D&D 5E What to do about flakes?!

[Wednesday Boy]

My preference is to continue the session as long as two players show up. For those who don't show up their characters are on a side quest if there's an easy way to write them out of the session. If the group is at a point where the character couldn't reasonably go off on a side quest (e.g., half way to Mount Doom), their character fades into the background. They aren't affected by anything but they're assumed to have experienced whatever the group experienced so they can easily jump back into the plot for the next session.

Sometimes if the missing player's character is very integral for the plot we'll create a side quest or a flashback for the characters who are present, just so we can keep playing.

It's hamfisted and I can see how it could break immersion for some people but it lets the people who show up still get to play and since we're all busy, employed people with families we're understanding and do our best to accommodate our various schedules. (And we don't penalize the missing players' XP or share of treasure or anything. For us not getting to play is enough of a penalty.)

 

[Uchawi]

If they flake out too often then replace them. They have other priorities or are not dependable whatever they do. I have played with 2 dedicated players and a DM, with NPCs that can be taken on by visiting players. I prefer more, but you may not be as fortunate. 3-4 dependable players is the sweet spot.

 

[jasper]

What to do about flakes? Um how about I change that to
What to do about NO SHOWS? One, always have some other activity planned. Two, after x number of no shows drop the person to your maybe player list and don’t plan anything for that person. Three either get used to quick redesign the encounters on the fly or let the encounter play out as written (aka it sucks that the tanks were not present).
What to do about player/pc is an integral part of the storyline? NEVER EVER CREATE a storyline like this. Always have a reason to move “the fated one” to another PC.
If I am dming. I have a half hour rule. After a half hour, I either leave or do another activity. One clueless (who was 45 minutes late) got the clue by four when they discovered an empty dark house with no one home. We decided to go do laser tag.
Other posters have suggest character sheets are kept by the DM. Sorry no. Very few people will be happy with this solution especially if their pc gets hurt. The multiple pcs ran by one player I have no problem with, as I did this back in 1E. I do like the NPC suggestion. I will expand the idea. Keep a stable of NPC in your folder. If you need a NPC to round out the party, let the group run it with DM have Veto power. I used to give my group npc clerics to run, since they didn’t like running clerics. The NPC gets a cut of everything.
What a bob Shidaku? I had a Bob who would call on Monday wanting to play Friday. On Tuesday talk to me about Friday’s upcoming game. Thursday email about the game. Friday crickets. I made sure not to place any special magic for their pc in my game.

 

[Morrus]

If they flake out too often then replace them.

My friends are not replaceable.

 

[Slit518]

If this has not been resolved yet, I would suggest maybe making the game bi-weekly sessions. This would allow for breathers in-between sessions, and for those who may feel "overwhelmed" by the amount of D&D being played, some time as well.

 

[The_Gunslinger658]

Super tough trying to get 4 or 5 individuals to play a game at times, I remember in high school and when I was in the military is was easy to play and get together 3 or 4 times a week. Those were the days of Blitzkrieg D&D. Now trying to pull a group together can be good at times and bad at times, family's, social obligations and so on can make getting people together really tough. The last second cancellations are tough, the last second "I decided not to play anymore" cancellations are disheartening.

The best solution I have found is playing online with either roll20 or fantasy grounds. Now I dont have go and drive a million miles to meet up with complete strangers and find I am wasting my time. I can now play D&D online and weed out the morons and murder hobos in my campaign, no more being stuck with a player or two who are disruptive to the game. I am DM'ing two great groups, and DM'ing third one, but this group I am not liking too much but I am still going to give that group a chance.

Anyway, unless your DM'ing good friends or family, I would recommend online play.

 

[iserith]

You might also consider switching to an online format such as through Roll20. Not having to make oneself presentable, make work or family arrangements, travel to someone else's house to play, and then have to travel back home later can sometimes be the thing that makes it possible for some folks to play more reliably. It's a different experience than getting together around the table in person, so it depends on what you prioritize as the reason for playing.

 

[manduck]

I handle the potential schedule issues and flaky players a couple of different ways. At the start of any campaign, I ask for some background info from the players. Just some things about their characters that they'd like to explore or other goals their character may have outside of the adventures. Some of that background I sprinkle into the campaign proper and some I set aside to use when needed. So if there aren't enough players to go on with something big in the adventure, I can spring something personal on them. The other thing I do is that whatever villain I'm using has their own goals and is always doing their own thing. There's no real set way to defeat the villain, they're just an opponent of the party trying to accomplish something. So if end up with a small group, I may pull some of the combat and direct engagement encounters and replace them with more investigative or social encounters. Let them learn more about the enemy and find other ways to stall or defeat the villain without direct combat. This may require a little more work up front for me, but it lets things run a lot smoother for me when the game gets going.

So if a player doesn't make it on a regular basis or flakes at the last minute, no big deal. Their character stuff doesn't come into play that session and the main adventure can still progress. My group can be pretty large if everyone can make it. We have 7 players right now. Honestly, it can be a bit of a relief and easier to manage if a couple people can't make it. On average, usually four or five of us can make it regularly. Though we'll still play with two or three if we can. It's more about friends getting together and making sure to set time aside for each other than anything else.

I've also found that the players that flake and no show the most end up bailing on the game all together pretty quickly. I've rarely had to talk to a player about it beyond "hey, do you still want to play?".

 

[billd91]

I'm of two minds with respect to this.

It's not all that hard to set aside a regular time commitment, particularly for your friends. If millions of people can do it for their bowling leagues, sand volleyball, softball, poker, or whatever it is people do on a weekly basis, gamers should be able to do it too. That said, I'm aware that many of those have options for recruiting backups and temporary replacements when a player can't make it.

But it's also not that hard to find an alternative if you don't have a minimum number of players available. Bring up a board game that would fit in with your scheduled time. Run with a smaller number of players for the session (scaling encounter difficulties appropriately). Run with the missing player's PCs as if they are NPCs.

As a GM, I understand what a bummer it is to prep for a session only to have too many players out to play or have specific players out when I had great plans for their PCs. But that's also pretty much all it is - a bummer. It's not going to ruin my week. If this is a frequent problem, I may think about recruiting more players so we're more likely to make our minimum playing quorum. I may also have to make the game less ongoing-story-based in favor of less interconnected episodes. And while either may be unfortunate because it will change the dynamic I'm hoping for, the hoped-for dynamic is already being changed by the absenteeism. I might as well run a game more suited to it and not get upset in an out-of-proportion way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is by far the suckiest part of D&D!

Oh, I'm sure there are other contenders for that title.

Especially when that player is an integral part of the storyline

It is possible to run with a more fluid story line and a higher level of suspension-of-disbelief. You can drop the absent player's PC into an 'NPC mode' where the DM controls it and has it make basic contributions without blowing many resources (works better for some characters than others), give it to another player to run in addition to (or if it's all that critical to the story, instead of) their own, or you can rationalize the PC's absence. Groups I've been in or run for in the past have used simple explanations, like heading off on undisclosed 'personal business,' or fantatic ones, like being separated from the party by an arbitrary trap or magical gambit from the BBEG. One I heard about 2nd-hand was a mercenary company "The Band of the Red Band" who were cursed, and some of them would randomly slip into alternate realities unpredictably, some of the time. My current campaign was set primarily in the Feywild for years, so any absence or inconsistency was chalked up to the nature of that capricious realm.

Of course, it should be clear up front it's gonna be 'that kinda game,' but it's possible. If you have some players who are not going to be able to make every session due to RL issues - unexpected family or work obligations, usually - then just don't aim for a style that requires perfect attendance.