The Too-Many Players Problem [A GM Discussion]

I do a lot of forum reading and lurking, as well as I run two games and participate in one. This is just a credential premise Now that is out of the way, I'd like to get right to the point and gather a few opinions on a very important issue: the unbalanced ratio of players to story tellers. It's no secret we, as GMs, have a problem: Start a campaign (something like Pathfinder really fits the bill here), post it on the forums and leave it open for new players for a week. Even with a bad premise you're drawing, on average, 15 to 20 people in to apply. It's hard enough telling 4/5ths of them you're taking in someone else, even harder when you're one of those 4/5ths who has been campaign searching for a month. Hell, just the other day I posted in the LFM looking for a group to play with and that was filled with hitch-hikers in a matter of minutes ("oh, I need a group, too!"). Even worse when two of those six players you've accepted are chronically tardy/truant, or are not group-friendly players. The LFG overhaul was a month ago and I'm still not feeling like it was adequate, which is why I'm posting here. How would you, the other GMs, like to see the player/GM ratio resolved? For myself: I want a way for rookie GMs to jump into Roll20. Give them a set of pre-made maps and a 10 minute tutorial on how to control tokens. Integrate with Roll20 a way to create tokens (much like the one from Maptools). Make it as painless as possible to create maps and worlds and stories with a handful of prebuilts that you don't need to purchase on the marketplace. Dungeons and Dragons did it with adventure paths. This is a totally different beast than that. And, not going to lie, when I started Roll20 I was a bit intimidated by it, especially how the marketplace worked. When I realized it was easier to drag and drop map pieces from my computer to the game and then lay them out my Roll20 experience really shot off like a rocket. As for the bad players/good players filtering, maybe have a wall on profiles where other players can leave feedback towards a specific player? This is a harder one to tackle.

The feedback on players issue has been in discussion for a good while on the mentors forums. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth with various mentors while a dev or mod will chime in also. Take a look down in the suggestion & idea forums to see if there is a thread made down there. If not make one because that is how things get changed around here.

How about a way for GMs to monetize? Either players can pay an entry ticket per game, donate, pay for a season pass, etc. Players then can also rate GMs and give feedback. Monetizing will entice, feedback system will allow filtering

Xeos said: How about a way for GMs to monetize? Either players can pay an entry ticket per game, donate, pay for a season pass, etc. Players then can also rate GMs and give feedback. Monetizing will entice, feedback system will allow filtering Something like that would help me greatly as well. I enjoy running games, but running them constantly takes weeks to plan and put together. Weeks of my free time. It gets tedius after a while.

Xeos said: How about a way for GMs to monetize? Either players can pay an entry ticket per game, donate, pay for a season pass, etc. Players then can also rate GMs and give feedback. Monetizing will entice, feedback system will allow filtering Meh, I would opt out of such a system. What if you get a really bad player who has paid to be in your game? You're stuck with "entertaining" them for however long they've paid for. Conversely, I can see no way to force a GM to actually run games that people have paid to play in. Or maybe they do run the game, but they're a bad GM. Then the players will feel cheated. There's just too many potentially bad outcomes for such a system, I think.

I would opt out also. I run games for enjoyment not for payment. If some type of payment system was to be created, it should be tip style so that after the game if the player(s) liked the game and the gm they could tip him.

Sorry let me elaborate now, earlier my post was cut short as my son was all over me. I was thinking to promote more GMs, there can be the enticement of money for time. Of course this is totally optional, and GMs can still screen applicants, but now you can filter and screen less applicants. You'd be surprise how even a US$0.99 entry point will shorten the list. Furthermore, the money can be used for marketplace assets which in return contributes more cash to Roll20 for development and to live their lives. Players don't really need a subscription, so this avenue is another revenue stream for Roll20. GMs can cashout or use the money enhancing their games. Quality GMs don't come without any investments (time and money). The feedback system was made popular by eBay a decade ago. Just like eBay, you can screen sellers and buyers. So this way, players can screen GMs, and GMs can screen player applications. Overall, I think the players, Roll20, GMs, all benefit.

