I just chewed out my players

[kitsune9]

I would have to agree with Morrus and Bedrock in that Water Bob's rules are a bit extreme for me. When I ran, I had a quorum so that most of my players could get in a game. Not everyone of my players can make a game for work or other reasons, so they had the option of leaving their character and let someone else run it or just bow out and get no XP for the session.

It may work for Water Bob, but there's no way I can see that kind of rule working for my group.

 

[Janx]

If not, call ahead.

I think everybody on this thread, even those with a hard-line or laid back stance, expect this common courtesy, which is the root of the problem.

Some people don't give the respect to their friends and call ahead.

That is the source of the problem, and the hardline stance says, "no call, no play again."

As for an older adult not being able to be reliable, your "generic because I'm not talking about your friend specifically" new parent friend is likely able to make church every Sunday, work 5 days out of the week, his softball game and practices, band practice, choir practice, bowling night, and just about every other regularly scheduled thing in his life.

I'm not saying a brand new parent isn't sorely challenged, but these things do settle out and real parents are able to generally be reliable members of society again.

People are able to be reliable on other hobbies, activities. If they can't give the gaming group the same respect they give everybody else, they aren't such a good friend.

this is generally where such hardline stances begin. By being exposed to people who clearly don't value the GM or the group's time with common courtesy or effort.

 

[Desdichado]

Everyone in my group is a parent (with one exception.) We're still pretty reliable. If someone is going to miss a session, unless it's a short-notice "I'm sick" or something like that kind of thing, we all know about it well in advance because whatever he's doing was known about up front.

Being a parent certainly adds a level of complexity to a busy life, but it doesn't really change social responsibilities. I certainly wouldn't look at it as a free pass to blow off friends or anything.

 

[Water Bob]

The reason for the rule in our older age is simple. If you make it easy to skip out, then players skipping out happens much too often.

A group of six adults, most with kids, family, and work commitments--not to mention competition with other liesure activtivies means that D&D falls lower on the ladder of priority almost every game session. It's likely that one person misses each game session.

With my rule, that doesn't happen.

It's important to me that all players are present when a scheduled game occurs. My players prefer it as well. We don't like having to handwave what happens with the other PCs. "Um, Rexor stays with the horses."

"But, we need him! He's the cleric!"

"Yeah, I know, but let's say that one of the horses has a banged up hoof from the climb up the mountain. He's attending to that."

It's clunky.

We don't like other players playing one's character either.

"I played Rexor last game session. I'm sorry to say...he's dead."

"He's dead! Why?"

"Well, he picked up a necklace and tried it on. Turns out, it was a Necklace of Strangulation. He didn't have a chance."

"Sure he did! I would have never tried on a necklace like that!"

I don't want that kind of thing happening in my game. I want people to show up and play when we all agree to play.

We don't have a set day of the week for our game sessions. Each session, I contact each player and coordinate a day that we can all commit to. Once that's done, I encourage people to keep it.

If a player forsees that he can't make it, then I simply call everyone and re-coordinate a new game date.

Once we all agree, and game day arrives, we all expect everyone to be there when they've agreed to play.




Some of you are making this sound much more draconian than it is. You have other commitments you keep, yes? You show up to work on time. You make class on time. You go to the agreed upon movie at the same time.

In my game, you make the game on time as well.

 

[Alan Shutko]

Before starting all of our games, one of the things we talk about is "How many people do we need to have show up in order to play?" For my games, we'll play on with one person down, and we won't play if we have two people out. This has not been a problem. If we're two people out, we usually just get together and play board games or just hang out. But we all know it going in, and we don't want to try to force a game if it won't work because people are out.

So I see nothing really onerous about Water Bob's rule.

 

[Desdichado]

Some of you are making this sound much more draconian than it is. You have other commitments you keep, yes? You show up to work on time. You make class on time. You go to the agreed upon movie at the same time.

In my game, you make the game on time as well.

You keep feeling the need to justify it to folks who don't game with you. Guess what? WE DON'T GAME WITH YOU. If it works for your group, great! If it doesn't work for people who you will never have in your gaming group ever, WHO CARES?

I think we're making it sound exactly as draconian as it is. And frankly, comparing your D&D session to work or class doesn't help you any. I recommend you quit while you're ahead. You've described your game's policy. A few people said that they'd never go for it, and neither would any other gamer that they know. Well, OK. There's really not a lot to be gained by continuing to flog the dead horse.

