If Jimbo gave ample notice that he wasn't going to show up, then how is his not being there disrespectful? if someone doesn't feel like playing in my game, I'd rather they not show up, than show up because they felt forced to and not enjoy themselves.
Ample notice is great Josh, but if the excuse is truly and honestly to play video games then I think he/she would have to find another table to play at.
We have had the same group of friends play for 15+ years and it's because we respect each others time and commitment AND (a big AND) we share similar sensibilities.
So Jimbo (in the above scenario is disrespecting the other players time and commitment and he certainly does not share the groups sensibilities.
That's not to say we do not miss a game or two. Life happens, but video games can be paused.
-MD
Maybe, I dunno. I'm a very avid video game player, as are all the players in my PF group, so it doesn't bother us. So long as we know ahead of time, play all the video games you like.
One of my friends is a big-time techgeek, and has gotten in on several MMO beta tests, so if there is a TTRPG game happening at the time, we can pretty much count on him being home playing his beta test.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing I should add Josh as context is everything.
Our gamers are all old farts, the youngest being 40 (it's not the years it's the mileage). So most of us are married, have kids and obligations. We moved heaven and earth to carve ourselves 4 hours a week to sit at a table together and roll dice.
So game night is our weekly evening away from work, dishes, kids, and nagging spouses. So yeah....cancelling the night because of Call of Duty would chap my hide.
-MD
Another thing I should add Josh as context is everything.
Our gamers are all old farts, the youngest being 40 (it's not the years it's the mileage). So most of us are married, have kids and obligations. We moved heaven and earth to carve ourselves 4 hours a week to sit at a table together and roll dice.
So game night is our weekly evening away from work, dishes, kids, and nagging spouses. So yeah....cancelling the night because of Call of Duty would chap my hide.
-MD
I can sort of relate. We're all mid to late 30's, more than half of the group(myself included) married with kids, etc etc. Most of us have been playing together since around '93, '94 or so. We have one main game night during the week, and I play with another group once every two weeks.
Before I met my wife, I gamed no less than 6 nights a week in 4 different groups, with 2, sometimes 3 different games on Saturdays. I was logging more time at the gaming table than I was at my day job each week. So yeah, my gaming dropped down immensely once I became a family man. Our one main night a week is pretty important, but only so long as everyone is having a good time.
I just can't see getting worked up over one person missing once in a while. If it's a regular thing, then that's a problem. But once in a while, with notice, I just can't be bothered by that. Live and let live.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a player cancel on me to watch a sports series on TV, after letting me know about it the day before. However, he didn't officially declare it until about an hour from game time.
I told him I didn't mind him canceling for other plans, but that I really needed more notice than that. Since I was driving an hour to GM at our friends house, as was one of the other players, not having enough people to play meant lost time and gas getting there. He understood and we improved our communication after that.
However, when we first started gaming it was for 6 hour afternoon sessions. When I got back from overseas and picked back up, things had changed. They were only able to commit to 3 hours a night. When they started discussing limiting the session to 2 and a half, I told them I couldn't commit to the game any more due to the travel time. I then found another group that could game for 6 hours and we were happy again.
So I guess my peeve about this is not communicating about attendance and time commitments.
I had a player cancel on me to watch a sports series on TV, after letting me know about it the day before. However, he didn't officially declare it until about an hour from game time.
I told him I didn't mind him canceling for other plans, but that I really needed more notice than that. Since I was driving an hour to GM at our friends house, as was one of the other players, not having enough people to play meant lost time and gas getting there. He understood and we improved our communication after that.
Same here, that's why I emphasize at least giving decent enough notice. On game nights, I have to drive a bit over an hour to drop the kids off to my in-laws with my wife(she visits there while I game, and I get off work way earlier than her, so I meet her there), and get to gaming, so just having me as a single player in a game, my schedule affects at least 4 other people(wife, kids, mom-in-law). Finding out gaming is off when I'm half-way there is a pain in the rear, to be sure.
