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

I made a thread recently asking about "Why do so many campaigns never finish?", and the discussion was incredibly insightful. Something that kept coming up was how much the table composition mattered. Yes, fixed scheduling helps, but only if the people showing up actually want the same thing from the game.

That got me thinking. How do GMs actually screen for that before session one?

As a casual GM with home games, I've never actually run a session 0. I've only played with friends and had to go with the vibes. The problem with that is that not all of your friends are great D&D friends and will want the same game that you do.

I know that the obvious answer for a lot is session zero. But session zero assumes you already have the people. The harder problem for me seems to be about finding players that fit with you in the first place, before anyone has invested prep time, before the social contract gets awkward, before the first signs of a mutiny start showing. Most GMs I've talked to solve this through years of failed campaigns, one-shot interviews, and trial and error. The experienced ones have developed a knack for it. But is that the only way? Is there a more deliberate approach to finding players who are genuinely built for your table?

I've been thinking about this a lot and have started building something around it. Curious whether others have developed any reliable signals or methods for compatibility before session one, or whether it's mostly still vibes and luck.

It is very much a solvable problem. After all, I solved it!

If your honest and aware, you can screen players. You need to know exactly what you like and what you want, and need to know what will match with you. Then you can look for players like that, and even better look for the Red Flags. Even before a session zero.

A lot of it is personal to each player. Like a player with a big back story that they "love" is only a yellow flag....you need to really get a feel for the player. Will they be a problem? You can look for hints and clues.

The BIG way to "find" the right player(s) is to simply make them. Some of my greatest best players of all time have been people I introduced to gaming.

My best example: Waiting in line at the deli. Next to me is Mary, mom of one of my daughter's friends...but I don't know her much. She notices my LotR Tee Shirt(the eye of Saron) and says she is a fan. We chat, she likes fantasy and I mention I play a fantasy game. Mary is intrigued. I give her the "well, I will be at the rec this weekend, stop by and see". Just a simple conversation. A week later she finds four other women that all like fantasy and want to know more about this 'game'. And so were born the Mad Moms. None of them had played any sort of RPG before, but they took to it like a duck to water. The group lasted for years.

AstroArtificer said:

I made a thread recently asking about "Why do so many campaigns never finish?", and the discussion was incredibly insightful. Something that kept coming up was how much the table composition mattered. Yes, fixed scheduling helps, but only if the people showing up actually want the same thing from the game.

That got me thinking. How do GMs actually screen for that before session one?

As a casual GM with home games, I've never actually run a session 0. I've only played with friends and had to go with the vibes. The problem with that is that not all of your friends are great D&D friends and will want the same game that you do.

I know that the obvious answer for a lot is session zero. But session zero assumes you already have the people. The harder problem for me seems to be about finding players that fit with you in the first place, before anyone has invested prep time, before the social contract gets awkward, before the first signs of a mutiny start showing. Most GMs I've talked to solve this through years of failed campaigns, one-shot interviews, and trial and error. The experienced ones have developed a knack for it. But is that the only way? Is there a more deliberate approach to finding players who are genuinely built for your table?

I've been thinking about this a lot and have started building something around it. Curious whether others have developed any reliable signals or methods for compatibility before session one, or whether it's mostly still vibes and luck.

Click to expand...

I actually don’t think you’re going to find this all out in session zero. In my experience, we had to muddle through a few tables with players who either didn’t fit in well, or weren’t respectful of schedules. The key difference for us was that the ones who stuck together recognized that it was individuals who we were having issues with and not the entire table, and we were willing to stick with it until we had a full table of folks who clicked with each other. I think one thing you can do is have smaller games first rather than committing to a big campaign upfront. That helped us shake out at least one person who was not really going to show up each week.

A fair amount is luck. A lot of players don't know what they like. Especially new players. You can try training new players to like the type of game you want to run but after the new players gain experience, the likes may change. Experienced players may like one type of game but for the next game want to try something different. Now you become the test GM for the 'what I think I want' from the player wanting something new. If it turns out that the new thing isn't fun for that player, oops.

Even if you get the perfect set of players, expect real life to cause one or more to have to drop or request a time change during the campaign. Have a plan on how to deal.

Luck does play a big role. I've had really good groups destroyed by adding a new player. One of my best 3rd edition groups was ruined this way. You got to watch out for relationship breakups also.

One shots and organized play. Try before you buy. No more going in blind.

It’s mostly luck. Session 0s help a bit, but they’re not the cure all many seem to think.

Just look at discussions on here. People argue endlessly about the definitions of words. Sometimes really important words in the context of RPGs. Like agency, railroading, character-driven campaign, sandbox, etc.

Now apply that to people you’re trying to game with. Tell 5 players you’re going to run a “character-driven open-world sandbox” and you’ll get 37 different interpretations of what that actually means.

Actually playing with people is a far, far better way to get on the same page. Not everyone will stick around, players will come and go, but the group will be better for it.

The flippant answer is that it's luck, and it's at least potentially solvable. I lucked into some amazing players at tables at different game stores, but there are also friends who TRPG that I won't TRPG with, because I know from experience that won't go well for any of us. My experience is that it's a lot like my experiences trying to find a band in the 1990s--lots of auditioning, lots of occasional weird chemistry, lots of great musicians--and great people--that there just wasn't any "click" with, and sometimes you have friends you just can't make it work with.

AstroArtificer said:

As a casual GM with home games, I've never actually run a session 0. I've only played with friends and had to go with the vibes. The problem with that is that not all of your friends are great D&D friends and will want the same game that you do.

Click to expand...

I'm a casual GM with home games, and I have a session zero because even after playing with some of these people for years we're not always on the same page when it comes to the type of game we're playing. I once showed up to a "pulp" game with an imitation Sherlock Holmes and one of the other PCs was an unfrozen cave woman with a pet baby triceratops. And I was the odd man out that campaign! Session zero typically doesn't take us a whole lot of time, certainly not a whole session, but I find it can be useful even when gaming with familiar people.

AstroArtificer said:

Most GMs I've talked to solve this through years of failed campaigns, one-shot interviews, and trial and error. The experienced ones have developed a knack for it. But is that the only way? Is there a more deliberate approach to finding players who are genuinely built for your table?

Click to expand...

Word-of-mouth. The majority of new players I've invited to my campaigns have come recommended by current players. Those are the people I've had the most luck with over the years. Other than that, the best way is to run or participate in some one shots if any are being run in your local area. Alternatively, something like Living Greyhawk, or whatever the equivalent is these days, is also a good way to meet new vict- er, gamers.

I fell flat on my face that last time I tried to start a campaign with a group of strangers. We couldn't even make it to session zero without several of them flaking out and missing it nor could I get enough players to come to the second session. Even though the players voted to play members of the Camarilla, one player was just flat out insistent on playing an Anarch no matter what. The campaign fell apart before it even started. This was 2019 and it's the last time I'll ever start a campaign in that manner.

Artamo said:

I actually don’t think you’re going to find this all out in session zero.

Click to expand...

I'll go a step further: The players you have XX months/years later aren't the same players you have at session 0.

Because people change. What people want out of a game changes. What people want out of their free time changes. Life changes.

Someone may want a rules light, narrative focused game now, and get bored with it and need something with more crunch and strategy to keep their in interest later. People may want monthly all-day-Saturday hardcore in-person sessions now, and weekly 1.5 hour VTT sessions after they have a kid.

Is it a solvable problem? Maybe. But it's also a moving target. It sure ain't a problem you "solve" once and more on to other problems.