Constructive discussion about the use of LFG, how people in the internet turn into 5 year olds and what can or even should be done due to this

I've been using Roll20 for several years now but I have not been that close acquaintances with the LFG system/forum/whatever. This is thanks to how I normally choose my players (a more direct way) and how US oriented Roll20 is (the sessions of other GMs are usually in times I can't join them). I've been reading about the problems other people have had though and had difficulties relating due to not having any personal experience. After all the people in the forums have always been very helpful and constructive. This change when I decided to try and have a game of Fate. I mean roleplaying using Fate Core. My first attempt seemd like a jackpot. The gaming hours fitted very well to my schedule (due to the GM living in Europe), the setting was Star Wars (I'm a big fan but have not had a chance to RP in that universe outside KotOR) and being able to do pretty much whatever I wanted with my character. I felt we had a very good world and character creation session. Then one or two weeks later when we were supposed to have the first actual session, the campaign had vanished from my list. I though that I had been kicked out so I tried to PM the GM to ask for why. I couldn't find the GM anymore either. After having difficulties finding another Fate campaign which I could join (remember that time zone problem), I decided to do what I've usually done in these situations, I became the GM. I published my campaign in LFG and in two days I had two "applications". I felt great, this is so gonna happen. I asked a question from applicant number 1 (just to make sure we both have understood everything correctly) and never got an answer. Applicant number 2 on the other hand was very active and asked for more info concerning the campaign and he (I'm assuming he was a male) was sent an invite. The campaign could not begin until I had enough players and at this time I had 1 and 1 possible (which wasn't enough). So we waited for more. and during that time my only player vanished without ever contacting me about his departure. So my campaign never happened. Third time's a charm! I applied to a another Fate campaign. The campaign had started one week earlier so I was a bit late but was accepted in regardless (thank you). I had a quick character creation session of my own during which I understood why I got in. The GM had 4 free spots when he published the campaign in LFG. All 4 were filled fairly fast and all seemed good. About a week later they had the first session, 1 player came. 1 out of 4! to the first session. And I had read some of the applications and a few were very enthusiastic and they still were no-shows. At this point I felt really bad for the GM and decided to make it all up to him on the behalf of the no-shows and be a great player for his campaign. I accepted every suggestion he had and gave some of mine concerning my character. Later that week I had my first and the campaign its second session. I showed up on time. The GM showed up on time. The second player, never came and the campaign is on indefinite hold until more players can be found. So 3/3 I have failed to get into a Fate Core campaign. And I'm not angry. I'm not depressed. I'm not even annoyed. It has become a small inside joke among my RPing friends how I'm the armageddon of all Fate campaigns. What I am, is bewildered. If you had an appointment in "real life" and something would come up. Something smallish, but something that would eat up the enjoyment of going to that appointment, 6/10 would still go that appointment because it was scheduled first. And 99/100 of the people who wouldn't go, would still contact the person or people s/he had the appointment with the moment it becomes evident that s/he would not be showing up. In Roll20 it seems to be the opposite. I still can't to this date understand the situation in which the first applicant to my Fate campaign posted an application got and answer (in the form of a question) in less than 24 h and then just vanished. I think someone should write a book: '99 reasons why s/he didn't show up' except this wouldn't have anything to do with dating. Anyway back to the point. There are several suggestions in the suggestion area that has something to do with this issue. Such as <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1861038/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1861038/slug%7D</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2185689/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2185689/slug%7D</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1252838/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1252838/slug%7D</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2297429/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2297429/slug%7D</a> but I feel that we should first have a constructive discussion about the matter before making several competing suggestions about the same issue. Especially when considering that most of those suggestions seem to be written in a state of anger and or frustration (states of mind which are not known for their positive effect on problem solving). So what do you think, please tell us. Edit. 9.3.2016 I created a suggestion based on Brother Sharp's idea: <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3075915/add-an-" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3075915/add-an-</a>... Feel free to give it some votes. I also found another that is very close to another idea someone shared on this thread: <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1426287/way-for-players-to-indicate-if-they-are-attending-a-game-dot-dot-dot" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1426287/way-for-players-to-indicate-if-they-are-attending-a-game-dot-dot-dot</a>. Feel free to give it some votes too.

As a Gm I really do feel for you, I had to interview over 2 dozen people for a 5th edition DnD session on tuesdays. Ive reached the point where I try to get 3 people to show up for one spot. Inevitably 1 of the 3 will never show, one will bail mid session and hopefully the remainder is worth keeping as a player, and this is after speaking with these players for several hours in skype. I feel that since this is the internet people will treat each other as disposable, its a sad state of affairs but you simply cannot expect us all to behave like adults. It would be nice if we all would , but its never going to happen.

