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

[jdrakeh]

That may also be due to timing. The late 90s was when TSR was failing and D&D was losing significant market share. The years preceding 3e's release was prime for 3rd parties.

That's true.

 

[SableWyvern]

Getting rando off the street to play something besides 5e....not happening.

If a rando off the street is interested in playing at all, why would they only want to play D&D? Does, "rando off the street" actually mean, "An existing D&D fan sourced from a D&D community"?

If the rando knows basically nothing about TTRPGs, there is no reason for them to insist they only want to play D&D.

If the rando knows a a little, and has only really heard of D&D, they may express their interest as an interest in D&D but, in my experience they react very well to, "What I run isn't technically D&D, but it's essentially the same thing."

I've had a number of people approach me regarding gaming, either because they're interested in playing or just interested in understanding what it's about. I don't recall anyone being less interested after learning I run non-D&D games. In fact, they almost entirely haven't cared about the distinction at all.

It feels to me that many people are going to D&D communities looking for players and then becoming frustrated when they discover people in D&D-spaces want to play D&D.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yeah, it's a compliment that players like you enough that they want to bring their friends to you. But the truth is that you can't bring in everybody. A game for everyone is a game for no one. Paradoxically, your players have a great time because it's meant just for them (and you!)

If you don't mind my asking, what does your screening process look like?

Honestly, it's no different than if I were trying to make a friend. It's not really about "gaming qualities." I can't really quantify it, but upon reflection it's about consistency, honesty, communication, maturity, and kindness. Someone can have a bad day. Someone can go radio silent. Someone can be immature. But, if they are consistently those other things, then no big deal. Just like a friendship, there are highs and lows. But since I have been a teenager, I have mostly been about being in the middle. So maybe that's why I look for consistency.

A Note about "gaming qualities: I know this might not be the case for some, and I readily admit it might work the opposite for some tables. But I have always found that if we all like one another and are kind to one another (which means taking into account the other person's feelings), then table playstyle doesn't matter as much as what it seems on internet forums. Are there still better fits for a table full of kind players? Sure. Our table right now definitely does better with a more "railroady" scheme. But in my past experiences, with all types of campaign styles, it matters less and less if the people enjoy the company of one another.

(I am going to put a caveat in this: I have never played a campaign where we didn't have a foreseeable end date. Most of the time it's the GM saying: "I think this will take six months?" That is important, because for those playing there non preferred playstyle understand they aren't locked into a five-year story.)

 

[RenleyRenfield]

If a rando off the street is interested in playing at all, why would they only want to play D&D? Does, "rando off the street" actually mean, "An existing D&D fan sourced from a D&D community"?

Wow you took a wrong assumption and ran with it!

Rando off the street implies very strongly: "not sourced from any community in particular, just a random gamer as random gets".

I myself have wandered many big conventions, walked up to random people who were milling about, and offered to run them games of all sorts. As well, locally we have generic /RPG forums, clubs, and meetups. A surprising large number of people who go to those have never played any RPG at all.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

If a rando off the street is interested in playing at all, why would they only want to play D&D? Does, "rando off the street" actually mean, "An existing D&D fan sourced from a D&D community"?

If the rando knows basically nothing about TTRPGs, there is no reason for them to insist they only want to play D&D.

If the rando knows a a little, and has only really heard of D&D, they may express their interest as an interest in D&D but, in my experience they react very well to, "What I run isn't technically D&D, but it's essentially the same thing."

I've had a number of people approach me regarding gaming, either because they're interested in playing or just interested in understanding what it's about. I don't recall anyone being less interested after learning I run non-D&D games. In fact, they almost entirely haven't cared about the distinction at all.

It feels to me that many people are going to D&D communities looking for players and then becoming frustrated when they discover people in D&D-spaces want to play D&D.

My experience with this running at the library is that it's generally fine in the end but that they will give you a noticeable look like you're trying to scam them. There's also a "why aren't we just sticking with the name brand" conversation that's harder to have because they don't have the context for anything you're talking about.

I generally say "Well, this game has some specific differences that some enthusiasts prefer, but they're very similar games! This game is closer to the current edition of DND than some previous versions of DND are."

(We play Pathfinder 2nd Edition, so it's accurate for us.)

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

It does drive away a lot of people, and I still think it’s worth it. Filtering hard gave me a stable group that is now nearing its ninth year, wrapping up its third campaign, and preparing for a fourth. Everyone at that table wants an immersion-heavy, roleplay-heavy experience, and when problems come up, we can actually talk them through. People who were not a good fit were let go, and the long-term players supported that with action.

The issue with a big tent approach is that it often creates a group with very low barriers to entry but no real shared expectations beyond the basics. That can work for a while, especially when everyone happens to want the same thing. But once priorities diverge, the table can become an arena for incompatible playstyles.

My 2020 campaign, with a different group, was like that. The standards were fairly minimal: make a character with a background, history, image, and some relationships, and follow the house rules. That was enough to get people in the door. For most of the campaign, things were fine. The group even aligned around heavy optimization without much issue. But near the end of the five-year run, conflicts emerged over in-character decisions, roleplay expectations, and how to proceed operationally.