Waffles said: Hell, just the other day I posted in the LFM looking for a group to play with and that was filled with hitch-hikers in a matter of minutes ("oh, I need a group, too!"). I agree that the LFG forums suffer from hitchhiking and threadcrapping making it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to looking for players. It seems to be the nature of the internet. I'd like the Player Directory to be searchable by time available and have a finer degree of system selection. I don't agree that the Player-to-GM ratio is a problem or that it's likely to change. The biggest thing Roll20 can do to promote GMing is to work on being a stable, mature product and foster a healthy community attached to it. Those who can GM ultimately will and those who can't, won't. +1 to Brett's comments above as well. I think it's an interesting idea to cut GMs a break on costs or provide some other benefit, but can't come up with a way that's not prone to abuse or wind up with a ton of faux GMs.

I will say that players looking for a game should really make an effort to "sell" themselves. Unless you do so, you're likely to get lost in the background noise and end up with no game at all. I recently advertised a campaign and got way more responses than I could possibly accept. My decision to respond or not was based entirely upon what did they tell me in their initial contact. The more details they provided about themselves, the better. It also helps to state what you believe you can bring to the game. Being a noob is not a detractor if you communicate enthusiasm and a willingness to learn. Two of the people I accepted admitted that they'd never played a tabletop RPG in their life. But they'd seen YouTube videos of game sessions and decided they wanted to play for themselves. The excitement they conveyed at the prospect of participating in a Roll20 game was what sealed the deal. Regarding the OPs comments about tardy/truant players: You've just got to be hard about it. Anything less is not being fair to your players who are reliable. I will give second or even third chances to players who fall into this category. But once you sense a pattern emerging, it's time to just cut bait and move on. You do not have to apologize for doing the right thing by your reliable players. They may even already know someone who would be glad to take that newly-empty seat in your game.

Xeos said: I was thinking to promote more GMs, there can be the enticement of money for time. Of course this is totally optional, and GMs can still screen applicants, but now you can filter and screen less applicants. You'd be surprise how even a US$0.99 entry point will shorten the list. I wanted to offer a word of caution with regard to monitisation. I don't doubt a $1 charge would reduce the list of applicants, my question is who didn't apply, were they players that you'd have passed on or players you'd have gladly taken. In my experience players willing to invest a lot of time and energy in a game can be great assets and I suspect many of those players are full time students or unemployed and therefore have a limited income. The other problem is how a charge, even a small charge, can effect perception - we know for example that paying children to read devalues the experience and diminishes the intrinsic motivation to do so. Also, if your players now feel they are paying for a service that could have a substantial impact on your game, for one, what happens if they're dissatisfied.

I agree with you. Cost and value are two different things. Cost shouldn't devalue the experience and make it a service. My idea was simply to find a way to make the GM experience better for current GMs, and for more players to take the role up. At the end of the day, we just want quality experience :)

Xeos said: My idea was simply to find a way to make the GM experience better for current GMs, and for more players to take the role up. At the end of the day, we just want quality experience :) I've spent most of this week, since joining roll 20, messing about converting a game I usually run for conventions. The tools are reasonably good, but I'm having to do a lot from scratch when I am sure many GMs have already created what I am making. I think a way to share, organise, and more effectively search resoures would greatly reduce the work involved to get started for new GMs. Simple things like being able to filter by genre and share assets i'm creating could quickly grow a library of resources. I think a lot of what you were talking about could be as simple as better player profiles and looking for group tools. But ultimately if you're going to spend months planning and running a game, taking half an hour to talk to each of the interested players about what they're looking for and what you want to run, is probably a worthwhile investment in your game =)

This is an age-old question, and will never be answered by any mortal. Your job as a DM is to entertain a crowd of people who have no interest in entertaining you. Take notes and write quests for hours, then see someone wreck your carefully laid plans and laugh about it, as if there's a competition to expose the fantasy world you built for them. Then deal with the destructive player, the distracted player, the joker, the rules lawyer, the trouble maker, then be criticized because you're not good enough.. Of course people don't want to put themselves through that! Every DM deals with at least one of these issues during a campaign. My current party is great, but only because we dealt with issues quickly. Most people looking to have fun are not going to come here, for the time being. That said, I can think of a great and easy way to make the DM count higher: Create a voting system where members can rate other members anonymously, giving them an idea of how (un)appreciated they are. This could consist of several sections, such as role playing, communication and sociability. The higher your rating is, the more likely you are to find DM's. This will boost activity and interaction. And THIS: The Star of Hope said: I am sure many GMs have already created what I am making. I think a way to share, organise, and more effectively search resoures would greatly reduce the work involved to get started for new GMs. Simple things like being able to filter by genre and share assets i'm creating could quickly grow a library of resources.

