Adam and Bob were both REALLY into this game. I had more time to focus on them individually, they had more spotlights, and in general the game flowed a lot better. I still cut the game short though, because Chris was practically asleep at the table. He missed all his spotlights, and being the mental character at the table he slowed down an otherwise smooth, and fun game. I decided to cut the game short, because I was frustrated with Chris’s lack of attention.

After the game I started handing out XP. The first thing I do is ask the player’s what they thought the really cool momments of the game are and award bonus XP for these momments. We raved about the awesome leadership qualities that started to sprout in Adam. We all had great things to say about Bob’s new found ability to roll play his character’s religious side and really get into the roll of a Theban. Then no one said anything about Chris, so I said, “Chris what about you. Do you think you did anything that deserves mention?” His reply, “No, not really.”

That really struck a nerve with me. I closed my books, laptop, etc. and said, “Okay guys, it is time we had a talk. Before this game I really felt you guys were not into the game. Now I see I was wrong. Chris, you are really dragging the rest of us down. What is the deal. Are you not interested in this game? Is there something you would like to see? Is there something I am doing that I should change?” His reply, “I am not really that into Vampires.” At this point I was pretty steamed. His wishy-washy attitude really set me off, so I decided to pick up the conversation later.

I talked with the other two, Adam and Bob, and they both agreed with me that he was dragging the group down. They assured me that the story was interesting, relevant, etc. and if they seemed disinterested it was because Chris’s character seemed to just be a sack of meat that followed them around. They explained to me that it was easy to get side-tracked by him when he was not paying attention. They also mentioned that he NEVER knows what his stats are. For example, I will say, “Chris give me a Wits and Occult roll.” They said that it takes him several minutes to get his dice together. Or during combat it is the same thing even though he makes the same roll everytime. They said that during the times that I have to explain the rules to him, or wait for him to collect his dice is when the side conversations start.

I then decided to talk to the fourth player, lets call him Dave. Before I even broached the topic he started asking me when the next game was, apologized for missing the last one, and asked to do a little side story for the time he missed. At the end of this I asked him what he thought about the other players, and if he thought they were enjoying the game. Right away Chris’s name came up as not being interested.

I still haven’t had a chance to talk to the fifth player, or to have a good sit down with Chris. I think that I will be dropping Chris from the game as the others still seem interested in continuing the Vampire campaign.

Hopefully I get get this sorted soon.

Thanks again for all the suggestions, and ideas. Hopefully my experience will help others.

The weekend has come and gone. How did it go?

@TwoShedsJackson – Whether it applies to Crushnaut or not, that’s a good point. I’d say less common overall, but definitely worth watching out for.

@Tiorn – This is a nice middle ground; I’d say it falls under the rubric of “Talk to your players and use what they tell you,” and if that step leads in a positive direction so much the better.

One of the things that often makes it hard to comment is when you had a bad feeling going in, but swallowed it to game. It doesn’t feel right to critique something you were already lukewarm on… it doesn’t feel like you gave it a fair chance. But playing on can really ruin your enthusiasm… it’s a tough line to walk.

I plan on running a 3.5E campaign sometime soon. I have worries that I will fall way short of keeping my players’ attentions and interest. It seems like a better approach in dealing with such potential problems (when it seems to be more and more obvious), would be to be kind of sneaky about it. Go for positives instead of bringing up the negative elephant.

If some players seem more uninterested than others, then talk to them about what they would like to be doing with their characters. What makes the character tick? What are its goals? Ambitions? Motivations? And so on.

Take notes on the responses… then use them. Rewrite your story to include what you were told by your players. When you get right down to it, the story is all about the players after all.

In my own experiences, one of the things I did was tag team with another friend. I’d run my Shadowrun campaign for 6 months or so and then we’d switch over to his Rifts campaign. This gave us both a nice break and a chance to recharge. We also learned from each other and our observations of the other players by being a PC next to them. Those insights were handy.

