I just chewed out my players

[Jhaelen]

It's kind of like growing up in a cannibalistic society. it ain't wrong to eat people when you grow up eating people.

I tend to put known cannibals on ENWorld on ignore, it's more convenient than to get worked up every time they tell everyone about who they had for dinner...

I also kind of understand how you got the idea for your comparison: 'Chewing out players' - that sounds ominous!

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Okay, this thread got funny really fast (and I mean the reaction to Water Bob, not his rule).

 

[Water Bob]

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

From over 20 years of experience with it, the hard line stance means that everybody shows up. We really don't have anybody cancel at the last minute.

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.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that people who aren't reliable for D&D don't value it as much as the other hobbies and activitites where they are reliable.

The rule is a deciding point. "Do I really want to play D&D? Or, is it just something I'll do if I have nothing else better to do?"

I really don't think it has anything to do with how good or not good of a friend the person is. It's more about his likes, dislikes, and preferences.

I'm am still great friends with people that don't game with us. I don't take it personally if they don't want to make the game a priority.

It's more of a contract. I'm saying that I will do a ton of work and spend a lot of my free time on the game. The player is saying that he'll show up and play at the agreed time.

I find it strange so many DM's are OK with people not showing up.

If I'm going to spend all that time and effort on the game, I don't see how requiring players to play at the agreed time is a bad thing.

I think we're making it sound exactly as draconian as it is.

You actually have no idea what you're talking about, then. If it was as draconian as you think it is, then I wouldn't have a game (and I've run one, on and off, since 1984--I always have players, most of them returning players) because nobody would play. Plus, I'd probably be down a few friends, too (and I've got friends that I've known since Elementary school).

 

[enrious]

It's more of a contract. I'm saying that I will do a ton of work and spend a lot of my free time on the game. The player is saying that he'll show up and play at the agreed time.

I find it strange so many DM's are OK with people not showing up.

If I'm going to spend all that time and effort on the game, I don't see how requiring players to play at the agreed time is a bad thing.

When I'm going to DM, I never think of it as the "enrious show" - I'm not looking to balance a ledger book to make the players "earn" the time and effort I put in to preparation.

But then, I've always wanted to play with friends. The notion of friends who are all equal except some who are more equal than others is something I find strange.

 

[Neonchameleon]

When people start regularly not showing up for my games I do one simple thing. Look in a mirror. Because in my experience and from what I've seen people not showing up correlates strongly with a game that isn't working. And the biggest cause of the game not working - the DM isn't doing a good job. If the DM is doing a good job it's a highlight of the week and people prioritise it over other commitments barring fire, flood, acts of god, injury, or other major problems. If the DM isn't (or there's dissention at the table for other reasons) people don't - other things look more appealing. And this feedback comes without any direct confrontation. Or even the players being directly aware what is wrong.

 

[Morrus]

I find it strange so many DM's are OK with people not showing up.

That is so, so very much not what anybody in this thread is saying.

More importantly, though - could you try to avoid posting in blue on a black background? I have to highlight your text just to read it. The default colours are just fine. Thanks!

 

[Desdichado]

You actually have no idea what you're talking about, then. If it was as draconian as you think it is, then I wouldn't have a game (and I've run one, on and off, since 1984--I always have players, most of them returning players) because nobody would play. Plus, I'd probably be down a few friends, too (and I've got friends that I've known since Elementary school).

I think I know exactly what I'm talking about. Considering that for some reason you seem really invested in justifying your position and explaining it over and over again ad nauseum, I think I know exactly what you're talking about too. I just have a very different opinion on the subject than you do.

Really, that's OK. You don't need to convince anyone on this thread that your houserule on attendance is "better" than whatever it is they do. If it works for you and your group, then it's great. It absolutely would not work for my group, or for me. But since I'm not going to be in your group anytime soon and there's no way I'll be proposing a similar rule for my group, then surely everybody wins here, right? You don't need to get defensive because I think your rule is draconian. You don't need to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about because I have a lower tolerance for draconian behavior from my friends than you do. My surprise and disapproval can't possibly have any impact on your game, can it? So, so what? A lot of people have various differences in playstyle and expectations from the hobby than I do, not just on this issue. Their games are neither better nor worse than mine. Presumably, at least, their games are better for their group and mine are better for my group.

