Lately it's been nearly impossible to find a game

Joseph, I agree. There are some people that work better as players, Some are better as GMs, and some are both. I prefer being a GM, but I can be a player. But I like creating worlds, and campaigns and characters, and putting characters into difficult situations that allow them to emerge as heroes. I know a lot of players who are "Player" period. And they are good at it. Especially the roleplayer types or the tactical types or the "I know the rules better than the GM" (so we use that player as a breathing wiki) type.. especially for 3.5, or systems with 20 books.

Jarrod M. said: Just saying I only started playing table tops about 2 weeks ago and i've had no trouble finding what is now 3-4 campaigns I'm in a week all of which have amazing GMs and good guys. Exactly. I just saw a thread on LFG... NO GAMES OUT THERE. Huh?

Joseph Fernandez said: Animus said: Joseph Fernandez said: I'm not a terribly creative person and I'm much better when I can be part of someone's story rather then trying to create the story myself. There's quite a bit of people out there like me. Going to say, this is a lot of your problem. I personally don't put forward games where I'm looking to tell a story to my players. And as a result, that means player creativity and agency is a lot more important. A lot of other GMs also do this - there's a time and place for rails, but so few use them effectively - so, when you say "I'm not very creative." GMs turn -off-. It has nothing to do with personality, nothing to do with playstyle. It's likely entirely because you're looking to play a game of imagination, where you want to play the follower and put let everyone else tote you about on a leash. Sucks to say, but I know I don't want that. Players who tell me they're not leaders, or take-charge players, or that they love to approach things from a tactical and advisory role, means that I tend to pass them over. Who cares if every decision the group is optimal, or everyone agrees to it? Sometimes leaping without looking means taking a chance, and those chances can benefit you. Why play every game like a democracy? In the end, it really does boil down to: find a story to tell with your character. Don't let the GM tell you what story to tell with your character. That should be your call. This post just screams elitism and exclusivity. People with varying skill sets should be able to play RPGs and that includes people who aren't creative. You're also assuming that someone who doesn't want to or can't go so far as to create the story and GM also can't RP a single character. I'm not a huge fan of railroady hack and slash either and I'm definitely capable of problem solving and roleplaying. Remember this is a GAME and a hobby, not work and not a chore. Some people just want to play games, and should be allowed to do so. While this is kind of true in that players with various skill sets should be able to play RPGs, at its base line, some skills will help you and some skills are necessary, regardless. If a baseball game is set to be competitive, you aren't going to ask a person who can't run to play in that game, would you? By the same token, you aren't going to ask a player who can't add to play D&D, for example. At the end of the day, RPGs are broad enough that people of various skill sets can find a game...but if you have a wider skill set, you'll be able to find a game easier. That's just the truth about it. A player that can tell a story of a character is more attractive, period, and there's nothing elitist with pointing that out and advising you on where your skill set can be improved. It's ultimately up to you whether you want to take that into consideration or not or whether you just don't care because the games that you have fun with don't have creativity as their prerequisite.

I'm probably going to get hate for this, but I'm going with Doom on this one because he described the game plan I'm going with. I don't think there's anything elitist about choosing who you want to play with. If a GM works hard to build their game and recruit good players there's nothing wrong with keeping that group together as long as humanly possible. Behind any good game is work (that sometimes - many times - can be a chore). Saying that a GM should allow any player to just show up and participate because it's "fair" is ridiculous. If you're a player who won't run even to meet new people and network then you've got no other choice than to just keep looking.

