Flakes?

I'm wondering if my experience with players in this group is the same as other folks. Namely - that there are a lot of flakes: Folks who say they want to play but don't show or people who play for one or two sessions and then go ghost.  To be fair, I don't think it's this group or Fate, but rather Roll20. I had the same experience when I was running Savage Worlds. Or maybe it's me.  Anyone have hints/tips on more successfully recruiting players? 

I find it’s quite a common problem no matter what system , I do find it less so if the game being run is a lesser known system and the players want to play that system , I work on a 50% dropout so try to recruit accordingly to try to keep the game going but sometimes it’s a crash and burn. generally I can turn most systems into a fate lookalike though fate accelerated is a lot harder to convert. also your game time and length could influence some people’s decisions to drop

The key issue is partially Roll20 - it doesn't have the social support tools that would let players feel connected enough to build up inertia as a group outside of the actual game setting. It's also partially just the problems of getting total strangers together to work on a hobby - having a shared interest doesn't mean they have enough of the same approach to enjoy that interest together. So instead, they meet for a session or two, and if they don't snap into place as a terrific RPG group, people drift away. There's not even a point in discussing it. Sometimes, it's an issue like "oops, I guess I didn't have that timeslot as free as I thought," which might be negotiable but comes down to "multiple strangers trying to coordinate schedules, possibly across very different time zones." But more often, it's just "meh, the group didn't click for me." Sometimes there's reasons for that, but it's not like people want to hash through gaming critiques in public. Even if a player can fill in the blanks for, "This group would be more fun for me if it had more ______ and less ______," most GMs and other players aren't likely to be willing to make those changes. When they are - that's often a 4-5 way conversation, with each person having their own preferences, and no guarantee that they can find a set of compromises that will suit everyone.

Yeah, unfortunately the only way to answer that is to get flaky people to tell you their reasons, which they generally won't. I've had people drop out after five minutes, three hours, two sessions... And their reasons ranged from "I can just tell when a group is not right for me" to "I'm burned out" to none at all - just ghosted and was never heard from again - respectively. So yeah, who knows man! I generally fully commit to anything I say I'm going to do, with the exception of a) my schedule changes or, more rarely, my wife tells me I can't or b) the one time I joined an ongoing group and they made me feel unwelcome. So, my advice is a) interview players and try to get to know them and get them to know you as much as possible and b) try to get everyone on the same page as to what you expect from the group as far as etiquette, tone, rules, etc. so that no one is made uncomfortable enough to leave, and c) Check and double check that the time works for everyone.

I'd suggest not just a player interview, but just plain discussion. Have a thread about "what appeals to you about this game" or "what movie tropes do you like to see in games" - let players get a sense of each other's personality so they have something to coordinate with in game. Often, R20 game posts have each persons submitting a character idea and chatting with the GM to sort out what they can and can't do, but no conversations between players. 

Thats a great idea Elf I will need to try that in the future. But yeah as for flakes the reasons vary for me most of the time its gms that flake a guy will say yeah ill run a game and them just never be hard from again even after multiple messages.

On Roll20 you gotta be clear on what kind of game you're offering and when it will be held.  None of this, "let's mutually decide the time".  Naw, you're the GM, you're fronting most of the work, set the time-slot best for you and ask only for people who can follow it.  No coming in late or leaving early. Also, insist that people have a cam as well as a mic.  If all players and the GMs have cameras, it is not only easier to pick up cues that someone wants to start speaking, but everyone gets the sense these are REAL people in the game, not disembodied voices, so they are less likely to be inconsiderate and dump the game, at least not without a reasonable excuse.

Pierre S. said: Also, insist that people have a cam as well as a mic. There is some good advice in this thread, but this one statement does not apply.  There are many players, myself included, that will only play in text-based games, either by preference or personal need (hearing issues, outside distractions, etc.).  Simply requiring us to play in a voice-based game will limit the number of games that we can take part in, regardless of how reliable we are.  Requiring video is just going to take that limitation a step further, which not only decreases the number of potential players to draw from, but doesn't significantly affect the number that will flake on you. I have found that the best way to build a good gaming group is to keep casting your hook...  I've worked up a considerable amount of gaming hours here on Roll20, and I've seen a lot of the same names over and over in the games that I've played.  That alone is enough to tell me which players would be consistent in any new games that I'm looking to run or play in.

So the answer is to put a lot more work on the GMs and loyal players and the flakes get a free pass to waste someone else's time, got it. There are plenty of "tools" to air what does not work for a player, and some GMs, and creating any more safe spaces for people who basically have zero manners is just enabling them.

I have found that the best way to build a good gaming group is to keep casting your hook...  I've worked up a considerable amount of gaming hours here on Roll20, and I've seen a lot of the same names over and over in the games that I've played.  That alone is enough to tell me which players would be consistent in any new games that I'm looking to run or play in. This is good advice. Just get out there and play with as many people as possible. Join servers on Discord. If people like you as a GM, they will be way more likely to stick with your games in the future (or at least not ghost on you). Create a network of reliable players and GM’s and draw on that first when you go to run a game.

