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.
So the overwhelming sentiment is go postal on this - don't cancel game for any reason, weather, absences, etc. if it can be helped. That used to be my method, then I began pausing as I found player absences could cause some players to utterly loose track of what's happening.
Let me clarify - I don't make the session ever dependent on a character or player, but natural people politics can make certain players dominant, no matter what you do. Leaders are leaders. In the case of this player, he's a good friend, exceptional player, but his wife makes plans without regard to his game life (for whatever reason).
The two weeks is the problem, I think, but due to the situation there's no way I can alter it (I only get my boys every two weeks). But overall, much good though to chew on in here. Thanks guys :)
Quote from: Coffee Zombie;870609So the overwhelming sentiment is go postal on this - don't cancel game for any reason, weather, absences, etc. if it can be helped. That used to be my method, then I began pausing as I found player absences could cause some players to utterly loose track of what's happening.
:)
I don't think this is what folks are saying. There are good reasons to cancel a game. I live in Boston and we have to cancel for snow sometimes (I don't want people getting into car accidents just to make it to a game) and I'll occasionally reschedule if someone gives advance noticed and we can find a day that works for everyone. but that session to session flow, at least in my experience, makes or breaks a campaigns longevity. If you have one guy missing lots of sessions and forcing you to cancel as a result, that sounds like a recipe for a short lived campaign. For a long time I rate games around people's schedules like that, and the campaigns never lasted as long as they did when I just stuck to a regular schedule and didn't cancel except for major things like snow storms.
That doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it though. These are your friends all likelihood so I wouldn't expect you to be rude to them or to be super inflexible if it becomes an issue for people who really want to make it (but if the latter is the case, I think you need to have individual conversations with each player to see how many are okay with frequent reschedules to accommodate one person). But as a general rule of thumb, avoiding cancelations, particularly around a single player, is probably going to mean a longer campaign for all involved.
Quote from: nDervish;870607That 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.
Oh certainly this too. But when the players start actually seeing eachother as a group and start really working together such that not having a player present detracts from the gameplay because that spark, however great or small, is missing is a great thing to see.
Unfortunately as a DM and more unfortunately as a player I've seen the "I need my fix" style players at the bad end of the spectrum. Willing to backstab players who cant attend just so they can get their game. Which finally prompted me to quit a group.
No gaming is better than bad gaming.
And of course there are groups who will stubbournly refuse to play even when alternatives are availible when a member is absent. For a DM that can get a little, or a-lot, frustrating.
As ever. The fucked up moral of the story is that not matter what it is. Someone somewhere will find a way to screw it up.
Quote from: Coffee Zombie;870517I 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
It can be difficult.
We have a weekly game that has similar episode length, around 3 hours, with 4 players, each playing 1 PC.
Rather than offering direct advice, here is what we do in our current campaign.
One player has had to take several extended absences due to work, for periods of up to a year. The same player's girlfriend joined us a couple of years ago and they now have a baby, so that impacts on one or both of their time.
If one player drops out, then we carry on playing as normal.
If the couple drop out then we play as normal.
If three or more players, or the GM, drop out then we cancel the game.
If the player hosting drops out then we use a different house, by agreement. We normally play 2 weeks at everyone's house, in a strict rotation.
When possible,missing players can dial in via Skype, but that can be hit and miss, depending on the quality of the Skype session.
If we have reached the end of a scenario and are starting a new one, then we tend to avoid things that impact the plots of missing PCs, preferring to start something different. Similarly, we tend to not focus on plots of missing PCs, where possible.
The main trouble with missing players isn't the fact that they can't play their PCs, but rather it's that we miss their input. Ours is a high-level Gloranthan game, heavy in myth and HeroQuesting and players spark ideas off each other all the time. When we are down to 2 players, there isn't as much spark, with 4 players there is a lot more riffing off each other.
Quote from: Coffee Zombie;870517We'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.
In our campaign, missing PCs are present but ultimately inactive, unless they have special skills or spells they can contribute. In our game, everyone is very specialised so each has certain skills/abilities that they can contribute. They generally don't play a big part in combat, but combat isn't a massive part of our game.
It also depends on how many players are in the group.
There is a different slant to a game with 2 players than with 5 players. Games with more players are more forgiving of absences.
Quote from: Coffee Zombie;870609Let me clarify - I don't make the session ever dependent on a character or player, but natural people politics can make certain players dominant, no matter what you do. Leaders are leaders.
Yes, it's definitely an issue if there's only one player who keeps track of what's going on, who makes the big decisions and acts as the heart of the group (maybe they track treasure, too). I've definitely had trouble with GMing sessions where that player's absent. Sometimes things go very badly & PCs die. I think the general principle is sound though, and players should be encouraged not to load anything onto one guy.
Quote from: soltakss;870621When we are down to 2 players, there ins;t as much spark, with 4 players there is a lot more riffing off each other.
