Balancing Player Needs Against My Needs As a DM

[Grimmnist]

I am three sessions into running my new campaign for six friends. I am running a high social sandbox because my favorite part of DMing is playing characters within the fantasy world. Last session we were gathering info for the next quest in the city and upon heading out into the wilderness rolling a very interesting event roll, so didn't end up having any combat.

After the session a player messaged me that they had pretty much just zoned out through the whole session, "we are searching for trouble so lets skip the talking and get into the trouble." That was disappointing to hear that a player did not engage with something I had put a lot of work into. The player didn't make a scene or complain mid session, and of course I want all my players to have a good time but how much do I compromise? There will be heavier combat sessions of course, but there will also be sessions where this are no fights.

As a dm I can't run very high combat, my brain gets stupidly competitive and I start getting salty about the players repeatedly "beating" me, which makes no sense. I need the social and the exploration pillars to set a narrative for the players that I want to see continue. Then the combats then don't seem like players vs the dm, they are serving a greater story, applying stakes.

I mostly just want to vent a bit and see if anyone else has encountered similar situations. This has me questioning if the other players are bored, I don't think they are but I'm a bit shook.

[Darzil]

Did you have a session zero discussing what you all wanted from the game and setting out your expectations?

[MaxWilson]

I am three sessions into running my new campaign for six friends. I am running a high social sandbox because my favorite part of DMing is playing characters within the fantasy world. Last session we were gathering info for the next quest in the city and upon heading out into the wilderness rolling a very interesting event roll, so didn't end up having any combat.

After the session a player messaged me that they had pretty much just zoned out through the whole session, "we are searching for trouble so lets skip the talking and get into the trouble." That was disappointing to hear that a player did not engage with something I had put a lot of work into. The player didn't make a scene or complain mid session, and of course I want all my players to have a good time but how much do I compromise? There will be heavier combat sessions of course, but there will also be sessions where this are no fights.

As a dm I can't run very high combat, my brain gets stupidly competitive and I start getting salty about the players repeatedly "beating" me, which makes no sense. I need the social and the exploration pillars to set a narrative for the players that I want to see continue. Then the combats then don't seem like players vs the dm, they are serving a greater story, applying stakes.

I mostly just want to vent a bit and see if anyone else has encountered similar situations. This has me questioning if the other players are bored, I don't think they are but I'm a bit shook.

It might be worth having a discussion to make sure everybody wants the same things you want out of D&D. Awkwardness can ensue when expectations don't match. Quoting from 1980's http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theor...ls/blacow.html

...Most of the older games in existence long ago passed beyond the simple forms described above. Wargamers have learned how to role-play, role-players have learned to see the advantages of well-done rules, and there has been a growing drive across the hobby towards more reasonable and consistent worlds. But this does not mean that all adventure gamers have common attitudes. The mind sets generated by the original approaches still live on, and even among the most sophisticated players and GMs can produce raging disputes, mostly through lack of understanding about the assumptions that the other side is operating under.

Consider the cases that might occur at an ordinary convention...

Ben Jones has been running a successful dungeon for years. He's a role-playing GM from the word go, and has been working smoothly with a group of similar-minded players for almost as long. He was asked to prepare a special scenario for the con and run three groups through it, one per day. Ben really gets into the spirit of the thing and produces an adventure to remember. There's a castle wiht suitably gruesome garrison, some interesting magic, and an exciting random encounter. After a moment's thought, he also provides for a meeting with one of his most fascinating non-player characters, Arilla of the Silver Lake. Arilla is a personality his regulars always enjoy meeting, visiting players consistently go out of their way to encounter. A great chance for some role-playing.

Unknown to Ben Jones, the three groups are unmixed collections of people brought up in the other three FRP traditions. The first party to experience the scenario is the people from a story telling world, the second is a batch of wargamers, and the last a collection of power gamers.

1) Ben sets up the first trip and begins. As an adventure it seems to go quite well. The players, however, instead of just appreciating and experiencing Arilla, keep asking a lot of irritating queries about the castle and its owner. A fuming Ben begins to wonder if they're trying to show him up. Why don't they just hurry up and get along with the scenario?

The run comes to an end with Ben somewhat annoyed about their taste for nitpicking detail. They depart convinced that he hasn't quite gotten his act together.

2) The wargamers run through next. They organize the expedition quickly and without any of the pre-game role-playing Ben dearly loves to hear. They march out to the castle, almost ignoring Lady Arilla. Once there, they spend 20 minutes setting up an assault plan. The actual assault may take even less time than the planning. It is also done with startling efficiency and an almost total lack of character (as opposed to player) interaction.