Joseph Fernandez said: This post just screams elitism and exclusivity. People with varying skill sets should be able to play RPGs and that includes people who aren't creative. You're also assuming that someone who doesn't want to or can't go so far as to create the story and GM also can't RP a single character. I'm not a huge fan of railroady hack and slash either and I'm definitely capable of problem solving and roleplaying. Remember this is a GAME and a hobby, not work and not a chore. Some people just want to play games, and should be allowed to do so. You're misreading. It's not elitist to say: "In my game, someone who isn't creative isn't as desired as someone who is." I'm not running a game where that fits. There are a good number of GMs here on Roll20 that think similarly. It's not that we won't give you the chance, it's that the chance you'll stick around is slim, so we're going to move onto someone that resonates better with us and the group. There are absolutely players who are like you, and there are a lot of GMs who will gladly take them on. But they won't have long-term staying power. Those are games that will either be short in length, will likely be a module, or players will lose interest. Player investment is really very important. When you lack that, players regularly move on. The problem isn't that you can't roleplay, in my case, specifically, I'm looking for players who want to get into the world, learn about it, discover more about their characters, and the hooks that exist help to serve character growth, which turns into story growth, and helps define metaplot. Do you see why you're not a good fit in that kind of game? It's not railroady hack and slash, but it's very much dependant on a player who wants to play a character, and really dive into that character and setting. Which means your character has to be just as creative as anyone else's. If you choose to follow, you will get significantly less out of the game, because it means that as a GM, I can utilize the material I'm given by the other players to craft a well-written story that involves them, or I can play 21 questions with a player who has no investment, and just kind of wants to observe. GMs absolutely know what they're looking for. You'll find better luck in pick-up games, or short term modules with your style - and they'll be fun, I'm sure. But don't expect GMs who want immersive, roleplay-heavy games, where their players are the focus, and not their setting to so much as glance in your direction. You need to know what games fit you, and GMs need to know what people fit their game and group. Don't expect every GM to cater to you, and don't think that people with different playstyles have to eventually 'relent'. They don't. Forcing it and getting angry at them because of your expectations is just rude. EDIT: Also, stop treating people who enjoy being immersed as 'work'. That's a false dichtomy, and you know it. You're asking for a free pass. That you should get equal time to explain why you're the better choice, over the guy who's absolutely willing to put in the time and effort you're not. That's entitlement. If you can't spare a couple of hours a week before a session to sit down, sort out your character with a GM, and figure out what you want from the setting, maybe - just maybe - you're not in the right hobby? Also, on the flipside, you're somehow making this as a matter of: "Everyone has to play my way." Which isn't what I'm saying. The more people who are willing to put in the extra effort is good for the hobby as a whole. It means quality goes up, players become more desireable, and people who don't want to put in that effort will have easier times getting games with people who think similarly to them. A higher brow pool of players actually benefits you .

Carl T. said: If you're a player who won't run even to meet new people and network then you've got no other choice than to just keep looking. I definitely rely on Running any sort of game to meet people. Then after that game is done, see if people from that want to play something else. Numenera comes to mind as a simple, popular game that has a lot of room for sharp, creative players. Similarly, Traveller, as a game allowed me to use players from that for All Flesh Must Be Eaten, and James Bond, which when straight up advertised "Here, play AFMBE, or JB007!", emanates with the roaring of crickets in response. Gateway games are good, agreed. But I did get people from Traveller to play both of those games.

I just stumbled across this thread and had to add my own opinion. I've been playing DnD for like..five years now, since I was 15. So I know that makes me still somewhat new compared to many of the people who have been playing decades. I think was a dedicated player for only about two years, before I decided to GM. I didn't know what i was doing, all I had was my excitement and a few source books for 3.5 to try and run a campaign. I will admit, looking back I cringe at some of the decisions I made as a DM, but I still tried, as many of you have. I have to agree with most of the people here, if you want to say there aren't enough DM's, then the only thing stopping you is a bit of anxiety and selfishness. Even if you run one mediocre game in your entire life, I think every player should have that experience. The time spent making a campaign, dealing with players, etc. etc. Because I can name a lot more bad player instances than bad DM instances. Which leads to my next point. The more players who LOVE to power game, min/max, and newbies, the less people who are going to want to GM, hence the apparent "lack" of games available. Note when I say newbs, I dont mean a fresh faced person, looking to role play for the first time ever, I encourage those into my games, so I can teach and offer my own motivation in hopes to create another dedicated player. No, by newbs I mean people who have played in campaign after campaign, but still act clueless, who want the DM to hold their hand through everything, slow the game down to check every single action they do, and bring down a party, whether they do it due to anxiety, or due to wanting to squeeze some sympathy points out of a DM, it's almost as bad as a power gamer. Coming from a perosn who's ran 5-6 campaigns here on roll20, some beyond the traditional D&D system, I've never had a lack of players( sometimes a lack of truly good players but I digress). Sorry for the rant, but roll20 has been great to me and it seems some people who have a streak of bad luck decide to simply spew their frustration here.