I generally find 5 players is the ideal group size, and my rule is to GM if I have at least 3. In my online group there are only 3 players, rule is I will GM with 2+.
Quote from: soltakss;870622It also depends on how many players are in the group.
Good point. The duet-play campaigns I've been part of never worked well with even one player down. ;)
Quote from: Coffee Zombie;870609Let me clarify - I don't make the session ever dependent on a character or player, but natural people politics can make certain players dominant, no matter what you do. Leaders are leaders. In the case of this player, he's a good friend, exceptional player, but his wife makes plans without regard to his game life (for whatever reason).
You can treat this as a disadvantage or a problem. But I also see this as a ready-made solution.
Good leaders delegate. Incorporate this into the game. He should set the goal or agenda for the session he's going to miss. And the week he comes back, you should begin with a debriefing where the other players, not you, fill him in on what he missed.
Now you can talk to him and get him on board with this. That would be preferable because it keeps him involved even when he can't be there. If it doesn't seem to work out that way, then YOU set the goal or agenda by assuming the role of HIS character in absentia. Still have the players do the debriefing.
Obviously, the very first solution to this is to be selective about who you have in your group, if absences matter to you. Make sure your players are reliable.
If you're absolutely stuck with a group you know isn't, then make your campaign a very relaxed or episodic sort of game where you can have PCs not be there without needing more than a very ridiculous explanation.
The base rule I have is the table I am running is for 3+ players, maybe 2 if I add in an NPC (These are run as wild card allies by the players in Savage Worlds so no GMPCs).
I've run up to a table of 12 in Earthdawn (7-8 in Savage Worlds). 3 seems to be a comfortable point though.
As for dealing with player absences, they simply are not there unless the plot absolutely needs them. One week, I had Mongo simply holding the relay device in Necessary Evil. He was "there" but only because he was the only one strong enough to carry the 600 lb. relay device and be able to move. Didn't participate in any fights, nor was he targeted by the enemies, as the guy holding the metal item in the corner was not deemed a threat by the few enemies that could have attacked Mongo versus the guys actively trying to smash their faces. But otherwise, absent players are simply not here, on other missions, dealing with personal villain business, etc.
In Shaintar I had a nifty little device lifted from the Suzerain setting called a Telesmae. It was a relic that was a direct link with a character's god. So whenever my often absent paladin player was not around, a portal of light appeared and Muinor vanished through the portal, doing something else for his god Archanon that session. I mention this, because for a character in a fantasy game with a strong connection to their god, its a great out for a frequently absent character for both a reason for leaving and for a portal of light appearing and their character showing up immediately in the sessions they do show up. It also does not have to be a good god either, it could be a portal of vines for a druid, a fiery hellish portal for a warlock, a dark portal for an avenger or necromancer, whatever is suitable for the character and their connection to the gods they worship.
The Telesmae gave some nifty powers as well as a relic of their god, one per rank of the character in Savage Worlds (usually edge-like powers). This could change to a power per tier (or five levels) in say Dungeons & Dragons that could be unlocked as you level. Like maybe at level 1, it might cast Cure Light Wounds once per day and the talisman takes the form of a Holy Symbol to channel cleric powers granting an additional turn undead per day as well. At level 6, maybe it can cast 1 Cure Serious Wounds once per day (or Neutralize Poison or Remove Curse). At level 11 maybe it can cast Raise Dead once per day, etc. If you play Savage Worlds, I highly recommend the Suzerain book even if you don't want to play the super powered fantasy setting, as the Telesmae rules are worth the price of admission.
Another solution is to have a less-serious backup game. If your main campaign absolutely depends on everyone (or certain PCs) showing up (always, or at certain crucial junctures) you could have a secondary and more relaxed game to occasionally run.
A variation of this is what I do in the original Dark Albion campaign: all my players always have two PCs generated. Most of the time, they get to pick which one of the two they're playing with at the start of each new adventure, though occasionally an adventure may require that they play with a particular one of their characters.
But if we're in the middle of a multi-session adventure, and someone can't show, I will get everyone who did show to play a new adventure (happening at roughly the same time in the campaign) with their non-active characters.
Luckily, since my players are hand-picked for serious commitment, this doesn't happen too often.
Quote from: Coffee Zombie;870517I 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.
I don't account for "who is going to be present" whenever I plan games. It means that if the players are absent, they're still going to have to deal with the same forces. It's just that one of them is going to be drunk, or whatever:).
Then again, I expect at least one player missing from the main group at any session. No, I don't change my plans if everybody comes, either;).
For that matter, I usually improvise on the spot. Once people that are going to play have arrived, the first round of pancakes is over, and we're beginning the session, I know who's present and can adapt (the delay is necessary in order to stop eating and wipe off the marmalade from my fingers, I'm not going to touch any dice before that - and for some reason, few players want to roll for the GM's NPCs, nobody wants to roll a crit on another PC:D).
