Even during the discussion pertaining towards Tony I said I thought another player could be usefull. Though I didn't think Tony fit that role, I don't know him, but in the previous campaign he showed up for what 1 or 2 games? Then the game he came to he left at like 8. I don't have anything against him, its just the little I've known him he has flaked out. But I thought the game needed one more at least semi dependable player.
As for the almost canceled thing, its come up several times and thus my reasoning during the Tony discussion.
Plus with our group dynamic there are times when 3 of our members will go off an do their own thing. Nothing wrong with that mind you, but when that happens there is a large chance of game canceled early or altogether.
Rich/Myself/and Mike make almost every game.
Stacey is about 50/50
Sam makes 75% of em
Josh I don't know if he's even made 50% of the last 3 or 4 months.(Damn the new Social you)
Brent and Justin both make it about the same but both seem to go on stretches that last several weeks of missing the game.
Jared makes it just a little bit more than Lee.
I think its funny that Sam (he's what 9?) is more dependable in the game than about 60 or 70% of the table.
Now this isn't meant to be an attack against anyone, there definately is more things to life to DND; its just how it is. In a perfect world we'ld have 6 players who simply make it 100% of the time. But thats not what we get to work with.
Sure having more players who could potentially show up can make for some large groups when the stars allign but that seems to be rather rare. As for the battles with larger groups when we do get them I think we could do them much faster by simply playing smarter. Burn down targets rather than everyone fighting their own little battles. And especially the two encounters last session alot of the length of those was the environment. (spend 2 rounds climbing here. spend a round or 2 stunned there. Spend a round waiting for guy to come out of tunnel….)