The more I think about it, the more monitising GM resources and features seems a bad idea. GMs run games and attract players, there are few GMs and many players, the more GMs the more players roll 20 can sustain. So it seems to me that you want to make the life of a GM as easy as possible. I'd think the place to monitise roll 20 is player customisation, to start with there are a lot more players (and I'd guess most GMs are also players) so more customers. I wonder who'd like a selection of subscriber profile designs or dice textures, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a market for player character tokens - people certainly buy physical models for it - and maybe it's even possible to offer comissioned artwork, a starving artist gets some work and roll 20 gets a finders fee. Maybe this means losing some of the current customisation available, avatar pictures, and tokens for players (beyond a generic selection) could all be extras for players that support roll 20.

The problem with recruiting is the time scales. If I post an LFG, I'll pick up 20 players looking to play in a 6-person group, easily. So more than 3/4 of them, I'll likely turn away because I have no way of picking one from another. I can try basic methods like judging by spelling and stuff in their messages, but that's just as unreliable. And then it's another week, at least, until the session, wherein I'll find that probably half are bad players, don't show up, or leave before the session without word. And now that it's been at least a week since I set the LFG and got the replies, how do I go about telling those people "Hey, a spot just opened up, are you still looking for a game?" And then the next week, 2 more people randomly bail, do I STILL go back to those originals, three weeks after they posted, and ask if they're still looking for a campaign? I'd like a blacklist, to be honest. You bail from a campaign or have bad attendance, you should probably be flagged so you don't end up wasting anyone's time again. The Star of Hope said: and maybe it's even possible to offer comissioned artwork, a starving artist gets some work and roll 20 gets a finders fee. Man, I'd be on this in a heartbeat, speaking as said starving artist. Unfortunately, my turnover rate wouldn't be very fast.

The Star of Hope: 1. Yes, love the idea. It will be great if I could buy/share your already made maps of a castle - maybe through the transmogrifier. 2. I think the ability to allow players to customize would be great for everyone (inc. roll20 revenue). If I wanted to play a modern campaign, then I'd tell players to get ready a modern day character.

Many GMs have been bring this issue up a lot more lately and rightfully so. However we need a GM specific forum and a few other things. I'll make a post in the ideas/suggestions section so we can focus our thoughts on the matter.

I dislike an open rating system as really, every roleplayer is different. Some like combat, some like intrigue, some like character interaction, some like puzzles, some like a lot of jokes during their campaigns, some like a more serious approach with some jokes, some can't stand any jokes at all, some like railroading, some like open world, some like moral dilemmas, others more straightforward... Rating GMs or players would always be highly subjective - there was player conflict and I got booted instead of the other one because he was there first? Bad GM! I wasn't a good fit for the campaign or always late? They are totally overreacting, bad GM! The player annoyed me? Bad player! The player constantly made jokes and threw off the rest of the group? Bad player! Well, you get the idea. I would, however, love a personal rating system only visible to yourself so I don't forget about player X just because they have a different name in their account now and accidentally advertise to them or something... That would be awkward. I sort of like the money stuff, mostly because I doubt many players realise that most GMs actually -pay- to entertain them. Its a bit... off. I do realise its just about 5 bucks a month, but still, this could be covered a lot more easily if it was shared by everyone instead of just one person who also has to (arguably) do most of the work. edit: As a side note, I have one open spot in my campaign, didn't even need to post in the forums (did message 2 people though I think) and already have 7 people that are interested and are going to join me for the interview and character building session on Sunday. Within half a day. 7 people. For one spot... *sigh*

