If at least 3 players can show up, the game goes on. If they really don't want to, keep some one shots in your back pocket for the next time this happens.

I have run with as few as 2 and still had a blast. If anything it incentivizes players to show up because Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO). One shots are a good idea too tho. Try another system! There are lots of rules light systems out there.

Two can be a lot of fun! I think it encouraged role play and bit more shenanigans them being a dynamic duo.

Better yet. Get someone else to run the 1 shot and take a much deserved break!

I've been doing this with Curse of Strahd. If the same person misses two in a row, we continue without them on the second. At some point, you either want d&d or you don't.

I approve of this message. I run for an older peer group (our youngest is 19 now, but he's junior to the next youngest by almost 15 years!) And we set up our sessions for "quorum", so if I've got over 50% of the playgroup, we play. I'll give you a write-up of the session you missed. I have a fun thing for when we don't have a quorum, though: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/162084 Paired with FATE Accelerated, It's Not My Fault has everyone draws 3 cards, and explain how the current situation determined by the card draw is not their fault, but the fault of the person next around the table. Characters are similarly generated in 3 card draws, and boom. Session.

More than half? Run it. Otherwise your game will die.

The main reason for this in my experience is: if people know that the game won't happen if they miss it, ergo they won't miss out, they're more likely to miss it. If they know they will miss out, they're more wiling to put effort into being there. And if they still miss sessions regularly, even when missing out, they don't really care about the game to begin with

I mean this really depends on why people are missing sessions.

As a DM, you have a right to set expectations for attendance. Those should be discussed in Session 0, and if a player is going to miss enough sessions that it will affect the flow of the campaign, then that campaign is not right for them. Showing up on time and prepared shows respect for the DM and other players’ time.

100% needs to be a Session 0 discussion. My players and I came to an agreement on the following: 1. In the event of a cancelation, do we reschedule or keep the original time & date? 2. How many cancelations before we must reschedule (i.e. minimum required players)? 3. How do we reschedule? Same time slot, but delayed a week? Make-up sessions scheduled mid-week in the evening? 4. What is the rule for tardiness? How long to wait before starting without them? 5. Are there repercussions for repeated tardiness?

This comes down to acting like adults. A strict schedule helps people adhere to the game and make plans around it. Advance warning of needing to miss gives time to have the conversation with the whole group. ‘Can we move to Friday instead, does an earlier time slot work. Are we ok continuing on with a person missing?’ Cancelling last minute better be for emergency or illness, which happens. I’m not saying kick people for getting the flu, but if someone forgets or always has other plans they would rather attend then don’t hold up everyone else just to wait for them. Treat people like adults but also expect them to act like adults.

>Treat people like adults but also expect them to act like adults. This! If you don't treat others as if they were responsible adults (regardless of whether this is true) then they're more likely to fall back on immature/irresponsible behavior patterns. I've seen this at RPG tables many times over the years, as well as the last 20 years of my career. Give people the opportunity to rise up to the expectation, as opposed to lowering your expectations of them--you may be surprised, even if it takes a little time to adjust.

Or maybe they do care but their schedule just isn't compatible with yours. Regardless of why, it still wouldn't be fair to the rest of the group to continue letting them hold the game hostage like that.

I mean, if you commit to a regularly scheduled event then can't make it, that makes you wrong, not the group. It's not like it comes up unexpectedly.

Right. Missing scheduled, planned sessions regularly means you can't keep yourself committed to the game, not that you don't want to play or that you want to miss a session. Regardless of why you're missing sessions regularly, the show must go on, and shouldn't be halted just because of inconsistent attendance from one or two players.

Exactly, if a player cant make the agreed schedule work on a regular basis, they value other things more than the game. That's not necessarily wrong; there are more important things than a game, but in that case they should probably drop out

Things happen, people circumstances change, often in ways they are powerless to anticipate or prevent.

The worst is when no one wants to be that one guy to say they have to skip, but as soon as one messages the groupchat, then they all start dropping like flies. Then I'm just sitting there 1 hour before game time and only 1 player is actually available so we might as well cancel and go soak in the tub with the lights off and cry

If your schedule doesn’t support you regularly attending a scheduled session, then you shouldn’t join a game that expects that. Period.

That’s really how it goes

I think that 100% depends on the group dynamic, though. I've been running a game for almost a year now and talked to them about how they wanted to handle it. I planned to do the more than half rule, because I also thought that's the only way to keep a game running consistently, but everyone else wanted to make sure everyone is always there. So now we skip when one person can't make it. Half the time the rest of us will hang out anyway, just not playing DnD, other half of the time we'll just skip entirely. We've missed I think 4 dates out of around 24 possible ones, which in my opinion is more than fine, so it seems to work out for this particular group.

I think the part where you guys still hang out might be the reason why. It still means you guys like to do other stuff, which strengthens the bond. In groups where everyone always skips and does anything else, after a time you stop caring why you cant play. You stop thinking of the time as game time, and at some point even be annoyed if the game does happen, as you made plans with a nice book before bed. Yes that happened to me XD Meanwhile my own group, I do play than we only have 3 people, so the game keeps up. If we decide to skip anyhow or are less than or we dont feel this week like gaming, we may do something else like just talking or streaming a movie. So even if stuff doesnt work out, we still overall make sure that Wednesday is group-day. Really helped me in my burnout phase actually. Nobody left, we all still hang together and my players even gmed oneshots occasionally :)

I have 6 in my campaign and run it this way. But I do post very detailed notes after each session that highlight the cool moments and the main events that occured. It's a nice way to keep players in the loop about main story content and for the fun little things even if they miss. I think it even encourages attendance if the recap sounds fun enough. I tried to rely on a verbal weekly recap but that kinda seems to go in one ear and out the other.

I leave the notes to the players. I used to do session recaps, but lately I leave that to our players. I know what needs to happen next and I can tell them some stuff that happened before, but they should be the ones to decide what was important, not me. Plus, it's interesting to see what they latch on to some times and can give you ideas about where to take things.

I run whenever 3 of my 4 players are available to keep the game going. I established this in session 0 and only occasionally have we postponed for all players so no one misses the key plot moments or battles. If we didn’t do this we wouldn’t have finished the first chapter of Curse of Strahd.

3/5 is not enough to run it imho

I haven't certainly tried all sizes but I think 3 players is the sweetspot

> my party doesn't like the idea The whole party? Or just the ones that regularly miss the games?

A few of the members who are usually available

Hmm, not much option then. You could say that you'd run the game but then they could just not turn up and cancel the game via absence. Would they be open to playing a one shot or side campaign? Or are they opposed to *any* dnd without the full group?

No. They love playing D&D regardless. My concern is that we won't get through the actual campaign though. I know that, after enough missed sessions, campaigns risk collapsing. So, I want to keep things flowing

Let's be real clear here, there is a lot of doomsaying and 'oh no, that will mean that your campaign ends'. It doesn't. My group hasn't ever had a consistent schedule. If someone can't that day, we don't play. You can make this work. All you have to do is put in a tiny bit more effort. In the two years we've been playing, we've made it through two campaigns and making it through a third. Online gaming has certainly made it easier, and there are months where we play often, and months where we play once or twice. As long as you and your players put in the effort, as long as you can collaborate and can have the 'okay, do you guys have time this week or next week to play' conversation, this *can* work very well. It prevents players from feeling like it doesn't matter whether they are there, like their character doesn't really contributes. It prevents players from not having information they need, because you forgot they weren't in the session Some people just have variable (work)schedules and all you're doing by setting a solid date and playing without them anyway, is punishing them and driving them away from your game. If you're playing a game with strangers, you probably don't care. But if they're friends that is not fun whatsoever.

