Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Discovering new peeves: read below....

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 6:37:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<peeve>
1) Players who don't consistently show up, granted people have lives and
emergencies come up, but dimmit not every week someone's cat dies to allow a
stay of execution.
2)Refering to item one (1): The bounty of lame excuses that come with not
appearing to play the game when scheduled.
The reason this one bugs me is becuase I have 'hit the reset switch' on
a game I've tried to get started three times now, becuase of players doing
one session and then bailing one me. Admittedly, I'm a rookie to DMing, but
rather than bailing ya think someone would tell me that I need to fix this
or tweak that rather than up 'n' leaving.
3) Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
One of the players has a three-year-old daughter that she brings over
who gets into everything and anything not nailed down. Making matters worse
is the thought that because the player declared her kid my goddaughter, that
I have to put up with this major inconvienence.
</peeve>

Maybe it's just because I'm on 'the other side of the fence', but I always
though that DMing was easy from the player's POV since he had to react to
what the players did and make sure that they stuck close to his script.
yeesh

Pointers would be great BTW
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 6:37:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko wrote:

> <peeve>
> 1) Players who don't consistently show up, granted people have lives and
> emergencies come up, but dimmit not every week someone's cat dies to allow a
> stay of execution.
> 2)Refering to item one (1): The bounty of lame excuses that come with not
> appearing to play the game when scheduled.
> The reason this one bugs me is becuase I have 'hit the reset switch' on
> a game I've tried to get started three times now, becuase of players doing
> one session and then bailing one me. Admittedly, I'm a rookie to DMing, but
> rather than bailing ya think someone would tell me that I need to fix this
> or tweak that rather than up 'n' leaving.
> 3) Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
> One of the players has a three-year-old daughter that she brings over
> who gets into everything and anything not nailed down. Making matters worse
> is the thought that because the player declared her kid my goddaughter, that
> I have to put up with this major inconvienence.
> </peeve>
>
> Maybe it's just because I'm on 'the other side of the fence', but I always
> though that DMing was easy from the player's POV since he had to react to
> what the players did and make sure that they stuck close to his script.
> yeesh
>
> Pointers would be great BTW

Regarding the child...

I have my own (now 5-year-old) child, and IME as both a player and a DM
on nights when he is in my sole care... (Yeah, try *DMing* with a small
child in *your* care sometime...)

The best solution is to play at the house of the parent with the child,
and have them be a *player* not a DM. As a player you can go off to fix
a poopie diaper or whatever for 5 minutes and the game will usually go
on without you. Not so for a DM.

For the child, a new house means excitement means even more energetic
and impossible to get to sleep than usual. I'd never bring my son to
someone else's house to game; I know I'd spend the whole night chasing
him around and entertaining him. He's just too young for that now. I
think it might help if you schedule to game at the mother's house, if
possible.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:11:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko wrote:
> <peeve>
> 1) Players who don't consistently show up, granted people have lives
and
> emergencies come up, but dimmit not every week someone's cat dies to
allow a
> stay of execution.
> 2)Refering to item one (1): The bounty of lame excuses that come with
not
> appearing to play the game when scheduled.
> The reason this one bugs me is becuase I have 'hit the reset
switch' on
> a game I've tried to get started three times now, becuase of players
doing
> one session and then bailing one me. Admittedly, I'm a rookie to
DMing, but
> rather than bailing ya think someone would tell me that I need to fix
this
> or tweak that rather than up 'n' leaving.

How often are you trying to get everyone together? One thing I've
learned since going from "magical college time" to Real Adult Life is
that calendars fill quickly and without warning, weeks and sometimes
months in advance. Assuming that you and your players are all busy,
working types, you may be trying to play too often. As repugnant as it
sounds, you might have to settle for a game every two or three weeks
(or even longer), with lots of advance warning to everyone involved.
Even this isn't a perfect solution, but it might ease off on the
schedule conflicts and give everyone time to plan around your game.

If, however, your players are simply flakes, then there probably isn't
a solution that will get them to show up with consistency. You might
have to settle for a game filled with one-shots and episodic,
unconnected (or thinly connected) adventures. There are ways to do
this that work well if you take the bull by the horns and give up on
the traditional notion of "one party, one quest."

Are all your players having trouble showing up, or do you have a "core
group" of players that can be counted on? If the latter, you could
design your games around those players, and consign the others to
incidental roles ("Here's this week's NPC. Have fun!") until they get
the message and/or leave entirely.


> 3) Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
> One of the players has a three-year-old daughter that she brings
over
> who gets into everything and anything not nailed down. Making
matters worse
> is the thought that because the player declared her kid my
goddaughter, that
> I have to put up with this major inconvienence.
> </peeve>

Ron and Wasp have already provided excellent thoughts on this: Play at
the parent's house, and put the kid(s) to bed before starting. I know
that putting a young child to bed in a house full of company can be a
challenge, but there is no alternative if you want an uninterrupted
game.

>
> Maybe it's just because I'm on 'the other side of the fence', but I
always
> though that DMing was easy from the player's POV since he had to
react to
> what the players did and make sure that they stuck close to his
script.
> yeesh

Ain't it a bitch? GMing any game is one of those jobs you have to
*love* in order to do. It becomes easier as you go, but it never
becomes easy. Just remember to never sell yourself short, and don't
become a doormat. The DM is a player, too, and has just as much right
to a good time as everyone else at the table.

Oh, and this idea you have about making sure the players stick to the
DM's "script?" The sooner you dump that, the saner you'll be.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
Related resources
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:25:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko wrote:
> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message

> > The best solution is to play at the house of the parent with the
child,
> > and have them be a *player* not a DM. As a player you can go off
to fix a
> > poopie diaper or whatever for 5 minutes and the game will usually
go on
> > without you. Not so for a DM.
>
> Shie *is* the player, the problem I'm having (besides a misplaced
spine, in
> my wife's honest opinion) is that she comes over and just lets the
hellion
> run amok. I'm the only one willing to DM the sessions so everyone is
torn
> between keeping said hellion
> out of thier things and paying attention to what I'm
doing/saying/whatever.


I'm assuming that this player is a close friend of yours, or at least
not someone you can just throw to the curb. Obviously, you're going to
have to talk to this player, and let her know what the problem is. It
would probably help to have a solution in your back pocket that doesn't
sound like an ultimatim.

What if the group offered to help find and pay for a babysitter for
game nights? Take up a collection for this purpose, and ask around at
work, church, the neighborhood, family, or other social circle for
recommendations.

If any players balk at this idea, remind them that creating a stable
game environment is *everyone's* concern, not just the DM's. If someone
comes up with a feasible alternative that doesn't involve screaming
hissy fits and years of tension, then you're all ears.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 2:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> Pointers would be great BTW
>
>

"Just Say No."

My players know that I don't run games for players who don't show.
Once in twenty meetings, okay. Once every three or four, you're gone.

Game does not begin until children are in bed. I have three kids. One
is an infant easily controlled by mommy (i.e., she whines, mommy
nurses her, she goes to sleep). The other two are quite capable of
major disruption, so they get put to bed by 8:00 on game nights. The
older one is allowed to stay up until 9 but he has to stay in his
room reading or something of that nature.

