PDA

View Full Version : Problems in joining and starting a campaign



Dire Moose
2015-02-16, 06:23 PM
I have been having a major problem with trying to run or play in an ongoing campaign.

My area supports a number of gaming groups. Problem is, each one is a very tight-knit circle of old friends with 7-9 players that inherently locks out new players due to cliqueism and overcrowding. I cannot join one of the established groups, and my only option for gaming is doing the public Pathfinder Society sessions, with which I have grown dissatisfied due to lack of consistency (a season 3 scenario one week might be followed by a season 1 scenario the next week and a season 6 one the week after that, with a completely random assortment of characters each time) and DM inflexibility under the excuse of "We must play the scenario and use the rules EXACTLY AS WRITTEN because this is Society!"

So I have been attempting to form my own by recruiting people at Pathfinder Society sessions. Unfortunately, that has not gone well. PFS in this area is composed entirely of players from the aforementioned overcrowded gaming cliques who apparently can't get enough of their home games and want a little extra occasionally, so all attempts at recruiting PFS players are rejected with "I'm already playing in Society and 2-3 different campaigns, so I have no time for yours. Oh, and you can't join any of the games I'm in because we have way too many players already."

I also will not do PbP games; I spend far too much time isolated at my computer already and don't want to become even more socially withdrawn than I already am.

I currently only have three players, one is my best friend and the other two are complete newcomers that happened to randomly show up at a PFS game once. I had a fourth but she bailed out when I didn't immediately cancel a game due to some bad weather. So here we are, less than the minimum number of players to run a game, nobody who is free games and nobody who games is free.

What should I do if I want a consistent campaign?

Beta Centauri
2015-02-16, 06:30 PM
Three players is plenty. Go with that and good luck.

Kid Jake
2015-02-16, 08:34 PM
Yeah, in fact I prefer small groups since each player has a chance to truly shine. I've got two excellent campaigns going at the moment (see signature) and both are mostly comprised of two players. My M&M game frequently has new players drop in and out that are drawn in by the three of us, but most sessions it's just me and the two of them; and it works out fantastic.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-16, 09:46 PM
What should I do if I want a consistent campaign?

Well, find more players. Look around, post adds and spread the word. There are likely a couple dozen gamers out and around...

Otherwise...you have the tried and true method of: Make your own gamers.

It happens. One day you find yourself with no gamer pals. No one you know or know of is a gamer. But you still want to game. What do you do? Make them!

Ask everybody! Yes, even him and her. Them too. Bring new people into the hobby. Now, sure you have to put up with them being newbies, but oh, well...better then no game right?

For example: My youth group did ''fun after school stuff to keep kids off the streets'' for a while. A lot were easy like having basketball games. But not ever kid does sports. So I came up with a great idea...D&D. And it worked out great. Like at least 100 of the kids had never played before...but they showed up and wanted to learn. And some of the kids are in their 20's now...and still gaming..a couple of them still game with me.

johnbragg
2015-02-16, 09:54 PM
Three players is plenty. Go with that and good luck.

Yes. Start with the three you have. If you're having fun, others might drift in. Or they might not, but if the four of you are having fun, then you win.

My current group had 4 players not so long ago, until word got around that they had a gaming group. Now there are 10 players. (Which is too many. But as a noob, I'm not saying anything.) :biggrin:

endur
2015-02-16, 10:00 PM
So first step is to identify a GM ... I will assume that you are GMing or one of the other three players is GMing.

Step #2 is identify a location. Playing at someone's house is easy and convenient. Playing at a game store makes recruiting much easiser because people who see you playing might ask if they can join your game.

Step #3 is to find additional players ...If none of the current players knows anyone, I would consider advertising ... most game stores have bulletin boards that you can advertise on for additional players ... you can also advertise online via meetup, and other online forums.

Also I'd contact the original player who bailed out due to bad weather and see if she is willing to play in nicer weather.

Dire Moose
2015-02-16, 11:03 PM
I am GMing this game.

I originally wanted to play at the local gaming store, but the other players didn't like the location as it was very loud and had a closing time. So we're doing a home game as a result.

I have had a poster up at said gaming store for a month now. Nobody has responded to it.

I have sent out a message to the local meetup board.