Though you have been at it a while, welcome to the life of the experienced GM Carlos. Well said. Strikes me as ironic. If you want to know why Gms don't run more games, try running them yourself, and you'll find out. As Carlos said. To do it well you can do it simply, quick and dirty on the fly, but to do it really well it usually pays to invest a lot of time and effort, only to have it mid campaign devolve into player vs player crap: "you suck" "no, you suck, you should quit", etc petty high school arguments between 20 somethings. I'm lucky i have a group that is motivated to start my new campaign next week. Lucky, and i know it.

While I had already been gaming for 3-4 years, when I first started GMing for real, it had been in 2.5E and I only had a few sessions of 3.0 under my belt when the 3e campaign came to a screeching halt because the GM was having 'personal issues'. I don't remember now why I stepped up (it likely had something to do with my husband and his big brown eyes), but the GM gave me the module (Sunless Citadel), and I researched a smidge and discovered there was going to be a whole series of modules coming out for that Adventure Path and I decided, "Okay, sure, I can do this for my friends" and I think that was the key: friends . I had a safe space to start learning how to GM, with people willing to cut me slack and work with me instead of playing, "How can I break this module?". That was 15 years ago, and I've been playing with friends and acquaintances all that time. It is hard enough to step up and be a GM for your friends, people who trust you and value you. Doing do for a pack of strangers? I can well understand why there's a scarcity of GMs sticking their heads up and making targets of themselves for the swarming masses. I find that scenario more than a little intimidating, and I've been GMing for 15 years!

All the unchecked negativity is bothering me, so i'm going to shout some vague positivity into the apathetic void and then run away. Roll20 may be one of the friendliest, most amazing places on the internet. I've played with people in Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Germany, the UK, Ireland, Mexico, Hawaii, the Philippines, and very nearly every place in the US. All without having to go anywhere. And for every even slightly negative experience i've had, there have been whole communities of cool, interesting people. Covering a frankly astounding range of games, versions, and play styles. Who despite being strangers and usually being mismatched with my expectations and style, are almost universally patient and willing to try things. We're all here for more or less the same reasons, so i'd be willing to bet that for all the blame being thrown around (players, gm's, this type of person, that type of person, etc.) all the negative experiences are outnumbered by the positive ones by at least 2:1. So by all means, disagree. But the people on here aren't so dismally unpleasant as they're sometimes portrayed.

Billy once turned me into an apricot. It was great. This thread is nothing but a big ol' ball of nerdy negativity. It is rather disappointing to find this kind of topic on this site; let alone in LFG. This community is VERY transient and for every one person you see on the forums there are at least 20 who rarely use it. Heck, some people only use the LFG listings for games. The amount of elitism in this thread is gross. If I showed someone this thread before anything else on this site, or this hobby, I don't think they'd be enthused. All the waving of "Hey look at my time spent, bro" or "Hey I've been here since X" does not, nor will it ever, mean that you are a relevant person or an expert on the gamer's condition. No amount of paragraphs, graphics, diatribes, or blatant flaming of others will advance you, this community, or this website. Roll20, it's community, and the system it represents as a whole gets bigger and better everyday. Take your soapboxes and set them up outside your LFGS and see where this kind of nonsense will get you. I'm sure everyone of you is beautiful and truly loves the hobby, but y'all should be ashamed. If a mod happens by, close this god awful thread or move somewhere decent people need not be bothered by it.

The voice of Experience is full of experience. I'm not kidding. I have had more positive than negative experiences here, certainly. but the negative ones were much worse than in-person games, simply because many gamers online are treating each other like they're disposable non-entities. Running a chat based game where the player is off in another game, playing both at once and the first group is waiting for them to return. All of the sheer nastiness that can and does occur. I'm not the gaming god, but I'm not ignorant to what sometimes goes on in games where expectations do not meet the actuality. And I'm not telling anyone that they are wrong, or to shut up. There is a distinct lack of GMs. But not impossible to find games. I try and facilitate people in meeting each other when and where I can, because I know how to form groups, that Usually, key word, get along. but some people hide their real intentions, motivations, or are in fact just joining games to wreck them. I have personally experienced that. Yet, I am setting up a new game to run, and trying to get people in LFG hooked up with each other. Shame on us, for showing people how to solve the problem this thread poses.

