I have a player (one out of 6) that rarely attends, and if she does attend a game it usually isn't for long. She assures me that her attendance will improve once this month is over and she's finally married.
Now, the group likes her, and so do I. However, it isn't fair for the group to depend upon her PC and have it so rarely be in attendance.
Meanwhile, I have a new player that is capable of attending games regularly, and seems to know more about the game than the frequently absent player.
She wants to play, but I don't want to have more than 6 characters in the game (for many reasons). For one, their gold is stretched thin, what with playing in Giantslayer. For two, managing 7 players is a headache.... Right now, I have the new player taking over the PC's of those players who are absent for whatever reason. She's already tried out the Ranger, and is about to try being a Fighter.
Do I tell the frequently absent player to quit and then have the new player take her place? That seems rude. Or do I continue as I have been doing, with the new player just pinch hitting for absent players? That doesn't seem fair to the new player.
I don't know what to do.
So you don't believe the player who says she'll be back after the wedding is over?
If you don't believe her, say so, and tell her she's being replaced.
If you do believe her, then you can still tell her she can't game any longer, but you'll have to use a different reason.
The absentee player has also told me that her work schedule wildly varies, and it's likely she still won't be able to show up regularly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The absentee player has also told me that her work schedule wildly varies, and it's likely she still won't be able to show up regularly.
So tell her she can't play because she can't show up regularly.
Unless I'm missing something, you've got a player who doesn't show up regularly and you'd like to replace her with someone who will. You can't fudge that. You'll simply need to tell her that you want regular players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compromise: remove her from the party of PCs, but have her play the (numerous in Giantslayer) NPCs when she shows up. I actually came up with a lame excuse to eliminate Umlo from the party after Redlake Fort just because I didn't want to deal with all the paperwork (literally, I said he was lame and needed to heal).
If she really enjoys the game, she should take the offer, helping you in the process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a hard thing to do, telling a player who wants to play that she can't. Even if the reason why is that she frequently doesn't have the time.
Dammit. I hate turning people away.
Should I continue as I have been, having the new player pinch hit for the absent gamers, and hope that the absentee will quit on her own? Or do I cut the matter short as you suggest?
I dunno yet.
Compromise: remove her from the party of PCs, but have her play the (numerous in Giantslayer) NPCs when she shows up. I actually came up with a lame excuse to eliminate Umlo from the party after Redlake Fort just because I didn't want to deal with all the paperwork (literally, I said he was lame and needed to heal).
If she really enjoys the game, she should take the offer, helping you in the process.
Interesting idea. Right now the party is in the process of wiping out Redlake Fort in the second adventure. That means there's a few NPC's that could be roleplayed... However, the NPC's shouldn't get a share of the treasure since they are NPC's for good reason...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a hard thing to do, telling a player who wants to play that she can't. Even if the reason why is that she frequently doesn't have the time.
Dammit. I hate turning people away.
Should I continue as I have been, having the new player pinch hit for the absent gamers, and hope that the absentee will quit on her own? Or do I cut the matter short as you suggest?
I dunno yet.
No you don't get all passive aggressive and hope she'll quit. If you need to run a game where her behavior doesn't fit your GM style, then you need to own that.
She may be willing to change her behavior if she knows what the problem is. If you just go silent and hope she can read your mind, then bad feelings will certainly result
If you talk honestly with her, you might be able to find a way that both her style and your style can work at the table. But that won't happen if you are just hoping she's uncomfortable enough that she'll leave on her own.
However, the NPC's shouldn't get a share of the treasure since they are NPC's for good reason...
Yup. Just give the NPCs enough loot on the side to keep them a couple levels behind the PCs. Maybe let her treat them like cohorts (NPC lvl/PC level*XP, separate from the total, too).
CrystalSeas, it's not about my DMing style versus the player's style. It's that she can hardly show up to actually play the damned game, yet she says she wants to play and seems to enjoy playing! Do I kick her out as you suggest, squashing her hopes? Or do I keep her on and hope her attendance improves to a tolerable level? I have had a chat with her before, and she knows what the problem is.
