Just leave that game. That table is not meeting your needs. You are allowed to have your own personal feelings, I'm confused why you are asking a group of strangers if you are in the right for being angry. Of course you are allowed to be angry. Cancellations are almost always frustrating. Find a game with more stability and maintain your friendships instead.
Instead of at least trying to get this campaign on track? No offense, but that's a little bit defeatist - and not everyone can easily find another weekly game all that easily. Just tell the group that maybe the people who miss sessions regularly have their reasons, but you're getting a bit frustrated with the frequent cancellations and ask if anything can be done to address that. If that doesn't work out, leaving is still an option - and at least trying something first rather than walking away just like that will leave a better impression with the DM and the other players. Burning your bridges for no good reason is silly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Defeatist? OP snapped at the DM because of cancellations and is not interested in the excuses of the table valid or not. Leave the game. It's not worth friendships and frustrations.
OP says this has been going on for two and a half years. OP raised this with DM. DM has said they're putting their investment in the friendship or relationship with the two players with attendance problem ahead of the "integrity of the game" or whatever you want to call it. That math works out with the worse case if the DM sticks to their guns being they lose a player in which the DM has less a personal investment than the two players the OP declares are causing the "problem" (which seems to be a non issue to rest of group?). OP doesn't have a lot of leverage here.
Best OP can do if they otherwise want to stick with this group is propose someone (not impose the DM) run a "side game" of sorts when there isn't a quorum.
No one can invalidate the OP's feelings of frustration. No one likes to have plans dashed at the last minute. Conversely no one, especially a bunch of internet randoms, can award the OP with some sort of moral high ground to leverage into getting the game played as they want it to be played in this group.
I will say as far as the OP following up with their blow up to the DM. DM's don't really care for those sorts of blow ups and vents. They want to run a game, most don't want to be a concierge or mediator. The DM has cleared the air explaining the personal dynamics affecting the game dynamics. If I were that DM, if the OP politely withdrew from the group citing the 25% time wastage resulting from the group's inconsistent schedule, I'd say we were sorry it didn't work out and leave it at that. If someone were willing to run a "Plan B" game or activity when we didn't have a quorum, I'd be fine with that as well. Of course the other players may be more casual in their engagement and may be fine with "oh well" to the cancellations and switch to whatever channel they go to when they're not playing.
OP's desire to play is not better or worse than the rest of the group. Simply put, there's an incompatibility in the way the OP values their time and the way the group regards time commitments. Incompatibility usually means you break things off or your work things through; but there are established boundaries so the OP's ideal resolutions (better attendance enforcement) don't seem to be on the table so if the OP wants to foster a healthy relationship with the rest of the group, they'll need to think of a different accomodation.
This is, of course, all very abstract. No one knows the rest of the group's perspective on the player and I don't think there's a "Looking for table dispute resolution mediator" sub forum here, nor should there be.
Honestly, my thought to bring up. You have 6 players normally. If two can't make it? You still have 4 players.
Play that week then. If more than half a party is missing? Yeah, maybe cancel/run a 1-shot. But 2/3 of the party is there. I'd say the DM should run the session that week.
If I was one of those 4 players that show up week to week just to find it being canceled...the DM wouldn't have 6 players to worry about, they'd have 5 as I'd just apologize and say "sorry, I set aside this time to play, and to have it not happen, that's a waste of my time, your time, and the other 3 players time." If the DM doesn't/won't do anything about it...that's an issue.
The two people constantly missing the sessions are just being rude in my opinion. Especially the one you can see online playing some other game.
My advise would be to talk to your DM to change the rules on how many need to be missing before a session is canceled. And if the DM doesn't do that. Bow out and find another game. It sucks, but really what else can you do if the DM is hardfast about no game if 2 people are missing?
Aside from run your own game or such, but still, that's akin to finding another table.
I DM a party of 7 and will only cancel if we are down to 3 players.
If players can’t make it then they set there character sheet as unassigned and another player picks it up and jaegurs it. We have 2 players who can get called out short notice (one in the armed forces the other works in a hospital). So they keep there sheets unassigned between sessions just in case.
We have a standing rule of a player isn’t there then the character goes to the middle of patrol order, and never hunts for traps etc. but they are there to assist in combat situations.
It is rare that we will be down to just 4 although it has happened.
I would certainly not walk out on a table after 2.5 years over this without putting in a bit more energy to try to make it work. My own group has had the occasional flaky member and we basically just readjusted our baseline to only expect the reliable players and if more showed up than that, great.
