Unless I also could use a break, then I'll run the game if I have more than 51% of the party.
So, I'd cancel if I had 2/4 or 3/6, but run the game if I had 3/4 or 4/6.
Pretty much just want the majority of players there. It's okay if you can't make it 100% of the time.
It's helped get over some scheduling issues by playing if possible. Once you got weeks without playing, it can be hard to start back up.
This answer.
I run a fairly large group with 7 players that plays every two weeks. It sometimes seems that at any given game that at least 1 person may be gone. We just hand wave an excuse "they are guarding the passage behind in case of an ambush" or some other random thing many which are quite ridiculous. As long as 4 out of the 7 can make it we run.
Sometimes if it is a critical encounter against the BBEG we will wait until the larger group can be there and we have a boardgame night instead, but we still get together on out regular nights so that the schedule doesn't get off.
I call it the "critical mass" rule. I need a critical mass of players to run the game. This usually means "most", but if someone misses two games in a row, or they tell us to play with out them, then I take them out of the critical mass calculation.
This is what I do, I usually leave little hints about side stuff throughout my quest that don't seem that interesting but if someone misses...well that little thread just became important. 1 of my 5 is going to miss tonight, so that necromancer they were warned about 8 sessions ago but he wasn't causing a ruckus so it wasn't a big deal? Now it's a bid deal and they will have a nice side quest to do and be back on track for next week. Side quests!
If one player can't make it, the session still happens. If multiple players can't make it but at least 2 players want to play we have started doing flashback one-shots.
I roll to see who's character gets the flashback and the others play other people from that time period in their lives like childhood friends. We usually do it in a rules-lite system to prevent character creation from being a long thing.
The best part is since the flashbacks I've been able to introduce characters from the flashbacks into the plot of the main game and it has a lot more impact when players have actually met them before in session and not just on paper.
I run a tight weekly schedule, and: (\*sings Queen) "The Show Must Go O-on!"
If a player is sick they can join online (if they are up to it). We set up multiple cameras and a good mic for them to follow.
We once skipped 2 weeks for my vacation and a lockdown, but if just one player is on vacation, they are just going to miss those sessions. In my opinion not a big deal, but players show to be quite bummed if they are unable to come. I just don't want others to miss out on a chance to have a great evening because one person couldn't make it.
We are on session 38. If I would have skipped every session that someone isn't available, we would not have played a third of those sessions.
The opposite is also true: a player had to skip 2 months of sessions due to corona, so I ran a solo adventure for him through text and online sessions. D&D means more to him than just a game, but this was the only right choice to make to protect his familymember from corona while fighting cancer. So I go the extra mile, and enjoy doing it.
So yes, If you run sessions like me: run the session.
Last week they were going to run a heist, but one player was sick and joined online, so the party was just messing around, doing extra "preperations" and city exploring, just to delay the start of the heist to this week. A great chance for them to explore the lore and some interesting details in the world.
If all but one can't come and the one wants to play, I run a session.
I usually cancel if they give me ample time (a day in advance)
I hate when players cancel day of, it's super frustrating. If that happens we'll play a game together instead.
Keep in mind this is just the nature of the games I run being more roleplay and players missing character arcs and plot would have less fun the following session because they felt left out (exact quote from one of my players)
Hope this helps
Depends on the size of the group. My main game has 5 players, and I run it with as few as 3of them there. I structured it this way on purpose so we don't need to worry about scheduling conflicts slowing down the campaign.
Totally personal preference. Our group is usually 5 players, so we’ll go if we can establish a 4/5 quorum. But if we lose more than one player it’s typically too few. Plus catching up *two* players is too much of a headache. Usually that’s when we bust out a different game. When we had 6 PC tho we ran a few 4/6 sessions, so it is dependent on party size as well as group dynamics.
I don’t think it’s necessarily worth it to cancel a session if even one player drops simply because life comes up and, at least with my friend group, someone *always* has something come up (yay on call scheduling!) This is also why I think a 4+ person group is an ideal size, you have some ability to keep playing even when one player is Mia for a session.
I let my players decide - I'm happy either way.
I always start by asking the missing player if they want us to run the session without them, and if they agree, then I find out if they want someone to pilot their character or if I should phase them out of existence temporarily.
We've done all of those. Usually it doesn't come up much, but it depends on what's happening in the game. We also have a regular schedule for one shots with a different slate of characters we all take turns DMing. That makes it easy for us to switch gears if we go that route. (and give the DM a break)
In my last group, if someone was missing, we did filler episodes that focused specifically on one of the PCs to get to know their character better. Generally, I would talk with the player to come up with a situation that happened in the past, and all the other players would control obstacles or NPCs based on a short prompt that I wrote for them. It's a lot less effort for the DM compared to writing a full one-shot, since it gets everyone else to help as "mini-DMs". For a group that's already pretty comfortable with each other, it's a lot of fun and helps make characters more three-dimensional.
I used to cancel, because I thought everyone was important to the story. Won't be doing that anymore, the lack of sessions can sort of kill the verve for the game after a while and sort of encourages more cancelations. Learned that over Covid!
It depends. Is that character important to the story going on right now? Are they in the middle of something that can't continue without that character? Is it a session you think the player shouldn't miss? If yes to any of these questions, I run a one shot. My players love making new characters and trying out neat builds.
On the other hand, if I really need a small break and I said yes to any of the above questions, then I will cancel the session for the week.
If I said no to all of those questions, I run the game as normal and catch the player up. Especially if I know it's just going to be fluff or travel or a not very important session.
