If one of your players feels the need to drop out of your campaign, what should you do?
This hot button is relevant for me because I’m actually in this situation. I’m currently running a campaign that the rest of the group is thoroughly enjoying, but one player simply isn’t into it. It seems my choice is whether to end the campaign or go on without him.
When starting a new campaign, this isn’t an issue. I never start a game without buy-in from everyone in the group. I’d also never say to my group “I’m going to run this Trail of Cthulhu adventure, but it only works with three players, so two of you have to sit this one out.” It’s simply common courtesy to play with the hand you’re dealt.
But what about the opposite end? What if you had buy-in from a player but it just simply isn’t working for him? Should he have to drop out, or should it be common courtesy that the “buy-in” should be on a session-to-session basis? Alternatively, should you split the difference and wind the campaign down quickly even if you have several months of material left?
Before releasing the question I do want to point out that, in this case, the player enjoys the adventures and the roleplaying; he just can’t stand the system. Furthermore, he’s more than willing to sit out until the next campaign rolls around. Yet in spite of how easy he’s making it on me, as a GM I still feel a certain responsibility to keep him in the chair. It doesn’t feel any different to me than if I’d banned him from the beginning.
So what say you? If you are running a campaign that the whole group is enjoying sans one, would you end the campaign or let the player sit out? Are there any specific circumstances that would sway you one way or the other? Is it case-by-case or do you generally fall on one side?
I think if you’ve got a group of friends that plays together, most of the time it’s no big deal to sit through a game that you may not be into for the chance to spend time with friends. There’s also the unwritten understanding that eventually the game will cycle around to something that you ARE into. In fact, sometimes that’s the best thing about being part of a solid gaming group – the chance to experiment with game systems while also letting less experienced game masters have a chance at running a game. It may not be perfect, but the company is good and eventually the game itself will come around to something everyone enjoys.
In your specific case, since the player is enjoying some aspect of the game and is willing to tough it out until the next campaign, I’d keep going. Not indefinitely and I would keep his dislike of the system in mind, but I wouldn’t short change the campaign or the other players.
Given that the unhappy player’s problem (he hates the system) is unlikely to be fixed with house rules or other modifications to the group, then it seems fair to me to let him sit out the remainder of the campaign rather than force him to participate in something he doesn’t enjoy.
Still, as GM I’d make an effort to keep the campaign from dragging, so as to get to a point where the unhappy player can re-join as soon as possible. Similarly, I would make an effort to engage the player separately to see what they might be interested in for the next campaign. Perhaps even begin planning activities with them to keep them engaged.
In more general terms, I think the group should always be willing to make adjustments to the game to keep everyone engaged and having fun. I played in a campaign for several years, but at one point had completely lost interest in my character from a mechanics standpoint. Other more vague aspects of the game also bothered me, so I bowed out of the group for a few months. Reading the session updates that were posted online, I decided I missed spending time with the guys. I contacted the DM and asked about re-joining, but with a retrofitted character. We worked out the details and the DM did a great job explaining my PC’s reemergence and changes. Win for all.
Why is this even a problem? Let the player who admits he’s not enjoying the game sit it out. At least he has the class to admit it and offer a reasonable solution.
BTW, this situation is really rare, in my experience. Far more often the challenge I have to deal with is a player who’s not enjoying the game, doesn’t engage meaningfully in the story, and creates disruption for the other players. When I confront such a player– privately– he or she initially denies a problem exists and then blames it on everyone else: the other players are lame, the plot is boring, the GM (me) is too arbitrary, etc. Then I have to ask that person to leave the game. Usually that’s the end of whatever friendship we had, too.
I’m curious what system he hates? I have seen few gamers truly hate a system, instead hating specific parts of something. Has he given you reasons, perhaps you can mitigate some of the problems and help keep him.
Alternatively, bring him to help you. Have him run key NPCs, roleplay out store owners, or if there is a BBEG- give him notes and talk with him about the BBEG’s goals and let him run the evil dude.
If none of those work, and he is willing to sit out, let him sit out. Maybe once a month someone else can run a one shot to keep him with the group, or if you can find ways to do something else and get together as a group for a movie, food, board games or other activity you can still keep him feeling like part of the group.
If it’s the system, (I’m guessing FATE?) and not the game itself, port it into a set of mechanics that works for all. Otherwise, cut the chaff, let him sit out and roll the campaign up in a timely manner. Leave him out too long, and he’s liable to find a new group. Or hobby.
I’ve a different, but related issue: a player is moving away, but is an integral part of the main story arc. I had planned this campaign to have about another six-eight months. Now I’ve got about 14 week, max… That’s roughly seven “episodes”…I’m cutting it short so he sees the end, like the other players.
This is a pretty cold button, if you ask me.
The one player who isn’t enjoying the game gets to stop showing up. It’s not like you’re not friends anymore. But you gave him a chance early on to veto the entertainment (which is more than is strictly necessary.) He said he was okay with it. Him changing his mind is not an excuse to tear down something that 4 or however many other people are enjoying.
It’s nice that you feel bad for him and all, and if you REALLY want to assuage your guilt, run a different game every other week, but that’s doing the boy a huge favor, and not some sort of social contract necessity.
I’ve had players drop from games because they were not enjoying some component of it. When it’s happened, the campaign continues as planned.
Fortunately, our gaming group has serveral GMs, and there are regularly three to four different games running each week. Not everyone plays in all of them, but it means that everyone should be able to find something to their liking. GMs will pitch upcoming games to garner interest, so a player who might not have liked the previous offering, might find the next one to be a better match.