Brett E. said: Xeos said: How about a way for GMs to monetize? Either players can pay an entry ticket per game, donate, pay for a season pass, etc. Players then can also rate GMs and give feedback. Monetizing will entice, feedback system will allow filtering Meh, I would opt out of such a system. What if you get a really bad player who has paid to be in your game? You're stuck with "entertaining" them for however long they've paid for. Conversely, I can see no way to force a GM to actually run games that people have paid to play in. Or maybe they do run the game, but they're a bad GM. Then the players will feel cheated. There's just too many potentially bad outcomes for such a system, I think. I agree with all of this, When I look for players for a campaign i DO NOT use the LFG tool, you just get to many randoms. I post on the LFG forums a detailed write up about my campaign, tell them everything they need to know about my setting, whats required to be a player and my irk's. I just lay it all out there. the last to campaigns i've recruited for I had A LOT of interest. and as someone mentioned, I really look for the players who sell themselves. I chat with all my potentials on skype even before the game begins and get to know who I will be GM'ing for, it gives me time to select a replacement if i feel someones just not right for my group. I am very happy to say that out of 18 players that I game with on a weekly basis only 1 of them has let me down and no showed. He was easily replaced. But as far as paying GM's .... he's right there are just to many potentially bad outcomes.

Let's not greedy here folks and think we are owed something or build a sense of entitlement. I understand why that was suggested but as a GM I am also a PLAYER. I play the roll as GM. This is a game and I do it for fun not work. As a trainer at the GM Workshops we are trying to build a strong GM core but with ANY pay to play idea is a bad for us here As far as a rating system goes, well they all can be abused as well as it making it harder for new players to join since they would be up against all of the established ratings plus you can always just make a new account to clear your bad rating and then we are stuck with tons of dead/faults accounts. We personally feel that one of the best ways was mentioned already by Aaron, be very detailed in what you expect of players since every GM has a different style and players have different tastes. And this will be one of the lessons that will be taught at our GM Workshops. Fellow GM support will really do more then a reward system :)

This ratio happens in both virtual and non-virtual. Hard to solve. But why don't we start a DM apprenticeship? Have them sit in on a campaign. Then run one with you over seeing. As we all know most new DMs are afraid to fail, help build they're confidence.

I think it'd be handy if there was something on a player's profile that showed previous screen names they've used, or even a completely unique identifier. That way you could keep your own notes on your players (so-and-so is always late, any game so-and-so plays descends into a comedy game). Since a rating system would be super subjective, keeping your own notes allow you to use your own criteria. If all GMs had a set of notes, then you could ask GMs you know about any players that you're not sure about.

[GM] Keaggan said: Let's not greedy here folks and think we are owed something or build a sense of entitlement. I understand why that was suggested but as a GM I am also a PLAYER. I play the roll as GM. This is a game and I do it for fun not work. As a trainer at the GM Workshops we are trying to build a strong GM core but with ANY pay to play idea. As far as a rating system goes, well they all can be abused as well as it making it harder for new players to join since they would be up against all of the established ratings plus you can always just make a new account to clear your bad rating and then we are stuck with tons of dead/faults accounts. We personally feel that one of the best ways was mentioned already by Aaron, be very detailed in what you expect of players since every GM has a different style and players have different tastes. And this will be one of the lessons that will be taught at our GM Workshops. Fellow GM support will really do more then a reward system :) The problem isn't fellow GM support, it's lack of fellow GMs

Canso said: I think it'd be handy if there was something on a player's profile that showed previous screen names they've used, or even a completely unique identifier. That way you could keep your own notes on your players (so-and-so is always late, any game so-and-so plays descends into a comedy game). Since a rating system would be super subjective, keeping your own notes allow you to use your own criteria. If all GMs had a set of notes, then you could ask GMs you know about any players that you're not sure about. "The Black list" ;-)

Aaron (DM) said: "The Black list" ;-) Any "Black List" of any kind is counter productive since we all have our own styles. I don't like min/maxing and love strong RP. Well not all players fit that nor like that. They aren't bad players just different. Also life comes up so people miss games should they get a neg for that? Things to think about. Waffles said: The problem isn't fellow GM support, it's lack of fellow GMs Fellow GM support will foster more fellow GMs. Creating an environment of encouragement and excitement will draw players that are curious about GMing. If those that try it out and feel overwhelmed and alone quick GMing that means we just lost another one instead of gaining one. Also for everyone we gain they could in turn do the same for the next one and so forth.

