PDA

View Full Version : DM Help "No, we're not 'booting' you..."



Imbalance
2019-12-17, 09:18 AM
"...but we're moving game night back to its original schedule. I'm glad you were able to join our in-progress campaign when we first rescheduled to accommodate you, but we have now had to cancel four weeks in a row because you couldn't make it. I hope you understand that we would like to continue and would love to have you be a part of it whenever you can. However, we are no longer going to halt our plans if you cannot."

This is an imaginary conversation that I am soon to have. How does it sound?

This player has been my most enthusiastic, but is also dependent on others for transportation. We moved our sessions to a week night despite school and work commitments shortening table time just so he could jump in, but now we haven't played in a month due to other scheduling conflicts on his part. The rest of my players aren't upset or angry but visibly disappointed, so I made the decision to get things rolling again with or without him. My shortcoming is that I haven't had much direct communication with him outside of the game, and I feel like news of this should come from me while also being concerned that he should get word as soon as possible so he can potentially make arrangements. To that end, I already asked someone else to reach out about the date switch and to extend my contact info with apologies in hopes that we can find mutually amicable solutions in the future. My gut is roiling with detestable optimism...

I'm new at this, so the entire situation compels me to ask: is this par for the DM course or am I being a ham fisted tyrant?

Whyrocknodie
2019-12-17, 09:55 AM
It is not merely par for the course but a vital step in enjoying actual gaming.

Even better, routinely play on if someone can't make it - only cancel the game if you're down more than 25% is my usual approach.

16bearswutIdo
2019-12-17, 10:05 AM
Yep, totally fine. Very diplomatic. Maybe throw something in there about how they can play some kind of reoccurring character that won't be there unless they are?

I do the same system Whyrocknodie said. I run a group for 4 players, and only cancel sessions if we're missing 2 or more people OR if it's a big session I want everyone there for. That way people don't feel terrible for not being able to make a session, and we still get to play.

GrayDeath
2019-12-17, 11:03 AM
Dipkomatic, fair, every Player should understand it the way you present it.

Still, if hes your most enthusiastic, lets hope he manages to get into the game even if its not rescheduled for him.

Maybe talk to him about you running his charater in times when he cant make it?

CombatBunny
2019-12-17, 11:08 AM
I think is a mistake to wait for everyone to be in the session in order to play.

For me, two players are enough to play and if there are missing characters, I state at the beginning of the session:

“Missing characters decided that they would explore an alternate cave and tell you later about their findings. You will meet as soon as those players return to the session”

“A, B and C players decided that they need some rest but don’t want to slow the rest of the party, they will rejoin when they feel better”

“X and Y players where sucked by a dimensional trap in the dungeon, they will reappear as soon as those players come again”

"PC1 and PC2 are suppossed to be travelling with you, just ignore them until they show up again. Monsters and traps won't be affecting them"

Etc.

The only drawback for those players is that they won't be earning XP for those sessions.

Of course, you will have to polish your improvisation skills to adjust the encounters and the story to the ones that are present. Also, I only include character driven motivations and backgrounds for the ones that show regularly and even in those cases I have backup plans so that the story can still go on even if they miss that session.

kyoryu
2019-12-17, 11:57 AM
There's a few things here:

1) You should play even if down a person. Figure it out. Lots of suggestions have been given.
2) Everybody is going to miss a game on occasion. The only question is the frequency.
3) If the frequency is too much, I recommend having a discussion before booting. "You are welcome at the table, however, this behavior is not." I phrase it that way because it's a generic speech that can apply to just about anything. In this case it's "you have to show up". Set explicit boundaries, and make the consequences clear. If there's other related issues (not giving notice), address those as well. Then, if the behavior is not up to the agreed-upon standards, then you can boot him without guilt.

