... and no, it doesn't involve bran.

Over on rpg.net, this poor bastard Blue Seraph was posting about his game group being slackarsed and irregular in attendance, he asked for suggestions. I wrote a lengthy response, and I reckon it's a good one, but I'm sure I've missed stuff, and also I know that slackarsed players are not something restricted to rpg.net

Quote from: Blue Seraph... There's what I call the "revolving door syndrome" where the roster of players changes from week to week, right in the middle of the story.  So one night Players A, B, C, D, and E show up, but the next time it's A, C, F, G, H and then the next time A, B, E.  For four months.

... FYI, I'm not the GM.  I'm player A who never misses a game.  Maybe I have no life, maybe it's just luck, or maybe I shift around priorities to make sure that Saturday night stays free.  But it's getting kinda tiresome with people dropping in and out, who can't remember what's going on, with characters who are lagging behind in XP/power level so the GM can't help but throw uneven threats at the party.  

Any solutions?  Or is it time to find a new group?

My advice is: become the GM, and play on a weeknight, and at the same place every week. And lastly, try to get the players invested in the game.


Weeknights work well
Change from playing on Saturday night. People find other things to do then. Like Will upthread, I've found that a weeknight works best. We currently play Tuesday, but Monday or Wednesday work as well. Thurs-Sun aren't so good because of the number of people who either work in hospitality, or who have spouses and families. I'm speaking here of people in general, obviously there are going to be groups of all students, all nightshift workers, or whatever. In general, the evenings Mon-Wed people will have free, and the most they'll have to do on one of those nights is either some other hobby which requires regular meetings (like volleyball) or watch tv - use the video recorder, guys.

Shift the game to one of Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and stick to it. Make it weekly. Game with whoever shows up, and try to pack a lot of events and action into that session. The reason that your attendance has dropped off when moving to fortnightly games is that the intensity isn't there. It's like, a tv series will get worse ratings if they show it once a month instead of once a week. It's the same show, in principle it should get the same ratings however infrequently shown - but in practice, the optimum is about once a week; more than that people can't keep up with it, less than that people lose interest and forget what happened.

So a regular game on a weeknight, every week, where you game with whoever shows up, no matter what - that'll keep people's interest up. You'll likely find that some of the players will drop off and disappear, and some of the others will start showing up more regularly. You mentions players from A to H, that's 8 in all. Plus the GM makes 9. Unless you're unlucky, you should be able to get from that a core of 3-5 regular people. The other 3-5 will wander off, and if you miss them you'll have to catch up with them some other way.


Time for a coup, be the GM!
The second point is the GM. Is the GM happy with things as they are? If so, that could explain why they're like that. The GM often sets the tone and style of the group - if the GM is happy to have munchkins, or drama queens, or rules lawyers, then you'll get munchkins, drama queens, and rules lawyers. And  if the GM is happy to have people drift in and out, then people will drift in and out. Since you seem to more concerned than is the GM, perhaps you (Blue Seraph) could offer to run a campaign? You'd then be able to set the tone of the group.

In setting the tone and striving for regular play with a steady group, I advise a positive tone in discussing it. Don't be negative - "anyone who misses a session without notice, their character dies" - but instead be optimistic, and confident: "I think games are much more interesting when everyone shows up regularly. Sure you can miss games, and that's a pity for you. You'll be missing some fun stuff, though. But anyway, I'll see you on Tuesday." Speak as though you just expect these good things to happen, it lays the foundations for the actual good things to happen; speak as though no-one will show and it'll all fuck up, and... I don't say this as a slight against Blue_Seraph, I don't know the guy at all. It's just human nature that when we're trying to solve a problem with a new start, we might dwell on the old problems. That's why in job adverts you see things like, "applicant must be punctual, reliable and honest." What, I'm going to say I'm always late, really unreliable, and a lying dog? It's just that they got burned that way before and they're showing it. Try not to show - be confident and positive, it's more effective.

If the GM isn't setting a slackarsed tone, then it may simply be that the GM is not a very engaging person, that they can't keep the attention of the group. Again, time for you to take over.


