/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

Here are some cute mares to lift your spirits.

I just want to play...

>>162367
Relax. Who knows, maybe some poner might drop by.

>>162363
The struggle is real, anon
>t. 4+wk on-going hiatus cuz the EMT and the Landscaper's schedule keeps saying nah

>>162369
Scheduling hiatuses are one thing, but when last-minute no-shows cause cancellations it's a real bummer.

I'm surprised that so many of you nerds play dnd.

>>162371
It wasn't d&d, but I do play tabletop games. It feels like the only thing I look forward to on some weeks.

>>162372
I'm sorry, anon.

>>162373
Eh, it's not that bad. Still really lame though.

Scheduling difficulties are probably the most demoralizing difficulty I face as a DM.

>>164910
Weird, I never have scheduling conflicts excepting the EMT, he misses 1/3 sessions.
The trick is to coordinate well in advance and (ideally) to determine a mutually beneficial time to commit to. Bonus points if religion is used to justify player availability (cuz ya know, we play 'religiously') ^_~

>>164911
It's really not that simple. Shit happens.

>>164912
Fair, but if you do it right 'shit happens' is the exception, rather than the rule.
Ngl, but beyond a certain level of accommodation, you should consider players who are willing to commit. No fault, Ive made the contrary mistake plenty of times

>>164913
Oh, it's not a question of willingness, but means. I can tell pretty easily when players don't want to play.
It's just really sad to have to cancel because an important player has something come up and the party is in the middle of a high-crunch dungeon, because I hate disappointing the other players.
But people have jobs, families, and other unexpected circumstances. Sometimes it's just hard to get things together.

>>164914
>not a question of willingness
Sure it isn't. A commitment is a commitment, except when it isnt

>>164915
Yeah, except that sometimes people get unexpected irl obligations that they can't delay for a roleplaying game. I'm no exception. Every additional member of the party is an additional chance for that to happen.
Family member deaths, lost jobs, new jobs, weddings, houses burning down, acute illness, needing to babysit dependents, car accidents, studying for exams, etc. I don't blame people for having more pressing concerns than the game I make for them; it's just a bummer when it does happen.

>>164916
Yeah sorry, not buying. Not trying to disparage u and your players, so maybe I should duck out? Suffice to say, your experience is incongruous with mine.

>>164918
Not buying what?

>>164920
I believe you are being baited with nefarious purposes. Noponer would answer to you like that.

>>164923
>nefarious purposes
What now?
I'm just saying that scheduling difficulties are hard sometimes.
They're especially tough for new DMs, as they're a hurdle that research doesn't always prepare them for. It's painful to watch a new DM spend weeks working on their first game, only to watch the energy drain from them as they're discouraged by unavoidable scheduling struggles, which is why I say it's demoralizing for some people.

>>164925
It is understandable, but being pushy will get the contrary effect... because it is not fun anymore to play when there is an obligation.

>>164920
Your explanation. What you describe as 'so hard/unavoidable', is second nature to some.
Long story short, your experience is not indicative.
>>164923
Cry moar fgt
>>164929
Sorry, but a commitment/obligation isnt endemically a bad thing. Sometimes, its the ONLY way.

>>164929
Yeah, which is why I'm not pushy. I'm not some possessive asshole who demands the full devotion of my players. I wouldn't want people to put off irl obligations to play. I appreciate my players spending their time at all.
I'm just saying it can be frustrating sometimes.
>>164931
>What you describe as 'so hard/unavoidable', is second nature to some.
Well, for a lot of groups, it's not. Scheduling isn't always easy, especially when players live on other sides of the world with different priorities.
Some groups have the privilege of favorable circumstances that enable them to play without interruption; I've been fortunate enough to play my games consistently for a while now. Other groups aren't so lucky, for reasons beyond their reasonable control.

>>164932
>le pouty poni face
If you have nothing to post, consider not posting.
>>164933
>Its just so HARD
>other groups can't
Im of the mind that a player unwilling to commit to a schedule has no business trying to play. Sorry, not sorry, it's not personal. Srsly, one has no grounds expecting the grouo to accomodate, unless theyre willing to likewise accommodate the group. The group comes FIRST.

>>164934
So what's your solution? Just stop playing?

>>164934
>Im of the mind that a player unwilling to commit to a schedule has no business trying to play.
Yeah right. Any other poison pill you want to share?