I only moved back into this area from college recently and most of my old friends who used to be into gaming have long since moved elsewhere.

And probably the most important part: I have already started the campaign. As soon as we got four players, we started running sessions and are currently in between sessions 2 and 3. The characters are now level 2. Any new players have to enter an already-running storyline.

The story of Player #4 is rather complicated. I live within a few minutes' drive of the two newcomers, and my best friend lives about half an hour away. Player #4 on the other hand lives 45 minutes to an hour away and usually has to drive through heavy traffic to get to us. This situation started when Player #4 said (completely out of the blue) yesterday that she couldn't come to today's session unless we held it at her house. I initially said yes, but then a snowstorm moved in and threatened to make driving difficult, I told her that we couldn't risk going there through the storm and had to hold it locally to be safe. She told us she was leaving the group as a result, claiming it wasn't right to hold a session at all under the circumstances. I did eventually have to call off the session entirely when the storm turned out worse than I had expected. I have told her she would be welcome at future sessions, but I doubt she will want to come anymore considering her reaction today.

I had two more people, one an old friend from college and the other a third PFS newcomer from the same session as the other two. Unfortunately, the former rarely answers me except to apologize for missing sessions when I ask him where he is, and the second constantly says he will make it and then bails out at the last second every time, citing "sorry I had to work" etc. To make matters worse he communicates entirely via email and ignored my request for a phone number, preventing me from having any reliable way to contact him quickly. I am trying to contact anyone else I know in the area (of which none are gamers, and newcomers having to create characters above first level is tough), but I do not have high hopes.

So in short, the problem is this: We have already been playing a game (Pathfinder) that is designed for a standard party size of 4-6. We suddenly do not have a party that can handle level-appropriate encounters as 2/3 of the players do not have sufficient knowledge of the game to go for high optimization, and there is no source of replacement players. The only solution I can think of is to design another character for the party to run collectively until I can somehow find a fourth player, but where and how to do this escapes me.

Kid Jake
2015-02-16, 11:20 PM
You could always let them gestalt to increase their overall power. It's not the same as a 4th body on the field but it's pretty darned helpful.

endur
2015-02-16, 11:28 PM
We have already been playing a game (Pathfinder) that is designed for a standard party size of 4-6. We suddenly do not have a party that can handle level-appropriate encounters as 2/3 of the players do not have sufficient knowledge of the game to go for high optimization, and there is no source of replacement players. The only solution I can think of is to design another character for the party to run collectively until I can somehow find a fourth player, but where and how to do this escapes me.

This is easy to solve, reduce the danger of the monsters. 3 Orcs with great axes becomes 2 goblins with short swords, etc.

I do not recommend adding another NPC to the party, either for yourself or the players to run, that is a really bad idea. It hurts role playing because as GM you can't role play a PC effectively because you are also role playing the NPCs. Also it can result in NPC vs. NPC combats, which are not as fun as PC vs. NPC combats. NPC vs. NPC takes the spotlight away from the PCs.

What if the party lacks a rogue or a cleric or a tank or some other important function that the missing player provided? Then the party will learn to cope. Maybe they will be more careful or spend their gold on potions, etc. If it is enough of an issue, one of the players will multi-class when they level up.

Gritmonger
2015-02-16, 11:31 PM
Really, stick with just a few folks. Especially if this is an early foray into DM-ing.

There isn't a right way to roleplay, or to run a group. Some people have one-on-one games, and they go fine. Others run ten at a time. Frankly, fewer is often better.

Flexibility.

And really, if you end up running a really good campaign, your players will spread the word for you and recruit others without you having to.

So, tops on the list: don't stress.
Don't compare yourself to others.
Don't worry about the "right" way to roleplay, or the "right" group.

Remember that having more people means having to please more people, as well as longer combats (as a general rule) and more risk of splitting the party.

huttj509
2015-02-17, 12:16 AM
The story of Player #4 is rather complicated. I live within a few minutes' drive of the two newcomers, and my best friend lives about half an hour away. Player #4 on the other hand lives 45 minutes to an hour away and usually has to drive through heavy traffic to get to us. This situation started when Player #4 said (completely out of the blue) yesterday that she couldn't come to today's session unless we held it at her house. I initially said yes, but then a snowstorm moved in and threatened to make driving difficult, I told her that we couldn't risk going there through the storm and had to hold it locally to be safe. She told us she was leaving the group as a result, claiming it wasn't right to hold a session at all under the circumstances. I did eventually have to call off the session entirely when the storm turned out worse than I had expected. I have told her she would be welcome at future sessions, but I doubt she will want to come anymore considering her reaction today.