 

[Morrus]

What you're forgetting is that if you were part of WB's group, the rule is also your rule.

Not at all. I'm saying that I would not be part of a group that would consider that rule to be reasonable. That's not a playstyle which matches mine, or anyone I know's, inclinations.

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

Again, not for me. These people are my friends, not my game-slave-minions tasked with the duty of appreciating just how damn important my game is. I have friends who haven't been to a game session in over a year for various reasons, but if they showed up tomorrow I'd be delighted to see them and make them feel as welcome as I'm able. I don't feel I have the right to exclude people from my circle of friends, even if I do happen to be running the current social activity we're all mutually engaged in.

And I couldn't possibly consider making time for and turning up for an activity somebody had arranged if they'd reserved the ability to simply tell me to go home again because someone else had broken one of their rules. Then again, as Water Bob has clearly indicated, the very fact that I wouldn't let him treat me in that manner excludes the very possibility of my being invited.

But everyone can make their own choices. If that social dynamic works for Water Bob and his friends, I guess I'm in no position to object. I feel confident in saying that it's a social dynamic that would be alien not only to me but to all of my friends, but people are different; it makes no difference to me how other groups of friends interact with one another.

I guess I just don't see the game itself as the important thing. The friendships are the important thing; the game's just the activity. Guess I'm old-fashioned that way.

 

[enrious]

Pay me cash or give me a diploma to allow me to earn more money and I'll consent to be held to the same attendance rules.

If not, and it's a leisure activity meant to be enjoyable for all, then I'll make a genuine effort to attend but if I can't, play without me.

And yes, I'll call to let you know if I can't make it. Otherwise, it's a meeting of equals where one person doesn't get to extort the rest of us.

And I say that as the most-common DM in our group.

 

[Water Bob]

Not at all. I'm saying that I would not be part of a group that would consider that rule to be reasonable. That's not a playstyle which matches mine, or anyone I know's, inclinations.

Exactly. As I said above, we try to screen out people who don't mesh with our playstyle.

I don't feel I have the right to exclude people from my circle of friends, even if I do happen to be running the current social activity we're all mutually engaged in.

Just because someone doesn't have the time to commit to my game doesn't make them enemies. They're still my friends. We still hang out, keep in touch, and do other social activities.

I've got a friend right now who would play if he could. He's probably one of the best gamers I've ever played with. He's got three kids now and a very demanding job, and he knows that if he were to play, that his limited free time would keep us from playing hardly ever. So, he doesn't play.

We're still great friends.

If his schedule changes, and he can commit to the game, then he's welcome to come join us.

And I couldn't possibly consider making time for and turning up for an activity somebody had arranged if they'd reserved the ability to simply tell me to go home again because someone else had broken one of their rules. Then again, as Water Bob has clearly indicated, the very fact that I wouldn't let him treat me in that manner excludes the very possibility of my being invited.

True. And, I've also said that because I have the rule, everybody shows up. It's a very slim, slim, slim chance that you'd ever be turned away from the game because someone didn't show....because they always show.

But everyone can make their own choices. If that social dynamic works for Water Bob and his friends, I guess I'm in no position to object. I feel confident in saying that it's a social dynamic that would be alien not only to me but to all of my friends, but people are different; it makes no difference to me how other groups of friends interact with one another.

I've had the rule for decades now. It's never been a problem for either my old returning gamers or any new players along the way.

I guess I just don't see the game itself as the important thing.

Yes, this is where we differ. If I spend 10 or 12 hours working on a game, I don't want a player not to show up because he decided last minute to go to the movies. So, I make them make a choice. Either keep your commitment to play, like everyone else, or go to the movies and forget about playing with us.

The friendships are the important thing; the game's just the activity. Guess I'm old-fashioned that way.

Why do you think not playing with us and not being friends is mutally exclusive? Can't someone just not be into roleplaying but still be friends and share other social experiences with me and the rest of the group?

The answer: Sure.

I've got several close friends who have gamed before but don't game now because the can't make the commitment. I'd like them to play, and if they can commit to showing up all the time, then they're welcome to join the current group. If they can't, cool, I'll see them at the movies or for dinner or at poker or whatever.

 

[Morrus]

Why do you think not playing with us and not being friends is mutally exclusive?

I don't really know how to explain it without further repeating myself. Different strokes for different people. There's no point going round in circles about it - we clearly have different basic assumptions regarding social interaction.