Making bad decisions in combat is not necessarily a reason to ask someone to leave my group but we have disinvited a couple of people who wouldn’t/couldn’t do the reading to learn the rules of the game. They needed everything to be explained to them over and over and that was more than any of us had signed up for unfortunately. We’ve also disinvited people who refused to join with the party and do what the rest of the characters were doing, people who have purposely spoiled the plan the rest of the party agreed to enact, people who insist on engaging in PVP by stealing from other party members or withholding loot they find. These are things that may be perfectly acceptable at other tables but we have decided we don’t tolerate. Joining my group includes some particular base level expectations because this is my leisure time and I am allowed to spend it the way I enjoy. I did not form a D&D group to become someone’s tutor or therapist; I did it to play a game and have fun.
If someone's continuously refusing to join with the rest of the party, actively spoiling plans that the party agreed to, or even just accidentally spoiling plans thru reckless decisions, those all sound like they could be good reasons to kick someone for disrupting the enjoyment of the rest of the group. But the OP didn't describe anything remotely like that, he's just describing a player that is new to the game and not interested in min-maxing their character optimally and saying it ruins his enjoyment because they play differently than him.
My point is that each group gets to decide what their standards are. If, for any reason the group agrees upon, the player is not up to their standard, they should feel no obligation to include that player. Whether they’re just a player that is new to the game and not interested in min-maxing their character optimally so it ruins someone’s enjoyment because they play differently or whatever other reason YOU find acceptable at YOUR table in YOUR group, OP is not required to play with anyone they don’t want to for any reason.
My point is that each group gets to decide what their standards are. If, for any reason the group agrees upon, the player is not up to their standard, they should feel no obligation to include that player. Whether they’re just a player that is new to the game and not interested in min-maxing their character optimally so it ruins someone’s enjoyment because they play differently or whatever other reason YOU find acceptable at YOUR table in YOUR group, OP is not required to play with anyone they don’t want to for any reason.
All true, no one has any sort of right to stay in a group they aren't wanted in, or any obligation to stay in any group they don't want to play in. It seems though that the OP was looking for advice other than just "kick her out" or else he wouldn't have bothered posting here.
My point is that each group gets to decide what their standards are. If, for any reason the group agrees upon, the player is not up to their standard, they should feel no obligation to include that player. Whether they’re just a player that is new to the game and not interested in min-maxing their character optimally so it ruins someone’s enjoyment because they play differently or whatever other reason YOU find acceptable at YOUR table in YOUR group, OP is not required to play with anyone they don’t want to for any reason.
All true, no one has any sort of right to stay in a group they aren't wanted in, or any obligation to stay in any group they don't want to play in. It seems though that the OP was looking for advice other than just "kick her out" or else he wouldn't have bothered posting here.
I agree however I felt it was important to offer OP some reassurance contrary to the growing chorus of “just let them play they want to play”.
My point is that each group gets to decide what their standards are. If, for any reason the group agrees upon, the player is not up to their standard, they should feel no obligation to include that player. Whether they’re just a player that is new to the game and not interested in min-maxing their character optimally so it ruins someone’s enjoyment because they play differently or whatever other reason YOU find acceptable at YOUR table in YOUR group, OP is not required to play with anyone they don’t want to for any reason.
All true, no one has any sort of right to stay in a group they aren't wanted in, or any obligation to stay in any group they don't want to play in. It seems though that the OP was looking for advice other than just "kick her out" or else he wouldn't have bothered posting here.
I agree however I felt it was important to offer OP some reassurance contrary to the growing chorus of “just let them play they want to play”.
I always smile and shake my head about those pointing fingers and screaming "gatekeeper". Some people are simply incapable to play any number of games out there, for any number of reasons. D&D is no different. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. As the OP said "We have made multiple comments on it,", and made the meme reference, so more than one person at this table dislikes this person's playstyle.
