The Unreliable Player

[Savinien]

We've all had them, I think. He can exist in nearly any medium. At the table-top, he's the guy that says he will be there. No way he'll miss the game. Then, either during that day here comes the call. For whatever reason he can't make it.

He's the guy you're constantly prompting that it is his action, or you'd like to see his character's reaction during play by post/email games.

Or, for the chat game, he's positive he'll be there. Game time comes and you've already passed out the virtual drinks and pretzels. Hours come and go and he never shows up.

When he is around, he's a great guy and player. Cooperative with the GM and fun to have around. His playing skills are great... when he's there.

You run a serial game and constantly writing that character out doesn't always cut it. Or, if you do it, the suspension of disbelief is really compromised.

How do you deal with it?

[teh bunneh]

I keep a current copy of his character sheet, so we can play even when the player isn't there. :angel:















...And then I KO the character in the first round of the first fight. :eg:

[AliceTheOwl]

At the table-top, he's the guy that says he will be there. No way he'll miss the game. Then, either during that day here comes the call. For whatever reason he can't make it.
You get a phone call?

Generally, at least in FtF games, we've just left that character behind. We make up somewhere where they might be for that session, and go off without them. Josh has gotten pretty creative with multipart games this way.

If it's a small game to begin with, we'll do something else entirely.

On the PbP, we've both waited for the character to show and NPCed them until they felt like posting again. It depends on whether they let us know they'd be gone or not. Sometimes we just wait on advancing the plot, but have the characters interact in the meantime.

[Blue]

We've got 3 virtual players, so I won't count them. Though it is annoying to lug my laptop and all the peripherals to a game and not have anyone dial in when they said they would.

But there's two players who drive 2 hours from san diego. Strangely, they're more reliable than many. If they're going to be working instead, we usually know a day or two before.

But there's one guy (now out of the country) who used to talk up the game all week then find something else to do on that day. And there's one player who LOVES to play but constantly have family issues (being a stay-at-home dad with a wife who works lots of overtime, and 2 kids). And our only female player tends to not declare she'll be there; If she shows up, she shows up.

I'm the die-hard of the group. In the 6-7 years we've played, I'm the only player who hasn't missed a single game. Testament to my lack of any real life. There are 3 others who usually show, but at least they say well in advance what's going on with them.

[Chuckg]

I know this problem. Oh, do I know this problem... I've had *four* games die in the past year because the *majority* of my players kept doing this, for various reasons.

My next game starting up is going to have two people.

Edit -- my last game missed three sessions in a row because one player had sudden last-minute problems and couldn't show up... and it was a different player each time... and the circumstances were such that nobody could be 'left behind'. (Small group, stuck WTF out in hostile territory on an extended sneak-and-peek.)

So, fourth session comes up, I lay the word down a week in advance -- either I get full attendance for that session, or else I dissolve the game. I have no patience running a game that can't manage even one session a flippin' month. No ifs, ands, or buts... everybody will be online(1) within 60 minutes of the announced start time, or else the campaign ends. Absolutely no excuses.

So of course, my most reliable player -- the only guy who *hasn't* missed something so far -- has his computer blow up that night. And sadly, having given my word that 'absolutely' no excuses would be tolerated, I had to keep it.

*sigh*

Now picture stuff like this happening repeatedly to every game I've tried to run. My group is cursed, what can I say.



(1) Chat game.

[AliceTheOwl]

Josh's current game has 3 players: me, Eoywin and her husband. He knows where to find all of us.

[BlackSword]

Double-tap to the back of the head. Quick, clean, and he won't feel a thing.

What?

We had this problem once and eventually had to drop the person from the group. It was fairly mutual, the player agreed that he could not keep the commitment so splitsville.

Since then, my weekly group, the only last minute cancellations are at due to illness. I am the most unreliable because of travel for work, but since I can give at least a weeks notice its not a big deal.

My college group, everyone's schedules are so diverse we usually only play a couple of times a month, so its planned so that the majority of people can make it, and the story is build to be a one-(long)-nighter, so those who don't show up are doing 'other' things that game session.

[CBikle]

Seems to mostly be a respect issue.

Often people tend to blow off an RPG session with the mindset of "it's just a game", not really taking into account that everyone else has reserved the night for that game and has put off other stuff to be there.

If the same player does it a lot, I'd get rid of him/her; just not worth the hassle.

I have less of a problem with people dropping from an RPG (because we'll usualy play anyway unless we lose more than half the group) than I do if we agreed to play Magic and we get stuck with 3 people , because one guy cancels.

As anyone who has ever played M:TG knows, 3 player Magic sucks.

[Chimpira]

in the past, I have faced this dilemma as well. In the case of it being just one player, I have a quiet word with the person. Ask them if they want to continue playing and remind him/her of the unwritten rule. The unwritten rule established in my game during college (mostly because of College) is that if you have something better to do just go on and do it. The game will take care of itself. Do not feel that you are letting people down by choosing not to play the game. A game is a game and a friend is a friend.

If the person wants desperately to play but life keeps happening to him. I tell him/her to take care of what needs to be taken care of and then rejoin the game once everything is stable. If possible, I will have the character go off somewhere in the background and rejoin the party at a later date. If it is during a mission , then I will make the character an NPC or capture the character, let the other players finish out the mission, save the character and then send him/her to the background. The most important thing though is that I have other players and something needs to happen.

Usually this is enough and the player goes off to do what they need to do and maybe later they rejoin the group or not but the option is there.

