Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Water Bob" data-source="post: 5982782" data-attributes="member: 92305">I think the OP's game is a low priority among his players because he allowed it to get there in their perceptions.  Allowing the game to happen with players not showing up teaches the players that it's "OK to not show up". Everygame I start, if I have new players, I make it clear that, if everyone doesn't show up, then we don't play.  In the past, if I had a player not show up a the last minute, I wouldn't have to say anything because the other players, miffed that that made time in their schedules and were ready to play, would take care of it for me. In essence, I made gametime "important" by insisting that all players show up or no game happens.  When people commit to a game time, I get strong commitments. Now, if there's a family emergency or some such, of course we're not going to be ogres about showing up.  But, if a certain player starts having a lot of family emergencies, all of a sudden, then we probably won't be too forgiving after the first couple of times. Also, if a character can be benched, story-wise, I'll play with less.  For example, I'm running a game that focusses on barbarians.  So, if the last time we gamed a character was in the village, that will cover the player if he needs to skip a game.  The rest of the players may start the new adventure, leaving the one character behind--then again, that player who skipped out has to stay out of the game until his character can be fit, story-wise, back into the campaign (usually when the rest of the players have their characters return to the village).  So, a one-time miss can turn into a long period (multi-sessions) away from the game as the other players play out the adventure.  Since we average a game a month, an adventure that takes 5 sessions to play can mean the player doesn't play for six months (his skip date plus the 5 sessions it takes the other players to complete their adventure). Not to mention that the other players who played are getting XP and advancing while the character at the village remains dormant, XP-wise. Now, If I have a player who had to skip in this position, I try to find other things for him to do.  Sometimes we have NPCs along with the party, and if so, I'll give a player that NPC to play.  It gives him something to do, and it takes some work off of me as DM.  The player is allowed to play, in this way, but he's still not playing his own character.    If you've got a group that is used to gaming without everybody showing up, there might be some resistance to switching things to this style of play.  My advice is to do it, because your game will be better for it with your players respecting everybody else's time (that they've made to show up, and the DM who put all the work into the game). This may mean that you drop your core group down to one or two people who are dedicated to the game.  Make those peoples' characters your "stars" of the story.  Play favorites.  Reward them for their loyalty. I've played games where I've had one or two loyal players and three or for players who wouldn't make the game a priority.  The two players who always showed up is where I grew my game's story.  The other players, I let them play when they wanted, but they never played "starring roles".  They were "bit actors", taking on different roles with NPCs and such, as needed. One time, I had a "bit player" convert to a dedicated player that showed up all the time because he yearned to play his own character, not the differnt NPCs and such that I would throw him, inconsistantly, as the game progressed. Bottom Line:  If you want your players to value and respect game time, then you've got to value and respect it yourself by not allowing people to come and go as they please.  If a player doesn't want to committ, then he really doesn't want to play.  Allowing him to play leads to problems expressed in the OP.</blockquote>

Verification