>>164934
>one has no grounds expecting the grouo to accomodate, unless theyre willing to likewise accommodate the group.
Good groups can bear with the disappointment of cancelling a session if their friend, who has been a valuable nd consistent player up until then, can't make a session because they have to go to their nephew's birthday party, because some thing's in life matter more than a roleplaying game.
Would you say that player should be kicked out of the group because he couldn't attend the weekly ritual that is done for fun? What if that player was cool? What if he showed up on time on the days he could play, made a character that fit the adventure, shared fun jokes and memes during session, and drew people's characters for them? Does he "have no business" playing just because life got in the way on a few weeks?
I don't cancel sessions because I can't just move forward without absentees; i primarily do so because I value my players and I want them to all get to appreciate the content I prepared for them.
>The group comes FIRST.
Actual cultist mentality.

Scheduling difficulties aren't even all about missed session either. It could just be people who geinunely want to play together, but can't because of one reason or another. Like cousins who live two cities apart and wanted to join up in person, or friends in different timezones.
How many groups have you played with that you've never run into scheduling conflicts?

>>164934
>a player unwilling to commit to a schedule has no business trying to play
Some players can't accomodate to a schedule, even though they want to. That's the frustrating part, especially when that player is fun and interesting and generally valuable to play with.
It's no challenge searching the web for random weirdos on roll20 who can accomodate a specific timeslot. It's playing without your friends and synching up everyone's lives that's the challenge. A lot of tabletop games are day-long weekly events; they require a certain degree of event-planning skill.

>>164934
>If you have nothing to post, consider not posting.
Mares are always welcome.

>>164934
>If you have nothing to post, consider not posting.
I missed that post.

>>164945
Saved.
KEK

>>164936
Be clear and precise with expectations. Make a schedule. You know, effort.
>>164937
>having clear expectations is a poison pill
My goodness, how do you get anything done? Oh, its (you), nevermind
>>164938
Good groups can accomodate, sure.
Good players dont ask them to, they suck it up and either decline a session, or they make their OWN arrangements.
>>164941
So this is an in person group youre speaking to?
>>164942
Mares are, sure. But vapid posters? I mean, you CAN flaunt that you have literally nothing to offer, but usually one simply refrains.

>>164947
>how do you get anything done?
Being pushy can only backfire.

>>164948
>factually incorrect pseudo-axiom
Lets look at Critical Role, as an example.
How many sessions does the group miss, versus how many sessions to players miss?
My players are perfectly responsible and willing to make committments to the game. As said, exceptions to exist, but they are exceptional rather than common. Your lack of discipline is showing.

>>164949
>Your lack of discipline is showing.
>mfw...
Do you know where you are?

>>164950
A site that at one point had at least a cursory commitment to self betterment, which includes self discipline andintellectual honesty. I'd detail the long and gradual downward spiral, but thats off topic.
Im not saying one isnt entitled to a lack of discipline, but I assert that thats contemptible and nothing to be proud of.
Im also asserting that that same lack of discipline is why players and sessions dont feel any obligation.
This alludes to the massive depreciation in the quality of players, brought about BY Critical Role, et al; by popularizing and marketing TTRPGs to a wider audience, one draws in the 'le ebin gaymer' groups that treat TTRPGs like another video game they can turn off and on, and have no responsibility to.

>>164949
So then what is your solution to enable playing with players that have difficult schedules? Players that have multiple jobs and/or dependents? Are you saying just not to play with those people?

>>164951
How is having players who can't synch their schedules due to having different lives only lack of discipline?
How many groups have you met to not run into regular scheduling challenges?

>>164952
For me it isnt a problem, in spite of multiple jobs for several (self incl), 2-4 kids (and spouses) for several, etc.
Yes, dont play with them. The reason is, its not fair to the players that can/do make it consistently. Ive been in groups that were perfectly synched EXCEPT for the guy in Australia. But GM was adamant, and as a result, us Burgers got tired of waking up at 3am because uni this and timezones that.
You still havent grasped the Roleplayer's Social Contract yet.
>>164953
Well, my current group (3 years running) has gone as long as over a year without missing a Saturday (at the time) session; individuals have been absent, but the group has made it happen.
Because we agreed beforehand, thats how we would do it. And we kept to it.