So, I guess, more improvisation helps.
In the specific case of
(1) A campaign designed around a dedicated playing group, and
(2) One specific player not being present for some sessions
the best solution is to have a secondary campaign that doesn't involve them.
The other options are changing some of your assumptions: Either you prep a campaign that doesn't require a dedicated playing group (open table (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1223/roleplaying-games/opening-your-game-table)) or you simply cancel the session when someone can't make it.
In the case of your "every second Saturday" model, you could see how flexible the other players can be: If the response to a last minute travel conflict can be "let's rain check the session to next Saturday", that could also solve the problem.
For my dedicated campaigns, the assumption I ditched was "we need a regular schedule". Now I send out a group scheduling e-mail at the beginning of the month and we figure out what days work for us all collectively. But since these conflicts are apparently last minute things, that doesn't sound like it's going to do you any good.
Quote from: Coffee Zombie;870609So the overwhelming sentiment is go postal on this
:eek: Don't
go postal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal)!
Quote- don't cancel game for any reason, weather, absences, etc. if it can be helped.
Whew! Never mind! :cool:
I've had somewhat the same issues in the past; generally the major effect was to make "adventure legs" shorter, so we could pause at natural points at which the character of the missing player could report in or scout elsewhere or whatever, and more sandbox, so that the remaining players could abandon one objective that they didn't think they could achieve and pursue something else if there were fewer players. On the positive side, I think this made my GMing better, since I was challenged to build world events more slowly and indirectly (potentially in widely separated sessions) and make adventures that were less railroaded and more sandbox.
But I also ran for at least one smaller group where we only played when everyone could attend, and as BedrockBrendan noted might happen, those were much shorter lived campaigns. Also, I've never played with a regular schedule that was less than weekly; the more intermittent games I've had tended to be much more multiple one-shots, and I think that contributed to the campaigns failing.
Quote from: RPGPundit;872190Another solution is to have a less-serious backup game. If your main campaign absolutely depends on everyone (or certain PCs) showing up (always, or at certain crucial junctures) you could have a secondary and more relaxed game to occasionally run.
Or just run a less serious and more relaxed game as the main one :)
Turn the bug into a feature.
That is, deliberately design a campaign that's episodic: a series of linked one-shot missions or delves that are self-contained and can be completed in about 4 hours, at which point all the survivors "go back to the tavern," so to speak.
This makes it easy for players to come and go as their schedules permit, without disrupting "the flow" much.
The Five-Room Dungeon (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Five_Room_Dungeon) model is great for this. I'm using it to design my upcoming 5e campaign, and I found that letting potential players know in advance that there's no long-term commitment implied actually boosted my ability to recruit them.
Related to this, don't make the time and place of the sessions the same every time. Find out which players are available when you're ready to run the next session, and hold the session on a day that works best for those particular players that particular time, and that time only.
Rinse, and repeat for every session.
Quote from: King Truffle IV;874052Turn the bug into a feature.
That is, deliberately design a campaign that's episodic: a series of linked one-shot missions or delves that are self-contained and can be completed in about 4 hours, at which point all the survivors "go back to the tavern," so to speak.
The easiest way would be to run organized play scenarios designed with this sort of thing already in mind. This is pretty much exactly what PFS scenarios are.
IME a regularly scheduled campaign that doesn't cancel for 1-2 absences has much more legs than one that tries to fit into the schedule of every player.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;874045Or just run a less serious and more relaxed game as the main one :)
I run both. DCC is a very relaxed game. Albion is a serious one. They do very different things. You can't achieve what one does with the other.
Quote from: King Truffle IV;874052Turn the bug into a feature.
That is, deliberately design a campaign that's episodic: a series of linked one-shot missions or delves that are self-contained and can be completed in about 4 hours, at which point all the survivors "go back to the tavern," so to speak.
This makes it easy for players to come and go as their schedules permit, without disrupting "the flow" much.
The Five-Room Dungeon (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Five_Room_Dungeon) model is great for this. I'm using it to design my upcoming 5e campaign, and I found that letting potential players know in advance that there's no long-term commitment implied actually boosted my ability to recruit them.
Related to this, don't make the time and place of the sessions the same every time. Find out which players are available when you're ready to run the next session, and hold the session on a day that works best for those particular players that particular time, and that time only.
Rinse, and repeat for every session.
While you were more easily able to recruit players, did you see them actually show up and be reliable? Or was the fact that you were able to hook them with the promise of less commitment a prelude to flaking?
Sometimes people have to be absent. That's just the way it is. People have to work. People have kids. People get sick. Two of my players have kids and one works in the restaurant industry. Absences are just a thing you have to deal with.
