I ran a game where some people cancelled last minute in which I chose to run a one shot. For the players that were there, they had a shared dream and I used a pre-maid one shot adventure. It worked well, and even though they couldn't take any treasure with them when they woke up, I made sure they gained some knowledge that they were able to use in the campaign.
In Rolemaster, there is a Dream Lord magic user. Their spells are about dreams, forcing dreams, and entering dreams. For a Halloween session, I had them suddenly running through a forest being pursued by a _giant spider-lich._ Turns out, a Dream Lord had been hired to assassinate them. He got them whilst they slept at an inn's common room.
Our group has recently created a sharable google doc and anyone who will be gone writes down that they will miss the game. When people aren't there, we simply suspend our disbelief and say are there, but are not acting in any scenes. I agree that you always play when people are gone. The only time I don't run the game is when there is only one player that shows up. I have 5 players, and even if 3 of them are gone, we still play. You will find that the game advances so quick when you have fewer players at the table. Great vid!
My table uses option 1: We're pretty chill/understanding of the narrative and that real life gets in the way sometimes. We run a furitistic game with lots of planar warping elements. Basically, we either say: "a) Player is absent because (story reason - family is in town), or b) something funny: player steps in a harmless dimensional rift for a session, c) simple: They warp back to the ship". Encounter balancing isn''t an issue because I have a trick: I'll word my encounters like: "There are 2 Goblins for every 1 Player (in addition to the Boss Goblin)."
We have a minimum of a days heads up if you cant play if you want to be included in the session because it gives me time to rework things. But if its like a few hours before and its not something like a bossfight we will play anyway and will make a summary for the one who missed. Its also customary in our group that if you are the one to say no to a date or cancels you are responsible to give a new date where you will be aviable so people are not kept hanging for a long time in uncertainty. I like when players are very clear in preferences to session inclusion like"I have a test coming up so i cant play that session, here is my sheet and pilot my character" or "i thought of a cool reason why my character isnt with the group this session can we roleplay it out at a later date?". Better to keep the momentum going however you can.
My players decided to cancel the session because some of them couldnt make it and didnt tell me... so 5min after session was about to start i called and asked where the were and found out what they had decided without me. This lead to a lengthy discussion about telling the DM if you cannot make it and how many people not being able to make it leads to a cancelation. We rotate GMs and have a weekly game in person so continuity is important to keep that day earmarked for RPGs in the eyes of significant others that do not play.
You brought up a good point regarding running a one-shot as an alternative but don't forget, if your group is lucky enough to have a player willing and/or able to be a temp DM, it might be a good opportunity for them to run that one-shot instead (they may have already had everything planed out too). It also gives the campaign DM an opportunity to relax and just play. It does suck having players missing ESPECIALLY when that PC was critical for that session for whatever reason. Sometimes nothing can be done to salvage the session and that's ok (I believe it should be very rare though). I had a session end on a cliffhanger involving a PC meeting their estranged father. The next session began without that player...we discussed it as a group and the other players really wanted to give that missing player the opportunity to roleplay it out. We ended up playing a board game and had a great time.
My game has been going for a year and a half, with five players most of that time. There's lots of story, and missing some of it makes future events confusing for the players that missed sessions, so when someone can't make it we usually postpone it for a week. Sometimes one week becomes two or three. There are months that we played every week and months that we played once. I think we have played with a missing character maybe three times. But you have inspired me to stop letting that happen unless more than one player can't make it. I'll just send a session recap to the missing player and keep moving. Thanks!
Yep, I've had players cancel who were the only character that knew an important language or as we approached their home town. If it's a one off I usually keep the character in and they'll sit in the background and everyone just accepts the character inconsistencies. If they're going to be away for an extended period however I tend to write out the character for their own side quest - give them some growth over the time they've been missing.
I think momentum is one of my favorite words to use when it comes to pushing on despite being down players. Once you start canceling games it becomes easier and easier, then players tend to start checking out. From past experiences it’s a death spiral for a campaign.
For long campaigns, I have the missing player’s PC be a ghost of sorts that is with the party but never does anything nor is effected by combat and traps. However, I will have that PC speak up (by me) if that PC knows something critical for the session or has an important item then they are able to give that item to one of the other PCs. And if something happens to the entire party, like getting captured, then it also happens to the ghost PC.