Metroknight said: I would opt out also. I run games for enjoyment not for payment. If some type of payment system was to be created, it should be tip style so that after the game if the player(s) liked the game and the gm they could tip him. I think that i will add in at the end of each session a round robin style question to be answered by PM, How did you like tonights game; how Did you think it could have been better, What are 2 things the GM needs to do to help the game. There by receiving Tips:) What would be Cool is if we could have a list of Players with a + or - button next to thier names, or under thier public profile. with a grand total of how many people rate them. which would act like a filter of sorts to weed out the jerks.

Zanthos A. said: This ratio happens in both virtual and non-virtual. Hard to solve. But why don't we start a DM apprenticeship? Have them sit in on a campaign. Then run one with you over seeing. As we all know most new DMs are afraid to fail, help build they're confidence. That is Genius! I love it! rewards for the month *special discount on new tokens in the market place* have the Mentor and apprentice have a shared screen, so GM can fix some small issues, this would be so cool@

[GM] Keaggan said: Aaron (DM) said: "The Black list" ;-) Any "Black List" of any kind is counter productive since we all have our own styles. I don't like min/maxing and love strong RP. Well not all players fit that nor like that. They aren't bad players just different. Also life comes up so people miss games should they get a neg for that? Things to think about. Waffles said: The problem isn't fellow GM support, it's lack of fellow GMs Fellow GM support will foster more fellow GMs. Creating an environment of encouragement and excitement will draw players that are curious about GMing. If the try it out and feel overwhelmed and alone that means we just lost another one instead of gaining one. And inturn that new one will do the same for the next one and so forth. I do not think a black list is counter productive really, but just my opinion. I wouldn't black list someone for enjoying a play style I don't like or agree with such as min/maxing. However I would list someone for repeatedly failing to show up on time or just plain no showing without warning or someone who just enjoys being a complete ass hat and disrupting/ruining games intentionally (I've seen this in one of my apprentices campaigns) it does happen. I can also see how a list would be of absolutely no benefit if you could change your name as well as be abused by less than fair GM's ;-) I am impartial either way about a list. Keaggan is right about fellow GM support fostering more fellow GM's. I have mentored several very new GM's on roll 20, they had no idea where to start and felt more comfortable with someone there to encourage them or even back them up when necessary. Goatrage said: Zanthos A. said: This ratio happens in both virtual and non-virtual. Hard to solve. But why don't we start a DM apprenticeship? Have them sit in on a campaign. Then run one with you over seeing. As we all know most new DMs are afraid to fail, help build they're confidence. That is Genius! I love it! rewards for the month *special discount on new tokens in the market place* have the Mentor and apprentice have a shared screen, so GM can fix some small issues, this would be so cool@ This works wonders, you would be amazed. I have done this 3 times so far and every one of them actually enjoys GM'ing now, I think that's the key, not only feel that you are able to GM but also enjoy the story telling aspect of it :-)

There's a good reason why I usually don't game with people I don't already know, mainly because trying to play pbp games on gitp with gms and players always flaking out shortly after starting got frustrating. Also, it's "to" many not "too" many players ;)

You beat me to the "to" vs "too" thing lol. This is a GM discussion on the GM to player ratio and how to grow the number of GMs is a very valid solution to this challenge we face. One thing we are doing can be found here: <a href="https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/9618/gm-academy" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/9618/gm-academy</a> . We are building a GM group where we can support each other in a more focused environment. It's in the early stages but threads like this show that we all are looking for ways to improve and grow the GM community. GMSoftin said: "After GMing over 200+ games IRL and online, I can tell you I still prefer to be a player and it's really no contest." That's because we all want to feel cool and do awesome stuff. I LOVE being a player, but we still enjoying GMing..right Mr 200+ ;)

LOL Nice Softin! Is it weird that I liked those vids? 0_0 Well until Vin Diesel returns my calls to be the face of GMing I'm stuck with my ugly mug and GM Academy group we started :)