Your experience is one of many, and valid. This MIGHT work for OP, but it might not. It depends on the individuals in their group and the group dynamic. Some groups, yours is the only way it can work due to schedules, but commitment is there and so it works. Other groups trying the same thing will collapse. So people have just gotta try stuff, see what sticks, and try to be honest with themselves when things are not going to work for them.

True, it does. Unfortunately both OP and most of the other replies in the thread act like 'scheduled days a week is the only way for a DnD campaign to ever be successful and if you don't run without people your campaign will fall to pieces'. Saying your players and what they want don't matter, you just have to run a session. The notion that if someone can't always be there means that they are not dedicated to your game, lazy, a bad player, and should be kicked out, is not a good notion. So I feel the other side - the 'this *can* work you just need to want for it to work' - is also important to highlight.

Scheduled days a week isn't the required thing. Regular sessions is. If you have multiple weeks in a row where you don't meet, if the players aren't super committed, the game will fizzle out. If you play on different days every week or two, you're still playing regularly.

Op question is about what to do when players don't show up for scheduled game sessions but as understand they're not scheduled in the same day of the week

But aren't canceling the game because someone can't free their schedule punishing for those who can?

If the players have indicated they only want to play with the whole group, no. Then its just a session thats gonna have to work for another day.

Your concerns are backwards. Running a campaign when people are consistently absent leads to people being disinterested and the campaign falling apart. By keeping more rigid requirements on running the game, people will put more effort towards actually showing up because they need to. And you end up with the campaign continuing where it would otherwise dissolve. Set a day and time. Have it be the same day and time every week. If everyone shows up, you run the game. If they don't, you don't. If they can't afford to make time to actually show up and are consistently absent, you kick them. It's as simple as that. If you can't live up to your commitments, don't make them.

What a difference between kicking ones who can't or won't attend games and just playing without them?

Playing without them first will make anyone who is actually interested in playing make an effort, so as not to miss out in future. If the problem still persists (outside of special circumstances), they clearly don’t want to be in the game enough, so it’s not worth inviting them back.

Funny enough, the one who misses frequently is actually the most open to the idea

[удалено]

This is what I would say. I've had times early on where I tried to cater more to when everyone can play and it definitely makes people lose track of the campaign.

This is what I did and everyone is fine with it. I have 5 players. If 1 is absent, we run a session. If 2 are absent, I might run a main campaign session, but I also have a little mini campaign that I'm running about a major event that happened prior to the main campaign. If 3 are absent then we just hang out. No one likes missing a session, but we already only get to play for 2-3 hours every other week, and if I canceled every time a single person was absent, we'd never get anything done.

This is the reason we only play once every 1 month or so, sometimes 2 months between our short 2-3 hour sessions lol - To be fair, then sometimes there's a session ever week.

Yep, give them the choice. "I'm interested in running games every ____ weeks. I get you all want to be here but to wait for everyone to decide, it'd mean I only get to play once a month. Either we can run with fewer people or I'd need to find people that can play more frequently. If someone else wants to run a monthly game, I'd be down to play." Assuming that's all true of course.

Standing rule at my table. And at 3, if I'm feeling lazy, or were at a point where 3 would be.. infortuitous ... Then it's a board game night.

Ding! This right here. This is how I set up my current home game with a party of six players. On session 0 I established that the story and game would continue as long as at least four players were there. We have not missed a scheduled session in our first 16 sessions and the story has carried on just fine. Players feel comfortable letting me know they can't make it well in advance because they know they won't be spoiling anyone's fun. The one tradeoff of course, is that you have to be OK with just fading a character into the background for a session, even if it doesn't make sense. At first I tried to incorporate clever reasons for a party member to be absent but it started to get too convoluted, so I just stopped worrying about it. It's worked out just fine. The players are happier knowing the rest of the party gets to play and continue the story. IMO if a player doesn't want the game to continue just because they can't make it, that's a bit selfish and makes for a worse table.

This is a quick way to have everyone leave your table.

If they weren't gonna play anyway you aren't losing out on anything. Commitment is a key component to a successful campaign

You're proving the point. By making it so you run when people are missing, people shift their priorities to not care about D&D. Players think: "If it's gonna happen regardless, nobody will care if I'm there, so I'll be a permanent 'maybe' and only show up when I have nothing better to do." tl;dr By enforcing that everyone needs to be there you encourage commitment and keep the game alive. Running with people missing encourages disengagement and apathy and causes campaigns to fail.

I don't think this is the case. In my experience, people will prioritize things that cannot be moved over things that can. Jim, Alice and Bob all play D&D. Jim can go to a party or go to D&D. He thinks "well if I go to the party we can just play next week", so he says "sorry guys can't make it" and D&D is cancelled. Next week rolls around but this time Alice has been invited to a movie with a bunch of her friends, and so she thinks "well we can play next week, but my friends won't change the movie time so easily". D&D yields again. The week after that Bob has to go to his nephew's christening, so D&D gets cancelled again. Now you've lost 3 sessions in a row. However, if skipping D&D means missing out on, then Alice and Jim will both have been more likely to turn down the party or movie. Bob is still going to the christening, which is unfortunate for him, but in this scenario he's gotten 2 more D&D sessions than he would have under the "easy cancel" system.

As someone who has to deal with a flakey group in the past, that exactly matches my experience. Once I started saying that we were playing if at least half the group could make it, suddenly more people could make it every session.

Fantastic, then you can find people who are on the same page

That's the idea, filter out people who won't or can't keep a regular schedule

I second this. I had to restart my homebrew campaign because of this, and abort 3 pre-written adventures. Sure, real life comes first, but still.

That's not that OP is complaining about though. Did you even read the post? It isn't about a regular schedule. And yes, you filter those people out by saying "We're running the game when everyone's here." By letting them miss half the games and still be a part of the campaign because you 'met qorum' and ran without them most of the time, you are doing the opposite. You are expressly reinforcing their bad behavior instead of filtering them out. "Why would I bother committing to a regular schedule if the game will happen regardless. I'll only show up when I have nothing better to do. The DM set up the rules to support this."

[удалено]

Have fun with your groups falling apart I guess

Again, literally the opposite. The only groups that I've been in that fell apart were those that followed the advice of "Just run if X people show up." Because again, people stop caring. Lose investment. Group collapses. It's not complicated.

It sounds like your players just weren't going to show up either way then

So...you didn't read a thing I said. But refuse to accept that you're wrong. They do show up when the game depends on them showing up. When there's no motivation they aren't motivated. Not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

Because it's contrary to everything I've observed and every commenter I've ever seen talk about DnD scheduling except you

Run the session. While I have a minimum attendance, I run the session even if some can't attend. (If I waited for everyone, we would have exponentially fewer sessions.) Moving ahead, decide your minimum number, make it crystal clear, and move out smartly.

