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

[Scott Christian]

There’s a process that will work eventually given a large enough player pool and enough time, but achieving it quickly is mostly just luck. Most people just luck into a good enough group.

I don't think most people luck into good groups. They find groups that are good or they build them. Might they be lucky in finding them often or quickly? Sure. But they do not magically appear. They take work, and the more detailed steps people do in that "work," the "luckier" they are.

 

[AstroArtificer]

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.

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..

HAH! Yeah, there are a lot of similarities between finding a group and dating. A lot of uncomfortable similarities. But yeah, for a mature group like yours, I'd expect that the session zero experience is more akin to warming up the players to the campaign itself.
On your second point, yeah, it is always a number game. I feel as if the hand can be quite stacked against you if you live in rural Oklahoma. That being said, the invention of the internet has done a lot to level that playing field. You now have a crazy big pool size.

Side note, thanks for your comments. I hope you don't mind that I included them (and this goes for everybody else as well). I really do appreciate your takes.

 

[AstroArtificer]

"Ruffling feathers" is my jam.

Not surprisingly, a lot of those commenters appear to have been taken something they read out of context to make space for their outrage. Gasp!

Oh my goodness, you have no idea. With what I posted, you would've thought that I was grilling somebody's baby alive. As usual, people love making villains to fight against.

That is not the ideal moment to get people together for the first time and see how everyone is going to gel, or figure out what kind of person they are, or what their schedule looks like. You don't want to organize a meeting only to start off with "Does anyone else also work night shifts and weekends?!" To me, that's an auto-fail. Do better.

See, this is what I don't like. A LOT of people that I have talked with say that IS the ideal time to figure out how you gel. There are some people who run a minus one session (which is just a one-shot), but the conventional wisdom on IG/Threads is that you figure out how people vibe at session 0. Which I think is just a recipe for disaster. What if you don't like them? Then you've spent a session where you are meant to commit to, and are forced to turn away somebody who has probably impacted characters, lore, and story direction. It's messy and unreliable.

Of course, I'm talking about running personal games for friends and gamers in your area and in person, not promoting a "professional" career. If you're charging a premium, like $10+ per session, you don't get to pick who gets to join. They're no longer just "players" at that point. They're clients who "pay to play" and buy a seat at your table. And as long as they follow the rules and don't upset the other clients, you may not afford the luxury of saying no to anything. (But that's another discussion.)

This is a problem I'm actually interested in. I think Pro-GMs take anyone they can because they feel they have to. But it's not always the best thing. The "customer is always right" ethos in paid TTRPG campaigns means that you may subtly alienate your tablemates if you bring on a troublesome player. You're right that they're your clients, but I wish more people were saying that you can be more selective.

 

[AstroArtificer]

I don't think most people luck into good groups. They find groups that are good or they build them. Might they be lucky in finding them often or quickly? Sure. But they do not magically appear. They take work, and the more detailed steps people do in that "work," the "luckier" they are.

There are some people who "luck" into groups, but it's because their DC for a good group is lower. Some people are just more easygoing and have lower standards (which isn't bad!). But I agree that making your own luck through building a table is hard work, but it pays off. I would rather do that than feel like I'm sacrificing my standards for a sub-par game.

 

[GrimCo]

I think distinction is that in one case, you were lucky enough to get into a good group, other is, you got lucky to even find and get into a group in the first place and then decided it's good enough.

Personally, i don't think session 0 is right time to see how people who never met interact. My go to was always to just organize casual hang out at bar. Grab some drinks, talk, let people get to know each other a bit, see how the group vibes in casual fun setting. Then, if that went well, another group coffee, where we discuss potential game, talk about play styles, who likes what etc, but still, keep it casual and non committal. Let's call it 2 step verification. Session 0 comes before actual campaign starts, that's when we go into nitty gritty of the campaign itself.

IRL and online games are different. From my limited experience, in online games, it's more about compatible playstyles. People focus more on playing the game itself. For IRL games, it's more about compatible personalities.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

This is a problem I'm actually interested in. I think Pro-GMs take anyone they can because they feel they have to. But it's not always the best thing. The "customer is always right" ethos in paid TTRPG campaigns means that you may subtly alienate your tablemates if you bring on a troublesome player. You're right that they're your clients, but I wish more people were saying that you can be more selective.

Imagine going to a fine restaurant and getting seated at a large table with random strangers. Now that is your table and your party. You can only be seated at that table, and only when those other people show up, too.

Fact is, they should be more selective. You're not bringing clients to  your table; you're bringing them to  their table. I was quite fortunate to find players who brought their own group of friends with them.

Granted, this may not be a real issue out in the wild where people are willingly paying premium prices for a game. I can see this being more of an issue with online games and VTTs. People tend to behave better in person where anonymity and distance can't protect you from your own bad behavior.

There is an overlooked audience no one really talks about. They are the non-gamers who want to play these games with their non-gamer friends. They think it might be fun, but don't like the idea of playing with strangers who might be too serious, too weird, or too awkward.

It was always a treat for me to introduce people from work to something they never imagined they could have fun doing. Had I continued going that route, I would have focused on offering my services as a team building experience for workplaces and such.

 

[GrimCo]

Had I continued going that route, I would have focused on offering my services as a team building experience for workplaces and such.

Friend of mine has company that does that. They are mostly focused on nordic larp type of games, started out as larp games creators/organizers, then about 10 years ago, they realized potential in using larp as team building method. Most of their revenue comes from precisely that, team building trough larping (and they had some big corporate clients). Indoor, outdoor, online and custom tailored games are part of their offerings. I would link a site, but don't know if that counts as promoting company and their web is in Croatian only.

 

[aramis erak]

To expand upon my earlier comment...
A large part of finding good players is training the players you have to be good players. There's a bit of luck to finding players willing to learn and adapt.
My GM style isn't for everyone, but it's fairly broadly workable.