Critical Group Mass / Key Player Phenomenon

[Bill Cook]

Lately, limited availability has caused some instances of late play or no-shows for certain members of my group. Partial starts and below quorum play has revealled some interesting dynamics.

(I don't want to overshare or appear judgemental, so I'll change names.)

We played a session where Chris showed late. Before his arrival, play was a little dry, and it felt like going through the motions. After he got up to speed, the wisecracks and face-staring laughter stepped up. Things filled in with color and play gained some buoyancy.

Another time, Jim kicked off the first session of his campaign. Over the past two days, there'd been a scrambling e-mail exchange, trying to iron out last minute schedule changes, resulting in our six-member group (currently) being whittled down to three. Mostly out of nervousness over lack of prep and uncertainty with how to call prep done, Jim played a movie and we chatted. We had a good time doing a Science Mystery Theatre routine and bullshiting politics until pressure led us to the table. Boy, it was painful trying to start; and the non-GM's didn't really know how to help. I plied my analyzer function, probably past usefulness, and wisely shutup.

Then Brad showed up, after all! The mood livened. Input just streamed in. Jim shared his game knowledge in stamping requests, which helped him to loosen the hell up.

(I think, at least for our group, some tension below the surface amounts to (1) whose game's gonna see play and (2) neglect of competing interests souring play. But that's a topic in itself.)

I think Chris is just fun-loving, and it's contagious. Brad is a bridge-friend between me and Jim; otherwise, Jim and I tend to discomfort one another. When things stop working between us, our conversations boil down to: "Hey! You crossed the border!" "Well, where the hell is the border?"

What experiences have others had finding (and losing) the right balance to facilitate play?

[Mike Holmes]

Sounds like you're not doing what Lisa Padol calls Playing on Purpose. That is, it sounds like the idea is to socialize, and if the right people are there, then you get to playing. That is, there's no real committment to playing, just to socializing. Which means that people think it's OK to miss a session.

What the "right" balance is, is an agreement by all the participants that the sessions scheduled for play, are sheduled for play. That is, everyone shows up ready to go with their game faces on. Anyone not ready to committ to that, should reconsider their participation.

Because otherwise, this will happen again and again. And, eventually, the game will die from it, before ever really getting anywhere. At least that's been my experience in similar situations.

Anyhow, it's not like it's a weird thing to ask people to show up ready to play. Bridge groups, for example, have been doing this since time immemorial. They have the advantage that if somebody can't show that often a replacement is acceptable, but there are workarounds for emergencies in RPGs as well. The key is that everyone commit to showing up, on time, and ready to play. Once that happens, then the occasional absent player gets worked out.

So, I could guess all night long about how much particular players might bring in terms of "spark" that can cause a game to go off in a situation where there's no committment. But it's pointless, really, when the overall solution that will allow play to occur regularly, is so simple.

Mike

[Bill Cook]

The standard for commitment you describe is important. It's not my purpose to invite analysis of my group (other than in the manner my anecdotes illustrate similiar occurences in other posters' groups). We're doing fine; this thread just reflects some noodling with forces below the surface.

What I would like to hear about is other people's groups,  having a similiar experience, i.e. certain combinations of members (assuming acceptable levels of commitment, overall) creating a more or less well-balanced atmosphere for play.

[contracycle]

What I would like to hear about is other people's groups,  having a similiar experience, i.e. certain combinations of members (assuming acceptable levels of commitment, overall) creating a more or less well-balanced atmosphere for play.

Yes, I have experienced this very distinctly.  To the point that as a GM I have "favourite players".  Some players will just do more stuff, take more initiative.  And it can well be that the whole group minus that one individual just simply never develops a drive, a certain purpose, to go out and do stuff.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this yet but I definitely recognise the phenomenon you describe.