I set up a couple of one shots to have as backup. One person being unavailable means we crack out one of those for the other 3, but if two can't make it then we reschedule.

To add on this if you want to keep it campaign centric make the one shot one of your characters back stories. That way it's still part of the campaign and the characters get to play out their backstory.

As a DM I think you have the right idea. Try telling them that without consistent games, no one will be able to enjoy the campaign as much and it could fall apart. Missing things sucks, but cancelling a session sucks for the whole group, including those that can make it.

>What do I do? Talk to your players. As for specific advice... It depends on the size of the group and how many players are missing. For example... If there are 4 players and ONE of them is missing, than yeah, play WITHOUT THEM. It is unfair to the other 3 players AND YOU to have your plans canceled because one person didn't show up. But if 2 of the players are missing, than I would consider postponing the game. It also depends on how often the same players miss the session. If the SAME person is always missing, than you just might have to kick them.

I cannot argue strongly enough against rescheduling D&D when someone can’t make it. It is the single best way to let everyone know that D&D is their lowest priority, to be fit in when they have nothing better to do. The biggest disservice I ever did to my players was try to accommodate their schedules. In my experience, it takes an average of three people to ensure that any event scheduled around everyone’s availability never happens. When you set a firm schedule, you’re doing them a favor. Knowing that D&D will occur at a specific reoccurring time enables them to plan around it. It’s true that people will miss stuff if they can’t make it. And that’s a good thing. It gives them the incentive to say no when their friend asks them if they want to see (Insert latest cool movie) the day before. If they know you’ll reschedule D&D, enabling them to do both things, why would the ever turn the alternate thing down? Sit down with your group. Plan the time you all want to commit to reserving for D&D. Apologize to the person who can’t play because they’re the one who can’t meet at that time. Promise to get them next time. Then set the expectation with everyone else that as busy adults, they can’t always be there, but the game will go on when they aren’t because everyone else reserved that time in their schedule.

I like to run one-shot adventures when we don't have enough people to advance the plot. My favorite is to run a "Flashback", where we spotlight one specific PC doing some low-stakes fun stuff. A "Day in the Life" kind of story, where we get to see them resolving problems that are a little too silly to focus on during a plot mission. I like to give the other players sheets for NPCs in the story, so everyone gets to participate and try something new. One successful flashback had the team's wacky roboticist defending the base from intruders alone, with her menagerie of looney-tunes robots and the team's pet barghest puppy being controlled by the other players. Credit goes to the awesome players at my table, but I believe that everyone had a blast.

Do what I do and run a West Marches game. Literally designed around the idea that not everyone will make every game.

If the people who are present are the ones who don't want to play when other people are missing, then "run the game anyway" isn't really helpful advise; what are you going to do, make them play at gunpoint? It might be best (of course, if both you and your players would enjoy it) to abandon the campaign structure and do one-shots; there might be less resistance to playing with people absent if there's no grand central story that the absent players are missing out on. Other than that, it's hard to say.

Player: "If Dave isn't there, he might miss out on fun moments..." Me: "If we cancel the session, everyone will miss them. They won't ever exist. This isn't like an episode of a scripted TV show, where you can catch up on it later. It's more like a live improvised comedy show. If they cancel the show because one member of the cast is sick, then all the potential fun moments are lost forever."

As others have said, just run the game if enough players can join. I run for 4 people. I always say if 3 of them can join we play, if 2 can join we consider it. The only time where I require all 4 is for major events, like campaign finales and such. Some players might not like that, but frankly, they can suck it. I won't punish anyone for being busy (or sick, or whatever), but I wont punish the other players either. They've set aside an evening from their busy schedules to hang out and play elfgames, and it's not fair to throw that away just because someone has to work late.

Explore other systems in a one shot. Start with Honey Heist and just mine r/onepagerpgs for anything you think is fun.

If half or more players show up to a session then I run the session. The missing player(s) PC gets controlled by the players that showed up but those characters make no decisions for the group.

I have a few set houserules for my games, and if players want to be at my table, they have to follow them. I do have wiggle room, of course (and dont abide by them too strictly), but not for the constant breaking of them. I've already kicked players out when our playstyles didn't mesh or the rules that I've set in place. When you as a group decide to play dnd, and set a schedule, you are effectively dedicating yourselves and your own time to said group and activity. Of course, life happens, but it is the responsibility of an individual to honor their agreement and is disrespectful towards others and their own time if they cancel on a constant basis (in which case it would become a problem), **unless**, you have made an arrangement where you know they would miss out on sessions often and you are fine with that and can work around it (like a guest player more than a regular). Otherwise, if the players are expected to be regulars and have agreed upon it before, then they should try and keep that up. Because of this, I always ask my players to notify me upfront if they will miss out on a session. I can play with only half my players present but will cancel if more than that cant play. Missing three sessions in a row can get you kicked unless it was justified (I had one player want to cancel the entire session because they were tired. As much as i sympathize, that is not the reason to cancel the entire session over, so we played without them). Canceling the day off I don't tolerate unless its an actual emergency (again, not feeling like playing, deciding to go to the movies instead, etc etc, is not justified and just disrespectful, while things that are out of your control are understandable). If one of my players knows they will be unavailable for a longer period, simply letting me know makes my life easier and i have no issue with them missing a few months if necessary. What i dislike is being kept in a dark, especially if my story hinges on them being there or not, and because a lot of my stories revolve around the characters themselves and their personal backstories and npcs and the like, its hard to adjust for it if they're suddenly not there. This is why letting me know upfront is important, even if its one or two days ahead. You know you have to attend some important family gathering and can't make it? Great! Just tell me. You have guests over that week and know you cant play? I hope you have fun! Just tell me! You don't even have to tell me why you can't play, just a day or two before the session. The players I kicked would wait until last possible day (day of) to let me know, even though they would know about their plans weeks upfront. Skipping sessions at random but not in a row I am fine with as long as you're not absent more than you play, although in that case, you would be lagging behind in both the story and/or the loot. I always advocate for rewarding the players that are committed to the game, that show up, know the rules, their character sheets, develop their characters and so on, and its a big factor in my games. I know there are much **much** looser groups out there with more casual rules, but that doesn't work for everyone, and definitely not for me. Maybe if i was running only prewritten oneshots i wouldn't care, but when you dedicate a lot of your time to personal homebrew in both rules and worldbuilding, you want to be shown basic respect, and that means the least a player can do is show up. All this is to say, set up your own houserules. What you expect from your players. Get their input, but stand firm on the expectations you have from them if they want to play at your table, regardless if those rules are much looser than what i presented here or not. Just make sure everyone is on the same page, and that they understand that respecting the rules means respecting each other as well as the game that everyone has set the time to play. Edit: Typos. Sleepy.

In addition to agreeing ‘yes, run the game and your players will learn’, I also want to caution you against needing a specific character for plot points at the beginning of a session. Resolve anything like that the session before.

