I'm going to be running my first game in several years. I've got my five players, I've got supplies and a location, I have a homebrew adventure Path cobbled together from various Paizo materials... We're almost ready to go!
And I've realized I've made a very, very crucial error: I didn't check people's schedules until now.
Yeah, I know. Rookie mistake.
Lo and behold, the schedules don't really line up! Or rather, I've got a few days were MOST PEOPLE'S schedules line up, but... There's always an odd one out.
I've managed to find two different days where 5/6 of us could show... But it's a different person depending on the day, and looks like I have no choice but to choose one of them to boot from the game.
So... Does anyone have advice on how you pick which of your friends you have to let down? There's additional interpersonal issues, but the core of it, is I have no idea how to make this decision.
... Or how to break the news to the friend I end up picking to leave out @_@;;
I would let them both know that you've made a terrible mistake and see if the three of you can come up with a solution. You may find that a sincere apology and an effort to work with both of them will leave you with one of them voluntarily stepping back.
Far better for them to know you made a big mistake than for one of them to think you're a big time jerk.
You need to find a reason decide between the two days apart from which of the two players will be excluded. Are you, or anyone else, more likely to have conflicts that will cause the occasional cancel on either day? Is either day better if the session runs longer than planned? Look for reasons like this to decide it, makes it less personal to the unlucky one who misses out.
You need to find a reason decide between the two days apart from which of the two players will be excluded. Are you, or anyone else, more likely to have conflicts that will cause the occasional cancel on either day? Is either day better if the session runs longer than planned? Look for reasons like this to decide it, makes it less personal to the unlucky one who misses out.
Weeeelll... it's a choice between Monday and Tuesday.
the person who can't play mondays ("D") is a coworker... And is a manager. He's a chill guy who probably wouldn't hold it against me AT WORK, but it'd be... Awkward.
HOWEVER, he said from the beginning that he'd be an occasional player... But he seems to be getting more excited about it?
the person who can't play tuesdays ("T") is dating another player, AND was the first person I invited to my game.
D works afternoons on Monday, so there's still the potential of him joining in on the second half of the game after work... As opposed to T, who has to LEAVE for work at the only time the others would be available...
... I guess it looks like I should talk to D, ask him how he'd feel about potentially coming to half-game?
Why do you need to give someone the boot? You have five players plus a GM. My preferred number of players is four because the game moves a little quicker, but in my mind the advantage to having five players is that if someone can't make it that day then you still have four players and can still play.
Just accept that at any given game session, someone will not be there. Yes there could be some issues with continuity of story, player immersion, party capabilities, etc. but in my experience it is not an insurmountable challenge. You just need to decide how you wish to handle it. Here are some possible ways to do so:
-The absent player's PCs become NPCs. The character makes no decision, has little or no effect in encounters, and probably not at risk of death. Maybe once per session you the GM can have them contribute with an ability that the rest of the party is lacking, such as the vacant wizard identifying a magic sword or the vacant cleric using channel energy.
-The character is just plain gone without explanation. The other characters don't notice the absence, and when the player is back it will be like the absense never happened. This is less elegant perhaps, but if you can al manage to just carry on then it really simplifies the issues of handling it the other way.
-Depending on where the party is and what is happening, the absent player's character can be occupied doing something else. Maybe the wizard ate some day-old shrimp and is too sick to enter the dungeon. The rogue got into some trouble and is laying low. The bard wandered off the trail and got lost. The druid snuck off into the woods on account of an eclipse.
I see no reason to face the choice of deciding which friend to exclude. People have jobs, families, and other obligations. At a certain point, the choice to only playing when everyone can make it isn't realistic anymore. I think you have a non-issue here.
In my humble opinion, this isn't (entirely) the GM's problem.
It behooves any group to decide collectively when they do whatever they do. Doesn't matter if it's Pathfinder, an elderly scientologists' hockey league, or a classical-music-loving swingers group. The group makes a decision together as to when they play, and any members unable to make themselves available when the majority can... admits it.
That's being an adult. "Sorry, looks like you're all able to do the barn-raising for Fred on Saturday, but I've got my foot-fungus photography class that day, so... well, I'll break it to Fred that I'm letting him and his horses down."
In this, the GM is just a player. Except... the GM gets veto power because if they can't make it, there's no game.