GMSoftin said: So, GMs should get smart and convince players to become GMs under the guise of teaching them. In reality we GMs secretly want to play a character in that game because being a player is great :p I myself DM a couple of games on roll20 and know exactly what you guys mean. If i post anything looking for a player it gets flooded quite easily, but if i try find a game myself it takes quite a bit more work. I found it easy to get into, but DM'ing takes a lot out of you. Coming up with a story, preparing encounters, tokens, monsters, coming up with multiple tangents, cat herding a bunch of players, writing session notes, etc etc. Due to the high demand of DM's you can use this though. Personally for instance i set up a rotating schedule for my players for them to write session notes, it takes some of the work off my hands. I dont think i would really like a rating system though. As a DM it is very easy to find new players, so if you dont like someone just talk to them and if it comes to it you can fairly easily replace them. As a player if you dont like your DM, just get up and leave. I have been searching for a game to join myself as a player for a while and i struggled with it quite a bit. After quite some time trying on the LFG section of the forum etc i just said to myself sod it. I found a group of five people, threw them in a group and started posting. Five players need DM, you set the time. All cat herding will be done by me. You would be surprised how many people sent me a PM saying they had been wanting to DM but were intimidated by organising everything themselves. Heres a snippet of one of the PM's i received. This was after i told him i already found a DM. Thanks for the quick reply, I hope your campaign fares well! I probably won't be attempting to put together a campaign of my own accord; I don't have time to manage a group of people I don't know AND spend enough time making a good campaign. This is the first time I've responded to a LFG on here; the prospect of having a group of people that are already familiar with one another (i.e. already works well together) and not having to manage a bunch of people were the only reasons I'd consider it. Edit: Something else i think would greatly help new DM's is the ability to copy/paste maps between campaigns. For instance i myself made a very elaborate map (that im quite proud of) with tons of moving parts, hidden layers etc etc. Its definately just not a simple background image. Now if i want to get that map into a different campaign so i can run another group through it as well i run into a snag: there is no way to copy paste or export the map to a different campaign as far as i can tell. This functionality would help new DM's (or GM's) a whole bunch as well. Go on the forum, find a nice premade map with encounters etc already on it and just import it. This way you could get a community stockpile of awesome maps encounters etc that you could easily draw from.

Something else i think would greatly help new DM's is the ability to copy/paste maps between campaigns. For instance i myself made a very elaborate map (that im quite proud of) with tons of moving parts, hidden layers etc etc. Its definately just not a simple background image. Now if i want to get that map into a different campaign so i can run another group through it as well i run into a snag: there is no way to copy paste or export the map to a different campaign as far as i can tell. This functionality would help new DM's (or GM's) a whole bunch as well. Go on the forum, find a nice premade map with encounters etc already on it and just import it. This way you could get a community stockpile of awesome maps encounters etc that you could easily draw from. The functionality you're looking for is available to Mentors, through the Transmogrifier tool: <a href="https://wiki.roll20.net/Transmogrifier" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.roll20.net/Transmogrifier</a>

Fellow GM support will foster more fellow GMs. -- [GM] Keaggan ^ This! Long time table topper, rookie Roll20er. I've been forced into a GM role over and over in the past IRL and was hoping to make my experience here that of a player. It looks like I will be doing that, but based on my experiences, I'm also preparing just in case I have to run a campaign if I want to have fun. Many have had opinions on the ratings or blacklist system. Nobody here seems to account for what is actually rather common out there: The truly awful rookie GM. I'll use the latest group I left as an example. -First time ever running a campaign, in a world he had almost no knowledge of. -Had his girlfriend as the "first & most important" player. Tailored all loot tables and rp scenarios to suit her desires. (seriously, third day adventuring finds loot that a character bordering on retirement would be ecstatic to find. The rest of the group is still using initial equip.) -Did not prepare. -Any activity that varied from the written script in the adventure he was trying to run was immediately shut down or ignored. Sadly, in the GM shortage situation everyone admits, these untrained Rookie GM's are becoming more and more common. (I found three before finding what appears to be a decent one. I'll let you know how it goes.) The GM mentoring & development program sounds excellent. I think properly executed this is the answer to many of the challenges here on Roll20. The problem I see is that experienced GM's have no way currently to incorporate a rookie GM into their existing games, or reliably find one (try finding a rookie GM in that laundry list of applicants to join your new campaign. Let me know how that goes for you...) So I believe finding a way to make that GM to GM connection more reliable **and not requiring payment** is probably the best solution. Great GM's develop good players. Great players become good GM's. Part of it is talent and experiences, but that x factor is drive, passion for the job -- the best GM's still have theirs, and encourage it in their players. So there's my suggestion: Some way for wannabe GM's to find and learn from a Mentor (sic or sooc, both apply). The execution of such a strategy I am not clear on, but with a way to reliably raise decent players with GM interest to being a decent GM, the imbalance would eventually right itself. This is what we need from our dev team. Not prettier maps, tokens and lighting -- Don't get me wrong those are great. But in something that is so obviously community driven, there is a startling lack of... well community. It's like worrying about a new spoiler for a car with engine problems. IRL the best games we ever played didn't need any physical representations. The players and GM acted out the characters, and maybe had a sketch indicating the characters appearance. It was captivating without getting caught up in the lure of miniatures and maps -- which also gave the GM more freedom to be creative. Again, I'm not hating on the tools given here, they are awesome and I intend to use them. But setting up a system to encourage and assist mentors in building the community a little better would be the biggest factor in driving dedicated membership.