Yeah, this is why if I ever run an online campaign... it's going to be a paid campaign. Might help with weeding out the no-shows.

Sorry to hear of your bad experience in finding a game, I do understand that feel as I have gone through it a couple of times myself. Now, as for the constructive discussion. Before we delve deeper into this, let us first find what the culprit is in situations like yours. From what I can read, your major problem seems to be attendance and how there are not enough people for your system. Let's discuss these one by one. -Attendance; What makes a player not want to show up? The biggest problem with online tabletops like here in roll20 is the mismatch of expectations. There are generally three types of expectations. What the GM expects , what the player before applying expects and what the player after applying expects. These are important. You must be familiar with all these three as you have been a GM, an applying player and a game player. You can complete the above however you wish to, i.e. "What the GM expects of the players", "What the player expects of the GM/other players" etc.. Where it is directed at is not very important, the fact that there are expectations from all the involved parties is what matters. What happens when expectations do not match each other? People lose interest, that is what happens. For example, the GM expects the players to abide by all his rules or expects the players to be well-versed and RP-heavy. The players might expect the GM to be a good narrator or someone that is not very strict on ruling. The players might expect the world to be filled with people riding dinosaurs. You get the gist. It goes without saying that if a GM offers a world with people riding animals and the players want a world with people riding dinosaurs, then the players will not be very pleased. How do we stop expectations from mismatching? Information. I was grown in a town where they call oranges as "carrots" and you were grown in a town where they call grape as "carrots". Your common sense and my common sense are completely different. I would be shocked to find out that your "carrots" are not the same as my "carrots". The same thing happens online. What the other party thinks is not necessarily the same as what you think. You need to get all the involved parties on the same vector. That is, on the same thought process, on the same common sense etc.. The only way to do this is through Information . Write as much as you can on your application as a player or LFG as a GM. As a player include the following; Who are you? Why are you playing? How do you like playing? Do you like/dislike something in particular? What is the state of your equipment (mic/camera)? Have you ever played this system before? What is your mother's maiden name? What kind of people do you like playing with? What do you like doing on your free time? And anything else that you find important that help the GM understand who you are and if you are a good match in their game. As a GM write a social contract; What kind of players should come? What themes will the game involve? Will there be any controversial topics? How will disputes be handled? What are your plans for future games? Are there any particular things the players should know in advance? How are players expected to behave? How will you deal with those who do not behave properly? Do you prefer roleplay over rollplay? What is the ratio of roleplay/noncombat vs rolls/combat? And anything else off the top of your head that players MUST know to attend. -Not enough players; I am not savvy with FATE but I have had my share of GMing with games like Call of Cthulhu which are not as major as D&D. The only way I have found out to solve this is to prepare things weeks, if not months, ahead of time. If you want to GM and want good players, you will have to wait. That is all there is to it. If you are a player, then keep looking and never give up. However you can grasp if the GM is a good one or a "volatile one" purely by how they organize their LFG. If they have a lot of information and the applications are all tended to, then you have a good GM. If you only have three lines of text all up and people are posting like headless chickens, then you have a bad GM. Here is a suggestion that I posted to hopefully get something that facilitates the exchange of information. <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2900524/implemen" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2900524/implemen</a>... I took the liberty of looking at the current game on the LFG listing where you are a player of. Your GM is lacking fundamental information that would make people apply. Namely he does not answer most of the questions above. From what he has there, I cannot grasp what kind of game I am going to expect and would be very likely to leave should my expectations not be matched. Have your GM fill in more information and tell people what they should expect. As a community, we have to get the word around on how to make applications and LFG listing properly. There needs to be a standard, a norm, that when followed will yield the same results regardless of who you are and what system you are playing. On the other hand you also have GMs and players that lie about the information they give. This is unfortunately something that cannot be fixed. In your case, you are having a bad streak of lack of information supplemented by lack of players that make people just quit.

