I Now Understand why DMs play Solo TTRPGs.

Hello, my name is Nate - I am a fairly new dungeon master. I have been struggling to run a TTRPG for my family and friends over the last 2 years.
I have learned a lot in the last few months by creating videos on YouTube explaining my problems, and reading the comments to learn.
Recently, some people on my Discord channel gave me this feedback about world building…

[KraftyMattKraft]

This is when you have to switch hats and become a referee over just a "yes, and" storyteller. Players are free to have their characters do what they will in THE world, but that does not mean that agency is free of consequences. Subconsciously, this may be what your players are looking for. The players may be testing the envelope to see where the real stakes and consequences begin for their characters. Your players may have become disengaged because there is no edge to that envelope. You may find that the players reengage once you introduce consequences to some of the more outrageous actions the characters are taking.

[TimothyRice-pr]

When I GM, I feel like I have a duty to the game world to portray it faithfully and the way it looks in my mind's eye. This doesn't mean killing or maiming characters (because that's not what I usually see), but if an NPC feels like a PC isn't making sense or is insulting them, they'll either act confused or act insulted.

If a player makes a decision that seems to violate common sense, I take it as a sign that they haven't understood the world, and I try to explain why I think their character would consider it a bad idea. I don't stop them from making the decision, but if certain consequences would be clear to the character, then I try to also make those consequences clear to the player, so that they can make a fair and informed decision.

A simple example was in a recent game of The One Ring. The party were in an inn in a town that wasn't exactly hostile, but it was clear they didn't have a lot of money and didn't welcome outsiders. One of the characters was a singer, and he decided to throw down a busking hat in the middle of the inn without even asking the proprietor first. It seemed to me like this was a great way to at least get booed off stage and possibly even provoke a fight with the locals. It seemed clear to me that just singing would be fine, but making unsolicited requests for cash would not go down well with anyone. I spelled it out to the player, you can do that if you want, but you're asking money from poor people who don't like you, and you haven't even asked the owner if it's okay to use their inn for your side-hustle. You can sing, and that will be fine, but if you're throwing your hat out, I'm telling you it's not going to go well, and your character would know that. So how do you want to proceed? Well, he agreed to just sing without the busking hat, and he got a good roll, so everyone in the town was more friendly after that :)

[VicSicily]

Imo it's less punishment its more FAFO, Stupid games win stupid prizes etc. How would the dragon actually react, how would the villain react. "you're taking away player agency" - nah if my human agency wants me to play in traffic the cars aren't saying "yes and we're all made out of foam"

[DiceTomb]

Just a couple quick thought. Don’t go down that route of “punishing” your players. If you do it’s easy to slip into that terrible DM vs Player dynamic, at that point you have failed. Yes, actions should have consequences. If you want your players to be more serious, make sure the villain reacts as a real villain would. Shove your hand into the campfire and grab a hot rock, don’t melt their hand off in punishment, but let them take appropriate damage which will lead to less effective use of their sword. Maybe they fumble with their spell components when casting (the dice are important). As far as solo play goes, it’s an excellent way to prime your skills and truly understand mechanics and procedures.

[RedMegamanX]

Hey, man! I don't know if you're looking for advice on the matter, but I'll drop mine here, okay?

Tbh, I feel you on that subject. At a lot of times I've got burnt out on my players not taking the world seriously enough, or just working in a diferent frequence all around. And it normally happens when there is a disparity in how you and your players see the game.

Here're somethings that could help you get a better experience:
1-Try and talk to them. Explain how some behaviours they take are not coherent and that ultimately ruins your fun. Most problems in a table can be fixed on that step alone.
2-IN GAME, the ideas people gave you would work fine. But, I'd rather explain to the player what his character, who have common knowlege of the world and even a "gut" to tell how somethings would play out, would know. Ex. "So, you want to try to marry the dragon? Well, your character feels it would be a poor decision, once he is aware that dragons hates all mortals and see them as food and, servants at max. Also, he knows people doesn't even consider this kind of thing. The only time he heard a story of a human that tried to seduce a dragon, it went very poorly for them." If the player insist in taking that route, you're the judge to tell him how things would go out. And deciding to put a brutal combat that kills the player in instants, is ideal.
3-If you did all of this and it didn't work out. Sincerely, you should consider a change in players. Sometimes people have different priorities in game and there is not a match. Nothing personal, you just need to find someone that would help you enjoy your game more.

Hope I helped man!

[StinkerTheFirst]

Yes, it is frustrating when the DM and players aren't on the same page. If the DM wants to tell a serious story and the players just want to act vicariously through their charactesr, I imagine that gets really jarring. You are on the right track with letting reasonable things happen to the characters based on their actions. If they want to mouth off to the king, then the king should respond according to their personality.

Incidentally, I use a solo TTRPG as a glorified novel writing aid. It's great for brainstorming.

[pogodonuts]

Players will always make funny dumb decisions no matter how serious you try to make it. But giving the reasonable response the world would actually make is what makes it fun. We play the game to hang out with friends and escape from life for a bit. We want to do dumb stuff and see what happens. They will have more fun just causing problems and seeing what happens. That being said, I still do not get the point of solo play. The main fun lies in playing with your friends, and they'll come up with a better story than you'll come up with on your own in your head. Play with your friends and embrace the stupidity they come up with.

[Lurklen]

(Long comment, apologies) I've been Dming for over 10 years, I've run long term games of up to 12 players, and I've run games for people from as young as 9 to as old as 65. This is not a competitive game, this is a *collaborative* game. That requires everyone to be working towards the same goals.

