Roll20 uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. Cookies enable you to enjoy certain features, social sharing functionality, and tailor message and display ads to your interests on our site and others. They also help us understand how our site is being used. By continuing to use our site, you consent to our use of cookies. Update your cookie preferences .
×
This post has been closed. You can still view previous posts, but you can't post any new replies.

Tabletop driving me insane.

I have been DMing pathfinder & SWN campaigns for quite a while and can't get over people just up and leaving for no reason. Just this week I have had 5-6 people leave without giving a reason why and being complete jerks to everyone in the group. I also want to play but it seems like it is impossible to get into games. I spend half an hour or more everyday trying to find a game and it is all for naught, I was just wondering how other people overcome these qualms.
1423202729

Edited 1423202747
Lithl
Pro
Sheet Author
API Scripter
How much effort do you put into vetting your players before beginning the campaign? Making sure the game you want to run is the same game that they want to play is important for keeping people around. (And I'm not just talking about the game system!)
I extensively talk to players before and during the campaign. I always ask for feedback and how they are liking it. It seems like a lack of commitment rather than unhapiness with the game, with the majority at elast.
1423212911
Gold
Forum Champion
That may be the case. Regarding lack of commitment / lack of dependability / irregularity of attendance... which I think is a natural symptom of playing online with others, for many reasons... I feel like the best advice I give myself is: Be patient. Be tolerant. Be flexible. Be responsive & communicative. Set up your game & your imagination & your GM'ing & your Player Roster & your game scheduling announcements, in such a way that "the show must go on" and the game is played so long as Minimum One Player shows up. Additional players are invited, desired, expected, but not required to attend. Low pressure but high communication. You'll keep the game going & adjust it to fit 1 player, 2 players, 6 players, 8 players, up to your limit. You ask players to tell you in-advance (RSVP) if they are planning to attend, but if they can't tell you, or if they need to depart suddenly, "It's ok, you can rejoin us next time, watch for the next game time announcement." Your door is open. It's come & go. If you can set your game up with this amount of flexibility, it helps with the non-dependability and fluctuations in attendance, somewhat. Unfortunately it has drawbacks for story continuity and team-building, so it's a tradeoff. I view it as a strategy for GM'ing online.
1423223581
Gen Kitty
Forum Champion
The two longterm games I am in (one run, one playing) came from outside Roll20 and moved here a year ago, and are formed from groups of people who were friends with the GM before ever sitting down at the gaming table. I've noticed the churn in games I play formed via LFG and I believe this is because it is easier to be rude to people who aren't of your 'tribe', easy to treat online strangers as unimportant and at a root level as unreal and unworthy of respect and consideration. So how do you combat that for roll20 games? Get people invested in the game. Make friends with your players & GM. Extend people the same courtesy and professionalism you wish to receive. (My favorite LFG-formed group, the GM gives extra Inspiration (5e game) for posting in-character journal entries/letters/whathaveyou between sessions, via the game forum. The one act has resulted in everyone expanding their backstories and eagerly looking forward to seeing what the others post, and people feel more connected to the game.) This isn't easy to do. In all honesty, I doubt I'll ever run a game for total strangers. Then again, I have enough material to keep my own game running for the next 4-5 years, and who knows how I'll feel when it's time to start the next campaign? I wish you luck.
The overwhelming majority of people you meet on the internet are ephemeral, it takes time and careful vetting to get a core group, I run two games here at this time one is a group that started 20 years ago and was imported to Roll 20, the other started here. I have had about thirty players pass through the second group in a year and now have a consistent group who attend almost all sessions and inform me when they will not be there. You also need to have a revolving spot for the "Crazy Guy/Gal" in your group. They will arrive full of enthusiasm and seem quite normal, then the fun starts, something like "I have decided that Barbarian Bob is now Barbara" or "My faith does not allow me to do that, even though I have done it six times today, I have just had an epiphany" to even "The voices in my head say I should kill our cleric!"