Brother Sharp: Even though I mainly agree with you on the points you made in your post, my guess is that you are missing the big target here. I feel that you are describing how to make excellent campaigns starting from an excellent LFG post like a champ consultant when the problem I was talking about is in ever getting to actually roleplaying. I just realized that my post might come off as unfriendly. You just have to trust me, it is not meant that way. I just feel that you are talking about one thing and I was talking about another. For example: A) It seems that your take is that the biggest reason why people become no-shows is the mismatch of expectations. Even if this was 100 % true, how does it explain the lack of communication? For example, lets say you've never played chess before and you have a friend of a friend who likes chess and is willing to teach / play with you. You start playing every Sundays (you heathens!) at 12.00 am. After a few sessions you realize that chess isn't the type of game you thought / hoped it to be so you want to stop playing it. Do you just not go to your next Sundays gaming session without ever contacting the person who will be waiting for you at 12.00? Of course not. In Roll20 that is exactly what people do. If they confront so big mismatch of expectations that it makes continuing the gaming unenjoyable, they should say so and tell the rest of the gaming group that they won't be joining future sessions anymore. In Roll20 they just won't show up. Also how does a mismatch of expectations explaing the situations of 3/4 players not showing up on the *first* session? What new information did they get between applying and the first session that revealed to them how the campaign will not be anything like they expected / hoped when they applied? I totally understand a correlation between mismatch of expectation and people leaving after a few sessions but not not showing up on the first session. In fact even the second session would feel very unnormal behaviour in the "real world" even in the current ADHD-era. B) 'Wall-of-text, won't read' Is what can be assumed to be the reaction of most people nowadays if one actually tries to write a thorough LFG or application. I personally feel it would be better if it would try to answer most questions clearly but because different people see different things as important, the amount of text needed to go them all through properly is simply a lot and this would scare off many people. Back to the point My original post had nothing to do with 'I can't find a game of Fate because there are so few available out there'. I just used a real example that I happened to know well, because it happened to me. This thread was / is meant for constructive discussion about how people behave and act in Roll20, what kind of problems that can cause and possibly what could be done to lessen those problems. In fact I would love to hear from the people who have left games without ever contacting anyone about it or not showing up on campaign they specifically applied for so we could better understand the real reasons. Right now I'm just guessing and I always prefer knowing over guessing.

In the interests of civil and constructive approach might I suggest you drop this from your title: " how people in the internet turn into 5 year olds and what can or even should be done due to this" I don't think the people who are unable/unwilling to show up to a game will engage if you begin with what is essentially name calling. Secondly: "I totally understand a correlation between mismatch of expectation and people leaving after a few sessions but not not showing up on the first session. In fact even the second session would feel very unnormal behaviour in the "real world" even in the current ADHD-era." Is also fairly disrespectful to people with ADHD, and you may unintentionally be calling them out as bad gamers as a result of how you phrased that. Could you amend please? I absolutely understand your frustrations and desire to discuss this in a positive problem-solving way, so these small changes would probably help steer conversation that way.

Out of interest, how long in your experience have you and/or the GM waited for players who did not show up? I ask because we normally have 1-2 people who are pretty late to a session, and it's only due to texting that these details usually come up (meeting ran late, traffic is worse than I thought, etc.). We also do a roll call 24 hours or so in advance to see who will make it that week (and we still hit the above issues). It's not a problem for my group as we have friendships stretching back many years, but for newly formed groups I can see how this would instantly poison the budding game group. &nbsp; I'm wondering if some of it is "Oh no, I'm stuck in the car and missed the kick-off of the new Fate group!" Player turns up 35 minutes late. &nbsp;No one is there. &nbsp;Player is confused if it was called off or if it never materialised, or even if they were cut from it. &nbsp;Social anxiety leads them not to make any further contact in case they get a backlash from those who did manage to make the session. I'm not saying that has happened every tie but it strikes me as plausible?

Not the OP, but as a GM I've waited a week for a player to show up or message me 'sorry got stuck in traffic' We don't remember the times when people are just barely late. &nbsp;That happens frequently and isn't that much of an issue to most.&nbsp; The no-shows are definitely an issue. &nbsp;I hate it when they don't communicate, I don't know why, maybe just the disrespect of it? &nbsp;I have no issues with players leaving or not wanting to play, but they definitely should just send a PM saying such. even if it's 'sorry, can no longer attend ' I also do know about the lesser know systems can take a long time. &nbsp;I run cortex classic, and that can take 4 months to get a full party of 5.

