So this is a personal gripe I have since I rejoined my RP group after ~2 years of not roleplaying.

We are a group of six, including the GM, and we all have a busy adult live with vastly different schedules.

(From 9-5 over shift-workers to weekend-workers and overtime)

Yet they're still dead-set on playing every friday night, wich in my opinion is a huge commitment.

All my pleas to play every two weeks or every other week were all but brushed aside.

"What if someone can't make it?" You might ask. Well, play continues, with the person in question being left out for that session.

I fundamentally think you shouldn't play a RPG like that, because leaving people out every now and then or all the time, is kinda a ---- move.

Aside from the fact that it screws with balance and more importantly: narrative.

I then said to them that I don't want to play like that and that I wish them much fun.

Wich resultet in a heated argument with the GM (who is my best friend).

Calling me entitled and that it's insulting that I refuse to play when it's not on my terms. (he get's easily overly confrontational)

I told him to calm down, and that if he want's me to play SO badly that I would do so for his sake, at least for the time being.

Our first "incomplete party" session is coming up and I'm still iffed on the matter.

I'm thinking about skipping the week myself, because as mentioned before, I think it's stupid.

But at the same time I kinda don't wanna skip either when I don't have to, wich is also stupid.

Basically I'm left with this conundrum since I DO wanna roleplay, 'cause it's awesome, but I DON'T wanna roleplay in a group that is lacking an active member more often than not.

( I also think it's basically impossible to build a consistent plot like that )

What are your opinions on this? How do you guys handle scheduling and/or missing players.

Even if you have a set and regular schedule, other obligations can and will always pop up every now and then.

Am I being overly sensitve here?

Thanks for reading.

Greetings and have fun in the Outer Rim

If you have a group of six adults with responsibilities and different schedules and you also insist on having everyone for every session, then you're going to play very rarely. It's not ideal, but thems the facts. If I were your GM I'd let you throw your tantrum at home Friday while the rest of us who could make it enjoyed a night of beers, friends, and SWRPG without you.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be rude, but what you are upset about is just a fact of gaming with adults.

So I am part of a weekly Pathfinder game that has been running for the past year and we have a similar system:
Run every week. If one person cannot make it, run without them. If two or more people cannot make it, do not run.

Personally we've found this to work well. If someone has a surprise obligation, they can go sort that out, everyone else can play (the GM might need to lower the difficulty), and we let them know what happened the following week.

The important thing though is the two or more players rule, as then it gets stupid.

In my personal opinion, if someone regularly cannot make it to the group session (whether thats a lack of organisation or surprise obligations) then they probably do not have a lifestyle that they should be in a weekly roleplay group.

Should someone who can only commit to every second week play with group of people who want to play every week? probably not
Should someone who wants to play every week play with a group of people who want to play every second, third, etc? maybe, maybe not.

but I DON'T wanna roleplay in a group that is lacking an active member more often then not.

The fact is, if your group is not playing as soon as any member is missing, the previous statement means that most of the time you'll not be playing at all.

From a session every week, it'll drop to once every two or three weeks ? And maybe the rythme will be lacking consistency. So maybe once every month, cause consistency is what make a game last.

To me, the plot will suffer way more from this than from a player missing but giving instruction to the DM about how to interpret it while missing (small phone call, PM on forum, live chat, whatever)

Regarding balance... If you mean XP and such... Balance is the worst thing on earth ! A perfectly balanced system is a system who do not move. And who want a still story ? One of the character is a tiny bit weaker than the others ? Wonderful ! the player will have to grow smarter, to assess everything from a different angle. That's more that great.

We had the same situation after session 0 with 3 players, that all had a good friend who wanted to play too (basiclly all were part of a group in a bigger live roleplay group that got disbanded, they were looking for thier RP fix). We eventually came up with excuses for a year, for absent characters, but then decided to form a base from which we go on missions with what team we had.

If your GM can form such base or other method, I think it would be great for everyone.

You're overreacting. Odds are, the person missing isn't even half as bothered by folks playing in his absence as you are. Groups play minus one player all the time, because sometimes, things happen that mean someone can't attend on short notice. Everyone else having cleared their evenings by default means they have nothing else to do, so not playing because ONE GUY (!) is missing is a ****** move to everyone else who's going to show up and has no other plans.

As for how I personally handle missing players:

Their characters usually have a reason to be doing something else or, if present, do boring things like supervise the NPC minions or whatever during legwork. They're kept out of combat and they get XP like everyone else, because we give group XP. If not present, there's time in between sessions to handle what they were doing and roll a few dice.