Nathan L. said: Billy once turned me into an apricot. It was great. Just made my day.

Nathan L. said: All the waving of "Hey look at my time spent, bro" or "Hey I've been here since X" does not, nor will it ever, mean that you are a relevant person or an expert on the gamer's condition. No amount of paragraphs, graphics, diatribes, or blatant flaming of others will advance you, this community, or this website. Well said. Well, except for the part where you called us "gamers". That title is exclusive to video game players and has major negative connotations. "Roleplayers" is a much better and more accurate term. Nathan L. said: Roll20, it's community, and the system it represents as a whole gets bigger and better everyday. Take your soapboxes and set them up outside your LFGS and see where this kind of nonsense will get you. I'm sure everyone of you is beautiful and truly loves the hobby, but y'all should be ashamed . Very ironic...in that hipster sort of way.

Soft said: Well said. Well, except for the part where you called us "gamers". That title is exclusive to video game players and has major negative connotations. "Roleplayers" is a much better and more accurate term. I don't think "roleplayer" has less negative connotations compared to "gamer" - for an outside/neutral viewer. Then again I don't associate either with negative traits. What's wrong with the term "gamer" if I may ask?

Tinker said: Soft said: Well said. Well, except for the part where you called us "gamers". That title is exclusive to video game players and has major negative connotations. "Roleplayers" is a much better and more accurate term. I don't think "roleplayer" has less negative connotations compared to "gamer" - for an outside/neutral viewer. Then again I don't associate either with negative traits. What's wrong with the term "gamer" if I may ask? Nothing, just that lately for the past year or so there has been a type of negative media campaign against "gamers".

Tinker said: I don't think "roleplayer" has less negative connotations compared to "gamer" - for an outside/neutral viewer. Then again I don't associate either with negative traits. What's wrong with the term "gamer" if I may ask? Non-elitists are not allowed in this thread!

I think there's a huge, huge disparity in skill from the people who post threads! "Seeking 4-5 for FATE-flavored Western evenings sund PST" will attract a higher quality of people than "i want 2 game tonite" or "newbie, teach me". People with better selling skills (adults, hopefully) are less likely to do the hard, unsatisfying work of teaching an internet stranger how to pitch a game.

Lex Starwalker said: The solution to this is very simple. Every player out there is a future GM that just needs to step up. If you can't find a GM to run a game for you, run one yourself. This !!! I have DM'd for years and don't particularly love DMing, but I took my turn with 3.5 which I learned playing Living Greyhawk on OpenRPG. I have now played PF here on roll20 enough that I think I can GM it and will probably be running a game soon. Too many of the current crop of players are spoiled kids that grew up on video games and want someone to entertain them. The thought of giving back to the community and taking a turn GMing doesn't even cross their minds. If someone puts them on the spot, they try one of the lame "but I am a terrible GM" whines. If you are a terrible GM, then you need more practice, get out there and do it. What's the worst that can happen? Most games on here fail, you can divide the total hours played by the number of games to figure that out, so give it a shot, be a GM and quit whining. Run an AP for PF if you don't want to create your own world, there are lots of options. Give it a try.

Arbelos said: Tinker said: Soft said: Well said. Well, except for the part where you called us "gamers". That title is exclusive to video game players and has major negative connotations. "Roleplayers" is a much better and more accurate term. I don't think "roleplayer" has less negative connotations compared to "gamer" - for an outside/neutral viewer. Then again I don't associate either with negative traits. What's wrong with the term "gamer" if I may ask? Nothing, just that lately for the past year or so there has been a type of negative media campaign against "gamers". Ah I see, thanks for the clarification.

We are looking for D&D5E players right now... but we have a high bar. <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1550389/general-rules-world-specific-parameters-and-rules#post-1747643" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1550389/general-rules-world-specific-parameters-and-rules#post-1747643</a>

Of the 30-40ish people i have invited to my games, only a handful of them were gold, solid gold... the rest... well lets just say...i refuse to post my true campaign in LFGm, i use secondary accounts running oneshots to playtest interesting ideas/traps/encounters i need balancing for my campaigns... i am soooo tempted to post about something very negative of the quality in the Looking For GM tool, but i cant.. want too, but cant... because people above have already said it, and no one likes someone that beats on a dead warhorse. now, off to LFG to find some new victims, i have a trapped sewer, and crypt to playtest.