In the extreme case of everything blowing up at once, like let's say for example: My girlfriend and I break up and she no longer wishes to play, the other female player goes back home to visit for a month and has yet to return (a year has passed. She is fine just working through some issues. A lot of issues) and two players get bogged down with work which does not seem to be letting up anytime soon. Well all I can do is throw up my hands in defeat, talk to the remaining players and start another game.

[Savinien]

In the particular case I'm referring too...

He's a good guy and has a lot of RL situations to attend that steal his time. I believe he wants to be there, but when you're talking chat game... It is easy for the SO to need stuff once in a while.

He is a friend, but due to the serial nature of the game I'm running, I just can't keep him as a protagonist of the ongoing story. So, I'm hoping to create a bit player each arc that he can run, or not run as the story demands.

Do you all think this will work?

[Killer Shrike]

Unsurprisingly, Im pretty severe about it. No-shows get dropped unless they have a really extenuating circumstance.

Consequently, players get real concientious about letting me know in advance that they can't make it. And even then if its habitual I tell them to drop until they get their life in order.

[Blue]

We don't "get rid" of anyone. We just budget the game without them. If four of the die-hards are in, we call a game. Else we just don't schedule one.

Explains why we went 2-1/2 months between games. That and a lack of enthusiasm for the previous campaign.

[Savinien]

Unsurprisingly, Im pretty severe about it. No-shows get dropped unless they have a really extenuating circumstance.

Consequently, players get real concientious about letting me know in advance that they can't make it. And even then if its habitual I tell them to drop until they get their life in order.

As always, the simple hard line seems the best route.

On the other hand, hurting someone's feelings seems... unreasonably cruel. I was tempted to take the hard route, but didn't have the hardiness required.

[Blue]

Yeh, being hardline is fine if you can afford to lose players. We're all good friends and aren't interested in alienating anyone. And it's hard enough to get a group together without moving a "sometimes shows up" player over to the "never will show up again" column.

[KA.]

I think one of the keys to this is being very clear at the outset.
Not about the rules, but about the relationships.

When you start up a game, you could begin with something like:
"There are two main groups in my social life.
People that I am Friends with, and People that I Game with.
Even though some people will be members of both groups, they really have nothing to do with each other.
You can game with me, even if we aren't close personal friends.
We can be close personal friends, even if we don't game together.
I would never force someone that I only knew through gaming to become my friend if they didn't want to.
That would be inappropriate.

By the same token, just because you are my friend, do not in any way feel obligated to game.

Gaming is an activity that is only fun for everyone if everyone is involved and wants to be there.

It is somewhat like watching sports.
If you are trying to enjoy the game, having someone there who just wants to talk, make jokes, and distract you from watching, is not really much fun.

And, for the person who doesn't really want to watch the game, it can't be much fun feeling like they are being ignored.

So, before we start, ask yourself:
'Do I really want to be here?'

Is this a priority for me, or is it a scheduled backup plan in case nothing else comes along?

Is it important enough that, even if someone called up at the last minute and offered movie tickets or a free meal, would I refuse, because I would rather be here?

If not, then it would be better for everyone if you didn't start.

Because it matters whether you are here or not.

This is a group activity.

It is fine if you don't want to do it, but if you don't decide now.

Not wanting to game is a matter of personal taste.

But starting a game, and then failing to show up, is a statement.

It is saying that this doesn't matter, and that, by extension, we don't matter.

That would be an insult to anyone."

I think the problem has deeper roots than many of us may care to admit.
For the most part, RPG's have always been considered an activity for 'geeks'.
Many of us were not 'popular' in school, and those feelings rarely disappear completely.
And there is also the cultural background of movies, TV shows, etc. where the 'happy ending' is when the 'geek' finally manages to find acceptance from the 'cool kids'.

Of course part of that 'happy ending' is turning his back on the 'geeks' who were his friends all along, and accepted him the way he was, but we are talking Hollywood here, which means that ethics and values don't really mean anything.

I think that one major reason people tend to blow off games, is that, deep down, they are somewhat ashamed of gaming.

They still seek the approval of the 'cool kids' that didn't like them in high school.

So, if they are scheduled to be at your game tonight, but some guy at the office asks them to go out for a beer, or one of their non-gaming friends asks them to go see a movie, or a family member invites them over for bridge, they blow off the game.

Because they would rather bask in those few hours of 'cool kid' approval than be at the game.

And since they could never reveal to you that this was the reason for their absence, they come up with some lame excuse, or don't say anything at all.

Then, when the 'cool kids' get tired of their constant obscure movie references,
disturbing trivia knowlege ("How did you know exactly how much iron is in a pint of human blood?"),
and willingness to get into knock-down, drag-out fights over the historical accuracy of the weapons in a romance movie
("I am just saying that Heathcliff could not possibly have a sword like that hanging above his fireplace!
Look at the pommel, for Christ's sake?
Those were only used in one tiny Saxon village during the Battle of . . ."),
they come back to the gaming table to hang out until something better comes along.

I am not saying that all gamers have feelings of inferiority (although a hobby that basically consists of pretending to be people that are cooler than we are does have certain implications :think: ), but those that do are quite likely to abandon the game at a moment's notice for any reason.

After all, this is the approval that they have been looking for.

The feeling that the don't have to game, because other people, cool people, want them around.

It can be a strong lure for a certain type of personality.

I only game with people who really want to game.

People who look at it for what it is:
A creative and stimulating activity for people who have the intelligence to participate.

But I realize that there are plenty of the other sort out there.

It could be that a frank, possibly private discussion of this topic with players who don't show up could yield positive results.

Not as an attack on them.

But as an opportunity for them to make peace with who they are and what they want.