Once our expectations were adjusted, like 90% of the stress around the situation went away. Sometimes the person will actually attend more often once the feeling of obligation is gone, and other times they may just drift away altogether as they realize D&D is not a big priority in their life right now. There is a third group though, who are truly invested but can't always play - these might become upset that the game moves on without them. In that case it can be better to split off a separate campaign to play when they aren't able to make it.
At any rate, there is almost always a way to respect those infrequent players and still be able to make good use of the time and energy you've set aside for your game. You just need to be able to work with the group to figure that out, and sometimes that means you need to be the one who initiates that discussion and poses some possible solutions.
OP says this has been going on for two and a half years. OP raised this with DM. DM has said they're putting their investment in the friendship or relationship with the two players with attendance problem ahead of the "integrity of the game" or whatever you want to call it.
The issue here is that if OP leaves it to the DM to broach the topic of spotty attendance, either the DM pretends they're the ones frustrated with it - which they might not want to do if they're more aware of the reasons - or it immediately becomes a problem rather than an annoyance. Taking it to the DM is the same as telling on your friends to the teacher: it's really hard for the DM/teacher to talk to the group about this without it being a whole thing, the others feeling targeted, and the willingness to work things out evaporating right away. If on the other hand OP brings it up rather than putting that on the DM, acknowledges that there may be reasons for the cancellations but that they take away a lot of their enjoyment, and that they'd like to try and find some kind of compromise or solution so everybody's needs are met, then the others might be more agreeable to find a way forward. I'm not saying the DM handled this correctly: they were right not to do anything that would just escalate the situation, but they were definitely wrong telling OP to essentially suck it up. OP can still try to handle this in a better way though. No guarantees that it will work, but walking away guarantees the opposite.
First: I hear you, OP. Your frustrations are valid and you have the right to have your concerns addressed in more than just a cursory way. Your DM is letting you down on this one, and I'm sorry about that.
There are several options available to you:
1. Request that sessions move ahead with a quorum, or that some other arrangement is made that works for everyone. You might not be the only one who gets irritated when sessions are canceled - the others might just be suffering in silence.
2. Request better communication. Having context beyond "missed my alarm lol" and "they have mental issues" may help put the cancellations in a more understandable light and reduce your frustration. I think Spidey touched on this point beautifully, earlier, so I don't feel the need to add to it.
3. Express your concerns to everyone during the next session and see if there's a workaround. Your DM should be the one initiating this conversation, but I honestly don't think he will even if you ask him to. But you should ask anyway, hence #1 on this list.
4. Express to your DM how his handling of the situation is making you feel. To be frank, I don't expect this to go well, but it is an option and it might be enough to spur productive dialogue.
5. Deal with it.
6. Leave.
I'll level with you - I think you and your DM have fundamentally different ideas of what you should expect out of a D&D gaming experience. I also think he either values certain player relationships above others, or is too nonconfrontational to address problems. Now, it's certainly possible to overcome all that with some healthy communication, but both sides need to be willing to work at it, compromise, and try out solutions. If that is not a possibility, I think life is too short to let things we do for fun turn into things that stress us out.
I admire your tenacity to stick with this for so long; that speaks to your investment and patience. I hope your DM sees that and appreciates you for it.
If it was my game, and it was the same couple of people causing us to frequently miss sessions, I would probably stop cancelling games for those two and cancel if two of the more reliable players had to cancel.
I'm not unsympathetic to people having hard times. I wouldn't boot them from the game or anything. But I would also want to keep some form of momentum for the rest of the party and would not keep delaying games for the same people. Especially if I was getting excuses like 'sorry I slept through the alarm for the third week in a row.' Or other constant last minute things popping up. 'I can't make it for a couple weeks because I'm moving' or 'I need to step away from the game for a bit to deal with a loss' are far more understandable to me than repeat last minute cancellations or just no showing where people have no heads up to do something else with their day. In isolation these aren't a big deal, if they become a habit, it just becomes disrespectful of other peoples time.
If someone also needs to just step away from the game for a bit while taking care of some things irl, that's also fine. A character can easily be written out and then written back in when they can come back. Or I'm happy to write recap posts for people that can't make every session. That's fine. If I have six players at a table though and it's the same one or two constantly missing, I'm not going to keep cancelling games for them.
That said, all you can really do is talk to your DM and other players. (I'd suggest talking to the DM about it. Ideally the DM would lead a discussion with the other players and see if anyone else feels the same way you do, or if you're the outlier at the table. I wouldn't be shocked if some others are losing patience too, but it's hard to say. And going behind the DM's back to try and rally the other players isn't likely to end well.
In my experience, part of keeping a campaign together is consistency.