We have another player run the character. Death is mostly off the table for that character. We have one player who takes notes on google docs for everyone to see before the next session. It’s worked well for us
I've had this happen several times over the decades, though it's usually infrequent. IF it's someone who is usually there and for whatever reason can't make it--I usually use option 2, and play their character myself as an NPC--they get half-experience for the day like any henchman would. But unless there is a total party kill, I promise the character will live. If it becomes a usual thing, I'll pull the player to the side and ask if they can really commit to being here for the game. If they can't no harm no foul---we work out an exit for the character.
I've had people fill in for players that are gone (with the original player's permission). I also only adjust combats on the fly by judging how dramatic/scary I want the fight to be. 300hp boss only took 100 damage after 5 rounds? Maybe they're closer to dying than I would have originally planned. I'm not going to let scheduling conflicts kill the characters. I want that to be because they truly made a dumb decision.
i'm the gm for my table and player for other two among my group and past week, when we were setting the next table, i told them: "im of the opinion that a session shouldnt be cancelled cause one player isnt at the table. the only exception for this case would be if last session ended in cliffhanger or coming for a really pivotal moment for that pc." fast forward to today's morning when two of my players let us know that they couldnt play the weekend. i can play as a character if the player isnt there, but two gets complicated. Im not gonna lie, it bothered me a lot, but adult life, you know?
Amanda: (over half the party cancels) "I'm basically playing every character! This sucks!" Amanda: (comes up with idea for next video) "Let's run a solo adventure!"
The worst Cancellation I've seen was as a player, and it was the DM who cancelled, about 1.5 hours after the session was supposed to start with the excuse that the game he started playing in is going overtime. As a DM Ive had a few last minute cancellations, from people who originally switched date (we have 1 main day and 2 backup days) and an hour before the game they cancelled saying they "had" to work, when we switched days because of said work :P
dude, i had to change the beginning of my last session because one of my players cancel 30 minutes before and the whole introduction was written for them but.. i sorta change perspective and made them fight other enemies, while the rest of the party focused on bringing back to life another pc
So, in the games I run, the players who are not there but will be back, their characters are off-screen, present but no impact onscreen. In general they handle offscreen NPCs & other things that have no impact on the story or resources. The other players treat them as though they are not present because as far as the story goes they are busy with "something".
Last minute cancellations are horrible. The REAL worst is when someone cancels, but wants to feel better about doing it so they say, “Well, maybe, but I’ll be late. I’ll text you later.” I’m not running the ongoing campaign when more than on player drops, any more. It just got too annoying. So I’ve started running other systems, instead, and I let people miss out. In my one campaign they were being guided by a trans-dimensional gnome (who is a character from my novel). So anytime someone missed they just disappeared. And when they came back they had to say where Professor Nobody took them.
Had a player last minute say hebcouldnt make it. His discord, in which we utilized, said he was playing video games. Thanks bud... he bowed out, realizing being a boring druid which was a construct always summoning things ans complaining about his long rounds and how he doesnt have everything ready. We're better off now without em
You had me till you mentioned “rebalancing combat” with fewer players. At my table l, there’s no such thing as balanced encounters. 😊 My players experience everything from super easy encounters to overwhelming (possibly) deadly encounters that match the location, situation, story or reaction to the players actions regardless of present players. I love all your videos btw❤
Great question..I do tend to adjust a monsters hit points from time to time to account for harder encounters to be a little more manageable and “fair”(5e’s hit point bloat is already a problem above 5th level anyway) However my players know that there can will and will be encounters that are easy to negate easily within one round to more deadly odds where they may need to be creative, more strategic or just run. To expect “balanced” encounters all or most of the time (to me) would be boring. There’s no reality or fun in that. But if fellow DM folks out there rather create and follow balanced encounters for their tables then that’s totally cool too!
@@CJ_esc.artist Maybe it's just by a different name, but that sounds like what balancing means to me. There certainly are variations within difficulty of encounters, but I still ensure the players have a chance - getting stomped is no fun.
I ran a game where some people cancelled last minute in which I chose to run a one shot. For the players that were there, they had a shared dream and I used a pre-maid one shot adventure. It worked well, and even though they couldn't take any treasure with them when they woke up, I made sure they gained some knowledge that they were able to use in the campaign.
