I am aware there is plenty of advice already out there on how to handle this issue. What I'm looking for are some play-proven strategies.We play game every two weeks, on a Saturday.

One of the players ends up having to go away on weekends (he doesn't have a lot of say in this), and ends up missing around 1 game in four over a year. He also plays a very strong leadership role in the party, mostly due to his OOC personality (he's very good at binding the group together). So when this player is absent, it really effects game, often to the point where pushing on without him hurts the plot.

My games are usually about 3.5-4 hours long, and the group has trouble finishing a leg of the adventure in one session. Absences are unknown often until a few days before the upcoming game. Having started the game in January of 2015, and  now coming up on a year of this campaign, one of the chief problems looking back is that:

a) I can't plan around absences I don't know about
b) Having a key player absent really interferes with the flow of the game

We've tried having characters ghost played, but this hasn't been greatly successful. I have run them myself (to varying effect). Looking for some input on how others deal with these kinds of issues.

Thanks.

Got that same problem.

My only solution is when a key player cant show do one of the following.

A: call off the game if you have enough advance warning.

or.

B: Run a different campaign or game with the smaller group.

Before moving I ran a Beyond the Supernatural campaign with my core group. But when one of the key members didnt show I'd run TSRs Marvel Superheroes.

I used to delay or cancel games to accommodate players who can't make it, but I realized over time this was doing a disservice not only to the group but also to the person who couldn't show up. It is a challenge to adjust to shifting players at the table but if you do, it means the game will last the long haul and the players who can't always make it will at least have a campaign to come back to when they can. I also find just moving along and going forward, kind of incentivizes people to make it.

My advice is don't over think it and don't prepare too much in advance. When different players show up in a session that means the direction of the campaign could shift or they could deal with a problem in a very different way than they had been planning to all along. That is fine, the players who are present simply get priority.

If you have one player who is missing from time to time, and that is throwing a wrench in things, I would say don't make that character's goals as important. Encourage other players to step forward and take some initiative.

For your two concerns:

Quotea) I can't plan around absences I don't know about
b) Having a key player absent really interferes with the flow of the game

Here is what I do:

A) I don't plan according to who is going to attend. I plan based on what happened last session, and nothing I do will hinge on a single player being present (I might come up with stuff that is relevant to that character, it just won't be a linchpin that pulls apart the game if he doesn't show). I'll also think about how things might play out if certain players can't make it.

B) I think in terms of maintaining game flow, the biggest impediment is canceled sessions. Before when I would cancel sessions around players who couldn't make it, I thought otherwise. Now I am starting to realize, if you just march on and play, the flow is generally maintained. It might be less of a straight line because decisions are made differently when different players are present, but you can easily look back and see what happened the previous five weeks and look to the next session with an idea of where it is heading. When you cancel forgetfulness starts to affect everyone, enthusiasm drops, etc.

A few changes I would make.

• Make the game weekly instead of every other week. This is for two reasons, really. One, when that one player does need to skip a weekend, there's a lot less time between games without him. I'm sure you forgot a lot more when it's a month between sessions than when it's only two weeks. Second, it helps avoid people accidentally making other plans that conflict with the game--you avoid the whole, "Oh, I didn't know it was THAT Saturday" thing.
  
• Whatever you do, I would avoid canceling the game when that one player can't show up. Because when the other players have the opportunity to do other things on Saturday, it's important they know there WILL be a game. Otherwise, someone could pass on something they'd like to do to make it a point to be able to game, only to see the game canceled. This can only happen so many times before game weekend gets down-graded in priority. If that happens, attendance problems will multiply.
  
• You therefore must plan accordingly. You may love the "flow" of your game, but it's clearly not satisfactory for your given situation. Knowing no matter what at least one player will be missing a good chunk of games throughout the year is a blessing in disguise as it forces a sense of discipline that will move you AWAY from running the game you've always have/always liked/what everyone else is doing, and instead fit it to the practical reality of your specific group.
  

Every time I've taken these steps in response to attendance problems, it led to record attendance at my games. If I had to guess why, I'd say there were three main reasons.

• By making it clear that I didn't expect anyone to show up, it prevented what should be a pastime from becoming a chore.
• By making it clear we were gaming no matter what, players wanted to make sure they didn't miss anything good.
• Because of the first two, if a player had an opportunity to hang out with a friend outside of the group that weekend, he was more likely to bring the friend along, and we'd gain a player, sometimes for more than just the one session, rather than lose one that week.

Most groups I've played with just go on without the absentee... sometimes with an in-game explanation, sometimes not.
Our Wednesday group usually just plays around absentees. Their PC will be somewhere else or might disappear in a big puff of mystery (kidnapped? wandered off drunk? eaten by ghosts?). Sometimes the GM or another Player will play them and on a few occasions they've even gotten killed. It just depends on the situation in-game. We're pretty relaxed about it.

The games I run online are weird lately and people don't always play the same characters week to week anyway... so if someone can't make it all the PCs are still on deck.