If you have a group of six adults with responsibilities and different schedules and you also insist on having everyone for every session, then you're going to play very rarely. It's not ideal, but thems the facts. If I were your GM I'd let you throw your tantrum at home Friday while the rest of us who could make it enjoyed a night of beers, friends, and SWRPG without you.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be rude, but what you are upset about is just a fact of gaming with adults.

No offense taken, although tantrum is kind of a strong word.

I realise sessions would be more rare but if that means everyone is there I would enjoy it more over all.

In my personal opinion, if someone regularly cannot make it to the group session (whether thats a lack of organisation or surprise obligations) then they probably do not have a lifestyle that they should be in a weekly roleplay group.

Should someone who can only commit to every second week play with group of people who want to play every week? probably not

Should someone who wants to play every week play with a group of people who want to play every second, third, etc? maybe, maybe not.

That's what I tried to convey to my friend, but he got mad...

Not playing when two or more can't make it seems perfectly reasonable.

but I DON'T wanna roleplay in a group that is lacking an active member more often then not.

The fact is, if your group is not playing as soon as any member is missing, the previous statement means that most of the time you'll not be playing at all.

From a session every week, it'll drop to once every two or three weeks ? And maybe the rythme will be lacking consistency. So maybe once every month, cause consistency is what make a game last.

To me, the plot will suffer way more from this than from a player missing but giving instruction to the DM about how to interpret it while missing (small phone call, PM on forum, live chat, whatever)

Regarding balance... If you mean XP and such... Balance is the worst thing on earth ! A perfectly balanced system is a system who do not move. And who want a still story ? One of the character is a tiny bit weaker than the others ? Wonderful ! the player will have to grow smarter, to assess everything from a different angle. That's more that great.

Yeah I'd be perfectly fine with fewer sessions in exchange for more consistency.

Balance was more of a minor point, but something that was just floating in the back of my head.

We had the same situation after session 0 with 3 players, that all had a good friend who wanted to play too (basiclly all were part of a group in a bigger live roleplay group that got disbanded, they were looking for thier RP fix). We eventually came up with excuses for a year, for absent characters, but then decided to form a base from which we go on missions with what team we had.

If your GM can form such base or other method, I think it would be great for everyone.

A base of operations seems almost like the perfect solution, both mechanically and narratively.

I'll definitely bring it up. Thanks man.

We occasionally have folks who cant come - someone out of town and that sort of thing. You know what we do? Game on! Yeah, it sucks that the person is not there, and I've had to occasionally re-write plots that hinged on a certain skill set, but its not a big deal.

So yeah, I'd lean to deal if I were you. It's not a major catastrophe.

We get to play RPGs so infrequently that we say if we have the GM and a majority of players we go. It should be understood as a general rule, up front, that absence of one player will not halt the majority. Does it mess with story? Sure. Does it suck that the person has to be NPC'ed for a session and cant maximize their contribution? Absolutely. But One person should not prevent 5 from playing, that is pretty selfish in my opinion, with the caveat that you need the GM. But then you can give him crap for missing sessions.

Thats just it really. I don't think there would be any timetable that can allow six people with full time jobs will ever be equally accommodating enough to have 6 different people to meet up on the same day consistently. It seems apparent that either this is the time most convenient for the GM, which in all fairness they are having to run the sessions they do get a priority seat unless it is a rotating format. The sessions also want to be held weekly, which is good because it keeps continuity fresh in the mind

The alternative is that this is simply the best time for the majority of the group to have a session and thus the majority opinion takes priority, after all, it would be equally unreasonable to run it on a Saturday, Monday and Sunday?based on what you say simply because people are working throughout the week so there isn't really a safe day. The majority also have very little issue playing every week, with the only missing nominator being yourself?

You can understand why I am somewhat sceptical. I have a group of 7 people, including the GM, and we often press on even if we are two down. Largely because realistically speaking we can't have everyone there every session. If we can't? we minimise the role.

I am with most of the others when it comes to just game on. Work with what you have in front of you. Especially if it only happens every so often and not every week. If it is happening on a weekly bases the group may need to rethink how they want to handle the campaign.

In reality it comes down to the campaign, the GM, and the group playing working around the situation. With most of it being on the GM's shoulders.

