I just chewed out my players

[Desdichado]

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.

I was raised the south(west) and have lived for nearly 15 years now in the north. I've been to most of the states in the Union, and worked with someone from all of them at one point or another.

In my experience that characterization is completely BS. It sounds an awful lot like the kind of thing a northerner would tell himself to feel superior to southerners. I've never seen anything whatsoever to suggest to me that southerners value time less than northerners, or that northerners are more prompt or reliable than southerners. In fact, I've never seen anything whatsoever to suggest to me that there's any significant difference either way in their behavior, speaking generally.

 

[jasper]

wha! Whaaa! I want to buy some game-slave-minions from Water Bob! How much? And with 6 do I get eggroll?


I can see part of where WB comes from but I am surprised it has worked for decades. I just wished my former group would learn to call to tell me they were blowing me off.

 

[Janx]

I was raised the south(west) and have lived for nearly 15 years now in the north. I've been to most of the states in the Union, and worked with someone from all of them at one point or another.

In my experience that characterization is completely BS. It sounds an awful lot like the kind of thing a northerner would tell himself to feel superior to southerners. I've never seen anything whatsoever to suggest to me that southerners value time less than northerners, or that northerners are more prompt or reliable than southerners. In fact, I've never seen anything whatsoever to suggest to me that there's any significant difference either way in their behavior, speaking generally.

Perception does not equal reality. Meaning southerners are not all lazy nor all northerners busybodies.

But the anecdote really did happen. Your experience at being in more places does not mean you have experienced all things. As evidenced by the fact that you never experienced my boss from South Carolina telling me what he did or any similar situation.

I assume you've also never heard of Pagan Time, Indian Time, or Island Time, the phrase referring that the event starts when everybody gets here, and nobodies too concerned or too worried about when that exactly is and denotes the indicated culture's lower prioritization of time and scheduling compared to others.

 

[Water Bob]

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.

Yes, this is an extremely good point. It's another rule that I enforce on myself.

I've said it before on these forums. If players aren't turning up, the DM is probably failing in his job to keep them interested.

But, I think there are tons of examples, even on this thread, where good DMs are having people not show up. It looks like many DMs are OK with players not showing up. That's not me. When I start a campaign, it's a group commitment.







Let's turn this around. Let's say that I, even though I'm the GM, did what some players would like to do--that is, not show up.

I've certainly ran games where I wasn't really in the mood. Had I a choice, many times I would have not gamed and did something else. But, I did go and run the game as I commited to do because commitment that everybody in my game makes.

Should there be a double standard on the DM?

 

[Water Bob]

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 @Water Bob '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 [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=5]#5 [/URL] .

This is certainly true of my current Campaign focusing on Cimmerian Barbarians during Conan's time of the Hyborian Age.

The PCs in my game right now have destinies. As the characters grow, they learn about what that destiny will be.

I've described in other posts to where, if allowed by the story, then players can skip.

It's all about the story in my campaigns. Whether we're playing in a sandbox, discovering the story as we go, or if we're playing a linear game, either way, story is king in my game.

Most of us player to live our a life in a fantasy world. We're simulationists.

3. people who don't respect your time.


(snip)

The last group are the ones this entire thread started about.

Yes.

Or they just don't show up because they got a better offer for the night's entertainment.

Yep.

Regardless of how they see the situation, it is rude behavior.

Agreed.

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.

Exactly right. I'd rather those people not even start in the campaign. It saves us all sorts of trouble.

Morrus, above, said that if I met with him and told him about the rule before hand, that he wouldn't even come to the first session.

And, his reaction to that tells me that he may be one of the ones that will skip out on a game every once in a while. Therefore, he would not be invited.

I look for players who say, "Everybody shows up? Really? Great! I've never had that. All my other DMs would allow players to skip."

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

I think so. I've played in game where the DM allowed people to skip, and just went with whomever showed up. This is a fine system for a one-nighter. But, if running a continuing campaign, it's something that I find frustrating even as a player.