If you do end up booting him for scheduling related reasons, I'd definitely take the approach of "look, we love gaming with you, but it doesn't seem compatible with your schedule right now. When things clear up a bit, let us know."

ngilop
2019-12-17, 12:07 PM
I apologize for the inconvenience, but, we're moving game night back to its original schedule. I'm glad you were able to participate in the campaign , but we have now had to cancel four weeks in a row because you couldn't make it. I hope you understand that we all would like to continue and love to have you be a part of it.

This is sounds a lot better than starting out the way you originally propose with a heavy dose of passive aggressiveness amongst other things.

Pro-Tips for effective communication.
1. Be empathetic
2. Be neutral, practical, and specific
3. Understand the other party's needs and values
4. Accept and voice you feelings about the situation, without directing blame.
*note the above is not all inclusive.

You original idea of what to say was horrific and down right insulting. At least try to be nice.

kyoryu
2019-12-17, 12:24 PM
Specifically, I'd say something like this:

"We love having you in our game and would love to keep having you in our game. However, your schedule seems to be getting in the way of that. And while that's not necessarily your fault, it's also not fair to the rest of the group.

"We specifically moved the game to this night to accommodate you, and we do not regret that. However, we can't keep doing that if you're not going to show up -the rest of us have other things going on, and the game being on this night has impact on a number of people in the group. If we're going to game on this night to include you, we really do need you to be here at least half of the time. If that's not something you can commit to, then I think it would be best for everyone if you rejoined us when your schedule allows for it. But if your schedule doesn't allow for it, we should be adult about this and do something that makes sense for everyone.

"Is there something going on that we can help with to make attending easier? And, to reiterate, we love playing with you, and even if you can't make the games now, we would absolutely love to have you back in when your schedule clears up."

This is where the dialog opens up and you find out why they haven't been able to make it, and if necessary get SUPER specific about what the short-term requirements are. Like "make 2 of the next four sessions, at a minimum", or whatever number you feel is fair.

And then, outside of serious extenuating circumstances, STICK TO IT.

As a pattern, this welcomes the player, explains the problematic behavior, explains how it's impacting the rest of the group, and then provides specific boundaries.

Jay R
2019-12-17, 12:34 PM
I once told my players:

When you can't make it, you have two choices:


1. Your character will not be active. He will get no share in xps, and will not be at risk, until you return.
2. You can designate somebody to play your character. He will be subject to the same risks, and get the same xps, as anybody else.

I did not set any rules for dividing treasure. That's the party's business, not the DM's.

Imbalance
2019-12-17, 03:47 PM
Thank you all for the advice.

I just want to be clear that my opening line is not as crass as it comes across on screen, as I believe I know this player well enough to expect certain outcomes. As I said, it's an imagined conversation, and the example is just one of many ways it could go, but yeah, my anticipation is that his first response will be along the lines of, "what? You're kicking me out?"
To which I will reply with the assurance that I am not and that he remains welcome at our table.

I suppose we should have been playing through all along, but notice was often short. We had to admit that it was better use of everyone else's time to tend to the weekday commitments that we had set aside rather than try to get the session squeezed in on an already inconvenient night, always with the look ahead to the following week. We were making it work for his sake, and we still can when we may rely on his attendance. Going forward, we will play when it requires the least amount of sacrifice from the majority while staying flexible enough to add him when his presence is guaranteed.

They've also suggested having him join remotely. I personally don't prefer it, but there are a plethora of options to explore. I'll see what he thinks, maybe try some things out. Mostly I'm exited for the party to move beyond the next milestone.

False God
2019-12-17, 08:30 PM
I play in a 3-person game, which IMO is too few players to begin with and we regularly cancel when one can't show. However if you have a more standard group size 4-6 players, one person missing out shouldn't be a reason to cancel the entire session.

IMO you're using too many words.

"The Group talked it over and the group will be moving back to it's original schedule."
-It's straight forward, it doesn't say anything about the guy who is missing and it's clearly not up for discussion.
then
"If you would like to participate you're welcome to play when you can as a come-and-go party member."
-You leave the door open to them continuing to participate on your terms, without saying anything about blame for canceled sessions.