Ben watches them leave with the conviction that while they know their stuff, they're a dull and uninteresting lot.

In the eyes of the wargamers, he's probably proved himself to be incompetant. The trouble that they had with his monsters would almost certainly seem minor ("Why, I've had more trouble with a room full of Kevin's kobolds"), and the rewards disproportionately great.

3) The last expedition is the one that really sours Ben. Looking at the group with some caution, he insists on only accepting characters of the proper level, and refuses to allow some of the more extravagant items into the game. The expedition starts in the midst of much discussion about who gets to go where in the marching order. ("Well, my paladin has 18 strength, 78 hits, and a Vorpal Sword!" "Yeah, but my fighter has a Belt of Storm Giant Strength, a Rod of Lordly Might, and +5 armor.")

Once again the party encounters Arilla of the Silver Lake. This time, there's no conversation at all. The player characters eye the magical crown, the cool looking belt, and powerful staff -- and kill her! Poor Ben sits there in a state of shock while the adventurers commit atrocities on her followers, destroy the bodies, and divide the loot among them. When they finish and look expectantly at him, he grinds his teeth in rage and begins handing out appropriate punishments for their crimes. The paladin is stripped of his paladinhood, alignments are changed, and various weapons argue at great length with their (former) owners.

By the time the expedition reaches the castle, there is no small amount of ill-will in the air. A still furious Ben attempts to avenge Arilla, whle the players buckle down with grim determination to show him up. Given the power of the players characters on the expedition, they win. The GM watches them leave, growling about "over-equipped turkeys" under his breath. The players in turn consider him to be a poor loser and a sorehead.

Variations of the theme could be endlessly devised, but the basics are visible above. To the role-player, the wargaming GM is the master of a "killer dungeon"; to the GM concerned, characters are just "dice," and there are plenty more where the player characters he just killed came from. Power gamers find other games dull restrictive, and comparatively unrewarding. Players inured to a wargaming approach tend to impeach the skills of GMs and players of other game types, and are apt to mutter the words "Monty Hall" more often than is likely to earn them good will.

ALl of the above cases derive from mutual inability to perceive differences in game philosophy. Ben Jones, contrary to the assumptions of the three groups of players, has his act together, is quite competent, and was not being a sorehead. He is not really trying to write an epic, he was not interested in killing the characters of the second group, and his outrage at the killing of the non-player character was justified. What he was offering was a chance to role-play.

Conversely, none of the three groups were trying to be difficult. The first group was looking for something important to them that wasn't there. The wargamers were looking for a tactical challenge. And the last group was interested in having fun, according to their own perceptions of it. To them, Arilla was not an important and interesting person, but a wandering monster. And what else are wandering monsters for, if not to kill and loot?

If you're there to be a storytelling DM and two guys are there to be wargaming players while another is into roleplaying, one is into storytelling, and two more are there to powergame (in the original, 1980 sense of the word), there's definitely a risk of a bad experience. You need to get everyone on the same page and those who aren't interested in the experience you're offering as an XYZ DM should either go in with their eyes wide open or stay home with their eyes wide open.

[Grimmnist]

@Darzil - we did have a session 0 where I said I would run high social. The player who reached out to me is new to ttrpg's so he may not have had full understanding of what we went over in the session 0.


@Max - We definitely haven't had anything as extreme as that (thank goodness I'm not the textbook example lol). I have read through articles like that before and I feel like they don't touch on the irl social dynamic. Everyone I play with is a friend or a friend of a friend, and especially these days what else are they going to be doing with their time. The player in question has been very clear that they want to be included in the campaign (maybe just because they want to hang out), I'm not going to kick them out so it's really up to them if they are interested in what I'm offering or not.

One thing the article mentioned that I had not thought about was how age plays a role in group dynamic, the player in question is ~5 years younger than the age range of everyone else (early 20s compared to ~30). Their rpg influences are different, things like Runescape.

[ZRN]

After the session a player messaged me that they had pretty much just zoned out through the whole session, "we are searching for trouble so lets skip the talking and get into the trouble." That was disappointing to hear that a player did not engage with something I had put a lot of work into. The player didn't make a scene or complain mid session, and of course I want all my players to have a good time but how much do I compromise? There will be heavier combat sessions of course, but there will also be sessions where this are no fights.

Could you give more details on the player/PC in question?

Sometimes the player isn't engaged because their character isn't engaged: if you make a stereotypical half-orc barbarian sit through a five-hour masquerade ball making small talk with local nobles, the character is likely to be bored and uncomfortable, which can lead to the player too having less fun. (Likewise the bookish wizard in a dive bar, the pampered noble on an extended trip through the wilderness, etc.) The answer there might not be "add more combat encounters," but rather "add more RP opportunities that make that character feel engaged/important." Maybe he gets pulled into a belching contest, or maybe a snotty noble challenges him to a (nonlethal!) duel.