I beleive the OP wasnt talking about mismatch of expectations. I joined a wednesday game and the GM while quite good, had a few rules that didnt work for me including a rather odd exp rule, while he did an excellent job I just couldnt stay. So I informed him that I was not having fun and I quit. but I realize so few actually inform GMS While I am looking for players I so often have players join and seem excited and then for no reason I can tell unfriend me on skype and vanish

Maetco said: A) It seems that your take is that the biggest reason why people become no-shows is the mismatch of expectations. Even if this was 100 % true, how does it explain the lack of communication? For example, lets say you've never played chess before and you have a friend of a friend who likes chess and is willing to teach / play with you. You start playing every Sundays (you heathens!) at 12.00 am. After a few sessions you realize that chess isn't the type of game you thought / hoped it to be so you want to stop playing it. Do you just not go to your next Sundays gaming session without ever contacting the person who will be waiting for you at 12.00? Of course not. In Roll20 that is exactly what people do. If they confront so big mismatch of expectations that it makes continuing the gaming unenjoyable, they should say so and tell the rest of the gaming group that they won't be joining future sessions anymore. In Roll20 they just won't show up. Also how does a mismatch of expectations explaing the situations of 3/4 players not showing up on the *first* session? What new information did they get between applying and the first session that revealed to them how the campaign will not be anything like they expected / hoped when they applied? I totally understand a correlation between mismatch of expectation and people leaving after a few sessions but not not showing up on the first session. In fact even the second session would feel very unnormal behaviour in the "real world" even in the current ADHD-era. B) 'Wall-of-text, won't read' Is what can be assumed to be the reaction of most people nowadays if one actually tries to write a thorough LFG or application. I personally feel it would be better if it would try to answer most questions clearly but because different people see different things as important, the amount of text needed to go them all through properly is simply a lot and this would scare off many people. I do agree that what I said might seem to be different than what you are trying to discuss about, I assure you that it is fundamentally the same. Let me discuss both your A and B. A) The mismatch can explain leaving at session one too. In what you said above it is exactly the "The new information that they did not get " is what turned them off. Maybe they found a new more interesting campaign with a more information and decided to go there instead. Maybe they started getting scared of certain things that might happen into the game because they are venturing into the unknown. Some people do not like the unknown, and would much rather avoid it. Of course, it is the player's fault for not asking but as a GM you have to assume everyone is scared and you should answer all their questions preemptively so that they can feel secure and at home. In real life, people would have some sort of responsibility and would be inclined to show up, however this is the internet and people would rather avoid taking responsibility for anything if possible. That is why you let them know in advance what the feel of the game would be before they join so that they can gauge it by themselves. There of course are people who are not going to show up even after all the information that you put up, but that would most probably be much less than without information. B) This is subjective. I feel like people who cannot read my wall of text social contract of Dos and Don'ts and what to expect from the game clearly do not deserve a spot. Those people that you scare off with this are precisely the kind that will leave at session one or not show up at all. You want to scare off as many "volatile" players and keep the best ones in there. I also looked at the suggestions you linked to, I do have to say that roll20 is not the place for player/GM voting or reviewing. Primarily because this requires player and GMs to actually play outside their usual circle. This also causes toxic reviews which may permanently brand your account in such a way that you will never find someone to play. This will eat up time from the Devs to check whether certain voting or reviews are actually legitimate. The main reason why I said the stuff about mismatch above is because this is a problem that can only be solved through accurate and strict GMing. When I look for players at least, I treat it like a job application. I give them the contract, I give them the guidelines, I give them the future prospects of the game. If anyone falls out of the line, does not apply properly or ignores the guidelines then their post is deleted after being messages as to what they did wrong. At that point most people never bother to re-apply.