I wouldn't maim and kill, or Punish right away, that's a little too harsh and fun ruining, it's too far the other extreme and an overcorrection. It kills experimentation and curiosity. But I _would_ push back.
When a player makes a request for an action like, "Could I cut off my arm/pull out my eye and replace it with a mechanical arm?" or "Can I seduce the dragon?" The first question you should ask them is: "Why, what do you want to get out of this?" Then ask yourself: Is what they want something I can give/the tone of the world can support? If no, then you just say "That's not possible." If yes, then you think about how difficult that thing is to achieve, and relate that back to them. "Well, replacing one's body parts with magical constructs is really difficult. There are technomancers who can do it, but they are experts in their field. If you want to try to pull that off on your own, you are almost certainly going to lose your arm/eye, and possibly die. You are not a technomancer. But if you want to seek out one of them, that's a good goal to get what you want." Or "Not a chance in hell, but you might get it to hesitate in killing you for a split second by trying, and that might mean your allies can set up an attack." You can also set up degrees of success and failure. "On a nat20 you can seduce the dragon, but then you have to deal with the consequences. If you fail, it will target you more than anyone else." So you let them try to seduce a dragon, and really think about what that means. If they fail, it likely means death, if they succeed, it likely means they now belong to a dragon and will be trapped in its den forever. Dragons are known to be possessive and greedy. It's okay to tell them this is a possible outcome.
So you don't always have to "Yes, and", you can also "No, but". But it's important that there's a dialogue as to what the outcomes you both _want_ are around the particular test/situation.

Before killing them, present tangible consequences. For Murderhobo behavior, limit their options and have the world treat them like the chaotic forces they are. People don't want to deal with them, or hire them (or the people that do are awful and betray them). People don't pay them, they use them. Bounties get put out on their heads. They get arrested and sent on suicide missions to pay back their debt. When it's between them and a dragon, people _side with the dragon!_ If a player says they want to step off a cliff, tell them that they feel a sickening vertigo, and looking down they know a fall from this height could kill them. If they persist _then_ give them the result of that, damage and possible death. Permanent maiming/crippling as _punishment_ is often not much fun and just feels bad, (though just having it be a known consequence you tell them about before hand can be a good time) dying because you were dumb and tried something, is sometimes hilarious and looked back on fondly as a good lesson--I literally had a character do this:

He and his party were trapped on a cliffside, well above a tree line. He said he wanted to jump down to the trees and catch himself on a branch. It was over a hundred foot drop just to the tree tops. I told him it was possible, but he would almost certainly die, very low odds of any success, and he would get hurt even on a success. He said he was going for it. I warned him once again, it was nearly impossible. He said, "But DM, I'm an elf." He jumped, I had him roll, he failed dramatically to grab the trees, hit dozens of branches on the way down, slammed into the ground, and died. He was also carrying various mutagenic potions on him, those exploded and began mutating his flesh. He laughed the hardest of us all. But later he asked if had actually been possible, and I told him if it had not been possible I wouldn't have asked for a roll. I would have just told him it was impossible. There's never a reason not to be clear on something like this with your players, you don't have to *SHOCK* them with consequences. You're the window to the world, so be transparent so they can see it clearly.

The other side of this, aside from thinking of the world as a place where consequences occur, is to straight up talk to your players and ask them what kind of game they are looking for, and *tell them the tone of the game you are running.* Your world might not be boring, but that doesn't mean it's the one they want to play in. Maybe they want a chaotic cartoon power fantasy, and your world is more reasonable than that. So maybe they want a different game. Maybe you don't want to run the game they want to play. That's okay. But it's better just to talk it out than to punish your players. This is a game played for fun among friends, not some kind of test of judgment. Ask what they are after, and decide what you want to run, and see if there's a middle ground. If not, part ways and find people that are into your game style. But punishing your pals is a _very_ select style of hobby, and not one that yields good results without people opting into it.

[ThievesGuildGamesOfficial]

Oh man. Love this video. I’d love to interview/chat with you about this topic. There’s a lot going on and the advice/solution can’t be captured in comments. Sadly.

[JudithOpdebeeck]

sounds like you jus need to talk to your players. about what they expect from the game in the first place, but also why they do these "dumb" things, and what their intent is. but no, dont regard your group play as a solo game with guests. the key difference between solo play and group play, is the people. its colaborative, so let them colaborate.

[johnharrison]

If players make stupid decisions annihilate their characters. Then make them restart with new characters from level 1.
OR find better players.

[lvazgau]

you are losing the point of playing games, it is to have FUN, and if being silly for them is fun, then let them do it, and if not stop playing, easy fix, not the right group to play with, end of, you are too obsessed

[jonc]

I like what you are saying. But a commercial advertisement every two minutes makes the video aggravating.

[knightwolf]

I played a solo RPG, its called a Chose your own Adventure book. There is no interaction in a Solo RPG, there is only you talking to yourself, making the dice rolls which you can cheat at and who would question it? TTRPG's are a social interactive hobby.

I think the term you wish to use is world building and creation crafting. Even then, just talking to yourself is only giving you feedback from yourself. Outside entities that you trust will still need to be sought out for a better more rounded answer. Which is still social interacting with others.

[adam_orkcol]

I feel sorry for you man. You need a group that fits better.

But in an effort to fix what you have:
"Hey folks, I feel like the group is not taking the game and the world seriously. Going forward if you threaten a shopkeeper, the law will come. If you try marry a dragon? Roll to avoid a firebreath as this dragon doesn't get in relationships with its food.