Which is also why I emphasize having a backup plan, and typically not canceling the whole night if one other person can't make it, unless that person happens to be who's house the game is at. Not much of a workaround for that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess once I had a reverse situation. GM was dodgy about making the sessions. we played once a month if lucky. At this point I was already certain it wasnt working for me. Having a flaky player is one thign but a flaky GM is not happening. Final straw, day of the game he tells everyone that game is off because survivor was on TV that night. When we asked him to Tivo or on demand it he said, "but its live". That was the end for me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess once I had a reverse situation. GM was dodgy about making the sessions.
I do my best to cancel well in advance or just suck it up if I'm not feeling up to the game. Since I'm the one hosting now I try to make sure none of my players are wasting gas driving over.
|
I do realize how annoying it is. Believe me, I've seen countless campaigns crash and burn over no-shows and poor attendance. That's why, if one person suddenly can't make it at the last minute, we still play if everyone else wants to. Or we play something else. Either way, we still make use of the time we have for the session. I refuse to allow my time to be wasted; we will do something if everyone else still wants to play something.If multiple players can't make it, then I may cancel the session. Even then, it's not the end of the world. Watch movies, hang out, play a board game, etc.
If you cancel your entire game over one player not making it, you're going to have to expect a lot of frustrated sessions. This seems very rigid to me, so my advice is to try to be more lenient and have several back-up plans for if a player can't make it.
First off I want to apologize Josh and to everyone else. Just been having a rough week and being overly sensitive. Still no reason to be rude and snappy imo.
You are right. I too have had games crash and burn because of not enough people showing up enough times. We do game if we have at least four people and it's a side quest. If not we cancel it or do something else. Excep what happens is if it happens too often it can cause a ripple effect with the players friends and family. Too many cancelled games makes for unhappy players and too many non gaming related events cancelled to go to a game that gets cancelled is not a good thing.
I do realize how annoying it is. Believe me, I've seen countless campaigns crash and burn over no-shows and poor attendance. That's why, if one person suddenly can't make it at the last minute, we still play if everyone else wants to. Or we play something else. Either way, we still make use of the time we have for the session. I refuse to allow my time to be wasted; we will do something if everyone else still wants to play something.If multiple players can't make it, then I may cancel the session. Even then, it's not the end of the world. Watch movies, hang out, play a board game, etc.
If you cancel your entire game over one player not making it, you're going to have to expect a lot of frustrated sessions. This seems very rigid to me, so my advice is to try to be more lenient and have several back-up plans for if a player can't make it.
First off I want to apologize Josh and to everyone else. Just been having a rough week and being overly sensitive. Still no reason to be rude and snappy imo.
You are right. I too have had games crash and burn because of not enough people showing up enough times. We do game if we have at least four people and it's a side quest. If not we cancel it or do something else. Excep what happens is if it happens too often it can cause a ripple effect with the players friends and family. Too many cancelled games makes for unhappy players and too many non gaming related events cancelled to go to a game that gets cancelled is not a good thing.
It's all good, totally understandable. I have to admit that my tone can come off as very standoffish, and blunt, when I really don't mean it to be. If I came off that way, then I apologize.
I too know the ripple effect. Player A misses a bunch, causing eventual chaos in the game(story gets goofed up, players forget what's going on, etc). Player B gets tired of dealing with Player A and eventually falls off too, DM gets burned out running a game for a constantly changing cast, etc. I've felt that sting many times.
|
|
It's all good, totally understandable. I have to admit that my tone can come off as very standoffish, and blunt, when I really don't mean it to be. If I came off that way, then I apologize.I too know the ripple effect. Player A misses a bunch, causing eventual chaos in the game(story gets goofed up, players forget what's going on, etc). Player B gets tired of dealing with Player A and eventually falls off too, DM gets burned out running a game for a constantly changing...
I'm blunt as well sometimes when I post so I can't really get offended when someone does the same.
