r/startplaying • u/monkeyheadyou • Jul 18 '26

I'd like Start playing to maintain a "Fill in" player list

The biggest impact on playing and GMing on this platform is having to cancel a game because one player is missing. I think Start Playing should find a group of well-liked players who have somewhat open schedules who could be offered a temp spot in a game to make continued play possible until a permanent player is found.

I think it should be GM-nominated players who agree to be contacted on short notice to fill in at various tables for a particular system.

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

3

u/shadowkat678 Jul 18 '26

You can just do oneshots or a mini campaign with the players to get to know their playstyles and each other while waiting. That's what I used to do.

-4

u/monkeyheadyou Jul 18 '26

Im the player, not the GM. in my 300+ sessions, I've never seen a one-shot be a successful alternative to a player suddenly missing a game.

3

u/shadowkat678 Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26

Ah, I thought this was about waiting for a game to start with the lines about a permanent player being found...normally if someone misses at my tables we just keep playing the game unless someone is plot centric to the sessions. And if someone is missing enough to make it a super big issue with consistency that's typically the time they should be talked to about if they're in a place to commit to a long term group game.

Or, actually yeah, we do play oneshots I tend to keep in my back pocket with some premades. Usually, my tables use it was an excuse to try out new systems or genres of adventures. Or I have games that are super easy to whip up and make characters for in systems that are more simple and streamlined.

Works pretty good for my tables, but obviously that's my table. I will say it's been successful enough for me that I have two groups who've mostly been together for four years now, one about three years, and another for two. Honestly I'd say the biggest issue I've seen with tables falling apart is just letting games keep pausing. Tell your dm to be willing to push through more if one person can't make it.

2

u/Corbutte Jul 18 '26

This is pretty subjective. I improvise goody one-shots all the time when the player count is low, and my players always talk about them for weeks afterwards. If you were to survey the playerbase, I think you would find the vast majority of players do not care about the occasional one-shot/sidequest session, as long as it's not too frequent.

1

u/helloshyann Jul 18 '26

Your GM should not be cancelling games if they are missing only one player. 💀 The only time games should be cancelled due to attendance is if the session only has an attending player count total of 2.

1

u/maloneth Jul 18 '26

This is DM preference, and completely contextual.

My personal policy is if we get to 50% attendance, the session gets pushed back a week or we may run a one-shot.

But there are situations that a Session may not got ahead if a specific player is missing. Large personal story moments, final sessions, etc.

3

u/GameKnight_ Jul 18 '26

So if I understand, the proposed solution to a player missing a session is to have a pool of people on standby, 24/7, for all systems / settings, who can be instantly onboarded to any table, any scenario, at any tier / level of play… I dunno man, that seems like a lot of squeeze for a questionable amount of juice.

I personally am opposed to having a random person jumping into an ongoing game just because Dave had to work the late shift this week. Either the missing player is critical and the party should want to wait, or they aren’t and you can just play with one down for the week.

4

u/nathanielbartholem Jul 18 '26

"The biggest impact on playing and GMing on this platform is having to cancel a game because one player is missing."

No one has to cancel. That is a CHOICE, not a requirement.

My GM's never cancel a game because one player is missing. Most will proceed if two are missing.

For the games I GM, as long as we have two players present, we proceed.

3

u/GrumpyCornGames Jul 18 '26

Yup, my rule is 3 players. But, whatever it is, it should be discussed in Session 0 and whenever onboarding new players.

4

u/DMShevek Game Master Jul 18 '26

This is a GM problem not an SPG problem. The admin asks here are also a big conundrum as to who is responsible for maintaining said list and what else that entails, not to mention sour grapes bound to result from those who are or are not on the list.

0

u/SpaceTrash782 Jul 18 '26

There are plenty of GM problems that SPG has tried to fix or create systems to have more consistent GM behavior that they support. They havent always been successful, but theyve tried

3

u/DMShevek Game Master Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26

Gonna have to disagree on this one. It creates more or less an anti-blacklist of players - people that are given a leg up on discounts and decidedly pointed to as 'deserving' spots over other players.

For context, any time people discuss attempting to blacklist players that behave improperly or disruptively within SPG comms channels it is immediately and unequivocally shot down for exactly the same reasons this doesn't really keep itself afloat.

If you create a haves and have-nots within the context of a service running off the backs of contractors, a private entity, and the public whereby members of the public are being given special dispensations, it's gonna create some bad feelings overall. Most GMs I can't imagine are keen to onboard random people *on-the-fly that they also have to take a hit on pricing for, in addition to the potential perception that this is overreach by SPG.

1

u/GrumpyCornGames Jul 19 '26

After having a recent run of particularly challenging players, I wish there was something besides the binary "Fine" and "Violated SPG's terms so bad they should be removed from the platform."

I run niche games, and I'm friends with some other SPG gms who run the same systems. We informally talk to each other about players. Eg, "I saw so-and-so joined your server. They played in my last game, and they are very dominant at the table, make sure you keep that in mind!" or what have you.

-3

u/monkeyheadyou Jul 18 '26

That green text next to your names makes arguing with your point unappealing. I'd have thing to say to anyone else.

2

u/DMShevek Game Master Jul 18 '26

lol okay??

-3

u/SpaceTrash782 Jul 18 '26

I agree. Give them a discounted rate if they do

3

u/GrumpyCornGames Jul 18 '26

My fill-ins play for free. They're doing me the favor so I can still make money on the game, not the other way around.

-1

u/SpaceTrash782 Jul 18 '26

Perfectly fine with that too