Daniel B. said: If you are a terrible GM, then you need more practice, get out there and do it. On target. +5.

Golden makes the same point I would have made. Be VERY clear about what your game expects from players. Then be willing to boot ones that don't fit. We're still honing our campaign's player search techniques but we now have an in depth document that describes what kind of game it is and what we expect from players. We do an interview process that requires them first to inerract with the existing PCs on a character level and then, if that seems good, spend a full night playing with us before we decide. Both the GM and I have been in hiring positions in business and this really isnt much different. Its just a question of reading "resumes" and interviewing ones that stand out til you find one that you think might work.

I would point out to joseph I have one position open in my campaign and ive only gotten one decent interest so far. I get that I have a specific type of player I and my players are looking for but I expected significantly more responses so far this week

So can we safely say that a large part of the problem is not the lack of GM's, but maybe a lack of good players? I', not saying Roll20 lacks a great player base, because some of the most amazing players have come from Roll20 in my opinion. But it seems more and more people who have bad attitudes, power gaming tendencies, crazy expectations, and just are general nightmare players are out there, ruining campaigns from session one and driving away potential DM's. People have said that others need to step up and GM for once, which I agree with. But if you're going to complain that there are no games out there, it's also in your best interest to make sure when you find a game you play your little heart out, to encourage the GM to continue on.

Carlos: If players are finding it hard to get in a game, I can only assume it's mostly their problem. Again, I speak as a DM. I take time, I interview players, I sit down and ask in-depth questions about what they're looking for in a game and what kind of game I run. However, I don't do this for all of my applicants. If I post an ad looking to fill a spot, and I get 10 people responding, maybe 3 will make it to the "interview", and usually it's because they're the ones out of the group who actually put the effort in to sell themselves, to make themselves seem like someone worth talking to. If you contact me with "im interested i hav a wizard i wanna play", you're getting ignored, because I have another guy who actually sat down and wrote me a real message detailing his experience and what kind of game he's looking to play. And no, I'm not going to get back to those people who put no effort in. Remember, this is the internet, where as much as I'd like to not judge a book by it's cover, I am forced to. I'm sorry that you may be a great player who is easy to get along with and will make any game better, when you try and sell yourself to a DM with a one-line message that lacks spelling and punctuation, you don't project that image. Really, that's the end of it in my opinion. Want to be recruited? Be better at selling yourself. Can't be bothered to make yourself a solid candidate who a DM can look at and say "Yeah, that guy will be a good addition to our group"? Then I'm sorry, you just don't deserve the spot. It's a game of musical chairs. There's hundreds and hundreds of players, but only a few dozen seats. Make yourself the best person on the playing field and earn your chair. Or, step up and DM yourself. Then it's up to you how much or how little you want to scrutinize players. Though I'm sure many now-veteran DMs started as newbies who said "I want to be a DM and let everyone play, not be an elitist jerk who says no!", and then quickly learned that such a thing isn't actually possible.

&gt;&gt;&gt;So can we safely say that a large part of the problem is not the lack of GM's, but maybe a lack of good players? The issue is that Roll20 is another example of an app that "solves the wrong problem". It seems to be great at what it does, has active devs that are adding features people want etc. (although I can't speak to most of that because I've only used it at freebie level). However, it's meant to service a particular community, but doesn't address either of the main problems of said community: a) a lot of the people in it are flaky weirdos with commitment problems b) the games are still mostly built around the flawed paradigm of "one person in the group has to essentially take on a part-time service job in order for everyone else to have fun" I'd say that the most obvious thing missing that would help with a) is community rating or something similar. (Likes/dislikes still suck but at least they're more democratic than "having to fill out applications and/or 'sell yourself' to some dude".) B) I don't have an answer to. There are attempts at the system end to deal with it (although the results seem iffy, e.g. from what I've seen I have no desire to "play" Fiasco), and more generally I'd say that if people had lower expectations then there'd be less of a problem (i.e. if everyone dropped the "engaging RP" and other conflicting/unattainable ideals, then we could all be sitting down and playing Descent/D&D4e/whatever without all the stress). edit: I guess you can say "hiring an official Roll20 DM" is also an attempted solution, but from what I understand that's more or less for a showcase game on Twitch and not meant to fix the supply problem (otherwise they'd hire more than one guy)

