Scheduling is one of the most common subjects of complaints, memes, jokes, and Reddit rants in the TTRPG world. A familiar lament: Players did not show up, game was canceled.
I don’t typically write about the logistics of running RPGs. But I have not had a game canceled for anything short of illness or emergency in years. So just in case it is useful to anyone out there struggling with game attendance and player commitment – here are my thoughts, beginning with some simple psychographics.
Anchors Versus Corks
There are two types of schedulers in the world: Anchors and corks.
Anchors commit to participate in things and, barring emergency or unusual circumstances, it becomes a fixed part of their plans. They scope other commitments around that plan. It is solid. Their schedule is a world of anchored things among the shifting currents of life.
Corks bob and drift from engagement to engagement as the tides and winds carry them. For a cork, every event and social engagement is more aspirational than actual until it happens. They will certainly be doing something on a given evening, but they don’t quite know what it will be until that day arrives.
No Judgment Zone
The definitions above may make it sound like I’m praising anchors and criticizing corks, but that’s not my intent. Well, maybe a little, because I myself am an anchor, as are most GMs (and more on that in a bit). I find anchors easier to understand, and I struggled for a long time to figure out the corks. They just seemed… unreliable, even sketchy people.
But I have grown to appreciate corks more over time. When corks do show up, they usually bring their best selves. An anchor will sometimes grit their teeth through a game they didn’t really have the energy or patience to participate in (I myself have occasionally been guilty of this). The cork won’t make that mistake. When they do show up, they are there because they unambiguously want to be there.
And anchors need some corks in their game sessions to mix things up some of the time. Some of my all-time favorite sessions have featured rare appearances from corks who brought wild card energy to a table otherwise dominated by familiar anchor vibes.
Corks particularly shine in one-shots or GM-less games, where the lack of long-term commitment really lets them go crazy. Corks are usually extroverts and anchors are often introverts, although these categories don’t completely line up.
The Anchor DM versus the Cork PCs
Anchors and corks can misunderstand each other in many parts of life, but RPGs present a special challenge.
An anchor planning a party can get by on bulk alone, even if most of their corks don’t show up. Expecting 60 people, but only 45 actually come? It will probably still be a fun party, because a typical party doesn’t really depend on any particular participant being present, nor does the fun scale neatly with the number of people. And the anchor’s plans don’t change dramatically, aside from practical considerations, many of which can be controlled by common sense methods (e.g., asking people bring food and beverages means supplies will naturally line up with attendance).
But RPGs introduce a unique problem. They often pit a single anchor (in the GM role) against a group composed mostly or entirely of corks (the players). I think this is the most common source of the all-to-familiar “I had to cancel the game AGAIN ;_;” laments.
Because RPGs are really good at attracting cork players! Corks love anticipating an RPG session, even if they don't join it. The idea of creating a character and dreaming about the adventures they might have is exciting. Many corks look at your D&D night invitation the way someone in a hot air balloon might look at an impressive mountain; something exciting to admire from afar, but not something you think deeply about until the wind starts blowing you closer to its position.
GM-less, prep-less games can often be a good fit for a social group filled with corks, since they logistically work more like board games, versus the prep of the conventional TTRPG. But assume you are running a traditional GM plus players system. How can you make it work?
Knights of the Open Table
Once we’ve accepted the differences between corks and anchors, it becomes easier to schedule with both of them in mind. And one of the best ways to do that is to run an open table.
When I hear stories about canceled sessions and failing campaigns, the most common theme is that the GM expected almost all or all of their players to be there for all or almost all of the sessions. The GM expected the players to be anchors, essentially. But some of them – or all of them – turned out to be corks.
At a closed table, that immediately becomes a problem, because every instance of cork-like behavior disrupts the game for everyone else. The anchors are annoyed that the corks aren’t taking the game seriously and respecting others’ time. And the corks feel like the anchors are sucking all the fun out of what is supposed to be a game.
An open table avoids this issue by ensuring that no single player is essential to a particular session. Instead, the total number of players collectively provide enough “coverage” to ensure the session can happen.
My minimum quorum is usually three players (not counting myself as GM). To ensure at least three people show up, I typically invite 6-10 players to such games. People have sometimes asked me, what will I do if all 10 people show up?
After I finish laughing, I explain that if that extremely unlikely scenario actually did happen, it would be fine. I have, on very rare occasions, run for very large groups, and while those sessions were noisier and more chaotic than normal, they were fine. The minor inconvenience of a (very unlikely) oversized session is not a big deal compared to the (much more likely) threat of an undersized one.
The Game Is Afoot, Statistically Speaking
If you are thinking that a binary of anchor versus cork is an oversimplification, you are correct. A more nuanced way to understand player attendance is to assign a predicted likelihood of attendance to each player.
Don’t worry, you do not need to do risk-buffered forecasting via Bernoulli trials to get the answer. Back-of-the-envelope math is fine. If I were to invite six players to a game, I would feel pretty comfortable if at least two were 90% likely to attend (strong anchors); one was 60% likely to attend (anchor-leaning); and three were 25% likely to attend (corks). The specific composition might vary from session to session, but you’re almost always going to get at least three players (again, not counting the GM) out of that group.
Reassess When You Greenlight a New “Season”
While I love open tables, I will also acknowledge their biggest drawback: attendance tends to taper over time.
A new open table will draw a broad range of players, excited by the newness of the game. As time passes, the players who stick with the game will become more invested; you might even see some corks turn into anchors. But at the same time, the number of interested new players will fall off. Even if a game continues to advertise its open table status, many players will be reluctant to join if they learn that others have already been playing the game for months.
I get it. Even apart from any question of rules fluency or knowledge of the shared fiction, it just feels different to join an established group with dozens of sessions under their belt. Most open tables will eventually feature a lot of regulars, and no matter how welcoming they are, some number of new players will bounce off their established vibe.
When a game reaches that point, you probably want to talk to the players and decide how to proceed. The table may remain nominally open, but for all intents and purposes look like a closed table. It’s a good time to have a conversation about what the end of the game would look like, and to institute “seasons” that are up for renewal, with a satisfying end-point in mind.
Be Willing to Walk Away
You can do all of the above, and the same problems can occur. Too many cancelations, not enough games. You need to be able to walk away.
Your D&D group is composed of the people who show up. It doesn’t necessarily include the person who knows the rules best. Or the person who first convinced you to run the game. Or the best roleplayer. Or your sister or your spouse or your best friend. It is made up of the people who show up.
If the game is struggling, the game is not happening. Do something else socially with those people that requires less commitment. Like a lot of things in life, a willingness to walk away when things aren't working is an important backstop for the health of the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment