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

[prabe]

IMX, in asynchronous prep people will talk about things and bounce ideas around. But my players have a habit of never actually making any real decisions until we actually meet up (virtually) for the real session 0. It's only when they're in front of the group that they will truly commit to a class or a concept or a preference.

I don't doubt that at all. Different people will have different experiences. For instance, I've had players use the Discord chat for one campaign to plan their characters for the next, and much of how those characters connected to each other. They had their character concepts in place by the time I had my starting-point setting work done, as well as a lot of their connections.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

This is a take that people hated on threads, but man, is it right. Session Zero ultimately is a time-share pitch for many campaigns, where people want to get their character design in during the mandated lore session. It also assumes that you have the right people sitting at the table, because, like you point out, it doesn't screen people effectively.

"Ruffling feathers" is my jam.

Not surprisingly, a lot of those commenters appear to have been taken something they read out of context to make space for their outrage. Gasp!

I believe the topic was about finding the right people as GMs for our tables. In my experience (and how I used it), a Session Zero gets everyone to set outcomes, expectations, character arcs, etc. before the game officially starts. It's game prep with player input. That is not the ideal moment to get people together for the first time and see how everyone is going to gel, or figure out what kind of person they are, or what their schedule looks like. You don't want to organize a meeting only to start off with "Does anyone else also work night shifts and weekends?!" To me, that's an auto-fail. Do better.

By the time you set up a Session Zero, you should already have a group of potential players in place. "Potential" is the key word here. That doesn't mean your work is done, or everything should go fine from there. But the process for finding the "right people" for your table should have started before that. You can have a Session Minus Zero, a group interview, or what my generation called in the old days, "a flyer on the local bulletin board".

Of course, I'm talking about running personal games for friends and gamers in your area and in person, not promoting a "professional" career. If you're charging a premium, like $10+ per session, you don't get to pick who gets to join. They're no longer just "players" at that point. They're clients who "pay to play" and buy a seat at your table. And as long as they follow the rules and don't upset the other clients, you may not afford the luxury of saying no to anything. (But that's another discussion.)

But here's the thing: I can't call it a "Session Zero" if I'm just getting to know people and decide if I want to invite them to my table. I reserve my "Session Zero" for the actual game prep with my players who I've already invited. But I can't say we'll have a Session Zero to meet some people and get to know them, and then call for an actual Session Zero for the group who has been invited to play. "Wait! I thought we already did that? So we're not going to play today?!" Thanks, Internet!

 

[FrogReaver]

There’s a process that will work eventually given a large enough player pool and enough time, but achieving it quickly is mostly just luck. Most people just luck into a good enough group.

 

[prabe]

There’s a process that will work eventually given a large enough player pool and enough time, but achieving it quickly is mostly just luck. Most people just luck into a good enough group.

Or decide the group they've lucked into is good enough.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or decide the group they've lucked into is good enough.

Kind of the same thing I thought?

 

[TwoSix]

Kind of the same thing I thought?

One of them is rolling a 18 for your main stat; the other is deciding that a 15 is good enough.

 

[prabe]

Kind of the same thing I thought?

Eh. I think there's a distinction, there--some people luck into good groups, others decide they've lucked into good groups, regardless of the groups' actual goodness.

 

[FrogReaver]

Eh. I think there's a distinction, there--some people luck into good groups, others decide they've lucked into good groups, regardless of the groups' actual goodness.

Sure, I don’t disagree with that distinction, but I specifically said ‘good enough group’. In both of those cases the group was ‘good enough’ for that person regardless of whether it was a really good group or just deciding it is good enough.

 

[prabe]

Sure but I specifically said ‘good enough group’. In both of those cases the group was ‘good enough’ for that person.

And I'm at least gesturing at the idea that someone who decides a group is good enough might be deceiving themself.

 

[FrogReaver]

And I'm at least gesturing at the idea that someone who decides a group is good enough might be deceiving themself.

Okay, but I don’t think most people are deceiving themselves about whether they find their group to be good enough for them.