I just chewed out my players

[Morrus]

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

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.

I completely and utterly agree! Sounds like there's no way in hell either of us would want to be within a mile of the other's game table!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have to agree with morrus, if I understand you rule, that being told to go home because another player canceled would probably tick me off a bit. I wouldn't even mind if you had to cancel the game, but at least invite those who show up in for coffee and board games or something.

My own approach is I will run the game as long as I have two players. I might even run it with just one (some people seem uncomofrtable on solo adventures though). If it just wasn't possible to run the game because the others felt we were missing critical people, then I would just do a one shot of something else or pull out the board games.

Personally I want players who show up because they want to show up, not because I am putting pressure on them to attend. This does mean some of our players who either live far away, have major responsibilities, or just have a lot going on, will miss a game now and then. But I welcome everyone, and when players who cant make it that often are able to attend, I make a point of trying to welcome them and not make them feel wierd about missing sessions.

 

[Morrus]

I have to agree with morrus, if I understand you rule, that being told to go home because another player canceled would probably tick me off a bit.

Well, now you've gone and done it! Now you won't be invited to his game, either!

 

[Water Bob]

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

I was running a game with just two players a while back, but the same campaign has grown as some new playes and some old friends have joined.

Right now, I've got five players. That's six schedules to juggle. And, we try to play once a month for several months (usually playing through a story-arc). Then, we'll put the game on hiatus for a bit--a few months to several months. This keeps me, as DM from getting burned out. And, it helps me keep a fresh, exciting game for the players. Plus, the players like the breaks.

For example, we've taken the last couple of months off--and, I'm not sure when I'm going to start the next story-arc, but I'm getting the itch.

To answer your question: Player 1 is not married but lives with a woman. He's got a grown kid (18 years old) that doesn't live with him. P2 has a wife and one little girl--I think she's about 13. P3 has a wife and two little girls, ages 7 and 10. P4 has two boys, one in Jr. High and one in Elementary school. P5 has three kids, two boys and one girl. He's our newest player, and I don't know his kids well (or his wife), but they seem to be in the Elementary to Jr. High ranges.

As far as excuses, I don't get any--because of my rule. We all commit to a date, then we all show up and play. I think in the last two years, I've only had to move one game because something big came up.

See...that's the point of the rule. We all take the game and each others' time seriously. We commit to a time to play, and then we strive to make that game date. The last time I remember having to move the game was a year-year and a half ago. P3's wife went out of town, and her trip got moved back a week. So, understandably, P3 had to stay home with his girls.

It happens. But, it happens so rarely in my game that nobody really got upset. It was a lot of, "Oh man! That sucks! I was looking forward to playing!" (Beat.) "OK, what day are we looking at now?" I called everybody up and got the game moved to the following weekend.

Because I have the rule, and everybody takes the game serious, making it a time priority, the players typically do a good job of agreeing when they can play. They won't make a commitment to play when they know that there's a chance something might have to supercede the game. And, when they do commit, 99.99% of the time, they keep their commitment and game with us on the agreed day.

Our games typically run about 12 hours or so. We'll play all day (once a month). Noon to Midnight (or 1...or 2....or 3....) is our typical time.

I've got a guy I work with that would love to play, but after speaking with him, I see that he's got a lot of time commitments (as we all do) with his wife, newborn, and an age 3 child. Plus, there's no way he would game for 12 hours. He can get away for only 3-4 hours at a time.

I'd like to have him come play, but he just doesn't fit with what we're doing. He'd be a strain on the play time, so I can't invite him.

I've encouraged him to find his own group, and he did that. He put together three of his other friends (and even got one of them to DM). They play for 3 or 4 hours. But....that was a year ago, and, to date, they've had 2 sessions. I suspect it's because of the player (good guy--I like him) that I won't invite to play with us. Part of a DM's job is to manage the game in this manner as well as during the game session.

In the last year we've had plenty of players miss games.

