The Neverending Cycle of Player Turnaround

[Oryan77]

I have been running the same campaign since the beginning of 3.5 edition. My wife's PC is the only original character from the beginning of the campaign and that's only because she doesn't have any reason to stop playing and because her PC has been lucky enough to avoid death so far.

I lost another player last summer due to his work schedule (and he was our newest player to begin with). I now found out the other day that another player has to bail out due to his work schedule. He definitely doesn't want to stop playing and he assured me that he will be back once he can find work that won't require him to work on the weekends. But who knows when that will be.

But geez, I'm pretty worn out. I want to keep playing, but it is such a hassle meeting new players, explaining the campaign, filling them in on the current adventure, getting their characters created, introducing their PC into the campaign, and then having existing players/characters adjust to the new guy. Not to mention it is kind of inconvenient on both existing players and new players when a new PC joins an adventure midway through. I'd say, over the years, I've gone through this routine right around 20 different times. Now it looks like I'm forced to go through it again if I want to get two new players in the group.

All that leg work is not the only problem. Dealing with a new player can also be an ordeal. Everyone knows how difficult it is to play D&D with people that all share the same tastes & enjoy the same style of DMing/playing. Even though a person can be nice, it often turns out that when we play together, we bump heads when our likes or dislikes don't work well with each other. I hate going through that.

Has anyone else tried to keep a campaign going like this and gone through this same situation as often as I have? If so, how do you handle it? Is there any advice on how I might handle the campaign if I have committed players that want to play the same mid level PCs while at the same time possibly having half the party changing all the time due to player turnaround?

I really don't look forward to going through all of this again. But if I want to play, I guess I have no choice.

 

[Mircoles]

One of the reasons that I play RPGs is to meet new people, so I've never really seen introducing a new player as a problem.

The only time that it would be a bother is when a player brings a friend along, with the expectation of them playing, without warning, then it would bother me. Otherwise, I'm good.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

I lost my 8-year-plus D&D group when my wife left me abruptly; I joked, at the time, that she got the friends in the divorce. This was just as 4th edition came out.

I didn't play for nearly two years, and then, had to start with an entirely new group of players (several of my old players have since drifted back).

So yeah, I feel your pain. Having to get together a new group, and train them (and train <with> them), and the rough patches and slow starts that a new group would require prevented me from getting it underway for literally years.

But in the long run - it's worth it.

 

[S'mon]

I like meeting new players! But I wouldn't try to keep the same PC group or storyline going indefinitely - persistent world yes, persistent campaign group, no.

My advice would be to DM & play a variety of different campaigns. The old high level PCs can be pulled out occasionally but it's not fair on new players to expect them to slot into a story that's been going for 8 years already. I have a 25 year old primary campaign world, but I don't make new players dice up 117th level AD&D lesser gods so they can adventure alongside the oldest surviving PC!

 

[Lancelot]

I have been running the same campaign since the beginning of 3.5 edition. My wife's PC is the only original character from the beginning of the campaign and that's only because she doesn't have any reason to stop playing and because her PC has been lucky enough to avoid death so far.

I've been running the same "campaign world" since the beginning of BECMI D&D, 20+ years ago. Time passes in the campaign world; some 200 years of it. Adventures that our group was playing 20 years ago (real-time) are now either barely remembered by the general populace, or have passed into legend. When a player rolls up a new PC, it might be the son... or grandson... or great grandson... of one of their original characters. Or it could be one of their previous characters, returned from the grave (undead, resurrected, called back by the gods to face "one last challenge"...).

So, that's not exactly what you're facing here. If I understand correctly, it's been the same campaign for some 6+ years. Not just the same overall story-line and campaign setting, but the same characters, at the same levels (mid-level).

If that's correct, how about making some changes to accommodate new players, while still providing a hook for long-termers? I can't imagine playing the same PC for 6+ years of real-time. At that point, you've seen what your powers can do a hundred times over. You have no experience of other PC types or roleplaying experiences. Your PC has become basically your alter-ego or avatar; you've been attached to it longer than most marriages last. I can respect that it's very difficult for new players to come into that situation and feel like they can easily fit in.

So, my advice is: fresh break. New PCs, at 1st level. Do it at least once every couple years. But, here's the kicker: it doesn't have to be a new campaign. You don't have to throw away your setting, and your theme, and all the rich history you've built up.

