a little 5e with me off and on, but mostly his gaming is stuff like League of Legends, and a bit of WoW. He's put together teams of like-minded folks whom he likes to play with. I get to join him for LoL now and again (I am a total noob) so we play bot games and try silly builds because we do this for fun.
For competition, he's got his teams ...

Even online, small group dynamics informs who you play with and the overall play experience.

[Telok]

I recall disengaging during d&d 4e combats. Just keep an ear open for my/my character's name in case I took damage, and when the player immedately before me initative started talking scan the board to plan my turn. Then resolve my turn in under 30 seconds and wait 5-10 or more minutes for the next turn. Finished The Prince and Art of War during those combats.

I suppose it might have made a difference if non-defenders had opportunity attacks or other players could actually follow through on combo setups. Maybe the classes I played had reaction abilities published eventually but nothing I recall during that first year of 4e.

Had to deal a lot with a foaf player who checked out for all non-combat stuff. Seriously, all non-combat. Quite annoying, and they occasionally missed even combats or turns from being too checked out. Hard to find a polite way to tell someone they're a waste of time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hard to find a polite way to tell someone they're a waste of time.
I guess offering them a t-shirt with "yes, I am an oxygen thief" on the front may not come across as polite? :smallbiggrin:

[Cluedrew]

Quite annoying, and they occasionally missed even combats or turns from being too checked out. Hard to find a polite way to tell someone they're a waste of time.Just directly, and without insult, tell them what the problem is. I feel people get "politeness" mixed up with "etiquette" or "never say anything that could be considered hurtful" which to me sounds like the strawman someone being mean would attack to justify their actions. I think it is polite to give people a chance to fix their mistakes, but if that doesn't work, will, I don't think politeness is "getting along with everyone all the time" either.

Also to speak in positive definitions: I think politeness is about considering/respecting other people, particularly in small day-to-day matters.

[Easy e]

I'm sorry about this....I've been there. My main D&D group consists of friends that have played together for over 20 years....and honestly this group,( in a campaign that at this point has been going on for 7 years), is so fractious it drives me nuts as a DM.

The nigh same group, with different characters, in a campaign ran concurrently with the aforementioned campaign...runs smoothly.

Even if you fire your current group, and assemble the 'Dream Team' of D&D players, there are no guarantees that the social dynamics will remain the same for future games.

As a practical minded DM, I would like practical advice...and sadly this thread is missing it. Should another thread be started so we can share this type of advice?

Try reading Dale Carnegie: How to Win Friends and Influence People. It has all the practical advice you need. Seriously. If you have not, please read it.

If you do not have the book, or time to read it; use this 1-pager as a start.

https://fs.blog/2012/07/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people/

[KorvinStarmast]

Try reading Dale Carnegie: How to Win Friends and Influence People. It has all the practical advice you need. Seriously. If you have not, please read it.

If you do not have the book, or time to read it; use this 1-pager as a start.

https://fs.blog/2012/07/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people/ Read the book in the 80's, took the course in 2009 (the one that focuses on public speaking in three minute talks) and it's good stuff mostly. But it still takes a certain approach to life in general for it to work otherwise you end up in the 'fake sincerity' trap which fools nobody.

[Psyren]

Are people okay with players who 'check out' or aren't engaged during play?

I expect everyone at the table to be engaged during play (all of it).

The sort of player who only pays attention when it is their turn is the same sort who just waits for the chance to talk during a conversation without actually listening. I don't want to hang out with either.

I expect everyone at the table to listen to whoever is talking and thinking about what they can do next that will enhance everyone's enjoyment.

The quickest way for a game to die in my experience is for there to be selfish people at the table taking up space figuratively and literally.

I have no tolerance for that sort of thing anymore (if it is their regular attitude. If they're just having a bad day or whatever that's fine).

Are people really both okay with this sort of thing and expect it/find it common in their games?

I'll preface by saying I have ADHD. I can focus on the scene fine when I'm involved in some way, but when no input is being asked of my character my attention does tend to wander. So I sympathize with players who are in a similar boat.

What I will say is that, if your players are bored with a scene or unable to stay engaged with it, some of that may be on you as the GM. It's perfectly reasonable to have moments or even entire scenes where not every single character can be part of the action. But in those cases, I'd say it's also reasonable that the uninvolved players can let their minds drift a bit, look up something for their build, check to see if they've gotten a message from a friend or loved one, get some water etc.