And if that's true, then there's no problem. At all.

You seem to take exception to the word "draconian" as if it is some kind of pejorative. It's not. It's just a descriptive adjective. Your stance on play is draconian. It's very strict. Frankly, even if you called me ahead of time and said, "Bob isn't available, we're going to reschedule," I'd consider that draconian. My response would be, "Well, is everyone else going to be there? Then why aren't we playing? RPGing is my hobby, that's what I was planning on doing, and surely, that's what everyone in the group was planning on doing and wants to be doing. If one person can't make it, OK, no problem. Life happens. But why are the rest of us all being penalized for that?"

Hence the use of the word draconian. It doesn't mean you're being "mean" to your friends. It means that your expectations are very strict. Much moreso than I would ever accept. If a session of my group ever got cancelled because the GM said he couldn't run the game without everyone being there, my immediate response would be to say, "OK, well everyone else show up anyway, and I'll run something. Because playing an RPG was what I wanted to do this weekend, not some consolation prize of board games and watching a movie." And I'd be confident that in my group, everyone else would agree with me.

Of course, I'd also be confident that everyone in my group would expect that "the show must go on" with one or even two players missing. More than that, and we come close to falling below critical mass to have a workable game in any given ongoing campaign. With three people missing, that's when we start seriously talking about cancelling a session. One or two? That's almost standard. We're too busy for there to be a time that we can schedule that works for everyone. Almost every day of every week has got someone in the group showing a conflict with a priority that, frankly, the rest of us all agree is more important than gaming. So we pick the days that work the best for the majority of the group, and whomever has to miss, well, we accept that. In fact, it's quite rare that literally everyone is at any given session. We almost always have at least one guy out. Heck, one guy had surgery recently. While he's in recovery, should the rest of us give up our hobby? Or should he get cut from the group because he can't make it? Our response is that of course neither of those is required. We carry on without his character for a few sessions, and when he's good to be out and about again, we pick him back up.

To me, that's a non-draconian playstyle philosophy. This business of "if literally every single person in the group isn't here, then I don't run" is draconian by definition.

But again, that's not a pejorative. If your group is happy with that houserule, then hey, that's great. But don't tell me that I don't know what the word draconian means, or that I'm incapable of correctly semantically applying it to a situation that I would find draconian. If you do that, you've gone way beyond telling folks online who are curious about how you do things in your game, and moved into arguing that your way of doing things is better than theirs.

 

[Janx]

"Bob isn't available, we're going to reschedule," I'd consider that draconian. My response would be, "Well, is everyone else going to be there? Then why aren't we playing? RPGing is my hobby, that's what I was planning on doing, and surely, that's what everyone in the group was planning on doing and wants to be doing. If one person can't make it, OK, no problem. Life happens. But why are the rest of us all being penalized for that?"

Let's address JUST this part for a moment. Some GMs run a game that PCs can pop in and out of. Other GMs do not. There may be very good reasons for both play styles being acceptable, rather than one being "bad GMing".

In [MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION]'s case, it looks like he rights adventures that expect all the PCs to be present. maybe because he writes material specifically geared for the character the player has, and not Meat Shield #5 .

That's not as flexible, but it might mean content the players really enjoy (let's assume GM style to player preference is not the problem here).

As such, WB's style means that he can't easily handle a missing player. Maybe sometimes, but it depends on the nature of the material for that session and who the missing player is.

Now let's get to the types of players who miss D&D sessions:

1. people who have bad things happen in their life
2. people who don't really care for your game
3. people who don't respect your time.

Now the first one, people who have bad things happen covers all the people everybody here wants to protect. Your kid got sick, of course its OK that you can't make it and maybe couldn't even call in advance.