• I've been in groups where someone else ran the character for the session or a good reason was found for the Character to not be with the rest of the party for the session. Send the character on a offscreen side mission that gives them some XP so they are not lagging behind, but not as much as the players who are there. To do that it really comes down to the GM and Players. It involves a lot of trust and is not something all groups can handle.
• It has already been suggested, some campaigns can be structured around the group being different for each session. Making each Session more of a standalone event then a direct continuation from one to next. Think more the campaign is a TV show vs it being a Movie. Which is not at all easy, but can be just as fun. It can produce characters who are not on the same level, but that does not have to be a negative. I say that from experience, but I have seen where it can cause issues.
• Another suggestion I can give is that you have two sets of Characters. One for Single Session events when people are missing and the Main Characters for the actual campaign. The Single Session events can be geared to develop the events around the Main Characters as the PC's get to role-play the background events. You can also do that with 1-off Characters.

Just handle it the best you can.

We are a group of six, including the GM, and we all have a busy adult live with vastly different schedules.

(From 9-5 over shift-workers to weekend-workers and overtime)

I say take what you can get. If you can game once a week, that's pretty amazing. I only get a regular game every 3 weeks, and it's a smaller group, so having a person missing really affects the dynamic. You have a larger group, I would think that would be more "forgiving" as far as social dynamics go.

My group is like this... rare is the session when EVERYONE can make it. Luckily, our characters have enough hangups and foibles that there's always an entertaining reason why a character is absent/incapacitated. We have a Rodian pilot who is a major alcoholic... when he doesn't make it, he's passed out... if it's mid-arc, when he returns, he gets to guess what species' naughty bits got drawn on his forehead (the rule is, if he can't guess correctly, he can't get mad). An old, old DnD game had a cleric miss a game, and return to find his character in perfect condition, save for a bald streak down the center of his head from a glancing blow by a disintegration beam.

TL;DR: Miss our game, and it's like falling asleep first at a frat party. Hide the markers.

My group (me + 4 regular PCs) has a pretty simple schedule: once every two weeks (on Sunday); if one can't make it, we play; if two can't make it, we find the next available Sunday to play (which could be the following week) and reset the 2-week clock.

We also play occasional one-offs on Fridays, if we're all anticipating a missed day (Christmas; Super Bowl; Christmas Bowl/Superchristmas; etc).

We're all in our 30s-40s, so modifications to the schedule and flexibility are mandatory.

I'll agree with most of the above posters. Having the entire group fail to meet because one person, for whatever reason, can't make a session, isn't really fair to the rest of the group. If the majority want to play weekly and are willing to deal with occasionally missing party members, then more power to them. If the absence is anticipated, it can usually be worked into the story for one reason or another.

I've found the issue primarily revolves around players who attend regularly and whose skillset is necessary for the current plot (clerics/healers in fantasy games, computers/techs in sci-fi, faces in social games, etc.) that unexpectedly can't make it for a session or two. At that point, it challenges the GM to make the necessary revisions to planned encounters to resolve this unforeseen complication.

The best solution I've found is to ensure that stopping points are structured such that players can jump in and out of the sessions with some nod to verisimilitude. Episodic adventures work best in this regard, but having a "safe place" to store inactive characters (a base, ship, store, whatever) is a reasonable alternative.

If you're playing with a group of working adults you're never going to have 100% participation all the time. Even if you went to every other week you'll still have people who have to miss.

Just play on. We usually just sort of ignore the fact that they're suddenly gone, then poof they reappear the next session. Often we laughingly say they have sleeping sickness. People understand, stuff happens.

Both the gaming groups I play with like keeping the characters relatively even, so you all get experience, even if you didn't make it. It keeps a player from feeling punished if they can't make it.

Addendum: really, the only person who should be worrying about it is the GM. If they say "good to go", then you play. They hold all the cards when it comes to the story, and if they feel leaving a critical member out of play for a week is going to compromise the session, and say "maybe we should wait" -- then you wait.

Basically, what I'm saying is, "Trust your GM." If they leave it to the group, then you haggle/debate. But if they're telling you that play is on/off, then that's what it is. Respect the work they're doing to make it happen!

I've run both ways, and can honestly say that the best practice is what others have touched on - 1 out "play on" 2+ more out "hold on."

Both groups were 6 players in size, and as we were all corporate stooges and college grad students real life obligations get in the way ... a lot.

The group that refused to run without people kept the torch going for about 2 years - but over that time we only played about 60 or so odd times, because of having to skip weeks. We started missing two or three in a row, because of various things popping up.