In games that I've played in like that before, I usually quit because I don't like how the game is run.

Some people look at D&D as monopoly. And, some look at it as a roleplaying game--a continued shared story where the players act out parts. I tend enjoy the second description and not the first.

wha! Whaaa! I want to buy some game-slave-minions from Water Bob! How much? And with 6 do I get eggroll?
I can see part of where WB comes from but I am surprised it has worked for decades. I just wished my former group would learn to call to tell me they were blowing me off.

This may seem a little strong, but have you heard the old expression, "How can you expect others to respect you if you don't respect yourself?"

My rule is just a version of that implemented with focus on the game. "How can I expect the players to always show up if I allow them to skip?"

I decided long ago that I wanted all my players to show up. Thus, the rule came into place.

When I describe it to a new player, I just lay it out there as fact. "We'll ask you when you can play the next game session. Everybody shows, or nobody plays. We're all busy, and that's the only way to go if everyone is going to show up an play at the same time."

Most new players shake their heads in understanding, and that's that.

If someone doesn't agree to the rule, then I'll get a polite, "Well, I'm not sure I can commit like that."

And, I'll smile and say, "Well, OK. If you think you can in the future, let me know, and we'll try to work you into the game."

Nobody's feelings are hurt. You either do or do not want to play D&D with us with the commitment that we require.

 

[enrious]

This may seem a little strong, but have you heard the old expression, "How can you expect others to respect you if you don't respect yourself?"

That is precisely why I'd never play with anyone who made or attempted to enforce such rules.

It works both ways.


Having said that, I echo the sentiment that if it works for you and your group, it's all about having fun.

For the OP looking for advice, I'm not sure how feasible it is given that part of that criteria doesn't seem to apply (from what I gather).

 

[Ulrick]

Has anybody read "The Auld Alliance" in Dragon Magazine #216 , by Arthur Collins?

A lot of what Water Bob is saying reminds me of that article. In fact, I agree with what Water Bob is doing.

Collins wrote that to keep a gaming group together for the long haul every player has to be committed. Collins had a 75% rule for players--75% of the players had to be there 75% of the time.

Water Bob just takes this up a notch. But Collins also wrote about group committment. The group as a whole can make or break the group. One player can destroy a good time, especially if they're not punctual or don't show up.

Collins also wrote: "When you're only playing 10 or 12 times a year, you just can't mess around. The time has to count for something."

I'd rather be in a game taken seriously that's only played 10 or 12 times year (or "season") than be in a weekly game with attendence issues.

Being a DM, at times, can almost be like a part-time job, especially if you're a DM likes to pay attention to detail in creating a campaign setting, adventure, or both. A lot of the fun for me is watching players enjoy what you've created.

Why bother risking a bad time if a prospective player can't keep his committments?

 

[Janx]

That is precisely why I'd never play with anyone who made or attempted to enforce such rules.

It works both ways.


Having said that, I echo the sentiment that if it works for you and your group, it's all about having fun.

For the OP looking for advice, I'm not sure how feasible it is given that part of that criteria doesn't seem to apply (from what I gather).

i don't know, from what I recall of the original post, it was exactly the problem that some of the players were skipping out for better offers with little notice.

Sounds like exactly what Water Bob's rule solved for his group. Probably more by declaration of group expectation on attendance than enforcement. As he said, it's a rule he's never had to enforce, and has never been a controversy during enlistment. Odds are good what he really solved is communicating expectations.

 

[Water Bob]

That is precisely why I'd never play with anyone who made or attempted to enforce such rules.

It works both ways.

But isn't the "other way" the acceptance of the player saying, "I don't want to commit to playing every game session because something more interesting may come along? I'll play when I don't have anything else better to do."

 

[S'mon]

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.

You only have 2 players, though, right? If I had 2 or 3 players I would reschedule if one couldn't make it. For a more typical 4-6 player group it seems like a really bad idea; better to set a quorum (3 is good) and not script the game so heavily that PC X must be there for the game to take place.