Taylor M. said: I have been DMing pathfinder & SWN campaigns for quite a while and can't get over people just up and leaving for no reason. Just this week I have had 5-6 people leave without giving a reason why and being complete jerks to everyone in the group. I also want to play but it seems like it is impossible to get into games. I spend half an hour or more everyday trying to find a game and it is all for naught, I was just wondering how other people overcome these qualms. Vetting is the most important step. In the early stages (which could last a few weeks or months!) It'll be most turbulent, as you find those you can and can't mesh with. You'll need to make executive decisions as to whom you can get along with and fit your style of GMing as every GM, including myself has a certain style. During the interview process (i usually first filter through applicants, then I select those who have a good shot at an interview) I ask questions as to their role-play style, what they expect from the game etc. The questions vary, but near the end I give an opportunity for them to ask me questions as to my GMing style and other things important to them to ensure there's a mutual understanding to the game being played. There will be suck-ups and brown nosers, so be on the look out for those who try to weasel through. When in doubt, arrange a follow up interview. Also if you're recruiting for a long term game, put it up on the LFG a few weeks in advance so you have time to do these interviews. I usually do them on skype so I can also see if there's any strange mic issues I may need to deal with, also people tend to be instinctive in their response when asked on the spot as opposed to having time to type it out.
Nothing kills my motivation like flakes and people with crazy schedules. As people have said, vetting is very important. Though I haven't run a campaign on Roll20 yet, I put up a new rule in my last campaign saying "Flakes and people with crazy schedules need not apply." I don't care about my players' jobs, significant others, children and any other concerns they have no matter how important they are. It's blunt, mean, and maybe a bit sociopathic, but it's the only way I can get the players who are willing to make the game a priority. I put in a lot of work to try to make a good campaign, but I'm not going to do tons of extra work because half of my players are being pulled away for the umpteenth million time by a whiny spouse or an over-demanding boss. All I ask from my players is to do the prioritization BEFORE they volunteer themselves. If they aren't able or willing to make regular attendance a priority, then they say "Sorry, I just can't do it". This is an answer I like and accept. P.S.: I hold myself to the same standard of consideration for everyone as a player.
I created the Adventurer's Hall specifically because of this. I've had too many players just up and quit or show up every other week. What makes this even worse are those who offer no explanation, I can't see how a simple "I'm dropping out" or "I can't make the game this week" is such an inconvenience. The Adventurer's Hall was created to allow players who have commitment problems to play in games when they feel like it. So far this idea is mediocre at best, not because of the idea but because I simply cannot run enough games to satisfy the more than 50 players who are members. I'm hoping that some of the Members will take up the reigns and try running a few adventures. If there are any DMs out there who would like to join the Hall and run a few One Session it would be most appreciated. Contact Ajax for more details.
1424119020

Edited 1424119056
Pat S.
Forum Champion
Sheet Author
We (meaning the text community) created something similar also for text based games. There is almost 200 members but only a handful or two of GM's to run games. I haven't heard any flake complaints in that hub group yet but since it is a niche group in a niche hobby, word would spread rather fast about players like that.
1424124809
The Aaron
Pro
API Scripter
Ajax said: The Adventurer's Hall was created to allow players who have commitment problems to play in games when they feel like it. I listened to a podcast a while back that referred to this kind of setup as the " Justice League " campaign style. =D
My game follows an "open table" rule for the most part, We play Friday and Saturday and some people are committed to one night or the other, some are two night people and some drift in when they can make it. I try to end sessions at a neutral territory to allow for this. In some instances I need to "hand wave" the party make up. This is the internet and even after several months many of the players are still strangers. You need to make your game a performance that is about you and the players who are involved in the game, the people hanging at the back of the "room" are not your audience. You may be able to make them your audience, but if they wander off just say "good riddance" and hit the LFP tab...
1424146321
Paul S.