If he makes a fuss, then you can roll out how you moved the whole game to make room for this guy to play, and he's canceled a month in a row, and the group doesn't want to be beholden to his schedule, especially if he regularly can't make his own schedule.

I mean, be prepared for him to make a fuss, he's human after all, humans tend to be fussy. But if laying blame can be avoided, avoid it. He's not acting maliciously and clearly wants to play, and you want him to play, so what's blame gonna get anyone but a sore nose?

Leon
2019-12-18, 06:59 AM
The needs of the greater number of players outweigh the lesser. Its good that you changed things for them but if they are not there at this new better time for them repeatedly then its best to go back to what was working prior for the rest of the group.

Delta
2019-12-18, 09:20 AM
Honestly, from someone who's been on both ends of conversations like this: It's much more important to come off as honest rather than have the objectively best possible speech rehearsed.

You can say all the right things, but if all the guy feels he's hearing is the typical polite phrasing you get when your job application is rejected, it won't mean anything, and even worse, if he realizes you've rehearsed this speech he might easily feel even more cornered and pushed out since he did not have time to prepare for this discussion.

kyoryu
2019-12-18, 10:31 AM
Honestly, from someone who's been on both ends of conversations like this: It's much more important to come off as honest rather than have the objectively best possible speech rehearsed.

You can say all the right things, but if all the guy feels he's hearing is the typical polite phrasing you get when your job application is rejected, it won't mean anything, and even worse, if he realizes you've rehearsed this speech he might easily feel even more cornered and pushed out since he did not have time to prepare for this discussion.

Agreed 100%. I think there are points that need to be hit, but it's important that it's an open, honest conversation. And that means time for the other player to air their thoughts, and what the group can do to help them.

Last I kicked out a player, it went similarly, and we came up with a number of things to help the player. Ultimately, it still didn't work out, but I think that setting the firm boundaries and at least trying was important.

Cygnia
2019-12-18, 11:49 AM
I really wish my GM would put some steel in his damn spine and boot This One Player who can't be bothered to show up for game day -- ever. But TOP keeps joking and trolling about his character in our chat and the GM has stated that he'll level up with the rest of us 'cause the GM is too damn nice to put his foot down or let actions have consequences.

No one ever wants to be the bad guy and be the enforcer. :smallfurious:

Delta
2019-12-18, 07:11 PM
On the other hand, since apparently you still play even when he doesn't show up, is that really that big a deal to get worked up about?

Cygnia
2019-12-18, 10:25 PM
Considering the fact the guy is supposed to be our healer, it kinda is...

Delta
2019-12-19, 06:37 AM
Is it really? It's not like a healer would magically appear out of thin air once you boot that guy from the group.

Psyren
2019-12-19, 09:58 AM
This is sounds a lot better than starting out the way you originally propose with a heavy dose of passive aggressiveness amongst other things.

Pro-Tips for effective communication.
1. Be empathetic
2. Be neutral, practical, and specific
3. Understand the other party's needs and values
4. Accept and voice you feelings about the situation, without directing blame.
*note the above is not all inclusive.

You original idea of what to say was horrific and down right insulting. At least try to be nice.

This. Even mentioning "booting" is unnecessarily direct.

kyoryu
2019-12-19, 10:01 AM
This. Even mentioning "booting" is unnecessarily direct.

Exactly. Set boundaries. Be assertive, not aggressive.

Leon
2019-12-20, 02:31 AM
Considering the fact the guy is supposed to be our healer, it kinda is...

Many ways around not having a healer

farothel
2019-12-20, 10:55 AM
I've just followed a course on empathic communication and I don't see anything wrong with your statement. Wording can Always be debated, but it looks fine to me.