• Advance the timeline, and make the new PCs the children of some of the original characters (for existing players) or fresh new concepts (for newer players)
• Adapt the game and the setting to suit new players. If you're trying to keep the same theme and "mold" new players to fit in, chances are that you're growing stale as a DM. I don't mean that as a negative comment to imply that you're failing to provide your players with a good time, but I'm suggesting that a DM that stays locked into the same style for a long period is more prone to the sorts of frustration you're expressing. Sometimes, you need to get a little crazy to keep YOU (the DM) fresh and interested. Do something radical with your campaign world (war between states! tarrasques! robot invasion from outer space! the sun goes supernova, the planet splits open, and a 100' wall of magma rushes towards the party!) and see where it takes you.
• Try a different rule system for a while. It might even be the same campaign - just different rules. How about the group goes through a magical looking glass and finds themselves in a world where they become 4e (or 1e!) versions of themselves. Or Warhammer versions. Or, hell, Exalted versions of themselves. It doesn't really matter what you use. The idea is to shake up the rules expectations of the older players (new experience, which keeps things fresh), and give newer players the chance to come in at the same level. Everyone gets to start "fresh", even if they're playing the same PCs as 6 years ago. And they can always go back through the magical looking glass and become 3.5e versions again when they want to.
• Become a player, and get someone else to DM - for at least a while. And again, it might even be the same campaign. See what someone else does with the same themes and setting.

Also, check with your existing players to see how they feel about the concept of a completely new campaign. Ask them if they'd be interested in playing Oriental Adventures, or Planescape, or something radically different for a change. Even though I'm deeply attached to my own campaign world, I feel compelled to offer something different every couple years to make sure that my group is kept "fresh".

 

[Oryan77]

One of the reasons that I play RPGs is to meet new people, so I've never really seen introducing a new player as a problem.

I do enjoy that aspect of gaming. I've made some good friends just because I met them with interest in playing D&D together. But it's the leg work of the 'not really social' part that wears me out. I feel like a broken record when telling a potential new player about our game, the other players, and our approach to playing D&D. I also have to help them create new PCs and respond to their emails during character creation. Not to mention that I have to take time out of my schedule to meet different people. I'm a family man with 2 jobs, and I'm the DM, so I don't have a lot of free time.

It's not that I dislike doing those things, but I've done it 20 or so times now.

My advice would be to DM & play a variety of different campaigns.

The problem would be that I can't even seem to finish a single adventure with an original group. Some of the smaller adventures I ran were Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, Speaker in Dreams, Eternal Boundary, & Fires of Dis. I didn't have an original group complete any of those. The players that began the adventure were not the same players that finished the adventures. Running one nighters all the time doesn't seem like much fun as the DM.

I can't imagine playing the same PC for 6+ years of real-time. At that point, you've seen what your powers can do a hundred times over. You have no experience of other PC types or roleplaying experiences.

Well, that's the type of D&D I like to play. My wife also prefers long term campaigns. Our enjoyment with D&D isn't so much about using powers and leveling to get new stuff. It's about character development and living out a persons life that we find fun. It's just, as an adult, I guess it makes it hard to play like that now.

I like the idea of doing new chapters in the campaign. Rolling new characters that somehow have tie-ins with old characters might help if I decide that I need to adjust the way I run a campaign. I usually create all of these intricate personal quests for each character to play out, thinking that it would make the game more fun for the players (which it does). But I may just need to think short term quests and not care any about the characters long term goals.

 

[ggroy]

Over the last 5+ years, my DMing style has moved towards the game sessions being more and more "episodic" like episodes of a television show. I just assume that the game that evening, may possibly be the last game.

All kinds of semi-random and unpredictable stuff can spell the end of a campaign, such as:

- players decide to stop showing up without notice
- players being kicked out of the game
- game sessions abruptly ending
- DM getting bored and/or resigning
- players getting bored and tuning out
- etc ...

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I feel your pain.

(long whinge follows)

We are losing 2 of our players this week (they're off to the UK due to work reasons) and are having to find replacements. We pretty much have, one of the guys in the group already knew a couple of guys who want to find a regular game. All sounds OK, right? But for the past fortnight we've been trying to arrange a time to meet up with the new guys, just to say "hi" over coffee and cake and make sure everyone gets on and is into the same sort of gaming. It's a frickin' nightmare of conflicting schedules. Maybe tonight we can manage to get it together.

If this was the only time in the last couple of years that'd be OK. But noooo. My "current" gaming group is on it's 3rd incarnation in as many years. The 2 new guys (coupled with a 3rd new-ish guy who joined about 4 weeks ago) wil make this the 4th incarnation.

And yes, it makes finishing a campaign difficult. The current incarnation and previous incarnation of the group have been working on finishing Age of Worms but with the guys going (leaving me the only original player of this campaign) it's just becoming too difficult to keep momentum in the story.

Don't even get me started on conflicting schedules for the actual gaming. Oops, too late, I did it myself. With the guys going to the UK obviously they're extremely busy. 2 other players are shift workers. 1 is a bit flakey on schedules. We can't get the same 4 or so players in the same room at the same time for 2 weeks in a row, let alone get the whole group of 7. This means that alternative mini-campaigns get started one week then wither and die as we're never able to get the same mix of people together again.