No other activities permitted besides the game. You are here to play,
I am here to run. If you want to have phone conversations, play video
games, or read books, you aren't playing.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 3:20:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I'm in a game with a player that has a young daughter. (3 years old?)
Sometimes he is forced to watch her while we play. In those cases, we
play at his house. This is nice, because the kid has a TV, a puppy,
and everything else she needs. When the kid gets put to bed (7:30 or
8PM), the player leaves the table and we continue on. We usually don't
make major decisions or enter battle during the 15 minutes that he's
gone, but we do continue. When he comes back, things move right along.

A few years ago, I played with a DM that had 3 (three) young boys of
about 5 years. Though we played at his house, the situation was very
different. Though they were well-behaved, it's impossible to have
three boys in one house and not have at least one fight. The DM had to
stop the game, and thus, so did we. At bed time (again, 7:30 or 8PM),
the game stopped for 20 or 30 minutes. The whole game STOPPED, though.

We all had a talk, and we tried to work through the situation. We
tried playing on a night on which the DM's wife could watch the kids.
We tried playing at another house. It turned out that these changes
were hard on everyone else, and so the DM eventually quit gaming
altogether. It was best for everyone involved.


- Kertis
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 5:13:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Yes, I highly recommend actively recruiting dyed in the wool 100%
pure and
> unadulterated dorks to play with. It makes D&D the default first
priority,
> because they generally have little else to do. Sure, they may not
smell
> nice or be couth or anything, but hey, at least you can always count
on em
> showing up! ;) 

Unless they don't have a ride because their 1985 hatchback broke down
and their mother can't ride them that day.

- Kertis
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 6:33:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5ZZae.32629$d43.737@lakeread03...
>
>
> Jerry Chesko wrote:
>
>> <peeve>
>> 1) Players who don't consistently show up, granted people have lives and
>> emergencies come up, but dimmit not every week someone's cat dies to
>> allow a stay of execution.
>> 2)Refering to item one (1): The bounty of lame excuses that come with not
>> appearing to play the game when scheduled.
>> The reason this one bugs me is becuase I have 'hit the reset switch'
>> on a game I've tried to get started three times now, becuase of players
>> doing one session and then bailing one me. Admittedly, I'm a rookie to
>> DMing, but rather than bailing ya think someone would tell me that I need
>> to fix this or tweak that rather than up 'n' leaving.
>> 3) Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
>> One of the players has a three-year-old daughter that she brings over
>> who gets into everything and anything not nailed down. Making matters
>> worse is the thought that because the player declared her kid my
>> goddaughter, that I have to put up with this major inconvienence.
>> </peeve>
>>
>> Maybe it's just because I'm on 'the other side of the fence', but I
>> always though that DMing was easy from the player's POV since he had to
>> react to what the players did and make sure that they stuck close to his
>> script. yeesh
>>
>> Pointers would be great BTW
>
> Regarding the child...
>
> I have my own (now 5-year-old) child, and IME as both a player and a DM on
> nights when he is in my sole care... (Yeah, try *DMing* with a small
> child in *your* care sometime...)
>
> The best solution is to play at the house of the parent with the child,
> and have them be a *player* not a DM. As a player you can go off to fix a
> poopie diaper or whatever for 5 minutes and the game will usually go on
> without you. Not so for a DM.

Shie *is* the player, the problem I'm having (besides a misplaced spine, in
my wife's honest opinion) is that she comes over and just lets the hellion
run amok. I'm the only one willing to DM the sessions so everyone is torn
between keeping said hellion
out of thier things and paying attention to what I'm doing/saying/whatever.

> For the child, a new house means excitement means even more energetic and
> impossible to get to sleep than usual. I'd never bring my son to someone
> else's house to game; I know I'd spend the whole night chasing him around
> and entertaining him. He's just too young for that now. I think it might
> help if you schedule to game at the mother's house, if possible.
>
> - Ron ^*^
>
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 6:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary wrote:
> "madafro@sbcglobal.net" <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > What if the group offered to help find and pay for a babysitter for
> > game nights? Take up a collection for this purpose, and ask around
at
> > work, church, the neighborhood, family, or other social circle for
> > recommendations.
> >
> > If any players balk at this idea, remind them that creating a
stable
> > game environment is *everyone's* concern, not just the DM's.
>
> If someone did that to me, I'd find a new group to game with. The moo
needs
> to take responsibility for the kid she's produced, starting with
> *controlling* its behavior. Until that can be done without constant
> supervision, the kid is unfit for public appearances, and needs to be
kept
> home.


Yes, I have to admit to a pronounced lack of player perspective (not to
mention common sense) in my suggestion. I tried to think of a single
player I've ever gamed with that would have stood for a mandatory
babysitting pool; even the most generous among them would have called
me aside and asked if I was nuts.

Not one of my better ideas, then.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 6:39:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Sea Wasp" <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
news:426CCD15.4020808@sgeobviousinc.com...
>
>> Pointers would be great BTW
>
> "Just Say No."
>
> My players know that I don't run games for players who don't show. Once in
> twenty meetings, okay. Once every three or four, you're gone.
>
> Game does not begin until children are in bed. I have three kids. One is
> an infant easily controlled by mommy (i.e., she whines, mommy nurses her,
> she goes to sleep). The other two are quite capable of major disruption,
> so they get put to bed by 8:00 on game nights. The older one is allowed to
> stay up until 9 but he has to stay in his room reading or something of
> that nature.

What about hellions with no genetic ties to you and mother in q does nothing
to put aforementioned hellion in check? I'm getting tired of players not
showing up, but kicking one out coz of her brat doesn't sound to palatable
right now.... *sigh*
April 25, 2005 7:11:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Jerry Chesko <res7g0hd@verizon.net> write:
> The reason this one bugs me is becuase I have 'hit the reset switch' on
> a game I've tried to get started three times now, becuase of players doing
> one session and then bailing one me. Admittedly, I'm a rookie to DMing, but
> rather than bailing ya think someone would tell me that I need to fix this
> or tweak that rather than up 'n' leaving.

don't hit reset switches, its not worth it. absent players IMC have
their characters develop narcolepsy, and count themselves lucky if
thats all. one character was abandonned by the party on a jungle world
overrun by fire-breathing tyrannosaurs. (they did try to leave him a
note and gate key, but one of the other characters threw it away.)

it was okay, in the end. he showed up in the next campaign as a blind,
mad hermit carrying a bag full of holy light for reasons which have yet
to be made sensible.

