D&D 5E Cancelling games over absent player(s)

[Blue]

Five is the preferred group size for both me and the majority of my players, and we'd play down one but cancel if down two. But with real life intruding we kept on missing sessions, and since we played every-other-Monday as it was a single missed session was a month between games. It's really easy to lose the thread.

We recently added a sixth player but kept the absolute numbers the same - so we run with 4 players and a DM. We can be down two, an with the exception of one session we cancelled because I (the DM) was sick we haven't missed a game yet.

It helps that the group has an mobile base, a temperamental pseudo-zeppelin, so that the characters of absent players are usually back there for some reason.

Oh, if a player knows by the previous session they are going to miss, (traveling, whatever) then I do my best to write them elsewhere for the session they are gone so it all makes sense in-world.

(Sorry, I didn't respond to the poll because my answer is: as long as we have 4+DM we play, regardless of group size.)

 

[Draegn]

My group of players constantly splits the party. When one or more of the group of nine cannot play I run one of their side adventures.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

For my part, I only cancel a game if there's bad winter weather, if I'm sick, or if absolutely no one can make it. If I've got one player that shows up, then so be it. I might need a few moments to revise the adventure accordingly, though.

I'm a firm believer in keeping to a schedule. Otherwise, in my experience, the group tends to start missing months, and then that starts adding up, and then we're just not gaming together at all for stretches at a time.

 

[iserith]

I'm a firm believer in keeping to a schedule. Otherwise, in my experience, the group tends to start missing months, and then that starts adding up, and then we're just not gaming together at all for stretches at a time.

Agreed - we play when the DM (me) is available which is almost every week. I post the date and the players sign up. This past session I had only 3 players confirmed due to a confluence of events working against the players, so I just went and recruited a new 4th player and we continued. After hearing how successful that group was in their expedition, there appears to be no shortage of players for the upcoming session!

 

[Viking Bastard]

I currently have 5 players. We will play with 3 present.

The missing players' characters will be side-played by one of the attending players.

 

[Blue]

Just want to share a novel approach a long time DM I played with took. This was back in college days when everyone had plenty of time. The DM ran multiple nights a week, different groups in different parts of the Forgotten Realms. But it was the same world - events could spill over, etc. Pretty cool, the world never felt static. He'd also throw out more plots to follow then we could, and the ones that no group of PCs took up would move forward often unopposed and grow some, and then we' come it at a more advanced part of their plans.

Anyway, our base group was a little large, and we liked playing at different levels. So basically each subgroup of players ended up starting campaigns in different areas. So we had Company of the Unicorn, and the Dwarves (later Clan Meilarkkin), and Rakthis and the Company of the Azure Phoenix, and ...

 

[delericho]

One thing that sucks is when there's a player missing, you play on anyway, and that session results in a TPK. Especially since (in this case at least) that TPK means the end of the campaign, with no possibility of a new set of PCs picking up the baton, no "you all wake up in prison", or any other way out.

(In terms of the final fight, the missing PC would almost certainly not have made the difference. However, the missing player may well have done so, as he tended to be the voice of reason for the group. )