Infrequent Players

[eris404]

Hello all,

I have something that's been bugging me a little and so I'd like some input. We have a rather large group of about 10 players, but out of that number only 5 are really core players - that is, they show up to every game and play in every campaign. The infrequent players are good friends, but due to interest, time constraints, work and in one case, distance, they may play only once a month at most, but more likely, once every two or three months. Last game, the DM had an interesting idea and let an infrequent player (who had never played in his campaign before) play a dragon who had to cooperate with the party due to the circumstances (but who eventually would have attacked us once he no longer had to cooperate).

I should also point out that we tend to play in long-term campaigns with ongoing storylines. Some of the campaigns have lasted years.

Anyway, I liked how this worked and it gave me an idea. Currently, the infrequent players make characters for the campaigns they plan on participating in when they can, but I was wondering if maybe they shouldn't. We have tons of NPCs in each campaign, both as villains and support characters, that they could play.

But, before I bring this up to my group, it occurred to me that this could be seen as insulting, too, that the players aren't worthy of having their own characters or are being reduced to support roles. I mean, I can't blame someone for not being able to play if they have to work, take care of their family or deal with moving across the country.

If you were the infrequent player, would you be hurt if someone asked you to play a premade NPC when you were able play? Is this a bad idea?

 

[Turanil]

If you were the infrequent player, would you be hurt if someone asked you to play a premade NPC when you were able play? Is this a bad idea?

I wouldn't feel insulted, but likewise I wouldn't be interested in playing a NPC. Unless it is a kind of semi-NPC. Lets the player create his own PC that also will be a NPC. That PC/NPC will appear infrequently in the campaign, but will be played as a PC, and you will award him XP when furthering some goal you decided for him. So it may be an evil NPC masquerading as a friend of the PCs but who discreetly uses them to further his goals, which in the end may not be to their taste.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I've got the same situation in my group... 6 core players and another 3 who turn up from time to time.

We actually mix and match this idea. One prefers to have his own PC, we just 'grandfather' him up to an apt. level when he's there. The other 2 both like having PC/NPC types.

Sometimes feel a little contrived finding someone the party 'need' to take with them at fairly short notice. But it's fun, so "realism" and "continuity" be damned!

I'd suggest it to the group as an idea. See if it appeals to any of your irregulars. IMO, it comes down to a matter of taste for the individual player... Just say how much fun you found the dragon thing and I'm (95% ) sure no-one is going to take offense at it... not like anyone is being forced to do anything?

 

[The_Universe]

I think giving them a premade NPC will be seen as a "demotion" by the players in question. If I were you, I would instead ask them to maintain an up-to-date copy of the character sheet for you to keep, so that their characters can be run as NPCs when they aren't present.

Of course, if they're not going to be around all that frequently, I wouldn't hang a great many plot hooks on those particular characters - you're not under any obligation to give these infrequently present characters the spotlight, but you probably shouldn't cut them out entirely. Let them play "supporting cast members" but do so in a way that's not so obvious (and incidentally potentially insulting).

 

[Mercule]

I don't allow "occasional" players in my games. Seriously. I might allow a single "guest NPC" player to do a recurring NPC (friend or foe), but that's about it.

If I was, for some reason, forced to get my gaming fix in an irregular fashion, I can't imagine being offended by that arrangement. If they're serious gamers just getting their fix when they can, they'll probably both be understanding of your position and just greatful for the chance to play when they can. If they are "occasional" participants because they are willing to ditch your game for a movie, to go drinking, etc. then they probably don't care, so long as they have a reasonably interesting character to putz with.

Truthfully, I'm not sure I'd bend at all to allow a "casual" player the chance to play occasionally. Gaming is a group activity. It shows a lot of disrespect for everyone else at the table if you're readily drawn to skip games just because something more fun comes up on game night.

Note: I'm definitely not talking about people who have a lot of pressure on their time, but really would love to be there every session. I'm also not saying that gaming shoud be your top priority, just that you should respect your commitments to the rest of the group. Finally, I also recognize that stuff happens and people have to bail on the occasional session for higher priorities.

 

[eris404]

Thanks for the replies. Two things I'm most worried about is that some people will feel slighted ("Hey, why she'd get to make a character and I didn't?") and that they will feel "demoted" (good term, Universe), so your comments struck a chord with me. I'm so nervous about bringing it up that I may just carry on the way we have been, which is to either treat the PCs as NPCs when the player is not there or to quietly remove/ignore the PCs when the player isn't present. I do know that one player wouldn't be offended (he's played NPCs a couple of times already), but I hate to have him always be the "second-string guy."

