I just chewed out my players

[Water Bob]

I think the OP's game is a low priority among his players because he allowed it to get there in their perceptions. Allowing the game to happen with players not showing up teaches the players that it's "OK to not show up".

Everygame I start, if I have new players, I make it clear that, if everyone doesn't show up, then we don't play. In the past, if I had a player not show up a the last minute, I wouldn't have to say anything because the other players, miffed that that made time in their schedules and were ready to play, would take care of it for me.

In essence, I made gametime "important" by insisting that all players show up or no game happens. When people commit to a game time, I get strong commitments.

Now, if there's a family emergency or some such, of course we're not going to be ogres about showing up. But, if a certain player starts having a lot of family emergencies, all of a sudden, then we probably won't be too forgiving after the first couple of times.

Also, if a character can be benched, story-wise, I'll play with less. For example, I'm running a game that focusses on barbarians. So, if the last time we gamed a character was in the village, that will cover the player if he needs to skip a game. The rest of the players may start the new adventure, leaving the one character behind--then again, that player who skipped out has to stay out of the game until his character can be fit, story-wise, back into the campaign (usually when the rest of the players have their characters return to the village). So, a one-time miss can turn into a long period (multi-sessions) away from the game as the other players play out the adventure. Since we average a game a month, an adventure that takes 5 sessions to play can mean the player doesn't play for six months (his skip date plus the 5 sessions it takes the other players to complete their adventure).

Not to mention that the other players who played are getting XP and advancing while the character at the village remains dormant, XP-wise.

Now, If I have a player who had to skip in this position, I try to find other things for him to do. Sometimes we have NPCs along with the party, and if so, I'll give a player that NPC to play. It gives him something to do, and it takes some work off of me as DM. The player is allowed to play, in this way, but he's still not playing his own character.




If you've got a group that is used to gaming without everybody showing up, there might be some resistance to switching things to this style of play. My advice is to do it, because your game will be better for it with your players respecting everybody else's time (that they've made to show up, and the DM who put all the work into the game).

This may mean that you drop your core group down to one or two people who are dedicated to the game. Make those peoples' characters your "stars" of the story. Play favorites. Reward them for their loyalty.

I've played games where I've had one or two loyal players and three or for players who wouldn't make the game a priority. The two players who always showed up is where I grew my game's story. The other players, I let them play when they wanted, but they never played "starring roles". They were "bit actors", taking on different roles with NPCs and such, as needed.

One time, I had a "bit player" convert to a dedicated player that showed up all the time because he yearned to play his own character, not the differnt NPCs and such that I would throw him, inconsistantly, as the game progressed.

Bottom Line: If you want your players to value and respect game time, then you've got to value and respect it yourself by not allowing people to come and go as they please. If a player doesn't want to committ, then he really doesn't want to play. Allowing him to play leads to problems expressed in the OP.

 

[jasper]

I forgive family problems. But if gaming in my game is low priority for tell me. Don't call me on Wednesday ask about the regularly schedule Friday is on. Then don't show. Then tell me you decided to go Batman.
Don't ask me to your house to game, disappear into you back room to play a MMO. And wonder why you pc did not get xp for the night.
Don't email Mon -Thur about character/game updates. Then tell on Sunday just forgot to show up.
Don't expect me to feed you and your kid weekly when you only toss $5 a mth to food fund.
I left a group of the above activity. There are family excuses, lame excuses and then only lies. And I only accept the 1st now days.

 

[Ampolitor]

it depends

well it also depends on the age group, when your older and have a wife and kids then it is a lot harder to get some free time to even play. The best thing to do is sit everyone down and come up with a reasonable schedule for everyone. For most married people with kids, meeting face to face in person once a month is about as good as it gets. Have you ever considered running some sessions via online? I've done that especially around the holidays or if someone had to stay home with a sick kid. Life happens and its hard to get a entire group to commit,
Now if you think they are must dodging the game well then there is the old DM rule, the game goes on with or without you, if you are not here to control your character than the DM does, and if you are eaten by a pack of zombies so be it, (after the Players who show up, rape your corpse for your belongings)

 

[Morrus]

I think the OP's game is a low priority among his players because he allowed it to get there in their perceptions. Allowing the game to happen with players not showing up teaches the players that it's "OK to not show up".