Would this person be more suited to another table? Maybe. But she is not suited for this one. If someone at my table had either refused to learn some basic rules, or decided to ignore them, or simply was incapable of learning them, they would be finding another table long before 10 sessions had passed.,
Would this person be more suited to another table? Maybe. But she is not suited for this one. If someone at my table had either refused to learn some basic rules, or decided to ignore them, or simply was incapable of learning them, they would be finding another table long before 10 sessions had passed.,
Hypothetically, what would you do if it was the whole table?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I always smile and shake my head about those pointing fingers and screaming "gatekeeper". Some people are simply incapable to play any number of games out there, for any number of reasons. D&D is no different. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. As the OP said "We have made multiple comments on it,", and made the meme reference, so more than one person at this table dislikes this person's playstyle.
Would this person be more suited to another table? Maybe. But she is not suited for this one. If someone at my table had either refused to learn some basic rules, or decided to ignore them, or simply was incapable of learning them, they would be finding another table long before 10 sessions had passed.,
The only rule the OP actually cites is the person thinking dancing lights can blind. Other than that, they seem to be complaining about the rogue... meleeing.
It could also be that the player might not quite have a grasp on how spells can affect allies in combat. Darkness and Faerie Fire are great, but they can also potentially hamper the rest of the party because they're AOE. As someone who has been at a table with a new player who consistently ruined my turns with short-sighted combat decisions and lack of spell awareness, I sympathize with that.
With the scant info OP gave us, it sounds like "they aren't playing their class right" is code for "they're using these three spells all the time and we're sick of it". This has nothing to do with the player playing their rogue. It's about the player playing their drow.
I'd say talk to the player about why these spells are frustrating for the table. They might not get it. And if you're the DM, maybe think about the races and racial features you let people have in your game.
OP also doesn't say whether they're a player or the GM- if they're the former it's not their call anyway.
Sure it is, they can choose to leave the game if the DM does nothing about the problem(s). Not every table is for everyone, and no one can force you to stay in a game you don't like.
Good communication is key, if by session 10 nothing has changed communication has not been good, or it has been ignored.
OP also doesn't say whether they're a player or the GM- if they're the former it's not their call anyway.
Sure it is, they can choose to leave the game if the DM does nothing about the problem(s). Not every table is for everyone, and no one can force you to stay in a game you don't like.
Yes, but that's not doing something about the other player's behavior, merely responding to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
OP also doesn't say whether they're a player or the GM- if they're the former it's not their call anyway.
Sure it is, they can choose to leave the game if the DM does nothing about the problem(s). Not every table is for everyone, and no one can force you to stay in a game you don't like.
Yes, but that's not doing something about the other player's behavior, merely responding to it.
After 10 sessions a response is about all that will get anything done.
Even if the OP is looking for ways to get the problem player to play with the group, after 10 sessions the problem player has made it abundantly clear that they are going to play how they want to play regardless of how others at the table feel about it or how it is affecting game play.
That leaves 3 options
1 continue with the status quo and nothing changes
2 boot the player from the game
3 leave the game
All of which can be done nicely and without malice.
I often DM for new players, so this is something I have experienced a lot. I have a simple solution that works every time:
1. Offer the player feedback in a polite way. Ask them why they did something (rather than just tell them what they should have done), and then offer constructive criticism, letting them know other tools they had available to accomplish the goal they wished to accomplish, but in a more expedient manner.
2. Offer to let them change their class to something which better suits their playstyle. The problem might not be them knowing their class—they might just enjoy certain things and find the other parts of the class boring and not want to interface with them. A class switch could make everything better.
3. If points 1 and 2 fail, just get over it. So long as they are having fun playing their character, who cares if they are playing optimally? That is now part of who they are—embrace their mediocrity, make it part of their personality, and just run with it. You can still attempt step 1 every now and then, but, if they’ve made it clear they are having fun, then just embrace it and learn to have fun with it also.
^ This.
