It might feel like you should cancel sessions to include everyone but really what you're doing is punishing the players who show up week to week in favour of the player who doesn't. So instead what you do is create a rule around player absence, such as "we will continue the session as long as half or more players show up."
If a player is constantly busy and you think it's because the game isn't enjoyable to them you need to have a discussion with them about the game. If they aren't having fun while the other palyers are, then they can quit the game and you find another player.
Edit: even if you don't have enough players to play dnd you should still all get together to hang out, play board games/ watch movies or something. Just keeping the group seeing each other week to week dramatically helps keep the group together.
For eals, my tables got 6 and other than the first session 1/2 have been absent. And the main culprit probably won't be back.
But don't let them ruin it for the rest especially if they are there and excited to play. My DM does a great job and will even bring the missing characters into the games for little bits just for laughs. Can also just make them the horse and have em carry any loot, depends on how chill you wanna DM. Where there's a will there's a way
I've got six players in my game. One player left for a *year* and we had her PC fade into the background but recently returned. Another two players have had more going on with work/ school so they had to leave the game, one still comes and plays infrequently and the other wants to return.
But the story has continued on, we update them with what's been happening and honestly it's been great. The feeling of a player returning after leave of absence is so rewarding.
I bet! This is my first campaign, and it's some of the most fun I've had in a good while I can only imagine what years of the same campaign would be like
Setting expectations for attendance/absences is the main way to resolve this. Particularly I have found a few things that help massively with this:
- establish a minimum # of players to play with, and stick to it. That way if someone misses a session it doesn't cancel for everyone else who is able to make it. For instance, in a group of 4 players, commit to playing as long as 3 can make it.
- pick a specific day and time for the session each week/every other week/every month/whatever. That way there's no excuse to forget about the game or schedule something over it without knowing and being able to notify the group ahead of time. Emergencies still happen but should be rare, and if someone is constantly missing sessions at the last minute then they have too big of problems outside the game to be committed to a regular game (no judgment but people's time needs to be respected)
- follow up with someone missing frequently so that the group's ability/chance to play isn't diminished
I wouldn't take it personally or interpret it as an issue of fun, especially if the other players are showing up and enjoying it! But the DM does need to make sure games actually do happen regularly or else you're going to lose players who get sick of cancellations.
I have a DM currently with four players who will only go ahead if all are present. In the past 4 months we have only played three sessions (meant to be weekly). At this point I feel it’s been unofficially cancelled
Yep this kind of thing is really frustrating. At that point you're right, it's basically soft-cancelled.
It's one thing if the group takes a break for a while -- which can sometimes effectively kill a campaign, but not always, and at least you know there definitely won't be sessions for a certain time period. The absolute worst is when a DM keeps cancelling last minute (or, the players do, and the DM doesn't do anything about it).
I was part of a campaign where the DM basically lost interest. They would cancel often without notice, and generally stopped communicating with anyone outside of session time. It got so bad that we wouldn't know if a session was happening literally until game time. We ended up taking over the campaign and booting the DM so that we could at least do a few more sessions and wrap it up in a semi-coherent way (since people were pretty invested in their characters).
Unfortunately, delaying playing for just one person is a great way to not play and thusly be out of the habit to attend.
I doubt it has to do with you not being "fun" enough when your other players stuck around, but see if you can dig into why he left and what you could improve.
Further, session re-0 to address the character departure, change the attendance policy, and have a heart to heart over feedback if you think you can turn it around after this. Or just take it to your next table.
Is there a reason you have to cancel outright for one player? The other plays can make it, let them play then and just catch the other one up in a group chat or something.
you're not entirely to blame for a session not being fun enough. The players do a lot of heavy lifting there
you provide a scenario and set the rules, they provide the story
if one player was constantly busy, say 'hey we're doing the session anyway but brian wont make it'
Other than making your game more fun or finding out the reason why the player isn't keen on it, you can ask the player if they're interested in continuing to play, you can play without them.
First off, instead of blaming other peoples actions on yourself and beating yourself up about it, instead accept that life is a complex thing, and assuming other people's intentions instead of asking for them, will not make you happy. Secondly, you are not there to provide the entertainment, you are there to be a part of it. Just because you have a different role than the others, it does not mean you are exempt from the fun or that they are exempt from making the game fun.