In Rolemaster, there is a Dream Lord magic user.
Their spells are about dreams, forcing dreams, and entering dreams.
For a Halloween session, I had them suddenly running through a forest being pursued by a _giant spider-lich._
Turns out, a Dream Lord had been hired to assassinate them. He got them whilst they slept at an inn's common room.
Our group has recently created a sharable google doc and anyone who will be gone writes down that they will miss the game. When people aren't there, we simply suspend our disbelief and say are there, but are not acting in any scenes. I agree that you always play when people are gone. The only time I don't run the game is when there is only one player that shows up. I have 5 players, and even if 3 of them are gone, we still play. You will find that the game advances so quick when you have fewer players at the table. Great vid!
That's largely how I do it.
Like Final Fantasy, they're all there, but some are in the action, the others are in the cut scenes.
My table uses option 1: We're pretty chill/understanding of the narrative and that real life gets in the way sometimes.
We run a furitistic game with lots of planar warping elements. Basically, we either say: "a) Player is absent because (story reason - family is in town), or b) something funny: player steps in a harmless dimensional rift for a session, c) simple: They warp back to the ship".
Encounter balancing isn''t an issue because I have a trick: I'll word my encounters like: "There are 2 Goblins for every 1 Player (in addition to the Boss Goblin)."
We have a minimum of a days heads up if you cant play if you want to be included in the session because it gives me time to rework things. But if its like a few hours before and its not something like a bossfight we will play anyway and will make a summary for the one who missed. Its also customary in our group that if you are the one to say no to a date or cancels you are responsible to give a new date where you will be aviable so people are not kept hanging for a long time in uncertainty.
I like when players are very clear in preferences to session inclusion like"I have a test coming up so i cant play that session, here is my sheet and pilot my character" or "i thought of a cool reason why my character isnt with the group this session can we roleplay it out at a later date?". Better to keep the momentum going however you can.
My players decided to cancel the session because some of them couldnt make it and didnt tell me... so 5min after session was about to start i called and asked where the were and found out what they had decided without me. This lead to a lengthy discussion about telling the DM if you cannot make it and how many people not being able to make it leads to a cancelation.
We rotate GMs and have a weekly game in person so continuity is important to keep that day earmarked for RPGs in the eyes of significant others that do not play.
You brought up a good point regarding running a one-shot as an alternative but don't forget, if your group is lucky enough to have a player willing and/or able to be a temp DM, it might be a good opportunity for them to run that one-shot instead (they may have already had everything planed out too). It also gives the campaign DM an opportunity to relax and just play.
It does suck having players missing ESPECIALLY when that PC was critical for that session for whatever reason. Sometimes nothing can be done to salvage the session and that's ok (I believe it should be very rare though). I had a session end on a cliffhanger involving a PC meeting their estranged father. The next session began without that player...we discussed it as a group and the other players really wanted to give that missing player the opportunity to roleplay it out. We ended up playing a board game and had a great time.
My game has been going for a year and a half, with five players most of that time. There's lots of story, and missing some of it makes future events confusing for the players that missed sessions, so when someone can't make it we usually postpone it for a week. Sometimes one week becomes two or three. There are months that we played every week and months that we played once. I think we have played with a missing character maybe three times. But you have inspired me to stop letting that happen unless more than one player can't make it. I'll just send a session recap to the missing player and keep moving. Thanks!
Yep, I've had players cancel who were the only character that knew an important language or as we approached their home town.
If it's a one off I usually keep the character in and they'll sit in the background and everyone just accepts the character inconsistencies.
If they're going to be away for an extended period however I tend to write out the character for their own side quest - give them some growth over the time they've been missing.
I think momentum is one of my favorite words to use when it comes to pushing on despite being down players. Once you start canceling games it becomes easier and easier, then players tend to start checking out. From past experiences it’s a death spiral for a campaign.
For long campaigns, I have the missing player’s PC be a ghost of sorts that is with the party but never does anything nor is effected by combat and traps. However, I will have that PC speak up (by me) if that PC knows something critical for the session or has an important item then they are able to give that item to one of the other PCs. And if something happens to the entire party, like getting captured, then it also happens to the ghost PC.
We have another player run the character. Death is mostly off the table for that character.