[Tanarii]

I
His musing after the fact: "Why did these people want to argue with the DM? Why didn't they just play?"

I experienced it a lot in college too. I probably was one of those people, since I'm a recovering rules lawyer. I sometimes get those types in games stores I used to run games in, because they were so close to college campuses.

IMO it comes about because you've got a bunch of people smart enough to think they know all the right answers with still young enough to not know when to shut up about being right.

Clearly the correct thing to do is tell them "If you want to argue endlessly that you're right, take it to a forum". :smallamused:

[GameMaster_Phil]

To get back to the original OP question:

No, I don't consider it normal. I may not be as 100% hardcore about it as ad_hoc, but yeah, I expect players to generally pay attention and at least listen on one ear, even if they are not currently doing anything in-game. It's rude to the DM and other players to do otherwise. I also expect people to be organized enough to not be distracted during play. If there is some urgent stuff you need to look after, you actually have no time to play an RPG right now, so don't agree to the timeslot.

There is some stuff the DM has to do to mitigate the risk of people losing their energy, but players need to actually "want to play the game". If that is not given, the DM can do nothing to fix it. A RPG is actually a horrible way to "just hang out".

DM side:

Schedule breaks. I found that 10-15 minutes every 2 hours of game time works well. Do biobreaks, open the windows, refill beverages, take smokes etc.

Manage spotlight time and radically shorten the intervals. 4 player group splits, and 2 of them negotiate with the prince for 30 minutes? Might as well send the other 2 to the playstation. In that situation, I would switch every 5 minutes between the two groups, no matter if the negotiations are not finished yet. I found that the "off-screen" players appreciate the time to plan their next step together in a side chat /whispering conversation or just catch their breath, or, yes, go to the loo real quick. 5 Minutes breaks are short enough to not tune out.

Set some ground rules for combat: 10 Seconds to declare your intended action. No stalling questions. Ask your questions before your turn, and I will freely answer them. On your turn, I will become very unhelpful and curt. Have the description of the ability you want to use ready. If you don't, and I have a question regarding it that you can't answer, you can't use it this turn. I never inform people that they can do an AoO, so they need to look for them themselves. If a player takes too long for something (30+ seconds to find their attack bonus), I might step in and shorten the step to keep the action up, but I will err on the bad side for the player. Combat is frantic and should be quick. And yes, I play by the same rules as a DM.

Manage the action yourself, so the game doesn't stall. Use stuff like "unless anyone wants to do something, let's skip ahead" freely. Inform your players that they can interrupt at any time.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a practical minded DM, I would like practical advice...and sadly this thread is missing it.
My advice to you is to start drinking heavily
~Dr. Gonzo, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (the book)~

Clearly the correct thing to do is tell them "If you want to argue endlessly that you're right, take it to a forum". :smallamused: Why the blue text? :smallbiggrin: (And since he was the new guy in the two groups he tried, he also had the 'new guy wants to fit in' thing going on and didn't feel he had the standing to ask "Are we here to play or argue" so he went back to playing DotA and then League of Legends. you can squelch the {censoreds} in a game channel ... you can't really squelch the at-table-jerks...

I may not be as 100% hardcore about it as ad_hoc, but yeah, I expect players to generally pay attention and at least listen on one ear, even if they are not currently doing anything in-game. It's rude to the DM and other players to do otherwise. I also expect people to be organized enough to not be distracted during play. If there is some urgent stuff you need to look after, you actually have no time to play an RPG right now, so don't agree to the timeslot. Fair position to take.

There is some stuff the DM has to do to mitigate the risk of people losing their energy, but players need to actually "want to play the game". If that is not given, the DM can do nothing to fix it. A RPG is actually a horrible way to "just hang out". With the exception of on line play that connects people from California, Washington state, Texas, Chicago, Virginia, Florida, Ann Arbor MI, and Baltimore ~ yep, that's the group that I play with in the shared world with my brother. Beer and pretzels for sure, game style, as much a hang out as a D&D game.