Once that happened, the group splintered. The player who thought he was the problem ended up leaving, and he was not the problem at all. That is one of the costs of letting these situations persist too long: the person most willing to self-reflect is often the one who walks out first. I was lucky it only happened two or three sessions before the campaign ended.

To give a contrasting example, in my 2023 campaign (also minimal standards), a player spontaneously told me he didn't like a new player. I asked him why. He couldn't come up with a reason, any reason, at all. I told him I would only consider something concrete. He ended up leaving the game in a huff. Go figure.

Another thing is that honestly from experience, the filtering has the secondary benefit that players have to be ok with filtering to make it into the group. You're less likely to end up with types who are perpetually insisting you have to appease strong personalities because anything else isn't "chill" enough, and you're more likely to end up with people who believe that values about gaming exist and need to be in alignment/compatible.

 

[AstroArtificer]

Honestly, it's no different than if I were trying to make a friend. It's not really about "gaming qualities." I can't really quantify it, but upon reflection it's about consistency, honesty, communication, maturity, and kindness. Someone can have a bad day. Someone can go radio silent. Someone can be immature. But, if they are consistently those other things, then no big deal. Just like a friendship, there are highs and lows. But since I have been a teenager, I have mostly been about being in the middle. So maybe that's why I look for consistency.

A Note about "gaming qualities: I know this might not be the case for some, and I readily admit it might work the opposite for some tables. But I have always found that if we all like one another and are kind to one another (which means taking into account the other person's feelings), then table playstyle doesn't matter as much as what it seems on internet forums. Are there still better fits for a table full of kind players? Sure. Our table right now definitely does better with a more "railroady" scheme. But in my past experiences, with all types of campaign styles, it matters less and less if the people enjoy the company of one another.

(I am going to put a caveat in this: I have never played a campaign where we didn't have a foreseeable end date. Most of the time it's the GM saying: "I think this will take six months?" That is important, because for those playing there non preferred playstyle understand they aren't locked into a five-year story.)

Not all friends make a great table, but a great table is made up of all friends. I totally get where you're coming from. TTRPGs are not unique in that they are still groups of people at the end of the day who share a singular purpose. Like any other group, it needs strong cohesion. Some groups develop it, some find it, and some start with it. Bar none, being kindhearted people is a good way to start a table. I would suggest that playstyles could go to enhance that, but you're right in that it isn't the only thing. Wanting to stay connected with others is ultimately more important (and way harder to predict)

 

[AstroArtificer]

"Session Zero" isn't meant to be a screening process to find the right people. It's usually either a negotiation, an interrogation, or an orientation for people you've already invited to have a seat at your table. You're attempting an elevator pitch for the whole show when you have only an outline with some notes in the margins about a few key scenes. A lot of players show up with the mindset that this is just time set aside for character creation and getting GM approval. They're just sitting through the required seminar so they can claim a piece of the promised time-share.

This is a take that people hated on threads, but man, is it right. Session Zero ultimately is a time-share pitch for many campaigns, where people want to get their character design in during the mandated lore session. It also assumes that you have the right people sitting at the table, because, like you point out, it doesn't screen people effectively.

This whole thread has given me a lot to think about, and I've been synthesizing my thoughts on the issue. I don't think that finding the right table is just luck, but it does take a lot of specific, unglamorous work. Would love to see your thoughts on whether I got it right?

Are the Right Tables “Lucky”?

Trying to find a good table can feel like auditioning for a band. There’s plenty of good musicians out there, even ones that you like as a friend, that you just won’t click with as part of a band. After a few auditions, maybe you’ll get some weird chemistries, but that’s not enough to get a band...

astroartificer.com

 

[prabe]

This is a take that people hated on threads, but man, is it right. Session Zero ultimately is a time-share pitch for many campaigns, where people want to get their character design in during the mandated lore session. It also assumes that you have the right people sitting at the table, because, like you point out, it doesn't screen people effectively.

This is part of why I'm a big fan of asynchronous session zero approaches, which I've found to be much easier now that most people at least find their games online. These days, when I'm more or less transitioning a table from one campaign to another, I do session zero stuff in a Discord text channel, and it sometimes takes a few weeks at least (which is fine, it gives me time to consider the kickoff instigation/s, both in terms of my own interest and in terms of fit for the players and their characters). Obviously, at this point--we've all known each other years--we're well past "screening" the players.

This whole thread has given me a lot to think about, and I've been synthesizing my thoughts on the issue. I don't think that finding the right table is just luck, but it does take a lot of specific, unglamorous work. Would love to see your thoughts on whether I got it right?

Are the Right Tables “Lucky”?

Trying to find a good table can feel like auditioning for a band. There’s plenty of good musicians out there, even ones that you like as a friend, that you just won’t click with as part of a band. After a few auditions, maybe you’ll get some weird chemistries, but that’s not enough to get a band...

astroartificer.com

I'm glad I didn't lead my comment that you quoted with the similarity both finding a TRPG group and finding a band share with dating. I think the people who think it's all luck will be underestimating the value of (at least) persistence, and I think the people who think it's not all luck, and entirely solvable, will be underestimating the impact luck and pool size have--someone in a small town in, say, North Dakota might not have anything like as many local in-person choices as someone living in the East Coast Megalopolis, and that seems like to matter..