> 3) Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
> One of the players has a three-year-old daughter that she brings over
> who gets into everything and anything not nailed down. Making matters worse
> is the thought that because the player declared her kid my goddaughter, that
> I have to put up with this major inconvienence.

no, you don't. take the player aside, and let her know that your house
is not child-safe, and you're concerned for the well-being of your
goddaughter. it would be much better if she were left in the secure
conditions of her own home, under the care of a good babysitter. you
can start with little things, like open cabinets, and move up to
unattended bottles of arsenic and sharp objects over time.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/&gt;
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: Form follows malfunction.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 8:17:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jerry Chesko" <res7g0hd@verizon.net> wrote in
news:WJYae.3727$yc.2697@trnddc04:
>
> Pointers would be great BTW
>
Get yourself a Sears catalog, and order a spine. At this point, you'll need
the deluxe model.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 8:18:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jerry Chesko" <res7g0hd@verizon.net> wrote in
news:p d7be.257$fW1.168@trnddc02:

>
> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5ZZae.32629$d43.737@lakeread03...
>>
>>
>> Jerry Chesko wrote:
>>
>>> <peeve>
>>> 1) Players who don't consistently show up, granted people have lives
>>> and emergencies come up, but dimmit not every week someone's cat
>>> dies to allow a stay of execution.
>>> 2)Refering to item one (1): The bounty of lame excuses that come
>>> with not appearing to play the game when scheduled.
>>> The reason this one bugs me is becuase I have 'hit the reset
>>> switch'
>>> on a game I've tried to get started three times now, becuase of
>>> players doing one session and then bailing one me. Admittedly, I'm
>>> a rookie to DMing, but rather than bailing ya think someone would
>>> tell me that I need to fix this or tweak that rather than up 'n'
>>> leaving. 3) Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
>>> One of the players has a three-year-old daughter that she brings
>>> over
>>> who gets into everything and anything not nailed down. Making
>>> matters worse is the thought that because the player declared her
>>> kid my goddaughter, that I have to put up with this major
>>> inconvienence. </peeve>
>>>
>>> Maybe it's just because I'm on 'the other side of the fence', but I
>>> always though that DMing was easy from the player's POV since he had
>>> to react to what the players did and make sure that they stuck close
>>> to his script. yeesh
>>>
>>> Pointers would be great BTW
>>
>> Regarding the child...
>>
>> I have my own (now 5-year-old) child, and IME as both a player and a
>> DM on nights when he is in my sole care... (Yeah, try *DMing* with a
>> small child in *your* care sometime...)
>>
>> The best solution is to play at the house of the parent with the
>> child, and have them be a *player* not a DM. As a player you can go
>> off to fix a poopie diaper or whatever for 5 minutes and the game
>> will usually go on without you. Not so for a DM.
>
> Shie *is* the player, the problem I'm having (besides a misplaced
> spine, in my wife's honest opinion) is that she comes over and just
> lets the hellion run amok.

Tell her it is unacceptable, and she _must_ either control the child, or
not show up. Mean it.

Otherwise, the child runs the game. Period. Get used to it.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 8:21:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jerry Chesko" <res7g0hd@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Ci7be.258$fW1.196@trnddc02:

>
> "Sea Wasp" <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
> news:426CCD15.4020808@sgeobviousinc.com...
>>
>>> Pointers would be great BTW
>>
>> "Just Say No."
>>
>> My players know that I don't run games for players who don't show.
>> Once in twenty meetings, okay. Once every three or four, you're gone.
>>
>> Game does not begin until children are in bed. I have three kids. One
>> is an infant easily controlled by mommy (i.e., she whines, mommy
>> nurses her, she goes to sleep). The other two are quite capable of
>> major disruption, so they get put to bed by 8:00 on game nights. The
>> older one is allowed to stay up until 9 but he has to stay in his
>> room reading or something of that nature.
>
> What about hellions with no genetic ties to you and mother in q does
> nothing to put aforementioned hellion in check?

Get a spine, and tell the moo to keep her animal out of your house, even if
it means keeping herself out of your house. The only way you can associate
with this person is to allow her crotch fruit to run rampant through your
house. That's reality. Make your choice. Either get rid of the player, or
stop whining about what *you* choose to allow.

> I'm getting tired of
> players not showing up, but kicking one out coz of her brat doesn't
> sound to palatable right now.... *sigh*
>
Then stop whining. You've chosen to be a babysitter rather than a GM.

And, consider this: The crotch fruit is probably the reason *why* the other
players don't bother to show up. They don't like the kid, and would rather
play Nintendo that be around it. Ask them, point blank, if that's the case,
and you'll be appalled at the answers.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 8:35:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jerry Chesko" <res7g0hd@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ci7be.258$fW1.196@trnddc02...
>
> "Sea Wasp" <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
> news:426CCD15.4020808@sgeobviousinc.com...
>>
>>> Pointers would be great BTW
>>
>> "Just Say No."
>>
>> My players know that I don't run games for players who don't show. Once
>> in
>> twenty meetings, okay. Once every three or four, you're gone.
>>
>> Game does not begin until children are in bed. I have three kids. One is
>> an infant easily controlled by mommy (i.e., she whines, mommy nurses her,
>> she goes to sleep). The other two are quite capable of major disruption,
>> so they get put to bed by 8:00 on game nights. The older one is allowed
>> to
>> stay up until 9 but he has to stay in his room reading or something of
>> that nature.
>
> What about hellions with no genetic ties to you

How is this even relevant?

> and mother in q does nothing to put aforementioned hellion in check?

The problem isn't the "hellion," bub. The mother is the one that needs to
be "put in check". Either do it or don't complain about the inevitable
results.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 8:38:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"madafro@sbcglobal.net" <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:1114446335.524184.129570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

>
> Jerry Chesko wrote:
>> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
>
>> > The best solution is to play at the house of the parent with the
> child,
>> > and have them be a *player* not a DM. As a player you can go off
> to fix a
>> > poopie diaper or whatever for 5 minutes and the game will usually
> go on
>> > without you. Not so for a DM.
>>
>> Shie *is* the player, the problem I'm having (besides a misplaced
> spine, in
>> my wife's honest opinion) is that she comes over and just lets the
> hellion
>> run amok. I'm the only one willing to DM the sessions so everyone is
> torn
>> between keeping said hellion
>> out of thier things and paying attention to what I'm
> doing/saying/whatever.
>
>
> I'm assuming that this player is a close friend of yours, or at least
> not someone you can just throw to the curb. Obviously, you're going to
> have to talk to this player, and let her know what the problem is. It
> would probably help to have a solution in your back pocket that doesn't
> sound like an ultimatim.
>
> What if the group offered to help find and pay for a babysitter for
> game nights? Take up a collection for this purpose, and ask around at
> work, church, the neighborhood, family, or other social circle for
> recommendations.
>
> If any players balk at this idea, remind them that creating a stable
> game environment is *everyone's* concern, not just the DM's.

If someone did that to me, I'd find a new group to game with. The moo needs
to take responsibility for the kid she's produced, starting with
*controlling* its behavior. Until that can be done without constant
supervision, the kid is unfit for public appearances, and needs to be kept
home.

> If someone
> comes up with a feasible alternative that doesn't involve screaming
> hissy fits and years of tension, then you're all ears.
>
Here's a feasible alterantive: it's a game, not a babysitting session. Make
your choice: which do you want. If it's babysitting session, expect the
gamers to find better things to do with their time.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
April 25, 2005 8:57:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:37:42 GMT, "Jerry Chesko"
<res7g0hd@verizon.net> wrote:

><peeve>
>1) Players who don't consistently show up, granted people have lives and
>emergencies come up, but dimmit not every week someone's cat dies to allow a
>stay of execution.
>2)Refering to item one (1): The bounty of lame excuses that come with not
>appearing to play the game when scheduled.
> The reason this one bugs me is becuase I have 'hit the reset switch' on
>a game I've tried to get started three times now, becuase of players doing
>one session and then bailing one me. Admittedly, I'm a rookie to DMing, but
>rather than bailing ya think someone would tell me that I need to fix this
>or tweak that rather than up 'n' leaving.