Location, location!
You didn't mention the location of your sessions. I know a game group which has the same attendance problems as yours, and that's because the GM rotates the location through the players in the group. "That way," he says, "it's fair, it's equally inconvenient for everyone." It's true that it's fair, but it also means that he has the same attendance problem you do. Out of six guys, there's one who shows every session no matter what, and the other five just show up when it's not too far from their place. So he always has at least three players, but only one is the same guy as from last week. He'd have a more steady and reliable group if he picked one location and stuck to it. He'd lose two of the players, but the four who remained would come every session.

So as well as choosing a weeknight, and GMing to set the tone, play at the same place each week.


Investment by players
Many players view roleplaying as like watching tv. They expect to switch it on at any time and be entertained, with no effort, and with no feeling of connection to the events on-screen. That sort of feeling makes for slackarses who don't show up regularly, and when they do show up, read comics and so on.

You want players to feel invested in their characters, in the game world, and in the game group. Depending on what system you use, there are a number of ways to make players feel attached to their characters, and their characters tied to the game world. The same GM who I mentioned shifting locations of the sessions, does have one good idea - character creation was done by the players writing backgrounds for their characters, then passing them to the next player, and the next player would do the stats for their character based on the background. Writing up backgrounds takes effort, and people value what they've put effort into. And when the stats are going to be absed on what you wrote, it makes you write carefully and thoroughly! The process also made the players talk to each-other about their characters - "what did you mean when you wrote so-and-so?" - and become interested in one another's characters, so they're not a party of Wild-Eyed Loners.

Another form of investment is of course money. In my group, I am often the GM, but always the host. I used to cook dinner for the players, while the players would bring munchies. They valued a cooked dinner more than they did munchies, so they ended up spending lots on munchies to compensate - this wasn't a deliberate effort on my part, and I was a bit embarassed by how much they were spending ($20 or more each a session). So I said, "I already prepare dinner, and have to go to the shops to get that stuff. Why don't we have a Geek $ Jar, put $5 each in for each session, and I'll buy munchies out of that?" Typically players put $20 in and forget about it for a few weeks. Now they've spent money on the game group, and feel invested in it, so are more likely to show up. Yes, it's actually less money they were spending before. But the money before went to 7-11, the money this time is going to a jar sitting in the middle of the game table - so it feels as though they're investing in the game group. Just as you read the newspaper you paid $1 for more thoroughly than the one you picked up free on the train, so too will you show up more regularly to a game group you've put money into.

Hmmm, I could say more, but I think that's long enough:)

I usually run my games on Saturday mornings, complete with coffee and pastries. It seems that my group is usually in a laid-back kind of mode at that time of day and doesn't mind meeting up.
I also usually run my games for two to three hours at a stretch. This way, my players get to game, and still have time to do everything else they have to do that day.
It works for me.

Scheduling problems for our group have arrived with various life changes (which is to say, children) and a switch from weeknights to Sundays. For us, it's one guy in particular who tends to screw up the schedule. The annoying thing is that HE has no kids (but is married), so while the the rest of us are twisting our lives into knots to find time for playing, he's all "Ah, I can't make that weekend because I'm going to music festival in Rhyl."

Sometimes, I doubt his commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Anyway, my point here is that our scheduling hassle is generally (although to be fair, not always) down to one guy, and we figured out two solutions to this:

1. Drop that guy. Which is a little harsh, IMO. He has, however, taken an extended break from the game at times (three to six months).

2. A looser structure wherein it's agreed that there's LESS investment in character. We can pick up each other's characters, and usually have a couple of spares hanging around anyway. The downside of this is that it really only works for games at the cheesier end of the spectrum - D&D hackfests, CoC splat-fests and the like, but you can build the core of the story around the core of the players and have the numbers filled out by the casuals.

Ned

With Eight players and a GM I'm not surprised folks don't turn up each week, you aren't going to get a reasonable amount of attention when everyone is there.

Quote from: JimBobOz...  My advice is: become the GM, and play on a weeknight, and at the same place every week. And lastly, try to get the players invested in the game.


Weeknights work well...