The day they can tell a friend:
"I would like to go see that movie with you, but this is game night.
Why don't we go tomorrow?"
we will all be lifted up a bit.

KA.

[Hugh Neilson]

As always, the simple hard line seems the best route.

On the other hand, hurting someone's feelings seems... unreasonably cruel. I was tempted to take the hard route, but didn't have the hardiness required.

It can be a very nasty tradeoff. We alweays seem to forget that the unreliable player is creating an unpleasant situation for the other players, who came to game and now the game's off because Mr. Unreliable can't be there.

Some compromise solutions?

- EVERYONE leaves a copy of their character with the GM. If the player's not there, the character is an NPC and one of the players (not the GM - he has enough to do) will run the NPC.

- Ensure the unreliable player has an unreliable character - one with reasons to suddenly be unavailable when the player's not there. This works well if the player knows in advance his schedule may be a bit wonky.

- If you have just one unreliable guy, you can have two campaigns running, only one of which Mr. Unreliable plays in. If he doesn't show, we play the other game.

[The Main Man]

As always, the simple hard line seems the best route.

On the other hand, hurting someone's feelings seems... unreasonably cruel. I was tempted to take the hard route, but didn't have the hardiness required.

Actually, with this thread I must address that I hope not to become this type with your group when I finally am able to attend, for I am of a dedicated trinity in my Friday group, the day that I requested my boss for scheduling around.

[Savinien]

Actually, with this thread I must address that I hope not to become this type with your group when I finally am able to attend, for I am of a dedicated trinity in my Friday group, the day that I requested my boss for scheduling around.

You only have 3 guys currently in your group? Give me a call and we'll get this shizzle figured out.

[Starwolf]

I run errant characters as NPCs for a couple of sessions, but if it becomes chronic I have the character.....removed....

[Eoywin]

Josh's current game has 3 players: me, Eoywin and her husband. He knows where to find all of us.

And if we had to miss we would call you.

Though I haven't ever had to stop playing in a campaign or miss games often, I always try and leave my character sheet with the gm, so if something happens they have it.

If someone is chronicly missing games, I would try and find a time to talk to them, and see if they have the time and whatnot to be involved in the group.

[John T]

Generally speaking, for sporadic offenders with known RW issues, I try to have a current version of each character on-hand for each session, and simply "background NPC" them. The basics are the same for chronic, unexplained absentees, with the addition that I stop telling them when the sessions are being held. If they don't ask about it (i.e. show any interest in remaining part of the game), I write them out of the campaign in a long-term, non-permanent way, often turning them into useful NPC contacts for one or more of the reliable PCs, and press on.

Mentally, I refer to it as a "soft-delete". ;)

[The Main Man]

You only have 3 guys currently in your group? Give me a call and we'll get this shizzle figured out.

When I say dedicated trinity, I mean me and two other guys that are always able to show up, we also have 4 others that usually are able to come, but they have enough of their own complications that consistency isn't the correct word to use; they want to be there, but they can't all the time. I'm lucky that my boss schedules me so that I can game.

But...
Maybe we can get this worked out. I'll have to talk to them about it, and I'll probably private message you soon to describe their gaming styles and backgrounds for you.

[Savinien]

When I say dedicated trinity, I mean me and two other guys that are always able to show up, we also have 4 others that usually are able to come, but they have enough of their own complications that consistency isn't the correct word to use; they want to be there, but they can't all the time. I'm lucky that my boss schedules me so that I can game.

But...
Maybe we can get this worked out. I'll have to talk to them about it, and I'll probably private message you soon to describe their gaming styles and backgrounds for you.

I got the info, but there're a lot of details to hash over, still. Any chance you could call me and talk it over? I'm not a stalker, really.

Oh, do you get an employee discount at TiY? :whistle:

[clsage]

I had the potential of being "that guy" myself some time back. My work
(I'm a freelance theatrical technician/designer) means that I often work
nights, sometimes on short notice. And given that, at least at present,
I'm travelling the country for work, staying in one place for the length of
a theatrical season (anywhere from 3 to 8 months) things can get a bit...
problematic. So I chose to not game. That was awhile back. I miss it
(and, given my posts in the Player Finder forum, it's obvious that I'm
attempting to find various "work-arounds" to my challenges).

As one of the other posters mentioned it is, in a large part, about
respecting the time and energy of the folks you are gaming with.

I like the idea of the "intermittent, returning character" for plot purposes.
If you could convince the player in question to buy into such a role,
perhaps things could work.

-Carl-

[Beetle]

The Firefly group that I'm in has 7 players (+GM), so it's not unusual for somebody to miss a session. Only one person misses 33% or more of the sessions (she's involved in the arts and often has rehearsals), but she's a good player and lets the GM know well in advance if she can't make it.

The characters of absent players usually get absorbed in something for the entire session. The wacky geneticist and the doctor may spend the whole session doing medical experiments, the engineer will be tinkering with the engine, the shepherd will be in meditation and so on.

[The Main Man]

I got the info, but there're a lot of details to hash over, still. Any chance you could call me and talk it over? I'm not a stalker, really.

Oh, do you get an employee discount at TiY? :whistle:
I don't think you're a stalker!

But anyways, um, uh... :hush:I'll send you a message.

[Evil102]

We don't run into the chronic missing player with our games, but we do have some deterrents in place for players not being able to make it.

If a player can't turn up, the PC is still around but he's that session's comic relief. :eg: Any embarassing things the GM had planned for the session happen to this poor sod. He's the GM's butt-monkey, and boy do the other players enjoy recounting the details to the player when they turn up next week...:D

[bigdamnhero]

OK, let me preface this by saying I tend to be fairly religious about game night myself. My last group played weekly for six years, and I think I may have cancelled two or three times a year on average. And I never once failed to call to cancell - that's just plain rude in any context.