For my group I'm the one driving 45 mins or so near rush hour (the others work together, or are married to the ones who work together, and we meet at their workplace). 3rd week in a row our weekly game's been cancelled (and I look forward to it every week), so I get the frustration with cancelling. At least this time I didn't get the cancel message when I was halfway there.

However, I have to agree with player 4 that if the weather's too bad for 1, 2, and 3 to go to 4, it's too bad for 4 to go to 1, 2, and 3. Better way of handling it would have been "we can't go there due to weather, we'll need to hold it here or cancel for the week," giving 4 the opportunity to either say "don't cancel on my account, I'll see you next week" or "yeah, the weather's not cooperating, we can meet next week." Or to just cancel.

My gut reaction is that something came up with 4 unexpectedly that delayed 4's normal schedule for travel, hence needing to meet out there. "Let's meet here" rather than "I can't make it" implied she did want to participate, and your shift back due to weather could have come across as a dismissal, knowing she couldn't make it due to the same weather. Especially with stress of dealing with timing and traffic (for my travel, my only options seem to be to get there half an hour early, or 15 mins late. You'd think there'd be something in between if I leave 4 mins later/earlier or something, but it sure doesn't seem that way).

Establish group rules for "what happens if someone can't make it." Session cancelled? Character disappear for a session? Someone else plays the character? Reschedule for another day?

It will come up in any group at some point.

Solaris
2015-02-17, 08:48 AM
Three players is plenty. Go with that and good luck.

I agree with this. My current Skype game has just two players. While I wouldn't necessarily recommend going with the solution I am (everyone, even the DM, is running two PCs), even just a party of three is workable. If you're concerned about them keeping parity, let one, some, or all of them get a cohort (whether you run the cohort or they do is up to you).

aspekt
2015-02-17, 09:47 AM
I have regularly DM'd for only 2-3 players. That number is fine. I'm not sure what is holding you back.

prufock
2015-02-17, 10:07 AM
I currently only have three players, one is my best friend and the other two are complete newcomers that happened to randomly show up at a PFS game once.
Start with those 3. Three players is generally my minimum, but trios make for good games. You can always leave the option open for more players to join.

Keeping players can be harder, especially if they're new. Ask them what they liked and didn't like about the PFS games, what they'd like to do and see in the upcoming game, and try to include some of those elements. Wear kid gloves for the first session or two; dying will probably turn them off if it happens too early. Run a fun session. Don't be afraid to let them try out of the box things. Give each one enough play time. Have something awesome happen to climax and wrap up the session.

Keep them interested and they will come back.

Dire Moose
2015-02-17, 10:40 AM
We're lucky in that a cleric, fighter, and inquisitor have most of the bases covered, but the effective party level is still only 75% of what it should be. For example, when the players face the BBEG of the first half of the campaign, they're expected to be level 5 and handling 5th level encounters with the occasional 6-7th level encounter regularly. The BBEG and his minions were to be equivalent to a 7.5; challenging, but not overpowering. However, with three players instead of four, their effective party level will be 3.75 instead of 5. Fighting the BBEG and his minions at that level would be a much more difficult encounter, almost four levels higher than the party and close to a 50% chance of TPK.

I suppose I could reduce the level of some of the encounters, but then the in-universe stuff wouldn't make sense anymore. Why would a powerful half-fiend antipaladin's elite guards only be level 1? Or why would a high-level wizard have left behind only small elementals to guard the sealed portal to Hell instead of the medium ones he was going to use?

To make it even more ludicrous, imagine a group of 6.75-level characters (the APL of three level 9 characters) trying to get through the Tomb of Horrors. No way that's going to NOT result in TPK.

goto124
2015-02-17, 10:45 AM
Are your players that concerned about realism and such minute detail? I would think they won't mind if it means having challenges they can actually face.

hewhosaysfish
2015-02-17, 10:51 AM
I suppose I could reduce the level of some of the encounters, but then the in-universe stuff wouldn't make sense anymore. Why would a powerful half-fiend antipaladin's elite guards only be level 1? Or why would a high-level wizard have left behind only small elementals to guard the sealed portal to Hell instead of the medium ones he was going to use?