Alan H. said: In the interests of civil and constructive approach might I suggest you drop this from your title: " how people in the internet turn into 5 year olds and what can or even should be done due to this" I don't think the people who are unable/unwilling to show up to a game will engage if you begin with what is essentially name calling. Secondly: "I totally understand a correlation between mismatch of expectation and people leaving after a few sessions but not not showing up on the first session. In fact even the second session would feel very unnormal behaviour in the "real world" even in the current ADHD-era." Is also fairly disrespectful to people with ADHD, and you may unintentionally be calling them out as bad gamers as a result of how you phrased that. Could you amend please? I absolutely understand your frustrations and desire to discuss this in a positive problem-solving way, so these small changes would probably help steer conversation that way. The comment about the title I understand even though I had very reasonable reason to use the words I used. I couldn't explaing the content with a proper sentence since it would make the already thrice too long title longer and by using the analogic reference everyone gets a good general level understanding about the subject. How does one edit the title in Roll20? The comment about the ADHD-era fall, to my humble opinion, to the category of 'the thing about people is that they will always find a way to get offended'. My comment was not meant in anyway to be offending to people who have ADHD or any other behaviour related disorder. I understand your concern but the fact remains that I can only hope that people will not focuse on trying to find ways to get offended by the text I write. Otherwise I couldn't write any text at all. I have no idea how long people in general wait at the beginning. I usually wait for 10 - 15 minutes before I start contacting people. After about 30 min I will either start the session anyway or call it off depending on how necessary it is for all players to be present. I don't think (just a humble educated guess) this would be a major cause for no-shows because of: a) there usually doesn't seem to be any communication before, during or after the session. If I were to miss a session due to something like that I would obviously explain the situation as soon as I could (later the same day or the next day latest). b) with a no-show I (and to my understanding most people here) mean people who drop out of the campaign without a warning not people miss one session. But like I wrote in my OP, I really don't have much experience of the matter due to my method of finding / choosing players. -Brother Sharp- I'm not trying to repeat myself, nor am I trying to "win" an argument here but I feel that what you are talking about is how to improve the quality of gaming groups and games where as I'm talking (sorry, I have a tendecy of writing 'talking' when I obviously mean writing) about how to get games to happen at all. For example: 'I feel like people who cannot read my wall of text social contract of Dos and Don'ts and what to expect from the game clearly do not deserve a spot.' Don't get me wrong, that is more or less how I feel about the matter but it still talks about how to "recruit" the best players to have an excellent RPG campaign. I'm writing (or as possibly felt by some trying to) about why do we need to check the players and GMs with a louse comb in order to get a game going. Roll20 is supposed to be a place where people who are already interested in RPGing and the GM of a campaign should already be interesting in having the campaign they are about to have and the players are supposed to be interested in playing in the campaign they applied to. There should not be a need to start testing people just to get a game going, should there? Once again I understang that it can and probably will improve the quality of the campaign.

Understood, I just try to make the boards as friendly and open to everyone as I can. &nbsp;It means normally treading much more lightly than I would with people I know, to try and minimise misunderstandings. There should not be a need to start testing people just to get a game going, should there? Once again I understang that it can and probably will improve the quality of the campaign. I don't know if that's true either though. &nbsp;If you take a look at something like the Color Animal Inn&nbsp;games run by Phnord Prephect, they fill very quickly and have no barrier to entry except "Don't be a jerk." <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1070462/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1070462/slug%7D</a> So clearly it must be possible to get a game up and running without hours of grilling potential candidates about their fitness for a campaign. &nbsp;I think the big difference is that Phnord isn't trying to organise people ahead of time, but rather saying only that he'll be there, and throwing the doors open. Not every game could/would work that way. I still get the impression from everything that's been said that none of us know why these no-shows no-contact folks do what they do. &nbsp;We all agree it is frustrating and detrimental, but without knowing why they behave that way I don't see how we can suggest ways to prevent/improve the issue. Back to Honey Badger's pay-to-play model then: Would you consider adopting this Maetco? &nbsp;As either GM or as a player? &nbsp;I ask because it might solve the issue for you, if not for everyone, if you can find a paid-for GM and try to organise a group around them. &nbsp;That way you have quite literal buy-in on each session.

Sorry about that, my tone might seem a bit too serious for what it needs to be. I too am not trying to win an argument, just throwing my opinion around. In a perfect world, it is expected of people to communicate their absences. It is also expected that those who enlist themselves in roll20 are enthusiastic enough to go through with whatever system they prefer. However that is not true as this is the internet. I do understand that you want the no show-up players to show up while my approach is to weed these players preemptively. One thing you have to accept is that not everyone sees roll20 the same way as you do. If there is a willing GM and enough willing players, there should not be any obstacles in getting a game going. Unlike real life conventions where multiple people interested in a system show up, or when you find people in your local game shop, people that are here on roll20 are not necessarily the perfect matches for playing games with. In real life, unless you either know a friend that is into the system or frequent a shop with like-minded people it is hard to get into a game, whereas roll20 can be accessed by even the most lousiest scumbags so long as they have internet. You need to take into account that real life already "filters" players to some extent. From my experience I have not found a medicine for the no-shows no-contact people. You can message them all you want, and if they are not interested you will not get anything back. There are many reasons why this happens but the main thing that should be accepted is that there is no way to change their minds and frankly speaking I would hate to play together with someone who is unenthusiastic. Hence the method I proposed to get games starting is to "eliminate all the no-show, no-contact, non-enthusiastic people" and only allow room for those who actually care about the game to get in. This can get tricky because it diminishes the already low population of certain games, FATE in this case. However, It is better to have one player that will respond to you than 10 players who will not show up. Of course this would not happen if there was some kind of responsibility administering system, but these systems will to some extent "force" players to show up. And then again, do you want to play together with someone that was "forced" to show up? It may seem a bit harsh but I for one think that there is no way to get games going if you allow room for "volatile" players to join. This may be a bit off topic but I noticed that you said that you did not wait more than 10 to 15 minutes before contacting people. Does this mean all the games you have GMed or have applied to are all first come first served? I noticed that in your current game where you are a player of the GM is welcoming someone by merely posting. This may be very subjective and I understand that you want the game to start as soon as possible but have you or him considered waiting for at least a week or so until the applications flow in before giving the final verdict on who joins or not? As for the pay-to-play model, I find that a model where either the GM or the players pay to play is absolutely terrible. This is purely my opinion but I find the art of GMing to be sacred and that a GM should feel honored to have players attend his/her session. I understand that the preparation time and effort put into it may warrant some kind of payment but the quality of a GM can make or break the game and unless there is some kind of committee somewhere that judges GMs on their quality, there is no room for paying money to someone just to attend a game.