Having established that, I have to say I get a little tired of people who complain that they have no life other than gaming, then complain when other people do have lives and those lives occassionally get in the way. Almost as tired as I get of people who kick players out of their group for minor infractions, and then complain that there's no one to game with.

Gaming has been my #1 hobby for almost 30 years now, and I intend to still be playing 30 years from now. But it is just a hobby. If you force me to choose between my hobby and my family, or between my hobby and my job (which supports my family & my hobby) then that's a no-brainer. My family and my job make allowances to accomodate my gaming; gaming must be willing to recipricate.

As an analogy: a good friend of mine has been in the martial arts for over twenty years, competes regularly, had his own dojo for awhile, almost made the Olympics back in the day. So not a dilletante by anyone's standards. He was recently scheduled to test for the next dan in one of his black belts, had cleared the day on his calendar...and then the school changed the date of the test to a date where he had both family and professional obligations he couldn't change. The head of the school told him he had to "decide what was important to him" He did -- and he hasn't been back to that school since.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone; this wasn't directed at any posters in particular. Just felt it needed saying.


bigdamnhero
"I'll be in my bunk."

[Capt JT Kohonez]

DUDE!!
That was deep!

Can I quote you?




I think one of the keys to this is being very clear at the outset.
Not about the rules, but about the relationships.

When you start up a game, you could begin with something like:
"There are two main groups in my social life.
People that I am Friends with, and People that I Game with.
Even though some people will be members of both groups, they really have nothing to do with each other.
You can game with me, even if we aren't close personal friends.
We can be close personal friends, even if we don't game together.
I would never force someone that I only knew through gaming to become my friend if they didn't want to.
That would be inappropriate.

By the same token, just because you are my friend, do not in any way feel obligated to game.

Gaming is an activity that is only fun for everyone if everyone is involved and wants to be there.

It is somewhat like watching sports.
If you are trying to enjoy the game, having someone there who just wants to talk, make jokes, and distract you from watching, is not really much fun.

And, for the person who doesn't really want to watch the game, it can't be much fun feeling like they are being ignored.

So, before we start, ask yourself:
'Do I really want to be here?'

Is this a priority for me, or is it a scheduled backup plan in case nothing else comes along?

Is it important enough that, even if someone called up at the last minute and offered movie tickets or a free meal, would I refuse, because I would rather be here?

If not, then it would be better for everyone if you didn't start.

Because it matters whether you are here or not.

This is a group activity.

It is fine if you don't want to do it, but if you don't decide now.

Not wanting to game is a matter of personal taste.

But starting a game, and then failing to show up, is a statement.

It is saying that this doesn't matter, and that, by extension, we don't matter.

That would be an insult to anyone."

I think the problem has deeper roots than many of us may care to admit.
For the most part, RPG's have always been considered an activity for 'geeks'.
Many of us were not 'popular' in school, and those feelings rarely disappear completely.
And there is also the cultural background of movies, TV shows, etc. where the 'happy ending' is when the 'geek' finally manages to find acceptance from the 'cool kids'.

Of course part of that 'happy ending' is turning his back on the 'geeks' who were his friends all along, and accepted him the way he was, but we are talking Hollywood here, which means that ethics and values don't really mean anything.

I think that one major reason people tend to blow off games, is that, deep down, they are somewhat ashamed of gaming.

They still seek the approval of the 'cool kids' that didn't like them in high school.

So, if they are scheduled to be at your game tonight, but some guy at the office asks them to go out for a beer, or one of their non-gaming friends asks them to go see a movie, or a family member invites them over for bridge, they blow off the game.

Because they would rather bask in those few hours of 'cool kid' approval than be at the game.

And since they could never reveal to you that this was the reason for their absence, they come up with some lame excuse, or don't say anything at all.

Then, when the 'cool kids' get tired of their constant obscure movie references,
disturbing trivia knowlege ("How did you know exactly how much iron is in a pint of human blood?"),
and willingness to get into knock-down, drag-out fights over the historical accuracy of the weapons in a romance movie
("I am just saying that Heathcliff could not possibly have a sword like that hanging above his fireplace!
Look at the pommel, for Christ's sake?
Those were only used in one tiny Saxon village during the Battle of . . ."),
they come back to the gaming table to hang out until something better comes along.

I am not saying that all gamers have feelings of inferiority (although a hobby that basically consists of pretending to be people that are cooler than we are does have certain implications :think: ), but those that do are quite likely to abandon the game at a moment's notice for any reason.

After all, this is the approval that they have been looking for.

The feeling that the don't have to game, because other people, cool people, want them around.

It can be a strong lure for a certain type of personality.

I only game with people who really want to game.

People who look at it for what it is:
A creative and stimulating activity for people who have the intelligence to participate.

But I realize that there are plenty of the other sort out there.

It could be that a frank, possibly private discussion of this topic with players who don't show up could yield positive results.

Not as an attack on them.

But as an opportunity for them to make peace with who they are and what they want.

The day they can tell a friend:
"I would like to go see that movie with you, but this is game night.
Why don't we go tomorrow?"
we will all be lifted up a bit.

KA.

[pinecone]

I think one of the keys to this is being very clear at the outset.
Not about the rules, but about the relationships.