That's not too cool; I've got a campaign running online...originally I
was supposed to have about 10 players; I now have 2 or 3. They left,
but I admittedly know that was mostly my fault.

>3) Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
> One of the players has a three-year-old daughter that she brings over
>who gets into everything and anything not nailed down. Making matters worse
>is the thought that because the player declared her kid my goddaughter, that
>I have to put up with this major inconvienence.

I can only be glad that's not where my age group is.

>Maybe it's just because I'm on 'the other side of the fence', but I always
>though that DMing was easy from the player's POV since he had to react to
>what the players did and make sure that they stuck close to his script.
>yeesh

No kidding; I'm a noob DM and my player got seriously pissed off at me
because I forgot their Magic Circle Against Evil spell effect hadn't
worn off. This is the first time they'd ever cast the spell, and they
got pissed since I couldn't remember that it was 10 mins/level instead
of just 1. I told them to keep track of the spell effects themselves,
and the one guy nearly tore my head off.

They figured it out after a little while, by the fact that I had about
50 sheets of paper where they had maybe 20 between them.

>Pointers would be great BTW

Good luck?

Jordan
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 9:07:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko wrote:

> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5ZZae.32629$d43.737@lakeread03...
>
>>
>>Jerry Chesko wrote:
>>
>>
>>><peeve>
>>>1) Players who don't consistently show up, granted people have lives and
>>>emergencies come up, but dimmit not every week someone's cat dies to
>>>allow a stay of execution.
>>>2)Refering to item one (1): The bounty of lame excuses that come with not
>>>appearing to play the game when scheduled.
>>> The reason this one bugs me is becuase I have 'hit the reset switch'
>>>on a game I've tried to get started three times now, becuase of players
>>>doing one session and then bailing one me. Admittedly, I'm a rookie to
>>>DMing, but rather than bailing ya think someone would tell me that I need
>>>to fix this or tweak that rather than up 'n' leaving.
>>>3) Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
>>> One of the players has a three-year-old daughter that she brings over
>>>who gets into everything and anything not nailed down. Making matters
>>>worse is the thought that because the player declared her kid my
>>>goddaughter, that I have to put up with this major inconvienence.
>>></peeve>
>>>
>>>Maybe it's just because I'm on 'the other side of the fence', but I
>>>always though that DMing was easy from the player's POV since he had to
>>>react to what the players did and make sure that they stuck close to his
>>>script. yeesh
>>>
>>>Pointers would be great BTW
>>
>>Regarding the child...
>>
>>I have my own (now 5-year-old) child, and IME as both a player and a DM on
>>nights when he is in my sole care... (Yeah, try *DMing* with a small
>>child in *your* care sometime...)
>>
>>The best solution is to play at the house of the parent with the child,
>>and have them be a *player* not a DM. As a player you can go off to fix a
>>poopie diaper or whatever for 5 minutes and the game will usually go on
>>without you. Not so for a DM.
>
>
> Shie *is* the player, the problem I'm having (besides a misplaced spine, in
> my wife's honest opinion) is that she comes over and just lets the hellion
> run amok. I'm the only one willing to DM the sessions so everyone is torn
> between keeping said hellion
> out of thier things and paying attention to what I'm doing/saying/whatever.

Right, I got that part.

I was thinking of my own experience gaming with my infant son. When my
ex and I divorced, we agreed to share 50/50 joint custody so I match her
hour for hour every week in time spent with our son. Because I work and
she doesn't <bites tongue>, this usually means I have him 4 nights a
weeks plus time on weekends.

When he was an infant/toddler, we had two games running at my apartment.
I DMed one and a friend DMed the other. I always made sure I didn't
have my son on the nights I was DMing, because I knew he would be a
major distraction. I also always made sure I *did* have him on the
nights I was a player in the other game, because I didn't want to eat up
two of my 3 childfree nights a week with gaming.

My son is actually a pretty sedate kid, and went to bed at 8:00 without
waking up (no matter how much noise we made in the next room). This
meant that until 8 or so, I as a player might be absent for 5 minutes at
a time changing poopie diapers, making bottles/food, entertaining, etc.
Not really a huge deal, as it would have been were I DMing.

Years later, my friend moved into his own house some distance away and I
moved into my current girlfriend's house. We started new campaigns
around that time, but this time my friend wanted to run his at his
house. This was his prerogative, but it caused me some trouble because
I now had to choose between eating up two childfree nights a week with
gaming, and trying to DM with my son present until bedtime (with the
game screeching to a halt whenever I needed to tend to him). I knew
right away that bringing him to my friend's house would be a disaster,
because he'd never go to sleep in an unfamiliar house with what would
amount to a "party" going on.

At the same time, I thought it was important for him to be exposed to my
friends and to enjoy some time with the "grownups". Now my ideal would
still be to run my game while he wasn't here, and have the other game
run here on a night when I have him, but as my friend won't go for that
idea, I've been compromising by having my juggling my schedule with my
son to have him here every other game session that I DM, and never on
nights at my friend's house. It helps a lot that my girlfriend is
usually here on nights that my son is, and she doesn't mind helping with
him.

As there will be a new arrival here in about two months (son #2), soon
this will be something of a moot issue for me because there will simply
be no nights when there are no children around at this house. I still
think it would be best for the two DMs (myself and my friend) to switch
houses during our respective gaming sessions, so we are players while we
are tending to our kids (he has a toddling daughter), but he won't go
for the idea. I can't say I really blame him -- we game in his basement
and his wife takes the little one all night, so we hardly even see her.
I have a feeling his viewpoint might change if he ever has a little
son around (or even if his daughter takes a vocal interest in hanging
out with us when she starts talking), but that's how it stands now.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 9:22:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jerry Chesko" <res7g0hd@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ci7be.258$fW1.196@trnddc02...
>
> "Sea Wasp" <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
> news:426CCD15.4020808@sgeobviousinc.com...

>> Game does not begin until children are in bed. I have three kids. One is
>> an infant easily controlled by mommy (i.e., she whines, mommy nurses her,
>> she goes to sleep). The other two are quite capable of major disruption,
>> so they get put to bed by 8:00 on game nights. The older one is allowed
>> to
>> stay up until 9 but he has to stay in his room reading or something of
>> that nature.
>
> What about hellions with no genetic ties to you and mother in q does
> nothing
> to put aforementioned hellion in check? I'm getting tired of players not
> showing up, but kicking one out coz of her brat doesn't sound to palatable
> right now.... *sigh*

If the child is that much of a problem then I suggest you talk to the mother
and explain to her that the kid is a distraction to the game and that the
two of you need to come up with a solution. The guidelines above are a good
place to start. Maybe offer to play at her place and/or at a later time to
make things easier for her or whatever. If this is too inconvenient for you
and the other players then maybe the group is better off without that
player.

Really it comes down to how badly you want the player to continue playing
and how much you're willing to accommodate her and her child.