During one stretch of GMing that same long running Shadowrun campaign I could see my players were getting a bit bored of their characters and the setting. What I did then since I had no one willing to take on the GM mantle was to send the players off in groups of two to different parts of the globe to do shadowruns. They worked with NPCs, but instead of me playing the NPCs I gave the players who were not on that particular run an index card with NPC info and had them play them. It gave them all a chance to play something different for a few game sessions and experience different parts of the world. It provided a nice breath of fresh air.

Recently, I shelved the three year running 2nd Edition D&D game I was DMing. I was getting the sense that the players for the most part aside from one of them was drifting off in their enjoyment of the game. So, I said I’d like to put the campaign on hiatus for a while and we could do one of three things — a new D&D game, a Shadowrun campaign, or someone step into the GM shoes for a while. They picked a new D&D campaign and it seems to be working…they are all enjoying playing very different characters and are in the midst of a dungeon crawl which is a nice change from the political stuff they were involved in in the last campaign.

As a player, I have been remiss in mentioning that I am not enjoying a game. Once we had someone step into the DM boots and he insisted, for instance, that the paladin had to make a wisdom check every time he was near a woman to not stray from his vows…I hated having the DM tell me and the others how our characters felt. The game died from people making themselves “unavailable”. We should have been upfront with the problems we saw. I think he might have actually appreciated the frank discussion if we had been brave enough as his friends.

1. …*you* are bored with the game, and are projecting your boredom onto the players?

2. …the players are bored with each other?

3. …the players are distracted by other matters, such as their actual lives?

4. …you have done something to keep your players from being invested in the game, like constantly joking about killing their characters, or suggesting you would rather play a different system?

What you say makes a lot of sense, and in some ways is what was running through my head. I will be seeing the group this weekend. Hopefully we can resolve this problem. I think it is going to involve starting a new campaign though.

I think one of the reasons we keep seeing this over and over (he says, pulling on his philosopher’s robes) is that the personality type drawn to gaming tends to assume that everyone shares the same view of the world. (Yes, it’s a gross generalization, but IME it’s also a fairly accurate one.)

As an example: “I’m a gamer and a geek. I like anime and steampunk. Therefore, all my gamer-geek buddies must like anime and steampunk, too.”

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I honestly cannot stand anime, and steampunk does absolutely nothing for me. This does not mean that you can’t like them, or that I’m rejecting you as a friend, or that I’m criticizing your GMing. I just don’t like them. Deal with it, and let’s find some common ground.

If the purpose of the game was a romantic high seas adventure and the game has come to be focused around inland investigation, the issue might be that you aren’t delivering on the social contract, implicitly or explicitly determined at the start of the campaign. Think of how to get back on track with the original premise. That could solve things right there.

Also, is the system you’re using player-reactive or player-proactive? In other words, are you playing D&D or Burning Wheel? (just examples that are relevant to me, personally.) If the former, the GM will have most of the work to do to rectify the issue – they carry the ball. If the latter, the players have a huge stake in how things have gone so far. They, with the GM, will have to take a good look at the situation and come to a way to resolve whatever is happening that is causing player drift or disinterest.

Last thing: I’d say that, before you point out the elephant in the room, rethink your next session plan. Really examine it. Be critical. Now totally alter it. Draw out more spotlight moments, force players to come to decisions about their characters, bring back that villain or great NPC, etc. Change things to see how that session flies.

Regardless, at the end of the session, bring the “elephant” forward in chains and talk things out. “I’ve been feeling like interest has gone downhill. I tried to change up this session to see if it would have an impact.” If it did: “You guys seemed more into this session. Do you want to see more of X?” If it didn’t: “Let’s work this out. We’re all players here, and the goal is to have fun. I’ll start: I think I ought to be doing more of Y…” and have the players all chime in.

If you (the GM) start the process, they’ll feel more comfortable getting in on the honest feedback because they see you’re committed to making the game work. If you look to the players to speak first… well… you may find they’re holding back, and can you blame them?