We have one player who takes notes on google docs for everyone to see before the next session.
It’s worked well for us
I've had this happen several times over the decades, though it's usually infrequent. IF it's someone who is usually there and for whatever reason can't make it--I usually use option 2, and play their character myself as an NPC--they get half-experience for the day like any henchman would. But unless there is a total party kill, I promise the character will live. If it becomes a usual thing, I'll pull the player to the side and ask if they can really commit to being here for the game. If they can't no harm no foul---we work out an exit for the character.
I've had people fill in for players that are gone (with the original player's permission). I also only adjust combats on the fly by judging how dramatic/scary I want the fight to be. 300hp boss only took 100 damage after 5 rounds? Maybe they're closer to dying than I would have originally planned. I'm not going to let scheduling conflicts kill the characters. I want that to be because they truly made a dumb decision.
i'm the gm for my table and player for other two among my group and past week, when we were setting the next table, i told them: "im of the opinion that a session shouldnt be cancelled cause one player isnt at the table. the only exception for this case would be if last session ended in cliffhanger or coming for a really pivotal moment for that pc."
fast forward to today's morning when two of my players let us know that they couldnt play the weekend. i can play as a character if the player isnt there, but two gets complicated. Im not gonna lie, it bothered me a lot, but adult life, you know?
Amanda: (over half the party cancels) "I'm basically playing every character! This sucks!"
Amanda: (comes up with idea for next video) "Let's run a solo adventure!"
😂
The worst Cancellation I've seen was as a player, and it was the DM who cancelled, about 1.5 hours after the session was supposed to start with the excuse that the game he started playing in is going overtime.
As a DM Ive had a few last minute cancellations, from people who originally switched date (we have 1 main day and 2 backup days) and an hour before the game they cancelled saying they "had" to work, when we switched days because of said work :P
dude, i had to change the beginning of my last session because one of my players cancel 30 minutes before and the whole introduction was written for them but.. i sorta change perspective and made them fight other enemies, while the rest of the party focused on bringing back to life another pc
So, in the games I run, the players who are not there but will be back, their characters are off-screen, present but no impact onscreen. In general they handle offscreen NPCs & other things that have no impact on the story or resources. The other players treat them as though they are not present because as far as the story goes they are busy with "something".
Well done as always. 😁👽
Thank you!
Last minute cancellations are horrible. The REAL worst is when someone cancels, but wants to feel better about doing it so they say, “Well, maybe, but I’ll be late. I’ll text you later.”
I’m not running the ongoing campaign when more than on player drops, any more. It just got too annoying. So I’ve started running other systems, instead, and I let people miss out.
In my one campaign they were being guided by a trans-dimensional gnome (who is a character from my novel). So anytime someone missed they just disappeared. And when they came back they had to say where Professor Nobody took them.
Had a player last minute say hebcouldnt make it. His discord, in which we utilized, said he was playing video games. Thanks bud... he bowed out, realizing being a boring druid which was a construct always summoning things ans complaining about his long rounds and how he doesnt have everything ready. We're better off now without em
Comment for that algorithm!!
You had me till you mentioned “rebalancing combat” with fewer players. At my table l, there’s no such thing as balanced encounters. 😊
My players experience everything from super easy encounters to overwhelming (possibly) deadly encounters that match the location, situation, story or reaction to the players actions regardless of present players.
I love all your videos btw❤
I get that it's more work for the GM but a difficult encounter for 5 players can easily be a tpk for 3. Do you make any accomodation for that change?
Great question..I do tend to adjust a monsters hit points from time to time to account for harder encounters to be a little more manageable and “fair”(5e’s hit point bloat is already a problem above 5th level anyway)
However my players know that there can will and will be encounters that are easy to negate easily within one round to more deadly odds where they may need to be creative, more strategic or just run. To expect “balanced” encounters all or most of the time (to me) would be boring. There’s no reality or fun in that.
But if fellow DM folks out there rather create and follow balanced encounters for their tables then that’s totally cool too!
@@CJ_esc.artist Maybe it's just by a different name, but that sounds like what balancing means to me. There certainly are variations within difficulty of encounters, but I still ensure the players have a chance - getting stomped is no fun.
Balance?!?! Sadly, it’s more art than math in 5E.