A lot of people are OK with that. I'm not. I don't want to run a player's character as an NPC, and I don't want someone else (who will run the character completely differently) to run it.

When I run a game, I'm commited to it. I do a lot of work on it. I strive to make it interesting and fun for the players. I believe that the player has an obligation to show up when we play and play his character. Playing RPG's isn't like a Monday night poker game where a missing player won't be missed.

If I was OK with players running each other's characters and running PCs as NPCs, I'd sure wouldn't have the rule. Now, though, I've had it for so long that most know, when they come to my game, that's the way things are going to be.

The end result is: People show up and play when they're supposed to.

 

[Crothian]

The end result is: People show up and play when they're supposed to.

Well, you only play once a month. That makes a huge difference. We play weekly. And you take breaks between games and arcs. Our group has been weekly for 8 straight years with no breaks. It would be easier to do like you do and only ask people to show up maybe 10 times a year.

 

[Libramarian]

Might as well game with strangers through a meetup group!

Do it! Find some more good players.

I think everyone should try to game with different people. I think it will show you that some people are just naturally bad players, while others have a great natural attitude. It's so much easier to simply replace a bad player with a good one, rather than to try to change their behavior.

Of course just because you deem someone to be a bad player doesn't mean you deem them to be a bad person. You can still be friends without gaming together.

The abusing NPCs for attention thing is just a bad gaming habit. It's like people who talk during a movie. I'm sure they could be trained not to do it, but that's not your job and it's much easier to just not invite them anymore. And not only is it the easiest approach for you but at the same time still pretty effective at changing their behavior. When it comes to "sticks" I think the feeling of social exclusion is more powerful than any sort of direct chewing out. Make them come to you and ask why they're not getting invited anymore.

If it felt important for you personally to chew them out then OK, but I think letting the bad players just sort of fall out of your group by avoiding them would have been easier and wouldn't have burned any bridges.

 

[Water Bob]

I completely and utterly agree! Sounds like there's no way in hell either of us would want to be within a mile of the other's game table!

I don't mean this in an offensive way, but you sound to me (from what you've said here and other times we've talked) as if you're a better DM than a player. I might not agree with what you've said above because, when I play, I actually strive to be the type of player that I want in my game.

If you invited me to your game, I understand that you are the DM and the final arbiter of the rules, regardless of what the book says. Unless you had a rule or made a ruling that I just couldn't live with, I'd tell you my peace and go with whatever you decided.

So, actually, we might play very well together as long as you were the DM and I only played. I don't think the reverse would be true, though.

I have to agree with morrus, if I understand you rule, that being told to go home because another player canceled would probably tick me off a bit.

As I said in a post above, my style is not for everybody. I've seen many games where the DM is OK with people not showing up. I just dislike that, and I think that players that easily skip games are disrepecting the time and energy that the DM puts into a game.

Most times, I enjoy working on the game outside of play. But, yeah, I get burned out. And, sometimes, I may want to go to the movies or hang out with friends that have invited me to do something last minute, but I can't because I've got a game to play in two days and I'm behind on prep (I usually put a lot of prep into my games). So, being the DM is definitely not 100% fun. And, I really hate the job sometimes when it starts to feel like work.

If I'm going to have that kind of dedication to the game, though, I expect, at the minimum, that players show up to the game session that they've commited to play.

I wouldn't even mind if you had to cancel the game, but at least invite those who show up in for coffee and board games or something.

Yeah. I said that above with my reply to Morrus. You can still come over. We can see a movie or play a board game or whatever.

But, really, since I've had this rule, it is a very, very, very rare instance when we don't play once a game date is set.

I'm a hard ass about it, and people show up. Go figure.

Personally I want players who show up because they want to show up, not because I am putting pressure on them to attend.

My rule also weeds out the players who are not serious about the game. In the long run, all of us dislike the player who "really isn't into it". If a player always looks at the game as something he does if he doesn't have something better to do, those tend to not play because of the rule. And, that's better for my game (maybe not for yours).