When you start up a game, you could begin with something like:
"There are two main groups in my social life.
People that I am Friends with, and People that I Game with.
Even though some people will be members of both groups, they really have nothing to do with each other.
You can game with me, even if we aren't close personal friends.
We can be close personal friends, even if we don't game together.
I would never force someone that I only knew through gaming to become my friend if they didn't want to.
That would be inappropriate.

By the same token, just because you are my friend, do not in any way feel obligated to game.

Gaming is an activity that is only fun for everyone if everyone is involved and wants to be there.

It is somewhat like watching sports.
If you are trying to enjoy the game, having someone there who just wants to talk, make jokes, and distract you from watching, is not really much fun.

And, for the person who doesn't really want to watch the game, it can't be much fun feeling like they are being ignored.

So, before we start, ask yourself:
'Do I really want to be here?'

Is this a priority for me, or is it a scheduled backup plan in case nothing else comes along?

Is it important enough that, even if someone called up at the last minute and offered movie tickets or a free meal, would I refuse, because I would rather be here?

If not, then it would be better for everyone if you didn't start.

Because it matters whether you are here or not.

This is a group activity.

It is fine if you don't want to do it, but if you don't decide now.

Not wanting to game is a matter of personal taste.

But starting a game, and then failing to show up, is a statement.

It is saying that this doesn't matter, and that, by extension, we don't matter.

That would be an insult to anyone."

I think the problem has deeper roots than many of us may care to admit.
For the most part, RPG's have always been considered an activity for 'geeks'.
Many of us were not 'popular' in school, and those feelings rarely disappear completely.
And there is also the cultural background of movies, TV shows, etc. where the 'happy ending' is when the 'geek' finally manages to find acceptance from the 'cool kids'.

Of course part of that 'happy ending' is turning his back on the 'geeks' who were his friends all along, and accepted him the way he was, but we are talking Hollywood here, which means that ethics and values don't really mean anything.

I think that one major reason people tend to blow off games, is that, deep down, they are somewhat ashamed of gaming.

They still seek the approval of the 'cool kids' that didn't like them in high school.

So, if they are scheduled to be at your game tonight, but some guy at the office asks them to go out for a beer, or one of their non-gaming friends asks them to go see a movie, or a family member invites them over for bridge, they blow off the game.

Because they would rather bask in those few hours of 'cool kid' approval than be at the game.

And since they could never reveal to you that this was the reason for their absence, they come up with some lame excuse, or don't say anything at all.

Then, when the 'cool kids' get tired of their constant obscure movie references,
disturbing trivia knowlege ("How did you know exactly how much iron is in a pint of human blood?"),
and willingness to get into knock-down, drag-out fights over the historical accuracy of the weapons in a romance movie
("I am just saying that Heathcliff could not possibly have a sword like that hanging above his fireplace!
Look at the pommel, for Christ's sake?
Those were only used in one tiny Saxon village during the Battle of . . ."),
they come back to the gaming table to hang out until something better comes along.

I am not saying that all gamers have feelings of inferiority (although a hobby that basically consists of pretending to be people that are cooler than we are does have certain implications :think: ), but those that do are quite likely to abandon the game at a moment's notice for any reason.

After all, this is the approval that they have been looking for.

The feeling that the don't have to game, because other people, cool people, want them around.

It can be a strong lure for a certain type of personality.

I only game with people who really want to game.

People who look at it for what it is:
A creative and stimulating activity for people who have the intelligence to participate.

But I realize that there are plenty of the other sort out there.

It could be that a frank, possibly private discussion of this topic with players who don't show up could yield positive results.

Not as an attack on them.

But as an opportunity for them to make peace with who they are and what they want.

The day they can tell a friend:
"I would like to go see that movie with you, but this is game night.
Why don't we go tomorrow?"
we will all be lifted up a bit.

KA.
Theres a lot of truth there....I've know "self hating gamers" myself...its easy for me because I was the Cool outsider and a gamer, so I've no baggage to speak of.....but even now I know "gamers" that talk about gaming with enthusiasm, but never seem to show or get to the con....differant folks...

[Thia Halmades]

This is really two discussions now, so I'll address 'em both, as I suffer from both problems.

Savinien: I actually agree with bigdamnhero here; you have to decide how important the game is in contrast to what people can reasonably do. I set out to start my game with a violently hard line; we meet every two weeks. You're expected to be here. If I don't have everyone, I don't run the game. Everyone was suddenly accountable for everyone else having fun, and games get cancelled. Hey, that happens. It's a game; it won't keep going unless I run it.

One of my absolute diehards is considering (strongly considering) a scheduling change; he wants to devote more time to his job, which I respect, being in a time oriented job myself, I know what it means to his career and his personal self-worth to be involved and be appreciated. He doesn't want to jeapordize that, and initially I considered saying "Hey, you have to make the call. It's your decision, but my line is clear." Then I recanted.

If he can be involved, he's good enough and worth it enough that I can keep him involved; I'm willing, as the story teller, to find a way to do that. If he wants to drop, hey. He drops, that's also his call. So as usual, I'm a moderate. I do agree with some (if not all) of what KA was saying earlier; they, the player, must make a clear, defined choice. "Is this something you're willing to commit to? Like a film, or a dinner?" I've seen my players turn down all sorts of nuttiness because the game is a commitment, like poker night or football Sunday. It's what we do, and I got over my geek roots long ago (it helps of course that I also follow football, so I can gain acceptance from both camps).

There are lots of gamers I'd rather not associate with; they aren't my kind of people, they're a little too into the hobby. Hey, good for them. But that's why I don't go to cons; of course, I make that very clear to anyone who's listening, so it's never "YEAH YEAH! WE'LL GO! But... my dog has his enema that day..." That's not me. I'm too honest for that. I might go if Steve Long or the HERO crew is in the area (up from NC where they're at to BaltiCon or something) but generally I avoid them. Force of habit.