Consistency means that the time slot is always there, and there is basically always D&D to play in the agreed timeslot. If enough players are there, you run the campaign (there are many comments already pointing out that it should be feasible to run with 2 players down), otherwise you run a one shot. I can't compare with your circumstances, but one thing to consider is also if you can contribute to keeping the time slot consistent by offering to run a one shot if the campaign session can't go ahead.
While it isn't a perfect solution, it does mean that the people who want to play always get a game. If the other players are having genuine issues, they will no doubt be welcomed back when the campaign sessions are run. However, if some of the people missing regularly are simply having difficulty in committing, it might actually help to see that a game goes ahead anyway.
I think there's a degree of comfort for everyone in knowing that the session is there on its regularly timed slot. It does mean that it might be necessary to draw on other players to guest DM something if things change on short notice - but that can be a good experience for the group as well.
Instead of at least trying to get this campaign on track? No offense, but that's a little bit defeatist - and not everyone can easily find another weekly game all that easily. Just tell the group that maybe the people who miss sessions regularly have their reasons, but you're getting a bit frustrated with the frequent cancellations and ask if anything can be done to address that. If that doesn't work out, leaving is still an option - and at least trying something first rather than walking away just like that will leave a better impression with the DM and the other players. Burning your bridges for no good reason is silly.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Defeatist? OP snapped at the DM because of cancellations and is not interested in the excuses of the table valid or not. Leave the game. It's not worth friendships and frustrations.
OP says this has been going on for two and a half years. OP raised this with DM. DM has said they're putting their investment in the friendship or relationship with the two players with attendance problem ahead of the "integrity of the game" or whatever you want to call it. That math works out with the worse case if the DM sticks to their guns being they lose a player in which the DM has less a personal investment than the two players the OP declares are causing the "problem" (which seems to be a non issue to rest of group?). OP doesn't have a lot of leverage here.
Best OP can do if they otherwise want to stick with this group is propose someone (not impose the DM) run a "side game" of sorts when there isn't a quorum.
No one can invalidate the OP's feelings of frustration. No one likes to have plans dashed at the last minute. Conversely no one, especially a bunch of internet randoms, can award the OP with some sort of moral high ground to leverage into getting the game played as they want it to be played in this group.
I will say as far as the OP following up with their blow up to the DM. DM's don't really care for those sorts of blow ups and vents. They want to run a game, most don't want to be a concierge or mediator. The DM has cleared the air explaining the personal dynamics affecting the game dynamics. If I were that DM, if the OP politely withdrew from the group citing the 25% time wastage resulting from the group's inconsistent schedule, I'd say we were sorry it didn't work out and leave it at that. If someone were willing to run a "Plan B" game or activity when we didn't have a quorum, I'd be fine with that as well. Of course the other players may be more casual in their engagement and may be fine with "oh well" to the cancellations and switch to whatever channel they go to when they're not playing.
OP's desire to play is not better or worse than the rest of the group. Simply put, there's an incompatibility in the way the OP values their time and the way the group regards time commitments. Incompatibility usually means you break things off or your work things through; but there are established boundaries so the OP's ideal resolutions (better attendance enforcement) don't seem to be on the table so if the OP wants to foster a healthy relationship with the rest of the group, they'll need to think of a different accomodation.
This is, of course, all very abstract. No one knows the rest of the group's perspective on the player and I don't think there's a "Looking for table dispute resolution mediator" sub forum here, nor should there be.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I DM a party of 7 and will only cancel if we are down to 3 players.
If players can’t make it then they set there character sheet as unassigned and another player picks it up and jaegurs it. We have 2 players who can get called out short notice (one in the armed forces the other works in a hospital). So they keep there sheets unassigned between sessions just in case.
We have a standing rule of a player isn’t there then the character goes to the middle of patrol order, and never hunts for traps etc. but they are there to assist in combat situations.
It is rare that we will be down to just 4 although it has happened.
I would certainly not walk out on a table after 2.5 years over this without putting in a bit more energy to try to make it work. My own group has had the occasional flaky member and we basically just readjusted our baseline to only expect the reliable players and if more showed up than that, great.
Once our expectations were adjusted, like 90% of the stress around the situation went away. Sometimes the person will actually attend more often once the feeling of obligation is gone, and other times they may just drift away altogether as they realize D&D is not a big priority in their life right now. There is a third group though, who are truly invested but can't always play - these might become upset that the game moves on without them. In that case it can be better to split off a separate campaign to play when they aren't able to make it.