I gotta weigh in on this... As a GM, I find it ridiculous that I have to "interview" my players... and it's because of the massive desperation on the players side, I feel the need! And it's not because I'm getting tons of offers... but because I'm getting people signing up that would be HORRIBLE fits for what I'm trying to do... they would HATE playing that game and/or the style that I'm intending to run it... but they are just desperate to play ANYTHING so they sign up anyway... Feels like I'm getting handed some poor abused slave or something... and I'm trying to teach them that it's ok to have standards of their own, and NOT sign up for games they don't really want to play... I'm trying to put together a group of people who will all be able to get along and are on the same page when it comes to the experience they are trying to have, so that we can all contribute to each other's fun instead of getting in the way of it... If I could trust people to only sign up if it seemed like a good fit... I'd happily skip the interview process and go straight to the first come first served method... Hell I'm at the point where if a player actually asked ME questions about the campaign and showed the least bit of concern about how it might suit him... I'd be psyched to have him! Edit: or her!

How come this is in the LFG forum? Are people here actually looking for games, or just griping about the difficulties of putting one together? It is difficult for both sides- GM and Player to get a game going. From what I've seen they both face the same problem- as soon as a game is posted, a zillion (exaggerated, more like 1-2 per hour at least) applications fly in. Players that don't see the game immediately now have 30+ applications before them, so it makes entry difficult. Now the poor GM (if it's not first come first serve) has to read through each one. And some people make it their point to post a character's entire life story, family tree, and length/color of each individual piece of hair on their head, down to the root. (Off topic: Seriously, why do people do that?) Anyway, I check the community forums here on roll20 often to see if there are any one-shots going for D&D 5th. I play ongoing campaigns on Sat/Sun, but I like to build characters as a hobby and I feel like one-shots are a great way to test them out instead of just theorycrafting them. I've got to the point where I don't bother checking the actual LFG tab for those because they are rather nonexistent, and as soon as one is posted it's filled up. But I have had minor success with the community forums, which still face the same problem of immediately after posting the game is full. Point is, I use the LFG forum because I'm LOOKING FOR A GROUP... albeit mostly unsuccessfully. Is this thread in the right forum? No one here is looking for a group, just sharing complaints. So. There's my 2 cp

Discussions of "It's hard to find a group!" seem perfect for the "Looking for a Group" forum. It seems 100% on topic.

Hiya. I tend to run games. Quite a lot actually. Only problem is, my schedule is super fucked and I already run one campaign. All that having been said, if you're into one-shots, and don't mind playing something off the beaten path (i.e. not dnd) keep an eye out for my posts. I dont care how much xp you have as a player or if you have some truly bad habits. That's what one-shots are for. having fun and teaching. Ive gotten a lot of utterly new players into one-shots and we've all had a great time and I was able to help get them into the hobby. So there's 2cp for ya. Edit: ya know, I wrote this, and then I forgot to plug my new one shot. Don't judge me, it's late. Here's my next one-shot .

Askren said: "I want to be a DM and let everyone play, not be an elitist jerk who says no!", and then quickly learned that such a thing isn't actually possible. It's possible, but you have to be willing to take the risk of being called Choo choo railroader when you fire people that are pushy jerks. But I generally hire everyone that applies. I run weird games where only 6 will apply though,over a period of a week. week ends, i got 6, we run. One of those might drop after three weeks. Then someone's brother / wife / sister / cousin / girl/boyfriend of the current players joins. Trying to find people that play Song of Ice and Fire takes a week. Star Trek RPG takes weeks. James Bond by Victory Games, even harder, 2 or three weeks. Pathfinder, 5th? 6 hours or less. But you get 20 applicants. Most of whom want something they have played in a half dozen games already no matter what your setting is. I don't want to wade through the pile of applicants for the popular games in some sort of cattle call and telling 20 people no. So I run the off brand, and it ends up being first come, first serve, mostly older players anyway, seeking more old school, less MMO. Many people don't like that I'm older or my style. Right on, try to get into a 5e game. There;'s a half dozen "5e pre set group seeks DM" postings right now on LFG. Good luck to those people.