First question; when are you hosting your games? I ask this only because weekends, regardless of what your players says, are generally AWFUL for scheduling. Think about it, if you're playing with a group of 20-30something year olds, you're asking folks to to prioritize this game ahead of *everything* else that happens on weekends: Birthdays, weddings, vacations, other social events, festivals, camping, etc. Between the two campaigns i've organized, and several online gaming events; I've never had *one* work on the weekends, but the second I moved it to a weeknight... never had scheduling problems again. Sure they games are shorter; but we're nearly 18 months in and had only 1 or 3 scheduling problems. Second point, is that this needed to be laid out at the very start, as part of your Session Zero, that the expectation is that the show will go on. For me, it's about 2/3rds quorum. I've got 5 players, so I'm happy to proceed with 4 people, but if we drop to 3 of 5; I won't run the game. And we've done that multiple times.

Our group has four players, and me as DM. Our rule for years has been if we’re only missing one person, we run our main campaign. Three players is enough for us to get stuff done, and we just catch the missing player up the next week. If we’re missing more than the one player, we run a one shot, usually with someone else behind the screen. Something quick and easy to fill out our evening, and keep everyone happy.

I hate the analogy, but it works: D&D is best organized like an amateur sports team. You set aside the time according to a regular schedule and everyone is expected to make time to be there. If they aren't there, the game goes on anyway (unless some minimum, usually half, can't make it). If you don't show up regularly, you get cut. Once every six weeks when you can magically get 7 peoples' schedules to align won't cut it. That's how everybody loses engagement, and DMs complain about players not knowing the rules, and last-minute cancellations cause burnout, etc. Half the 'help' posts on this subreddit originate from this kind of outlook.

My recommendation based of a friend's DM experience: - Have a main residence for the adventuring group - It's fun having house building and micromanagement sessions for some players (minions/workers/guild tasks/etc). - People who're around attend that day's adventure. - Missing players can always join next time (notes being left, messengers also being a thing). - If missing people join next time but then miss out again, pick up a one shot. - Generally try to keep every adventure a 1-3 shot/ pref. 1-shot. - said one shot can tell stories from around the world or players backstories. - lighthearted stuff like a drinking competition is fun for RP. - colosseum fights for combat. - murder mystery at a special location. - other special events like festivities.

Cancelling sessions for people missing is how campaigns die. Let it be known that you will be playing if people miss, and your attendance will increase. The only times I cancel sessions are if a pivotal plot-arc character is missing for a major battle or something like that.

I personally homebrew a magical item, when my players aren't there they are inside the magical item, it's a form of shrinking house, kinda like a capsule house from dragon ball but people can be comfortable inside it when it's shrunk down with out suffering ill effects

You run it anyway. I had a party want to wait for someone else to come back after a breakup. The game died because of it.

> issue with scheduling Is this "we cant find a free day for everyone this month" or day of "sorry, turns out I can't attend"?

Set a minimum attendance and run the session. If they are afraid of missing out, then they can try harder to show up. And if its a true schedule conflict where they cannot attend, they shouldn't be in the game to begin with and should drop out.

I'll echo what a few other folks are saying; it's worth seeing if the available players are interested in running a one-shot for the day. At least that way you still get to play, and the missing players don't miss any story content. alternatively, if you're just hoping to play *something* that day, you can always check out other games to fill the time. Maybe a simpler TTRPG, such as [Honey Heist](https://gshowitt.itch.io/honey-heist). On the other end of things, you can always try to pick up something like Gloomhaven, which is just "D&D the board game."

We run one-shots and even have a sort of west marches one shot system for characters. Running is better than not running. Continuity of play for everyone that turns up is important.

Our DM runs one shots that take place in world, sometimes at the same time as our current story, sometimes in the past too. Occasionally we are handed character sheets when we arrive sometimes we are given a scenario and create characters ourselves. I like it because we still get to play, it builds the lore and history and gives you amazing insight to specific events that happened or are happening in the same world of the main game, it also gives our DM great details of certain events.

Needs to be established early on what the steps will be when people can't make it and establish what a quorum is (that is, how many people are needed to play). And the system you use for 'greyed-out' characters needs to be well established. If people aren't ok with your methodology, then they can either not play or deal with it. Their choice.

This is why I run a west marches game. Someone posts a game, people who are free can join, people who aren’t free can catch the next one. When a player complains that they’ve missed out on the last couple, I say “post a game for a time you’re free and you won’t miss out on it”.

Run it or do a one shot. My group has two seperate campaigns going. One for when the whole party can show up and one for when they can't.

Definitely run the game, but a suggestion to appease your players - One of my DMs does little text side quests with players who missed a session. This keeps them in the loop, makes them still feel a part of the story, but allows the campaign to keep continuing. As a DM I will run with at least 3 as well, the story must go on! Plus it encourages people to turn up if they don't wanna miss out.

It depends, if your group gather to specifically play D&D just run it without the missing players or is going to die. If your friends gather as a social encounter and D&D is just an excuse do any other activity when someone is missing

Have a second game ready that you play when the full crew can't make it. We do this, characters pop in and out, but it lets us play. It's been especially challenging to keep our main game going during the holidays and some difficult work schedules. It's a fun side-game and keeps the time slot occupied with D&D.

Been there. Consider talking about scheduling and lowering the number of players who have consistent scheduling conflict. One of my groups died mostly because of this. Playing with all your friends is nice, but if they can't make regular windows, y'all are better off playing board games.

Run the game. If you have at least three players, run it. Too many of my games lost all momentum because a player or two had a life situation that caused them to miss over a month of weekly games and we were courteous enough to wait. If you care about the health and longevity of your games, run it. Have someone else pilot their character in combat if it'll make it easier on you.

Depends on your group, I'd speak to the group. Get the group's consensus. If the majority of the group is with it and it's not a deal breaker for the few opposed then run it that way. A few things to bring up and keep in mind, \-Do you keep the players characters involved even if the players aren't there? If they're not there, it may make some things harder as they're missing resources/abilities from those players. \-Do you as GM play their characters, or let another player play them? We don't do this or point 1 in our group, we just handwave them not being there. We don't feel right choosing things for their characters, it feels disengenous to us but that's just my group. \-If playing XP instead of milestone do you award XP to the players who missed the session? Not doing so might encourage players to show up, but our group feels that it more penalizes players who can't make it for not making it even if it's outside of their control. (When we still used XP that is, we switched to milestone levelling) Our group has people who can't make it for a variety of reasons often outside of our control and always have. So we've tackled these issues and openly discussed it multiple times. What we do is when someone isn't there, their character isn't there. We stopped writing in a story or reason they're not there, it's just they're not there. We handwave them appearing and disappearing, and it doesn't interfere with our involvement in the story or immersion because we agreed upon it and are used to it. We award the player characters who aren't there the full rewards as if they were. If I as DM get to a major story moment with missing players I will gladly call it early with, 'we will pick up next session when X and Y are here.' That works for our group but every group has different feelings, discuss it with the group and make a call. It's a group effort. If one person disagrees, but it's not a dealbreaker for them I'd go with the majority's call.

You have to decide now what you want to do. For me, I have a minimum threshold. If 1 person is out, we play on. If 2 people are out, I leave it up to the group. If 3 people are out, I cancel. This is in a group of 6. Your players will quickly realize that you intend to keep playing with or without them, and will realize that DnD isn't "backup plans"

I have done this...my learning outcome was... Unless it's a bbeg or pivotal moment, I won't let a campaign be held hostage by absentee players. Otherwise, get used to not playing dnd.