If the player genuinely, truly wants to be there, I'd find a way to keep them there, even if you draft a sub-story arc that occurs beneath the main plot and allows the player to rejoin. In the three years I've been running my epic campaign I've lost two players; one left because of another one, then I kicked the other one out. :D I successfully replaced them both, and the game kept rolling. Neither of those characters were killed; both times I found something far more interesting to do with them as NPCs that are already established in the PCs minds.

My style may simply be cut from a different cloth than other folks; I do want (and generally need) all of my players there; but as BDH said, I can't really see myself pidgeon holing someone into a lose-lose situation because my game, while of tantamount importance to me, may not be their first priority. It is just a game.

[AliceTheOwl]

See, what bothered me the most about people who didn't show (other than the problem of not TELLING people they wouldn't be there) was that we'd spent an entire evening, time that could've been spent gaming, working out a schedule when EVERYONE could make it. It usually meant moving around my work schedule, or postponing stuff I'd wanted to do or could otherwise be doing at that moment, and compromising. Invariably, the one who'd made everyone else bend their schedules around their participation was the no-show.

It's incredibly arrogant. Why not just SAY, "I won't be able to make it no matter what night you have it?" Instead, they inconvenience everyone else for the remote chance they MIGHT make it, and then they don't bother.

Screw that.

[Thia Halmades]

See, this is a problem I don't have because I sort of ... I don't know ... have this despotic insistance on honesty from my players. "Can you make it? No? Is there a workaround? No? Okay. YOU tell ME when you can make it, and I'll work around that. OH, I see, you didn't want to play in the first place. Then why in the name of twelve hellz are you even here?" That's just not something that happens to me. It happened a lot in college, and now I just don't deal with it.

Said another way: If an adult can't handle basic scheduling and appointment keeping, then what on Earth are they doing the 40 hours they're at work that we aren't seeing? In this sense my attitude is very absolutist; make a commitment, keep the commitment you made barring something utterly unforseen (death, illness, car wreck, sudden massive work crisis). Okay. But don't plan to see a movie on a game night because you're too embarrassed to tell your girlfriend that you chuck dice. Please.

I think that's one of the few times I'd say, in no uncertain terms, that an individual should either change their hobbies or get a new SO. One who accepts them for who they are, rather than someone who would force them into a pidgeon hole that fits their personal ideal.

Oh my, do I sound all bitter again? Oh. I think I do. :eg: But that's okay, because my SO buys me systems, games, and endorses game night. More time for her to play Bejewled on the Xbox.

[AliceTheOwl]

They have Bejeweled for the XBox?

Oh, um, that has nothing to do with my response . . . Which I'm going to need a minute to dig back up . . .

Okay. All of the people we had attendance issues with either had gaming spouses, or their significant others already knew about the gaming hobby. It just seemed that they viewed the game as an optional social engagement. One player missed a lot of games because he had an insane work schedule, and we all knew about it when he joined. But the others? "I just didn't feel like gaming this week," or "We made plans to go catch a movie and decided we'd rather do that."

That was about when I started going off to the laundromat just before the game was set to start. "Have something important to do; sorry."

You can see why FtF games dissolve so often for me and Josh . . .

[Thia Halmades]

FtF... face to face? I know some of y'all do play by email and chat rooms and what not; to me gaming has always been a social activity, so I've never done it any other way. Hey, if you were in the area I probably have slots in one of my games, and I always like to know who's available. For me, it was a matter of handing out a level of accountability. "You are as much responsible for their fun as you are for your fun. Failure to arrive breeds animosity, because now those people can't have fun because you aren't here." And, I can't stress this enough, KA really nailed it when he pointed out that people who commit need to understand that like any hobby you take seriously, a game is a commitment, of time & resources.

I've got people who travel for over an hour to get to game. I hold myself accountable for their fun partially because they love my game enough to make the sacrifice, and partially out of raw respect that they're willing to throw themselves on that cross on a regular basis. As DM, I don't have a greater responsibility than to respect the sacrifice those guys make.

One of my players put it succinctly: "When you sat us down and said you expect us to make every game, you unintentionally entered into a contract, because it means that you are going to put all the energy and resources necessary into making that game work and making it enjoyable for us." He was right. And looking at it that way, as a social contract, works really well for me and keeps me on task, writing plot and preparing encounters and fleshing out NPCs.

I can certainly see where people who don't have that understanding, passion for the hobby or that level of dedication would be far less interested in being part of an ongoing campaign. And that would wear on me almost instantly.

Yes, they have Bejeweled for both Xbox Live Arcade on the original, and as an easy download on the 360. I have a 360 and I DL'd the full version (it cost... 10 bucks?) for Ilene. I admit to playing it for hours on end as well, but right now I'm playing (and getting my butt handed to me) in Valkyrie Profile. Xbox Live Arcade is the greatest thing the 360 is going to do in its career; believe it.

[AliceTheOwl]

The only FtF game we're in now has a group of 2 couples, so that happens every week except by mutual agreement. Hasn't been a problem. But I'm wary of getting into any other games, just because of the attendance issues I always seem to encounter in tabletop games.

For Josh's PbP game, though, it doesn't really matter if someone doesn't post on the game for a few days; we can usually work around it, and do.

