Question of the Day

Yep, I try to be a fan of the other players and their characters. Often I try to enagage their characters in some exchange to strengthen bonds or just learn a bit more about them. I might have my precious character, but the game is about all of us.

Not unless I have been invited to do so or my character is in a position to overhear. If my character isn't present, then they're just going to have to spend a post explaining to my character what was said or what happened. I play a role. If the character could not have logically known, there's no reason I need to know. In another game, a key NPC who left before I joined made an appearance. My character reacted accordingly, as though they did not know the NPC, because they didn't! I knew, from having read the previous posts, but my character had no idea.

They basically read only the tl;dr mechanical part and skimmed or ignored the rest. It's especially silly considering that most of those games were heavy on the narrative.
We should play something. Because I tend to have a lot of ideas for my characters and most GMs tend to throw them out instead of developing. I have at least one Godbound character and one AD&D2e character who need their stories told.
Usually yes. I track character development and behavior of PCs to gauge if I want to interact with their players more or less in the future. When I already know people at the table personally and trust them, this statement also becomes true for me:

I'd like some advice. Have you ever been in a situation where in a game you ran or played in only one player remained? How have you dealt with it? I'm currently in this position (one ST/GM - me, and the last player) and I'm not sure how to proceed. Don't want to sunset the game, but at the same time struggling a bit to think how to retool for the potential new recruits. All the older material presented for the former players would have to be reintroduced for the newbies (can't really expect them to read through all the old threads) or dropped, and at this point wouldn't it be better to start anew? I realised the mistakes I made and was hoping to course correct the best I could in the future.. but yeah. Thoughts?

There have been times where I ran games for a single player, or was a single player. I've also had a campaign or two bounce back after having just one player remaining (though that was in meatspace, synchronous campaigns).

Now, joining a campaign that has more prior context than one is aware of is also viable. Most recently, there was a C20 campaign on GP where a player joined after the first adventure was over and the second one was about dealling with the fallout of the former, and I think things looked all right until the campaign's cancellation.

I'd in fact ask what the campaign is, with the possibility of applying as a replacement, but I suspect it's either the V20 or the M20 one, and I am no longer the primary target audience for those, so odds of me actually doing that are lower.

I was once that player that remained. In my case, we started a new game, but I kept the same character, backstory, stats, equipment, etc.

For me it would depend on the game. Is it one where perhaps the player can bring in another character (Or two) if it's not able to be played with a single character for balance reasons? 1 on 1 games are viable, and often faster as you are often only waiting for one person, however some may prefer interact with more players.

For bringing in other players you could load you game into NotebookLM or similar and see if it can help you spit out references for new players or be used by them to ask questions (Be aware it obviously can make mistakes/hallucinate so you or the current player may need to double check. It can however help at least with a guideline, or to help quickly double check details - It gives sources so that helps check if its correct.)

Or yes the other option is restarting, that is likely to be discussed with the remaining player, whether it would be boring for them or not. Some games however can be different on a restart so that may matter less.

I think it's definitely a conversation to be had with that player, weigh up the pros and cons. I've never been in the place myself, but been in a game with low players, where we just kept going and the DM added a DMPC.

I think you should check with the remaining player whether they'd be okay with starting anew (if you hadn't already). Personally, it would really drain my motivation, but that's really person-dependent.

And regarding established stuff you need to relay to new players, maybe you can have them enter in a way that would make sense for their characters not to know previous events? If it's worldbuilding, they can be foreigners, if it's party shenanigans, maybe they weren't present for it; then they can gradually learn about it in-character. Also I think you can find players willing to read old stuff if it's a necessity.

Perhaps you can also do a soft reboot if setting allows. Don't disregard the stuff from the game, but move the last remaining character in space/time/position to where old events have a little less weight. New characters don't need to know it, old character still has had it all happen.

Letting the remaining player keep their character as is is a good incentive to let them know you appreciated them playing so long after others dropped out.
Starting a new game is inevitable I think, even if the new game is largely based on whatever you did for the old one. Then invite your loyal player to join, perhaps give them some say in world building. That way they continue to be vested, and together with the new players the game can start afresh.

Thanks for the advice everyone. Unfortunately, as the last player also had to drop out of the game, it has met a peaceful end.

So now that I'm stuck in a decision paralysis hell, trying to choose what next to run, another question. I think that one already popped somewhere before, but it's late and I can't quite recall the thread.. The question: do you prefer the player characters meet for the first time at the beginning of the game or have them already know each other? Which facilitates more interactions?

I think pre-acquainted PCs are both more interesting and more cohesive. If they have some 'entanglements' (like in Hearts of Wulin), all the better - instant interaction/RP/drama fodder.

Note that they don't have to all know each other (for parties of 4+), but having two pre-established connections [outgoing from each participant] in the party seems good, while those not connected can catch up (and act surprised by some bits in the meantime).

I go both ways. I've had groups that came together through the adventure, and groups that started together. I think Vicky has it right: a group that shares a common background is more cohesive. Even just having two characters have a relationship can bring cohesion to an otherwise chaotic mess.

If you can do a session 0 where each PC has connection to at least one other PC would be the best. I love an in media res start which is easier to do if there's already an established connection between the PC.

If not, the first adventure/session should have a good hook to keep the group together.

somehow I came across this post now while I was thinking about a game where the PC’s background would be owning a business (inciting incident being loosing it) 🤔 it’s very very preliminary idea but maybe GP is answering your prayers @FlyingSucculent

Haha, if it is, I sure would like to capitalize on that. :D Klaus has since gotten a brother and some miscellaneous attached NPCs, so he's definitely a more developed character now. (And I'm not *that* attached to him being a gargoyle, if it matters; it's fun, but he can be a human too. And his brother is definitely a vampire somewhat respectable socialite.)