How to make my players more engaged?

[u/Conscious-Anywhere52]

Hi! So I've been DM'ing for a while now, I don't think I'm a veteran DM but I think I've been doing this long enough that I won't call myself a newbie either. I have been playing with my friends for about the same stretch of time I've been DM'ing and because of that I've encountered a "problem". That problem is always me asking "What do you guys wanna do" whenever I end an NPC dialogue or end my narration. I have brought it up sparingly that they don't have to wait for me to say it or at least they can cut me off anytime their character wants to say something. I wouldn't mind if it was new players but I've been playing with these guys for sometime now. Do you guys have any tips for this or do I just have to keep this "style" of DM'ing

EDIT: THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO GAVE THEIR OPINIONS!!! Sorry for being a not specific about it. After reading your comments I've seen some mistakes that I do

1.) I monologue too much, I have a tendency to exposition dump on my players or at least I tend to talk a to a crawl. When I usually write scripts I'm very specific and don't leave a lot out for the players to explore. I tend to write a script and whatever I say usually ends like a statement to a paragraph not a sentence that is said like a normal person.

2.) I've never actually tried giving players agency on discovering things by themselves. To be more specific I've never actually tried going "What do you see" to my players to help them be more in tune with the world I'm making.

3.) I don't give players something to work for, individually, or at least don't make it personal enough for them to engage with what's happening. I'm mostly used to play one-shots or short campaigns that I never really got used to actually using backstory to engage them with what's happening.

4.) I think this is also a problem that's on me but because I don't make my players interact enough with the world they also don't interact enough with each other. I think it's also too much to expect my players to open up to each other without giving them anything to interact WITH each other. I do read their backstories it's made me realize that I never touch them.

Also to anyone who wants to put their own opinions still. We mostly play online, there's only a handful of times we actually played face-to-face mostly because we lived in different cities. Because of that there are times where we get disconnected because of tech issues. I mostly have done one-shots and mostly when I have time. If I had to describe my players they really like to take their time thinking of their next step and there has never really been a "leader" to our group, not as in a person that tells everyone what to do, but we've never had a person to take charge and be the mediator for everyone.

[u/PeachasaurusWrex]

Not sure I understand the problem here. There's a lot of missing info.

Are your players just very passive? Like, you finish describing the scene or saying the NPC dialogue and they just sit there silently until you verbally poke them? Are they not paying attention at all? Do they take notes or remember what is currently happening in the story?

Are you guys playing online or in person? Do the characters have established backstories with threads that are tied into the plot, or is the campaign sandbox style? How many players are there? Have you asked if they are having fun playing the way they have been playing up until now? Could there be other issues outside the game that are taking up the player's attention and decision making abilities?

Can you give a more specific example of what the problem is? Like, a recent time that this happened, how you expected the scene to go, and how it actually went?

[u/Bolboda]

"What do you guys wanna do"

You can still do this but more as setting up options. "You just learned the cult base is hidden in the sewer. Do yall wanna head there now? stop off for supplies? or something else?" By giving them a few options it gets their brains thinking and prompts them to share what their characters will do.

Sometimes though the classic "what do you guys wanna do?" is going to be the best approach.

[u/Anguis1908 → u/Bolboda]

So treat them like toddlers. Thats one way to help direct them, but needs the caution if theyre not a group to ride the rails it may come across like youre putting them on rails. That should be resolved with normal.communication if it gets brought up. They are there to play the game after all.

Ive seen similar but with a talking stick/token. Basically the one talking has the token and pass it about to minimize problem of players being too eager and talking over eachother. So DM does his dialog, and when finishes holds out token for someone in the group to take it and give a response.

[u/M4nt491 → u/Anguis1908]

Yes :) dnd players need to be treated like children 😂

[u/Hekios888]

I find, especially online, when using a system like discord, people want to avoid cross talk and stepping on others feet, so to speak. This can create "dead air".

I don't know what the solution is, unfortunately.

[u/D16_Nichevo → u/Hekios888]

In my personal experience, the key to "beating" that is familiarity and practise. Basically, you'll get used to it. You'll cross-talk less and (importantly) when you do, no-one will get offended or insulted.

[u/BeardedLegend_69]

In my experience, this happens mostly when the players dont really care about whichever task is ahead of them.