[bigdamnhero]

Having established that, I have to say I get a little tired of people who complain that they have no life other than gaming, then complain when other people do have lives and those lives occassionally get in the way. Almost as tired as I get of people who kick players out of their group for minor infractions, and then complain that there's no one to game with.
Wow. On re-reading it, that came across a lot grumpier than I had intended. :o (I was sick when I wrote it, if that's any excuse.) I mean what I said, but I probably could've said it better; apologies if anyone took offense.


See, what bothered me the most about people who didn't show (other than the problem of not TELLING people they wouldn't be there) was that we'd spent an entire evening, time that could've been spent gaming, working out a schedule when EVERYONE could make it. It usually meant moving around my work schedule, or postponing stuff I'd wanted to do or could otherwise be doing at that moment, and compromising. Invariably, the one who'd made everyone else bend their schedules around their participation was the no-show.

It's incredibly arrogant. Why not just SAY, "I won't be able to make it no matter what night you have it?" Instead, they inconvenience everyone else for the remote chance they MIGHT make it, and then they don't bother.

Screw that.
Yeah, I'd say you've got a right to be disgruntled over that one. I suspect someone that inconsiderate has problems beyond gaming.


I set out to start my game with a violently hard line; we meet every two weeks. You're expected to be here. If I don't have everyone, I don't run the game.
In my last group I actually took the opposite tack - we said we'd try and play weekly, with the understanding that we wouldn't always make it and the expectation that we'd wind up playing every other week. In practice, we wound up making about 3 weeks out of 4. I think the fact that everyone knew we were willing to make concessions took some of the pressure off and actually helped people to show up more often.

As far as the work I put in for the session, if we had to cancel it just meant I had less work to do for next week.


Said another way: If an adult can't handle basic scheduling and appointment keeping, then what on Earth are they doing the 40 hours they're at work that we aren't seeing?
OTOH, I'm hyper-organized at work by sheer force of will, but come evenings & weekends I tend to slip into a trance state where I don't notice the time.

...like now, when I just realised it's after 9pm and I haven't eaten dinner. :eek:


bigdamnhero
“I am NOT a committee!”

[Thia Halmades]

Like you, BDH, that seems much aggressive now than it was meant when I wrote it. I think I'm frustrated because I have a lot of scheduling conflicts, and while my original plan was to keep everyone on track, understanding that if we don't have everyone I can't run (becuase of the feel and nature of the campaign). That's a liability when schedules shift.

However, now, the intent is to game as often as possible within the confines of the schedule and do what I can to keep the campaign on track. It's tough, and frustrating, but worth making the sacrifices in the long run. I hope. *sigh* I wish I had my writing skill now when I had time then. That'd be great.

[Savinien]

I agree with what everyone is saying. It is a fine line and the enjoyment of everyone involved is the primary concern.

What I was proposing was always having an NPC (not necessarily always the same one) written into every story. That way, if my friendly, unreliable player couldn't make it, the NPC could fade away, taking a smaller role in the story. If, however, he could make it, he'd have a character.

Yes, that requires Mr. Unreliable to play different characters and not the same one, but that is the compromise, IMO. I'd heard that other GMs often ahve NPCs available in case more people show than they're expecting and was hoping to get some wisdom from these types about what sort of NPCs to include.

[bigdamnhero]

Understood. Hope I didn't quash anyone's need to vent.

I'm frustrated myself. Unfortunately, I have no one but myself to be mad at. We recently had to put our campaign on hold for a few months because I have too many other commitments right now. It was either that or be "The Unreliable GM." :ugly:


bigdamnhero
“They tell you never to strike a man with a closed fist, but it is on occasion hillarious.”

[teh bunneh]

We play every weekend, unless X players can't make it. X is a percentage of the total players. Right now, I've got a large group so X=3. If three or more players can't make it, we don't game. Otherwise, it's game-on, brother.

I expect players to miss sessions sometimes. Real life takes precedence -- jobs, vacations, relatives coming into town, illness -- these things happen. I work around them. I usually have a recent copy of each player's character sheet, so usually the missing characters just fade into the background for the course of the adventure unless they are needed, and then I just NPC them. The only penalty for not showing up is that your character doesn't get any XPs for that week.

It's worked this way for the better part of ten years, and it's a relatively stress-free way of doing things (for everybody -- GM, regular players, and the unreliable guy). I highly recommend it. :thumbup:

[bigdamnhero]

What I was proposing was always having an NPC (not necessarily always the same one) written into every story. That way, if my friendly, unreliable player couldn't make it, the NPC could fade away, taking a smaller role in the story. If, however, he could make it, he'd have a character.

Yes, that requires Mr. Unreliable to play different characters and not the same one, but that is the compromise, IMO. I'd heard that other GMs often ahve NPCs available in case more people show than they're expecting and was hoping to get some wisdom from these types about what sort of NPCs to include.
Most of my games tend to have a lot of regular NPCs running around. Mostly, they're there for story-telling reasons. They also allow me to occassionally kill off "regular character" without killing a PC. And if a PC gets incapacitated (knocked out, captured, whatever), that player can run one of the NPCs until his PC was back on his feet so he doesn't get bored. And if we had a new player who wanted to try the group out, he could run one of the NPCs for awhile until he (and we) decided if he was going to be a regular player. The we could either retrofit the NPC up to the PCs level, or create a new PC for him. Seems Mr. Unreliable could work the same way.

For example, my Cthulupunk Hero game had three PCs who had formed a team of demon hunters. The PCs were the core of the team, but periodically various NPCs would join the team as well. None of these were built on as many points as the PCs, but a few were close. (Seems like this would be harder to do in superhero games, where generally you're either super or you're not.) Over time, some NPCs would be killed, crippled, or driven insane, or just decide they'd had enough and drift away, to be replaced by different characters. Sorta like the cast of Buffy over the years.