Everygame I start, if I have new players, I make it clear that, if everyone doesn't show up, then we don't play. In the past, if I had a player not show up a the last minute, I wouldn't have to say anything because the other players, miffed that that made time in their schedules and were ready to play, would take care of it for me.

In essence, I made gametime "important" by insisting that all players show up or no game happens. When people commit to a game time, I get strong commitments.

So if I show up, but someone else doesn't, you refuse to run your game, thus wasting my time? You wouldn't see me the following week, I'm afraid. My time isn't to be wasted; and you're not going to get me to value and respect your time by treating mine so trivially.

 

[S'mon]

So if I show up, but someone else doesn't, you refuse to run your game, thus wasting my time? You wouldn't see me the following week, I'm afraid. My time isn't to be wasted; and you're not going to get me to value and respect your time by treating mine so trivially.

I agree; the DM is #1 guy at the table, but with the leadership role comes leadership responsibility - if I say I'm going to run a game, I damn well better run it, and same goes for other DMs if I'm going to play in their games. If player X disrespects you by not showing up for your game, that does not mean you should then disrespect players Y & Z, who have showed up, by cancelling the game.

Even if your players tolerate this, perhaps because your game is very good, that does not make it right.

 

[Water Bob]

So if I show up, but someone else doesn't, you refuse to run your game, thus wasting my time?

That's exactly right, that I don't run the game unless everyone is there. And guess what? I can't remember the last time a player no-showed. It must have been 15 or 20 years ago.

Everybody knows the rules. We all have time commitments. As DM, I spend hours upon hours working on the game outside of the play time. If anybody's time is wasted, it's mine.

Enforcing this rule over the years, all of my players respect everyone else's time. If we commit to a game, it's a firm commitment. People strive to be there. They make it important in their list of to-do's.

And, if for some reason a player can't be there, what he doesn't do is wait until game day and not show up. What he does is call me, and I re-set the game with everyone. I try to keep this to a minimum, because it's a pain re-arranging everyone's schedules. But, yeah, things do come up. Family comes into town. A kid gets sick. Yadda-yadda.

Pretty much, once we've set a game, it's written in stone. Everybody does their best to be there*.

The end result is: I have zero problems with people not taking game seriously, making it a time priority, and respecting the other players' time.



*I believe that once you open the door to allowing people to miss a game while the others play, then it starts happening much more often than necessary or desireable. As DM, I've got a commitment to be at each and every game. I don't think it's a bad thing to require the same of my players.

 

[Morrus]

That's exactly right, that I don't run the game unless everyone is there.

So you, really, after I've made plans to be there, driven there, probably cancelled other alternative engagements, would literally tell me to go home again because someone else broke one of your "rules"?

I revise my previous statement. Not that the situation will ever arise, but I wouldn't even be at that first session.

 

[Crothian]

I believe that once you open the door to allowing people to miss a game while the others play, then it starts happening much more often than necessary or desireable. As DM, I've got a commitment to be at each and every game. I don't think it's a bad thing to require the same of my players.

What kinds of excuses are you used to getting? Are the players married do they have kids?

In the last year we've had plenty of players miss games. But the reasons I get are player, wife, kid has flu; wife or child is at the hospital or going to the hospital; family vacations/ Gen Con/ Holidays; death in the family. I have had one player miss a month straight because his wife has cancer and going through chemo. My player make the game a priority it just is not the highest priority in their life nor should it.

 

[Water Bob]

So you, really, after I've made plans to be there, driven there, probably cancelled other alternative engagements, would literally tell me to go home again because someone else broke one of your rules?