--

-smithdoerr
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 9:23:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

KertDawg wrote:

> I'm in a game with a player that has a young daughter. (3 years old?)
> Sometimes he is forced to watch her while we play. In those cases, we
> play at his house. This is nice, because the kid has a TV, a puppy,
> and everything else she needs. When the kid gets put to bed (7:30 or
> 8PM), the player leaves the table and we continue on. We usually don't
> make major decisions or enter battle during the 15 minutes that he's
> gone, but we do continue. When he comes back, things move right along.
>
> A few years ago, I played with a DM that had 3 (three) young boys of
> about 5 years. Though we played at his house, the situation was very
> different. Though they were well-behaved, it's impossible to have
> three boys in one house and not have at least one fight. The DM had to
> stop the game, and thus, so did we. At bed time (again, 7:30 or 8PM),
> the game stopped for 20 or 30 minutes. The whole game STOPPED, though.

Right. This is the big difference between a player having a kid in the
house and a DM having a kid in the house. When the DM leaves the table,
the game STOPS.


> We all had a talk, and we tried to work through the situation. We
> tried playing on a night on which the DM's wife could watch the kids.
> We tried playing at another house. It turned out that these changes
> were hard on everyone else, and so the DM eventually quit gaming
> altogether. It was best for everyone involved.

Now that's just sad. Surely he could have kept on as a player in a game
at his house.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 9:25:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

KertDawg wrote:

> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>>Yes, I highly recommend actively recruiting dyed in the wool 100%
>
> pure and
>
>>unadulterated dorks to play with. It makes D&D the default first
>
> priority,
>
>>because they generally have little else to do. Sure, they may not
>
> smell
>
>>nice or be couth or anything, but hey, at least you can always count
>
> on em
>
>>showing up! ;) 
>
>
> Unless they don't have a ride because their 1985 hatchback broke down
> and their mother can't ride them that day.

THAT'S *SICK*!!!

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 9:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"KertDawg" <kertishenderson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114460009.731514.108240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > Yes, I highly recommend actively recruiting dyed in the wool 100%
> pure and
> > unadulterated dorks to play with. It makes D&D the default first
> priority,
> > because they generally have little else to do. Sure, they may not
> smell
> > nice or be couth or anything, but hey, at least you can always count
> on em
> > showing up! ;) 
>
> Unless they don't have a ride because their 1985 hatchback broke down
> and their mother can't ride them that day.

There's a reason dorks ride bicycles... ;) 

"I don't *CARE* that it's snowing outside, pedal yer scrawy dorky butt over
here and play D&D with us!!"

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 10:13:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko wrote:
> [Peeves:] Players who don't consistently show up [and the] bounty of
> lame excuses that come with not appearing to play the game when
> scheduled .... Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.

These peeves sound typical of a player making the transition from a
"bachelor" group to a "family" group.

In a bachelor group, you can usually count on everyone having similar
schedules and responsibilities, especially if you're all students. For
example, college students have very predictable schedules, with most
weekday evenings and weekend afternoons free, and college groups often
live in the same dorm or house. The only major disruptions are exams,
going home for the weekend, and dating, and even those are pretty
predictable. Players rarely join or leave the group mid-year.

In a young family group, schedules are much less predictable, and
players have more outside responsibilities. Even in a small group,
you'll have a lot of disruptions: players moving (or helping friends
move), weddings and funerals, odd or unpredictable work hours, overtime,
annoying spouses, young children, pets, illness, night school, and so
on. Many of these disruptions disappear in a mature family group, but
it's still never as stable as a bachelor group.

The problems come in two major forms: player attendance and non-player
disruptions (i.e., your two pet peeves). Both problems are largely
inevitable; you can't blow off job and family responsibilities as easily
as you can blow off a college class or a party, nor can you predict the
conflicts as easily.

Of the two, non-player disruptions -- kids, pets, and non-gaming spouses
-- are easier to deal with. You have two major choices: Play at a site
that can accommodate all of the non-players, or you can keep all of the
disruptive non-players away from the game. Either way, you'll need
somebody to keep an eye on the kids -- a baby-sitter, an older sibling,
a non-player or part-time-player spouse, etc. -- and either way, you'll
have occasional disruptions. If you allow non-players at the gaming
site, they'll eventually interfere with the game. If not, you'll have
more attendance problems (player can't get a sitter, player gets called
home for an "emergency," etc.). The only way to avoid this problem
entirely is to recruit gamers that prioritize gaming above all else, or
to learn to tolerate your friends' kids, spouses, and pets.

Schedule problems are harder to avoid but easier to accommodate. Some
groups have had good results with strict attendance policies, but IME
they're more likely to create heavy player turnover instead of
stability. It may seem weird that adult players are less stable than
student players, but adults have more responsibilities than students,
and their schedules are less predictable. The best thing you can to is
to make attendance less important to the game: Keep adventures short,
give PCs plenty of opportunities to come and go, don't script events
around particular players, and be ready to suspend disbelief when a
sudden emergency pulls a player (and his PC) away from the game. (I
prefer that style of play anyway, so adapting to a family group was
easier for me.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 10:31:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jerry Chesko" <res7g0hd@verizon.net> wrote in
news:p d7be.257$fW1.168@trnddc02:

>> The best solution is to play at the house of the parent with
>> the child, and have them be a *player* not a DM. As a player
>> you can go off to fix a poopie diaper or whatever for 5 minutes
>> and the game will usually go on without you. Not so for a DM.
>
> Shie *is* the player, the problem I'm having (besides a
> misplaced spine, in my wife's honest opinion) is that she comes
> over and just lets the hellion run amok

So play at her house or mandate that she get a babysitter.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 10:31:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens wrote:

> "Jerry Chesko" <res7g0hd@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:p d7be.257$fW1.168@trnddc02:
>
>
>>>The best solution is to play at the house of the parent with
>>>the child, and have them be a *player* not a DM. As a player
>>>you can go off to fix a poopie diaper or whatever for 5 minutes
>>>and the game will usually go on without you. Not so for a DM.
>>
>>Shie *is* the player, the problem I'm having (besides a
>>misplaced spine, in my wife's honest opinion) is that she comes
>>over and just lets the hellion run amok
>
>
> So play at her house or mandate that she get a babysitter.

I agree.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 10:41:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

KertDawg wrote:

> We all had a talk, and we tried to work through the situation. We
> tried playing on a night on which the DM's wife could watch the kids.
> We tried playing at another house. It turned out that these changes
> were hard on everyone else, and so the DM eventually quit gaming
> altogether. It was best for everyone involved.

Unfortunately, it may have been best for everyone else involved,
but not for the DM. He was weak though. On game day my wife
watches the kids, or I hire a babysitter, whichever is most
convenient, no if, ands, or buts. One day the kids may sit in on
the game and play, but that is a half a decade away at least, when
they may have the relevant interest and, of course, properly
conduct themselves in a structured social situation.

As a GM, my weekly and bi-weekly gaming sessions are for me... My
down time, my chance to rest and relax and enjoy life for awhile.
I don't have to make money to pay the bills, feed and care for the
kids, tend to the wife, tend to the house, tend to my many
employers requests, and it is the time I rightfully deserve.

