PDA

View Full Version : Rant: Text me in advance so I can give you an ambiguous answer.



MonkeySage
2015-09-13, 01:20 PM
So, I keep trying to get a game organized and I've had players who tell me to let them know I'm gonna try running a game. But when I ask them if they're gonna make it, "I don't know" is all they can say. The day of the game, "can you make it?" "I don't know". At the last minute, I've let my players know I'm gonna try running the game and I text the players "Can you make it?" "I don't know" "Yea" "No"

I'm trying desperately to put a broken game back together, I don't want to abandon the group, some of the players are obviously invested in the story which took me two years to write.

But I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle.

To be fair, the flakey players(more than one) have lives that are completely out of their control. I'm balancing school work and trying to get enough study time in, I only really have one chance a week to run a game... I try to let my players know that I'm gonna try a game and they tell me to let them know a day in advance, but they won't let me know until t he last minute whether or not they can actually make it. So I spent all that time getting ready and only one player shows up, then we spend the next 2 hours waiting for a final answer and I end up cancelling... again.

Honest Tiefling
2015-09-13, 01:22 PM
Quick question, are the flakey players the same ones as the invested ones? And have you told them your problems?

I take it that skype games (less transportation issues, if people have children they can check on them, etc.) and play by posts are not a viable solution here.

Knaight
2015-09-13, 01:23 PM
Ah, logistics. It's always the worst aspect of any group activity, and the killer of RPG campaigns in particular. It sucks that you're now on the bad end of getting screwed over by logistics, but it's really not the fault of any of your players. Life is just getting in the way.

Kid Jake
2015-09-13, 01:59 PM
I know just how you feel, my RL group is the same way, there's only the three of us so if we all can't get together there's not much point in playing. Every time we see a glimmer of stability we schedule a game, but something invariably comes up that makes it impossible again.

I'd advise you to do the same thing that I did: If the game's falling apart and people are still invested in the story, find a way to end it gracefully and wrap things up. My M&M game had a considerable amount of content still planned but when it started taking 4-6 months between sessions, and then THOSE sessions started getting cut short, we all decided it was time to bring some closure to the characters and try to meet back up after things got less hectic.

It's sad to see a lengthy campaign come to an end, but it's even sadder for it to just sort of...stop.

valadil
2015-09-13, 02:54 PM
Ditch them! Find players who appreciate you. GMing is a lot of work even when the players do show up. It's impossible when you have to herd and wrangle them.

Thrawn4
2015-09-13, 06:28 PM
The day of the game, "can you make it?" "I don't know". At the last minute, I've let my players know I'm gonna try running the game and I text the players "Can you make it?" "I don't know" "Yea" "No"


I find it difficult to imagine a schedule where you do not know what you are going to do in two hours. What's so complicated about their lives?
Also, I feel your pain. You can test their conviction by asking them to try and organize a game session.

Knaight
2015-09-13, 06:56 PM
I find it difficult to imagine a schedule where you do not know what you are going to do in two hours. What's so complicated about their lives?

I don't find this difficult to imagine at all, and know a few people in this situation. Usually it's because they're either getting screwed over by their job, and the scheduling works out to perpetually being on call even when there's absolutely no reason for that to be the case, or some sort of screwy personal dynamic wherein someone else (usually a spouse) can just tell them on super short notice that they're going to go somewhere and then they go do it. Then there was gaming back before everyone was an adult, where almost everyone had pretty good schedules and then there was that one person with the parents who thought ten minutes in advance was ample warning for things like going across the country for two weeks.


Ditch them! Find players who appreciate you. GMing is a lot of work even when the players do show up. It's impossible when you have to herd and wrangle them.
There's no particular reason to think the players don't appreciate the GMing. Logistics is just its own special kind of awful regardless.