IMO, when you got player buy-in, you did all that is necessary. From that point on, your goal is to bring the best game you can to your players. Likewise, the players have the same responsibility, but from a player perspective.
It wouldn’t be the best game you can bring to drop the campaign prematurely. In fact, that might ruin the game for the other players that ARE enjoying the campaign (thusly creating a self fulfilling prophecy that the game wasn’t right for the group – but under false pretenses).
The fact that your player is mature enough to go with your decision is a godsend. Go with it. If interested in the story, see if that player wants to co-GM more non mechanics elements if you really want to include him. Let him cowrite some of the game. But don’t shutdown the campaign prematurely because of one player.
Your player will be back later and probably a little wiser for future situations.
The one caveat would be if you plan your campaigns to run for a long time. However, realistically, you can’t really have a plan that will last longer than a few months. Beyond that, and at this point, there would be mostly a skeleton. Work toward the key goal or the end of an act, and re-evaluate. You might even consider changing mechanics, although that could create its own challenge to changing the feel of the game.
But bottom line, bring the best game you can.
PS> I am also interested in what mechanic you are playing that could garner Hate toward it.
I agree that this is not much of an issue, for the player, but it seems to be one for you. How do the other players feel about the system? If they are not totally committed to continuing in said system, why not keep the campaign but shift the system? Look for buy in from the other players for a new system, and if can make everyone happy(ier) then go for it. One word of caution (with the caveat that I don’t know your players): Find out the player’s real dislike for the system. Switching to please someone that finds something annoying about a system may just allow for said person to become an annoyance in another system. My group recently confronted such a situation. Most of us grew weary of the super-characters and min/maxing of Pathfinder, so we moved toward a more story based system. One of our players just stopped showing up. We did not want to go back to D20, but wanted to make everyone happy. As a group we decided to try Savage Worlds. We love it, but our min/maxer is at it again. Luckily the system does not reward the behavior quite as much and crazy builds are not game-breaking. Good Luck.
I really don’t see much of an issue here. The one person isn’t enjoying the game/system, what have you. The other 5(?) members of the group are. There’s no way you should ditch the whole campaign to satisfy the one person. If it’s a plot issue, ask him or her, what they’d like to see happen, or better yet, ask all your players for three things they’d like to see happen, and then work those ideas in (tweaked by your twisted imagination, of course.) The player bought in to the game, so if there’s something wrong, they should be willing to offer contstructive critcism.
For me, it’d depend on how often you see your player outside of gaming. If possible, doing other fun things with that player, or playing with them in a separate campaign sounds like a good solution.
If you only overlap schedules for the one game, and you’re friends, and you think it’ll be months before they’ll be back in the rotation, I’d worry a bit longer. I’d try to work the character out at the next logical break-point, whether that’s by having them open a business back in town, going on a quest for important NPC, or whatever makes sense for the character they’re playing. Then keep them casually informed–if only by keeping them on the group mailing list–and maybe even invite them over for pre-game food every few sessions. That way, they know they’re still a part of the social circle and are welcome back anytime.
I agree this is not an issue. No changes to the campaign except a possible break from the campaign for a one shot or a boardgame to include the player and make him realize you’re not forgetting him. You might also break the campaign into chapters, but if it’s a dynamic scenario, that won’t work. Like others, I agree the player is extraordinarily mature to give you all the outs he has. Too many of mine have became an out-of-control gamewrecker that I had to bounce out of the group to preserve group morality.
“the player enjoys the adventures and the roleplaying; he just can’t stand the system.”
That’s really odd. I’m highly opinionated about rules systems, so I can understand hating one. But even the very worst system can still be a lot of fun with the right group and the right GM. So I suspect that there is a problem with group dynamics or a disparity in play styles — something which these rules are highlighting but which other rules paper over (see: the lumpley principle). In other words, if I were you, I’d try to narrow down exactly what about these rules the player can’t stand but which the other players are perfectly fine with, just to make sure that issue won’t crop up in future campaigns.
Then, as other commenters have suggested, I’d continue right on playing the campaign without that one player.
I was going to write this as a comment, but then it got really long, so I decided to post it to my blog and link it, so that people who don’t want to wall-of-text can skip my thoughts 😛
http://versamus.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/re-hot-button-leaving-player-behind.html
tl;dr – either get the player to make a compromise, or change the system.
Thanks for all the responses!
To answer one question en masse, yes, I’m leaning towards letting the player drop out if he wishes and continuing the campaign.
The system in question is Star Wars: Edge of Empire. It’s a new system for the entire group and it’s still gelling for us, but he just isn’t grokking it.
I suspect a good part of the issue is my own tenuous grasp of the rules (I don’t have a lot of free time to absorb a new rules system), so I’ve decided to buckle down and really study the parts that have been tripping him up and see if I can explain them better for him.
With a new system, or one that is new to any of the players, I like to spend a few minutes at the start of each game to highlight one rule. Then when it comes up in play, I say “this is the rule we talked about.”
During a game, I note what rules trip up the group, and add them to the list for pre-game review.
Before the session, I pick one rule from the list, trying to hit the rules we use most often first, then get to the corner cases. If it’s a rule the GM’s NPCs can use, I’ll make sure to use it and highlight that during the session.
I’m with Blackjack on this one. Sounds like you have a mature group of players and you’re letting a sense of responsibility of your own to make people have fun get in the way. I recommend letting the guy sit out, then when the next game comes around, or even before them, sit down and find out what he is interested in doing, then take into consideration his feedback with perhaps a little more weight for the next game.
Let the guy sit out and bring him back when the story is done. Don’t deny the others their fun for the sake of one.