In our group we have a different approach to missing players. We have one game that we play when everyone can make it (as the game sort of needs most of the party to be present) and we have another game (which I GM) that is used when not everyone can make it. I also want a minimum group there (at least 3 people out of 5 players), but if we have that minimum, I'll lead.
As my game is Star Trek, it's fairly easy to have people not there: "person X is on a different assignment, so he/she won't be joining you."
And since Starfleet believes in cross-training, most skills are present in more than one character (even if at lower levels), so they are back-up of each other.

Jay R
2019-12-20, 11:19 AM
It makes sense to reschedule to allow somebody to play. It's often worth it for the majority to sacrifice a little (going to a slightly worse time slot) to help one person play.

But it's not worth it to sacrifice and then not help that person play.

Grey Watcher
2019-12-20, 11:52 AM
I do think a prepared monologue is not the way to go here. It kinda comes off as a "We're not firing you, but we're downsizing so we have to let you go" kind of thing. The reasons aren't really any comfort to the person on the other end of that speech. Only in this case, it's not even the white lie of "It's not you, it's us" because, well, you're very explicitly saying "It's you."

Obviously, I second (twenty-second?) the many suggestions so far about either having someone else run the character (though I would wait for someone to volunteer that rather than trying to assign it) or finding some narrative conceit that allows the character to be absent or ignored.

I think you are well within your rights to point out that their frequent attendance problems are frustrating for the rest of you, but don't open with a solution, especially not a relatively drastic one such as this. The key goal here should be to make sure that you understand their side of the problem and, perhaps more importantly, that they feel like they've been heard and understood. If this does end in a parting of ways, it's much more likely to be amicable if they feel there was a good faith effort to resolve it first.

It might be the case that they simply don't understand how much their lack of reliability is impacting everyone else. It might be that they know it's a problem and can't work up the courage to simply excuse themselves. It might be that there's some solution that you haven't thought of that will arise from discussion. The point is, don't go in having already made up your mind. Make an effort to really grasp the problem from all sides so that your decision is better informed.

Plus, you have to consider what comes after, not just for the game, but for relations between the people in general. I don't know how much your players interact with each other away from the table, but putting your foot down too soon could end up generating undue bitterness and resentment against the whole table. Maybe you will ultimately have to upset the person For The Greater Good, but you owe it to all involved to work to find a way to handle this more amicably if at all possible.

As a side note, there are also pros and cons to having your other players present for this conversation. Pros are that it feels more like everything is above board and transparent. If you can steer the conversation more towards a negotiation or just mutual understanding without seeking solutions right now, it can be useful to have everyone's input. (I know, as a player, it's been helpful in bridging gaps of understanding between the DM and That One Player.) If you come in with ultimatums or having already made your decision, it'll almost certainly feel like you're ganging up on them. But this sort of thing can vary wildly depending on the specific people involved, so it's difficult to firmly recommend one over the other.

It's not an easy position to be in, but I'd urge you, for right now, to focus more on empathy and understanding and less on right and wrong.

CombatBunny
2019-12-20, 12:33 PM
I do think a prepared monologue is not the way to...

I totally agree and support this way of looking at the problem. I don’t know how old are you or what’s your situation, but in my experience I can say that as you grow up and responsibilities take you over, you really, really appreciate your players and learn to be not that picky, and that means that if the player or GM in question isn’t being openly toxic or a dangerous person, you try to look for ways to make things work and most of the time, you find them.

kyoryu
2019-12-20, 01:55 PM
I do think a prepared monologue is not the way to go here. It kinda comes off as a "We're not firing you, but we're downsizing so we have to let you go" kind of thing.

I don't think "firing" is the right way to do it, personally.

Set boundaries. Set consequences. And then go forward from there. "It's not fair that we're messing up our other responsibilities to game on this night, and then you don't show up. If you don't show up at least x of the next y games, we're moving it back to the other night. If you can make it then, fine, if not fine. If your schedule clears up to where you can be more regular in the future, please let us know."

In general I think it's good to make explicit boundaries and consequences known before acting, unless there's some kind of safety issue.