Taks, been thinking. What say I just keep her to the Wealth By Level of PC's in the core rulebook? I'd award her gp based on the difference between her last level and her new one upon gaining a level. That would keep her separate from the other players.
Or, is WBL too much, and therefore should I keep her to NPC wealth by level?
CrystalSeas, it's not about my DMing style versus the player's style. It's that she can hardly show up to actually play the damned game, yet she says she wants to play and seems to enjoy actually playing! Do I kick her out as you suggest, squashing her hopes? Or do I keep her on and hope her attendance improves to a tolerable level?
You decide what "tolerable level" means either by % of games or max missed games, or however you define "tolerable".
You tell her how you define "tolerable". Ask her if she can meet your standards. If she says yes, then let her play and verify that she is actually meeting them
If you keep her on, but don't tell her what your standards are in a way that *both* of you can tell whether she's meeting them, then you might as well kick her out now. Why have secret standards that she doesn't know about that may, at any moment, get her kicked out of the game?
It is about your DMing style. Some DMs are comfortable with drop-in players. You aren't. You need to let her know what your standards are. She can't change her playing style to meet your standards, if she doesn't know what your standards are
What I want is for her to show up about 80% of the time, which is approximately most of the time. I understand that people have lives, and sometimes things happen. I have told her this. Most of my players show up regularly, and when they need to be absent they tell me in advance so I can tell the group that they still have a game day or not.
I just want her to make a commitment to actually playing. Ain't fair for the other players to come to depend upon her PC, only to have her not show up most of the time.
Now, what makes this so hard is that she seems to actively enjoy playing, and both I and the other players like her. She's got her own dice but hasn't yet bothered to buy a core rulebook.
Now, the new player already has scads of dice, and even is in the process of buying her own core rulebook. That to me says dedication. You don't blow $30 or so just for kicks. However, the group and I don't really know her yet. She says she can show up for the games regularly; I asked.
It sounds like you know what you want to do. Perhaps you can leave an in, like the NPC playing above, or "next in line if someone leaves" status.
Taks, been thinking. What say I just keep her to the Wealth By Level of PC's in the core rulebook? I'd award her gp based on the difference between her last level and her new one upon gaining a level. That would keep her separate from the other players.
Probably not a bad idea. That way her wealth is comparable for her level as a PC, but she's still a level or 2 behind the party and not an extreme enough influence to really turn the tide one way or another. She'd still have a little room for adjustment to personalize each of the NPCs in a way that makes sense without burdening you with the details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you know what you want to do. Perhaps you can leave an in, like the NPC playing above, or "next in line if someone leaves" status.
Sigh. I may have decided on what is best, but I don't want to do it. I don't like turning away a gamer. I have sent a message on FB to ask for a private sit down so we can hash this out.
One of the reasons why I want my players to show up regularly is that I want this group to LAST, meaning more than just a single campaign. Carrion Crown saw the loss of Tracy (due to her own personal difficulties) and the gain of Alan.
Now Giantslayer has the original CC crew minus Tracy, plus a married couple. Then the absentee joined, and finally the new player. The absentee has proven herself to BE an absentee, and that sucks because we like her.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been very recently in the absentee's shoes and I was keenly aware of the impact my unavailability had on the group and the game
When my GM called to ask if he could take my PC and give it to that guy he knew who really wanted to play, I was relieved that he could find a solution I had actually thought of but never voiced because coming from me it felt like letting his game down
But coming from him, I was only to happy to give them my blessings
sounds like most the time you have six players and some times you have a seventh player that's most the time a npc cohort stands in the shadows most the time. whats she playing if you don't mind if i ask?
The absentee is playing an Orc (very high Strength) Fighter, using a special warhammer and specially enchanted armor. Very much a tank with a lot of firepower. She is one of only TWO melee warriors in the party, which makes her valuable. The other is a two weapon Ranger with crappy AC but great potential.
Sigh. I may have decided on what is best, but I don't want to do it.
So you have identified a problem and decided the best solution, but for some reason you're chosing not to put your best solution into action.
Grow up and do what's best for your game. Rip the band-aid off quickly.
You're options are ask her to leave, or run for 7 people when she can be bothered turning up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grow up and do what's best for your game. Rip the band-aid off quickly.
