"Dear JB" Mailbag #33

[Dear JB #32 is still sitting on the draft board and might remain there forever...it was dumb, my response (only half penned) is sprawling, meandering, and...probably...dumb as well, the result of writing in the middle of the night after a couple of gin & tonics. In the meantime, I actually received an email from a reader asking for some JB advice...he gets the #33 stamp]

Dear JB,

As a referee, I'm always trying to improve my game, but I feel as though I've hit a plateau and don't see a clear path to improvement at the moment.

Here's my current situation. I run first edition AD&D (very nearly) by-the-book. My setting uses real world geography, some real world mythology / folklore, and a tiny bit of real world history. For the rest, my setting follows what is implied by the core rules, that is, the guidance on "The Campaign" described in the DMG pp. 86 - 93, random encounter tables, cosmology / alignment rules, and so on. I'm pretty satisfied that my players are digging this approach and I know that I am. I have 7 active players ranging in age from mid / late-twenties to early sixties. I've lost one player to the complaint that this style of play is "too mentally taxing," but I've gained two players who had only played in narrative-style 5e games before, and found the challenge of this style rewarding. I run three sessions a month, and have canceled 2 of the last 18 scheduled sessions for a lack of players able to join.

Because we follow the time-keeping rules in the DMG, "it is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening," in particular, two things about the game are markedly different from games I've played in and run that do not follow those rules. First is that the players make a point of returning to safety before the end of each session. No smart player wants his character to be holed up in a dungeon or camped in a dangerous wilderness for 5 to 12 days before the next session, as his odds of survival would not be high. This facilitates different groups of players and characters playing from one session to the next. It also completely mitigates the negative consequences of a player unexpectedly missing a session that one might suffer with a freeze-time time-keeping approach. The second effect is that there is considerable "downtime" for the characters. Two of my players use this time scrupulously, two of them are spotty in taking advantage of it, and the other three mostly waste it. It has worked out exactly as Gygax suggested, "The latter tends to bring more true-to-life quality to the game, as some characters will use precious time to the utmost advantage, some will treat it lightly, and some will be constantly wasting it to their complete detriment. Time is yet another facet which helps to separate the superior players from the lesser ones."

We also follow performance rating / training rules, and each character not only gets a 1 to 4 rating for each session, but also for each downtime period. If no orders are received for a character in a given time period that garners a 4. On the other hand, a player who issues orders which take care of necessary business like convalescence, equipment purchases, money-changing, &c. or which advance the character's own goals, like information gathering, a cleric building an orphanage, &c., he earns a 1 for that character that period. Ratings of 2 and 3 only apply to partially ineffectual or nonsensical orders. One way in which we deviate from the rules (and there are very few) is that since the rating is about player skill, and players have multiple characters, the average of all of a player's characters' ratings apply as the multiplier to all of his characters' training time (and therefore cost) in order to gain levels. The seven players currently have average ratings ranging from one player at a perfect 1 up to 2.8. These ratings are posted on the campaign web site to help foster competition and attention to skillful play.

All of that set up is maybe more background than necessary to get to my real "dear JB" question. There are a lot of NPCs doing a lot of things in the setting and most of the players have visibility into much of that activity, collectively, though there are many things some players know about and others do not. It's an interesting and dynamic landscape from my referee perspective, but most of the players aren't really paying attention to it. My two strongest players are, but the other five don't seem to know what to do with it and one of those has even demonstrated not paying attention to his own past orders and results in choices he makes in subsequent orders. I'm concluding that I'm more in love with my setting than my players are, and that I'm failing to provide what most of them need to engage deeply with the setting. I have a lot of shortcomings as a referee, perhaps chief among them that I do no acting, funny voices, and almost no first-person NPC dialog. My presentation is as dry an experience as looking at a chessboard. I'm not sure that those are the shortcomings that make the game less interesting for my some of my players, but I have too many shortcomings as a referee to list. Maybe without sitting at my table it's impossible for you to really comment on my situation exactly. I'm hopeful though that you've experienced a table that this description of mine resembles and might serve as a model for suggesting what I'm missing or doing wrong. Or maybe you have ideas for how I can test the table to figure out what I might be doing wrong. Soliciting direct feedback has been only a little bit fruitful.

Doing Something Wrong

Dear DSW:

Since I haven't sat at your table, I will take you at your word (i.e. that what you've written is wholly accurate) and draw my conclusions from there.