Schedule breaks. I found that 10-15 minutes every 2 hours of game time works well. Do biobreaks, open the windows, refill beverages, take smokes etc. And for some (not me) take a few hits of weed. :smalltongue:


Combat is frantic and should be quick. I like your approach on that section. Similar to mine. "Make up your mind or dodge" is occasionally heard from my lips.

[Quertus]

I'm only on page 2 so far, but the very first reply said what I wanted to say to the opening post. So, kudos @Townopolis, for expressing that idea so well. Players should get the mental break of "benching" and decompressing during "not my scene". And kudos to @Theodoxus for pointing out that the in-character recap is a great opportunity for the GM to catch miscommunicate (also, I'll add, for the GM to "bench" and decompress). Lastly (for now), kiddos to @SirDidymus for pointing out the role-playing advantages to behaving like your character.

(also, what spawning thread? Is it important to understand the discussion to read or know about said thread?).

But, yeah, players checking out of things that, IC, their characters aren't involved or interested in is a good thing. Players checking out in the middle of combat and needing a "what did I miss" recap every round, or who otherwise slow down the game unnecessarily, deserve to be fed to Illithids.


We use a similar rule, though it's modified a bit. You have 30 second to start to tell what you're doing or start asking questions that can't be related to you not paying attention. The first part is because sometimes it takes longer than 30 seconds to say and roll for everything in your turn and I'm pedantic. The second part is because we have newer players in the group who often have questions about their abilities or combat rules.

Also, sometimes my character's actions are based on information obvious to them, but not stated yet (like, "what's the lighting? Are the windows opened or closed? Does the room smell of gasoline/oil? Just how flammable does…” etc).


A DM is always engaged in a D&D game. Players aren't.

Actually… once upon a time, were had run out of snacks/drinks, and the party was having an IC planning discussion. I realized that, as GM, I was the only one not engaged, so I went and bought snacks. When I returned, I asked, "what did I miss?".

It was great! :smallbiggrin

[farothel]

Indeed, in our group (we've been playing together for 20+ years), we sometimes are only half listening. As long as you don't disrupt the scene, it's okay for the GM (we rotate that duty as well), especially if your character isn't there. And sometimes players need to use the restroom as well. While that sometimes happen during a combat or other scene they are in, when I have to go, I try to wait until it's a scene I'm not in (or not actively engaged in) and then go.

You can actually have players leaving the table work for you as GM at times:
In fact, when we were playing Warhammer fantasy roleplay, we had one player who smoked and when his character was possessed (a magic mishap), the GM actually asked him to take a smoke brake while we played it out, so his reaction was more real when he did come back.

And in another game (I was the GM there) we had one player, who was seperate from the group (doing some overwatch in an abandoned control tower), going to the bathroom. The others took the opportunity to place a few claymores at a guard barracks without that player (and the character, who objected to that) knowing about it. Again, a better reaction when that player got told he spotted two explosions (instead of the one he was expecting).

[HidesHisEyes]

I wouldn’t say I want or expect laser focus from everyone at the table all the time, simply because I feel strongly that an RPG session is a social and leisure activity, and I would never want it to feel like work. That said, the way I like to run games does require everyone to pay attention and stay engaged. My favourite game systems don’t have initiative/turn systems, so checking out when it’s not your turn in combat isn’t an option because there’s no such thing as turns. And my preferred style is also to play without a predetermined campaign, so literally everything that happens at the table matters because it could potentially shape the campaign in a major way.

The more I think about it though, the more it’s not a question of being engaged and paying attention all the time, but of just… being interested in stuff other than one’s own character and actions. In my experience when people habitually check out when it’s not their turn it’s usually because there’s a shared sense that each individual player is there to do their own character stuff, whether that’s roleplaying and exploring their character concept or using their various mechanical tricks and combos. That’s not what I want, I want an environment where everyone is invested in the campaign as a whole and in each other’s characters, not just their own. If you have that, it’s fine for people to relax a bit during a session, miss certain things, and then do a meta level catch up here and there.

The other thing that helps is shorter sessions. Two hours is about my optimal session length nowadays, personally, and it’s after that point that I find I myself tend to check out more and more.

Quick amendment: despite what I said, I do have some basic standards in this area. Of course if someone was sitting there scrolling through Twitter for a whole session I would be annoyed. I mean that’s just rude. But I’m happy to say I’ve never had that experience so far.