Brother Sharp said: Hence the method I proposed to get games starting is to "eliminate all the no-show, no-contact, non-enthusiastic people" and only allow room for those who actually care about the game to get in. This can get tricky because it diminishes the already low population of certain games, FATE in this case. However, It is better to have one player that will respond to you than 10 players who will not show up. Of course this would not happen if there was some kind of responsibility administering system, but these systems will to some extent "force" players to show up. And then again, do you want to play together with someone that was "forced" to show up? The problem with this is low population systems (assuming FATE is low as Cortex), you don't get to choose between 11 people :( The only way I found is to build the group in time. &nbsp;You shed people here and there, but if you stick to it, you can get a core group of 4+ that are reliable. &nbsp;It can take months though haha. as for the paid to GM model: I am highly considering this. &nbsp;Though I know a lot of people are against it, strongly so, but I want to hear from someone like you who is. What I am considering is that my players pay me $0.25 per hour. &nbsp;My games run about 3 hours, sometimes 4. &nbsp;This means they are spending about .75$ or $1.00 per session. &nbsp;I think this would help me buy more packs from Gabriel P., pay for my Pro status (well partially), and other goodies. Do you think this is a fair pricing model or does it still tick you the wrong way? &nbsp;I am curious so that way when I do consider it more strongly, if people who are against it seem 'meh' about, then its probably fair.

Also, what kind of suggestion can we pull out of this conversation? &nbsp;To keep it on track of course. &nbsp; Like what can we suggest/vote to hope that roll20 implements.

I'd just go with a flat $1/player/session, though at that point I'd be more likely to ask for a $2-3 entry fee. I get that some people hate the idea of charging and should be honoured to have players, but unless I was running for actual friends I wouldn't have any qualms about knowing I make $10-15 in return for my prep time, whether anyone shows or not. Suggestions wise I don't have anything that would solve the original question, and I doubt that the Orr Group want the headache of policing a social rating scale/reviews. &nbsp;The Off-Topic forum had to be shut down because some people could not be trusted to engage in civil debate. &nbsp;I would assume that the same would happen for any ratings system. Maybe we can make a player/GM charter and if you pledge to uphold it you can join a huge game/chatroom. &nbsp;Those who have complaints raised against them are kicked. &nbsp;

In my opinion there are several suggestions that can be derived from this. -Implement an official guideline and etiquette about joining/looking for players. Tell them the current status of many people not showing up or contacting and remind them that they should say something. -Implement a kind of a reminder system, it reminds the players or the GM that a game should be happening in X days or Y hours from now in their e-mail in a set period of time. -An availability checker where the players can "check" to see if they are coming or not. If someone misses such a thing they are e-mailed that they should tell what happened to the GM unless they already talked ahead. At least these are off the top of my head that would help from the side of roll20 to keep things more in-line. As for monetizing, my biggest qualm right now is that you cannot certify that the players will get what they pay for. If four players each pay 1$ per hour, then if I was such a player I would expect my character to have equal spotlight in that same hour as the others. If the party was to split and I would be idle for an hour until they finish what they are doing then I would refuse to pay my 1$ for the hour. This is purely from my subjective view but if you need money to keep GMing then I am afraid you are doing some terrible life choices. I consider GMing a kind of a hobby, no one pays me for collecting all those figurines or cards in real life, in fact I spend more money for them. That is how I view monetizing. And with money in the middle your relationship with the players will turn into supplier and customer and players will treat each other as customers.

