I've been trying to run a homebrew game that I spent 2+ years creating. My group started on August 1st and agreed to play every two weeks, but since Session 1, we haven't been able to meet because of too many no-shows and schedule conflicts. Three consecutive canceled sessions in as many (semi) weeks are starting to diminish my enthusiasm and my hope that we can continue. I told myself that if we still can't meet on the 26th, I should scrap the whole thing, but should I just cut my losses now and tell everyone not to bother showing up?
I would ask the group. Every two weeks may be a tough cadence for some. I had a game once that ran once a week and that was tough for one person for sure. They missed about half the sessions. It might be better to do a once a month kind of game. Talk it out with them. It could be that, or it could be that some people like to talk about D&D more than they like to play. Those people do exist too. You'll never know without the talk though.
That kind of lag can, unfortunately, be typical for many groups. It doesn't have to be the end. If you want to keep going, I have a couple suggestions.
Over the years, and many different groups, I've noticed that summer can be hard. People take vacations and are otherwise unavailable, so it could just be the seasonal nature of life, and now that fall is starting, you'll be good.
Besides that, do you feel like everyone needs to be there every time? Because that can really be a recipe for not playing. As both a player and a DM, I never expect everyone to be in attendance every time. For that reason, I usually like to have groups of 6-7 players when I DM, because I know that not everyone will be able to make it to any given session. But usually, there will be about 4 or 5 who do make it, and we just go ahead without everyone. I have a sense that a lot of newer players hate this idea, because they love the role play aspects and don't like the idea of an unexplained absence and what was that character doing the whole time the player was gone. I understand that, but well, adults have lives outside of the game, and things come up that are a higher priority than game night. So, to me the choice has always seemed like, we play regularly, just without everyone there, or we wait for everyone, and almost never get to play.
I realize that last paragraph had a few assumptions baked into it, so I'm sorry if it doesn't apply to you or isn't really helpful.
I would ask the group. Every two weeks may be a tough cadence for some. I had a game once that ran once a week and that was tough for one person for sure. They missed about half the sessions. It might be better to do a once a month kind of game. Talk it out with them. It could be that, or it could be that some people like to talk about D&D more than they like to play. Those people do exist too. You'll never know without the talk though.
I've played with them many times before. We played a homebrewed version of Curse of Strahd for over a year before we started my game. We switched to a semi-weekly format to accommodate a player whose schedule only allowed for such meet-ups. It also doesn't help that on the weeks when I don't run the game, one of the other players runs Eve of Ruin for the rest of us, so I can't just switch back to weekly games even if I wanted to...
Besides that, do you feel like everyone needs to be there every time? Because that can really be a recipe for not playing. As both a player and a DM, I never expect everyone to be in attendance every time. For that reason, I usually like to have groups of 6-7 players when I DM, because I know that not everyone will be able to make it to any given session. But usually, there will be about 4 or 5 who do make it, and we just go ahead without everyone. I have a sense that a lot of newer players hate this idea, because they love the role play aspects and don't like the idea of an unexplained absence and what was that character doing the whole time the player was gone. I understand that, but well, adults have lives outside of the game, and things come up that are a higher priority than game night. So, to me the choice has always seemed like, we play regularly, just without everyone there, or we wait for everyone, and almost never get to play.
If I had one single person cancel on me, this would be a non-issue, and I'd just fill them in on what they missed next in the session (as I was planning to do tonight before someone else had to withdraw). However, it's a group of 5 people, and twice now, I've had 2 of them cancel simultaneously; some DMs can fill in for two absent players at once, but not me. Furthermore, one person agreed to be the Party Leader, and I wrote the first 2-3 sessions around him to reflect that. So, if he has to cancel (like he did on the 29th of last month), the whole thing needs to be put off until he's available.
I've been trying to run a homebrew game that I spent 2+ years creating. My group started on August 1st and agreed to play every two weeks, but since Session 1, we haven't been able to meet because of too many no-shows and schedule conflicts. Three consecutive canceled sessions in as many (semi) weeks are starting to diminish my enthusiasm and my hope that we can continue. I told myself that if we still can't meet on the 26th, I should scrap the whole thing, but should I just cut my losses now and tell everyone not to bother showing up?
How many players? Is this an electronic game, or in person? Are you looking for a quorum, or a complete roster for a game to run?
You know your group better than us and if they've got life stuff that came up or if there's other factors.
Speaking from personal experience my online group has had hiatuses of 2-3 months between sessions due to player busyness. (I'm even anticipating one of our guys will be busy with nursing school for the next three months now that his courses are starting to ramp up.) But we're also a small group so 1 DM and 2 players has been a fairly common setup when we meet.