Quote from: yosemitemike;874621Sometimes people have to be absent. That's just the way it is. People have to work. People have kids. People get sick. Two of my players have kids and one works in the restaurant industry. Absences are just a thing you have to deal with.
Well, yes. The topic of this thread is HOW to deal with it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;874940Well, yes. The topic of this thread is HOW to deal with it.
I've seen a few of these threads, here and there.
Some posters take the attitude of "If anyone misses a game regularly then they are out".
Some say "I only choose to play with reliable people".
Some say "People have lives outside gaming and we try and deal with that".
I am in the third group, which is, to me, the most sensible one.
Quote from: RPGPundit;874940Well, yes. The topic of this thread is HOW to deal with it.
That was more in response to the suggestion that the solution is to only play with reliable players. I have reliable, adult players who, nevertheless, sometimes have to be absent because of things like work or kids. Just saying "play with reliable people" is not a practical solution for many people.
I press on if that is practicable. If it isn't, I have a backup game called Dead of Night ready that is suitable for one shots done with minimal prep.
Quote from: soltakss;875027I am in the third group, which is, to me, the most sensible one.
Depends on how you look at it. I'm somewhere between #1 and #2, which is a whole lot less work. I've been a part of three separate attempts to start a new game over the last few years that foundered because the GMs insisted on getting everyone to (a) sign off on the same day and time, and (b) actually show up on the aforementioned day and time. Those games took between six weeks and three months, respectively, to get that far, no session had more than half of the expected players show up (to the great consternation of the GMs), and none made it past the second session.
Yes, indeed, people have lives. Yes, indeed, emergencies come up. I just prefer that "emergency" = "My seven year old is sick as a dog," or -- as happened with today's session, come to that -- that the spouse called just as the player walked into my door to report that her car broke down, a hundred miles away from my apartment and into the leading edge of the East Coast blizzard.
I
don't, by contrast, think "There was a neat show on TV today" or "The gang invited me to go bowling with them" to be valid excuses. Too many gamers do, these days.
In consequence, I've got a bi-weekly run that misses about one session in ten, attendance is near-perfect, and the six week hiatus I just took to recharge my batteries is the first such gap I've had in thirteen years. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Quote from: soltakss;875027Some posters take the attitude of "If anyone misses a game regularly then they are out".
Some say "I only choose to play with reliable people".
Some say "People have lives outside gaming and we try and deal with that".
You forgot one:
Some say "I run an open table. Show up when you want to. No commitment required or requested."
I'm seeing that my style is set up to have committed players, and my enjoyment is diminished when I have to run a casual game. My plots, when they do work out (which is often) evolve characters quite a lot, and I find it hard to achieve this with sporadic attendance.
This being said, the attendance has been better of late, and the advice here has made me just roll with the punches. I've actually just stopped explaining why characters are absent. I might find the sweet spot with some learning and time.
I do like the idea of a casual side game, going to institute that when I'm missing 2+ players.
Quote from: nDervish;875138You forgot one:
Some say "I run an open table. Show up when you want to. No commitment required or requested."
I haven't heard that one before. Some must say that, then.
Quote from: nDervish;875138Some say "I run an open table. Show up when you want to. No commitment required or requested."
Quote from: soltakss;875186I haven't heard that one before. Some must say that, then.
That's how D&D Encounters is run. It probably works best with large groups with multiple GMs.
You never heard of that? Seriously? It's... it's the foundations of the hobby. It's how it started. It's how many of us got regular game groups - have an open table, after weeks or months see that the same 4-5 people keep showing up, then head off somewhere else.
Never any social geektogethers or conventions, either, then?
Do you guys all live at home with your parents giving you strict curfews, or something?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;875227Do you guys all live at home with your parents giving you strict curfews, or something?
I am totally picturing you saying that, then spraying your mouth in silver and screaming "Witness Me!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KlSuGNt8e4
EDIT: Oh, and my mom says that just because you hurt my feelings that I can stay out until 9:35 pm tonight! Take that Kyle Aaron!
I run my games as an open table with only certain people (maybe 16 or so) having received an invitation. When a game happens, every knows that there needs to be 3 people showing up or we'll do something else. So far it hasn't happened and I'm regularly getting 6-9 with maybe 5 people that are there for every session without fail.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;875227You never heard of that? Seriously? It's... it's the foundations of the hobby. It's how it started. It's how many of us got regular game groups - have an open table, after weeks or months see that the same 4-5 people keep showing up, then head off somewhere else.
Never any social geektogethers or conventions, either, then?
Do you guys all live at home with your parents giving you strict curfews, or something?
My first gaming group was at Uni, someone owned RuneQuest and offered to show us how to play.
My second gaming group was my brother, his best friend, his best friend's step-brother, a married couple and me, as they had played D&D at Uni.
My third gaming group was people I met at Uni.
My fourth gaming group was some people I found through hearing about a HeroQuest group in Birmingham.