The point is: People don't cancel on my game because I have the rule and enforce it.

It's not an issue.

Should a strange day come--let's say Pete's grandmother had a heart attack on game day and couldn't make it--then, yes, I'd cancel the game. We'd wait for Pete to come play his character.

I'd let you know as soon as I found out. If you and I were friends, then I'd probably say, "Hey, come on over anyway. The rest of us are going to catch a movie." And, we'd still hang out.

The grandmother heart attack is an extreme example. Something like that has never happened. And, what the rule does is keep John-john from going out with the new chick he's starting to date instead of keeping his commitment to come game with us.

The only time I've run game were not all players are present is when the missing player's character is somewhere that can be absent from the story logically. For example, if we're in the middle of a dungeon, and John-john can't make the game for whatever stupid reason, then, no, I'm not running the game. But, if we're in the village, and the rest of the PCs can leave John-john's character there and go on to the dungeon without him, then I'll run the game and keep John-john out of the game until it makes sense, logically, within the story of the game, that his character could again meet up with the rest of the group. By missing that one game, John-john could find himself out of the game for quite a while--at least running his own character. If I can find an NPC for him to run (which isn't always possible), I'll let him to that. Otherwise, John-john's gotta wait.

For me, this rule has been very effective over the years as I always have all the players at the table when we game.

Not that the situation will ever arise, but I wouldn't even be at that first session.

With that attitude, chances are that you're right that you would not be a the first session because you would not be invited.

When I bring on a new player, I'm honest with him about our particular game. I tell them about the grit involved (I run a very gritty game--bloody and sometimes quite dark). That's not everyone's cup of tea. So, I need to see if you, as a prospective new player, would fit in with the rest of us.

I would tell you about the we-all-game-or-nobody-games rule. If I saw you balk at it, I would probably say, "Morrus, you seem like a cool guy, but I just don't think you'd fit in with the rest of us. We're all pretty serious about showing up to game. We don't take excuses lightly."

Plus, the way you have it worded here, I'd probably think that you were a combative player. I don't like that in my game, either. I like to keep arguments to a minimum. I want a player to say his peace and tell me what he wants, but I also need players to respect the referee (which is me, in most cases), just the way I do when I play. Disagreements are going to happen, and we all have to realize that the game runs best when one person is the final arbiter of disputes. Accept it and move on.

The way you've come across, I'd say we're not a good match for gaming, and I would not invite you to play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So I've had a group going for the last year or so, on and off. Thing is, getting people to commit to a time is iffy, and several spots at the table keep not showing up for various reasons.

I've designed my own RPG, and we're playtesting it. I love it, I think it works nicely, and when it's ready for printing it'll be great.

Thing is, I did all this work and my players keep acting like the game is a low priority: last minute cancellations, or they show up late, or leave way early.


So... I told them I wasn't cool with that, and that I don't like my game being treated like a low priority. Firm, not rude.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the fall out will be (facebook message thread), but I've got to learn to stick to my guns. If being accomodating doesn't get them to show up on time, I'll be blunt. They keep bugging me about the game, then put it off because someone asked them out for drinks. Forget it!

Might as well game with strangers through a meetup group!

I think you may want to consider backing down here, even apologizing if you hurt any of your friends. Keep in mind this is a game, and for whatever reason its clearly not as much of a priority for them as it is for you (which is understandable as you designed the game and want to playtest it).

My suggestion is to find people who have more time and interest in the game, or maybe ask and see if the game itself might be part of the reason they are not enthusiastic (i am not suggesting this is what going on, but it never hurts to ask for honest opinions). Could be a mismatch for the group, or it could simply be that they have things in there life that are more important than gaming at the moment.

Everyone gets frustrated and no one likes investing time in something only to have folks cancel at the last minute. But rpg groups can be like this sometimes (for a host of reason). If the steam isn't there you should find new players who are energized.