You're options are ask her to leave, or run for 7 people when she can be bothered turning up.
It has nothing to do with growing up.
I don't want to turn her away because I don't like dispensing misery. She obviously enjoys the game. Me, I have this thing called a conscience, ever hear of it?
Sigh. I have decided that the new player will take control of the orc Fighter/tank. Meanwhile, the absentee player will either take control of an NPC, or quit. Gonna talk about this at the next game meeting, at which the absentee player is not going to be coming.
If you're only looking at an occasional 7th player, I'd not worry about it. Have her PC (if the new player is willing) be played by said new player and her other character is a 'recurring guest star'.
If she becomes able to attend regularly, then you worry about it. If on the other paw it seems more likely that she'll be stepping in when one of the others is going to miss a session, then you're still at six PCs.
RE: treasure, divvy it in advance by room/encounter source for six. Every PC there that day gets the same share. If the newlywed player is absent for a while, use WBL for her up-to-date character level.
The last thing you should be doing is having PCs behind the level of the main group in XP and gear. It quickly has such characters so far behind the game's expectations that they just die in droves.
You're being a bit melodramatic, OP. This is a common thing GMs deal with. It doesn't need to cause misery or anything even close to it. Just keep it to the facts. You're trying to run a game. Her schedule doesn't allow it. It's pretty cut and dry.
I agree that you need to set a explicit goal and keep to it.
This is a hard dilemma. If it were an established gamer, I would be less conflicted. But I think we need to encourage new gamers. We also need to encourage women to game to offset all of the {obscenity redtacted} people who act {obscenity redacted} to women gamers.
In terms of the gold, you are running with a large party. Occasionally add in a little gold and a couple extra monsters. It'll work out.
I also don't like being the bearer of disappointment. Much as I'd like all of my friends to be involved in campaigns together, however, scheduling / interests / real life doesn't permit every friend I want to play with to be in every game.
I have to agree that your stance on this seems a bit melodramatic. I presume that being de-invited from a game does not result in this lady being banished to an ice-flow, never to be seen again? (Edit: intended to be tongue-in-cheek to illustrate the relatively low stakes that would seem to be involved in this decision).
In terms of conscience, I struggle to see what is 'wrong' with a candid conversation acknowledging that real life has unfortunately intruded on this player's ability to consistently join in on a fun leisure activity.
Unless there's subtext here that I'm missing, it seems like a really simple/straightforward conversation to have:
a) We like you, and want to keep playing and having fun with you;
b) The campaign needs a level of commitment that you might not be able to make;
c) If you can't make that level of commitment, nothing against you as a person or as a player, but:
i) we'd prefer it if you played an NPC / NPCs when you can drop in to play;
ii) as a GM, I'll suck it up and GM for 7 on the occasional time you can play, but would you mind playing a less mission-critical build so that the party isn't going to get crushed in combat when you aren't here; or,
iii) if/when your schedule changes and you can join in more consistently, please let us know and we'll add you to the wait list, and in the meantime we'll keep in touch for one-shot adventure nights or game days.
Offer whichever options you are comfortable with as a GM, and let the player decide how she'd like to handle her scheduling conflicts.
Edited to try and come across better. It's nice that you appear to be a thoughtful person who wants to facilitate your friends' fun. That is the kind of GM I like to play with, and strive to be. But the stakes seem really low here, and in my xp a candid conversation with the party involved is the best way to respect that person and preserve the friendship (and opportunities for future gaming).
Oh, yeah, that reminds me about gold. Don't forget the treasure rules! Quite often monsters are expected to have various bits of treasure on their persons. They're not necessarily on the bestiary entries because what that means varies from table to table. However, if you're out slaying armies of monsters (just saying) and not finding bits of jewelry, gold, and so on, you're actively denying your players one of the main injections of wealth in the game. So, if the explicit cash rewards are few but there are a lot of enemies and your players are strapped, I would point to this as the primary cause if not the cause.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one appreciate a GM who cares about his players' feelings :-)
Don't mistake care with Nice Guy Syndrome (TM). If you actually cared, you'd clearly set expectations and keep an open dialog.