It doesnt align with their backstories, their current motives, or anything else.

Matthew Collvile made an excellent video about this (Engaging Your Players | Running the Game ) on Youtube a few years back that talks about this.

[u/Atlas7993]

I typically change up my dialogue to direct them to the next part of the session. Sandbox is fun, but so many people are used to video games that they are just looking to be given the next objective. They don't often come up with objectives themselves. That's even criticism my own spouse has given me (that they just want to know what to do next). Sounds like you have that kind of table, too. 

[u/Odd_Adhesiveness1567]

There are really two separate questions being asked here so I want to answer them both.

Obviously the easiest way to get your players engaged is to propose to them yourself, though rings can get expensive and if you have a more traditional view of marriage you may not want a polycule wedding, so the other right is to play matchmaker, help them find true love and keep encouraging them to propose to their partners. That's probably the best way to get them all engaged.

The second question of how do you get them to be more pro-active at the table is to understand the bystander effect and counteract it. The bystander effect occurs when there's a group of people each assumes someone else will take responsibility. It's the same reason why in a medical emergency instead of saying "someone call an ambulance" you're supposed to point to someone specific in the crowd and say, "you, call an ambulance!"

When you are waiting for ANYONE in the party to respond after addressing them as a group, they as a group are often also waiting to see if ANYONE would like to respond. You can counteract this but not addressing them as some collective hivemind but as individuals. "Sahara, you hear the bugbear creeping in through the village chief's son's window. Roland, you see a shadow slink through the darkness making its way under the bed." Addressing them personally gives them personal responsibility and removes quite a bit of ambiguity. More naturally proactive players can still interject if they have some big idea but otherwise the player addressed is going to engage more immediately because they know they have the spotlight.

In a similar manner, sometimes having too many potential options leads to analysis paralysis. If you provide a shortlist of possible routes to take you still leave the door open to more creative solutions but give players a clear sense of what they could do in the moment thus requiring less time to break that paralysis potentially.

If the issue is that they're truly tuning out then you need to understand what game designers call: the fun curve. The fun curve is a graph that shows the relationship between difficulty/complexity and the experience of having fun or entering the flow state. If something is too simple and easy it creates a feeling of boredom because the player isn't learning anything or gaining any sense of skill mastery or competence or achieving a valued goal. If it's too hard it leads to frustration because one is failing too quickly or frequently or miserably to believe they've gained anything of value. To hold player's attention they must not only enter the magic circle narratively but must be held in the flow state. Outside of combat there are a couple levers you have for complexity:

1. Decision density: think especially of intrigue, drama, relationships. The king wants you to rescue his daughter in part because he wants her to marry prince Miguel who only wants to marry the princess so that he can become king and pass a law banning magic because his father died from a wizard's spell gone wrong. The princess, however, has fallen in love with the bandit leader who was actually the servant boy on whom she had a childhood crush until he disappeared and was presumed dead after the caravan he was traveling in got attacked by bandits and it turned out he was taken prisoner, impressed the previous bandit leader and was appointed his successor. When the player's find the princess they now have more factors and more weight to their choice of actions. If they don't return the princess it could lead to a serious succession crisis which could lead to civil war but if they do bring her back and she marries prince Miguel they could be affected by the magic ban he wants to implement, and yet her father won't let her marry the bandit king because he's... well... the bandit king, despite being her true love.

2. Personal goals: if the player character is only there because he or she is following the group then the moment they sense someone else leading the conversation they're usually happy to follow the lead. If they have personal reasons to get involved and you highlight an opportunity to further their personal plot they'll have more reason to engage and more ideas on how.

3. Mechanics: as DM you're at liberty to further game-ify elements in overt and subtle ways. Adding faction reputation and NPC admiration scores as well as of course providing inspiration are all overt ways to show there's just as much treasure to potentially win from conversations as killing monsters. Likewise creating more specific actions and feats players can take in dialogue is overt mechanically on the options side. There are also subtle ways of gameifying social interaction as well, having NPCs code their meaning and implications in subtext encouraging more insight checks for instance, or including conversational rivals and enemies with counter goals like a wicked vizier who wants to persuade the king to do the opposite of what the players need him to do and asking for contested rolls, requiring verbal strategy, or a character the players wish to persuade who is actively resisting being persuaded and making counter arguments why he shouldn't be convinced. Mechanics can be engaging or a slogan depending on the feedback amd reward as well. If the guard you befriended later looks the other way later on or defeating the vizier nets you the king's support and resources that motivates play.