The group that I run for now has been playing since August and we have run 22 times already. The pacing and character development are actually stronger because we don't "lose momentum" on the behaviors the characters are adopting since they occur so frequently. "Getting into character" is far easier for everyone, and they are enjoying things more.

I've adopted a "base" of sorts in the form of a ruins they're operating out of and the starship they have access to. When a player can't make it, they're simply caught up with something that needed doing around the base or ship (after all, even the trilogy characters didn't stick together *all* the time). The player that couldn't make it still gets XP for the session, but they have to do a write up and put it onto the adventure log portion of our website (here if you want to read them). It works, and the players are enjoying the consistency and dependability of it.

At my table, if I've got 2 people willing to play, I roll with it.. even if we're missing the other 4. Obviously this isn't ideal. Usually what I do is run it every week, but at the end of major stories we take a week off. So maybe once a month we don't game on our Wed gaming nights. I've found this tends to cut down on absent players. If they need to schedule something over a game day, they just ask me how long the current arc is gonna run and schedule their real life activities then.

That being said, some of my favorite sessions have been when a bunch of people out of the blue can't make it to game.. it's frustrating at first, but then the murderous droid and the cocky pilot with a heart of gold (who hate one another) get a one session a story specifically made (on the fly) for them. They get a chance to work through some of their problems and see how each other's abilities have been overlooked or underappreciated.. making the party work that much smoother afterwords and some great storytelling.

MY GM agreement states that if more than two out of the five players (not including the GM) are absent for whatever reason, the game MAY be cancelled at the discretion of the group. This is more a precaution, because I don't want balance, but I have no problem running a game with three players, two may be a little silly because I as a GM also don't want to let people miss out.

We play every other Sunday, and so far we have had no issues and one player has clearly said "I won't be here on this date" and I'm cool with that, he is working that day at the very store we play in (he is one of the co-owners of the store).

I feel very lucky I can game and try not to let absence get in the way, although it can happen, all I ask is that my players try and turn up or arrange days around it.

It was a discussion I had with my players last year where I had a group of 7 players (yes I know) and so having someone away wasn't much of an issue, this year my adventures are more focused on the characters and so I may need a character to be there. Thankfully although all my players are adults, they also are able to commit to a game on a fortnightly basis with the occasional absence. I'm cool with that, one session last year, when I should have had 7 players, I had two, and I still went ahead with it.

I'm in a non-SW game that we call an "open table". Basically, whomever shows up gets to play and new players are joining all the time. I think over the past three years we've had 21 different players of which less than 10 are semi-regulars and about 6 show up most of the time (I've missed the last two unfortunately).

It's been fun. There's always new characters and different dynamics from session to session. The story (as it were) doesn't really suffer. It's just different. Often, you'll be playing where some or most of the players weren't there for some villain and plot point so those that were there tell the tale of what happened previously (with suitable embellishments of course).

Balance hasn't really been much of an issue as there's always a mix of character power level. Plus, in a modern everyone-shows-up-every-week type of game, if you fall behind, you're behind every session from that point on. But since not everyone shows up you're character might go from being one of the toughest one week to hanging in the back the next.

I wouldn't say that it's the best way to run a game but it's a nice change of pace. At least you know that everyone there is there because they want to be. Not just out of guilt.

You do need a flexible base of operation though.

I schedule games once a week, every week, KNOWING that sometimes players won't be able to make it.

When we are missing players, we play anyways, though that session does not affect the story line. We play campaign only when everyone is at the table.

By scheduling every week, it is a lot easier to say 'let's take a break this week' when someone can't make it. Rather than playing once every couple of weeks and having to drop a session, putting a month between games.

It is an undeniable fact of playing with adults; real life comes first. Sorry for you, but I wouldn't have fought to keep you in the group. There are plenty of people who understand this and accept it readily. If you cannot, then I would wish you the best of luck finding a group in which you can.

Anyway, didn't think I was such a terrible person for wanting to play with everyone, but I'll get over it.

Nevertheless I appreciate everyones input. Honestly didn't expect that most people handle it like that, what do you know!

Meh, you're not a bad person, and clearly people had some constructive criticism. I'm sure lots of people have been in similar situations. The point is you came looking for advice, and got it!

You're not a terrible person.. One of my best friends made almost the exact same argument in our group. Our decision to go forward anyways was primarily based on the number of games that have flopped due to missing too many sessions and folks losing interest. Like Shakespeare, "the show must go on". You have a valid concern, I wish we could all play together all the time, just doesn't always work out.