If you (Speaking of Jerry here...) are such a submissive pussy
that you can't make a four to six hours a week available for
yourself, you don't deserve to play at any table. Same goes for
your players. Boot' em, and DM your game for players that will
appreciate the energy and time you put into this.

Re,
Dirk
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 11:00:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

KertDawg <kertishenderson@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm in a game with a player that has a young daughter. (3 years old?)
> Sometimes he is forced to watch her while we play. In those cases, we
> play at his house. This is nice, because the kid has a TV, a puppy,
> and everything else she needs.

Yeah, that helps a lot. Bringing a kid to game session where there are
no other children is about the worst possible situation. Even if the kid
is generally well-behaved, a game session is just too long for a young
child's attention span. You'll run into problems with boredom and
disruptiveness sooner or later.

> A few years ago, I played with a DM that had 3 (three) young boys of
> about 5 years. Though we played at his house, the situation was very
> different. Though they were well-behaved, it's impossible to have
> three boys in one house and not have at least one fight.

Heh, three girls aren't any better, FYI.

The only way to entirely avoid child-related problems is to make sure
that nobody in the game group has children. Otherwise, eventually the
kids will either disrupt the game or keep their parents away from the
game. Also, school-age kids expose their parents to a lot of illnesses.

Of course, unless all of your gaming friends are staunchly against
having children (or unable to find a mate), you'll eventually need to
deal with kids, or you'll need to find new players.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 11:00:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6qfia.u5v.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Of course, unless all of your gaming friends are staunchly against
> having children (or unable to find a mate), you'll eventually need to
> deal with kids, or you'll need to find new players.

Yes, I highly recommend actively recruiting dyed in the wool 100% pure and
unadulterated dorks to play with. It makes D&D the default first priority,
because they generally have little else to do. Sure, they may not smell
nice or be couth or anything, but hey, at least you can always count on em
showing up! ;) 

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 11:10:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary wrote:
> If someone [asked me to chip in for a babysitter], I'd find a new
> group to game with. The moo needs to take responsibility for the kid
> she's produced, starting with *controlling* its behavior. Until that
> can be done without constant supervision, the kid is unfit for public
> appearances, and needs to be kept home.

I agree. When you're visiting somebody else's house, baby-sitting is
your own responsibility. Don't bring a child with you to social
gatherings unless you're sure that the kid is well-behaved and the
meeting place is kid-friendly. If it's a long visit (e.g., a game
session), don't bring kids unless there are enough toys or other kids to
provide entertainment for the whole time.

Otherwise, either host the game at your own home (which should be
sufficiently kid-friendly) or hire a babysitter. Taking care of your
kids is your own responsibility. If you can't keep your own babysitter,
then find a game group with other parents who can either tolerate having
your kid around or make arrangements to share a babysitter.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 12:38:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko wrote:
> "Sea Wasp" <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
> news:426CCD15.4020808@sgeobviousinc.com...
>
>>>Pointers would be great BTW
>>
>>"Just Say No."
>>
>>My players know that I don't run games for players who don't show. Once in
>>twenty meetings, okay. Once every three or four, you're gone.
>>
>>Game does not begin until children are in bed. I have three kids. One is
>>an infant easily controlled by mommy (i.e., she whines, mommy nurses her,
>>she goes to sleep). The other two are quite capable of major disruption,
>>so they get put to bed by 8:00 on game nights. The older one is allowed to
>>stay up until 9 but he has to stay in his room reading or something of
>>that nature.
>
>
> What about hellions with no genetic ties to you and mother in q does nothing
> to put aforementioned hellion in check?

Then mother does not play. Direct, simple, and unbending, that's me.
The game is no fun if hellions not in check, therefore either keep
hellion under control, or keep hellion elsewhere.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:19:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Yes, I have to admit to a pronounced lack of player perspective (not
> to mention common sense) in my suggestion. I tried to think of a
> single player I've ever gamed with that would have stood for a
> mandatory babysitting pool; even the most generous among them would
> have called me aside and asked if I was nuts.
>
> Not one of my better ideas, then.

It'd be a decent idea if you were suggesting that all of the gamers with
kids got together and found a babysitter to watch all of the kids, but
asking non-parents to chip in for a babysitter is a bit nuts. Non-parent
gamers are barely tolerant of kids & parents in the first place, IME.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:22:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"madafro@sbcglobal.net" <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:1114463056.836829.40750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> "madafro@sbcglobal.net" <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> > What if the group offered to help find and pay for a babysitter for
>> > game nights? Take up a collection for this purpose, and ask around
> at
>> > work, church, the neighborhood, family, or other social circle for
>> > recommendations.
>> >
>> > If any players balk at this idea, remind them that creating a
> stable
>> > game environment is *everyone's* concern, not just the DM's.
>>
>> If someone did that to me, I'd find a new group to game with. The moo
> needs
>> to take responsibility for the kid she's produced, starting with
>> *controlling* its behavior. Until that can be done without constant
>> supervision, the kid is unfit for public appearances, and needs to be
> kept
>> home.
>
>
> Yes, I have to admit to a pronounced lack of player perspective (not to
> mention common sense) in my suggestion. I tried to think of a single
> player I've ever gamed with that would have stood for a mandatory
> babysitting pool; even the most generous among them would have called
> me aside and asked if I was nuts.
>
> Not one of my better ideas, then.
>
Being exposed to children will rot your brain, so you're excused.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:26:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> The only way to entirely avoid child-related problems is to make sure
> that nobody in the game group has children. Otherwise, eventually the
> kids will either disrupt the game or keep their parents away from the
> game. Also, school-age kids expose their parents to a lot of illnesses.
>
> Of course, unless all of your gaming friends are staunchly against
> having children (or unable to find a mate), you'll eventually need to
> deal with kids, or you'll need to find new players.


The previous gaming group had one couple, who almost always hosted, who
had children. The kids were at their own house, with their own toys.
The little boy would sometimes come in and snuggle on Mom's lap and
listen to the grownups play make-believe.

Current gaming group is my husband, two of his co-workers, and me. The
female co-worker is married to a guy who doesn't game outside of his
computer; the male co-worker is engaged to a girl who doesn't game at
all. None of us have kids, and none of us want them. The other married
couple has two cats that will sometimes cause moments of spastic
laughter, but that's the most disruptive non-player thing we have going.
We're more likely to get caught up in discussions of World of Warcraft
or Champions: Return to Arms than to have outside disturbances. :) 

Beth

--
Evolution takes no prisoners. -- Mandy, "The Grim Adventures of Billy &
Mandy"
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:59:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Sometimes it's not the players who don't show up. The out of gaming
lives of GMs can also affect the game. Once in college and once
immediately after college a gaming group broke up because of the GM's
significant other. The former because he was married and couldn't
separate from her for a night anymore, and the latter because the new
girlfriend did not like one of the other players and wouldn't play with
him anymore.

Even now one of my groups is in a hiatus while the GM takes care of
things at work and for his parents. He expects the game to resume in
June, though there is talk for the moment of me running a couple of
one-shot adventures so he can play a bit starting in May.

