Is "finding the right players" a solvable problem, or just luck?

[Lanefan]

Everybody who joins my group is someone I already know outside gaming, or someone another member of the group knows outside of gaming. If you are invited to join us, someone in the group has already determined that they get along with you and you're probably a good fit for the group as a whole. I have had players come and go because they've decided they don't enjoy the game style or they're just not interested enough to prioritise gaming, but I've never lost anyone due to personality clashes or bad feelings.

I have, once or twice, but I just take it as being part of the territory.

Beyond that, I think a key factor is that I'm not looking for players who will read the rules, devour background material and are under pressure to constantly drive the session forward. I just need you to turn up, not be argumentative/disruptive and pay attention to the things that matter to your character. I make it extremely easy for players to participate and will happily teach through play. If you enjoy sitting around passively, I'll try and give you opportunities to get more involved, but I won't demand it. I've noticed that my newbie is gradually getting heavily involved more often (I assume just because he's gradually becoming more comfortable), while I have another long-term player who has always been fairly passive most of the time. For the latter, if he's happy turning up session after session for more than a decade, I assume he's content with that, and I'm not going to demand more active involvement.

As long as the passive player is involved enough to know when it's his turn and doesn't need a recap every round (I've both played with and DMed players like that, grumble grumble), you're good to go.

Having a large group also enables us to have the games proceed even if people can't attend. I have some players who sometimes can't make it to quite a number of sessions in a row. That's just life, and I don't view it as a problem. There are people who would claim someone who doesn't attend a third of the time isn't really that interested, but if a player is making it to 2 out of 3 sessions over the course of a decade, I defy anyone to argue they're not genuinely interested.

The problem isn't their level of interest, it's that if they miss every third session on average there's inevitably going to be times when that grinds things to a halt because that player's input is required in order to continue.

My most common experience with this is treasury division. A player missing a treasury session usually means the treasury division process can only get so far because the player isn't there to claim items for his-her character(s) and that's not usually something we'd leave to others to do.

Some players don't like the style of game I run or end up prioritising other things in their life, but I've had a group size of 5 - 8 players for over 25 years now and most of the current group has been with us for 15+ years.

I simply can't physically fit that many players around the table. 4 is a bit cramped. 5 is the outside limit.

Edit: One other big advantage to the way I do thing is that I am completely unaffected by the mood and nature of the wider hobby or industry. It doesn't matter what's popular or in print or whether the corporations and influencers are attracting new people to the hobby or how the biggest gateway games are performing. I run the games I want to run and I'm happy to create my own gamers rather than going to a pool of gamers someone else made. D&D/WotC could collapse entirely tomorrow or become the most popular hobby in the world overnight, and neither event would have any meaningful impact on what happens at my table.

I like to think I'm the same, but looking at our long-term history it's truly surprising how our games' popularity and success has mirrored the overall ups and downs of D&D...at least until 2020.

 

[SableWyvern]

The problem isn't their level of interest, it's that if they miss every third session on average there's inevitably going to be times when that grinds things to a halt because that player's input is required in order to continue.

That's never occurred to me in 40-odd years of gaming, so I can't agree it's inevitable. In my experience, players who turn up less often simply don't have characters who are driving the campaign forward and whose opinions are essential, nor would such a player in my group have an expectation that important decisions are placed on hold due to their absence.

 

[GrimCo]

No idea.

I don't have gaming tables; I have tables of friends where we choose to play RPGs as a fun activity. If those tables decided to just do board games instead, it's RPGing that gets punted, not my friends. I'm not that attached to the hobby.

Same. I have friends. We also had period when we didn't play rpgs. Friend who was main DM at a time, was only one married and had just became dad, while rest of us were mostly single guys. We stopped playing for solid year, maybe longer and just played occasional game of Descent. I even took year long brake from gaming of any kind, rpg and board games, but we still hung out, went for drinks etc.

For sure. I've said this in the past, but if my current game tables dried up, I'd more than likely just move on from the hobby rather than go through the effort of finding new tables. It's just not worth it to me at this phase in my life.