At Uni, I don't think I ever saw any roleplaying done as part of a club or society, although it happened. As I had an established group already, I didn't need another group.
I went to a RPG club once and it didn't suit me at all, no continuity, lots of people I didn't know, games I didn't really want to play, or games that I wanted to play but not on a piecemeal basis.
At the conventions I go to, people offer games, other people join them and play them. I don't see them as open table games, really.
Maybe my experience is different to a lot of other people's. However, it's how I've been playing for over 30 years and is all I know.
Quote from: soltakss;875323At Uni, I don't think I ever saw any roleplaying done as part of a club or society, although it happened. As I had an established group already, I didn't need another group.
I went to a RPG club once and it didn't suit me at all, no continuity, lots of people I didn't know, games I didn't really want to play, or games that I wanted to play but not on a piecemeal basis.
At the conventions I go to, people offer games, other people join them and play them. I don't see them as open table games, really.
My first gaming group in college was large and often had three or more DMs running. I never went to a general RPG club that played varied RPGs that I might not want to play; but I have played a lot at local game stores when they specifically schedule a game I am interested in playing, usually with multiple tables.
Too much turnover can kill it just like too many absences in the other approaches can; I quit one game store's Wednesday nights because for weeks in a row I wasn't playing with the same person, player or DM, and even experienced the same encounter twice at different tables. But mostly it's been pretty good; the game is almost never cancelled and nobody beats you up if your other obligations mean you can't be there. And it's a good place to evaluate new players to invite to more committed games elsewhere.
Quote from: soltakss;875323I went to a RPG club once and it didn't suit me at all, no continuity...
Open table games, at least the way I prefer them, do have continuity, even if the roster of players is ever-changing. The key difference is that the game's primary focus (and thus the focus of continuity) is The World rather than The Party. In the ideal case (if you can get enough players...), you have multiple parties of PCs, each with (at least the potential for) shifting membership and pursuing their own goals, which may or may not intersect and could even put them at odds with each other. ("I heard that the other group found a huge pile of gold last week, but didn't have any carts to bring it back... Let's get a cart and grab that gold before they can go back to it!")
Of course, that may still be something that doesn't interest you.
Quote from: soltakss;875323Maybe my experience is different to a lot of other people's. However, it's how I've been playing for over 30 years and is all I know.
The way you play is definitely common, and almost certainly the most common model today, but my understanding is that, in the very beginning, you'd have groups of 30 or 40 players in a shared setting and a randomish 10 or 15 of them would show up at any given session. Over the years, the hobby has evolved into mostly smaller groups of more consistent players, but I prefer to at least attempt to revive the earlier style.
Quote from: nDervish;875518Open table games, at least the way I prefer them, do have continuity, even if the roster of players is ever-changing. The key difference is that the game's primary focus (and thus the focus of continuity) is The World rather than The Party. In the ideal case (if you can get enough players...), you have multiple parties of PCs, each with (at least the potential for) shifting membership and pursuing their own goals, which may or may not intersect and could even put them at odds with each other. ("I heard that the other group found a huge pile of gold last week, but didn't have any carts to bring it back... Let's get a cart and grab that gold before they can go back to it!")
The club I went to seemed to be playing different things each week, as one-offs, rolling up PCs each time. At least, that's how it seemed to me.
I prefer campaigns with a core set of players/PCs. Constantly rolling up new PCs for new scenarios would drive me nuts, I'm afraid.
Quote from: nDervish;875518The way you play is definitely common, and almost certainly the most common model today, but my understanding is that, in the very beginning, you'd have groups of 30 or 40 players in a shared setting and a randomish 10 or 15 of them would show up at any given session. Over the years, the hobby has evolved into mostly smaller groups of more consistent players, but I prefer to at least attempt to revive the earlier style.
OK, my first group sort-of had this, as we had a core of 6 players and another 4 or so who came in and out of the game, so I see where you are coming from.
Quote from: soltakss;875323I went to a RPG club once and it didn't suit me at all, no continuity, lots of people I didn't know, games I didn't really want to play, or games that I wanted to play but not on a piecemeal basis.
So you have experienced and know of open game tables, you just didn't like them.
That's fine. You like what you like. I was just perplexed at the idea of someone had never even
heard of the idea. I mean lots of gamers don't like D&D, that's fine, but it would be weird to be a gamer who's never heard of it.
Quote from: nDervish;875518The way you play is definitely common, and almost certainly the most common model today, but my understanding is that, in the very beginning, you'd have groups of 30 or 40 players in a shared setting and a randomish 10 or 15 of them would show up at any given session. Over the years, the hobby has evolved into mostly smaller groups of more consistent players, but I prefer to at least attempt to revive the earlier style.
