D&D General Scheduling Games (Herding Cats)

[Brotton Goodfellow]

I just had to cancel last nights session because of a very important last minute thing a player had to deal with. This made it so we only had two people attending. I contemplated running the session anyway, and in hindsight I should have.

 

[Scott Christian]

I just had to cancel last nights session because of a very important last minute thing a player had to deal with. This made it so we only had two people attending. I contemplated running the session anyway, and in hindsight I should have.

Yes, you should have. If you are not used to running for a small group, and for some reason, feel embarrassed because "no one showed up," the best advice is I can give is - get over it. I have had great sessions with just two players.

I will stand by the same statement I make with four players or eight players:

For D&D, the best number of players for running exploration is 3. The best for combat is 4. The best for roleplay is 5. Obviously not law, but it seems to hold true. Doesn't make the others bad, but it does make those numbers stand out as great.

So, get over the small table, run it, throw in a lot of exploration (because small groups are fun to have exploration with), and play anyway.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

Yes, you should have. If you are not used to running for a small group, and for some reason, feel embarrassed because "no one showed up," the best advice is I can give is - get over it. I have had great sessions with just two players.

I will stand by the same statement I make with four players or eight players:

For D&D, the best number of players for running exploration is 3. The best for combat is 4. The best for roleplay is 5. Obviously not law, but it seems to hold true. Doesn't make the others bad, but it does make those numbers stand out as great.

So, get over the small table, run it, throw in a lot of exploration (because small groups are fun to have exploration with), and play anyway.

I was neither embarrassed or scared. I’ve run with 2 or 3 players plenty of times. But those sessions have been by choice, where I could prep for that low number of players. Last night it was an hour before session start and I simply didn’t have it in me to rework the majority of the dungeon I had planned so the two guys who actually showed up didn’t get TPK’d in the first encounter.

I should have said, “F*ck it, I’ll do it live,” and ran it. Now we might not play until August.

 

[cbwjm]

It's been a while since I've played an RPG and my group seems to have pivoted to boardgames, means we can easily play on games night even if some can't make it.

 

[bloodtide]

So I have some questions...
1. Who should lead discussion on scheduling? The DM, a designated scheduler?

It does not have to be the DM, but it almost has to be the DM. Very few players care enough to do any effort: they just want to be told when the game is. Ive seen maybe two players that have done this.

2. Do any of you use tools to help make this easier? Google calendar, surveys, something else?

Really it is best to talk it out live. In person or in a voice chat. It's complicated enough that even just waiting for texts can make everything a mess.

A Discord can work great.

3. Any advice or anything else I'm missing?

The hard part is knowing when to hold them, fold them and when to let them walk away.

Most players make this HARD.

They say they want to play....but then say "Oh I'm busy everyday 24/7". I take a hard line here, if your "always so busy" then I will just kick out out of the game before it starts. If they work a 12 hour shift Fri-Sat-Sun, they can't "game on the weekend".

I don't waste time with things like the above player. They say they can "make it over by 8", after the 12 hours of work. I know they won't make it on time, will be super sleepy and worse.

I lot of people don't know the game a priority. To them it is a 'back up' sort of thing to what they really want to do. I dump this player quick. If that 'sports' is more important, then go ahead and stay home and watch it....

 

[Scott Christian]

I was neither embarrassed or scared. I’ve run with 2 or 3 players plenty of times. But those sessions have been by choice, where I could prep for that low number of players. Last night it was an hour before session start and I simply didn’t have it in me to rework the majority of the dungeon I had planned so the two guys who actually showed up didn’t get TPK’d in the first encounter.

I should have said, “F*ck it, I’ll do it live,” and ran it. Now we might not play until August.

Well good to hear. But your advice still echoes my sentiments. You should have ran the game. I am a little unsure of why you couldn't run the game. "Prep for low numbers" is vague.

 

[Zardnaar]

Generally speaking, the PC just poofs out of existence and reappears next session. We might joke about the character getting sick or going off to return some videos, but really, they're just not there when the player isn't.

It can get dicey when the character is in the middle of something or integral to what's happening, like if the one character has a car that they're all in when we last left off or they're specifically pursuing one of the PCs' goals, but those situations are generally rare.

Party no hole.

Or someone runs character. Sometimes I format encounters scaled to party size

 

[SableWyvern]

It does not have to be the DM, but it almost has to be the DM. Very few players care enough to do any effort: they just want to be told when the game is. Ive seen maybe two players that have done this.

Even if a player is motivated to do this, they still need a GM motivated and willing to run the game. And a GM who is motivated and willing is probably already arranging the game anyway. The situations where a non-GM is both willing and able to arrange a game feels to me like it would have to be vanishingly rare, unless the group goes down the GMless path. (In other words, I'm surprised you've even seen this twice.)

 

[GrimCo]

It does not have to be the DM, but it almost has to be the DM. Very few players care enough to do any effort: they just want to be told when the game is. Ive seen maybe two players that have done this.

This largely depends on group. Are people just gaming buddies or are they close knit friend group that happens to also be game group.

I lot of people don't know the game a priority. To them it is a 'back up' sort of thing to what they really want to do. I dump this player quick. If that 'sports' is more important, then go ahead and stay home and watch it....

Well, gaming is priority as much as any other leisure group activity. Some people have multiple hobbies and interest, which they like eaqualy, which all compete for same free time slots. Priorities shift. FE, this year it's World Cup. When our national team is playing, specially if it's knockout phase, watching the game takes priority over D&D. Or Champion League finals, we rescheduled our d&d games to watch it together.

Well good to hear. But your advice still echoes my sentiments. You should have ran the game. I am a little unsure of why you couldn't run the game. "Prep for low numbers" is vague.

If you prep combat heavy dungeon tailored to challenge group as a whole, taking into account specific abilities of each character, then without alterations when one is missing, some fights can turn from "challenging" to TPK real fast.

 

[Thierry-Advent]

The GM should do it. If I spend time preparing session, I'll make sure people show up for it.

Otherwise, if I'm a player and the GM has no organization skills, I step in as the 'Party Caller' and make sure people show up because I really want to play.

We agree on the next date at the end of the session. It's usually two weeks later. We use Google Calendar, but I also send a separate reminder email 24 hours prior and ask if everyone is still available, even if they responded Yes to the invitation.