This weekend I hope to finish of a story arc in my Champions game. It requires 4 people. 3 of them have already said they can make it. Just awaiting the 4th to confirm and then for no-one to flake out. <Drums fingers nervously on desk.>

Here's the thing, unliek previous groups in the past. My current group are all dead keen gamers, enjoying the games and we're all very focussed when we can get together. It's purely real-world crap getting the way. Damn you real life!

<sigh> That feels a bit better actually. Thanks for listening.

 

[Lancelot]

The problem would be that I can't even seem to finish a single adventure with an original group. Some of the smaller adventures I ran were Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, Speaker in Dreams, Eternal Boundary, & Fires of Dis. I didn't have an original group complete any of those. The players that began the adventure were not the same players that finished the adventures. Running one nighters all the time doesn't seem like much fun as the DM.

Wow. Firstly, good choice of adventures. Those are some classic modules. Secondly, if Fire of Dis is a "smaller adventure" in your lexicon, I'd be fascinated to hear about some the longer ones. Even at a good clip, it took my group a solid month to get through Fires - and that's with regular weekly sessions, 6 hours to the session.

But, yeah, I reckon smaller targets for the sessions could be a good way to go. My experience is that most people these days simply don't have time/patience for epics where the pay-off could be months away.

Given that my own sessions are about 6 hours long, I need to consider what else my friends could be doing in that time...

• Watch 2-3 "long" movies (2+ hours each), complete with rich storylines, engaging characters and impressive special effects
• Watch an entire "season" (6 episodes) of classic British television such as Blackadder or Fawlty Towers, back-to-back
• Read a 400 page novel

If those other "writers" can tell a story (or many stories) in 6 hours, it reminds me as a DM that I shouldn't need months of sessions to get through a straightforward plot like Ghost Tower of Inverness or Tomb of Horrors.

A multi-session epic is good times every now and then, but I try to keep most sessions self-contained. They have an intro, they have some content, and they have a climax (hopefully, with a reward). If that session ties into my overall theme and leads to greater complexity or nuance further down the track, that's even better. But the usual goal is to have a neatly wrapped package which was worth the investment of 6 hours time for my players. This is even more important if you play less frequently than weekly, as players can naturally forget details if their last session was several weeks (or months) ago.

Another possibility for handling new entrant players is to give them an unusual backstory that assumes no information about the current plot. Maybe they've been held prisoner for months and are "out of touch". Maybe they have memory loss, and are still trying to work out who they are. Maybe they've just stepped through a portal from another world (sounds like this could be a goodie if you're running a lot of Planescape). The player can design any PC they want, but their own lack of knowledge about the campaign reflects their PC's lack of knowledge about current circumstance. In other words, the PC and the player pick it up as they go along. That avoids bogging down the new player with a lot of backstory.

However, I also strongly recommend a more episodic structure to the adventures, with a special emphasis on making sure the new player is rewarded quickly and frequently for attendance. Give them an opportunity to defeat their captor... or find out info about their missing past... or find out what they need to get back through the portal to their home world... before the end of the first session. That'll get them quickly invested into the campaign, and make them feel like they're making a real contribution from Day One.

 

[Oryan77]

if Fire of Dis is a "smaller adventure" in your lexicon, I'd be fascinated to hear about some the longer ones. Even at a good clip, it took my group a solid month to get through Fires - and that's with regular weekly sessions, 6 hours to the session.

Oh geez, maybe this is part of my problem too then. It wouldn't be so bad if my players ran through adventures faster. You say "a solid month"; I could run a short adventure from Dungeon Magazine and it'll take my players longer than a month to finish it. That's if we manage to play on our regular schedule of one 6-hour day every 2 weeks. I think I've posted about this before, wondering why it takes my players several hours to finish a single easy combat. I would be thrilled to finish an adventure in four 6-hour sessions!

From what I remember, Fires of Dis didn't seem any bigger. It's been several years since Fires of Dis though, so I can't remember the timeframe. But it was months until we finished it, and only because I was determined to not let it fade away. Three different groups ended up playing in that one until I got to the end of it. But I spent a couple of years running Dead Gods which is much bigger. But I also threw TONS of side quests in there to spice up the empty portions of the adventure. We just finished it last fall.

Another possibility for handling new entrant players is to give them an unusual backstory...............That'll get them quickly invested into the campaign, and make them feel like they're making a real contribution from Day One.

Funny enough, I actually did all that. Luckily, with a Planescape campaign, most new players decide to be a prime that suddenly ends up on the planes. So it is easy for me to insert them into the current adventure. I've even used backstories to help get them invested, and that's still a good bit of work on my end to come up with and implement into an existing game. But each time I feel like I wasted my time when the player has to bail for whatever reason. It would be great if people stuck around, but man is it a let down when I think about how much of my own time I put in with all of these players only to have it completely gone to waste.