Thrawn4
2015-09-15, 05:47 AM
Usually it's because they're either getting screwed over by their job, and the scheduling works out to perpetually being on call even when there's absolutely no reason for that to be the case, or some sort of screwy personal dynamic wherein someone else (usually a spouse) can just tell them on super short notice that they're going to go somewhere and then they go do it.
Being on call constantly would be defined as no in my world, as they clearly cannot make sure that they are available. But that might just be my own opinion. If the spouse can just tell a player to cancel their plans just because (ignoring actual important events here) then the player is either not comitted or has some serious problems IMHO.

Keltest
2015-09-15, 06:50 AM
Being on call constantly would be defined as no in my world, as they clearly cannot make sure that they are available. But that might just be my own opinion. If the spouse can just tell a player to cancel their plans just because (ignoring actual important events here) then the player is either not comitted or has some serious problems IMHO.

I agree. "I dunno" shouldn't even be a response within two hours. Either you can guarantee the time is free, or you cant.

As for the spouse, unless theyre either taking you with them or need you to stay and watch the paint dry or something, I don't see how their activities should impact your schedule.

Garimeth
2015-09-15, 07:33 AM
Quick question, how many players are there and what's your minimum required to run a session?

I have 5 players and will not run with less than 3. If by the day before I have not got 3 people locked on I send a text saying there will be no game so the rest of us can make other plans. I also don't take "maybes" as a hopeful yes. In my group we are all adults, a non-committal answer is very adolescent and not very respectful of everybody else's time, I will call people out on it in a heartbeat - but to be fair we are all military so I can be very blunt without really worrying much about egos or hurt feelings.

In regards to their out of control schedule. Sometimes I just get that player by themselves and ask them if they have the time to game or not. Sometimes people don't want to give up a hobby but really don't have the time or interest any more, but they still want to be friends and for some reason they think that means they need to keep playing. IDK, but I have had to explain to several gaming pals that we can still be friends, we just may not game together. Strange, I know, but to be fair most of these people were in their early 20s.

TheCountAlucard
2015-09-15, 09:36 AM
"I got 42 'Maybes,' Bob - who can plan for that?!?"

DireSickFish
2015-09-15, 09:54 AM
Logistics is the biggest reason I prefer to play instead of DM. You are in charge of organization as well as all of the stuff involved with actually running the game.

I'm typically a confident and self assured person. When it comes to running it's easy to feel like no one wants to play with you and don't want you running games. When in reality it's just a fussy schedule.

Might be best to take a break from gaming. Trying to set up the game can be stressful and if odds are you aren't going to play anyway might as well not go through that stress. If they ask let them know the logistic problems you face, and if they want to play you're more than happy to run but someone else has to handle the organization.

Mr.Moron
2015-09-15, 09:59 AM
Can you make it? Yes or No. I'm counting all "I don't knows" as "Nos" as of X number days before the game.

Knaight
2015-09-15, 10:49 AM
Logistics is the biggest reason I prefer to play instead of DM. You are in charge of organization as well as all of the stuff involved with actually running the game.
This doesn't actually have to be the case. It's a bit of a community tradition among RPG players, but you can pretty much tell it to go stuff it. My group tries to get the GM, host, and logistics-organizer to be three different people whenever possible, or at least not all the same person.

Hawkstar
2015-09-15, 01:15 PM
I agree. "I dunno" shouldn't even be a response within two hours. Either you can guarantee the time is free, or you cant.
You may not be able to guarantee the time is free, but you can't rule it out, either. SOs and parents can be particularly bad with this sort of thing.

CombatBunny
2015-09-15, 01:20 PM
From my point of view, as long as there is one GM and at least one Player, you have everything needed to start rolling dice, set loose your imagination and have a great time.

In my group we have a schedule; we play once a week at a determined hour. I plan adventures so I can remove and bring back PCs at any time (there are many techniques to achieve this), so there is no problem if a player doesn’t show up. As long as someone shows up, we play.

There is an exception though; if a certain player doesn’t wants to miss the story and wants me to include more of her character’s background and motivations into the main plot, she has to earn that right. Once a player has proved that she is a constant player and is invested in the game, then she can tell me “Next week I won’t be able to come”, and the session will be canceled.

mephnick
2015-09-15, 09:32 PM
I find it difficult to imagine a schedule where you do not know what you are going to do in two hours. What's so complicated about their lives?.

