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: 5983928" data-attributes="member: 92305">The point is:  People don't cancel on my game because I have the rule and enforce it. It's not an issue. Should a strange day come--let's say Pete's grandmother had a heart attack on game day and couldn't make it--then, yes, I'd cancel the game.  We'd wait for Pete to come play his character. I'd let you know as soon as I found out.  If you and I were friends, then I'd probably say, "Hey, come on over anyway.  The rest of us are going to catch a movie."  And, we'd still hang out.   The grandmother heart attack is an extreme example.  Something like that has never happened.  And, what the rule does is keep John-john from going out with the new chick he's starting to date instead of keeping his commitment to come game with us. The only time I've run game were not all players are present is when the missing player's character is somewhere that can be absent from the story logically.  For example, if we're in the middle of a dungeon, and John-john can't make the game for whatever stupid reason, then, no, I'm not running the game.  But, if we're in the village, and the rest of the PCs can leave John-john's character there and go on to the dungeon without him, then I'll run the game and keep John-john out of the game until it makes sense, logically, within the story of the game, that his character could again meet up with the rest of the group.  By missing that one game, John-john could find himself out of the game for quite a while--at least running his own character.  If I can find an NPC for him to run (which isn't always possible), I'll let him to that.  Otherwise, John-john's gotta wait. For me, this rule has been very effective over the years as I always have all the players at the table when we game.      With that attitude, chances are that you're right that  you would not be a the first session because  you would not be invited. When I bring on a new player, I'm honest with him about our particular game.  I tell them about the grit involved (I run a very gritty game--bloody and sometimes quite dark).  That's not everyone's cup of tea.  So, I need to see if you, as a prospective new player, would fit in with the rest of us. I would tell you about the we-all-game-or-nobody-games rule.  If I saw  you balk at it, I would probably say, "Morrus, you seem like a cool guy, but I just don't think you'd fit in with the rest of us.  We're all pretty serious about showing up to game.  We don't take excuses lightly." Plus, the way you have it worded here, I'd probably think that you were a combative player.  I don't like that in my game, either.  I like to keep arguments to a minimum.  I want a player to say his peace and tell me what he wants, but I also need players to respect the referee (which is me, in most cases), just the way I do when I play.  Disagreements are going to happen, and we all have to realize that the game runs best when one person is the final arbiter of disputes.  Accept it and move on. The way you've come across, I'd say we're not a good match for gaming, and I would not invite you to play.</blockquote>

Verification