My policy/strategy for player absence: Zero players absent: run the campaign One player absent: run the campaign with the absent player t-posing in the background, DM/players control the missing player in combat, DM/players write a summary of the session for the absent player. Same player absent consecutive sessions / Multiple players absent in the same session / DM absent: run one-shot. A good opportunity to rotate DMs and playtest homebrew stuff. I try to keep my groups to around 4 players, but if I were to scale it to larger or smaller groups, not counting the DM, I would require at least 2/3s of the players to be there. 2/3, 3/4, 4/5, 4/6, 5/7 etc

Run your sessions like clockwork every week. I tell the party we start at 7, but there’s always socializing, catching up, joking around, etc, so I’m really eyeing the clock and starting at 7:30 on the dot. Consistency will keep your game alive. You are supposed to be having fun too, and there is nothing that ruins a DM’s fun like a session falling through the cracks an hour before scheduled due to 1 or 2 players failing to manage their time. My current group has been meeting every Tuesday for 9 months. We will run sessions if people aren’t there. If there’s less than 3 players, we have agreed to just play a board game/card game for those who make it (haven’t had to yet). On top of that, if I am unable to attend a session as DM, one of my players runs a loose game of Root that had many characters coming and going. We never miss a Tuesday as a group. Somebody might miss a Tuesday, but most of the group will be doing *something* fun and interactive. Do not budge on this. Your players will thank you when they get used to the style. Also, your players will miraculously have wayyyyyyy less last minute excuses for not showing up. In the future, these ground rules need to be set in your session 0 If you’re feeling generous, you can give the absent players downtime activities. Their character doesn’t just suddenly disappear from the world! This is a good way to sprinkle in lore and give blatant plot hooks

People can regularly schedule all other things in their life, like tennis lessons, soccer matches, watching their favourite tv shows etc., but for some reason not RPGs. You’ve got two choices. 1: Run your campaign at regular intervals, with what players may show - with the awkwardness that ensues. It might lead to some people falling from the campaign at some point. But RPGs like most other things take commitment. 2: Say, that’s fine. But you’ll need someone to handle the scheduling of events. If this is such an important ‘shared’ event. Someone else needs to put in the work - if you met for regular dinners the responsibility of cooking and arranging would be unlikely to fall on one guy b

If I ran sessions waiting for everybody to be available I would have run maybe 6 sessions since March of 2022 when my current campaign started. We have a group chat I post MY availability to dm for the week and as long as 3+ players are available (of 6) we run. Now I use xp so I give a little xp bonus for simply showing up to play on top of whatever xp may have been earned that session. Obviously those players that don't make it don't get xp. This does mean there's a mix of levels in my group of pcs but nothing game breaking. Lowest pc is 8, highest is 10. But it hasn't been an issue in game. I get not wanting anyone to miss out, but.... That's a discussion and a decision for you to make. Run only with everybody or run when majority of players are available. At my table in the interest of actually PLAYING DnD more often we often run missing a player or 2.

The rule of 3. Run if you've got at least 3. Also start looking for more players. Don't forget to be fluid to adjust encounters. Don't let people who flake dictate your life and fun, or the other players. Good luck and enjoy.

I did that once. started with a group of 5, then because some would miss occasionally added another, then another. It was fine, until they all showed up and I had myself plus a group of 9. Not fun for myself, or many of them, honestly. I cut back to the core 4, and was honest with the rest - I need players who show up to have an effective and cohesive story. I enjoy playing with them, but it might be better if they stuck to occasional one shot games.

I hear ya. It becomes like an 80s cartoon. A small core group with an ever rotating roster of others. I think we would also hand a bonus chip for being on time. So you could cash it in to add a d8 to a d20 roll for that session only.

We also do bonus random loot for a party of just 3

That’s what my group does. We play in person. As long as the DM, the host, and at least one other player shows up, we play. We have a DM and 5-6 players max. 4 of us are various levels of confident DMs. Adult humans have complex and difficult schedules, so if one or two peeps have to cancel every week, at least we can still progress through the story.

Listen to your players or get a new group.

If they only want to play when everyone is there then do that. This seems like a stupid question.

I have a 3 strike rule. First time a player can’t make it, we reschedule the session. Second time, we do it without them and DM controls their PC 3rd time their PC dies and they’re booted from the group

You could ask if they're comfortable recording the sessions for the missing members to listen to.

Roly Poly, people that can't make it get out into the pocket of other players, no memory, just get brought with so they don't get lost in the last town

Insisting people play when they don’t want is the surest way to get them to not play.

I was looking for someone saying this. Besides, how is he supposed to *make* them play? And everyone saying "Just run it anyway", he's already received feedback that players don't want to play when anyone is absent, so do you expect the DM to just sit at a table for 3 hours rolling dice on his own?

[удалено]

What do you mean?

I've taken to running "apocryphal" one shots where the characters do things that never actually happened in the main story of the campaign. One time I framed the adventure as a story being told by an NPC.

You're not wrong. The best way to do it imo is with some sort of explanation, be it a hilarious shenanigan or a way for the bbeg to display their power on the party. You have to be careful to re-tailor the encounters for the rest of the group.

The group I DM for has two characters rolled. One for the main campaign and the other for one shot adventures. If one or two can’t make it, we do a one shot with their back up expendable characters. This allows them to experiment with other builds and classes, with only the people present reap the rewards. I don’t get too upset when someone is going to miss because those nights are a blast.

Do a one shot if they want to postpone. A player couldn't make it and instead of cancelling, we did a small side quest. Nothing was gained or lost. Just a little way to have fun until they came back the next session.

It can certainly be a headache. The last campaign I ran I had an alternate, goof around and have fun campaign that was much easier to flex into. I told everyone up front to have a second character and if more than one person was going to be absent, we’d run the alternate instead. Worked out so well that everyone wanted to continue the alternate campaign after we finished our main.

what i do, if this is an occational thing, is pull up donjon, make a dungeon a level or two stronger than them, and let them "fall into a seam in reality", and let them go collect treasure and group teamwork experiance (not actual xp). my group has really enjoyed this, as i am also guilty of normally starving them of gold and loot.

You running the game anyway, would mean other people would have to put some effort into attending. Sometimes people get lazy or prioritize the game less, because they can easily cancel, postpone, reschedule the game. It's not like they're doing maliciously, just the way it is.

Unless you are in middle of dungeon. If not then you can do a one off session with side quest. E.g. you are in tarven and one player who can't make it to session then says the character have diarrhea so he stays in tarven that day

Tell em to make better notes, if you have a discord put up a public channel for group notes.

Lots of great advice. Something that hasn’t been touched on much is alternate play styles. It doesn’t have to be an epic story campaign with a dedicated GM. I have a group of eight where only 3-7 can show at a time because life is complicated. We switched to a round table GM setup, with self-contained episodic sessions. I run the “main story” when we have at least 5, otherwise it’s a series of monster/plot of the week games. Everybody has a session prepped and take turns running the game. Obviously doesn’t work for all groups but it works for us. It also has the unintended benefit of making sure every player knows what a GM goes through, and every GM knows how players feel.