For the concern about not being able fill in for missing players, one option is to have players run each others' PCs when the other is absent. That way instead of you needing to fill for missing players it can be passed off to the players themselves. Going back to my group, I've DMed sessions where the two present players were each running 2 characters.
If you're planning a roleplay arc for a specific character, can still throw a wrench in things but it might also be something that can be adapted around by changing the style of game to be more forgiving of specific players being absent.
5 players. Virtual game. Need 4 players at a minimum.
Get different players. Or rather, dump the ones that can't commit to a few hours every two weeks, and find ones that DO want to play. I am positive that it is not an issue where every single player is one that has no commitment, but only some, and to various degrees.
Besides that, do you feel like everyone needs to be there every time? Because that can really be a recipe for not playing. As both a player and a DM, I never expect everyone to be in attendance every time. For that reason, I usually like to have groups of 6-7 players when I DM, because I know that not everyone will be able to make it to any given session. But usually, there will be about 4 or 5 who do make it, and we just go ahead without everyone. I have a sense that a lot of newer players hate this idea, because they love the role play aspects and don't like the idea of an unexplained absence and what was that character doing the whole time the player was gone. I understand that, but well, adults have lives outside of the game, and things come up that are a higher priority than game night. So, to me the choice has always seemed like, we play regularly, just without everyone there, or we wait for everyone, and almost never get to play.
If I had one single person cancel on me, this would be a non-issue, and I'd just fill them in on what they missed next in the session (as I was planning to do tonight before someone else had to withdraw). However, it's a group of 5 people, and twice now, I've had 2 of them cancel simultaneously; some DMs can fill in for two absent players at once, but not me. Furthermore, one person agreed to be the Party Leader, and I wrote the first 2-3 sessions around him to reflect that. So, if he has to cancel (like he did on the 29th of last month), the whole thing needs to be put off until he's available.
I see. Like I said, I realize there were some assumptions. Well, I would consider adding maybe 1-2 more players if the problem persists. That might fix it. And this might be too late, but I generally suggest not ever plannin main plot around any one character. A side quest, sure; something that you can cut without missing it. But main story plot is a no-no. The character could die, the player could move or quit the game, or, in this case, be pretty flaky. Is there a way to re-write what you have do it doesn’t depend on that character? Then you can go ahead with or without the player.
Every one of our games in our extended group meets every other week, and our rule is that if 2 people cancel, we call off that game. Normally it is rare for us to cancel a game except if they fall on major holidays - but that's because our players prioritize our games. Before the campaign starts players commit to the schedule (and make sure their spouses are in agreement).
One possible solution for you... add a 6th player. If you require at least 4 to play to have a game, then it is more likely if you have 6 players. (Most of our groups have 6 players + DM)
If it is the same person cancelling each time, then perhaps their schedule simply doesn't allow them to sit in on this campaign, or perhaps treat them as a guest player when they're available, but don't generally count on their presence.
And this might be too late, but I generally suggest not ever plannin main plot around any one character. A side quest, sure; something that you can cut without missing it. But main story plot is a no-no. [...] Is there a way to re-write what you have do it doesn’t depend on that character? Then you can go ahead with or without the player.
Hmm... It would be difficult and the end result would be pretty clunky, but for the sake of getting the story to move, I might have to bite the bullet and settle for a clunky script.
I would consider lowering your threshold to three players instead of four. While four players is where D&D starts to sing, three players is still playable - not ideal, but still enough members of the party they can roleplay between one another or engage in combat without it just being two people going back and forth. I get that you mentioned concern about your ability to do that. While there might be a learning curve, you’ll realize it is not as hard as you think and quickly learn to adjust. Getting used to DMing for fewer is better than not being able to DM at all due to cancellations.
Reducing your threshold to three helps in a few significant ways. Most importantly, it drastically expresses your odds that the game will occur. That in turn means you are more likely to develop a rhythm of playing - every two weeks is a great, consistent schedule, but that consistency needs to be established before you can rely on it.
Also important, players do not like missing out on things. With your threshold of four, it seems players have learned the lesson “eh, if I flake, others probably will also and the game will not happen, so there is no risk I miss anything.” Lower the threshold to three and that math changes. Particularly once people who flake start missing out on fun game moments, that can decrease their desire to flake.
I've been trying to run a homebrew game that I spent 2+ years creating. My group started on August 1st and agreed to play every two weeks, but since Session 1, we haven't been able to meet because of too many no-shows and schedule conflicts. Three consecutive canceled sessions in as many (semi) weeks are starting to diminish my enthusiasm and my hope that we can continue. I told myself that if we still can't meet on the 26th, I should scrap the whole thing, but should I just cut my losses now and tell everyone not to bother showing up?