I don't understand.

It's not as though you have to scale back "a powerful half-fiend antipaladin's elite guards" from level 16 to level 1; it will be from level level 2 to level 1 or from level 16 to level 15 or whatever.

Or maybe you go from 5 level 9 guards to 4 level 9 guards. Does this really shatter the internal consistency of the scenario?

Cazero
2015-02-17, 10:58 AM
I don't understand.

It's not as though you have to scale back "a powerful half-fiend antipaladin's elite guards" from level 16 to level 1; it will be from level level 2 to level 1 or from level 16 to level 15 or whatever.

Or maybe you go from 5 level 9 guards to 4 level 9 guards. Does this really shatter the internal consistency of the scenario?

Even simpler : same level, smaller hit dices. Enemies are mostly handled with a save or suck (where having one more party member doesn't change a thing if he's not a spellcaster) or HP damage.

Dire Moose
2015-02-17, 12:25 PM
OK, I think I've got it figured out for now. I'll keep the existing stuff the same, but add more adventures in between what I've already designed to allow the characters a few extra level-ups. If I do find a fourth player I'll go back to the initial plans or make the remaining stuff tougher.

Thank you for your help.

prufock
2015-02-17, 12:47 PM
We're lucky in that a cleric, fighter, and inquisitor have most of the bases covered, but the effective party level is still only 75% of what it should be.
Actually, halving the number of PCs only reduces the party level by 2. If you had 2 players instead of 4 at level 6, your party level would be 3. With 3 players, it's 4.2. Your CR 7.5 example is still in the "very difficult" category, not overpowering. It will be harder than for 4 players, but not by as much as you seem to think. If you want to lower the challenge, remove a minion or two.

mephnick
2015-02-17, 12:47 PM
Sounds like you've planned a bit too specifically. You should be able to adjust encounters or your entire campaign on the fly. Having 3 players or 8 players shouldn't matter if you haven't over prepared.

If you expect them to fight "half-fiend paladin's elite guards" on week 6, no matter what, someone's probably going to be disappointed.

Dire Moose
2015-02-17, 01:02 PM
DERP! I forgot this bit of info from the Pathfinder SRD.


If your group contains three or fewer players, subtract one from their average level.

So really, it's not going to be as difficult as I thought.

Synovia
2015-02-19, 01:39 PM
. This situation started when Player #4 said (completely out of the blue) yesterday that she couldn't come to today's session unless we held it at her house. I initially said yes, but then a snowstorm moved in and threatened to make driving difficult, I told her that we couldn't risk going there through the storm and had to hold it locally to be safe. She told us she was leaving the group as a result, claiming it wasn't right to hold a session at all under the circumstances. I did eventually have to call off the session entirely when the storm turned out worse than I had expected. I have told her she would be welcome at future sessions, but I doubt she will want to come anymore considering her reaction today.



The correct answer would have been "That stinks - we'll see you next week" - trying to accommodate everyone usually just ends up with everyone upset. What would have you done if you'd been able to run the game at her house, and one of the local players said "I'm not driving all the way over there".

Run a session every week with the assumption that sometimes players can't show up. Adults have things going on- side-bar it... "Grogthor the mage had too much to drink, and is vomiting in the corner".. and move forward. She's being selfish here by trying to not allow you to play without her - but shes doing that because you just made her the focus and then took it away, so she feels victimized. Make it clear that as long as you have some sort of quorum (1/2 the players or whatever you decide) - you're going to play.

As long as you set reasonable expectations - people aren't going to get upset - it's when you get them expecting something and then pull it away that they do.

Mr Beer
2015-02-19, 09:43 PM
1. Three players is fine. I've run multi-year long campaigns with two players before.

2. If someone can't make it for whatever reason, they don't get to demand venue changes or unilaterally cancel the gaming session. Player #4 sounds annoying.

3. If all these clique-groups are overfull of players, there will be dropouts sooner or later. Run low level recruitment campaigns online and in stores every few months. I've acquired 2 players this way, both of whom popped up months after I thought my notice was long forgotten.