Regarding my own experience: I've taken over as GM for my local group, but I've only been able to get one session finished in over a month.  

The main fault is my own: I find weeknights to be horrible for me.  Usually I either have: (a.) work to do (mainly preparing lectures for the next day, but also grading, writing articles, etc.); (b.) I'm too tired (GMing takes energy, and often I'm exhausted, or know that I will be exhausted ahead of time); or (c.) I have some event to go to (a talk, reception, or whatever).

I've essentially ruined any sense of 'schedule' that might have been built up with my group.

In contrast, I really, really wish I could run games on weekends (Saturday or, ideally, Sunday afternoons).  I'd be far more relaxed, less tired, and the session could last longer (4-5 hours, instead of 3-4 hours).  Indeed, I'd prefer 1 weekend session every 2 weeks.  That would be ideal.

*sigh*

Quote from: AkrasiaRegarding my own experience: I've taken over as GM for my local group, but I've only been able to get one session finished in over a month.  

The main fault is my own...

It stands to reason that the most reliable person in the group ought to be the GM, unless the most reliable person is pretty terrible at it... Most of us would prefer a good game session every week to a brilliant one every now and then.

Let one of the more reliable and regular people in your group GM.

Nice post. Hosting is something that we have been sharing between the group, and I can see how a same-time, same-place deal is more stable and straightforward. It probably also has additional benefits: context-dependent learning, which is where information learned in a particular location or state returns more readily in that state. It might explain why our Monday session (at mine) began with a lot of head-scratching about what had happened last time (at the GMs).

Incentives... hmm, you've got me thinking. There must be other ways to work this besides cash for snacks...

I can't find it due to the purple site's crappy search engine, but I had a thread about my last GMing experience and the game died due to players just not showing up after the first session.

I've always had a lot of trouble getting regular, reliable players.  I just don't think it's possible, anymore.

Now see, what I do is this: I'm a great GM.  As such, my players want to attend. I mean, fuck, some have left early from family member's funerals so as not to miss it.

No bribery or special scheduling necessary: just be a great GM, and let them know that they will be the ones missing out if they skip the game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzIt stands to reason that the most reliable person in the group ought to be the GM, unless the most reliable person is pretty terrible at it... Most of us would prefer a good game session every week to a brilliant one every now and then.

[Removed pointless overreaction to the description as 'not reliable'...]

Edit: Anyway, my main point is that gaming on a weekday night doesn't really work for everyone.  It worked okay in the last campaign that I GM'ed, since I had a more flexible schedule.  But I see that, with my current schedule, it looks like running games on the weekend is the only viable option (for me qua GM).

[Threadcrap]Have you tried Metamucil?[/threadcrap]  

Quote from: mywinningsmile... hmm, you've got me thinking. There must be other ways to work this besides cash for snacks...

Definitely. You can do it at the player-level, or at the character-level, or something in-between.

Preparing a campaign
The first thing is to get the players' input on what sort of campaign they'd like. Do they want it to be more cinematic, or realistic; more hack, or more thesp; more schtick, or more drama. What do they like to see in a game session? Action/fights, building (like Civ), vharacter (personality and relationships), character power (xp and 1337 skillzorz), destroying (like Command & Conquer), or exploring (alien worlds and people)? With their characters, do they like to use skills which are, athletic, combat, communication, detection, driving, gadgeteering, intrusion, magic, medical, persuading, scholarship, or wilderness? What's their favourite movie, tv series, fiction book, and non-fiction book?

Get all that, and you should be able to put together a few blurbs for campaigns they might be interested in. Pitch them to the players, and let them choose one. Then run it. When you've tailor-made a campaign to the players' requests, they'll be more keen on it than if you've just whipped out a bought module. Of course there'll be a few players who'll say, "I'll play anything! I like everything!" and then bitch about whatever you present - but they'll be outnumbered by the enthusiastic and interested ones, especially if you're pitching all this to the dozen or so gamers you know, rather than just the four or five in your group; let it be known that you'll be choosing a campaign, and forming a group out of that, rather than vice versa as usual (see article on game circles at main site in sig)

"Do the dishes, Dave."
In the group itself, you could find something for each player to do, according to their income, their inclinations, etc - discuss it with them. Anna always brings the fizzy drinks, Bob always brings the pizza, Charlie always drives Anna and Bob home, Dave always does the dishes afterwards, and Erica always prints out the fresh character sheets.