I've also seen the reverse happen, where Mr. Unreliable's PC becomes an NPC when he's not there. Of course, as an NPC he doesn't get any XP (of maybe 1/2 if we're feeling nice), so the player still has an incentive to show (apart from the game itself). In this case, Mr. Unreliable stopped showing up altogether (something I predicted when they invited the guy, but never mind) but we all liked the character so much we kept the NPC around anyway.

[Engage warstory mode: The PC/NPC was a metamorph who could turn into various animal forms: bat, tiger, etc. He eventually wanted to be able to turn into a dragon, but so far had only managed to learn (ie - could only afford) the breath attack. You'd be amazed how many times a fire-breathing bat can come in handy! They never saw it coming, and we never stopped laughing.]


bigdamnhero
“You can watch me or you can join me. One of them is more fun.”

[KA.]

DUDE!!
That was deep!

Can I quote you?

It would be an honor. :)
Sorry I took so long to reply.
I posted that and got really busy with school stuff, so I haven't been checking back in as often as I usually do.

Thanks to you too, pinecone.

Glad people liked the post,

KA.

[Thia Halmades]

Funny that should come up, actually. I just recently had a GNC moment for a PC during a fight with an Aboleth in the Epic War campaign - the one we're converting to HERO. The thing with the Aboleth is this:

- in HERO, it would have a Major 15pt. Transform and roll a googleplex of transform dice - from YOU to SKUM. The SKUM is perfectly loyal and becomes part of the evil Aboleth collective. Consider them not unlike d20 Borg.

- in d20, it's a Save or Die. Did you make the save? Then you're screwed. I tried to coordinate it so it would hit the Paladin, fail to work (this variant on Transform is a disease; Paladins are immune, hence, voila) and the Paladin would use his two Cure Diseases on the PCs and they would have a crewman transform for drama purposes. "Oh my G-d, he's changing! Into one of THEM!" Classic horror/sci-fi/dramatic moment. Right?

Yeah, right, except the PC was Invisible and Flying and the Aboleth tagged him anyway. He failed to communicate that he was done in, and by then, the Paladin had - get this - healed the crewman NPC and the other PC. Oops. There went that plan. So while I worked out a subplot for the PC, I drafted (and let him stat out) a Sea Ork Samurai. He played that NPC to the hilt while the party was trapped in Ravenloft, and seemed to really enjoy it.

Then he got Reincarnated as Tiefling. :eg:

[Savinien]

Gnc?

[Thia Halmades]

Oh, read as either:

Good Night Charlie or
Generate New Character.

GNC can also be seen as the singular form of the noun, TPK. ;)

[Vondy]

If its habitual, I talk to them once, and if it continues, I drop 'em like a hot rock.

[Savinien]

Oh, read as either:

Good Night Charlie or
Generate New Character.

GNC can also be seen as the singular form of the noun, TPK. ;)

Why would you answer a TLA question with another TLA? That's just being an ***. Or, fishing to get asked another question...

[Lamrok]

TPK = Total Party Kill

It can also be written as TPW, or Total Party Wipeout.

[Savinien]

TPK = Total Party Kill

It can also be written as TPW, or Total Party Wipeout.

Thanks!

I guess I'm just not an expert on all the lingo... I haven't used any of these in my decades of gaming, nor have I heard them used. Weird.

[AliceTheOwl]

Thanks!

I guess I'm just not an expert on all the lingo... I haven't used any of these in my decades of gaming, nor have I heard them used. Weird.
I suspect it's tied to the online aspect. Abbreviations are a lot easier to type.

[hancock.tom]

I never mind people that couldn't make it if they would just call so we could go ahead and start. I would usually ask them to come up with a good solution for what their character is going to be doing. However, if the person didn't call (which usually results in me waiting for them, a waste of everyone's time) I would come up with the evil GM reason your character isn't there.

Your frequently boozed up human swordsman couldn't make it tonight? He finally got locked up by the city watch. Meet Cletus, your orc cellmate, and Cletus' life partner, Bubba the love troll. Seriously though, we always had fun coming up with situations that explained the PC's absence while simultaneously providing serious disincentives for not showing up. Never actually used troll prison rape, but some of them were that embarrassing. I recall one druid (this was ad&d circa 1995) who was roleplayed as "easily distracted by nature" when the player was there.

As a group, we decided the PC got sidetracked chasing a pretty butterfly and missed the adventure.

[Thia Halmades]

Oh, damn, sorry Savinien, that is my fault. I assumed (yes, assumed, mea culpa) that TPK was a fairly common abbreviation that everyone on the boards knew. Again, my apologies. No attempt to be a jerk, just being clever with my response.

Which means it backfired, which happens.

GNC = Generate New Character or Good Night Charlie; character death.
TPK = Total Party Kill, usually as the result of some massive combat with an overpowered villain, although it can also be the result of horrendous decision making.

[hlndr]

I run a chat room game and had this problem. The player was excellent at the part he played but he was wishy washy about commiting. He's promise to show up and I'd wait (and somethimes other players would, too) and wait and then he'd IM me at the last minute and say he was too tired or had a headache or whatever. Then he'd stay up all night on messenger and chat with his girlfriend. He quit once on us but begged his way back in. The last time was the last time. It was killing morral. So I kicked him. It was hard because he played a major part and was...like I say...excellent at it. I didn't think we were going to be able to replace him. But we did...someone better tripped into our realm. If someone's taking the fun out of the game...then why keep them? we play because we enjoy it, right?:whip: :bounce: