I often joke that when people are focusing too hard on surface issues, that they’re, “arguing the length of elf ears”, which is what I feel with DWD’s assessment of the gamer’s crisis.

It’s much more simple than that- first, is the game giving enough fun for the effort put in?

This is a combination of who you’re playing with and the rules you’re playing by. People are willing to put in a little more effort initially for nearly anything, because they expect it to be a bit difficult at first and things to get easier as they master it. If you have to fight the rules or the people at the table constantly, it doesn’t get easier, and it only wears you down.

Second, most rpgs assume a longterm commitment from the get-go. I like eating pasta, but man, I wouldn’t want to eat pasta steadily for a year on end… In the same sense, you might be in the mood for a certain game, after enough time, one or more people in the group might lose interest. Instead of either planning short term arcs that can be switched out from easily, or honestly giving advice to close up and move on, people are expected to trudge through and things will magically get better. People need variety and sometimes a break.

As for the context behind “interest” in DWD, it’s strictly rooted in the game world side of things.

My take is slightly different:
1) Verisimiltude. A $10 word that describes the world, setting, as well as the actual gaming environment provided by the GM.
2) Player buy-in. This is usually were game theorists talk about “social contract” stuff. But basically, it’s the player “interest,” or active participation in the GM’s world and the gaming experience as a whole. Player expectations are also part of the mix.
3) The Rules. How everything plays out mechanically. Even if GM and player do their part, if the rules are unfair, unbalanced or just plain broken, the experience can also be ruined.
The seat the legs hold up is the payoff: Was the game rewarding?

The “crisis point,” though, doesn’t solely depend on these three factors, in my opinion.

Clearly, a failure in any of the three legs will cause the stool to topple.

But even if all three legs are firm, the participant still must deal with outside forces, personality issues among the players, real world obligations, financial constraints, etc.

Participants must weigh the time invested vs. enjoyment gained (the old four hours of gaming for 20 minutes of fun argument). This factor, more than any other, is the true “crisis point” for any rpg participant. But the GM is particularly vulnerable, because they, generally, are making the biggest investment in the enterprise. But the same is true for players as well.

The confusion, for me, stems from what context the above definition for “interest” actually refers. “… interest derives from having reasons for what happens in the world …” Does this mean the (game) world or the (real) world? If the latter, then I think the entire paragraph has more validity. But judging from the above comments, many of us presume we’re talking about interest in the (game) world.

If someone engages in a hobby that sparks a lot of interest, there will be bumps in the road. Enthusiasm for the hobby, energy in general, time available, etc. are not constant. Whether these bumps are minor, significant, or develop into something approaching a crisis will depend mainly on the situation and the individual GM (and even his players).

How does everyone feel about the overall argument, though — that every GM faces a crisis point?

I think otherwise this is an accurate assesment. Yes, there are other problems that can cause a gaming group to fall to pieces, but they’re liable to destroy things much earlier than when the concern for these comes into play. These are more guidelines for keeping a continuing campaign going.

I agree with the author’s point, but I think there is more to it than just believability, interest, and balance. I mean, your GM can be a total bastard, but hit these three things perfectly, and you might start looking for other hobbies.