Work with the player in private, perhaps they just need some one on one help. Perhaps they're new, and just need some guidance. Talk to them and find out what they want out of their character, perhaps some slight changes to the character can get them closer to what they're looking for. However, if it is hugely disruptive, and after multiple attempts to help them fail - then perhaps it's time to go your separate ways; though that option should be extremely rare.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
How does this help the other players at the table that are not enjoying the game and have communicated this over 10 sessions?
How about finding a few others that like that play style and starting another group for them, or a group of new people for a starter adventurer.... there are so many options for an odd player out compared to a group that has like minded interest in a play style and are working together.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Have the other characters point things out to her, in character. 'What are you doing, you're a rogue - get stabbing already!'
As a GM, one of my smaller but consistent challenges is to keep players aware of stuff like Inspiration, Fate or similar 'oh crap!' functions. If I had a dollar for each time a player has thrown his hands in the air and exclaimed 'whelp, I'm dead!' and I had to remind him that he still had rerolls ... well, then I'd have several dollars.
Like ... 'no, your armor stacks with your toughness, and you're in criticals but not nearly dead - and only if you chose to deliberately ignore that you can reroll your failed dodge. Or even buy a succes, at the cost of permanently losing a Fate point.'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I always smile and shake my head about those pointing fingers and screaming "gatekeeper". Some people are simply incapable to play any number of games out there, for any number of reasons. D&D is no different. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. As the OP said "We have made multiple comments on it,", and made the meme reference, so more than one person at this table dislikes this person's playstyle.
Would this person be more suited to another table? Maybe. But she is not suited for this one. If someone at my table had either refused to learn some basic rules, or decided to ignore them, or simply was incapable of learning them, they would be finding another table long before 10 sessions had passed.,
The only rule the OP actually cites is the person thinking dancing lights can blind. Other than that, they seem to be complaining about the rogue... meleeing.
It could also be that the player might not quite have a grasp on how spells can affect allies in combat. Darkness and Faerie Fire are great, but they can also potentially hamper the rest of the party because they're AOE. As someone who has been at a table with a new player who consistently ruined my turns with short-sighted combat decisions and lack of spell awareness, I sympathize with that.
With the scant info OP gave us, it sounds like "they aren't playing their class right" is code for "they're using these three spells all the time and we're sick of it". This has nothing to do with the player playing their rogue. It's about the player playing their drow.
I'd say talk to the player about why these spells are frustrating for the table. They might not get it. And if you're the DM, maybe think about the races and racial features you let people have in your game.
The only actual class base complaint, though, was " she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line." The spells are racial, not class.
It is possible that it is the OP who is failing to understand rather than the player being complained about.
That was precisely my point. The complaints have nothing to do with being a rogue and everything to do with being a drow.
Player's understanding rules and other nuances of the game is about interest level. If you are 10 sessions into D&D and you aren't obsessed with the game, your character and the campaign, odds are you are probably not going to make it. It actually shouldn't take 10 sessions, I can't imagine someone not interested in the game would last more than 2-3.
Perhaps she likes the social aspect of getting together, but isn't into the game. Like I had a buddy once who always went to Monday night football, yet neither liked football, bars or beer. I asked him once, why the hell do you come to this thing each week and his answer was, I like to hang out with you guys. Which frankly... is a good reason as any.
Not everyone that plays D&D is a D&D player, it's just a question as to whether or not the group finds that disruptive or not.
My 2cp worth: Maybe try running a sessions similar to the final mission in Mass Effect 2. The party have to split up to accompish several goals within a certain time limit. Each person gets their own time to shine and hopefully they all end up at the same point for a final encounter. The DM can tailor make each little scene for each character and this might just prompt the player in question to look into their characters abilities a bit more whilst giving them the chance to maybe flex a few character muscles they otherwise may not feel they get to do or realise they have been forgetting some things.
EDIT: also worthing remembering, everyone was new to the game at some stage and if that is the case for this particular player then maybe some additional hand holding is in order.