GMSoftin said: [GM] Keaggan said: That's because we all want to feel cool and do awesome stuff. I LOVE being a player, but we still enjoying GMing..right Mr 200+ ;) So, GMs should get smart and convince players to become GMs under the guise of teaching them. In reality we GMs secretly want to play a character in that game because being a player is great :p Why isnt your account name Player Soften? Sorry couldn't resist ;P I would rather not be a player, and enjoy every aspect of being a GM. I am not saying that its not good to take a break from Gm'ing once in a while I find true enjoyment from running a game.

IRL the best games we ever played didn't need any physical representations. The players and GM acted out the characters, and maybe had a sketch indicating the characters appearance. It was captivating without getting caught up in the lure of miniatures and maps -- which also gave the GM more freedom to be creative. Again, I'm not hating on the tools given here, they are awesome and I intend to use them. But setting up a system to encourage and assist mentors in building the community a little better would be the biggest factor in driving dedicated membership. - Shaemus You sir, are spot on and nothing I could post will state or sum up the "engine-problem" that you have so aptly named already. Here is to hoping that the powers that be ..will LISTEN.

I've largely given up on roll20 for reasons related to this post. As a GM, its very hard to find players that fit with the kind of game I want to run. As a player, its nigh impossible to find a game that matches my interests. And these are problems. Just having, say, a Pathfinder game is not enough information. Will it be a hack and slash? Will the game spend all of its time in social situations? How punctual and reliable are people? I have spent hours waiting for other players and the gm to be ready. Because of the frequent coming and going of players, either me (as the GM) or the GM of the game I'm in have to bring new players up to speed, have them get used to their characters, and sort out technical difficulties (usually Skype, but occasionally roll20 issues). And there's the tardiness, the distractions. I do not think roll20 has the tools to match players with gm's in a way that works for both. And relying on forums alone does not seem to work overly well. I can say I'm punctual and focused, but how does that line up with the experiences of those that play with me? There's something missing here, and its that gap that's left me disappointed and sent me back to a physical table and dice.

Goatrage said: Zanthos A. said: This ratio happens in both virtual and non-virtual. Hard to solve. But why don't we start a DM apprenticeship? Have them sit in on a campaign. Then run one with you over seeing. As we all know most new DMs are afraid to fail, help build they're confidence. That is Genius! I love it! rewards for the month *special discount on new tokens in the market place* have the Mentor and apprentice have a shared screen, so GM can fix some small issues, this would be so cool@ Sorry friend, I'm no genius as this idea has and still is used through out many professions. What it will do is breed more diverse GMs as we each have our own styles and our apprentices will take our styles and create they're own and so on and so forth. I've been streaming my roll20 games and archiving half my games on youtube for my players and other GMs or PCs to reference from. <a href="http://www.twitch.tv/zanthosazure" rel="nofollow">http://www.twitch.tv/zanthosazure</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/bloodysoldier" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/user/bloodysoldier</a>

There was so much to catch up on, but skimmed around after reading the original post. Personally, I figured out a way to cut down the number of players applying to join. I use a method that usually removes half of the players who just write, "I want to join. I have x and y experience." Communication is the key to being a good GM from my experience. Adaptation is the second friend as a GM. Preparations can be destroyed by a player in a single round, adapt to the new situation. I was in a tabletop game yesterday where not a single piece or drawing was used, but I could see the places the DM described. The players fought in a small room, but I could see all actions described by the players. (When my paladin was trapped in a dark temple, I felt trapped.) Knowing how to use the tools is fine, but imagination and storytelling is better. There will always be more players than GMs. Anything to help someone become a better GM is fine, so long as it isn't imposing personal preference over some basic storytelling, communication, and adaptation skills.