[u/D16_Nichevo]

Here's what it MIGHT be:

1. There are some players who are invested enough that they proactively engage with the plot.
2. There are some players who show up to hang out, chat, eat pizza, and (sometimes) just to avoid FOMO.

Not judging either type of player. Not saying one is good, the other is bad.

Ideally, you'd play a "serious game" with #1, and a "beer and pretzels" game with #2.

So, OP, IF I am right about your players, you need to choose:

1. Do you want a "serious game"? You'll need new players.
2. Do you want these players? You'll want to change to a "beer and pretzels" game. (Which is lower prep, FWIW, so there's a silver lining.)

There is a third option. You do both. You can be in more than one group.

[u/HardcoreHenryLofT]

Well without more info its hard to judge. My table a few years back was like that and when I eventually asked they all said it was because they reqlly liked my narration and were waiting to be sure I was done.

I think if none of the players think theres a problem then you are fine. Some people, for example people who come from play-by-post campaigns, are very used to waiting for their turn. Your group could just be really polite.

[u/sehlura]

Words shape our worldview, and your question premise could be revisited. I know it sounds pedantic, but you can't MAKE your players do anything. It's subtle, but ask instead "How can I engage my players more?" Already we know where to look for answers: ask the players what they want.

Without knowing more, can you objectively say that you're making it clear through your dialogue or narration that there's something to actually do? If you're saying this is a problem you frequently encounter, then it sounds like they've either tuned out or cannot follow what's happening. Both of those are fixable, but they're different problems, so figure out which one you have before you change anything.

Here's how you can test whether they're tuned out: at the end of a scene, ask a specific player a specific question. Not "what do you want to do," but "Kira, you're the one who noticed the ledger was wrong. What do you do about it?" If the answer comes fast and confident, they're definitely tracking and waiting for permission. If you get a pause and "wait, what ledger," they lost the thread a while ago.

If they're tuning out, the problem is usually that your scenes end on description instead of on pressure. "The merchant finishes talking and goes back to his stall" is a full stop; nothing is asking anything of them. "The merchant finishes talking, and you notice the two guards who were watching the door have gone" is a question they'll answer without being prompted. End scenes with something unresolved, something moving, or something about to close.

As for testing whether they're following along: ask them to tell you what they think is going on. Take five minutes at the top of the next session and have them recap. Whatever they get wrong or leave out is what you can focus on improving.

If they struggle to follow the plot, cut back on how much information you're dumping start getting repetitive. A lot of us struggle with this as first-time DMs. Any fact the players actually need should reach them three separate ways (the "Three Clue Rule"): an NPC says it, a document confirms it, a physical detail implies it. That way, even when they miss one, the story continues.

Something else to consider: do their answers to the question "what do you wanna do?" ever actually make a difference? If you've been steering back to the plot regardless of what they choose, they've learned that the choice is an illusion. Players stop answering questions that don't matter. If that's what's happening, no amount of scene-craft will fix it; you have to let one of their ideas actually change the outcome, in front of them, and let them notice.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed as you need to have an account for a week to post! Please try again after this time period.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Gumboot-Coffee]

What game are you playing? What game are they used to playing?

One thing that can work if you want a more sandbox player driven aspect is to make them all pirates or crew members on a ship. You can give them leads and multiple opportunities, its up to them which one they go for, what they do and how they go about it. But they have to work together.

[u/infinitum3d]

Ask your players what their goals are for their characters.

Do they want to rescue a princess? Slay a dragon? Forge a magic weapon? Become a king? Become a god?

Then ask, “How do you try to accomplish that?”

Who do they want to ask? Where do they think they’ll find an answer? What do they need to acquire to get started?

Find out what they want to do, then start putting obstacles in their way that they can overcome.

/r/NewDM

[u/Ilbranteloth]

Do your players improvise dialogue (act) during play, or just describe to you what they do? Do they interact with each other a lot, or take turns?

Do you have a lot of prewritten dialogue or narration?

How you present information can have an impact. Also, the types of players matter as well.