Another pet peeve of mine. Is Dms that expect players to act like no matter the level that they should still act like first level characters. By 10th level hell by 5th level the entire party knows to expects traps in a room or area. As well as monsters and BBEGS at least the intelligent ones to be prepared for combat and to use tactics. Experience has to count for more than something than leveling up. Same goes for players. Who expect to smash through everything and complain when they get hurt. At a certain point unless the party is being low key they gain a reputation. The oppostion is not just going to go into combat with preparing themselves. Why would npcs or BBEGs not buff themselves up if the players do it. Players who complain when their characters get hurt. It's called Dungeon and Dragons where you player heroic characters. I can understand when a character loses a lot of hp. Espcially on a regular basis. Yet when the Fighter keeps complaining about getting hurt is when I threathen to hold players back a level. Same goes for DMa who can't stand to see their npcs and bBEGs hurt. Yes I know you spend a lot of time prepping for a game. Yet bad rolls on the dice and good for the players can end a BBEG quickly. It sucks but it happens. If you can't stand seeing your npcs and bbegs hurt it maybe time to step down as a DM. As that leads to a "me vs them" mentality towards the players.
I almost forgot. Too many fantasy rpgs that make humans the most powerful and dominant force simply "because" with no good reason. Espcially when other races in the setting are more powerful and intelligent. I'm getting quite tired of humans being on the the toip of the food chain in rpgs for every genre.
It's all good, totally understandable. I have to admit that my tone can come off as very standoffish, and blunt, when I really don't mean it to be. If I came off that way, then I apologize.I too know the ripple effect. Player A misses a bunch, causing eventual chaos in the game(story gets goofed up, players forget what's going on, etc). Player B gets tired of dealing with Player A and eventually falls off too, DM gets burned out running a game for a constantly changing...
I'm blunt as well sometimes when I post so I can't really get offended when someone does the same.
Another pet peeve of mine. Is Dms that expect players to act like no matter the level that they should still act like first level characters. By 10th level hell by 5th level the entire party knows to expects traps in a room or area. As well as monsters and BBEGS at least the intelligent ones to be prepared for combat and to use tactics. Experience has to count for more than something than leveling up. Same goes for players. Who expect to smash through everything and complain when they get hurt. At a certain point unless the party is being low key they gain a reputation. The oppostion is not just going to go into combat with preparing themselves. Why would npcs or BBEGs not buff themselves up if the players do it. Players who complain when their characters get hurt. It's called Dungeon and Dragons where you player heroic characters. I can understand when a character loses a lot of hp. Espcially on a regular basis. Yet when the Fighter keeps complaining about getting hurt is when I threathen to hold players back a level. Same goes for DMa who can't stand to see their npcs and bBEGs hurt. Yes I know you spend a lot of time prepping for a game. Yet bad rolls on the dice and good for the players can end a BBEG quickly. It sucks but it happens. If you can't stand seeing your npcs and bbegs hurt it maybe time to step down as a DM. As that leads to a "me vs them" mentality towards the players.
I've seen this a bit too, and I think it comes down to some DM's having a "sweet spot" level range they are best at DM'ing. One DM might be most comfortable running low level games, like 1-5. Two of our DM's are at their best between levels 3-9; after that, the game typically unravels due to unbalanced encounters, the DM panicking over some PC's powers, etc. A friend of mine whom I haven't played under in a long time, likes to start his games level 15+. It gets crazy complex, but he deals with all the details very well.