"Tell me about your character."
At the character level, it's a GMing skill to ensure that the characters are strongly tied to the game world. Encourage the players to give their characters friends, relatives, lovers, rivals - and guarantee that these won't be used as cheap and lazy plot hooks, "your sister has been kidnapped..." At the beginning of my latest campaign, I asked each player to give one thing, one place, and one person of importance to the character. I got stuff like,

Quote from: Jim Bob's playersHuscarle Coenred's place is in the Ogre's Bones (hills), where once he was set upon by a wolf, and slew it unarmed; that night in the feasting hall he was given the hero's portion of the roast, and much honour. Coenred's person is Gerda, the daughter of the Eorl: when they were children, they were friends and played together, but the beautiful girl grew to become a plain woman, and Coenred is a ladies' man, so now Gerda has an unrequited love for him. Coenred also has inherited an old seax, with runes of unknown origin.

Fisher Radmund's place - a cove where a huge pike Radmund calls Old Hook lives; he tried for years to catch him, but when he finally did, he let it go out of respect. Radmund's person is his brother Gerdric the farmer; Gerdric inherited their uncle's land, leaving Radmund free to a less regimented life; the brothers are great friends and good-natured rivals. Radmund's prized possession is a map of the shire, marked with all the interesting and significant things he's discovered, including the best fishing and swimming spots.

Scop [Bard] Aldfrid's person is his master Octa, who berates him for his inability at singing and music, and scorns his love of writing as beneath a scop. Aldfrid's place is his study, where in quiet he sits among scrolls and wax; it's damp and smelly because of having no windows, but he loves it. Aldfrid's prized possession is his journal, where he records events and thoughts.

This can be done whatever the game system, but of course works best when the characters are going to stay in roughly one area, so that they don't forget their person or place. It's a way of tying the characters to the game world, and giving the players a sense of investment in it; they helped create part of that world, after all.

I'm currently using Fate, which has in place of Advantages/Virtues, Disadvantages/Flaws, and Attributes - just calls them all "Aspects." The players were told their characters would have five Aspects to begin with, and it was recommended that they take one each relating to profession, attribute, philosophy or worldview, and a relationship. When they meet NPCs, any NPCs who have less than five Aspects - that is, NPCs who aren't well-developed, full characters - they can spend xp (it's cheap) on giving those NPCs some Aspect of their choice. So if they meet the Surly Gate Guard [][], they can say, "actually he has a Weakness for Drink [], and is Admirer of Travelling Heroes [], so I think we can deal with this guy." This method also gives the players a sense of investment in the game world. You can't do this in every system, of course, but regardless of system you can let players describe parts of the game world and NPCs. I find it works best if you tie it to the game mechanics because players seem happiest when rules, setting, character and player are all connected.

Journals
Players also feel invested in a campaign if they write a journal of it. But I've found the GM can't get them to do that - either they like writing, and do it without xp (or whatever) award, or they're not interested in writing, and won't do it for a zillion xp. Their writing a journal is more a sign they feel invested, than a means of getting them invested.


The Show Must Go On
As the GM, the most important thing for you to be the most reliable player - the one who's always there on time, and never misses a session, and always carries forth the session regardless of player lateness or absence. Your motto ought to be, "the show must go on". Begin the session at the same time regardless of who's shown up or hasn't. If players know that if they're late you'll wait for them, why should they hurry? If players know that if they miss a session, you'll put the session aside until next week, why should they go out of their way to get there? If they know their character is invulnerable in their absence, why bother to show to protect him? No - the Show Must Go On. Give the players the sense that if they're late or absent, the game will go on without them, and this gives them a sense of urgency about it all, gets them moving. That, or it forces them to decide that they don't really care about missing it, and so then you've lost someone who wasn't really that interested anyway - not much of a loss, now you have a space free for someone who will be interested.