Maetco said: How does one edit the title in Roll20? PM a moderator with a link to the post and what you want it to be renamed as.

The Aaron said: Maetco said: How does one edit the title in Roll20? PM a moderator with a link to the post and what you want it to be renamed as. Is there an easy way to find a list of moderators?

"This may be a bit off topic but I noticed that you said that you did not wait more than 10 to 15 minutes before contacting people. Does this mean all the games you have GMed or have applied to are all first come first served?" My normal method of getting players is very diffrent from what I tried with my first Fate campaign. Usually what I do is: 1) I get an idea about a campaign. 2) I flesh out the core concepts of the campaign such as: very rough mindmap for the story/plot, who the PCs are, what makes this campaign special, what system I'll use, etc. 3) I start thinking who would be good players for the campaign. By 'good' I mean both a good player for my sake and would be interested in the campaign. Then I'll contact these people and ask would they be interested in joining the campaign. 4) Depending on how many players I got after 3), I'll either expand my search for players but I still keep the recrouting to very personal level. I mean I contact people, instead of publishing an open invitation. These people can be formel players, former GMs, friends of friends, "interesting" people here in Roll20, etc. I keep doing this until I have "enough" players. 5) I do more precise plan for the campaign and flesh out a schedule for its start and make my best guess how long it will last. 6) I'll contact all of my "players" (the people who have shown interest in joining), give them more info about the campaign and ask who are willing to commit joining the campaign. 7) If enough people commit to the campaign I start practical preparations (such as NPCs, maps, etc.) so I can actually run the campaign well. If I don't have enough committed people I go back to 3). 8) I start the campaign. The whole process usually takes at least 4 weeks but has been known to take about 6 months when things get complicated. "I noticed that in your current game where you are a player of the GM is welcoming someone by merely posting. This may be very subjective and I understand that you want the game to start as soon as possible but have you or him considered waiting for at least a week or so until the applications flow in before giving the final verdict on who joins or not?" To my understanding when he got his original 4 players, this is exactly what happened. He had th LFG posted for about 1 - 2 weeks before the first session. Now he is just looking for more people so we can actually start the campaign, since all the orignal 4 people have split. How about a reverse pay-wall. In order to get in, the player must pay, say 10 or 20. And for as long as they keep showing up (on time) or if they can't make it, inform the GM ASAP and if their reason is good, they are refunded portions of their initial payment. For example for every 3 sessions they would get 1 back. These numbers are there just to explain the method and would require a quite long campaign to make sense.

Brother Sharp said: for. If four players each pay 1$ per hour, then if I was such a player I would expect my character to have equal spotlight in that same hour as the others. If the party was to split and I would be idle for an hour until they finish what they are doing then I would refuse to pay my 1$ for the hour. This is purely from my subjective view but if you need money to keep GMing then I am afraid you are doing some terrible life choices. With no disrespect to others, I'd consider myself a poor GM if I waste someone's time at my table sitting idle for an hour! I understand your point of view, and I don't GM for money, but I do make tokens for money. &nbsp;You could argue that needing money to draw is indicative of a poor choice. &nbsp;I would offer the view that I enjoy doing it anyway but I am grateful for the freedoms that the money provides me. &nbsp;I could spend an extra Saturday drawing, which I enjoy, rather than overtime at work. &nbsp;I don't consider that a bad move. &nbsp;I don't intend this as argument, I am not trying to convince you on the commercialisation of story-telling, but I do offer it up as an alternative viewpoint for you to consider. I'm off topic now! &nbsp;Back to the main point: I think the suggestion of a game-reminder email system is a good one. &nbsp;I'd vote for that, but also I'd love to see a kind of poll style roll call integrated into it, a kind of click-to-confirm attendance feature or a one-click to send your apologies that you won't be there. &nbsp;It might help people communicate.