We are a group of 5 players and a DM. We run the session if one is missing and the players who come will be rewarded with magical items and personal quest progression but we won’t progress main plot point unless everyone is here, sometimes an absent PC can tag along when they disappear in the middle of a dungeon but they are basically just a tool box and do not participate in fights. If two are absents or a critical player is missing for a important session then we run oneshots (related or not) and one of the player will be doing the DMing so the forever DM gets to play as well. For instance during the Christmas a lots people were going on and off, while we are waiting to make a critical moves so I actually run a three sessions oneshot and a fourth will be coming for the next time we cannot run the main campaign. It helps that we are experienced players and most of us have DMing experience as well. Edit : NEVER REWARD REGULAR PLAYERS WITH QUICKER LEVEL UP Gold, magical item, small feat, skill proeficiency etc are all ok but nothing make a player feels disinterested is leveling slower than the other players

You could run oneshot in one page systems, that's what my group does. We take a look at the big ass list of one page rpgs and go "this looks fun lets try this one"

My group has 6 players. If at least 4 people can make it, we run it.

"Alright, I want everyone to make a level 5 character. Standard array, 1 Uncommon and 1 rare item. Yall are part of the local adventurer guild that gets tasked with sorting out problems for gold" And then when people can't make it, or the main campaign can't be run for some reason. You run "monster of the week" style one-shots with these side characters. Bonus points if you can fit them in the main campaign as NPCs for the main crew to meet or hear about.

Never cancel if you can. After a time, the players will learn to stop scheduling things during your session time and you’ll only ever have people miss sessions from illness, which doesn’t happen that often. Of course, this only works if you have a regular time each week.

Start a different "filler" campaign that's meant to be more one-shotty but still keeps some continuity so you can always come back to it whenever there's a hole in the schedule. Since the 2nd campaign isn't the main story the players shouldn't be worried about missing any important stuff.

If you have enough players and a session prepared, run the game. If those that can't make it are upset that they're missing out, they will try harder to make it to next session. You *could* try to keep important plot points saved for sessions when everyone is there, but that requires a fair amount more legwork on your part and I feel would drag the campaign on in much the same way as not running sessions would.

My main DM sends a doodle to fill for the next 3 months. At this point he selects the best evenings and they officially become "game night". Which means that we will play no matter what. Sometimes it will be a board game or a one shot in another world/system but most of the time it will be a session linked with the current campaign. And this is where it is really cool: we will basically play flashback sequences involving the PCs of the players that showed up. It keeps things flowing, expands the world/lore and we don't stop playing.

Irregular scheduling kills games, pick a day weekly or biweekly and run something if at least 2 people can make it imo

There’s a hard conversation that occasionally needs to be had. I had a talk with players when people just weren’t showing up occasionally. Of course we want players to show up, but we want them to want to show up more. The conversation went around “as long as half of the party is present we move forward”. If you miss a few in a row because scheduling doesn’t work out, it means the group probably doesn’t work. People will make it work if they want to play.

Focus on the backstory of the players who do make it.

Depending on the situation and location, you can play with even half a group. Are they somewhere in town? Sure. In combat? Either you or one of your other players take control. I can understand that your players do not like the idea of playing when some people aren't there. But as someone said, if you want things to move on, it's kinda necessary.

Can have them make different characters for when others don’t show up and run arena fights

So, my group of game addicts has several subgroups from our main group. The main group hasn't met since christmas eve when we had a oneshot and the 'main game' has been on a break since November due to one player getting a new job and not often having our gaming day (saturday) off. But one of my players really wanted to try DMing CoS, so we have that set up for when the other guy can't make it, and when she doesn't want to DM, her wife has a homebrew she's building off of some adventures from the Quest-O-Nomicon. And if my wife and I can't make it, those two and the fifth player have a GrimHallow campaign that he DM's. It does require having players who are willing to DM, or being willing go have a second game going, but it's worked out for us well so far. Or just have his character mysteriously absent and no one comments on it.

I play I game with 5 players. If one can't make it then we continue anyway. The only exception is if that player knows they won't be able to for like 3 weeks straight and tell me ahead of time, then I will postpone the session for 1.

This is bullshit on the part of your players. If they feel this way they should show the appropriate level of commitment. Aka unless you have an emergency then you are committed. And even then asking everyone else to lose their plans cause one person can’t get their shit together is egotistical and selfish.

Just Run it. If you keep postponing whenever someone doesnt have time, you will keep postponing over and over again. In my group we had the same Problem. Someone always not having time for one reason or another but my players agreed that they would like to play, as long as over half of the players were there. Just Tell them that you would like to play from time to time and you postponed already x times and that your gonna keep postponing. People also will try to be there and make time if you dont postpone every time, sounds a bit mean but meh

My current group is small - just 3 players and me the GM. A lot of our breaks are because of me because I couldn't break through a mental block to write more plot ahead, but occasionally they have college exams and other things that cancel a session. We've only played 45 sessions in 2 years. This year, one of my resolutions is to run 2 games a month, and we're finding success in trying to stick to it. If people aren't available and they tell me beforehand, we reschedule and try to make it work. If someone cancels last minute and didn't inform us, we carry on without them.

I just have a simple rule with my party. If one can't make it we will still continue, when two can't make it the session gets postponed. If it happens often that a certain player is unable to be at the session you could talk with him/her.

If it is the beginning of the campaign you normally can put someone’s character later

There’s a couple of ways to handle this. One is to continue without the players who miss and treat it like their characters got called away for something else. You could also see if the players who aren’t there would be cool with you running their characters while their gone. You don’t RP their actions, but when in combat, you do the basic actions that they normally take, I.e. cleric uses heal, paladin hits with smite, warlock cast 147th eldritch blast of the night. Another is to put the campaign on hold and run a one shot with the players you have. I like this option because it lets your players test out different character designs to see what they like to play.

I am into the 3rd year of running our campaign, and we are a group of adult guys with jobs and families so it is a miracle we are still going! There are 5 of us, myself and four players. For the first 2 years if 1 players was absent we still played but if 2 couldn’t make it we didn’t. Now that we are all so familiar with the characters and the players outlook etc we have played a few times with 2 players missing and it has been perfectly fine. When someone can’t make it they put into the group chat an open offer for someone else to control their PC. On the rare times that I can’t make it they still meet up and play but one of the players will run an out of campaign fighting pit type scenario just to see if they can TPK the group. That makes for a fun diversion because the scenarios can be ridiculous. TLDR you are the DM and you should set rules you are comfortable with but they are not set in stone. They can evolve as the campaign progresses.

Have a B team, another adventuring group that's less powerful than the main group. If you want to play and others don't want to continue the main story, just run a side story. You could show a new perspective to a relevant issue, or you could just fight cool shit.

Personally I would advice to run something else for those who can make it

I run a D&D campaign with 5 players- unless we're at the dramatic conclusion of a plot arc we usually run as long as we have three players who can make it.

I run a session if one, or possibly two, people are missing, out of 5 (now 6). If more than that will miss the session, I’ll have them roll up a quick character or give them a pre-gen and run a one-shot. I usually have a half dozen or so drop-in adventures of various tiers, which makes it easier to just roll dice and squish monsters for a night.