I had the idea while watching The West Marchs to basically do the same thing, but on roll 20. A long series of 5e one shots in a persistant world that lasts, group to group. The 4 players can change at any time. If one person wants to play 3 days a week and another can only do 1, both can do their games and the guy going 3 days will just be in more groups. Itd would alleviate the problems of flakyness, you could roll simple characters in 5e that dont have all the crazy race and class combos of 3.5. It does not help with player quality, but you could more easily sift through people. Could even be possible to get a 2nd or 3rd GM, have them run adventures out of the town, and then post a short write up of their adventure so that others can use the landmarks they make.

Well I'm a d&d 2nd to 3.5 player and pathfinder, I would be interested in learning other rpgs. I got a lot of time in my hands so I am open to anything.

welcome, I am a GM for a pathfinder game. we play sun + random evenings (8 pm est till midnight). we use ventrillo for chat. We permit monsters as pc's if that interests you. The current party is an part angel part construct, a rat folk vampire necromancer, a 1/2 succubus demon summoner . The back drop is each of us was captured and sold into slavery. we were all bought by 1 capt. he is using us as his special forces..(a - Team). a percent of the money we bring in is applied to buying off our debt and becoming free. Once they buy off their freedom they want to create a city of their own.

Animus said: It's not elitist to say: "In my game, someone who isn't creative isn't as desired as someone who is." There are a good number of GMs here on Roll20 that think similarly. It's not that we won't give you the chance, it's that the chance you'll stick around is slim, so we're going to move onto someone that resonates better with us and the group. There are absolutely players who are like you, and there are a lot of GMs who will gladly take them on. But they won't have long-term staying power. The problem isn't that you can't roleplay, in my case, specifically, I'm looking for players who want to get into the world, learn about it, discover more about their characters, and the hooks that exist help to serve character growth, which turns into story growth, and helps define metaplot. Do you see why you're not a good fit in that kind of game? It's not railroady hack and slash, but it's very much dependent on a player who wants to play a character, and really dive into that character and setting. Which means your character has to be just as creative as anyone else's. If you choose to follow, you will get significantly less out of the game, because it means that as a GM, I can utilize the material I'm given by the other players to craft a well-written story that involves them, or I can play 21 questions with a player who has no investment, and just kind of wants to observe. GMs absolutely know what they're looking for. So much awesome right here. Deeper games deserve deeper players.

Wow, there's been a lot of discussion here. o.o I do highly agree that we NEED more DMs to step up and take on this huge demand for games. And if you guys know anything about economics, is that less supply and more demand equals more and more requirements and interviews and scrutiny to find the best players out there, thus creating this growing gap. It is up to the community to do something like this. However, Roll20 developers SHOULD be the front-line and highly ENCOURAGE more and more players to GM games through the Looking For Group section. And so I suggest: Dungeon Master Reputation System Think of it as upvotes in Reddit or thumbs up on YouTube. Players would then be able to upvote Dungeon Masters for their creative and awesome campaigns, thus giving them a visible reward and incentive to keep playing through. As they continue amassing upvotes and continue to create campaigns in the LFG, they may receive a message by Roll20 for a FREE upgrade to "Dungeon Master" status for a period of time (ex. 2 weeks), basically a watered down version of the paid options. If they continue doing well, they will continue receiving these benefits, which bolsters not only the community, but gives them a taste of paid status and thus, hopefully, encouraging more subscribers. I would suggest this, but I don't have any votes. Maybe this can be modified to something that works well.

Benson Y. said: Think of it as upvotes in Reddit or thumbs up on YouTube. Players would then be able to upvote Dungeon Masters for their creative and awesome campaigns, thus giving them a visible reward and incentive to keep playing through. As they continue amassing upvotes and continue to create campaigns in the LFG, they may receive a message by Roll20 for a FREE upgrade to "Dungeon Master" status for a period of time (ex. 2 weeks), basically a watered down version of the paid options. Too easy to exploit, and DMs could effortlessly bribe people into giving them votes. I can see it working if someone only has voting rights if they have made a monetary contribution to roll20 though.