I also feel that the reminding system would be an improvement that should help a bit. It should reduce the number of cases where people just forgot to show up dramatically but also keep the campaign in the players' mind which might psychologically make them more invested in it. Right now we have the option of putting up when the next session will be. It wouldn't hurt if it also had the option to "call for attendance". Kind of like how in Outlook you can invite people to a meeting and they get to either accept or refuse. This would help communication and keeping people up to date. This should be linked to email (at least) because few people log in to Roll20 outside gaming sessions / to make maps, characters etc. This makes communication within Roll20 slow and often redundant. Creating official rules / guidelines / etiquette for the LFG could help. It would inform people what is expected of them and thus some people would probably change their behavious to some degree but without any way to enforce the rules their effect would probably be very limited. Concerning the pay-wall: GMs often have monetary costs for being able to provide good campaigns and the payments from the players are not there so the GM would turn GMing into a profitable business. They would probably just decrease the economic loss. For example Pro-features cost 99 dollars per year (minimum). These features mainly help the players to have more fun with the campaign, they themselves receive for free. If the players pay, for example 10 dollars each, they end up reducing the GMs costs, not making him profit. The GM is GMing for fun but why should s/he pay all the bills and do almost all of the work and bear most of the risks of people turning out to be no-shows? The biggest problem concerning the pay-wall, imho, is the fact that it has to be done completely outside of Roll20. This means that the players would have no guarantee what so ever, the payments could reguire ridiculous amount of administrating work with respect to sums and international money transfers are not that easy for everyone. If Roll20 would have good features relating to this type of arrangements the pay-wall would become much more valid option.

The issue is finding reliable people to show up for a game. I don't think this is much different from building a group in real life. Here are some suggestions that GMs can take without waiting for roll20 I didn't see mentioned above. Build an audience: Play one-offs or short campaigns that better survive players dropping out so you don't waste too much time prepping for a campaign that dies. This will help you find out who is reliable and who isn't. Advertise: If the system isn't popular on roll20, make sure you let people know where the system is popular. Not every FATE player on the internet is familiar, or active on, roll20. Throw some hoops up: This was somewhat touched on above and is similar to the paywall. Make sure your campaign description is details and sets expectations. Also, request applicants include certain information in their application. Weed out the applicants who fail to do this. As for an actual system, it would be nice to have a designated spare system. People opt-in for various systems and times and get notifications when a GM is looking to replace a no-show for a session.

The idea of building an audience is a really good one Tyler, thanks for that! I can see how a handful of one-shots might be a great way to find people who will show up. &nbsp;If not, no big deal, just start fresh.

Yeah, sometimes its difficult to see easy answers to difficult questions. The best way to find out who are good and reliable players is to play with them. When you find a keeper, make sure to take their contact info for future. I just had never thought of how one session "campaigns" are a great way to both attract new people and to do little research about the playerbase with minimum investment from the GM.

My turn to rant? So I've been on and off roll20 a few years now. Played in a few games, but due to inpatient ran quite a few. Mostly dnd 4e. Due to the game being so popular I never had a problem finding players, but keeping them was always hard. One thing I do when starting a new campaign is invite 1-2 people more than I want. I plan on at least 1 person not showing up, and that way if a few don't we can still play. I also set up a few "npc" characters I can control if the group needs a fill in. However to show that this is serious and I value my time, I only wait 10-15 after the session start, usually by doing a re-cap of the last session. In addition I do a 3 strike rule. If you miss and don't communicate to me (unless due to something serious IE emergency) you are kicked. If you do give me notice or show up late or leave early, after 3 times I kicked you. Now If it's 3 times over 6 months don't worry, but if it's 3 times in 1-2 month i'd rather have a player who wants to play. Telling my player this right up seems to have helped a lot. just my 2 cents with some workarounds.

Mel(Casey) said: My turn to rant? So I've been on and off roll20 a few years now. Played in a few games, but due to inpatient ran quite a few. Mostly dnd 4e. Due to the game being so popular I never had a problem finding players, but keeping them was always hard. One thing I do when starting a new campaign is invite 1-2 people more than I want. I plan on at least 1 person not showing up, and that way if a few don't we can still play. I also set up a few "npc" characters I can control if the group needs a fill in. However to show that this is serious and I value my time, I only wait 10-15 after the session start, usually by doing a re-cap of the last session. In addition I do a 3 strike rule. If you miss and don't communicate to me (unless due to something serious IE emergency) you are kicked. If you do give me notice or show up late or leave early, after 3 times I kicked you. Now If it's 3 times over 6 months don't worry, but if it's 3 times in 1-2 month i'd rather have a player who wants to play. Telling my player this right up seems to have helped a lot. just my 2 cents with some workarounds. Thanks for your input. I really feel we need more comments from non-subscribers because they are the masses in Roll20. You wrote that you had a hard time keeping players. How often did a player usually drop out? Once every 2 sessions, once every 4 sessions? Ps. I created a new suggestion based on Brother Sharp's idea: <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3075915/add-an-option-to-the-next-session-to-notify-all-the-players-and-gms" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3075915/add-an-option-to-the-next-session-to-notify-all-the-players-and-gms</a>. Let's get it some votes to make it happen.