My sweet spot is around level 10; I like having PC's that are rugged and tough, but not god-like yet. I get to throw nasty stuff at them, and there's enough wiggle-room and space for special abilities, etc. I've started several games at 10 and felt good about them. But, when I've tried to run low-level games, I have a hard time getting out of that high-level mindset, and accidentally wipe the party...
|
|
I've seen this a bit too, and I think it comes down to some DM's having a "sweet spot" level range they are best at DM'ing. One DM might be most comfortable running low level games, like 1-5. Two of our DM's are at their best between levels 3-9; after that, the game typically unravels due to unbalanced encounters, the DM panicking over some PC's powers, etc. A friend of mine whom I haven't played under in a long time, likes to start his games level 15+. It gets crazy complex, but he deals with all the details very well.My sweet spot is around level 10; I like having PC's that are rugged and tough, but not god-like yet. I get to throw nasty stuff at them, and there's enough wiggle-room and space for special abilities, etc. I've started several games at 10 and felt good about them. But, when I've tried to run low-level games, I have a hard time getting out of that high-level mindset, and accidentally wipe the party...
It is frustrating to lose at the table as a dm sometimes as one does put work into it. Except I do see the point of view that if a group runs into traps more than once they would be prepared. So a DM imo can't complain that players are no longer sre no longer surprised or at high levels worried about traps. When the evil Lich awakes signalling the end of the world and must be stopped in a set number of days. Worrying about a spiked pit trap just becomes secondary. I'm not saying ignore traps. At higher levels and with enough casters in the group a lot of that can be bypassed.
As for encounters I have a Gunslinger with a musket. It does 1d12 with a X4 critical multiplier. I have had to give my npcs and BBEGS triple in some cases four time the amount of hp. Otherwise too many one shot kills. Or I would have to put too many enemies and risk inflicting a TPK. Given that at the groups level the player has multiple attacks. I would allow the class in a game. Defintrly imo have them target regular AC. Touch AC when neither the cross bow or the bow get any special rules such as guns just makes a dm life easier. I still remember the picture of a knights leg stuck to a horse. not sure if it was a a bolt or arrow. The projectile went through the armor, through the leg, and into the side of the horse. Yet bolts and arrows do not have any type of DR or are specific ones anyway I think.
Higher level games imo require more participation from both players and dm. More players. As at my table both sides need to have a cheat sheet of all the bonuses. Or the game slows down if the players and dms flip through books looking for what spells do etc. And it's not just to 3.5/PF. We had the same trouble with 2E with casters. Melee types not so much as they were straight forward for the most part. Tracking the extra attacks for Fighters was a little annoying somewhat.
Touching on your note Memorax I too find it annoying when players of high level are treated like commoners and not heroes. Reputations should precede them.
By 10th level the characters have probably saved cities. I think they are the fantasy equivalent of rock stars.
Does David Bowie purchase his own drinks when he enters a bar?? I think not!
|
|
Touching on your note Memorax I too find it annoying when players of high level are treated like commoners and not heroes. Reputations should precede them.
By 10th level the characters have probably saved cities. I think they are the fantasy equivalent of rock stars.
Does David Bowie purchase his own drinks when he enters a bar?? I think not!
A friend of mine pointed out that some posters were unhappy that traps at higher levels had little to no effect. When a Barbarain has a 100+ hp unless it's truly a lethal trap they are going to shrug it off as a flesh wound. Again I'm not saying traps can't be dangerous. Just that they become less effective imo as players go up in levels. Good point analog with David Bowie. At 10th level party can buy a entire bar drinks for months if not years.
A friend of mine pointed out that some posters were unhappy that traps at higher levels had little to no effect. When a Barbarain has a 100+ hp unless it's truly a lethal trap they are going to shrug it off as a flesh wound. Again I'm not saying traps can't be dangerous. Just that they become less effective imo as players go up in levels. Good point analog with David Bowie. At 10th level party can buy a entire bar drinks for months if not years.Touching on your note Memorax I too find it annoying when players of high level are treated like commoners and not heroes. Reputations should precede them.
By 10th level the characters have probably saved cities. I think they are the fantasy equivalent of rock stars.
Does David Bowie purchase his own drinks when he enters a bar?? I think not!
Not my groups, lol. We blow every coin the moment we hit the next big city. I usually keep a few hundred gold, maybe a handful of platinum on me, but it's rarely more than that. Adventuring is expensive.