All of my players who accept the rule are really addicted to the game--and, thus, they agree with the rule. They want everybody showing up, too.

This does mean some of our players who either live far away, have major responsibilities, or just have a lot going on, will miss a game now and then.

Typically, as I described above, those types of players, regardless of how much I like them, won't be invited to my game simply because they'll hold the game up for everybody else.

But, I will make special allowances for certain players. I've done this rarely in the past. That player won't have his own character. But, he'll come in and run NPCs, when we have them, in the group. It might be a one-night encounter, or it might be an NPC that is with the group for several sessions then leaves. For example, if the PCs hire a guide to take them into the mountains, this guide would be a great character to throw a player who cannot commit to all games. I run the NPC when the player can't show up, and I also watch that character's actions a little harder than I do the PCs to ensure that he's coming off as the same character every game session.

I sometimes do this with new players, too, for a session or two--just to see how they fit with the overall group.

 

[Water Bob]

Well, you only play once a month. That makes a huge difference. We play weekly. And you take breaks between games and arcs. Our group has been weekly for 8 straight years with no breaks. It would be easier to do like you do and only ask people to show up maybe 10 times a year.

And...you may be OK with people not showing up. I've never been that way, even back in high school when me and my friends had a lot more time on our hands.

Yes, we played 12 times last year--and that was with a 7 month hiatus (the average is once a month, but, as you can see, we played 12 times in 5 months).

To be honest, regardless of players showing up or not showing up, that schedule is about all I can handle as a DM.

We look at it like a TV show. You watch a season, then it goes on hiatus for a bit before the next season comes on.

You schedule is quite agressive, and that's great you can run and enjoy your game at that pace. I've got a lot of other interests (for example, I play a lot of poker--sometimes 3 or 5 times a week) that I don't want to lose (and, yes, I will skip a poker game when I've got game stuff I need to get prepared).

I don't have any kids, but as you saw, most of my players do. Their kids are fairly young, too. So, in the summer, there's baseball and soccer and gymnastics. This is another reason why we've taken the last few months off--it works for those parents. We'll still average about 12 games this year once the game picks up again.



I'm not saying that everybody had to run their game my way. If you're OK with players skipping out on your game, then that's great. My comments are directed towards the OP who seems frustrated that his players do skip. As a DM who very, very rarely has to move his game and always has all of the players show, I have been suggesting to him my solution.

It's up to him to follow that advice. There's certainly no law that says he has to.





EDIT [MENTION=232]Crothian[/MENTION]

Back in the day, when I could spend more time on my favorite hobby, I average one game every two weeks. This twice a month schedule worked well, giving me time in between sessions and keeping the game going hot and hard. Running a game, every week, for 8 years is something I know I just couldn't do. Maybe you've got rotating DMs?

Anyway, even when I was running the twice a month game, I used the rule--and everybody always showed up.

 

[Crothian]

Running a game, every week, for 8 years is something I know I just couldn't do. Maybe you've got rotating DMs?

We do have multiple DMs. I'd say I've been the DM for about 70% of it. But for my 30+ years of gaming I'm usually the DM so running weekly games for years on end is just something I'm used to doing.

 

[Aldeon]

I'm a college student and most of the people I play with are college students, so I've become accustomed to every single person who isn't at least ten years older than me being completely unreliable. When I run a campaign, I let anyone miss as many games as they want as long as they have a legitimate excuse, such as work or a family emergency. If they don't, I kick them out.

People playing the lying game don't last long (usually meaning the first offense), as these bright college students I call peers don't realize I'll see the tagged picture of them vomiting into a bush on my Facebook news feed whether I want to or not.

On a somewhat related note, it's kinda sad when I realized that older men with a wife, 2-5 kids, and a six-day workweek are more reliable to come to weekly games than my peers who on average have four day week-ends.