ETA: since your later comment mentioned this is a player new to TTRPGs, there's a good chance you can convince him to engage with the social aspects with a little more tailored attention here - show him how he can feel cool/impactful/powerful even without rolling initiative.

On the other hand, some players just don't enjoy the roleplaying aspects of the game as much as the combat tactics; in those cases, as others here pointed out, having a session-zero style talk about what everyone involved wants out of the game is best.

[Grimmnist]

Could you give more details on the player/PC in question?

They are playing as the character Aqua from the animoo Konosuba. A drunken cleric. I have had dedicated a pretty significant amount of "tavern-time" and the player has been involved in roleplay while in the tavern. They became disengaged as soon as we left the tavern and didn't immediately fight something.

Last session was about hunting down a monster, and before setting off into the wilderness the party asked around town for information. The player messaged me "who cares what it is. We know where it is and lets go kill it" and that kind of scares me. Spoilers if any of my players are on here: The "monster" is a werewolf, and not even a particularly evil one, the leader of a disenfranchised community of werewolfs. I am trying to build up an atmosphere of moral ambiguity and corruption to my setting, I'm chilling if the players choose to kill the werewolf that is an acceptable outcome with real stakes and consequences, but I'm not running a fetch quest simulator "go to place collect x werewolf pelts return for reward." I hope in seeing that this is more than just a slay monster quest the player becomes more invested in future.

[Grimmnist]

I did tailor my world around the players who sent me backstories. Those who sent me stuff seemed very interested in systematic and political corruption and tearing down unjust systems, and while I don't think a political campaign would work for this group, I wanted to have moral ambiguity and necessary evils. People shared their backstories with each other so several of them are super well aligned. I think part of the issue is that "Aqua from Konosuba" isn't really a backstory or a narrative hook. I don't know how to work with that or flesh it out.

[MaxWilson]

@Max - We definitely haven't had anything as extreme as that (thank goodness I'm not the textbook example lol). I have read through articles like that before and I feel like they don't touch on the irl social dynamic. Everyone I play with is a friend or a friend of a friend, and especially these days what else are they going to be doing with their time. (A) The player in question has been very clear that they want to be included in the campaign (maybe just because they want to hang out), I'm not going to kick them out so it's really up to them if they are interested in what I'm offering or not.

(A) Ah, okay, this is crucial info.

In that case, I'd say maybe consider making 1-on-1 combat a bigger part of the prevalent culture? Whether it's gladiators as celebrities or making trial-by-combat an actual thing (or even friendly sparring matches when you meet an NPC or new kind of creature). It would make the culture more medieval or maybe even Greek-ish, but that might not be a bad thing.

Also, sometimes players seem like they're disengaged but they're actually enjoying it just fine. Some people just like watching. [shrug] Wish I could be more helpful.

===============================

They are playing as the character Aqua from the animoo Konosuba. A drunken cleric. I have had dedicated a pretty significant amount of "tavern-time" and the player has been involved in roleplay while in the tavern. They became disengaged as soon as we left the tavern and didn't immediately fight something.

Last session was about hunting down a monster, and before setting off into the wilderness the party asked around town for information. The player messaged me "who cares what it is. We know where it is and lets go kill it" and that kind of scares me. Spoilers if any of my players are on here: The "monster" is a werewolf, and not even a particularly evil one, the leader of a disenfranchised community of werewolfs. I am trying to build up an atmosphere of moral ambiguity and corruption to my setting, I'm chilling if the players choose to kill the werewolf that is an acceptable outcome with real stakes and consequences, but I'm not running a fetch quest simulator "go to place collect x werewolf pelts return for reward." I hope in seeing that this is more than just a slay monster quest the player becomes more invested in future.

Hmmm. Since this player is new to the system, it could also be that they are eager to learn the combat rules by experience. I wonder, if you offer to run the player through a few pre-game practice combats (1 on 1 combats are fast to DM) against e.g. an Ogre, then a Yeti, then a Red Dragon Wyrmling, would they still be antsy for a fight or would that scratch the itch? Don't commit the Fundamental Attribution Error: someone who wants a fight right now isn't necessarily someone who always wants a fight.

[Grimmnist]

Also, sometimes players seem like they're disengaged but they're actually enjoying it just fine. Some people just like watching. [shrug] Wish I could be more helpful.

I appreciate the input, even if it only helps me better understand my own thoughts.