If you want to keep her involved somewhat I support the letting have an NPC that she can control if and when she shows up.
But if it's causing problems and you have a replacement then I can't see keeping it as is being the correct choice.
If you like your player and want to keep her, just have her PC stay back at camp or on the ship rather. Don't run them as NPCs and just let her play when she can make it.
If you're worried about stretching credulity with a vanishing PC, then just explain that it's probably best that she sit out until she can attend sessions regularly.
Welcome to GMing.
You are better off removing her and letting the other person play. This is not just an issue for you as the GM, this affects everyone at the table. It is not fair for the rest of the players to have someone that for whatever reasons can't make it to games.
I for one appreciate a GM who cares about his players' feelings :-)Don't mistake care with Nice Guy Syndrome (TM). If you actually cared, you'd clearly set expectations and keep an open dialog.
What?
What?I for one appreciate a GM who cares about his players' feelings :-)Don't mistake care with Nice Guy Syndrome (TM). If you actually cared, you'd clearly set expectations and keep an open dialog.
it seems like a really simple/straightforward conversation to have:
a) We like you, and want to keep playing and having fun with you;
b) The campaign needs a level of commitment that you might not be able to make;
c) If you can't make that level of commitment, nothing against you as a person or as a player, but:
i) we'd prefer it if you played an NPC / NPCs when you can drop in to play;
ii) as a GM, I'll suck it up and GM for 7 on the occasional time you can play, but would you mind playing a less mission-critical build so that the party isn't going to get crushed in combat when you aren't here; or,
iii) if/when your schedule changes and you can join in more consistently, please let us know and we'll add you to the wait list, and in the meantime we'll keep in touch for one-shot adventure nights or game days.
Offer whichever options you are comfortable with as a GM, and let the player decide how she'd like to handle her scheduling conflicts.
This is exactly how to handle this. We've been in this position in our gaming group many times. For various reasons, players rotate in and out every once in a while. There's nothing wrong with having this conversation with someone if it's reached a level that is disruptive to your game.
Personally, I've gone for option ii. on at least one occasion, in which the player was playing a wild mage - when the player couldn't make it, the wild mage just blinked out of existence/turned herself to stone/became ethereal/polymorphed herself into a harmless animal/etc.
You could even consider using the meta-artifact the Scar of Destiny.
If option ii. is not realistic for you or your group, then be honest with yourself and your player about that. We've gone with option iii. more times than we've gone with option ii.
I did, and already have. You haven't read the thread, have you Buri?
My response to you was more a note going forward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like dispensing misery. She obviously enjoys the game. Me, I have this thing called a conscience, ever hear of it?
It is unkind to kick someone out because they don't conform to rules you won't discuss with them. Do you truly think they will be less miserable if you don't give them a chance to meet your secret set of guidelines?
How can your conscience let you do something so blatantly unfair?
I have decided that the new player will take control of the orc Fighter/tank.
Ok, so you made a GM decision. Fair enough. You're taking her character away from her without her permission, but that's within your power as a GM
Meanwhile, the absentee player will either take control of an NPC, or quit.
So that's the choice, eh? She doesn't get to discuss this with you? She can only play with you guys if she runs one of the GM's characters
Gonna talk about this at the next game meeting, at which the absentee player is not going to be coming.
Such a kind and honest approach to a problem. I'm sure the misery of being talked about behind her back, and not be allowed to have any say in the group decision is the above board and honest way to handle this [/sarcasm]
Honestly, if she's playing with people who are so passive aggressive and conflict-avoidant that they can't even discuss this with her face-to-face, she's probably better off finding a different GM and group
What?I for one appreciate a GM who cares about his players' feelings :-)Don't mistake care with Nice Guy Syndrome (TM). If you actually cared, you'd clearly set expectations and keep an open dialog.
What?
I think it's more Mean Girls syndrome
The GM's hidden agenda is this
Get rid of a player who doesn't play as often as he wants.
Keep her character
Give her character to someone else
Blame the group for the decision
And never let her have an honest conversation with the group about possible alternative solutions to her absences
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it's possible to have a civil discussion here. We can criticize unshrewd plans without putting the OP on trial and assuming we know their motivations.
