How to do a mid-campaign session 0?

[mehs]

So in a recent campaign I joined a 1-14 at level 4 bordering on 5. I was replacing a player who had to leave. After a couple sessions, i got kicked and the reason turned out to be a combination of things that really would've been solved by a session 0. Such as the campaign being a low effort one where they didn't do plans and the party leader pc having the final say in most matters. So I come in, trying to make plans between sessions, making sure to try to put things to a vote and such, things that would be normally very reasonable, but not in this campaign.

So yeah, how the hell do you do a mid campaign session 0 for players joining midgame?

[Segev]

So in a recent campaign I joined a 1-14 at level 4 bordering on 5. I was replacing a player who had to leave. After a couple sessions, i got kicked and the reason turned out to be a combination of things that really would've been solved by a session 0. Such as the campaign being a low effort one where they didn't do plans and the party leader pc having the final say in most matters. So I come in, trying to make plans between sessions, making sure to try to put things to a vote and such, things that would be normally very reasonable, but not in this campaign.

So yeah, how the hell do you do a mid campaign session 0 for players joining midgame?

This is going to sound flippant, and I apologize for that, but... just by doing so. A "session 0" is really just a planning session where everyone talks about the campaign, its goals, the characters they want to play, how they all fit together, and what kind of game, in general, it will be. So a mid-campaign "session 0" would just be talking with everyone about what kind of game it is, how sessions are going and how - if necessary - they want to change things around, how any new PCs will integrate into the party, and what any new players should expect.

[Troacctid]

In this case, you don't. The DM does. It's always the DM's decision whether to hold a session 0 or not. I personally would not do one in the middle of a campaign. Frankly, as someone who cut her teeth on organized play, I don't usually even do them at the start of a campaign—I just lay down the rules, and they'll either like it or they won't. But doing it in a group that's already established just seems weird and inefficient. Everyone else is already situated. Are you really going to spend a whole session getting the new guy up to speed? That's what the group chat is for.

[False God]

I just did one last session, the group didn't change, but they were at a lull in the campaign.

It's basically a recap episode. "Here's what's happened so far on Dragon Bal...I mean D&D: *blah blah exposition*."

If there's a new person, you get them up to speed on the setting just like you would an all new game, and then add in some of the goings on since the game started.

Uh, yeah, that's about it.

[Jay R]

Via email, just like my original session 0.

I always provide a detailed document about my new campaign, anywhere from 2-6 pages. A new player will be sent the same document. It tends to include the fact that more information is available depending on character background. A cleric with have more information about the gods and church structure, for instance.

I encourage more questions. When somebody asks general questions, I will often send the answers to everybody.

Later, when new players join, I send all of this background info to them.

[Saint-Just]

campaign being a low effort one where they didn't do plans and the party leader pc having the final say in most matters.

I am a bit surprised by this combination. I'd expect that you have a formal party leader when a player is good at planning or at least thinks that they are; and contrariwise that if campaign is a low-effort then equality between players take greater precedence than effectiveness, so whatever relations between characters are the players themselves would discuss propositions collectively.

[icefractal]

Kind of sounds like one player who's either more engaged or more spotlight-demanding than the others, who are content to go along on the ride. Was it just that player not wanting his authoritah questioned, or did the other players actively not want to decide things by vote?

[mehs]

The latter, they actively didn't want to vote on stuff. The guy was the party leader by virtue of being the captain of the ship.

[Zanos]

But doing it in a group that's already established just seems weird and inefficient. Everyone else is already situated. Are you really going to spend a whole session getting the new guy up to speed? That's what the group chat is for.
I agree that this is the DM's responsibility, but this seems like such a bizarre outlook for someone you're going to spend 4+ hours a week with. It is probably a good idea at the least for the DM to sit down and have a conversation with the new person to gauge their expectations for the game and introduce them to the groups dynamic. Otherwise I think you're just setting them, and your game, up for failure. Especially at this stage in the editions lifecycle, where veterans have radically different expectations for how the game is played.

An email or infodoc or conversation logs are all good to send out if you're have them, but I really don't understand why you'd invite someone to play in a static group without chatting with for 30 minutes. I have filtered out a ton of incompatible people by just talking to them.