How to establish a reliable group is probably one of the more useful skills a DM can learn:
Start a campaign with six players, but expect only four to show up.
Constantly find new players, and ruthlessly replace flakey (or bad) ones... even if that means ending the campaign, starting a new one, and not inviting everyone.
Send a reminder email the day before each session
Don't cancel if someone flakes: that's just rude to the reliable players, and sets a precedence. Besides: I've had incredible sessions with just two or three players (it gives them more spotlight time).
At the beginning of each session (or just after), have each player confirm that they can make it to the next session in two weeks, and have them put it into their phone's calendar.
Run a good game that makes them want to come back. Experience and prep helps here, but so does letting the players do whatever they want and rolling with it.
Starting small is not necessarily a bad thing. If you are consistent, you will eventually forge a reliable group. But it can take time.
I (and clearly many other DMs) can relate... this is pretty common.
Have you had a conversation with your players where you explain that it has taken you 2+ years to set everything up, and that cancellations(while often very valid) are a bit of a slap in the face?
Sometimes the players just don't understand the amount of work done by the DM. This is generally not intentional, so just tell them! Explain what this means to you and do some expectation management. If the players are not willing or able to commit to a schedule where you meet at least every 3 weeks, then ask them to withdraw from the group as you can't be expected to be Johnny on the spot whenever they are ready!
Have you had a conversation with your players where you explain that it has taken you 2+ years to set everything up, and that cancellations(while often very valid) are a bit of a slap in the face? [...] Explain what this means to you and do some expectation management. If the players are not willing or able to commit to a schedule where you meet at least every 3 weeks, then ask them to withdraw from the group as you can't be expected to be Johnny on the spot whenever they are ready!
I just... I hate having those discussions because I never know how to do it without sounding like a selfish narcissist. Doubly so since my most recent cancellation was due to two of my players getting hit by Hurricane Francine and losing power, so bringing it up after that is not going to make me come off well. "Hey, guys, I know it's wrong to be more concerned with your availability than your safety or whether or not you still have a house and any worldly possessions, buuuuut..."
So, this is what I've gathered, correct me if I'm wrong:
After the initial session, you did have three sessions, but cancelled them all. Twice because only three out of five players could make it (it's not clear if they're the same people) and once because you made the session about a specific player, and they couldn't make it.
I think it's worth pointing out some things.
It's August, people are very likely to go away. This is very much Captain Hindsight speaking, but don't start a campaign in August because people are often away, busy with family etc, and that absence sets a bad precedence. I'd have done maybe one shots until September.
See what September and October brings before freaking. I'd also not pay attention to anyone claiming they need to be booted. From what you've said, it sounds like individuals have missed one, maybe two sessions each in the holiday month. That's life and if you're booting people over that, you aren't likely to get this campaign to last a fraction as long as you've spent writing it. Look for long term trends, not missing a session once or twice.
Don't have sessions completely reliant on one person, because Murphy's Law. If you must, have back up stories to play if they don't turn up.
Three players are enough. It's not nice for the story, sure. But let go of that, and just play. The absent characters just melt into the background or mysteriously disappear, and carry on. Cancelling those sessions are far more problematic for the long term health of the campaign. You don't need to play those other characters, just play as if they aren't there. At the end of the day, you'll have absences. Letting them stop your game will eventually cause your campaign to fail as everyone starts to deprioritise the campaign, because it's never running. Instead, if they feel that the game is continue with it without them, they'll start to prioritise it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I've been trying to run a homebrew game that I spent 2+ years creating. My group started on August 1st and agreed to play every two weeks, but since Session 1, we haven't been able to meet because of too many no-shows and schedule conflicts. Three consecutive canceled sessions in as many (semi) weeks are starting to diminish my enthusiasm and my hope that we can continue. I told myself that if we still can't meet on the 26th, I should scrap the whole thing, but should I just cut my losses now and tell everyone not to bother showing up?
In my experience, the every other week thing doesn't work. Games get canceled and you end up missing months. In my experience every week seems to work better. If we have to cancel, its usually only for one week, at most two. Where when I ran every other week, it ended up being a month if we missed two games in a row (and everyone could have probably played on the week we didn't run.
I would also say, to always run the game if you have at least 3 players. If you have a group of 8 players and five of them cancel, the game continues. Only cancel when you have less than three players. Though I have ran game sessions with two players before because people canceled last minute.
If you keep canceling eventually the dedicated players are going to find something else to do those weeks assuming the game is not going to happen. This is also where running every week helps.