I fully understand life happens. As much as I like the game, in the
grand scheme of things there are a lot more things more important.
Still, it is disappointing when the GM has to cancel a game session for
some reason. One of the few perks of my job is that my schedule is
flexible, and I no longer have to work weekends as I used to. I am
able to schedule around games. I could work a Sunday if I need a
Friday free. I can take a three-day weekend if scheduled in advanced
for a planned something such as a convention or a weekend gaming party
a friend has three times a year. When the game is called off, I'm
left with nothing to do. I eventually find something to amuse myself
;-).

Gerald Katz
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 4:45:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HoqdnR_3XIZT1fDfRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd6qfia.u5v.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>> Of course, unless all of your gaming friends are staunchly against
>> having children (or unable to find a mate), you'll eventually need to
>> deal with kids, or you'll need to find new players.
>
> Yes, I highly recommend actively recruiting dyed in the wool 100% pure and
> unadulterated dorks to play with. It makes D&D the default first
> priority,
> because they generally have little else to do. Sure, they may not smell
> nice or be couth or anything, but hey, at least you can always count on em
> showing up! ;) 

Yeah they always show up for the game, usually early, but the problem with
starving-for-social-interaction dorks is that you can never get them to
leave afterwards ....


--

-smithdoerr
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 4:45:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"smithdoerr" <askmeforname@vodafone.it> wrote in message
news:1114469148.ad2f1babeebfe1899f1eb5383cdf1882@teranews...
> > Yes, I highly recommend actively recruiting dyed in the wool 100% pure
and
> > unadulterated dorks to play with. It makes D&D the default first
> > priority,
> > because they generally have little else to do. Sure, they may not smell
> > nice or be couth or anything, but hey, at least you can always count on
em
> > showing up! ;) 
>
> Yeah they always show up for the game, usually early, but the problem with
> starving-for-social-interaction dorks is that you can never get them to
> leave afterwards ....

At least you get to play long sessions when you do play. ;) 

We suffer from the typical "adult schedule" problem described by many in
this thread, and as such we are limited to playing once every other week.
Luckily, I have convinced every player to play for 8 hours straight, which
is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because we still get a decent
amount of playing time in, a curse because everyone is dragging ass at the
end of the session. I adjust for that by giving them less thought oriented
stuff at the end of the sessions. Mostly, the latter hours of each session
are the "slug it out" portions of a given adventure, if I can work it out
like that.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:12:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jordan wrote:

> No kidding; I'm a noob DM and my player got seriously pissed off at me
> because I forgot their Magic Circle Against Evil spell effect hadn't
> worn off.

Your player's a dick.

-Will
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:12:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green wrote:

> Jordan wrote:
>
>> No kidding; I'm a noob DM and my player got seriously pissed off at me
>> because I forgot their Magic Circle Against Evil spell effect hadn't
>> worn off.
>
>
> Your player's a dick.

Your dick's a Playa!

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:12:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
>> No kidding; I'm a noob DM and my player got seriously pissed off at me
>> because I forgot their Magic Circle Against Evil spell effect hadn't
>> worn off.
>
>
> Your player's a dick.
>
> -Will

Seconded.

-Tialan
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:54:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Thanks, for all the advice. Talked to player about munckin being left at
her mother's place to wait out the game. She said she'll talk to her mom
about it so that's all for now. (Jerry wonder's why the player didn't think
of this sooner). As for the flock of flakes: prolly right non-related,
episodic rather than long-running campaining would be best for now until I
get some that'll stick around.

I do have a 'core group' of about 3 players. The drifter population adds
another one or two depending on week-to-week changes...

Since I'm a bit short of 'one shot' games maybe some links to decent freebie
sites for modules and such would be appreciated...


--
--==--
Jerry Chesko
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 8:18:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko wrote:

> I do have a 'core group' of about 3 players. The drifter population adds
> another one or two depending on week-to-week changes...

One thing that might work here is to have a couple of characters that
are run either as NPCs or as secondary characters by your core players.
Then when one of your less reliable players actually makes it to a
game, he can play one of those characters and you don't have to deal
with constantly adding and removing the characters to and from play.

Of course, if you don't want to run said NPCs and your core players
don't want secondary characters to deal with, this won't help.

> Since I'm a bit short of 'one shot' games maybe some links to decent freebie
> sites for modules and such would be appreciated...

It's not freebie, but I'd point to Dungeon magazine. Those are perfect
for one or two session games.

-Will
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 12:04:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6qnn0.u5v.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> Yes, I have to admit to a pronounced lack of player perspective (not
>> to mention common sense) in my suggestion. I tried to think of a
>> single player I've ever gamed with that would have stood for a
>> mandatory babysitting pool; even the most generous among them would
>> have called me aside and asked if I was nuts.
>>
>> Not one of my better ideas, then.
>
> It'd be a decent idea if you were suggesting that all of the gamers with
> kids got together and found a babysitter to watch all of the kids, but
> asking non-parents to chip in for a babysitter is a bit nuts.

I think that depends upon the group. When I first got divorced, my friends
chipped in for babysitting a few times for gaming. One of them basically
told the rest to pony up 2 bucks. No one had a problem.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 12:06:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko <res7g0hd@verizon.net> wrote:
> As for the flock of flakes: prolly right non-related, episodic rather
> than long-running campaining would be best for now until I get some
> that'll stick around.

Keep in mind that if you play with twentysomethings, it might not get
better for another twenty years or so! Especially if you live in a place
with lots of job turnover; even the most committed players won't stick
around if they need to chase jobs to another state. (We have that
problem in Silicon Valley.) Just keep recruiting, and you'll eventually
develop a stable core (although you'll still always have a few fringe
players, unless you're lucky like Sea Wasp).

In the meantime, I recommend improvisation. Here's my favorite
improv-DMing technique: Find a decent random-encounter table, preferably
with the EL distribution recommended by the DMG. Print out all of the
monster stats from it; the SRD makes this easy for most core monsters.
Roll a few random encounters from it. See if you can come up with a
story that relates most of them, although it's no big deal if you can't.

At the start of the session, give the players a hook or two based on the
story (if any) and a couple more based on other encounters in the area
(i.e., on the encounter chart). Let them go beat up bad guys. Toward the
end, use fewer random encounters and more of the "story" encounters.
Play up the last encounter or two, so that the players get a feeling of
accomplishment.

We run double-length sessions, and the last couple times I did this, the
players chewed through more than 10 encounters each time, more than an
encounter an hour. If that's too much XP for your tastes, salt the
random stuff with some social encounters to eat up time. My players
appreciate all the action, and the relatively low difficulty of the
standard EL distribution means that you focus less on alpha strikes and
more on resource management (which helps class balance). Of course, all
the action means that you'll need those pre-printed monster stats.

After a few runs, you should be able to create your own adventures in
very little time, if you have any talent for improvisation at all. And
it's dead simple to drop PCs in and out of an improv campaign.

