^^^^ I agree with Voras and BioWizard regarding flaking players. For me, I usually send reminders the day after a session and at least two days before the next game followed by game day reminder. It may sounds like a lot and annoying but helps from a DM side if players drop out early you either try to recover your day session with game changes or you stop working on it for that week.
Though the truth sounds like the players are not invested in the game so maybe have a talk with all of them either, individually or a group, and see if they want to commit to the game and get everything out in the open. (You can have the discussion with pointing fingers and making accusations.) If they want to continue to call them out on past session gatherings and ask how can WE get everyone to the table and what are they looking for in a game to get them more invested.
I find BioWizards West Marches' concept interesting. I've never executed the game like that before but I can definitely see the benefits as a DM and whatever players get to the table.
I have not run a West Marches game either but it solves several problems that some DMs regularly have. Colville's instructions, which are based on what he was told by the first guy who invented the thing back in the 70s or 80s, wisely put the onus on the players for things like deciding what adventure they want to play and organizing the session. The DM just preps what they say they want to do, and then shows up when the session is schedule. This selects for motivated players who want to play in this particular adventure, and I suspect you will get much more buy in than a DM trying to arm-twist his players into showing up on a certain day and time every week.
Colville suggests 'seeding the world' with some adventure areas, providing the players a (slightly inaccurate) map, and then saying, "OK, you folks talk among yourselves and decide what you want to do and when." When the players then decide they want to, say, tackle the Caves of Chaos and the ones who are interested can make it on Thursdays, then the DM (assuming he can make it) preps the adventure and runs it for those players.
I suspect if you did this with a large-ish group (say, 10-12 total players), in a very short period of time you'd find out the 4 or 5 who really want to play D&D, and they would show up a lot, and the several who really never were going to come around, would just fade into the woodwork and disappear. Which is what you want anyway. Although you don't have to go through the frustrating process of setting up sessions, half the players don't show, finding new players, half of them don't show, etc, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
They're my friends and this is my first campaign so I would hate for it to burn like that
I can understand that but it may make it easier to say "hey do you guys/gals really want to continue playing" and if they do see what as a group work out how often to play etc or what they want in the game. I definitely would not want you to burn any bridges with your friend over D&D.
They're my friends and this is my first campaign so I would hate for it to burn like that
You have to talk to each in turn, and get a sense if they want to continue to play D&D. Maybe they just said they would play because they are your friends but really don't have much interest, especially when it is online. Online D&D is nowhere near as fun as in person D&D.
If they do want to continue to play, ask them to commit to setting up free time and making sure no conflicts come up, or if they do come up you are notified asap.
They are your friends, but they don't like to play D&D much, otherwise they wouldn't forget there is a session. Honestly, I don't see the point of rescheduling a session because somebody forgot about it.
With a group of 6, you´re going to have absences quite often. On my old group of 5 playing weekly, we were rescheduling for minor things, but when we decided that we'll play with absences and only reschedule if there was a reason with heads-up (like a planned trip), then suddenly players showed up more often as they hated to hear about the session they missed.
The other option is to schedule a specific date (like every two Sundays) and play regardless the players showing up. Then have the Campain A for when you have the whole group, and the Campain B for the days you have absences. If everything goes well, you will end up with a regular group of 3 players quite advanced and invested on Campain B, and a Campain A that you play eventually with less invested players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
^^^^ I agree with Voras and BioWizard regarding flaking players. For me, I usually send reminders the day after a session and at least two days before the next game followed by game day reminder. It may sounds like a lot and annoying but helps from a DM side if players drop out early you either try to recover your day session with game changes or you stop working on it for that week.
Though the truth sounds like the players are not invested in the game so maybe have a talk with all of them either, individually or a group, and see if they want to commit to the game and get everything out in the open. (You can have the discussion with pointing fingers and making accusations.) If they want to continue to call them out on past session gatherings and ask how can WE get everyone to the table and what are they looking for in a game to get them more invested.
I find BioWizards West Marches' concept interesting. I've never executed the game like that before but I can definitely see the benefits as a DM and whatever players get to the table.
They're my friends and this is my first campaign so I would hate for it to burn like that
I have not run a West Marches game either but it solves several problems that some DMs regularly have. Colville's instructions, which are based on what he was told by the first guy who invented the thing back in the 70s or 80s, wisely put the onus on the players for things like deciding what adventure they want to play and organizing the session. The DM just preps what they say they want to do, and then shows up when the session is schedule. This selects for motivated players who want to play in this particular adventure, and I suspect you will get much more buy in than a DM trying to arm-twist his players into showing up on a certain day and time every week.
Colville suggests 'seeding the world' with some adventure areas, providing the players a (slightly inaccurate) map, and then saying, "OK, you folks talk among yourselves and decide what you want to do and when." When the players then decide they want to, say, tackle the Caves of Chaos and the ones who are interested can make it on Thursdays, then the DM (assuming he can make it) preps the adventure and runs it for those players.
I suspect if you did this with a large-ish group (say, 10-12 total players), in a very short period of time you'd find out the 4 or 5 who really want to play D&D, and they would show up a lot, and the several who really never were going to come around, would just fade into the woodwork and disappear. Which is what you want anyway. Although you don't have to go through the frustrating process of setting up sessions, half the players don't show, finding new players, half of them don't show, etc, etc.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I can understand that but it may make it easier to say "hey do you guys/gals really want to continue playing" and if they do see what as a group work out how often to play etc or what they want in the game. I definitely would not want you to burn any bridges with your friend over D&D.
Sounds like your friends are not really into Pen&Paper RPGs, just saying.
You have to talk to each in turn, and get a sense if they want to continue to play D&D. Maybe they just said they would play because they are your friends but really don't have much interest, especially when it is online. Online D&D is nowhere near as fun as in person D&D.
If they do want to continue to play, ask them to commit to setting up free time and making sure no conflicts come up, or if they do come up you are notified asap.
They are your friends, but they don't like to play D&D much, otherwise they wouldn't forget there is a session. Honestly, I don't see the point of rescheduling a session because somebody forgot about it.
With a group of 6, you´re going to have absences quite often. On my old group of 5 playing weekly, we were rescheduling for minor things, but when we decided that we'll play with absences and only reschedule if there was a reason with heads-up (like a planned trip), then suddenly players showed up more often as they hated to hear about the session they missed.
The other option is to schedule a specific date (like every two Sundays) and play regardless the players showing up. Then have the Campain A for when you have the whole group, and the Campain B for the days you have absences. If everything goes well, you will end up with a regular group of 3 players quite advanced and invested on Campain B, and a Campain A that you play eventually with less invested players.