I started playing in 1976. I have never GMed an open table, I've never been in a campaign with one, and I doubt I'd like it. Of course I heard and knew of them, but suggesting that open tables were some kind of monolithic ur-style is crocked. As with so many other aspects of gaming, people just assume that the standard way of doing things in their own gaming circles, at the time they started with RPGs, is The Way It All Started, world without end, amen.
Open game tables is the way it started, and the way many people do it still - I've done it myself. This doesn't mean everyone has to do it now. But it's an idea that should not be dismissed out of hand.
Reasons for at least considering an open game table are the same as those starting this thread: players are sometimes absent, and they do move on. If you're entirely insular then at some point you may find your game group has not enough players left.
So it can be worth being open to new players to some degree. Remember, just because you let them come once doesn't mean you have to let them come a second time. If they don't meet your exacting standards for gaming excellence, send them away.
What I've commonly seen is that people use a club or open game table as a way to spend a few weeks choosing players for a long-term closed game group. It's one of the obstacles to setting up an rpg club.
My game groups in recent years have usually been made up of people met at the Geektogethers I organised, and people from open game tables.
The Geektogethers came about because I saw that most gamers are quite insular, it's all very "stranger! danger!" which works fine for a bit, then someone gets a new job, marries, divorces, moves house or just gets sick of gaming for a bit. And with that person absent maybe someone else leaves - maybe that guy was someone else's ride, maybe it's just not as much fun without that one guy, whatever. So your happy group of 5 is now 3 and things are a bit flat.
But, I thought, in fact usually in each group there's someone who is in or was recently in another game group. And most of us know a few people who used to game and could with some persuasion come back to it. So your little group of 3-5 actually knows 10-15 other gamers. But because they're insular they don't see them.
So I said, let's all meet at the pub to have a few drinks and tell some tall gaming stories, pass the word around - and I'd mention it online. And I booked a booth. That's all I did. And we'd get anything from 10 to I think 25 gamers show up. Always someone found a new gamer for their group, or started a new game group.
The open game table I've done often, most recently at GoodGames in Melbourne. It's basically a CCG shop but does have some rpg stuff for sale, has maybe 20 tables, usually 8 are CCGs, 6 are wargames, and 6 are rpg sessions. So you sit down to play and people wander past and ask you about it. Occasionally someone joins in.
In practice you don't find a different 5-6 people every session, instead there are 3-4 regulars and 1-2 people who drop in for 1-4 sessions and then drift off.
Obviously this means you can't have profoundly thespy games. But most of us don't do that anyway. And if you have an ongoing plot, 1-2 of the people there will have no clue or interest in that plot. But let's be honest, that's normal for closed game groups, too, there's always someone who's just there to roll dice and eat snacks. And this is true of the great stories of movies and book, too - someone will be Frodo and Sam, and someone will be Merry and Pippin. 1-3 main characters and then a bunch of sidekicks.
I had some regular players at GoodGames who kept complaining about the noise and smell and the other geeks. They don't game at all now.
Maybe 1 in 6 of those who came were annoying or weird enough we didn't want them to come again. Usually they knew they weren't welcome, the dislike was mutual so they just went away without anyone having to say anything. One time one of the less regular players brought some guy who was his cousin or something, he was apparently retarded or Aspy or whatever, his mother hung around very pleased that he had friends, but he was too weird and nasty for us (his character doing weird murderous stuff, I don't remember the details), and it seemed we were being used as a group therapy class, so we told his cousin not to bring him anymore. That was about the most offensive incident, not really enough to warrant "stranger! danger!"
I would still be doing this at GoodGames, but having a business and child at home means I can't go out regularly, so I host a game instead. Julian is from a Geektogether 5 years ago, Dan from a Geektogether followed up by an AD&D one-off, Theo from the GG open game table, and John a sidekick of Theo's. Former members Paul, John, Grant etc were open game table guys too.
Being open to new gamers helps ensure you keep gaming. There are degrees of this, not everyone has to sit in a club somewhere like that. But it's worth considering. It's made me a better GM, for one - learning to accommodate strangers quickly, come up with adventures etc on the fly. And it's just more friendly and social, instead of everyone sitting at home at their keyboards complaining about games and gamers all sucking.
But then, I try to be open-minded about these things. I even played Synnibar 2 with Raven McCracken.
Quote from: soltakss;875520The club I went to seemed to be playing different things each week, as one-offs, rolling up PCs each time. At least, that's how it seemed to me... Constantly rolling up new PCs for new scenarios would drive me nuts, I'm afraid.
Yeah, that would drive me crazy, too. I always find starting fresh to be the hardest part of any RPG, so I don't like to make new characters (as a player) or settings (as a GM) more often than once or twice a year. Ideally, I'd like to have a 20-year-old campaign one day, but I have yet to make it past a single year. (Note that by "campaign" I mean "setting which has had people playing in it", not a single party or storyline.)