The main thing is to know your encounters (either from prep work or
experience) so that you can keep things running smoothly and worry less
about the actual improvisation. I also recommend spending some time on
eye candy like props and battlemats. I bought a big pad of flip-chart
paper with a one-inch grid; it's perfect for battlemats. Whenever you
have a little time, draw up a general terrain map on a sheet, according
to the terrain specs in the DMG. For example, I have sheets with a
"standard" light forest, medium forest, heavy forest, marsh, and swamp
(common terrain types near the PCs' home base). They're nice because
they let the players actually choose tactics appropriate for the
terrain, and it took less than half an hour to draw each one. Mine don't
have any fancy art, just dots and squiggly lines in colored marker.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 2:16:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd6qnn0.u5v.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>
>>madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, I have to admit to a pronounced lack of player perspective (not
>>>to mention common sense) in my suggestion. I tried to think of a
>>>single player I've ever gamed with that would have stood for a
>>>mandatory babysitting pool; even the most generous among them would
>>>have called me aside and asked if I was nuts.
>>>
>>>Not one of my better ideas, then.
>>
>>It'd be a decent idea if you were suggesting that all of the gamers with
>>kids got together and found a babysitter to watch all of the kids, but
>>asking non-parents to chip in for a babysitter is a bit nuts.
>
>
> I think that depends upon the group. When I first got divorced, my friends
> chipped in for babysitting a few times for gaming. One of them basically
> told the rest to pony up 2 bucks. No one had a problem.
>

I certainly wouldn't have a problem if I felt the other player needed help.

In a way you could think about it as simply helping create a gaming
environment everyone benefits from. I think it's particularly useful to
think of it that way if the other player needs help defraying the cost
of the babysitter. My altruism meter would probably take a dip if the
player were reasonably well off and could afford such care without any
problems.

-Tialan
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:02:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6qcqh.u5v.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Jerry Chesko wrote:
> > [Peeves:] Players who don't consistently show up [and the] bounty of
> > lame excuses that come with not appearing to play the game when
> > scheduled .... Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
>
> These peeves sound typical of a player making the transition from a
> "bachelor" group to a "family" group.
>
> In a bachelor group, you can usually count on everyone having similar
> schedules and responsibilities, especially if you're all students. For
> example, college students have very predictable schedules, with most
> weekday evenings and weekend afternoons free, and college groups often
> live in the same dorm or house. The only major disruptions are exams,
> going home for the weekend, and dating, and even those are pretty
> predictable. Players rarely join or leave the group mid-year.

When we were younger we found sports caused a bit of a scheduling problem
as we were all involved with different teams. These days it is
geographical remoteness that means we meet infrequently but for set,
extended periods of time. It's annoying but I have no motivation to seek
out or found a new group. I don't really think I could commit to "regular"
sessions the way things are anyway.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:30:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IXsbe.119$hn4.4767882@news.sisna.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd6qnn0.u5v.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>>
>>>madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes, I have to admit to a pronounced lack of player perspective (not
>>>>to mention common sense) in my suggestion. I tried to think of a
>>>>single player I've ever gamed with that would have stood for a
>>>>mandatory babysitting pool; even the most generous among them would
>>>>have called me aside and asked if I was nuts.
>>>>
>>>>Not one of my better ideas, then.
>>>
>>>It'd be a decent idea if you were suggesting that all of the gamers with
>>>kids got together and found a babysitter to watch all of the kids, but
>>>asking non-parents to chip in for a babysitter is a bit nuts.
>>
>>
>> I think that depends upon the group. When I first got divorced, my
>> friends chipped in for babysitting a few times for gaming. One of them
>> basically told the rest to pony up 2 bucks. No one had a problem.
>>
>
> I certainly wouldn't have a problem if I felt the other player needed
> help.
>
> In a way you could think about it as simply helping create a gaming
> environment everyone benefits from. I think it's particularly useful to
> think of it that way if the other player needs help defraying the cost of
> the babysitter. My altruism meter would probably take a dip if the player
> were reasonably well off and could afford such care without any problems.

Indeed. At the time, I was in a major financial rough spot. Nowadays, I
host most of the games, and provide food/soda as well. What goes around
comes around, and all that rot...

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 8:40:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

illecebra wrote:

> I won't snip any of that because it's the most level-headed post I've
> seen in this thread so far.

YOU DON'T THINK MY POST WAS LEVEL-HEADED?!?!?

I'LL *SUE* YOU!!! *I'LL* **SUE** **YOOOOOUUUU!!!**

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 8:44:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IXsbe.119$hn4.4767882@news.sisna.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
> > "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrnd6qnn0.u5v.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> >
> >>madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yes, I have to admit to a pronounced lack of player perspective (not
> >>>to mention common sense) in my suggestion. I tried to think of a
> >>>single player I've ever gamed with that would have stood for a
> >>>mandatory babysitting pool; even the most generous among them would
> >>>have called me aside and asked if I was nuts.
> >>>
> >>>Not one of my better ideas, then.
> >>
> >>It'd be a decent idea if you were suggesting that all of the gamers
with
> >>kids got together and found a babysitter to watch all of the kids, but
> >>asking non-parents to chip in for a babysitter is a bit nuts.
> >
> >
> > I think that depends upon the group. When I first got divorced, my
friends
> > chipped in for babysitting a few times for gaming. One of them
basically
> > told the rest to pony up 2 bucks. No one had a problem.
> >
>
> I certainly wouldn't have a problem if I felt the other player needed
help.
>
> In a way you could think about it as simply helping create a gaming
> environment everyone benefits from. I think it's particularly useful to
> think of it that way if the other player needs help defraying the cost
> of the babysitter. My altruism meter would probably take a dip if the
> player were reasonably well off and could afford such care without any
> problems.

You should know that Mal is a rich, decadent fiend. HE DESERVES NO
ALTRUISM!!!1!
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:14:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Since I'm a bit short of 'one shot' games maybe some links to
> decent freebie sites for modules and such would be appreciated...

Here are some links to free online 3.X modules:

http://www.rpgarchive.com/index.php?sysid=37&page=adv&s...
RPG Archive's 3E adventure database

http://www.opifex.cnchost.com/worlds/fantasy/dd/ddadv.h...
Michael C. LaBossiere's D&D Adventures

http://www.dndadventure.com/html/adventures/adv1.html
http://www.dndadventure.com/html/adventures/adv2.html
http://www.dndadventure.com/html/adventures/adv3.html
http://www.dndadventure.com/html/adventures/adv4.html
http://www.dndadventure.com/html/adventures/adv5.html
Bastion Press adventure collection

The WotC website:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030530b
Adventure Archive

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/ch
Cliffhangers


Arivne
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 12:59:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jerry Chesko wrote:
> 3) Babysitting players kids while trying to run the game.
> One of the players has a three-year-old daughter that she brings
over
> who gets into everything and anything not nailed down. Making
matters worse
> is the thought that because the player declared her kid my
goddaughter, that
> I have to put up with this major inconvienence.

A 3-year-old? Kids can't even walk right at three, much less behave.
This woman is asking way too much of you and the rest of the group.
It's gotta be really hard on the kid as well, spending 4 or 5 hours at
your house with none of his/her good toys, videos, snacks... You would
think someone with kids would know better...

Explain to the player that while you love the kid, she can't come
because she is too much of a distraction for everyone in the game.
People are rearranging their lives to make time to play, and it's just
not fair to interrupt the game in that way.

That reminds me, I gotta get my next game scheduled!
!