There are a great number of beliefs that I have harboured over the years as a roleplayer which have, in hindsight, proven false. I’ve realised that I might have discovered another unchallenged assumption and I thought I’d air it for comment.

The belief is this: “At the start of a new campaign, you need to have all the players present.”

The basic idea is that when we start a new game, it’s good practice to gather all the players so that you can get off to a good start and create a suitable opening “bang”. While we might accept that life happens and it’s ok to miss the odd session, it’s never a good idea to start with less than the full house.

Faced with the situation of having session one in Balazar scheduled for this Saturday, which is Father’s Day and consequently means that two of four players can’t be present, I was on the brink of postponing the game. Surely, that would be the right thing to do?

For me, missing the next session always has a far bigger impact on my enthusiasm for the game than I often give credit. In fact, missing one session has led to me bailing on more campaigns than I can remember. Breaking the routine is generally fatal.

Thinking about starting with two of the four players has me re-evaluating the idea that you need a full house to begin. It’s patently obvious that you can play an RPG session with any number of players you feel comfortable with. The issue is whether the first session has to meet a predetermined set of expectations.

Perhaps it’s better to stick to the schedule and adapt to the players in the room. Are we short of the ideal quorum? Well, when was any game session ever (truly) ideal? Isn’t this really just another manifestation of the Resistance trying to persuade me to take myself off the hook?

The agile GM shifts the game to meet the needs of the group. Two players have committed and it’s on me (as GM) to be committed too. Why should we postpone when we could easily have a good time with half the group in play?

It’s not about “game balance” because I don’t play with that assumption anyway – balance is an illusion with roleplaying games. It’s not about “My Little Adventure” either because I don’t play with a rigid expectation about where the game will go.

What it is about is the question of whether I am willing to flex, adapt, shift, and present something in spite of the times when several players can’t be present. Am I GM enough to do that? Am I GM enough to do it even at the first session? Let’s find out.

Game on!