Quote from: Ravenswing;875636I started playing in 1976. I have never GMed an open table, I've never been in a campaign with one, and I doubt I'd like it. Of course I heard and knew of them, but suggesting that open tables were some kind of monolithic ur-style is crocked. As with so many other aspects of gaming, people just assume that the standard way of doing things in their own gaming circles, at the time they started with RPGs, is The Way It All Started, world without end, amen.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit that, by "in the very beginning", I meant "at Arneson's and Gygax's tables, and in the Braunsteins which preceded them", not the entire world of RPGs which descended from their experiences. I have no doubt that other styles existed in 1976 at other peoples' tables.
Quote from: nDervish;875664Perhaps I should have been more explicit that, by "in the very beginning", I meant "at Arneson's and Gygax's tables, and in the Braunsteins which preceded them", not the entire world of RPGs which descended from their experiences. I have no doubt that other styles existed in 1976 at other peoples' tables.
It's not always clear when people discuss what happened in the beginning, whether they mean how the hobby started in the sense of how the people who wrote the rules played their games or whether they mean how most people played when they first started playing.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;875646Open game tables is the way it started,
That depends on what you mean by "started." Sure that's how the people that wrote the rules started, but it's not how everyone who bought the rules started play. And that was Ravenswing's point.
QuoteBut it's an idea that should not be dismissed out of hand.
I don't think that people are dismissing the notion. But people like what they like and some people don't like (or don't like as well) the sort of play driven by a group with many (20+) players and ad hoc adventuring parties. Some people prefer that sort of play.
QuoteIf you're entirely insular then at some point you may find your game group has not enough players left.
One good player is enough. Given the availability of IM, online gaming tools, and video and audio chat, if you can't stay in contact with one person to game with, then you really aren't trying.
QuoteWhat I've commonly seen is that people use a club or open game table as a way to spend a few weeks choosing players for a long-term closed game group. It's one of the obstacles to setting up an rpg club.
That would seem to indicate that GMs may prefer closed rather than open tables. Otherwise why not just stick with the club?
QuoteObviously this means you can't have profoundly thespy games. But most of us don't do that anyway. And if you have an ongoing plot, 1-2 of the people there will have no clue or interest in that plot.
I don't know what "profoundly thespy" means, but by claiming "most of us don't do that anyway" seems you are buying into the notion that most people play the game exactly like I do world view that you started out complaining about.
But setting "thespy" aside, to look at the consequences for detailed NPC motivations and world actions, maybe the 2 people who were interested in the ongoing events of play are the two who don't show up that day and you have 2-3 people who are vaguely aware of the past and present but don't care about what has gone before and what the rest of the group was trying to accomplish and 2-3 others who know nothing about the background and could not care less. That tends to be fine in a single session dungeon crawl campaign, but it can create utter chaos and incoherence in a heavily political campaign.
QuoteMaybe 1 in 6 of those who came were annoying or weird enough we didn't want them to come again. Usually they knew they weren't welcome, the dislike was mutual so they just went away without anyone having to say anything.
While some people are fine with a ratio of 1 annoying weirdo out of 6, that's not a ratio I'd find acceptable. Which is one reason I've seldom engaged in open table gaming. Frankly that one weirdo would be highly likely to ruin the session for me. I'd much rather game with fewer players than get stuck with multiple sessions per year saddled with weirdos, rejects, and annoyances.
QuoteBeing open to new gamers helps ensure you keep gaming.
Sure that is one approach that people use. But its not the only successful approach. I've been gaming regularly since 1974 and I've never been especially open to new gamers and have never gone to much effort to find new gamers. Yet here I am. Still gaming after all these years.
Quote from: nDervish;875664Perhaps I should have been more explicit that, by "in the very beginning", I meant "at Arneson's and Gygax's tables, and in the Braunsteins which preceded them", not the entire world of RPGs which descended from their experiences. I have no doubt that other styles existed in 1976 at other peoples' tables.
Yep. The way I look at it, what happened at Dave's and Gary's tables, pre-1974, was the same deal as what we call playtesting now.
Quote from: Bren;875684That depends on what you mean by "started."
Pedantry is close to pederasty, both in the dictionary and in morality.
QuoteOne good player is enough. Given the availability of IM, online gaming tools, and video and audio chat, if you can't stay in contact with one person to game with, then you really aren't trying.
Sure. But most prefer the group dynamic, the back-and-forth and unpredictability that having 4+ people there brings.
QuoteThat would seem to indicate that GMs may prefer closed rather than open tables. Otherwise why not just stick with the club?
I think most gamers have this dream of the game promised in AD&D1e: a solid group of several players who adventure together for the years needed to reach "name" level. So they pursue this, though it so often doesn't work out, life being what it is.
