Gaming Group Struggles

[Wiseblood]

For me 3-4 players is ideal. BTW I have 6 players. Six players are enough of a hinderance to their own progress that you have to abandon plans just to keep the story moving. With three to four players it is so much easier to customize the experience for their tastes and their goals. For me it is like playing an entirely different and better game.

 

[Retreater]

No. Just... no. This thinking strikes me as fairly full of elitism.

My free time is more valuable to me than money. If someone is going to run a game that is not one I enjoy or isn't using a system that I do enjoy, I've got to do a quick ROI. I've been playing since '81. I love to play RPGs. I frucking hate playing RPGs I don't enjoy, genres I don't enjoy or with people whose company I don't enjoy. I'd rather just not play. There are other hobbies around that are just as fun.

Plus D&D games (since that's the system we're talking about) are just too easy to find to suffer through other games.

This idea that I won't play some other game because I'm lazy or afraid is just naughty word. That makes me someone who knows what I enjoy.

Hey, I totally get it. But on the same token, my free time is valuable too. If they don't want to play, they should let me know so I can fix it or stop wasting my time preparing games and having to cancel when they call off at the last minute.

 

[Blue]

The main issue is that the 3ish players are not the same each time. There is little consistency for story and I don't have the ability to plan ahead for encounters, etc.

This is not a problem about D&D. If you can run an RPG under these conditions, you can run D&D. Make it more episodic. Work with players to give their character responsibilities that takes them away, or make them part of a larger organization that picks groups and the same people aren't always available.

 

[FrogReaver]

My longest running gaming group has run into some difficulties as of late. We were facing sporadic attendance due to real life issues (work and family commitments, which I can't complain about.) We were already down to biweekly sessions, so it was hard to keep everyone on track. Since we couldn't bank on having the same players there week after week, the style of game necessarily changed. We decided as a group we couldn't run a class-based system (aka D&D) since not all the roles would be filled. I converted the campaign and their characters to a different system.

So now several of the existing players are leaving to find "D&D" groups. Obviously, I let the players find a group that is fun for them. I'm just at a loss of what to do. I can't run a regular D&D game for the 3 players willing to stay behind. And I can't keep the players who are leaving unless we play D&D. But we can't play D&D because half the people miss regularly.

What's a guy to do?

If your playing 5e then simply don't worry about filling all the roles. You don't need them to have a fun game.

 

[Retreater]

If your playing 5e then simply don't worry about filling all the roles. You don't need them to have a fun game.

It gets really hard to plan for a group that might consist of a cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter, and bard; then the next week, fighter, wizard, and rogue; then the next week cleric, wizard, and bard. Plus doing a story-driven game (which was requested and planned for) is next to impossible.

 

[FrogReaver]

It gets really hard to plan for a group that might consist of a cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter, and bard; then the next week, fighter, wizard, and rogue; then the next week cleric, wizard, and bard. Plus doing a story-driven game (which was requested and planned for) is next to impossible.

That's the beauty of it. You don't have to plan at that level. You present a story with an objective and allow players to navigate toward that objective. If the story is about you preventing an alliance between two factions then there's tons of ways to do that. If that objective fails then next session there will be a new objective etc.

All you actually need is buy in that every characters ultimate goal is aligned even if they may have certain personal quests that sometimes push them in different directions.

I think story-driven is a term that means something different to each person. But I presume you know your players and what they meant by it. So I guess I should ask what you mean by that phrase.

 

[Blue]

It gets really hard to plan for a group that might consist of a cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter, and bard; then the next week, fighter, wizard, and rogue; then the next week cleric, wizard, and bard. Plus doing a story-driven game (which was requested and planned for) is next to impossible.

I am at a loss for why D&D in particular is hard to do a story-driven game with a rotating cast of three, but not other games. It seems if you can run anything, you can run D&D. Is it a good place to start from? No, not at all. Does D&D make it any worse? Also no.

From an adventure design, don't worry about their capabilities. Just follow general advice like give each clue three times and they will be able to work things out one way or the other. For encounter design just be prepared to scale up and down with number of characters, which is really easy to do in a number of systems, with D&D among them. If this week they don't have crowd control and there's a lot of foes, maybe they'll decide that combat is one they want to avoid or solve some other way. (This advice doesn't work if combat is the only solution, including to the point that avoidance and retreat are not on the table.)

 

[FrogReaver]

I am at a loss for why D&D in particular is hard to do a story-driven game with a rotating cast of three, but not other games. It seems if you can run anything, you can run D&D. Is it a good place to start from? No, not at all. Does D&D make it any worse? Also no.

From an adventure design, don't worry about their capabilities. Just follow general advice like give each clue three times and they will be able to work things out one way or the other. For encounter design just be prepared to scale up and down with number of characters, which is really easy to do in a number of systems, with D&D among them. If this week they don't have crowd control and there's a lot of foes, maybe they'll decide that combat is one they want to avoid or solve some other way. (This advice doesn't work if combat is the only solution, including to the point that avoidance and retreat are not on the table.)

Just to bounce off this. Combat should be one approach to a number of problems, but it shouldn't be the only approach.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

But on the same token, my free time is valuable too.

Damn straight!

My only objection was the characterization of players who only want to play D&D as lazy or afraid.

If they don't want to play, they should let me know so I can fix it or stop wasting my time preparing games and having to cancel when they call off at the last minute.

Absolutely! Last minute cancellations are the Devil's Work! I think that many players forget just how much time and effort the DM puts into the game.

As a player, I'm always cognizant of the effort the DM is putting into things. If I'm not enjoying the game, I tell the DM/GM why is a positive and constructive manner. Not in a whining, entitled way. Wish the group the best and move on. Hopefully freeing up a spot for someone who would enjoy the game.

 

[Randy_Robertson]

Okay, dude, let it go. That post was not about you, so stop trying to take it personal. I don't even know who the hell you are and wouldn't waste my time calling you anything, implied or otherwise.

Don't want to play because you don't get on with some other players? Totally legit.
Don't want to play because you've tried the system and it's not your thing? Totally legit.
Don't like the setting or the premise or some other storytelling angle? Totally legit.
Don't want to play because it's not something you're used to and you don't want to take the time to try something outside of your comfort-zone?
Casual.

Elitist? Damn right it is. Let me tell you something you already know = A player runs one character. He reacts to situations and improvises his way through. And when he gets stumped or is just having a bad night, the other players can take up his slack.

But the GM runs the entire universe and everything and everyone in it, even down to how the laws of nature work. He has to run dozens, sometimes hundreds of NPC's that are above the level of movie-extra quality. And he's got to have a plan to deal with every squirrely thing that the players will come up with to overcome the days or weeks of planning he's sunk into a single game session. Improvisation only gets you so far, so a GM better have a dozen backups ready to go. GM's aren't allowed an off-night or to get stumped, and there is no one to pick up his slack. A GM is expected to be on time and on target from beginning to end. And he has to do all that in such a way that he can work with the players to help them tell a heroic story of derring-do.

Barley 1 in 20 players ever gets the skills to be a halfway decent GM. Fewer than 1 in 1000 ever master it. And that right there is what make us the fracking Elite.

That is what the Players at my table expect from me, and they in return give me the respect that I have earned from them. And any Casual that doesn't like it can go play Hello Kitty Online for all I care, because he's got no business sitting in the company of real Players.