Bleh. I hate this situation.

 

[Henry]

Depends on two things: How you ask the question, and what the player in question gets out of the game.

The players whose main focus is character progression or butt-kicking, and possibly those who like specialized characters as well as people who like to develop personalities, won't like this much at all; there's no growth in "guest-starring" roles.

Players whose main focus is on story and some of the butt-kickers will likely be fine with it, as long as they play instead of sitting on sidelines, they'll be happier.

Second, if you simply broach the subject, there's no harm in doing so. What you COULD do, is have them make a character that the group has ties to. Then, if during the sessions they play their character could not be logically linked into the storyline, ask them to play an NPC (monster, humanoid, whatever) for the sessions in question, and any experience they earn, they can apply to their characters off-camera.

Then, when they meet back up with the PC, that PC will be levelling and keeping up with the group normally, and they will have that outlet to play their PCs available.

How to ask? Just mention that while everything is cool with them not being able to make it to every session, it causes some difficulties in keeping continuity with all the other characters if they're in the middle of a multi-part game if the PC pops up deus ex machina like this. Then ask if they would be open to playing an NPC in the occasional session if there's no easy way to work the character in? If they prefer to play their regular PC, no problem, but it's worth asking.

 

[scourger]

I've faced the same situation, but not on those numbers. It really chaps me when people don't show for a game that I'm DMing. Some people & excuses get more slack than others, but it's the ones who just would rather do something else that get under my skin. Of course, those holes are the same ones who demand total devotion when they DM or it is a game they love as players. Same idiots also don't want other players ghosting out when other players aren't there because it detracts from "realism" (and "munchkinism" becaue the party loses resources that may benefit them individually). And D&D is a terrible game for non-committed players. Other RPGs don't have to have the 4 core player characters, but this game almost demands it. That's my expereince at least.

My advice is really pretty simple. You either take steps to include the casual player or you don't. The way I do it is by running other RPGs that more easily include a cast of characters that can change from one session to the next. Unfortunately, most dungeon crawls are right out. Fortunately, there are games and even D&D campaign models that allow the players to come in & out from week-to-week depending on the reliability (or unreliability) of the players' attendance. I'd say stick with what ypu've got if it's working. If not, do something else.

Bottom line: do what makes you happiest 'cause I assure you everyone else is and nobody else really cares about your individual happiness--caertainly not as much as your own.

 

[caudor]

The way I handle occasional players is to run two campaigns. One campaign is for the regulars and another is for the whole group. For the whole group, we plan the game day well in advance and get commitments from everyone to be there (which is only like once every two months).

My regular group members have two characters...one for the regular campaign and another they use when the whole group plays. This seems to work out well for everyone, and gives the core players a change of pace every now and then.

 

[sniffles]

Thanks for the replies. Two things I'm most worried about is that some people will feel slighted ("Hey, why she'd get to make a character and I didn't?") and that they will feel "demoted" (good term, Universe), so your comments struck a chord with me. I'm so nervous about bringing it up that I may just carry on the way we have been, which is to either treat the PCs as NPCs when the player is not there or to quietly remove/ignore the PCs when the player isn't present. I do know that one player wouldn't be offended (he's played NPCs a couple of times already), but I hate to have him always be the "second-string guy."

Bleh. I hate this situation.

This is truly an awkward situation. But it certainly can't hurt to ask the players what they think of the idea. I suspect that if they're like most of the players I know, they'd rather have their own PCs. But perhaps you can still keep them involved in affairs via email. Ask them what actions their PCs are most likely to take under certain specified circumstances. Make sure you have up-to-date character info. And I know this is really a lot to ask of you, but make sure the PCs-as-NPCs really do participate in the adventures if you run them that way. They shouldn't get as much of the spotlight as the characters whose players are present, but don't just have them stand in the background and be cardboard standees. Ideally you want to be able to occasionally tell the missing players about the cool things their PCs did.

On this last I speak from experience. Just yesterday I participated in a game in which two players were absent. The GM ran their PCs as NPCs and did very little. It irked the rest of the group that he wouldn't let them do what their players would have done. He claimed he didn't want NPCs to steal the glory from the players who were present. But we didn't care; these were not NPCs, they were PCs with absent players, and we wanted them to act the way they would normally have behaved. We would have been happy to help the GM out with suggestions, or even take over running the characters if their character sheets had been available.