My 2cp worth: Maybe try running a sessions similar to the final mission in Mass Effect 2. The party have to split up to accompish several goals within a certain time limit. Each person gets their own time to shine and hopefully they all end up at the same point for a final encounter. The DM can tailor make each little scene for each character and this might just prompt the player in question to look into their characters abilities a bit more whilst giving them the chance to maybe flex a few character muscles they otherwise may not feel they get to do or realise they have been forgetting some things.
EDIT: also worthing remembering, everyone was new to the game at some stage and if that is the case for this particular player then maybe some additional hand holding is in order.
How much time do you think a DM has in a week? Most people have stuff going in their lives that consume time. How much time do you expect a DM to allocate to a game, say a weekly game, and how much should be designated for catering to every individual unique need or want of a player? These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know how much time you think a DM should spend in a week prepping for a session, and how much time to " tailor make each little scene for each character "?
Player's understanding rules and other nuances of the game is about interest level. If you are 10 sessions into D&D and you aren't obsessed with the game, your character and the campaign, odds are you are probably not going to make it. It actually shouldn't take 10 sessions, I can't imagine someone not interested in the game would last more than 2-3.
Perhaps she likes the social aspect of getting together, but isn't into the game. Like I had a buddy once who always went to Monday night football, yet neither liked football, bars or beer. I asked him once, why the hell do you come to this thing each week and his answer was, I like to hang out with you guys. Which frankly... is a good reason as any.
Not everyone that plays D&D is a D&D player, it's just a question as to whether or not the group finds that disruptive or not.
I have to agree with this.
Just exactly how much is the Rogue affecting the party? They seem to understand Rogues are stabby.
Are they a murder hobo? Do they pick pocket the casters foci? Do they start a bar fight in every tavern? Do they kill the quest giver? Do they backstab any of the PCs in combat? Are they showing up drunk or high? Are they constantly on their phone during RP or combat? Do they yell at other players about how they are playing their PC wrong? Do they cuss and bully the GM? Do they make sexist remarks or crack inappropriate jokes? Do they show up? Are they constantly late? Do they not show up and give no reason? Do they go lone wolfing? Are they an emo edgelord?
My 2cp worth: Maybe try running a sessions similar to the final mission in Mass Effect 2. The party have to split up to accompish several goals within a certain time limit. Each person gets their own time to shine and hopefully they all end up at the same point for a final encounter. The DM can tailor make each little scene for each character and this might just prompt the player in question to look into their characters abilities a bit more whilst giving them the chance to maybe flex a few character muscles they otherwise may not feel they get to do or realise they have been forgetting some things.
EDIT: also worthing remembering, everyone was new to the game at some stage and if that is the case for this particular player then maybe some additional hand holding is in order.
How much time do you think a DM has in a week? Most people have stuff going in their lives that consume time. How much time do you expect a DM to allocate to a game, say a weekly game, and how much should be designated for catering to every individual unique need or want of a player? These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know how much time you think a DM should spend in a week prepping for a session, and how much time to " tailor make each little scene for each character "?
A halfway competent DM can do this as part of their regular session planning—it really is not that hard to say “hey, I’m planning anyway, might as well consider my players while doing this planning” and takes no additional time.
My 2cp worth: Maybe try running a sessions similar to the final mission in Mass Effect 2. The party have to split up to accompish several goals within a certain time limit. Each person gets their own time to shine and hopefully they all end up at the same point for a final encounter. The DM can tailor make each little scene for each character and this might just prompt the player in question to look into their characters abilities a bit more whilst giving them the chance to maybe flex a few character muscles they otherwise may not feel they get to do or realise they have been forgetting some things.
EDIT: also worthing remembering, everyone was new to the game at some stage and if that is the case for this particular player then maybe some additional hand holding is in order.
How much time do you think a DM has in a week? Most people have stuff going in their lives that consume time. How much time do you expect a DM to allocate to a game, say a weekly game, and how much should be designated for catering to every individual unique need or want of a player? These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know how much time you think a DM should spend in a week prepping for a session, and how much time to " tailor make each little scene for each character "?