The second one is people who game, but aren't a match for your group/game. I actually think they are a minority problem. It's self correcting that if you don't enjoy the game, you'll probably stop coming or not join.

The last group are the ones this entire thread started about. There are some people who do not respect other people's time. Some might say they have no actual regard for time, thus they are habitually late. They are the ones who are fashionably late, all the time. Or they just don't show up because they got a better offer for the night's entertainment.

Regardless of how they see the situation, it is rude behavior. They are sending a clear message that they do not appreciate or respect that your time is valuable, because they only considered themselves. If they had any thought for you, they would know that you need them to show up or call ahead. Since they don't do that, it's clear that you are the last thing on their mind.

I would suspect that Water Bob's rule is really trying to threaten and target this last group of people. Everybody else is OK, but identify and eliminate the time disrespecters.

 

[Janx]

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.

I'm not so sure. In reading your last response, you implied a fairly direct connection to gaming group = friends. And that kicking them out fo the gaming group was akin to kicking out a friend.

Whereas WB has been trying to say that being in the gaming group or not doesn't affect his friendships.

I don't play like WB does. But I get where he's coming from. There can be a more moderate adaptation of the principle he's trying to set forth.

Obviously, Morrus and WB have differing ideas on WHY the gaming group exists and what it is there to achieve.

While everybody I game with is a friend (good rule to have), when we are here to game, we game. It is a team sport. Everybody is expected to contribute, pay attention, participate, and show up.

While some socializing occurs at a gaming event, that's a side effect of humans getting together at any kind of event. If I just wanted to purely socialize, we'd do a purely social event, where the expectations are more lax.

Somebody showing up late or no-showing signals a problem. If it's a rare thing, no big deal. If it's always the same person, there's your suspect.

It's also worth noting that there can be cultural differences (not just internationally, but even regionally). I am from the North. We value time. As the saying goes, "To be early is to be on time. To be on time is to be late, to be late is unforgivable." There's variations of it, but more folks from Yankee states were raised that way, than folks in southern states.

So much so that folks from the north can percieve folks from the south as constantly late and not taking time seriously (that's a polite way of saying lazy). I had one boss from a southern state tell me that he preferred to hire northerners because we acted with a sense of urgency. There's a reason New Yorkers are associated with always being on the move.

Couple that with the psychological behavior as chronic tardiness, which can be attributed to the person unconciously trying to exert control over other people by making them wait.

the point then is, the late person is sending a message to the rest of the group. That message might vary, based on the background of the reciever, but the sender has some culpability in not thinking about their actions and the impact on the group.

I think WB's rule is his group saying, when you do X, we hear Y, and here is our pre-programmed response. Rather than leaving it to chance on how the group will react or silently suffer, they declare in bold words, "show up, or don't play."

Note entirely how I'd do it, but I get it.

 

[Janx]

I tend to put known cannibals on ENWorld on ignore, it's more convenient than to get worked up every time they tell everyone about who they had for dinner...

I also kind of understand how you got the idea for your comparison: 'Chewing out players' - that sounds ominous!

Well,I was jokingly trying to get folks to put their minds in a position 20 years ago where they might think up this same rule. Rather than hearing it now, and seeing how it clashes with their current view point.

Imagine sitting around WB's apartment, after Bill didn't show up again, and you guys are talking:

You: man, that Bill is always not showing up, it's messing up our game

WB: yeah, I wrote too much material hinged on having his PC in the party.

Somebody: maybe we should kick Bill out

You: that seems a little harsh, I mean it's not like there's a rule he broke

WB: what if we made a rule about attendance to the game being required?

Somebody: Wait, what if I got sick or something, I get runny noses a lot. You'd kick me out?

You: Rule Zero would kick in, handle exceptions as they come up.

WB: we could like have a must call in advance or something clause.
...

I see a natural progression how [MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION]'s rule came about, and it makes sense. If everybody agrees to the rule because they are in the same mindset of being frustrated by no-shows, that also makes sense.