A friend of mine pointed out that some posters were unhappy that traps at higher levels had little to no effect. When a Barbarain has a 100+ hp unless it's truly a lethal trap they are going to shrug it off as a flesh wound. Again I'm not saying traps can't be dangerous. Just that they become less effective imo as players go up in levels. Good point analog with David Bowie. At 10th level party can buy a entire bar drinks for months if not years.Touching on your note Memorax I too find it annoying when players of high level are treated like commoners and not heroes. Reputations should precede them.
By 10th level the characters have probably saved cities. I think they are the fantasy equivalent of rock stars.
Does David Bowie purchase his own drinks when he enters a bar?? I think not!
That's why you make traps that affect them in ways other than causing HP damage. That barb won't be as effective if he is STR drained.
|
|
Touching on your note Memorax I too find it annoying when players of high level are treated like commoners and not heroes. Reputations should precede them.
By 10th level the characters have probably saved cities. I think they are the fantasy equivalent of rock stars.
Does David Bowie purchase his own drinks when he enters a bar?? I think not!
On the flip side a real annoyance is PCs that know they are miles ahead of everyone and are not beholden to their actions. Sherif wants to arrest you for commiting crimes, just kill him. King doesnt want to help with your quest, just kill him. Who are they after all to bother PC superfly?
On the flip side a real annoyance is PCs that know they are miles ahead of everyone and are not beholden to their actions. Sherif wants to arrest you for commiting crimes, just kill him. King doesnt want to help with your quest, just kill him. Who are they after all to bother PC superfly?Touching on your note Memorax I too find it annoying when players of high level are treated like commoners and not heroes. Reputations should precede them.
By 10th level the characters have probably saved cities. I think they are the fantasy equivalent of rock stars.
Does David Bowie purchase his own drinks when he enters a bar?? I think not!
I don't allow players like that at my table. It's disruptive and not conducive to a fun experience. Some might call that removing player agency, I call it not letting my players be ***holes. What's the point of joining in on the story when you're just going to completely ignore the plot and kill anything that gets in your way?
Killing is also an evil act, especially with that kind of attitude, "You're not going to help me, so DIE!" I mean, that's straight channeling Emperor Palpatine. Eventually a noble paladin is going to hear about this so-called "hero" killing sheriffs and kings and that "hero" is going to have to pay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't allow players like that at my table. It's disruptive and not conducive to a fun experience. Some might call that removing player agency, I call it not letting my players be ***holes.
I'd allow it, but there will probably be repercussions for their actions. If they're slaying legitimate authority figures, then other good adventurers or bounty hunters may start tracking them down.
|
|
That's why you make traps that affect them in ways other than causing HP damage. That barb won't be as effective if he is STR drained.
Good point. Except unless you don't have a cleric or someone with UMD or little to no money it's not going to be a hinderance for long imo.
I'd allow it, but there will probably be repercussions for their actions. If they're slaying legitimate authority figures, then other good adventurers or bounty hunters may start tracking them down.
Which is one way of keeping them in line. I still remember a Paladin who played the class like Dirty Harry with a shield. Then could not understand why he had to atone for killing the city guard guarding the bad guy. The BBEG was evil. The guards he hired to protect him from the Paladin were not. I even made sure to tell him upfront that the guards were not evil just doing their job.
Another pet peeve. Players who play Paladins as Lawful stupid or Dirty Harry with a badge. Go right ahead and let the enemy know we are at his doors because we tried to sneak in and it's "dishonorable" to sneak in. You can go fight the BBEG and his guards on your own. Second your Paladin. Not a vigilante with detect evil at will and shield and sword. On the other hand nothing bothers me more than Dms who go out of their way to put Paladins in situations to make the fall. I'm not saying don't test my character and his alignment. When it happens constantly it's annoying. I'm playing D&D not a version of Family Feud with alignments.
