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

[AstroArtificer]

The first thing you have to do is be honest with yourself about what you really want in a player, and what you're willing to compromise just for an opportunity to have a game. At some point, you learn that being the GM isn't about having total control, and that letting go means enjoying ultimate control.

This. Of course, this realization comes with experience, but GMs really do have a duty to understand themselves before they sit down to write a game. And ironically, like most things, letting go is what lets you have the most fun. You can't manufacture a perfect game.

But somehow, "Session Zero" has become internet shorthand for "Problem Solved!" Take this step and everything will work itself out. It doesn't actually help you find (or shape) good players to fit your needs. Its just an informal contract filled with promises and agreements that eventually get lost, forgotten, and broken the longer the game continues. By that time, your group will have already determined its own trajectory through shared experiences, circumstances, and fate.

A lot of people give the advice of a session zero. The most important reason being that people change over the course of a campaign (especially a long one). You really can only frequently check in with your players to see where they are at.

Personally, I have always preferred players who cared more about sharing the experience with others than the actual game. If you find those people, you can have just about any game you want.

I really like this, since I feel the same way as well. When the game is something to share in, and not just fun, it becomes something meaningful for everybody.

 

[AstroArtificer]

I am late to this, but hey = anytime I look for new players = this helps = C.A.T.S. method of session 0 (link)

It does not guarantee I find the perfect player - but it does take those players i do find and let them know pretty much day 1 if our playerstyles and rpg desires are compatible...

This is certainly the first time I'm hearing about this, but it certainly is an interesting read.

There is no such thing as a perfect player, but you can at least find one where your playstyles and wants are aligned. I've been trying to figure that problem out too, so I made a framework to find compatibility. If you do care about fit at the table, I'd reccomend reading this too, it's been helpful for my own players and me.

(Player Archetypes: The 16 TTRPG Personality Types)

 

[AstroArtificer]

< silly humour >
If the games you play involve math rocks…

At least ”luck” and “random chance” are constants.
< /silly humour >

Right, Nat 1's are a part of life and of dice.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Another thing to do when looking for new players - don't start with a campaign.

Treat it like a convention game:

• Set a fun spot to play
• time box it o 3 or 4 hours.
• Run pre-generated characters.
• Run the game as D&D or Apocalypse World, a published game,
• no house rules (other than a very minor tweak for 4 hour time slot)
• Use C.A.T.S. above as part of the meet and greet character world game time in the first 30 min.

Then afterwards make time for fun chit chat, systems, settings, plots, characters. Consider how well everyone adhered to CATS agreement, and if they actually worked when the rubber met the game mat.

Its chill, there are no expectations, no surprises. and you are not battling tribal knowledge vs new person expectations.

 

[LordEntrails]

IMNSHO, the "luck" part comes from the old Picard addage: it's possible to make no mistakes and still lose.

You can put in the work, find the right folks, build the group, be an amazing DM, curate all the relationships, and do all the things perfectly. And still have a group fall apart. Sometimes because people are just like that. Sometimes for no reason remotely related to gaming.

Luck may not be the perfect term. But it's probably more universally understood than the emoji.

Sure.

Though I see too many folks (not in this thread, in general) use 'it's all luck' as an excuse to not put in the work. Whatever the difference is, X% success to X+Y% success if you put in the work, it's substantial.

 

[Lanefan]

Online gaming is more forgiving since social aspect isn't that pronounced. In my experience, in online games, people focus on the game itself much more.

I find the opposite: there's too many distractions at home that aren't present if people are somewhere else.

One of the players in our online game bakes himself a pizza during each session, meaning oftentimes we have to call him back to the computer from the kitchen to make a die roll or whatever. Wouldn't happen if we were playing in person.