As seems to be the majority opinion so far, I say play on, even if you're down a man.  Unless you're playing the kind of story-driven game where every character absolutely has to be there every single time, without exception, then you're better off keeping the campaign's momentum going than stopping to wait for the missing player.  And if you are playing that kind of game, then I'd advise you to reconsider, given the realities of your situation as expressed in the original post.

Personally, I'm pretty big on the "finish every session at home base" model, since it allows for players and their characters to show up or disappear at any time, so I don't have to worry about whether anyone's attendance is regular or not.  Plus I really hate the "indivisible party, joined at the hip" group model, but, if that works for you, then more power to you.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;870517My games are usually about 3.5-4 hours long, and the group has trouble finishing a leg of the adventure in one session.

If you want to abandon the "joined at the hip" party model, then change how you prep for the game so that you've got adventure legs that can be finished in one session, or else change how you run the session itself so that the players will push a bit harder to finish the leg before time is up.  Or just don't plan so much and don't have pre-defined legs in the first place.

It depends on the game.  For Wrath or Mummy's Mask, I can go on with one person absent but not with two or more.  For M&M or The Strange, I can run with as few as two people.   If it's viable to continue, I do so.

Quote from: yosemitemike;870565It depends on the game.  For Wrath or Mummy's Mask, I can go on with one person absent but not with two or more.  For M&M or The Strange, I can run with as few as two people.   If it's viable to continue, I do so.

Why? What's the difference between those games that drives that decision?

I've learned:

1. Don't plan sessions around a particular player or PC being there.
2. Don't cancel because a player can't make it.

Just stick to those two rules and you'll be fine.

Quote from: S'mon;870568I've learned:

1. Don't plan sessions around a particular player or PC being there.
2. Don't cancel because a player can't make it.

Just stick to those two rules and you'll be fine.

This, times a kabillion.

Run the game when he's not there; the other players will stretch and grow.  For the love of Crom, don't make the group's fun depend on one person.

Quote from: Simlasa;870566Why? What's the difference between those games that drives that decision?

The first two are adventure paths for Pathfinder.  They are written with 4 players in mind and the system itself is written with a group of 4-5 players with all the basic roles covered in mind.  The other two are easier to do with only a couple of people.  M&M is a points based superheroes game.  It's written without class roles in mind and the characters are PL10 which means they are pretty good right out of the gate.  I intended The Strange to be a pick up game with the players being whoever happened to be around at the time so the campaign is designed with that in mind.

Quote from: yosemitemike;870590The first two are adventure paths for Pathfinder.  They are written with 4 players in mind and the system itself is written with a group of 4-5 players with all the basic roles covered in mind.

Ah, OK...
I'm in a weekly Pathfinder group but we don't use the published adventures so things are looser when it comes to attendance... though the GM has a strict rule that if something is in the bags of an absent PC then we don't have access to it...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;870582This, times a kabillion.

Run the game when he's not there; the other players will stretch and grow.  For the love of Crom, don't make the group's fun depend on one person.

Very true. But there are times when sessions are paused at points where removing the missing PC isnt really viable for one reason or another. Such as the DM not liking running players characters. Personally I really dont like NPCing someones character when they are MIA due to illness or family crisis.

Or in my case. The players dont like gaming without the others.  So if one cant show then we either run something else, or just schedule for next week. Personally I like those sorts of groups as they are so invested in the adventure that the lack of one disrupts their flow. And its the players that suggest running something else when someone is missing.

Well, my own take:

1) You can't always finish an "adventure leg" in one session?  Okay, so stipulated.  So what?  Is there any reason you have to do so?  If you've got an ongoing campaign, there ought to be no reason whatsoever why you can't break when you break.

Sure, it's more convenient to stop at the end of a battle instead of in the middle, after the audience with the Queen than before, and so on.  But there's nothing preventing you from doing so.

2) You never have to prepare for a player not being there. Quite aside from that in my firm opinion, no GM worth his salt is unable to send 0.8x number of orcs out into the battle instead of 1x, no group of players worth its salt should lack the basic skill to assess the situation as set before them, and go from there to determine how to meet it with the resources they have to hand.  

If the guy that's missing is the best negotiator, then the second best one will have to cope.  If the party rogue isn't there, then they have to come up with some way to get into the castle that doesn't involve picking the postern door's lock.  If the loss of combat power means they can't rout the Duke's guard, then they need to come up with another plan that doesn't involve frontal assault.  And if the missing guy is the one who does all the planning, then other players have to step up.

One way to do this is to be direct.  If you're getting a lot of blank, worried looks from the group because John isn't there to tell them what to do, that's your cue to single people out.  "Brenda, suppose you come up with a plan."  

Quote from: Omega;870597Personally I like those sorts of groups as they are so invested in the adventure that the lack of one disrupts their flow.

That can come in on either side.  I like groups of the sort where the players are so invested in the adventure that they're dying to see what happens next, regardless of whether other players are there or not.  "I need my fix now!"

I don't mean to say that my preferred players are more invested than yours, btw, only that high player investment can produce either effect.