So, this is what I've gathered, correct me if I'm wrong:
After the initial session, you did have three sessions, but cancelled them all. Twice because only three out of five players could make it (it's not clear if they're the same people) and once because you made the session about a specific player, and they couldn't make it.
It's August, people are very likely to go away. This is very much Captain Hindsight speaking, but don't start a campaign in August because people are often away, busy with family etc, and that absence sets a bad precedence. I'd have done maybe one shots until September. [...] From what you've said, it sounds like individuals have missed one, maybe two sessions each in the holiday month.
The funny is A: so far, all of my players (5 total) have had to bail one time each, and B: of those 5, only 2 were because of Summertime Shenanigans; the other 3 were all because of power outages, and all on game day.
I've been trying to run a homebrew game that I spent 2+ years creating. My group started on August 1st and agreed to play every two weeks, but since Session 1, we haven't been able to meet because of too many no-shows and schedule conflicts. Three consecutive canceled sessions in as many (semi) weeks are starting to diminish my enthusiasm and my hope that we can continue. I told myself that if we still can't meet on the 26th, I should scrap the whole thing, but should I just cut my losses now and tell everyone not to bother showing up?
I would ask the group. Every two weeks may be a tough cadence for some. I had a game once that ran once a week and that was tough for one person for sure. They missed about half the sessions. It might be better to do a once a month kind of game. Talk it out with them. It could be that, or it could be that some people like to talk about D&D more than they like to play. Those people do exist too. You'll never know without the talk though.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
That kind of lag can, unfortunately, be typical for many groups. It doesn't have to be the end. If you want to keep going, I have a couple suggestions.
Over the years, and many different groups, I've noticed that summer can be hard. People take vacations and are otherwise unavailable, so it could just be the seasonal nature of life, and now that fall is starting, you'll be good.
Besides that, do you feel like everyone needs to be there every time? Because that can really be a recipe for not playing. As both a player and a DM, I never expect everyone to be in attendance every time. For that reason, I usually like to have groups of 6-7 players when I DM, because I know that not everyone will be able to make it to any given session. But usually, there will be about 4 or 5 who do make it, and we just go ahead without everyone. I have a sense that a lot of newer players hate this idea, because they love the role play aspects and don't like the idea of an unexplained absence and what was that character doing the whole time the player was gone. I understand that, but well, adults have lives outside of the game, and things come up that are a higher priority than game night. So, to me the choice has always seemed like, we play regularly, just without everyone there, or we wait for everyone, and almost never get to play.
I realize that last paragraph had a few assumptions baked into it, so I'm sorry if it doesn't apply to you or isn't really helpful.
I've played with them many times before. We played a homebrewed version of Curse of Strahd for over a year before we started my game. We switched to a semi-weekly format to accommodate a player whose schedule only allowed for such meet-ups. It also doesn't help that on the weeks when I don't run the game, one of the other players runs Eve of Ruin for the rest of us, so I can't just switch back to weekly games even if I wanted to...
If I had one single person cancel on me, this would be a non-issue, and I'd just fill them in on what they missed next in the session (as I was planning to do tonight before someone else had to withdraw). However, it's a group of 5 people, and twice now, I've had 2 of them cancel simultaneously; some DMs can fill in for two absent players at once, but not me. Furthermore, one person agreed to be the Party Leader, and I wrote the first 2-3 sessions around him to reflect that. So, if he has to cancel (like he did on the 29th of last month), the whole thing needs to be put off until he's available.
How many players? Is this an electronic game, or in person? Are you looking for a quorum, or a complete roster for a game to run?
5 players. Virtual game. Need 4 players at a minimum.
You know your group better than us and if they've got life stuff that came up or if there's other factors.
Speaking from personal experience my online group has had hiatuses of 2-3 months between sessions due to player busyness. (I'm even anticipating one of our guys will be busy with nursing school for the next three months now that his courses are starting to ramp up.) But we're also a small group so 1 DM and 2 players has been a fairly common setup when we meet.
For the concern about not being able fill in for missing players, one option is to have players run each others' PCs when the other is absent. That way instead of you needing to fill for missing players it can be passed off to the players themselves. Going back to my group, I've DMed sessions where the two present players were each running 2 characters.
If you're planning a roleplay arc for a specific character, can still throw a wrench in things but it might also be something that can be adapted around by changing the style of game to be more forgiving of specific players being absent.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
Get different players. Or rather, dump the ones that can't commit to a few hours every two weeks, and find ones that DO want to play. I am positive that it is not an issue where every single player is one that has no commitment, but only some, and to various degrees.