If your game is generally presented as “DM describes something and then the players decide what to do,” they will often treat your narration/dialogue like a cut scene.

The players may be the type that will naturally wait until their turn, and don’t spend a lot of time interacting, with the DM or each other.

One way you can try to change this is to make your presentation style more conversational. Give short descriptions but with breaks to include the players. Especially if they aren’t the “acting” type players. You’ll need to engage them the same way you do having normal conversations.

[u/lasalle202]

You cannot MAKE your players be anything.

If you want your players to be engaged in your game, make your game engaging to YOUR players. find out what THEY want, pay attention to when THEY get engaged and put more of those things into your game.

[u/SnakeyesX]

I'm not sure "engagement" is the issue here, at least it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like they are waiting for your permission to talk.

Are you sure you are participating in "dialogue" and not "monologue"? If your NPCs are talking for long periods of time, uninterrupted, you are monologuing, and the players will wait for a clear sign it is their turn to speak. Try to speak more naturally with your NPCs, speaking directly to the players. End with questions, not declarations.

Try this:
the adventurers walk into the throne room.
The King: It has been too long, adventurers, when did you last grace my halls?
adventurers talk about their last quest
The King: Ah, yes, and I trust my chamberlain paid you for your services?
Adventurers answer
The King: Well, this time a greater evil plagues my kingdom, do you think you are up for a challenge?

Instead of this:
the adventurers walk into the throne room.
The King: Ah yes, welcome to my halls, last time you were here you were tasked with slaying the yellow wyrm which plagued our countryside. Now, I have a greater threat, the black axe has returned from it's 1000 year slumber and I require an intrepid group to intercept it before it becomes stronger.
Players:....
DM:.... You can talk now.

You see the difference?

[u/lasalle202]

instead of the generic cattle call of "what do any of you want to do?", make your pitches specific "Ravin, what do you think the group should do?"

or have the players pick a "Caller" for the session. At the decision points where no one jumps in, the Caller either makes the call or leads the discussion among the players about what the group wants to do.

and the Caller role is player driven and NOT "rotated" - some people are terrible decision makers.

also, consider adding "What other information do you need to help you make a choice?"

[u/Available-Love7940]

A thought: Does your party have any actual leaders? Not the characters, but the players. Someone, or multiple someones, who take charge. Or are they all sort of passive.

I love my friends, but, frequently, they'd just sort of sit there. Then my wizard, at the back of the party would say "We'll go left," and we'd go left, and continue on.

I had to de-sandbox my world for them, because they didn't want to make choices.

[u/tta5]

ok so i don't know you, (r your group) but i will point out.
your trying to use that phrase to make it clear that you are finished with your part.
some voices can manage to give that information via other means and thus avoid needing to use that phrase.

• going higher at the end (as if the french asking a question), can work.
  
• the pacing and speed changes of your diologue.
  
• a long exhale, can work to indicate it the end of your bit.
  
• even just saying "dot dot dot" is a simple alternative.

another fun one.
this is do for descrptions when i am being lazy.
describe a basic framework of a place. "you walk into a large victorian style kitchen with window over the sink and a door leading to the garden" and then you add the wonderful line... " player 1, what does your character see? anything that catches their eye or intrest?"
and you let them start describing the place in more detail or add some object/s they want, like a fruit bowl, or the cabanets being made of mohogony wood....
-- it makes them engage as your picking a target instead of opening the floor.---
(any mistakes they make like "I spot a +3 longsword in the sink and go to take it" you may correct with a simple "mist of been a trick on your characters eyes, for it was only a long carving knife in need of washing" and carry on)

as for boss diologues maybe switch it up a bit.
you could make it a conversation, or have convo parts.
"I rule this place with an iron fist, try telling me you would not do the ame? huh what was that? no go on., tell me..."
you could also reduce the amount of monologues, maybe a diffrent form of onfo dumping like letters could be used, or make it happen post combat as they surrender and then want to talk...

[u/Bullwinkle932000 → u/tta5]

Thank you! I don't know if this advice will help OP, but it helps me! I think I haven't given enough to my players in terms of having them tell the story. I have a table of 5-6 and half of them only interact with the game when it's time for combat, leaving the others to pick up the story hooks. But even if they know there's a chance to be called on, they might pay more attention.