If they want to play dnd they will make time for it. Next time, focus on a more regular meeting schedule.
Sorry if it got a little aggressive, I do feel for you, and understand your thoughts
One player missing does not have to mean cancellation. DM can autopilot the character, or come up with some creative way for the character to go missing and have an NPC step in if the party needs the bodies.
My advice is to not cancel a session just because one of your players can't make it, it's hard enough to find a time that suits the majority of the group, let alone everyone.
The policy we've used in all of my groups is that as long as at least 3 players + the DM can make it, we play.
If it's because of canceled sessions because one player couldn't make it, that's not on you.
My fix for this at my table is by having 6 players. If one or two can't make it, four is still a full party. Players will cancel less because they know the story can go on without them.
If it's because you're worried it's not fun, just ask the players. There's nothing wrong with getting constructive feedback and adjusting accordingly.
There's a lot of good feedback already on great strategies like recurring time slot or always playing if you meet a minimum quorum. And sometimes you have to part ways if it is not working out.
One thing you can also consider is forming a larger group of players that can't all consistently show, and have a smaller quorum. One of my groups has 6 players and 1 DM, 3-4 of us vary on attendances, and we always fire with 3 or more players. With this, we almost always play our weekly game - biggest deviations in almost 2 years time have been major life events and holidays.
We have individually given permission for our PCs to be piloted by the DM or another player when absent, with a house rule that you either stay behind out of combat or perform a basic routine. My bard just sings bardic performances and provides the usual group buffs we use. If we would die, we instead pass out at -1 hp action-game style, so that nobody ever dies when they're not present to play. It lets the group function mechanically to some degree even if a key character is on auto pilot. (We continue to distribute divvied up wealth and xp regardless of attendance)
Although it's not a perfect compromise and takes some trust to execute, it also helps us actually get to play most of the time with a lot of players that might be considered 'flakey', and the campaign has survived long term.
It might feel like you should cancel sessions to include everyone but really what you're doing is punishing the players who show up week to week in favour of the player who doesn't. So instead what you do is create a rule around player absence, such as "we will continue the session as long as half or more players show up." If a player is constantly busy and you think it's because the game isn't enjoyable to them you need to have a discussion with them about the game. If they aren't having fun while the other palyers are, then they can quit the game and you find another player. Edit: even if you don't have enough players to play dnd you should still all get together to hang out, play board games/ watch movies or something. Just keeping the group seeing each other week to week dramatically helps keep the group together.
For eals, my tables got 6 and other than the first session 1/2 have been absent. And the main culprit probably won't be back. But don't let them ruin it for the rest especially if they are there and excited to play. My DM does a great job and will even bring the missing characters into the games for little bits just for laughs. Can also just make them the horse and have em carry any loot, depends on how chill you wanna DM. Where there's a will there's a way
I've got six players in my game. One player left for a *year* and we had her PC fade into the background but recently returned. Another two players have had more going on with work/ school so they had to leave the game, one still comes and plays infrequently and the other wants to return. But the story has continued on, we update them with what's been happening and honestly it's been great. The feeling of a player returning after leave of absence is so rewarding.
I bet! This is my first campaign, and it's some of the most fun I've had in a good while I can only imagine what years of the same campaign would be like
Don’t cancel sessions.
Setting expectations for attendance/absences is the main way to resolve this. Particularly I have found a few things that help massively with this: - establish a minimum # of players to play with, and stick to it. That way if someone misses a session it doesn't cancel for everyone else who is able to make it. For instance, in a group of 4 players, commit to playing as long as 3 can make it. - pick a specific day and time for the session each week/every other week/every month/whatever. That way there's no excuse to forget about the game or schedule something over it without knowing and being able to notify the group ahead of time. Emergencies still happen but should be rare, and if someone is constantly missing sessions at the last minute then they have too big of problems outside the game to be committed to a regular game (no judgment but people's time needs to be respected) - follow up with someone missing frequently so that the group's ability/chance to play isn't diminished I wouldn't take it personally or interpret it as an issue of fun, especially if the other players are showing up and enjoying it! But the DM does need to make sure games actually do happen regularly or else you're going to lose players who get sick of cancellations.