Sheet Author
API Scripter
After all this time, I've learned to expect and tolerate that people will drop out (for various reasons or none). I've also learned to expect and tolerate interesting personalities. By tolerate, I mean kick and forget. I don't let it get me down. I'm not mean about. I always let the person know that they've been dropped and I wish them luck in finding a new campaign. So many players out there looking for a group. I know eventually I'll find a good one. Makes for interesting dynamics at times. Definitely not an open table policy though. That invites too many of the aforementioned interesting personalities.
I've never tried an open table approach, and I probably never will. I much prefer a small, reliable group of players. It's not easy to form such a group from complete strangers, but it's possible if you put enough effort into it. When I started my currently-active campaign, I did not advertise in the LFG forum. Instead, I simply made the campaign visible to those looking for a game to join. I also put in the campaign description rather detailed instructions on how to apply. Anyone who did not follow the instructions, I did not even consider. I believe this process alone will weed out the great majority of the flakes. Of the applicant pool still remaining, I carefully read what each had to say in their message to me. You can get a very good feel for their potential as a player this way. Next, I did a little homework. I reviewed each applicant's Roll20 profile and also searched the Roll20 Forums for messages they had posted. Again, this gives you a very good idea of how compatible each person might be for the type of game you intend to run. In the end, I selected 3 applicants to join my new campaign. That was in February of 2014 and as of now, 1 year later, all 3 are still actively playing. They're very reliable, a lot of fun to game with, and I consider them all to be friends. I truly look forward to our weekly games and getting to spend a few hours hosting my campaign for them.
Brett E. said: Anyone who did not follow the instructions, I did not even consider. I believe this process alone will weed out the great majority of the flakes. QFT
1424172337
Ziechael
Forum Champion
Sheet Author
API Scripter
I have to say if i was ever faced with this kind of dilemma i would take Brett's approach . Seems a very thorough way to ensure players who will fit with the campaign... and more importantly YOU as a GM! However, i cheated... having grown up playing TT D&D with my family (cousins and a dedicated uncle primarily) and then not playing (other than computer game versions) for many years I decided to recreate my youth by inviting the old gang back together and then systematically attempting to kill their beloved characters. Just like the olden days when it was my character getting slaughtered :) Net result, no drop outs (i know where they live...) and compatible players (even if the dedicated uncle has gone insane in his dotage... but playing a barbarian dwarf so it fits!).
1424182710

Edited 1424182783
Vetting players is important, but if you spend to much time on it then it just makes it hurt that much more knowing you wasted an hour talking to someone that week and they still didn't show up to the game. What I've found works best for me is a 15-20 minute skype call to talk about the game a little. I don't really ask specific questions to try and gleam deeper insight into the potential player as I've found people will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to get in. Other than that just go with your gut and see how they do in their first session. My brother likes to harp on people who send him short little "I'd like to join" messages on the LFG widget, but I can understand where those people are coming from. There's a lot of games on the LFG that are not actively looking for players, but leave the LFG open anyway and don't respond to people. Normally responding to the obviously-copy-pasted messages garners a better response since that player knows they aren't going to put effort into one of those games that shouldn't really be on the LFG. Anyway, there is no secret sauce to finding a stable group of players. I cheat and use my brother as a ringer so I know I can depend on at least one player to show up and engage the other characters. Then I found another player who has been in my games for almost 2 years now. Sometimes you get a bad apple, but there's not much you can do about it. Just don't let it get you down and keep on trucking.