I did a poll on rpg.net years ago about the average session length of campaigns. I explicitly told people to include the one session fizzles, but they mostly excluded them. Still, we got that most campaigns last 8-18 sessions before they ended, and it was rarely a planned end, usually the group imploded or fizzled in some way. There was the odd group that had lasted decades but this was an exception, I think it was 1 in 20 at most.
Since it's just a hobby this is not surprising. I work as a trainer and find the same thing, most people don't last. The ones who last in training are those who either need it to live a normal life (beat-up older people) or who compete in some sport. For the rest, past the novelty stage of the first few months, they just don't last, it's just too much hard work for a hobby.
Gaming does not offer the same health benefits, and as much as TSR tried with tournament modules, we just don't have a competitive arena for it. So it's unsurprising that if the game sessions become too in-depth, or if reaching the session times becomes hard to fit in, people will just bail on it. It's just a hobby.
Like lifting, some of us love gaming for its own sake, and see that it has benefits even if not profoundly life-changing ones. But that's not how most gamers view it.
So for most of us, we can keep striving for this tight little group playing a profoundly thespy campaign with the same 4-6 players over decades, or we can just accept - most campaigns won't last, and players will come and go. And we can adjust to that.
If not open game table, then staying in contact with other gamers through other groups is necessary to avoid that downtime while looking for replacement players. I have had this experience many times: the gamers who came to a Geektogether when groupless, shunned and badmouthed us all once they got a game group. Then a year later they wandered back all friendly again. The scornfully insular were suddenly open again, funny that.
Quotemaybe the 2 people who were interested in the ongoing events of play are the two who don't show up that day and you have 2-3 people who are vaguely aware of the past and present but don't care
My experience is that the ones who are deeply interested are the ones who show up pretty reliably. If people are casual in attitude in the game, they'll be casual in attendance as well; if serious then serious. Of course sometimes things happen, but this is why we have board games and movies as a backup; those casual gamers will be just as happy watching Conan for the 132nd time, or playing Blood Bowl.
QuoteWhile some people are fine with a ratio of 1 annoying weirdo out of 6, that's not a ratio I'd find acceptable.
It's the same in classrooms, workplaces and families. You must spend a lot of time feeling upset with life.
Unlike classrooms, workplaces and families, the annoying dickhead in the game group we only have to put up with long enough to find out he's an annoying dickhead. So an open game table in a club in the end will spend much less time putting up with annoying dickheads than those same people do in class, their workplace or families.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;875987Sure. But most prefer the group dynamic, the back-and-forth and unpredictability that having 4+ people there brings.
What most people prefer is irrelevant. What matters is what the people at my table prefer. I have a pretty good idea of that. Unlike you, I don't claim to know what other people who I don't know happen to prefer in their gaming.
QuoteI think most gamers have this dream of the game promised in AD&D1e: a solid group of several players who adventure together for the years needed to reach "name" level. So they pursue this, though it so often doesn't work out, life being what it is.
I find AD&D irrelevant as well. You provided the data that supports the conclusion that people prefer small, closed groups and dislike open tables. Why they prefer small, closed groups is beside the point, though I suspect a dislike for playing with assholes is one reason. It's certainly one of my main reasons for avoiding open tables.
QuoteI did a poll on rpg.net years ago...
That data is worth about what you paid for it.
[qiuote]So it's unsurprising that if the game sessions become too in-depth, or if reaching the session times becomes hard to fit in, people will just bail on it. It's just a hobby. [/quote]While that probably is true of lots of players, it isn't supported by my gaming experience in which multi-year campaigns with sessions numbering in the hundreds are the rule rather than the exception.
QuoteSo for most of us, we can keep striving for this tight little group playing a profoundly thespy campaign with the same 4-6 players over decades, or we can just accept - most campaigns won't last, and players will come and go. And we can adjust to that.
I still have no idea what you think a "thespy campaign" even is.
QuoteIf not open game table, then staying in contact with other gamers through other groups is necessary to avoid that downtime while looking for replacement players.
The fact that you keep saying that does not make it universally or even generally true. As I said, it's not something I've found necessary and I'm hardly unique in that respect even in this thread.
QuoteIt's the same in classrooms, workplaces and families. You must spend a lot of time feeling upset with life.
I do have a low tolerance for socializing with assholes. So I don't socialize with them. Problem solved.
At work, I get paid to put up with the occasional asshole. But a ratio of 1 person in 6 being an asshole or dickhead is much higher than my experience in life, at home, in the classroom, or at work. Now perhaps I've been really fortunate in life and you've been really unfortunate. Or maybe there is a different explanation for the high frequency with which you encounter dickheads everywhere in your life.
Quote from: nDervish;875138You forgot one:
Some say "I run an open table. Show up when you want to. No commitment required or requested."
This is how I run my DCC campaign. It works in this particular case because the game is so Gonzo, tends to break the 4th wall, and doesn't really need to worry about consistency.
It wouldn't work in a more serious game.