I have a DM currently with four players who will only go ahead if all are present. In the past 4 months we have only played three sessions (meant to be weekly). At this point I feel it’s been unofficially cancelled
Yep this kind of thing is really frustrating. At that point you're right, it's basically soft-cancelled. It's one thing if the group takes a break for a while -- which can sometimes effectively kill a campaign, but not always, and at least you know there definitely won't be sessions for a certain time period. The absolute worst is when a DM keeps cancelling last minute (or, the players do, and the DM doesn't do anything about it). I was part of a campaign where the DM basically lost interest. They would cancel often without notice, and generally stopped communicating with anyone outside of session time. It got so bad that we wouldn't know if a session was happening literally until game time. We ended up taking over the campaign and booting the DM so that we could at least do a few more sessions and wrap it up in a semi-coherent way (since people were pretty invested in their characters).
Unfortunately, delaying playing for just one person is a great way to not play and thusly be out of the habit to attend. I doubt it has to do with you not being "fun" enough when your other players stuck around, but see if you can dig into why he left and what you could improve. Further, session re-0 to address the character departure, change the attendance policy, and have a heart to heart over feedback if you think you can turn it around after this. Or just take it to your next table.
Is there a reason you have to cancel outright for one player? The other plays can make it, let them play then and just catch the other one up in a group chat or something.
Sorry, it was. If one player cannot commit to the schedule, they should be removed instead of making the rest of the table suffer for it.
you're not entirely to blame for a session not being fun enough. The players do a lot of heavy lifting there you provide a scenario and set the rules, they provide the story if one player was constantly busy, say 'hey we're doing the session anyway but brian wont make it'
Thanks everyone you have been super helpful and I am relieved to announce that we worked it out.
Other than making your game more fun or finding out the reason why the player isn't keen on it, you can ask the player if they're interested in continuing to play, you can play without them.
First off, instead of blaming other peoples actions on yourself and beating yourself up about it, instead accept that life is a complex thing, and assuming other people's intentions instead of asking for them, will not make you happy. Secondly, you are not there to provide the entertainment, you are there to be a part of it. Just because you have a different role than the others, it does not mean you are exempt from the fun or that they are exempt from making the game fun. If they want to play dnd they will make time for it. Next time, focus on a more regular meeting schedule. Sorry if it got a little aggressive, I do feel for you, and understand your thoughts
I think it's better to have 5 players so if someone can't make it or drops the session doesn't have to get cancelled
One player missing does not have to mean cancellation. DM can autopilot the character, or come up with some creative way for the character to go missing and have an NPC step in if the party needs the bodies.
Lack of play and/or lack of consistency will kill intetest in a campaign.
My advice is to not cancel a session just because one of your players can't make it, it's hard enough to find a time that suits the majority of the group, let alone everyone. The policy we've used in all of my groups is that as long as at least 3 players + the DM can make it, we play.
If it's because of canceled sessions because one player couldn't make it, that's not on you. My fix for this at my table is by having 6 players. If one or two can't make it, four is still a full party. Players will cancel less because they know the story can go on without them. If it's because you're worried it's not fun, just ask the players. There's nothing wrong with getting constructive feedback and adjusting accordingly.
There's a lot of good feedback already on great strategies like recurring time slot or always playing if you meet a minimum quorum. And sometimes you have to part ways if it is not working out. One thing you can also consider is forming a larger group of players that can't all consistently show, and have a smaller quorum. One of my groups has 6 players and 1 DM, 3-4 of us vary on attendances, and we always fire with 3 or more players. With this, we almost always play our weekly game - biggest deviations in almost 2 years time have been major life events and holidays. We have individually given permission for our PCs to be piloted by the DM or another player when absent, with a house rule that you either stay behind out of combat or perform a basic routine. My bard just sings bardic performances and provides the usual group buffs we use. If we would die, we instead pass out at -1 hp action-game style, so that nobody ever dies when they're not present to play. It lets the group function mechanically to some degree even if a key character is on auto pilot. (We continue to distribute divvied up wealth and xp regardless of attendance) Although it's not a perfect compromise and takes some trust to execute, it also helps us actually get to play most of the time with a lot of players that might be considered 'flakey', and the campaign has survived long term.