The crux of your worry seems to be that:

"...I'm more in love with my setting than my players are, and that I'm failing to provide what most of them need to engage deeply with the setting."

despite also stating that:

"I'm pretty satisfied that my players are digging this approach and I know that I am."

along with evidence that your players are enjoying themselves: 6+ months of regular play, low turnover, good attendance...plus relatively high scores in "performance ratings," especially considering that part of their grades are based on downtime participation (!!). To me, this would all seem to indicate that your players ARE engaging with the setting on a consistent basis (albeit some are more deeply engaged than others). 

Here's the thing, DSW: You (the DM) are always going to me more in love with your setting than the players. And it is a GOOD thing that you are; if the creator does not love their creation, they will lack the energy needed to care for, develop, and grow the setting, without which there can be no game.

[yes, there can be no game without the game either (i.e. without the rules, system, etc.); however, we are already taking as a "given" that the participants wish to play D&D. Once the game is decided upon, the setting is the next thing of greatest importance]

A clear barometer of your satisfaction with your campaign is going to be measured by how much you enjoy the setting, regardless of the players' love of and engagement with the setting. If my players are wildly crazy about GhostBusters, and wish to play in a setting that resembles the film franchise, it really doesn't matter how much I want to please and appease them...I will run out of steam (eventually) because, deep down, I have no interest whatsoever in running such a game.

This is a truth that every vocational DM must eventually come to realize. 

And it makes no never mind if you do acting, funny voices, first person dialogue, etc....if this is the "price" of player engagement, then your players are looking for a different game than what you are running; these things are unnecessary to the play of the D&D game (certainly with regard to the 1st edition AD&D version you are running). My daughter loves it when I or someone else at the table does "funny voices" in an entertaining fashion, all but clapping her hands...however, she's not there for the performance, it is simply icing on the (adventure) cake. Granted, she doesn't know any different (her handful of forays into 5E were with a adolescent DM who was still doing dungeon crawls, not soap opera play), and veterans of narrative-style gaming might have different assumptions...but, then, your players continue to show up even without that jazz, right?

Now, here's the part where you (might) say:

But, JB, I get all that. What you're NOT addressing is that five of my seven players aren't engaging with the setting the way the other two are. I'm afraid that my DMing may be too dry for them, that they might (eventually) check out...like one player already did...for being too "mentally taxed" for the amount of "fun" they're having. What can I do to help them care more for the setting they're exploring?

DSW, it may well be that...so far as engagement is concerned...your players are already at the limit of their capability.

Some people just want to play; some people just want to have adventures. This is, of course, what D&D is at its heart: a game of fantasy adventure. Some players just want to swing a(n imaginary) sword and collect (imaginary) treasure. They are there for the rush, the thrill of adventure. For the challenge. "Can I make it out of the dungeon (alive)...with a fat payday?" Pushing those limits -- hopefully surviving, sometimes dying -- is what gives them their jollies. As much if not more so than the bonds of friendship and camaraderie around the table.

And while there's more to D&D than that...the building of castles, the establishment of kingdoms...for some players, adventure is enough. The 'high' is enough. They're not interested in living in the world; of sowing their own seeds of creation in the fertile soil of the setting you've created.

Adventure happens when players choose to engage with situations that you, the DM, create and provide. You write that there are "a lot of NPCs doing a lot of things in the setting," but that by itself doesn't make situation. Just because Baron BadGuy is oppressing elves in the township doesn't mean the paladin PC is going to jump on his charger and ride to battle. Just because the players hear rumors of an approaching orc horde doesn't mean they're going to organize the villagers into some sort of fighting force...they may simply decide to jet. 

For the campaign to satisfy the players, they must have a high degree of autonomy such that their choices and decisions matter (i.e. are consequential). So you can't force the issue. However, a BTB 1E campaign has an exceptional method of motivating players already built into its system: the need to pay the bills. Upkeep costs will absolutely eat up the PCs' treasury, forcing them to go out in search of adventure. You are then (as DM) given the golden opportunity of extending situation to them like a helping hand to a drowning person; little more is required (save the art of couching the situation in such terms that it doesn't seem the risk is too far out of reach, nor the reward too small for what is being asked).

But downtime activity? Building orphanages, gathering information, etc.? For players to want to engage in that type of play requires one (or both) of two things:

A) a player who is REALLY into the fantasy setting already (not your average D&D player),

B) an obvious benefit to the activity in question.