Found the dude with no kids.

Edit: Not to say I don't set apart time to game, but dropping out at the last second because of a family thing has happened to me like 5 times in the last 2 months.

Milo v3
2015-09-15, 09:44 PM
My groups having the same issue because of uni + jobs. Haven't had a game in over two months as a result.

Raimun
2015-09-16, 03:51 AM
Yeah, it can be tricky to get a handful of people together when it's okay for everyone.

However, about everyone should be able to give most of the time yes or no answers to the question "Are you free at this time juncture?" I don't know about all of you but the alternative would drive me mad in a very short time. :smalltongue:

Anyway, good coordination works wonders. For example, a Facebook-group (or something similar that you all use) is a lot more coordinated than texting. That way, all the planning and actual plans for the game night are in one place and everyone can see them.

Rhaegar14
2015-09-16, 04:19 AM
This is a frequent issue in our group; some people have jobs, some people are on a school schedule. The students are free on weekends and busy the rest of the week, the people working in restaurants are pretty much not free on weekends.

We have settled on Friday morning-afternoon as our weekly game day, but stuff still frequently comes up. For some reason it tends to come in bursts; we'll have a month or two when we have weekly sessions because the scheduling stars align, and then we'll have a month or two where we can't play because SOMEBODY has somewhere to be every week. As of now we haven't played in four or five weeks (but this week is looking promising!). Our group is made up of five people.

Our primary D&D campaign is very story and character-driven, so we basically refuse to play if any one person can't make it. However, one solution we came up with that you might be able to adapt to your group is that we started a second Deadlands campaign that's a much more casual, episode-of-the-week type thing where we all take turns GMing. We'll play Deadlands that week if one person can't show up (if two people can't make it, however, that's not really enough players to run any game).

Would splitting DMing responsibility with another person (through a secondary campaign or somesuch) be helpful to you?

Thrawn4
2015-09-16, 04:23 AM
Found the dude with no kids.

Edit: Not to say I don't set apart time to game, but dropping out at the last second because of a family thing has happened to me like 5 times in the last 2 months.

Guilty as charged.
That said, I know it's not really any of my business, but I am curious as to what happened in the last minute that often.

Elvenoutrider
2015-09-16, 11:38 AM
Well the first piece of advice that I will give is that when you hit a certain Agee, running a weekly game is no longer practical. This is a wall im hitting myself. It can be hard to write enough every week to keep things going.

As for the players, you need to figure out if they are actually as busy as they say or if they are keeping you on the back burner while making other plans. If this is the case, make all plans assuming they can't make it.

Skype made my life far easier because it removes the stress gf commuting location and even obviated the need to wear clothing for a session of the camera is off. In addition, Skype opens up your pool f players considerable as distance is no longer an issue. It worked wonders for me

Knaight
2015-09-16, 12:39 PM
Yeah, it can be tricky to get a handful of people together when it's okay for everyone.

This right here is a big part of the reason I favor smaller groups. Logistics difficulty seems to be some sort of nasty exponential function of the number of people involved, where every new person added at least doubles the logistics difficulty. There are a few exceptions to this - getting two room mates when one of them is hosting, people with nearly identical schedules; generally it holds.

Rhaegar14
2015-09-16, 07:25 PM
This right here is a big part of the reason I favor smaller groups. Logistics difficulty seems to be some sort of nasty exponential function of the number of people involved, where every new person added at least doubles the logistics difficulty. There are a few exceptions to this - getting two room mates when one of them is hosting, people with nearly identical schedules; generally it holds.

This is the reason why, after a person recently dropped out of our group, I'm really hesitant to let new people join unless they are consistently free for our weekly session. Small groups make everything MUCH easier.

Pluto!
2015-09-16, 09:00 PM
The dirty secret in RPGs is that "campaigns" are the absolute worst way of gaming.

Short games with small groups are far and away the best way to have positive experiences and get your gaming fix - throw 5 invitations out, get 3 people to turn up, and still have fun playing detectives or murderhobos for a couple hours and do it again the next week.