Again, same here. If these guys decide to hang their d20s and move on, i'm done too. At this point in life, our sessions are part gaming, part reason to just get together and hang out as friends. Even if we get together for some D&D and spend whole session chating about random things, for me, that's not "wasted" game time, it's quality time with friends.

Personally, i play with friends, good acquaintances and friends of a friends. First thing when playing with someone i don't know is vibe check. Is that person someone i want to hang out with and spend few hours on a regular basis. Every time we would start game with new people (as in, not everyone in the group knew each other), before session zero, we would all go out for drinks together and spend couple hours just hanging out, chatting and getting to know each other. If that went well, then it would be time for session zero.

Also, don't start big. Start with 1 shot or short adventure, few sessions top.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

It's a solvable problem especially with experience.

You simply must filter hard. Actions and behavior that seem innocuous at first are often indicators of big problems down the road.

Asks that the time of the game change before they've even joined? Pass.
Doesn't follow directions? Pass.
Clearly just looking for a seat at any D&D table, rather than this one in particular? Pass.
Asks for material explicitly restricted/removed? Pass.
Already in way too many games? Pass.
No-show without prior notice? Pass.
Cold, disengaged, or visibly hostile? Pass.
Rubs people the wrong way? Pass.
Seems overly emotional when things don't go their way? Pass.
Proposes a character with red flag traits or subject matter? Pass.
Proposes or develops a character that's way too much work? Pass.
Shows up with a build imported from an optimization forum without regard for whether the table is even into that sort of play? Pass.
Proposes or creates a table dynamic that is lopsided (e.g. Angel Summoner amidst the BMX Bandits)? Pass.
Springs a new character out of nowhere without prior warning? Pass.
Overly argumentative especially at the cost of game pace and enjoyment? Pass.
Asks for invites for friends and family? This one is controversial but most people are NOT going to pitch the game as it is. They're going to pitch it as time to hang out and when it turns out you want to run a game and not provide a venue for a pre-existing rapport, things might not work out.

Ultimately, you are not negotiating table culture but setting a standard. It is important to be firm and selective in this regard because it ensures both player and DM are compatible and not wasting each other's time.

Keep in mind you have to do this not only at the beginning but throughout the campaign. There have been many players IME who dive straight into unreasonable behavior half a year or more into a campaign. Despite having a rapport with them, I was surprised how ineffective talking it out was. Just as often, the rest of the table will quietly expect you to handle these troubles for them rather than openly back you up. You must be ready to stoically perform the thankless responsibilities of resolving these problems.

 

[LordEntrails]

It's solvable, and takes work to make your own luck. Here's what I did almost a decade ago and still mostly am running games for the same group.

• Run a bunch of one-shots, conventions, FLGS, VTT. Using whatever your platform is. (Mine was D&D 5E via Fantasy Grounds)
• Take notes on the players. Yes, yes you are taking notes on players that you like their style of, that you think fit well with others, that play interesting characters.

This is your work, where you make your own luck. I probably had notes on 50 players before I planned my campaign. So yea, I probably ran 20 games over 6 months, Always using FG, but pulling on players from all sorts of places and different such.

Then I reached out to a couple of players that I wanted in the campaign no matter what (this was easy for me, they were my son and my brother). Found a time (Wednesday nights at a set time) and campaign (D&D5E, Undermountain).

Now that I had a time and a campaign set, I reached out to the top 5 players I wanted and asked if they were interested and could commit. After I got their answers I asked a few more, until I had my desired party of 5.

That first set of players stuck together for about 5 years and 2 campaigns. One has since dropped, but we filled in with people known to us and have played for a handful of years since then.

Advertising for a campaign and just selecting from a handful of players is luck, and it probably won't work out, though it might. But, taking the time and investing the way I did, has more than paid off. We don't have player drama, we don't have constant scheduling conflicts (sure, we have conflicts, but run about 45-50 session a year).

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's part finding the right players, which takes both luck and sifting. It's also part of developing the right players, which involves turning yourself into the type of GM that rewards and encourages the traits you want to see. Which is especially true when you have new players.