Those are just a few ideas, but there are heaps of ways you can get the players to feel invested in a campaign.

Quote from: JimBobOz... Shift the game to one of Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and stick to it. Make it weekly. Game with whoever shows up,  
.... The reason that your attendance has dropped off when moving to fortnightly games is that the intensity isn't there. It's like, a tv series will get worse ratings if they show it once a month instead of once a week...

You know, the problem with this advice is that it seems rather unrealistic, at least in my experience, for people with full-time jobs and other commitments.

I've been involved in three different groups since 2002, two of which were extremely successful, despite not meeting every week at exactly the same time, etc.  

The players in question were all very busy, and had other obligations that prevented them from committing to a weekly game.  In both cases, though, we came up with acceptable times on an ad hoc basis, and ended up playing 1-4 times every month.  It went quite well.

My overall problem with the advice that you're giving here is that it seems to presuppose a rather unrealistic view of the ability of busy adults to organise their schedules (especially with respect to GMs).  

I mean, this is a hobby, not a job.  It's great if people can play once every week at exactly the same time, etc.  But if your strategy presupposes this, it isn't going to work for 80 percent of the gamers I know (including myself).

(P.S. 'Fortnightly' means once every two weeks, not once a month.)

Quote from: AkrasiaYou know, the problem with this advice is that it seems rather unrealistic, at least in my experience, for people with full-time jobs and other commitments.

People make time for things which are important to them. One player we had in my group, his spouse is pregnant, and so he said he no longer had time to game on Tuesdays. However, it's actually the case that he's playing volleyball on Tuesdays now, and going rock-climbing on Thursdays; these are two hobbies he'd left off for a year because of a knee injury. So it's not that he didn't have time to roleplay, simply that he wanted to play volleyball and climb rocks more than he wanted to roleplay.

This is not immoral, or wrong, it's just an individual's priorities.

Another player I knew I'd invited to our game. He said, "I'm interested but as I said it would depend on my time and availability." Recently, this player has become a father, and he organised a game at his home four days after the birth of his child. He "had no time" when he had no child, yet has time later, now. So it wasn't that he had no time to game earlier, he just didn't want to game with us.

This is not immoral, or wrong, it's just an individual's priorities.

You make time for things which are important to you. In another thread on this forum, you say,

Quote from: Akrasia... I should simply call it quits. I should simply explain to players that I just don't have the time or energy to run a game these days.

I feel somewhat bad about this. Especially as I've also just been invited to join another group (as a player), and the games they're running sound quite interesting.

You don't lack time or energy, you just would rather play with group B than run group A; and group A's irregular meeting schedule perhaps has something to do with this - you don't want to make an effort if that effort isn't matched by others, or appreciated.

You have the time, can make the time, to do whatever is important to you. Over on rpg.net, Cessna has "no time to game" - yet he has time to be an admin at rpg.net, and make several posts a day, and surf the net. So it is not that he does not have a few hours spare a week, simply that he'd rather spend those hours being an admin of a game site, than gaming.

Quote from: AkrasiaMy overall problem with the advice that you're giving here is that it seems to presuppose a rather unrealistic view of the ability of busy adults to organise their schedules (especially with respect to GMs).  

Not at all. They physically have the time available to them, it's just a matter of wanting to set some aside for some particular purpose, and of having the organisational skills to get it done.

It's priorities, what's important to them, that determines how they'll spend that time. As to organisational skills, it doesn't take much to organise a game group; I know two guys who are long-term unemployed and single, and they can organise a game group - can't get a job or a girlfriend, but they can still get people together for a weekly game - and those people have jobs and spouses and other hobbies.

Quote from: Akrasia(P.S. 'Fortnightly' means once every two weeks, not once a month.)

I'm aware of that. "Fortnightly" was referring to Blue Seraph's post - linked in the original post of this thread - where he asked "is once every two weeks enough?" As always, reading posts thoroughly makes your response to them more useful.

Busy adults can definitely organize and keep a game scheduled weekly or fortnightly.  Hell, ever hear of "poker night"?  What is a D&D game except a nerdy version of that?