Is "finding the right players" a solvable problem, or just luck?

[AstroArtificer]

- Firm session 0 building on above. Find out what excites the players in the campaign doc, get everybody cohered with connections with each other and the world. Ensure the table environment feels like a safe and inviting space to unleash our shared imaginations.

I like that! I know it sounds obvious to figure out what players like, and what gets them excited, but sometimes it's hard to figure that out (or even for the players to know themselves).

 

[AstroArtificer]

What are you looking for in players??

Good question. To be fair, availability is a big thing. But bar that, I really am picky with the kinds of players I want to have at my table. Personally, I understand myself well enough to know that I want players who are willing to actively roleplay and create the story for me. I want them to come up to me with hooks, backstory threads, and ideas for the direction of the campaign. I want to throw that back to them and see what they come up with. I could get more specific, but I figured out that I really enjoy players who are Storytellers (EAPPl)

 

[AstroArtificer]

It's a solvable problem especially with experience.

You simply must filter hard. Actions and behavior that seem innocuous at first are often indicators of big problems down the road.

In your opinion, doesn't that filtering drive away a lot of new folks? Some people here would rather run a big tent game where everybody can join, and people who don't fit simply leave. In your experience, how worth it has it been to filter hard for players?

 

[AstroArtificer]

Advertising for a campaign and just selecting from a handful of players is luck, and it probably won't work out, though it might. But, taking the time and investing the way I did, has more than paid off. We don't have player drama, we don't have constant scheduling conflicts (sure, we have conflicts, but run about 45-50 session a year).

Luck seems to be a running thread in this forum, which I know I shouldn't be surprised at, but that also makes a lot of sense. I wish it did not need to be so luck-based, or random chance.

 

[AstroArtificer]

It's part finding the right players, which takes both luck and sifting. It's also part of developing the right players, which involves turning yourself into the type of GM that rewards and encourages the traits you want to see. Which is especially true when you have new players.

But how do you sift in a way that makes sense? How do you develop that personal barometer?

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

In your opinion, doesn't that filtering drive away a lot of new folks? Some people here would rather run a big tent game where everybody can join, and people who don't fit simply leave. In your experience, how worth it has it been to filter hard for players?

It does drive away a lot of people, and I still think it’s worth it. Filtering hard gave me a stable group that is now nearing its ninth year, wrapping up its third campaign, and preparing for a fourth. Everyone at that table wants an immersion-heavy, roleplay-heavy experience, and when problems come up, we can actually talk them through. People who were not a good fit were let go, and the long-term players supported that with action.

The issue with a big tent approach is that it often creates a group with very low barriers to entry but no real shared expectations beyond the basics. That can work for a while, especially when everyone happens to want the same thing. But once priorities diverge, the table can become an arena for incompatible playstyles.

My 2020 campaign, with a different group, was like that. The standards were fairly minimal: make a character with a background, history, image, and some relationships, and follow the house rules. That was enough to get people in the door. For most of the campaign, things were fine. The group even aligned around heavy optimization without much issue. But near the end of the five-year run, conflicts emerged over in-character decisions, roleplay expectations, and how to proceed operationally.

Once that happened, the group splintered. The player who thought he was the problem ended up leaving, and he was not the problem at all. That is one of the costs of letting these situations persist too long: the person most willing to self-reflect is often the one who walks out first. I was lucky it only happened two or three sessions before the campaign ended.

To give a contrasting example, in my 2023 campaign (also minimal standards), a player spontaneously told me he didn't like a new player. I asked him why. He couldn't come up with a reason, any reason, at all. I told him I would only consider something concrete. He ended up leaving the game in a huff. Go figure.

 

[Andvari]

There is of course some element of luck, but as a GM you can do a lot to improve your group. If you pick up some random 4-5 people, most of them will probably be suitable, but you might have that 1 guy who's always late and that 1 girl who somehow causes tense social situations regularly. So you run a few games for them, take a break, and then for your next game, you contact the 3 remaining easygoing people. Then you have a strong core you can either go ahead with or you can try to roll up a few extra players. Often, these people will have friends they can vouch for.

It gets more complicated if everyone in your group are friends, of course, as it can sometimes get a bit more awkward outside of the game if you leave someone out who not only causes problems in-game but at the same time really wants to play.