At any rate, there is almost always a way to respect those infrequent players and still be able to make good use of the time and energy you've set aside for your game. You just need to be able to work with the group to figure that out, and sometimes that means you need to be the one who initiates that discussion and poses some possible solutions.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The issue here is that if OP leaves it to the DM to broach the topic of spotty attendance, either the DM pretends they're the ones frustrated with it - which they might not want to do if they're more aware of the reasons - or it immediately becomes a problem rather than an annoyance. Taking it to the DM is the same as telling on your friends to the teacher: it's really hard for the DM/teacher to talk to the group about this without it being a whole thing, the others feeling targeted, and the willingness to work things out evaporating right away. If on the other hand OP brings it up rather than putting that on the DM, acknowledges that there may be reasons for the cancellations but that they take away a lot of their enjoyment, and that they'd like to try and find some kind of compromise or solution so everybody's needs are met, then the others might be more agreeable to find a way forward. I'm not saying the DM handled this correctly: they were right not to do anything that would just escalate the situation, but they were definitely wrong telling OP to essentially suck it up. OP can still try to handle this in a better way though. No guarantees that it will work, but walking away guarantees the opposite.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
First: I hear you, OP. Your frustrations are valid and you have the right to have your concerns addressed in more than just a cursory way. Your DM is letting you down on this one, and I'm sorry about that.
There are several options available to you:
1. Request that sessions move ahead with a quorum, or that some other arrangement is made that works for everyone. You might not be the only one who gets irritated when sessions are canceled - the others might just be suffering in silence.
2. Request better communication. Having context beyond "missed my alarm lol" and "they have mental issues" may help put the cancellations in a more understandable light and reduce your frustration. I think Spidey touched on this point beautifully, earlier, so I don't feel the need to add to it.
3. Express your concerns to everyone during the next session and see if there's a workaround. Your DM should be the one initiating this conversation, but I honestly don't think he will even if you ask him to. But you should ask anyway, hence #1 on this list.
4. Express to your DM how his handling of the situation is making you feel. To be frank, I don't expect this to go well, but it is an option and it might be enough to spur productive dialogue.
5. Deal with it.
6. Leave.
I'll level with you - I think you and your DM have fundamentally different ideas of what you should expect out of a D&D gaming experience. I also think he either values certain player relationships above others, or is too nonconfrontational to address problems. Now, it's certainly possible to overcome all that with some healthy communication, but both sides need to be willing to work at it, compromise, and try out solutions. If that is not a possibility, I think life is too short to let things we do for fun turn into things that stress us out.
I admire your tenacity to stick with this for so long; that speaks to your investment and patience. I hope your DM sees that and appreciates you for it.
If it was my game, and it was the same couple of people causing us to frequently miss sessions, I would probably stop cancelling games for those two and cancel if two of the more reliable players had to cancel.
I'm not unsympathetic to people having hard times. I wouldn't boot them from the game or anything. But I would also want to keep some form of momentum for the rest of the party and would not keep delaying games for the same people. Especially if I was getting excuses like 'sorry I slept through the alarm for the third week in a row.' Or other constant last minute things popping up. 'I can't make it for a couple weeks because I'm moving' or 'I need to step away from the game for a bit to deal with a loss' are far more understandable to me than repeat last minute cancellations or just no showing where people have no heads up to do something else with their day. In isolation these aren't a big deal, if they become a habit, it just becomes disrespectful of other peoples time.
If someone also needs to just step away from the game for a bit while taking care of some things irl, that's also fine. A character can easily be written out and then written back in when they can come back. Or I'm happy to write recap posts for people that can't make every session. That's fine. If I have six players at a table though and it's the same one or two constantly missing, I'm not going to keep cancelling games for them.
That said, all you can really do is talk to your DM and other players. (I'd suggest talking to the DM about it. Ideally the DM would lead a discussion with the other players and see if anyone else feels the same way you do, or if you're the outlier at the table. I wouldn't be shocked if some others are losing patience too, but it's hard to say. And going behind the DM's back to try and rally the other players isn't likely to end well.
In my experience, part of keeping a campaign together is consistency.
Consistency means that the time slot is always there, and there is basically always D&D to play in the agreed timeslot. If enough players are there, you run the campaign (there are many comments already pointing out that it should be feasible to run with 2 players down), otherwise you run a one shot. I can't compare with your circumstances, but one thing to consider is also if you can contribute to keeping the time slot consistent by offering to run a one shot if the campaign session can't go ahead.
While it isn't a perfect solution, it does mean that the people who want to play always get a game. If the other players are having genuine issues, they will no doubt be welcomed back when the campaign sessions are run. However, if some of the people missing regularly are simply having difficulty in committing, it might actually help to see that a game goes ahead anyway.
I think there's a degree of comfort for everyone in knowing that the session is there on its regularly timed slot. It does mean that it might be necessary to draw on other players to guest DM something if things change on short notice - but that can be a good experience for the group as well.