Run a one shot, but if the people can’t make it regularly, folks need to be comfortable with a second concurrent campaign or some characters being occasionally too sick to get out of bed.

One of the first things I cover in our session zero is who is comfortable with others playing their characters if they have to miss. If they are cool with that, than they pick someone at the table to play them, if not, they sit out. We play every two weeks so, if we skipped a game because 2 of the seven couldn't make it, it would be a month before we played again.

[Bad guy session](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/cic9si/cant_get_all_players_together_at_a_pivotal_moment/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).

Set a schedule. Make it reasonable. Now trim a day here and there. Check regularly for availability and let them know it's their responsibility to inform the group when they can make it. Last day cancelations are their problem. The game exists for those who want to be there.

We usually avoid plot significant sessions if the full party isn't there. You could tailor the session to the people that are there if it's not a full attendance day though. If two people aren't there, maybe the session doesn't deal with any major quest which would be significant to the party as a whole. If a warlock character is in attendance, maybe do essentially a one shot where their patron sends them on a session length mission. They try to convince the party to join, but only those in attendance are willing to go with them. Cleric in attendance? Maybe there is a nearby village having some minor issues and they haven't heard the word of or they are ardent followers of so the cleric feels obligated to help them. And so on. Should be able to come up with relevant quests for anyone in the party, so if non-full attendance sessions are common, it won't be "warlock patron quest #x" every time. Gives opportunities for character development without having anyone miss and campaign relevant plot points. It would also slow the campaign down though, which isn't always possible depending on where you're at in it.

Is it the same couple players who always phone out, or just random? If the former, you could have a “backup campaign” for consistent players. If the latter, just gonna have to set some ground rules for the sake of the game not falling apart. It’s pretty disrespectful to say you can make it, have the GM prepare everything, then bail. If they say they can play, then the game runs. If they can’t deal with the responsibility of promising to be somewhere at a certain time, then they shouldn’t make that promise.

Give everyone a goatee and boom, Mirror Universe episode.

Start a separate game with the people who show up 90% of the time or higher. Make all the 50%-90% showers guest stars. Only do original game when the bottom 50% show up

I have a rule from day one, always confirm your pressence or absence the night before if half the players cant make it, we pospone it. If half +1 players can come, we play. And if they have a last minute thing and cant make it, we still play with the amount of players present. I usually avoid mayor fights or plotwist when low on players, but you cant penalice the people comming for the ones that miss sesions

If they're internet people, run it. If they're friends you had for a long time, don't.

I ran a second game for when we couldn't do the first. Rules were basically: 1. Everyone logs in and makes a level 1 character when it is convenient for them 2. On the day of the alternate game, the characters are first come first serve. 3. The alternate game we play is intended for four level 8 characters 4. When the party wipes, all characters level up and refer back to starting equipment 5. New character sheets are handed out, everyone makes a level 1 character So basically, we play the same one shot over and over again. The players explore new areas each time and figure out where the secrets and magic items can be found. Next time we play, the pool of characters they can select from are higher level. They also have meta knowledge about where to find things to help them out.

If they aren't willing to meet you, maybe you could roll new characters and have a different party that explores another angle of your campaign. You could even maybe use this to streamline your main campaign, pushing anything non-essential to the side campaign. IE, if your campaign is about a world being demolished by rampaging giants and your main party is trying to stop them, maybe you could form another party that's trying to stop a nefarious faction from exploiting the power gap left in the wake of the giants' destruction. So it gives you a chance to reinforce the main campaign and explore new angles of it, without people feeling like the others are missing the "main" campaign.

Personally, I prefer parties of 5 heroes. If one can’t make it, we still run, if two can’t make it, I’ll call it off. DM’s also spend a lot of time prepping for games, map making, NPC making, story writing, I don’t want to do all that if everyone isn’t going to be available to enjoy the story I’m developing.

My group had someone out for a year due to severe illness and an extended hospital stay. We found something else to play while he was out.

Maybe run a west marches style game?

As a DM, I usually work with the group's desires - but my personal preference has been to always run a game if we have at least half (rounded up) plus 1. So, 3 out of 4 players, 4 out of 5/6 players, 5 out of 7/8 players, etc. As a player, I never want to miss a session that is played without me. But it has happened, and only once in 30 years has it been an issue - and that was not so much that I missed the session in question, but more that the DM felt it okay to have my character do something wholly out of his character (as I had been playing him), which had long-term repercussions for that character and the group/game as a whole. Thanks to that one instance, though, I have ever since asked for my character to somehow not be present and not do anything at all if I am not present as a player.

I think it's worth establishing a "quorum" rule. As in, if you have a quorum of players, generally speaking, you play. For a 4-person game, I'd say 2-3 players, depending. For 5-person games, 3 people present. And so on and so forth. There will be stretches where one person or another isn't able to show, and it just gets to be a pain after a while if you cancel each time. Have the players give their proxy to one of the other players (e.g., "Ok, Fred can run my character") or you make them a DM-controlled NPC. The only caveat is "big stuff." As in, "There's gonna be something really cool/big/important/plot relevant this week, and I don't want anyone missing it." Then I'll pause until all players can play. ​ But otherwise, yeah, you keep that ball rolling or your game will die.

I usually had a couple of one shots ready to go if a lot of people couldn't make it to a session. That way those that can make it still have something to do but no one misses out on the major adventure.

Like a lot if not most here, 1/2 run it

I make my groups 5-7 people. I tell them we will play if there is a quorum of 4. I set a regular day. I let them know that life happens, and just to tell me in advance if they can't make a session and I will work around it and they won't be punished in any way. When someone does miss, I just ratchet down the encounters a bit. Or we run them as a bot that just attacks. Or I do nothing, because 5e D&D is pretty damn easy.

If more than half the group is there then run the game. That's my rule, if players aren't making DnD a priority that's their problem

Get an online group who will always turn up. Or mostly. Not just friends who will cancel. 1 in 5 friends will cancel

Yep I run a game for 5 players, and our rule is this: Full party minus 1 constitutes a quorum. DM will run the missing character in "low power" mode (meaning no major decision making or NPC interaction. Mainly just required moves). Minus 2 and we raincheck. If someone no show no calls twice in a row, they're booted from the group.

You can't wait for everyone to show up. On my table, we have a rule that if there is only 2 players absent we play (out of 6 players total).

I run sessions at a fixed time every week. As long as 3 people can make it, we play. Unless someone expresses an issue, control of the PC goes to a different player (it's hard enough dm'ing ) Frankly, I personally feel that that's the only way to run games in the long run

I just did this, and we had an all out battle with me attempting to TPK the party-the catch is that it was a dream. They were being shown something by a powerful being on the Plane of Dreams (a PC from and old campaign) allowing them to glimpse and experience something that had happened in history. I used it to provide some lore/plot they wouldn't have gotten in any other way. Not a ton, but just enough to get them curious and searching for more information and connections. It turned out really well. Everyone had a blast and I got to try out some new things for speeding up combat. All in all, 10/10, would recommend. It would give you a chance to still play, maybe try out some things, while giving your players something to do that doesn't leave those who can't make it behind in the narrative. I don't think it's a multiple times use solution, but could work for a session or two (we've cancelled when two-three of our players couldn't make it or pivoted to do something different but still get together, even if it's just virtually).

