I just chewed out my players

[Obryn]

I have a fairly casual group. I have six regulars and two who are on basically indefinite hiatus. Out of those six, I can usually expect to miss one every week. We're all adults, five of us married, most of us with kids, and that's just what happens. One does sound design for plays; that's hardly consistent, time-wise. Another has a sick wife. Another has a job where he travels. Another installs security systems, so the hours are irregular and sometimes he's 2 hours away at game time.

This is just the nature of playing a leisure activity with friends. I only get upset when people don't let me know until the last minute. I can't plan for that, and I'm not cool with it.

Otherwise, I mostly feel happy and privileged that I get to play D&D every week with great people who genuinely want to be there, and who want to play D&D with me and each other. I think that's pretty rad.

-O

 

[Water Bob]

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.

LOL!

I started my no-miss rule when in my 20's. In my gaming experience, everybody playing always tried to make every game, but things did happen. Then, as we progressed in our 20's, socially, most of us were very busy. So, we had to prioritize the game--that is, if we wanted to play.

I don't remember the first incident that incited the rule, but I do remember the most famous. We had a player who had missed a few sessions. I was getting upset with him, but so were the players. My players (and, some have changed over the years) want everybody to be at the game, too.

When we asked the guy why he missed, he said that he had to wash the dishes.

Wash the freakin' dishes??

It turns out, it was more than that. He was living with a girl for the first time, and I guess he wasn't pulling his weight with the house chores. So, she about blew up and wasn't about to allow him to go play D&D with a sink full of dishes smelling up their apartment.

Of course, my thought was: You knew the game was coming. And, you knew you had to do the dishes. Why didn't you get them done before the game started?

It wasn't long after the infamous dish incident that the rule came into being, and I've used it ever since.

And, I'm glad I have, too. I've had a long run with people always showing up to my games (and no more dish incidents).

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.

Wow. Good for you. That seems like a lot of gaming, to me. How many hours a game session? I'm guessing 5 hours or so.

If I were intimately familiar with the material, the game world, adventure, and the game mechanics, I could do the same. But, I guarrantee you that I would get burned out after a year or so, maybe less.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

And I'd propose that the way you've come across, your advice wouldn't be very applicable to most other gamers either. Your rules would be a major turn-off to almost every gamer I've ever known or would care to game with.

 

[terrya]

Just to add some perspective I think you would get along better than you think waterbob and morrus. Last year me and a friend of mine played in Morrus WOTBS adventure with him and enjoyed it allot! There was normally a different group each week as due to life commitments most people can not attend constantly, something ive learnt recently after my gf became pregnant - from 3 times a week to once a month my dnd has gone!

But to my point! Anyone could play with Morrus and enjoy it, i found him to be a brilliant DM and a really nice guy but I too run my own game in the military style waterbob does. If people, in most cases my close friends, are expecting me to give up my time writing or purchasing adventures for them to play in then all of them better show up. That or were all play xbox or ill run a side adventure.

I think for most people this attitude was the one they had when they where younger but age has faded it out of them. They get round the game table more for the social element and to enjoy the story rather than to truly role play and immerse them selves. Something i understand allot more now but still could never see my self being truly attached too. I love pretending to be krunk the half orc wizzard far to much!

The point im trying to make is out of the two id player in waterbobs game because it hits the realism level im looking for but if i had the time id still show up for Morrus game every week because of the people it involved. Which is kind of the point waterbob was trying to get at i think.

(apologies for awful gramar and spelling and in general poor readability of the above)

 

[Water Bob]

And I'd propose that the way you've come across, your advice wouldn't be very applicable to most other gamers either. Your rules would be a major turn-off to almost every gamer I've ever known or would care to game with.

I started gaming in '82. The rule came into being around '86. That's a lot of years and a lot of gamers that the rule has served to ensure everybody plays the game when scheduled.

It's worked pretty well for quite a long time.

More importantly, it is advice to the OP. That would be a way to weed out the people who were canceling on his game. Those that really wanted to play would starting being there. And, his problem would go away.

Just to add some perspective I think you would get along better than you think waterbob and morrus.

I said above that Morrus and I would get along as long as I was playing and Morrus was the DM. What I said was that I didn't think the reverse (me DM, Morrus playing in my game) would be a good idea.

But to my point! Anyone could play with Morrus and enjoy it, i found him to be a brilliant DM and a really nice guy but I too run my own game in the military style waterbob does. If people, in most cases my close friends, are expecting me to give up my time writing or purchasing adventures for them to play in then all of them better show up. That or were all play xbox or ill run a side adventure.

Yessir. Part of it is just down right respect for the DM and the time he's put into the game. Players just have to show up and play. I don't think that's a lot to ask.

I think for most people this attitude was the one they had when they where younger but age has faded it out of them. They get round the game table more for the social element and to enjoy the story rather than to truly role play and immerse them selves.

You hit the nail on the head, here. My games have always been high on roleplaying. We value deep immersment in the game's universe. We never treat the game lightly, like it's Monopoly or a disposable sit-com. Me and the players live in the world we mutually create.

We've definitly gotten older, and we still like the social element, but heavy roleplaying is still king in my game. That hasn't changed.

 

[Falkus]

And I'd propose that the way you've come across, your advice wouldn't be very applicable to most other gamers either. Your rules would be a major turn-off to almost every gamer I've ever known or would care to game with.

I can't think of a single person I've ever gamed with who'd tolerate a rule like that. If I even proposed a rule like that in one of my games; they'd rightfully kick me out and get a new DM.

 

[Desdichado]

I can't think of a single person I've ever gamed with who'd tolerate a rule like that. If I even proposed a rule like that in one of my games; they'd rightfully kick me out and get a new DM.

Same here. I mean, clearly it works for Water Bob and his group, and hey--more power to them. But not only would I not tolerate a rule like that as a player, I can't imagine any player I've ever known who would tolerate a GM who proposed it.

:shrug:

 

[frankthedm]

This could be bowling, or dinner, or drinking. Why do they feel it's OK to bail on arrangements with you at the last minute in favour of someone else? That's astonishingly rude.

Agree 100%. I'd recommend the OP evaluate how this group of associates treats him in general because it sounds like they have him pegged on the low end of the pecking order.

 

[Janx]

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.

What you're forgetting is that if you were part of WB's group, the rule is also your rule. It's a group rule, not a pure GM rule. It's kind of like growing up in a cannibalistic society. it ain't wrong to eat people when you grow up eating people. (terrible example, but don't judge from your outsider's perspective).

Additionally, he gave some examples where the game would go on without the missing player.


I y'all are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, WB's method seems a little harsh, but there are still kernels of value in it.

Make gaming a priority by having consequences for missing events. Just like any other team sport.

Three strikes probably would work best. Miss the game 3 times without advance notice, and you are out of the group.

 

[Mallus]

Make gaming a priority by having consequences for missing events.

The consequence for missing a session is simple: you miss out on the fun!

"Make gaming a priority" rings hollow to my middle-aged self. Family and work are priorities, and are often.... unpredictable. Gaming is a leisure activity. If you can make it, great. If not, call ahead.

One of my closest friends just became a dad for the first time. I can place no expectations on his ability to show up for sessions, for roughly the next 18 years, give or take. I plan on treating the games he can make as minor holidays. Because I'll be glad for his company.

If we were all 12 again, after school or over summer break, than I can see the feasibility of a more hardline stance. But nowadays? It simply couldn't work for any group I'm familiar with.