On the flip side a real annoyance is PCs that know they are miles ahead of everyone and are not beholden to their actions. Sherif wants to arrest you for commiting crimes, just kill him. King doesnt want to help with your quest, just kill him. Who are they after all to bother PC superfly?Touching on your note Memorax I too find it annoying when players of high level are treated like commoners and not heroes. Reputations should precede them.
By 10th level the characters have probably saved cities. I think they are the fantasy equivalent of rock stars.
Does David Bowie purchase his own drinks when he enters a bar?? I think not!
That why you always need to up the ante. There should always be a bigger fish.
My "hub city" has it's normal vanilla guard (1st-5th), an Arcane Corp (3rd-7th casters), and the Arcane Corp Comissioner (10th+ level magus). And that's just as far as things have gotten. I always make it very clear to my players that, if one of them decides to go off the reservation, there are people in the setting that can take them down, if necessary.
|
|
On the flip side a real annoyance is PCs that know they are miles ahead of everyone and are not beholden to their actions. Sherif wants to arrest you for commiting crimes, just kill him. King doesnt want to help with your quest, just kill him. Who are they after all to bother PC superfly?Touching on your note Memorax I too find it annoying when players of high level are treated like commoners and not heroes. Reputations should precede them.
By 10th level the characters have probably saved cities. I think they are the fantasy equivalent of rock stars.
Does David Bowie purchase his own drinks when he enters a bar?? I think not!
That why you always need to up the ante. There should always be a bigger fish.
My "hub city" has it's normal vanilla guard (1st-5th), an Arcane Corp (3rd-7th casters), and the Arcane Corp Comissioner (10th+ level magus). And that's just as far as things have gotten. I always make it very clear to my players that, if one of them decides to go off the reservation, there are people in the setting that can take them down, if necessary.
Sure I am with you. However, if you have certain players that want to be Gods among insects they will cry and claim you are making high powered NPC that they have to beg to. Thankfully, those kinds of players are not at my table. I just noticed its a common posting these days.
|
For me, and especially in PbPs or other online games, it's the consistently passive/reactionary players, (even worse when it's established up front in the "what I'm looking for in this game").
Box text or narration is given, and the party just waits there at the intersection rather than picking a door or path to move on.
They know the mission objective, have a good description of a handful of NPCs before them at a market, (and a few hints t help with which is more likely to know what about what), and the party just sits there, "hey, maybe that weapon vendor will just leave his shop and know we want to know what he saw in that scuffle last week, and will come to us, cause that makes so much sense. . ."
Sure I am with you. However, if you have certain players that want to be Gods among insects they will cry and claim you are making high powered NPC that they have to beg to. Thankfully, those kinds of players are not at my table. I just noticed its a common posting these days.On the flip side a real annoyance is PCs that know they are miles ahead of everyone and are not beholden to their actions. Sherif wants to arrest you for commiting crimes, just kill him. King doesnt want to help with your quest, just kill him. Who are they after all to bother PC superfly?Touching on your note Memorax I too find it annoying when players of high level are treated like commoners and not heroes. Reputations should precede them.
By 10th level the characters have probably saved cities. I think they are the fantasy equivalent of rock stars.
Does David Bowie purchase his own drinks when he enters a bar?? I think not!
That why you always need to up the ante. There should always be a bigger fish.
My "hub city" has it's normal vanilla guard (1st-5th), an Arcane Corp (3rd-7th casters), and the Arcane Corp Comissioner (10th+ level magus). And that's just as far as things have gotten. I always make it very clear to my players that, if one of them decides to go off the reservation, there are people in the setting that can take them down, if necessary.
It definitely is a thing, and if I had to deal with it often, it would bother me. The closest my table ever really came to that was the situation that led to the creation of the previously mentioned over 10th level magus, where a PC had dug himself into a hole with his crime spree and was disappointed when an NPC came along that was able to shut him down so quickly, but he didn't raise a huge fuss, just asked questions until he was sated.