Reflections on scheduling - Part 1
"Father Time" (Unknown Year), Unknown Artist, Public domain.
I recently had a very interesting conversation with my offline group about expectations, scheduling, and the role of a Game Master from a logistics standpoint. I thought it might be worth exploring this in a blog post because, honestly, I feel like the games we play tend to shape how we act socially - at least at the table.
There probably isn't much value in discussing the specific context (which does involve my own history of inconsistent scheduling) but the expectations themselves and how my players perceive the responsibilities of a GM are well worth dissecting. The only context you need is this: I delayed opening the "when and where do we play" conversation by roughly 24 hours simply because I was busy with matters unrelated to roleplaying.
How do they see the GM?
I’ve translated their statements from our native language, but I’ve tried to keep the nuances intact so nothing is lost.
Keep in mind that these are primarily D&D 5e players. While they’ve tried other games for one-shots, those likely haven't influenced their "table cognition" as much as playing two 5e campaigns with over 100 sessions across four years did.
The GM as a Coordinator
"The expectation is that the person in the DM role, who is the foundation, should coordinate the outings."
We were discussing my belief that the group should take a more proactive stance. I feel players should reach out to inquire about scheduling when, for whatever reason, the GM misses the usual mid-week window to plan weekend sessions.
Generally, I believe "trad" games like Dungeons & Dragons (especially recent editions) have a tendency to turn the GM into a social hub. This surfaces in other quotes too, but the underlying belief seems to be that nothing can happen in the GM’s absence. If the GM says nothing, the players assume there is no session.
Why do I link this to a "trad" or simulationist mindset? Because in that tradition, players often look to the GM as the sole authority or the showrunner of the entire campaign. They are playing through a world the GM built, so the idea that the GM is "simply another person at the table" isn't as popular. The expectation here is: "I show up and play my character, while the GM handles everything else." The players are responsible for engagement, and the GM is responsible for everything else - including logistics.
The GM as an Owner
"You're asking if we're playing because we can't play without you, whereas you can run the story in the background without us if you want. You have the notebook that we can't write in."
Ironically, a "living world" is exactly what most GMs want to achieve: a world that exists beyond the involvement of the player characters. However, I think this overlooks the social side of the hobby. If I were to "run the story" without the players, I’d just be solo roleplaying or journaling.
I want the players there because I don’t know what the full story is yet. I want to see the story emerge at the table and "play to find out" as much as the next person. From my perspective, that’s closer to shared ownership. Those story beats cannot exist in a vacuum.
"Nobody is forcing you to treat this like a second job. It’s just that you’re the owner, whether you like it or not."
I mentioned that being expected to handle everything feels like a second job. If I am the one responsible for everyone having fun, that's a lot of mental load to handle. The reply above reinforces the GM as an "owner" of the world, the story, the mechanics, and by extension, the project management.
I tried to lean into this by calling for a modus operandi, but I don't think I effectively communicated why set rules improve communication. One mantra I try to live by is: "If you don't know, ask." I expect others to extend that courtesy to me by asking if we’re still playing, even if I forget to bring it up.
The GM as a Service Provider
"If you aren't offering me a ride, I’m not going to beg for one."
This one is tricky. While "services" weren't explicitly mentioned, the implication is there. If the GM is seen as a provider (like someone with a car) and players refuse to "beg" (likely meaning "ask" or "request"), scheduling ends up in limbo.
Scheduling involves at least two participants. If no one reaches out, things are left unsaid. If I’m unsure if a restaurant is open, I don't just assume I won't eat... I call and ask! I prefer a proactive approach to scheduling over a passive one that risks losing a session entirely.
What about other traditions?
In systems like Forged in the Dark, FATE or Powered by the Apocalypse, the "notebook" my player mentioned is often open for everyone to write in, which creates a unique mindset compared to traditionalist ones.
That said, I’ll go into more detail about how I think other gaming traditions influence logistics in Part 2, mainly to avoid creating an impossible wall of text. It’s already getting lengthy, and I don't want to bore anyone.
Still - roll me a CON save, maybe?