A halfway competent DM can do this as part of their regular session planning—it really is not that hard to say “hey, I’m planning anyway, might as well consider my players while doing this planning” and takes no additional time.
My 2cp worth: Maybe try running a sessions similar to the final mission in Mass Effect 2. The party have to split up to accompish several goals within a certain time limit. Each person gets their own time to shine and hopefully they all end up at the same point for a final encounter. The DM can tailor make each little scene for each character and this might just prompt the player in question to look into their characters abilities a bit more whilst giving them the chance to maybe flex a few character muscles they otherwise may not feel they get to do or realise they have been forgetting some things.
EDIT: also worthing remembering, everyone was new to the game at some stage and if that is the case for this particular player then maybe some additional hand holding is in order.
How much time do you think a DM has in a week? Most people have stuff going in their lives that consume time. How much time do you expect a DM to allocate to a game, say a weekly game, and how much should be designated for catering to every individual unique need or want of a player? These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know how much time you think a DM should spend in a week prepping for a session, and how much time to " tailor make each little scene for each character "?
A halfway competent DM can do this as part of their regular session planning—it really is not that hard to say “hey, I’m planning anyway, might as well consider my players while doing this planning” and takes no additional time.
No additional time.......
Yeah no additional time we work it into our normal prep which is going to vary wildly from DM to DM. We all deal with time management issues most of us have jobs and families if on any given week we do not have time we make time get up early or stay up a little later or maybe work on the session we are planning on break at work while we eat lunch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My point is that each group gets to decide what their standards are. If, for any reason the group agrees upon, the player is not up to their standard, they should feel no obligation to include that player. Whether they’re just a player that is new to the game and not interested in min-maxing their character optimally so it ruins someone’s enjoyment because they play differently or whatever other reason YOU find acceptable at YOUR table in YOUR group, OP is not required to play with anyone they don’t want to for any reason.
All true, no one has any sort of right to stay in a group they aren't wanted in, or any obligation to stay in any group they don't want to play in. It seems though that the OP was looking for advice other than just "kick her out" or else he wouldn't have bothered posting here.
I agree however I felt it was important to offer OP some reassurance contrary to the growing chorus of “just let them play they want to play”.
I always smile and shake my head about those pointing fingers and screaming "gatekeeper". Some people are simply incapable to play any number of games out there, for any number of reasons. D&D is no different. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. As the OP said "We have made multiple comments on it,", and made the meme reference, so more than one person at this table dislikes this person's playstyle.
Would this person be more suited to another table? Maybe. But she is not suited for this one. If someone at my table had either refused to learn some basic rules, or decided to ignore them, or simply was incapable of learning them, they would be finding another table long before 10 sessions had passed.,
Hypothetically, what would you do if it was the whole table?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It could also be that the player might not quite have a grasp on how spells can affect allies in combat. Darkness and Faerie Fire are great, but they can also potentially hamper the rest of the party because they're AOE. As someone who has been at a table with a new player who consistently ruined my turns with short-sighted combat decisions and lack of spell awareness, I sympathize with that.
With the scant info OP gave us, it sounds like "they aren't playing their class right" is code for "they're using these three spells all the time and we're sick of it". This has nothing to do with the player playing their rogue. It's about the player playing their drow.
I'd say talk to the player about why these spells are frustrating for the table. They might not get it. And if you're the DM, maybe think about the races and racial features you let people have in your game.
Sure it is, they can choose to leave the game if the DM does nothing about the problem(s). Not every table is for everyone, and no one can force you to stay in a game you don't like.
Good communication is key, if by session 10 nothing has changed communication has not been good, or it has been ignored.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Yes, but that's not doing something about the other player's behavior, merely responding to it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
After 10 sessions a response is about all that will get anything done.
Even if the OP is looking for ways to get the problem player to play with the group, after 10 sessions the problem player has made it abundantly clear that they are going to play how they want to play regardless of how others at the table feel about it or how it is affecting game play.
That leaves 3 options
1 continue with the status quo and nothing changes
2 boot the player from the game
3 leave the game
All of which can be done nicely and without malice.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
^ This.