What?What?I for one appreciate a GM who cares about his players' feelings :-)Don't mistake care with Nice Guy Syndrome (TM). If you actually cared, you'd clearly set expectations and keep an open dialog.
I wish you could double up bigger tags. Oh, I know...
There!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What? Sorry, I can't hear what you're saying over our mutual passive-aggressiveness!
That made me laugh. :D
GG
I think it's more Mean Girls syndrome
The GM's hidden agenda is this
Get rid of a player who doesn't play as often as he wants.
Keep her character
Give her character to someone else
Blame the group for the decisionAnd never let her have an honest conversation with the group about possible alternative solutions to her absences
Awright, that was getting personal. Get lost.
I've already had several discussions with her about her absenteeism. And I never blame anyone for any of my actions.
I've already had several discussions with her about her absenteeism. And I never blame anyone for any of my actions.
So why not wait and have the group discussion when she can attend. Is there anything wrong with continuing as you have until after the wedding?
If you're trying not to make her miserable, don't blindside her in the middle of a chaotic and hectic time in her life. Wait until things calm down and have a full group discussion which can include her.
Is there some urgency that you have to get her out of the group right now? And why have a group discussion if it's just your decision? Hiding behind "the group decided" isn't very straightforward.
What ive done in the past is this:
Ill chat, email whatever with the absentee player and just say :
Listen, i understand life can get hectic, and this is JUST A GAME. But, I devote ALOT of time to game prepping, and my time and the other players time is just as valuable as your time. (it seems from the OP this absenteeism predates wedding bells).
I like having you as a plsyer, but this just isnt working out, so either you can just "drop in" and play the monsters or NPCs or whatnot, when you can play.
BUT, i dotn think id just let the new player play "her" character. Send him off on a vision quest or kill him off, and just have the new players play something new (even if its just replacing Bolg the slayer with Nakelnud the vicious)
Send the PC back to camp. Geez. You people act like you've never dealt with absent players before.
What?I for one appreciate a GM who cares about his players' feelings :-)Don't mistake care with Nice Guy Syndrome (TM). If you actually cared, you'd clearly set expectations and keep an open dialog.
I was actually asking what "Nice Guy Syndrome (TM)" is supposed to mean in this context.
Basically, it means Buri Reborn is behaving badly.
The most important question I can think of is: "Is she a friend?" If the answer is yes... work around it. If the answer is no... send her packing.
We play with the same group of people we have for a decade... and sometimes real life gets in the way of game night. It sucks... but life has actual priorities. Work gets a free pass. You can't control your work schedule and the bills need to get paid. Family obligations are another one. Some things are more important then gaming... Sucks, but it's true.
We have one player who's work schedule is rough. He is essentially there for 5 weeks in a row, and then gone for 3 in a row. When he's there, he's there... when he's not, we take his figure off the board and proceed without him.
That's the best way to run a friendly game. It breaks a bit of game realism... but it's better then trying to explain unexplainable abscenes...
Honestly, it sounds like your game is big enough not to worry about it. We have Five players in our game... and there have been a few Boss fights that we have only had three. Three is REALLY tough to deal with (and I have HORRIBLE HP for my inquisitor..) I spend a lot of time unconscious and on the brink of death. Lot of close calls having a party of 5 dropping to 3...
You have a party of 6 and it's dropping to 5... That's still pretty 'easy mode'... Is she some kind of super class that the group is pivoting around? If you have 7 players that somehow drops to 6... That's what you're used to anyway...
We've had unreliable players in the past. Some who would 'forget'... or some who would drop excuses randomly or even fall asleep at the table... If they are outside friends who are just tired of gaming... they'll quit when they're bored enough. If they still want to hang out with you and play the game when they can... I would find a way to work around that.
I was actually asking what "Nice Guy Syndrome (TM)" is supposed to mean in this context.
It means that the GM wasn't treating the player fairly. They were repeating a common mistake and already inflicting the very misery they sought to avoid and prolonging a process that could have taken mere moments. NGS in this case is being deceptive while have a preconceived notion of the likely outcome the whole time. This means making decisions on their behalf and removing their agency as a person and likely adult. That's simply Not Cool.