Think Buffy's monster-of-the-week with whichever characters happen to be at hand, not Walking Dead's continued character drama.

EDIT: It's also easier to dump those folks whose invitations you immediately regret.

Solaris
2015-09-17, 04:00 PM
The dirty secret in RPGs is that "campaigns" are the absolute worst way of gaming.

Short games with small groups are far and away the best way to have positive experiences and get your gaming fix - throw 5 invitations out, get 3 people to turn up, and still have fun playing detectives or murderhobos for a couple hours and do it again the next week.

Think Buffy's monster-of-the-week with whichever characters happen to be at hand, not Walking Dead's continued character drama.

EDIT: It's also easier to dump those folks whose invitations you immediately regret.

I agree. I hold off planning big campaigns until I can be assured of players' reliability and steady schedules.

JusticeZero
2015-09-24, 09:30 AM
I found that online gaming causes more attendance issues, not less. People don't take it seriously.

mephnick
2015-09-24, 12:39 PM
Guilty as charged.
That said, I know it's not really any of my business, but I am curious as to what happened in the last minute that often.

Just usual stuff. It's not always "last minute" I guess, but the day of for sure.

The problem with having kids is that it isn't just the kids, if something happens to your wife that means you're unavailable as well...because someone has to watch the kids.

Wife getting called in or held over for overtime (nurse) means I have to watch the kid. This often happens just before I have to leave.

Wife or kid gets really sick, she needs the back-up for various reasons. Happens a lot during 2nd+ pregnancy.

It usually doesn't happen regularly, but I've definitely had some really bad months in terms of dropping out.

Lappy9001
2015-09-24, 01:13 PM
Sometimes it takes a while to find a group where everyone is able to commit regularly and even then that can change sporadically. How far are you into this campaign? Would it be worth it to take the notes and experience from running part of it already and apply it to a fresh group? Perhaps you could acquire a new group who can fully commit and keep your current group "on-call" where you play whenever the stars align. That way, if you have to skip a few sessions, it's no biggie because you still have that other group going strong.

Solaris
2015-09-25, 10:09 AM
I found that online gaming causes more attendance issues, not less. People don't take it seriously.

I've found that to be true with PbP, and can't speak enough about how much I deeply resent it as a DM when people lack the decency to at least let me know when they're dropping the game, but I haven't found that to be the case with Skype gaming.
The caveat to that, of course, is that most of my Skype gaming has been with people I know in real life; one of them being my brother, the other my wife. That may skew things a bit.

Raimun
2015-09-25, 01:59 PM
This right here is a big part of the reason I favor smaller groups. Logistics difficulty seems to be some sort of nasty exponential function of the number of people involved, where every new person added at least doubles the logistics difficulty. There are a few exceptions to this - getting two room mates when one of them is hosting, people with nearly identical schedules; generally it holds.

Of course, when a group reaches a certain size, (I would say GM+four players) it's almost mandatory to introduce a new "protocol". You play even if one person is missing. Even if it is an ongoing campaign and important things are about to happen. Otherwise there will five players who don't get to play that week, instead of only one. I insist that every time (once in a blue moon) when I can't make it to the gaming night.

With bigger groups you can increase "the number of acceptable losses". I've played in groups so big that we played even if two or three people couldn't make it.

This makes the logistics a bit easier.

Anxe
2015-09-26, 12:36 AM
This happened to my group and we took a break from playing D&D for about a year.

Raimun
2015-09-26, 01:52 AM
This happened to my group and we took a break from playing D&D for about a year.

Yeah, that's a good solution.

As in not.

(Not assuming you played other games than D&D during that time.)

Solaris
2015-09-26, 08:04 AM
Well, it certainly beats everyone getting frustrated with one another for their flakiness.

Anxe
2015-09-27, 12:38 AM
Yeah, that's a good solution.

As in not.

(Not assuming you played other games than D&D during that time.)

We played a Starcraft 2 during that time because its shorter and doesn't require as much scheduling. It's not a solution for everyone but it worked for us.