Hmmm. Since this player is new to the system, it could also be that they are eager to learn the combat rules by experience. I wonder, if you offer to run the player through a few pre-game practice combats (1 on 1 combats are fast to DM) against e.g. an Ogre, then a Yeti, then a Red Dragon Wyrmling, would they still be antsy for a fight or would that scratch the itch? Don't commit the Fundamental Attribution Error: someone who wants a fight right now isn't necessarily someone who always wants a fight.

They aren't totally new to the system (I still think of them that way because time has stopped making sense recently), we have done quite a few That Arena Guy's Gauntlet which pits you against increasingly difficult fights. They are new to campaigns, they have expressed that they want the long term character progression so I guess they most closely align with a powergamer, though not to the extreme described in the article you shared.

How does one normally work with powergamers? I have a bit of a hard time relating since as a player I most enjoy interesting roleplay opportunities and really don't prioritize mechanical progression or loot. I still know the game system very well and can run a good combat but my style lends itself to fewer more interesting fights as opposed to lots of little xp grinds. Maybe I need to give more xp from social stuff? I usually give large amounts as quest rewards, but that is all at once at the end, maybe little carrots along the way would help.

[MaxWilson]

How does one normally work with powergamers? I have a bit of a hard time relating since as a player I most enjoy interesting roleplay opportunities and really don't prioritize mechanical progression or loot. I still know the game system very well and can run a good combat but my style lends itself to fewer more interesting fights as opposed to lots of little xp grinds. Maybe I need to give more xp from social stuff? I usually give large amounts as quest rewards, but that is all at once at the end, maybe little carrots along the way would help.

That's a tough one, and I'm not good at it. As a teenager I did get exploit my brother by offering him stat boosts and cool new powers in exchange for doing my chores and stuff. He wound up playing Infinity Man who had literally infinite HP, infinite Gamma Ray shields, and infinite stats.

As an adult though... I am not good at offering a powergaming experience. It bores me and makes me feel cheap, even dirty, at the same time. I think in order for me to have a good time running for a powergamer it would need to be someone I feel a strong emotional connection to, like one of my (eventual, future) daughters, especially at a young age. Even then I'd try to build the campaign so that the powergaming was still somewhat challenging, I'd just make logistics a bigger part of the game: hand out wands/potions/magical swords/necklaces of fireballs/etc. freely so they have raw mechanical power available, while simultaneously trying to tempt them into biting off more than they can chew. It would probably involve rewriting 5E's XP tables to be more exponential so that I'd have more carrot to give them--win this fight, gain 5000 XP! but you're still 345,000 XP away from 12th level. And I'd definitely be tracking encumbrance, and letting thieves potentially steal belongings left unattended back at town so that deciding which equipment (power!) to keep is a meaningful decision.

If I were running for a mixed group like you are, with one powergamer and a bunch of roleplayers, I'd approach things slightly differently--I'd probably keep my game mostly the same but offer the powergamer some buttons to push, in an attempt to tempt them into looking for ways to apply these powers, which will inevitably draw them into non-combat interactions. E.g. they inherit a Helm of Telepathy and an Alchemy Jug. That way not all of the buttons they're itching to push are in combat, and "looking for trouble" could just as easily mean spitefully gluing shut the zippers on all of the pants owned by the nobleman who has adulterous thoughts, instead of looking for a monster to kill**. As others have mentioned I'd also go out of my way to present them with opportunities to interact via these "powers" with the world, e.g. when the powergamer looks bored during a long conversation, making a point of telling the powergamer specifically about the lecherous nobleman who is also bored and whom the powergamer notices checking out another NPC. The powergamer may not bite, but at least I've given him the opportunity. In this case the solution I'd be tempting is not so much about turning my game into powergaming, although just giving them the Helm and Alchemy Jug certainly is a concession to powergaming, and more about ensuring that the player is being offered affordances in their preferred idiom. And as per above, if combat specifically turns out to be their idiom, I might shift the gameworld's cultures a little bit to make them more Klingon-ish and make diplomacy-via-combat more of a thing they can engage in. That too is about offering affordances in a preferred idiom. ** And it is crucial to show the NPC reacting to the sabotage, because that is how the player feels like he actually did something. It doesn't have to be a big thing, just a brief mention of how he showed up late for the meeting wearing new pants and is walking funny, or looking more embarrassed than usual.

Those are my thoughts on the subject, they could change if I had to actually do it in real life.

[fbelanger]

I got in a setup where plot where too well hidden, mysteries unsolvable, Npc always lying, cheating, playing double agenda,
After trying to play the game, we finally went to blow everything without asking question.

In combat players almost always win, in plot setup Dm sometime make them always loose, don’t ask why players don’t want to play that game.