And obvious to you (the DM) does not automatically equate to "obvious to the player." It's not enough (for most players) to say, hey, the Grand Druid and his entourage are coming to town to celebrate the Solstice. Who cares? What's it to me? says the (majority of) players. What are the benefits? Where's the profit in it (literal and/or figurative). 

Some players are more invested in particular schemes for...well, for reasons that can come from any number or variety of circumstances. The paladin is tired of wondering about the alignment ramifications of leaving all these goblin orphans alive (after killing their parents in battle) and wants a place to stash them and turn them into "polite members of (human) society." Whatever. Some issues (and some situations) will appeal to some players, some won't, but that's NOT REALLY YOUR WORRY. You want the players to have autonomy; you want the players to be able to refuse situations you offer. As a DM your job is to keep offering them situations, and then working out what happens when one finally grabs their attention.

And it IS a "job;" one you do out of love (since there's no way anyone's compensating you sufficiently for the work you put in as a DM). Which is why it's so important that you love your own setting. The more you enjoy 'playing in it' (i.e. world building) the more situations you're going to dream up that you can offer your players. Eventually they'll find something that sparks their interest...regardless of whether or not your delivery of the situational information is "dry." Create exciting situations, and it won't matter how much (or how little) enthusiasm is in your voice. Fact is, if you're excited, it will come through in your communication.

Okay. Two more things:

First off, I want to address incentivizing players, especially with regard to "performance grades." I don't use these myself, though I don't fault anyone who does (I've used them in the past)...still one has to understand their practical purpose. Just as training is NOT about "sucking money out of players," but (as I've written before) about controlling the pace of the game, performance grades are NOT just a way of "evaluating" players. Rather, they serve to condition players' behavior in a way that meets the Dungeon Master's vision of game play.

The performance grades are entirely arbitrary and open to DM interpretation: what you, as a DM, consider to be 'right and proper' behavior for a thief or ranger may be VERY different from what I, as a DM, believe. Performance grades provide a "stick" with which to spank players who aren't meeting the DM's expectations, aiding all players in aligning expectations of play with a singular vision. If I want my fighters to throw themselves into battle with foolhardy abandon, I can penalize the ones who play a more cautious game by cutting their advancement time by a factor of two to four. "Don't want to play right? Watch Bob's character advance three times faster than you!"

However, I'm of the opinion that punitive measures aren't as effective at motivating players as are positive rewards ("carrots"). They can even cause players to rebel outright. 

[I still recall my days playing in a friend's Marvel Superheroes campaign and how we dealt with the "kill someone, lose all Karma points" rule: we simply said, fine, we'll play with zero karma (at which point my friend/GM instituted a "negative Karma" rule which, likewise, did nothing to disincentivize us from killing folks)]

I am not suggesting that your use of performance grades, both in active play and downtime activity, is somehow preventing your players from engaging more readily with the setting...clearly, your whole point of using them as you are is designed to encourage them to engage more deeply. I'm only saying that "negative reinforcement" is (generally) not going to motivate someone as strongly as positive incentives...especially if I (as a player) simply play a different PC while my under-performing character is locked in "training jail." 

Finally, it may be that everything you're doing is JUST FINE. When it comes to skill training of any sort (and Dungeon Mastering is a skill), the dedicated practitioner will, at times, come to a place where their skill "plateaus;" many books have been written on the subject. Most of what I've read indicates that plateaus are a period of integration and consolidation...you may have reached a point where you are simply refining and sharpening the ways and methods of running the game that you've acquired over months (or years) of play. The length of time that a person remains in such a plateau state (despite consistent applied effort) varies not only by skill and individual, but by perception...because of our "diminishing returns" we see a lack of progress, until enough time has passed that we can look back and see just how far we've come. This is the path of mastery for ANY skill (not just Dungeon Mastering)..."breakthroughs" always come faster and are more noticeable at the beginning of our journeys. What you may be seeing as a "rut" may simply be the "journeyman's grind" and, while frustrating, may be really nothing to worry about.

If YOU enjoy running the game, if YOU are in love with your setting, then just keep plugging away. In the end, everyone at the table (including yourself) is responsible for their own investment in the campaign. You can't worry too much about the players' engagement; instead, focus on your world building (developing the setting, creating situations) to ensure they have something with which to engage.

Sincerely,

JB