Players 'checking out'

[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?

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.

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.

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.

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" 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.

Spoiler: spoiler

Show

(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.

Spoiler: spoiler

Show

(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.

[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.

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.