As someone who is a DM waay more often than a player I have noticed something that got said a few times that I am confused about. Why is it that people seem to think that because you are a DM you are entertaining others while drawing no entertainment yourself? Now maybe I read the posts wrong and if so then I apologize, however it seems some people seem to think that as a DM you can't have fun. Honestly I have a blast running every game I do (4 weekly currently) so to think of not having fun as a DM/GM is crazy to me. I am also a person that enjoys being a DM more than a player but don't get me wrong, every now and again I love donning my players hat. Now I have seen a lot of stuff talking about getting DM/GM's to share info and that is of course the best way to get it out there. There have been several threads started in the Off Topic section for that purpose but of course the more info we get out there the easier it will be for other people to be a DM. I also really liked the idea of setting up a "tip system" for players to tip their DM for doing a good job. I would think it would be awesome if the tips got transferred to "Roll20 dollars" or some form of currency that only applies to roll20. That way the DM could get new tokens or tiles or even help pay for the DM's subscription. doing so would only benefit everyone involved. But that is just my two cents.

I'm really enjoying reading the tips and tricks, as well as the ideas floated around to better yourself as a GM, and better the community with more GMs.

While I tried to wade through the many posts already here, alas I am fresh off work and need some rest before running my session for the evening so I will only respond to the "tip system" and GM:Player commentswith my opinion. As a DM/GM, I honestly would likely have never tried a subscription if not for one of my players apparently loving the sessions they were in so much that they donated directly to my account, which pushed me to rethink my maps and such as now I could make use of the lighting and such that I was, in honesty, nervous to try(still a little iffy on "how far can they see" side of things). So that said, there is already said system in place, just a matter of if players use it or not. The GM:Player side of things is bad. You cannot deny it. If set in an artistic view of some fantasy world battle, the GMs would be a small band with all the armies of the world descending upon them, most of us ok with this, looking to snipe out prime targets. At the end of every session, though, I make it clear that the world needs more people on the other side of the play-table, and that if anyone is even mildly interested I offer my resources, after all, I started as a player myself.

MadMichaelofMetal said: Personally, I figured out a way to cut down the number of players applying to join. I use a method that usually removes half of the players who just write, "I want to join. I have x and y experience." What method do you use, out of curiousity?

I want to update this quick. I've since put a restriction on my campaigns that all new members must be AT LEAST supporter status, and I've since received 10 new applications from players to fit three play spots. On top of that, the three members I have in my campaign, none of them supporters (I grandfathered them into the supporter rule), two of them are getting supporter status as well. With that being said, what is the feasibility, according to you the other GMs, of tagging an option on your LFG postings as "supporter only" so that supporters are allowed to see the listing, and the general population is not?

In Reply to Waffles question: Waffles said: With that being said, what is the feasibility, according to you the other GMs, of tagging an option on your LFG postings as "supporter only" so that supporters are allowed to see the listing, and the general population is not? It has the same feasibility as other people requesting experienced players, players experienced in X system, X gender players, etc. being allowed to see. In other words, I don't think that would be in the top of the list to be worked on and added to the filtering of the search. I would just recommend you putting it in your descriptive post and in the campaign description of who you are wanting to build a group with then just select only those that fit your requirements.

Metroknight said: In Reply to Waffles question: Waffles said: With that being said, what is the feasibility, according to you the other GMs, of tagging an option on your LFG postings as "supporter only" so that supporters are allowed to see the listing, and the general population is not? It has the same feasibility as other people requesting experienced players, players experienced in X system, X gender players, etc. being allowed to see. In other words, I don't think that would be in the top of the list to be worked on and added to the filtering of the search. I would just recommend you putting it in your descriptive post and in the campaign description of who you are wanting to build a group with then just select only those that fit your requirements. Do you think an option filtering like this would encourage more people to become supporters so they can see supporter-only games?