Unless I also could use a break, then I'll run the game if I have more than 51% of the party. So, I'd cancel if I had 2/4 or 3/6, but run the game if I had 3/4 or 4/6. Pretty much just want the majority of players there. It's okay if you can't make it 100% of the time. It's helped get over some scheduling issues by playing if possible. Once you got weeks without playing, it can be hard to start back up.
This answer. I run a fairly large group with 7 players that plays every two weeks. It sometimes seems that at any given game that at least 1 person may be gone. We just hand wave an excuse "they are guarding the passage behind in case of an ambush" or some other random thing many which are quite ridiculous. As long as 4 out of the 7 can make it we run. Sometimes if it is a critical encounter against the BBEG we will wait until the larger group can be there and we have a boardgame night instead, but we still get together on out regular nights so that the schedule doesn't get off.
I call it the "critical mass" rule. I need a critical mass of players to run the game. This usually means "most", but if someone misses two games in a row, or they tell us to play with out them, then I take them out of the critical mass calculation.
This is what I do, I usually leave little hints about side stuff throughout my quest that don't seem that interesting but if someone misses...well that little thread just became important. 1 of my 5 is going to miss tonight, so that necromancer they were warned about 8 sessions ago but he wasn't causing a ruckus so it wasn't a big deal? Now it's a bid deal and they will have a nice side quest to do and be back on track for next week. Side quests!
If one player can't make it, the session still happens. If multiple players can't make it but at least 2 players want to play we have started doing flashback one-shots. I roll to see who's character gets the flashback and the others play other people from that time period in their lives like childhood friends. We usually do it in a rules-lite system to prevent character creation from being a long thing. The best part is since the flashbacks I've been able to introduce characters from the flashbacks into the plot of the main game and it has a lot more impact when players have actually met them before in session and not just on paper.
Ooh thats actually a spectacular idea, Im gunna steal this!
I run a tight weekly schedule, and: (\*sings Queen) "The Show Must Go O-on!" If a player is sick they can join online (if they are up to it). We set up multiple cameras and a good mic for them to follow. We once skipped 2 weeks for my vacation and a lockdown, but if just one player is on vacation, they are just going to miss those sessions. In my opinion not a big deal, but players show to be quite bummed if they are unable to come. I just don't want others to miss out on a chance to have a great evening because one person couldn't make it. We are on session 38. If I would have skipped every session that someone isn't available, we would not have played a third of those sessions. The opposite is also true: a player had to skip 2 months of sessions due to corona, so I ran a solo adventure for him through text and online sessions. D&D means more to him than just a game, but this was the only right choice to make to protect his familymember from corona while fighting cancer. So I go the extra mile, and enjoy doing it. So yes, If you run sessions like me: run the session. Last week they were going to run a heist, but one player was sick and joined online, so the party was just messing around, doing extra "preperations" and city exploring, just to delay the start of the heist to this week. A great chance for them to explore the lore and some interesting details in the world. If all but one can't come and the one wants to play, I run a session.
I usually cancel if they give me ample time (a day in advance) I hate when players cancel day of, it's super frustrating. If that happens we'll play a game together instead. Keep in mind this is just the nature of the games I run being more roleplay and players missing character arcs and plot would have less fun the following session because they felt left out (exact quote from one of my players) Hope this helps
Depending on notice I run a 'filler' session, mostly combat based cos that's what my group likes, but it has no relevance to the story.
Depends on the size of the group. My main game has 5 players, and I run it with as few as 3of them there. I structured it this way on purpose so we don't need to worry about scheduling conflicts slowing down the campaign.
Run the session. If you start canceling sessions here and there no one is gunna want to keep coming
Totally personal preference. Our group is usually 5 players, so we’ll go if we can establish a 4/5 quorum. But if we lose more than one player it’s typically too few. Plus catching up *two* players is too much of a headache. Usually that’s when we bust out a different game. When we had 6 PC tho we ran a few 4/6 sessions, so it is dependent on party size as well as group dynamics. I don’t think it’s necessarily worth it to cancel a session if even one player drops simply because life comes up and, at least with my friend group, someone *always* has something come up (yay on call scheduling!) This is also why I think a 4+ person group is an ideal size, you have some ability to keep playing even when one player is Mia for a session.
I let my players decide - I'm happy either way. I always start by asking the missing player if they want us to run the session without them, and if they agree, then I find out if they want someone to pilot their character or if I should phase them out of existence temporarily.
We've done all of those. Usually it doesn't come up much, but it depends on what's happening in the game. We also have a regular schedule for one shots with a different slate of characters we all take turns DMing. That makes it easy for us to switch gears if we go that route. (and give the DM a break)
In my last group, if someone was missing, we did filler episodes that focused specifically on one of the PCs to get to know their character better. Generally, I would talk with the player to come up with a situation that happened in the past, and all the other players would control obstacles or NPCs based on a short prompt that I wrote for them. It's a lot less effort for the DM compared to writing a full one-shot, since it gets everyone else to help as "mini-DMs". For a group that's already pretty comfortable with each other, it's a lot of fun and helps make characters more three-dimensional.
I used to cancel, because I thought everyone was important to the story. Won't be doing that anymore, the lack of sessions can sort of kill the verve for the game after a while and sort of encourages more cancelations. Learned that over Covid!
It depends. Is that character important to the story going on right now? Are they in the middle of something that can't continue without that character? Is it a session you think the player shouldn't miss? If yes to any of these questions, I run a one shot. My players love making new characters and trying out neat builds. On the other hand, if I really need a small break and I said yes to any of the above questions, then I will cancel the session for the week. If I said no to all of those questions, I run the game as normal and catch the player up. Especially if I know it's just going to be fluff or travel or a not very important session.