>>164955
>individuals have been absent, but the group has made it happen.
That doesn't always work in some games.
Sometimes, a treacherous dungeon requires nothing less than the entire party's combined strength to conquer, so it's likely to result in a TPK if the party's Cleric, Martial tank, Trapfinder or Mage vanishes in the middle of it and the party pressed ahead anyway (resulting in the death of every character who's player showed up, but not the one who was absent). Sometimes a game has character-specific content developed over the course of a year that would be disappointing for said character to miss out on.
Or sometimes the party would just rather wait for the player to play, because they like that player and know they'd appreciate that part of that session's content more if they were there. Sometimes parties are willing to wait for their friend, even if it means some frustration, because the value that their friend brings to the table is better than whatever fun they might've had pressing ahead with the story.
For cases like that, I'll sometimes prepare a backup session with some inconsequential, low-crunch sidequests for the remaining players to enjoy, or let them talk to NPCs and explore the world through dialogue and skill checks, instead of tackling the death-trap megadungeon or going through the climatic peak of the story's dramatic arc.

My most recent games that I DM'd have only luckily missed a couple sessions out of 2-3-ish years, but on the couple weeks I did cancel it was either because the group was cool with it, or because it happened that more than one player had trouble (college exam season).
However, I've born witness to other groups with exited players and dedicated DMs who all really wanted to play but couldn't because of cursed scheduling that prevented them from even having session 1.
>You still havent grasped the Roleplayer's Social Contract yet.
Now you're just being pretentious. Every table is unique, and everyone handles scheduling differently.
You must not played with very many different groups to have that outlook, because scheduling difficulties are the one of the most prominent frustrations for roleplayers everywhere, especially for new GMs who don't always have the skill to handle it. Not everyone has the same favorable circumstances as you.

>>164949
>Lets look at Critical Role
I have never watched that, and I don't feel like doing so for the sake of this discussion either.
>My players are perfectly responsible and willing to make committments to the game. As said, exceptions to exist, but they are exceptional rather than common.
So are mine; especially my most recent ones. Scheduling problems have still occurred.
I've also played with a lot of different groups and DM'd for over thirty different people in the past three years. Sometimes it takes a while to figure out everyone's availability or circumstances, and sometimes you find that even three close friends can't afford the time to play on the same day.
>lack of discipline
Tell me how your "discipline" helps you synch up the schedules of three people in Europe, Asia and the United States, or enables you to play when a player can't show up because his power went out and he has no wifi, or allows in-person players who live cities apart to convene in the same location without failure due to lack of reliable transportation.
It's more than just a skill issue.

>>164955
>For me it isnt a problem
Good for you, but idk what you're trying to assert when you say that other people shouldn't have their own struggles because of "discipline".
You keep saying that scheduling isn't a major problem, but the only solutions you've given are "be more disciplined" (vague) or "get better friends/groups" (misses the point). It's not exactly helpful or insightful.

>>164947
>this is an in person group youre speaking to?
In person or online. Scheduling problems are different for either, but both have their own problems.
>Be clear and precise with expectations. Make a schedule. You know, effort.
That doesn't fix the problem if players find themselves unable to meet those expectations.
>Good players dont ask them to
Nobody said anything about players asking them to.
>decline a session
Sometimes that doesn't work, due to small party size and/or high crunch game.
>you CAN flaunt that you have literally nothing to offer
How about you give actual event-planning strategies instead of pretentiously implying that scheduling conflicts never happen in "disciplined" groups?
At least the other guy is posting mares.

>>164951
>depreciation in the quality of players
First of all, the Critical Role influence mostly only affects 5e players (sucks to be them). The game I was referring to when I made the thread wasn't even d&d; it was Chaosium Basic Roleplaying System: an ancient, obscure system that is not attractive to Critical Role newfags; and so as much as I'd like to blame Matt Mercer for all my problems, it's not relevant to the situation. That session was cancelled due to two long-time and dedicated players not showing up because of circumstances beyond their control. It was a bummer, but shit happens.
Second of all, that is missing the point. In any case that I'm frustrated with scheduling conflicts, it's because my players are fun, valued and dedicated, and I actually want to play with them, which is why I'd be frustrated to be unable to play.
It's not hard to find random strangers with perfect attendance: they're a dime a dozen online. The challenge is getting to play with your friends who actually want to play the game, despite obstacles.
>intellectual honesty
???
Wtf? Did you ever interact with anyone who cared about "intellectual honesty" on /pol/? It's always been people shitposting behind 6-9 levels of irony, which is how I liked it before /ptg/ attracted all those electionfag redditors who take everything seriously and couldn't resist being baited.

>>164957
The discipline to avoid gathering and committing to a game group that cant feasibly convene with a set schedule? The discipline to set reasonable expectations of yourself and your players?

>>164961
By that, you're saying that some groups just shouldn't play in the first place. That's is the definition of a scheduling conflict.
Idk what it is you're trying to prove.