Work with the player in private, perhaps they just need some one on one help. Perhaps they're new, and just need some guidance. Talk to them and find out what they want out of their character, perhaps some slight changes to the character can get them closer to what they're looking for. However, if it is hugely disruptive, and after multiple attempts to help them fail - then perhaps it's time to go your separate ways; though that option should be extremely rare.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
How does this help the other players at the table that are not enjoying the game and have communicated this over 10 sessions?
How about finding a few others that like that play style and starting another group for them, or a group of new people for a starter adventurer.... there are so many options for an odd player out compared to a group that has like minded interest in a play style and are working together.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Have the other characters point things out to her, in character. 'What are you doing, you're a rogue - get stabbing already!'
As a GM, one of my smaller but consistent challenges is to keep players aware of stuff like Inspiration, Fate or similar 'oh crap!' functions. If I had a dollar for each time a player has thrown his hands in the air and exclaimed 'whelp, I'm dead!' and I had to remind him that he still had rerolls ... well, then I'd have several dollars.
Like ... 'no, your armor stacks with your toughness, and you're in criticals but not nearly dead - and only if you chose to deliberately ignore that you can reroll your failed dodge. Or even buy a succes, at the cost of permanently losing a Fate point.'
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
That was precisely my point. The complaints have nothing to do with being a rogue and everything to do with being a drow.
Player's understanding rules and other nuances of the game is about interest level. If you are 10 sessions into D&D and you aren't obsessed with the game, your character and the campaign, odds are you are probably not going to make it. It actually shouldn't take 10 sessions, I can't imagine someone not interested in the game would last more than 2-3.
Perhaps she likes the social aspect of getting together, but isn't into the game. Like I had a buddy once who always went to Monday night football, yet neither liked football, bars or beer. I asked him once, why the hell do you come to this thing each week and his answer was, I like to hang out with you guys. Which frankly... is a good reason as any.
Not everyone that plays D&D is a D&D player, it's just a question as to whether or not the group finds that disruptive or not.
My 2cp worth: Maybe try running a sessions similar to the final mission in Mass Effect 2. The party have to split up to accompish several goals within a certain time limit. Each person gets their own time to shine and hopefully they all end up at the same point for a final encounter. The DM can tailor make each little scene for each character and this might just prompt the player in question to look into their characters abilities a bit more whilst giving them the chance to maybe flex a few character muscles they otherwise may not feel they get to do or realise they have been forgetting some things.
EDIT: also worthing remembering, everyone was new to the game at some stage and if that is the case for this particular player then maybe some additional hand holding is in order.
How much time do you think a DM has in a week? Most people have stuff going in their lives that consume time. How much time do you expect a DM to allocate to a game, say a weekly game, and how much should be designated for catering to every individual unique need or want of a player? These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know how much time you think a DM should spend in a week prepping for a session, and how much time to " tailor make each little scene for each character "?
I have to agree with this.
Just exactly how much is the Rogue affecting the party? They seem to understand Rogues are stabby.
Are they a murder hobo? Do they pick pocket the casters foci? Do they start a bar fight in every tavern? Do they kill the quest giver? Do they backstab any of the PCs in combat? Are they showing up drunk or high? Are they constantly on their phone during RP or combat? Do they yell at other players about how they are playing their PC wrong? Do they cuss and bully the GM? Do they make sexist remarks or crack inappropriate jokes? Do they show up? Are they constantly late? Do they not show up and give no reason? Do they go lone wolfing? Are they an emo edgelord?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
A halfway competent DM can do this as part of their regular session planning—it really is not that hard to say “hey, I’m planning anyway, might as well consider my players while doing this planning” and takes no additional time.
No additional time.......
Yeah no additional time we work it into our normal prep which is going to vary wildly from DM to DM. We all deal with time management issues most of us have jobs and families if on any given week we do not have time we make time get up early or stay up a little later or maybe work on the session we are planning on break at work while we eat lunch.