A reputation system is a terrible idea in my opinion, for many reasons that shouldn't need to be mentioned, but all basically boil down to turning this site into a popularity contest.

I agree with Helpful C. ... A GM Reputation System would ruin Roll20, why would I want a bunch of strangers rating my skills at my hobby? I could do a competitive things elsewhere ... RPGs are about cooperation. If Roll20 created such a system, I would withdraw my Sponsorship and try to find an alternative method to play online. Also, this is no longer seems like it is an appropriate thread for the Looking For Game forum ... no one here is looking for or proposing a game!

But the discussing is germaine to LF Game/GM/DM/Players. There is obviously a lot of frustration around players looking for groups and not finding what they want, and it seems like to a slightly lesser degree of GMs/DMs looking for players and not finding what they want. I've seen some great points on both sides (players having certain tastes in style being a common one, and near and dear to my heart GMs doing anything non D&D/pathfinder having trouble finding players), perhaps steering the discussion more to what can be reasonably done to fix these issues. For one, adding more "taste profile" style info to user profiles and the LFG search might help? Although I am suspecting much of the problems are sociological in nature, and sadly there is rarely technical fixes for those.

Sorario Prosperity said: Benson Y. said: Think of it as upvotes in Reddit or thumbs up on YouTube. Players would then be able to upvote Dungeon Masters for their creative and awesome campaigns, thus giving them a visible reward and incentive to keep playing through. As they continue amassing upvotes and continue to create campaigns in the LFG, they may receive a message by Roll20 for a FREE upgrade to "Dungeon Master" status for a period of time (ex. 2 weeks), basically a watered down version of the paid options. Too easy to exploit, and DMs could effortlessly bribe people into giving them votes. I can see it working if someone only has voting rights if they have made a monetary contribution to roll20 though. I think the rating system is a good idea , but like the others I'm unsure of how it would turn out. Easy to think of but maybe not the easiest to execute. It runs the risk of being exploited for teh popularitys. And if only people who contributed are allowed to vote, then it could be come "free to play, pay to win". And no one wants that. I donate only because I support the site, not because I want exclusive access/privileges or anything of that nature. Side note- If anyone runs D&D 5th games during the week I'm usually free Monday-Friday evenings (Central US Time)! I have ongoing campaigns Sat&Sun but I'm always down for one-shots. Great way to try out characters. Send me a PM!

The topic of a rating system has come up in the past... the Devs have pretty much made it clear they're not interested in implementing any such thing.

I am fairly irregular to roll 20. I play D&D4e with 2 groups offline with friends, of which I GM one myself. I very much like creating worlds and inventing situations and places. I would not mind being a roll20 gm, but i am fairly new to the interface, and have not played this online yet. Also my spoken english is somewhat poor (mostly because of accent). What would you guys recommend for me to do? I've been thinking about starting as a player, but reading through this thread that may be easier said than done. I wouldn't mind to start of as GM, but there is a possibility that i fall into the bad GM group, since i do not have a reference. My only references are 2 of my online friends, who i find decent myself. I simply don't know what is expected or common on this site, which puts up a barrier. Any helpfull advice here?

I think a rating system would cause far more drama than it would actually be worth

A rating system was in place on Neverwinterconnections, that was rampant with abuse, sockpuppet voters, slander, false accounts, games that ran in the voting but were never really run, a GM and his four players, which were him to pad his ratings. When people found out about multiple violations of this the site became ad hominems, name calling and fake suicides. I dragged on for months and ended when NWN was replaced by NWN2. Roll20 Community, Don't go there.

Everyone is treating the symptoms and not the actual disease. There is NO need for a rating system, because all that does is filter bad players/GM's from the good. The easiest solution that wouldn't cause a catastrophic meltdown of Roll20 and the community is to simply not act like a jerk. If you're a player, be a good player, don't power game, don't whine, don't take yourself too seriously. If you're a GM, make it fun for your players. Remember guys...this is a GAME. If we all act the way we're supposed to, a rating system wouldn't be needed.

We'll continue to modify LFG tools in the coming months-- in the meantime, though, this conversation got a little too confrontational so we'll put a bow on it.