1424191020

Edited 1424191366
Justin said: Vetting players is important, but if you spend to much time on it then it just makes it hurt that much more knowing you wasted an hour talking to someone that week and they still didn't show up to the game. What I've found works best for me is a 15-20 minute skype call to talk about the game a little. I don't really ask specific questions to try and gleam deeper insight into the potential player as I've found people will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to get in. Other than that just go with your gut and see how they do in their first session. I generally ask a a few odd ball questions, and my BS radar is always on pretty high alert so I can easily sniff out who's brown nosing. For my more serious games, I have a series of interviews with a 1v1 role-play sample tape. Usually those who aren't serious can't even role-play so that's usually the deal closer. I don't interview everyone either, if they don't put effort into their application, I'm not going to put an effort into them. It's simple really. Time is effort, and if someone really put effort into their written application, I'll give them a fair shake when we arrange an interview. Also, don't be afraid to use the axe, to keep the game fluid and the drama low. Make a decision, and move on. Some people simply don't mix; you'll save yourself the headache and the passive-aggressive drama. For a long term game, this will be the 'turbulent' early period, but you'll eventually find your diamonds. This is more an issue if you don't have strict interview requirements, if you do, this player's usually pretty chill, and there's some rapport since you've had more than 1 chat with them personally in the interview rounds process. I do have a casual game that I assembled before I had such strict requirements and it's really a mosh-pot, and generally worse compared to my more structured games.
What I would be interested in seeing is some type of feedback or ranking system, almost like a seller on EBay or Amazon. This could be for both players and DMs and would really help in identifying people who have a pattern of being flaky or disruptive. One incident where you don't jive with a group or you had an unexpected, reoccurring conflcit arise is not a pattern. Being booted out of multiple campaigns, getting negative player and DM remarks across multiple sessions/groups and being a "repeat offender" of dropping from groups are all good predictors of "this person may not be good addition." I think this has the obvious risk of being open to abuse and it could also work against newer players who don't have any reputation, good or bad, but who some DMs might not want to "gamble" on. Still, I think the idea itself is a good one and can help even be a wake up call to players who see the meaning of the saying "if you run into a jerk in the morning, you ran into a jerk. If you run into jerks all day, YOU'RE the jerk."
I think a simple up/down voting system, and a drop out/flak tally that award special achievements (x amount of upvotes for GMing, Pro GM badge? or x amount of drop outs gets an Invisible badge). Keeps things light-hearted and less open to abuse, but also provides a simple screening option. =P
1424495236

Edited 1424495415
Fast Jimmy said: What I would be interested in seeing is some type of feedback or ranking system, almost like a seller on EBay or Amazon. This has been suggested multiple times before. The end result was that no, actually this doesn't work at all. Players and GMs who don't get along are going to down vote each other, it's just going to be a flame fest. Some personalities simply don't mix. Not to mention, you're not buying a product, you're meeting other people that you may or may not mesh with, do you have a 5 star rating for someone on facebook? Also this discourages newer GMs which there's a severe shortage of. Players are flakes by nature on the internet and will go GM hopping, or likewise, some new GMs find out they can't GM and simply vanish. The ranking system would actually be bad for all sides involved if you think of what you're "ranking". If you think you can shop for a game like you shop for a product on amazon, you're probably better off shouting in some <MMO here>'s LFG chat or using match making in <Some quick game here>. Tabletop games harken to an earlier age where you could actually look across the table and see the person as opposed to a random anime or cat picture (irony in my own avatar!). Also Roll20 free users are subsidized by paying users, and suppose Free-users flake rage and say start pounding a 'ranking' on a supporter who decided to run a one-shot. Will that supporter feel like supporting when his 'ranking' is taking hits by non-paying users? New GMs don't grow on trees you know. Also rankings end up inviting all sorts of bad mojo into the game environment. A 'Like' system could work, but those who run a large number of one-shots would have more 'likes' than those who concentrate on smaller games with long term players. In short, rankings simply don't work for tabletops given the huge range variables.
1424531078
Dan W.