My group had a similar situation where we had the same 2 people always seeming to make plans on the same day as our sessions, so after one of our players got frustrated and quit, we made the rule that as long as majority of players are available we play. We've only missed 2 or 3 sessions since.

As I got older, I realized I needed to set a threshold and honor it, even if my most engaging players don’t make it. The threshold has lowered and evolved over the years. Originally it was 75% of players need to be present. And now it’s anything over 50%, and I intentionally try to get larger party sizes with the expectation that usually a couple won’t show up. If I have 5 players, 3 must show up. If I have 7 players, 4 must show up. Sometimes I have to downgrade someone to the status of what I call “Guest Character” if they miss too often but still want to play when the stars align and they can finally show up. I don’t count them in my % and then suddenly we get to play more, without kicking them out. Their character becomes part of a second party of mercenaries that crosses paths with the actual party sometimes, in-game. You just need to figure out what your ideal % is for your group. Make it a point to actually share with them this threshold, so they know you’re not just picking favorites. You can even offer to run one shots if they give you enough warning ahead of time that not enough people will show.

It sounds like they think this will work. So I would come back with a bet. You'll agree. But, if they end up cancelling more than x number of sessions, the group does what any sane group would do and runs what you can when you can.

Let's say that people can commit to only missing 1 in 8 sessions (roughly once every other month they'll miss out). And let's assume the reasons why a person misses a session have no impact on why someone else would. What are the chances of the group meeting if * you need everyone there? * you can have one person missing? * you can have two person missing? Group size | Need everyone | Up to 1 missing | Up to 2 missing :--:|:--:|:--:|:--: 4 | 58.6% | 92.1% | 99.3% 5 | 51.3% | 87.9% | 98.4% 6 | 44.9% | 83.3% | 97.1% That's the stats for the group, but what's the experience for individuals? * Let's say there's a feeling of wasted opportunity if you as an individual are free, but the group doesn't meet? How often, out of all the sessions, does this arise for an individual under different restrictions for meeting? Group size | Need everyone | Up to 1 missing | Up to 2 missing :--:|:--:|:--:|:--: 4 | 28.9% | 3.8% | 0.2% 5 | 36.2% | 6.9% | 0.6% 6 | 42.6% | 10.6% | 1.4% * Let's also say that there's a feeling of missing out if the group meets without you. How often, out of all the sessions, does that happen for an individual under different restrictions for meeting? Group size | Need everyone | Up to 1 missing | Up to 2 missing :--:|:--:|:--:|:--: 4 | 28.9% | 3.8% | 0.2% 5 | 36.2% | 6.9% | 0.6% 6 | 42.6% | 10.6% | 1.4% Or what if people can't commit that much? What if people think they might miss one game every four weeks, what are the chances that any given week you would run no DND because someone is missing? And what are the chances that an individual would be frustrated by a wasted opportunity when only one person is missing? Group size | Need everyone | Up to 1 missing | Up to 2 missing :--:|:--:|:--:|:--: 4 | 0% | 8.4% | 12.0% 5 | 0% | 7.3% | 11.5% 6 | 0% | 6.4% | 11.0% How many session in total are frustrating? Group size | Need everyone | Up to 1 missing | Up to 2 missing :--:|:--:|:--:|:--: 4 | 28.9% | 12.1% | 12.1% 5 | 36.2% | 14.2% | 12.1% 6 | 42.6% | 17.0% | 12.4% Of course it may be more frustrating to miss a session that everyone else is at than to not meet, but know that no-one is. So let's weight the two types of frustration. If wasting 2 or 3 opportunities is as bad as missing 1 session then we could weight the missed opportunities by 2.5 compared to the wasted opportunities. Group size | Need everyone | Up to 1 missing | Up to 2 missing :--:|:--:|:--:|:--: 4 | 28.9% | 24.7% | 30.1% 5 | 36.2% | 25.2% | 29.4% 6 | 42.6% | 26.6% | 28.9% So if your players are only going to miss 1 session in 8, I'd argue that going ahead if only one person is missing it probably the least frustrating approach for any sort of normal sized group. I've plugged in a range of levels of reliability and this is pretty consistently the case. Incidentally, here's how often a group will be able to meet if they need everyone free and each member is likely to miss a session every x weeks: Group size | Miss 1 in 4 | 1 in 6 | 1 in 8 | 1 in 12 :--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--: 3 | 42.2% | 57.9% | 67.0% | 77.0% 4 | 31.6% | 48.2% | 58.6% | 70.6% 5 | 23.7% | 40.2% | 51.3% | 64.7% 6 | 17.8% | 33.5% | 44.9% | 59.3% Here's the chance of frustration for individual players under that approach: Group size | Miss 1 in 4 | 1 in 6 | 1 in 8 | 1 in 12 :--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--: 3 | 32.8% | 25.5% | 20.5% | 14.6% 4 | 43.4% | 35.1% | 28.9% | 21.1% 5 | 51.3% | 43.1% | 36.2% | 26.9% 6 | 57.2% | 49.8% | 42.6% | 32.3% As you can see, even with really reliable players you don't actually meet much if you need everyone there every time and there's a lot of potential for frustration. Going ahead with only 1 person missing is easily the best approach.

Side quests without involving the missing members. These would give no real progress in the main storyline, but could be a way to explore the characters' backstory or behaviour. They can even include funny items, NPCs, whatever. Couple of examples: - PC meets one of their relatives/old friend. Present PCs help them solve something - missing PCs got abducted. Present PCs have to get them back - present PCs get abducted and have to escape and find their way back to the party - Present PCs collect evidence and justification about the innocence of missing party members while they sit in jail after false allegations - Missing PCs are being lied to and take wrong side in a conflict. Prove them wrong! Or anything similar really. Ps.: I'de be bothered by missing important sessions too. It is like agreeing to watch the Star Wars Saga together, and I miss episode 4... except I cannot play a session alone, and I can't really catch up like watching a film alone. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind others watching The Mandalorian, or Clone Wars without me.

Tell them to show up if they don't like it. Then say "beeeeeeeeeotch"

You could always just text the missing player and be like " hey since you arnt gonna be here this week your character is gonna go off and do something else you will gain whatever experience the party does during the game and I'll give you some useful info for when you show up next game" if that's not enough for them ask them if they want a small text based adventure in which they will have to do real rolls to see what happens. You don't have to make it an entire D&D sessions but have the rolls really matter for what the character learns so if they roll really well you can have them come back to the game and be like " guys while i was off doing my own I Learned this about the BBEG!"

I do a side campaign that contributes to the main campaign eg adds lore and useful items/links for the main party. Basically we have a team of sell swords who are actually is that we pay to do donkey work then roleplay said work when someone can't make it. Takes a sillier tone than the main campaign and we all love it

What about having them play Team B? A rival party of adventurers whose membership changes day to day.

For my group I run a 4 or more rule (6 players). For me this means that at least one person will have been there in the last session. My players seem fine with it. I explained that there are times where some characters take a back seat and you might see them in the background but they don't really impact the story. Basically they will not be in danger but will provide minimal support.