I see. Like I said, I realize there were some assumptions.
Well, I would consider adding maybe 1-2 more players if the problem persists. That might fix it.
And this might be too late, but I generally suggest not ever plannin main plot around any one character. A side quest, sure; something that you can cut without missing it. But main story plot is a no-no. The character could die, the player could move or quit the game, or, in this case, be pretty flaky.
Is there a way to re-write what you have do it doesn’t depend on that character? Then you can go ahead with or without the player.
Every one of our games in our extended group meets every other week, and our rule is that if 2 people cancel, we call off that game. Normally it is rare for us to cancel a game except if they fall on major holidays - but that's because our players prioritize our games. Before the campaign starts players commit to the schedule (and make sure their spouses are in agreement).
One possible solution for you... add a 6th player. If you require at least 4 to play to have a game, then it is more likely if you have 6 players. (Most of our groups have 6 players + DM)
If it is the same person cancelling each time, then perhaps their schedule simply doesn't allow them to sit in on this campaign, or perhaps treat them as a guest player when they're available, but don't generally count on their presence.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
It might be something to consider, I guess. I might make a LFP post in the near future.
Hmm... It would be difficult and the end result would be pretty clunky, but for the sake of getting the story to move, I might have to bite the bullet and settle for a clunky script.
I would consider lowering your threshold to three players instead of four. While four players is where D&D starts to sing, three players is still playable - not ideal, but still enough members of the party they can roleplay between one another or engage in combat without it just being two people going back and forth. I get that you mentioned concern about your ability to do that. While there might be a learning curve, you’ll realize it is not as hard as you think and quickly learn to adjust. Getting used to DMing for fewer is better than not being able to DM at all due to cancellations.
Reducing your threshold to three helps in a few significant ways. Most importantly, it drastically expresses your odds that the game will occur. That in turn means you are more likely to develop a rhythm of playing - every two weeks is a great, consistent schedule, but that consistency needs to be established before you can rely on it.
Also important, players do not like missing out on things. With your threshold of four, it seems players have learned the lesson “eh, if I flake, others probably will also and the game will not happen, so there is no risk I miss anything.” Lower the threshold to three and that math changes. Particularly once people who flake start missing out on fun game moments, that can decrease their desire to flake.
If that happens for us we just agreed to NPC the missing player. Their actions are a group agreement.
Or we let the experienced players have two characters.
How to establish a reliable group is probably one of the more useful skills a DM can learn:
Starting small is not necessarily a bad thing. If you are consistent, you will eventually forge a reliable group. But it can take time.
I (and clearly many other DMs) can relate... this is pretty common.
Have you had a conversation with your players where you explain that it has taken you 2+ years to set everything up, and that cancellations(while often very valid) are a bit of a slap in the face?
Sometimes the players just don't understand the amount of work done by the DM. This is generally not intentional, so just tell them! Explain what this means to you and do some expectation management. If the players are not willing or able to commit to a schedule where you meet at least every 3 weeks, then ask them to withdraw from the group as you can't be expected to be Johnny on the spot whenever they are ready!
I just... I hate having those discussions because I never know how to do it without sounding like a selfish narcissist. Doubly so since my most recent cancellation was due to two of my players getting hit by Hurricane Francine and losing power, so bringing it up after that is not going to make me come off well. "Hey, guys, I know it's wrong to be more concerned with your availability than your safety or whether or not you still have a house and any worldly possessions, buuuuut..."
So, this is what I've gathered, correct me if I'm wrong:
After the initial session, you did have three sessions, but cancelled them all. Twice because only three out of five players could make it (it's not clear if they're the same people) and once because you made the session about a specific player, and they couldn't make it.
I think it's worth pointing out some things.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In my experience, the every other week thing doesn't work. Games get canceled and you end up missing months. In my experience every week seems to work better. If we have to cancel, its usually only for one week, at most two. Where when I ran every other week, it ended up being a month if we missed two games in a row (and everyone could have probably played on the week we didn't run.
I would also say, to always run the game if you have at least 3 players. If you have a group of 8 players and five of them cancel, the game continues. Only cancel when you have less than three players. Though I have ran game sessions with two players before because people canceled last minute.
If you keep canceling eventually the dedicated players are going to find something else to do those weeks assuming the game is not going to happen. This is also where running every week helps.
That is correct.
The funny is A: so far, all of my players (5 total) have had to bail one time each, and B: of those 5, only 2 were because of Summertime Shenanigans; the other 3 were all because of power outages, and all on game day.
I think I'll do that going forward if only to have something to do that day beyond moping over not getting to run what I wanted.