Sheet Author
There are some excellent comments here, very thoughtful, insightful and useful. I'd just like to add that we really do need a mix of the styles: the small regular committed groups and the one-shot, every week's different gamers to keep the whole system strong. And these aren't just two styles really but two poles of a spectrum. The hard part is to get participants to really assess their ability to commit, I believe. We all want to play, but sometimes that desire causes overcommitment (from what I've seen from some of my players). Also, since it hasn't been mentioned here yet, there is a great post about making sure you and your players have the same expectations: <a href="http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44860/how-t" rel="nofollow">http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44860/how-t</a>... It is a series of questions you and your players can go through to make sure that you are actually playing the same game. This isn't for coming up with a compromise between the players, but to make sure before you start that everyone is operating from the same assumption about what they are looking for from the game. Here's the source link as well: <a href="https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-" rel="nofollow">https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-</a>... Happy gaming!
1426844993

Edited 1426845264
I can guarantee you that when people leave for no reason, there is a reason. That reason can be mysterious, perhaps one that you will never find out. I've seen people leave because they are bored, I've seen people leave because they feel ignored, too many players, not enough players, too much drama, not enough drama, we refused to allow them to cause drama, characters level too slow, characters level too fast, not enough XP, too much XP, they don't care about XP. The game is too violent, the game is not violent enough. The GM did too much preparation and the world is too detailed, it feels like operation choo-choo. The GM did not do enough preparation and the world feels like the worst combination of chicken scratch married to whimsical. A girl leaves because one of the guys creeped her out, the guy leaves because he is in the closet and someone made a gay joke, a gay player attempts to forcibly rape a male NPC in game, and the other male players are not having it, or any other kind of rape. A group of players is assaulted by in-game prison rapeclowns… That happened to me and three other players- in a Numenera Game. I'm not kidding. The wife was complaining she does not have enough time with her husband, the husband decided he'd rather go see his mistress than play a song of ice and fire. Many these are not subject to communication mistakes, however I have found it is best to clearly communicate the type of game you're trying to run, when it will run, what you expect from the characters, what you expect from players, what you bring to the table as a GM. Dwcwnt to good prep, combined with flexibility. Even then with roll 20, there will always be churn of players. When I'm trying to find a game, I look for the kind of games that I like to run. Gritty, detailed, realistic, while long-term story is there, it focuses on the actions of the player characters. Halfway experienced or at least competent GM. Not a GM that comes off like, we need some random guy to fill in for a few hours, we won't really bother getting to know you. Sometimes, when I'm recruiting for a game, I put up huge posts and spam looking for game every six hours. Other times I just make the server to let people find me through the search process and hire anyone that answers. I've stopped playing with people, as soon as I find out they are a jerk I just fire them. I'm talking story hogs, spotlight hogs, people that step on other players people the salt of the players people that demanded other players quit, guys making inappropriate sexual innuendo or outright sexual insults or degrading speech against my female players. This is not white night behavior this is just common sense, decorum, and class. I want a safe, comfortable space where people can game online via roll 20, just as if they were my house. If they do this in my house and I would not want them there, I just kick them off of the server, end of story. You could spend a half-hour day, I could spend six hour days. I don't even bother with Pathfinder, or fifth edition games anymore. There are just too many players to compete with, for too few spaces, and in the end it just can be a disappointing experience anyway because the one-shot style that is very prevalent here these days is just unsatisfying to me. I run traveller, one ring, song of ice and fire, all flesh must be eaten, conspiracy X., Those games are more or less specific within their genres whereas Pathfinder and D&D could be anything. So the players are looking for those games, are looking for certain experience, which I can deliver as GM. What I want to run a game, I advertise one of the above, I get six players within two days. A week later I am running it. That's my experience. I'm nearing age 50, I've been run role-playing games since 1977. All it really takes is patience, and perseverance, to find a game here. Good luck.
You should consider filling out your profile more completely. I tend to take people with incomplete profiles less seriously ... both when looking for players or when I am looking to play. In my LFG listings, I ignore the default avatar photos unless I am completely desperate. Experience has told me that the folks with the incomplete profiles are going to not show or not return or not GM well. Have you noticed that everyone who responded to your question/observation has a profile picture and a good profile to back it up? That's not a coincidence. Cheers and Happy Hunting!