Paladintodd, it is definitely not just you; and it is not FATE-specific. I have had a player disappear after the first session of a D&D campaign of which he said he had enjoyed it; I have had players dropping communication after one-shots of Dungeon World, although they said they wanted to be kept in the loop; I have had players wanting to join a game and then never showing up; etc. As for how to deal with this, I agree with Pierre that you, as the GM, need to provide a clear structure. There will be times when a player you would like to have in your game will not be able to partake because of schedules. It is unfortunate, but without a solid framework - meaning first and foremost regular sessions with consistent time frames - the players can rely on the whole game may break away. Building connections, like Elf suggested, has worked very well in the past for me. You cannot force that, though. Giving impulses may work, ultimately this is a task for your players themselves, though. On the flip side: players starting to build connections by themselves is a pretty good sign, that you have invested and reliable people, in my experience. I have, however, not found a surefire way of finding players like this. I think Megan Jones is right: you have to keep on looking. As an example, I have started a Discord-Server for Dungeon World one-shots, usually happening every other wednesday. I encourage newcomers to try out the system with no strings attached. After their first session I tag them with "active". If they do not reapply for a few sessions, they get tagged as "inactive". After that, there will be times when I will clear the list of any inactive members (with prior notice). It is a cyclical process. Eventually, I hope, someone will remain active. I also get, that it may seem unjust, that it is our job to find reliable people, David, but I'm not sure what other way there ist. You appear to be wanting to "punish" unreliable players - what are you thinking of?

I find it isn’t a Fate thing or a Roll20 thing, but an Internet thing. The barriers to entry are low and the barriers to exit are equally low. It seems all the responses on this thread, as well as the OP, are people who value gaming as an activity. If we say we’re going to game at a specific time and place, we show up, barring the standard caviats: work, family, emergencies. I’ve had to cancel games but I let folks know the reason.  Not everyone has the same level of commitment and recognizing that has lead me to certain realities about Roll20: Plan short games that have the option of being longer (my optimal is 4-6 sessions) Repeat a series of mini-campaigns (4-6 sessions) as above  Continue on, even with as few as one or two players  Continue to fish for players to replace players that drop out  Accept that people flake, no use getting upset about it Recognize that all gaming groups have a limited shelf life and it’s always apparent in hindsight when it’s done  When the game group is done, hopefully you’ve found 1 or 2 good gamers that you can get into your next group  and the most important: carry on! It’s an enjoyable hobby. /Matt

Well-said, Matt.  I say the hobby of RPGs has value, it is the King of Hobbies.  Sometimes it is hard to get it across a teleconferencing medium, but you just have to set up properly, and a touch of rules summaries and visuals as handouts is useful to keep player focus.  Do not rely solely on the "theater of the mind" aspect because you're down to lone voices. There are going to be honest players who can't make the time or won't like the genre you present.  If someone should miss because of that crazy thing I've heard about called Real Life (go figure what it is; it's a mystery), accept their reason and move on. There are also going to be outright flakes who don't appreciate what's going on with RPGs, join too lightly and leave too lightly.  We have three million users on Roll20.  There are more Roll20's than the population of Wales!  I think a good fraction of that think this was a site of ready-made games like Yahoo Games or something, and took off when they found out somebody needs to do some set-up work, in tabletop RPG!  (Board games can also be set up here, but you would have to scan in every card and piece of board to do it.  Like, ARKHAM HORROR has *22* card decks...hee hee.)

While posting a set time & day and being clear on expectations are certainly good ideas - they don't work. That's what I've been doing the last 5 years.  And I'm not talking about real life interfering, I understand that happens. I'm sure my game isn't to the liking of some players and that's fine as well. I'm talking about people who say they want to play, make a character, and then don't show up. Or people who play two sessions, say they'll be there next time and then just disappear. That I don't get, other than they are just aholes I guess.  "You appear to be wanting to "punish" unreliable players" -- I certainly keep a list of these people so I at least don't get jerked around a second time. Should those folks get tossed from the group? Should there be a google sheet of "unreliable players" for us GMs? Probably not in the friendly interest of the group.

There is a miscommunication. I was answering David's post specifically, who seemed to be especially bothered by the sugggestion that the GM put more effort into avoiding flakes.

Daniel E. s I also get, that it may seem unjust, that it is our job to find reliable people, David, but I'm not sure what other way there ist. You appear to be wanting to "punish" unreliable players - what are you thinking of? Given that Roll20 has a quest for numbers no matter the quality of the person signing up or if they actual play anything there is no chance of anything official.  Personally I let the person know what I think of them and then block them. But given internet justice these days a list is justified but not going to happen. Also why should I not be bothered? I  put a lot of work into looking for players, preparing games and running games and it is not my Job  since I do not get paid for it, so I  do not need extra work because of  manner-less idiots,  and I do not think it is anyone's job to gatekeep my feelings about it either.

 i have ran into this issue with games as well on the player side where a dm /gm will run a game then vanish after a few sessions leaving the players guessing what they did wrong ,but i think the problem is roll 20 as well . Roll 20 has some issues that need to be addressed and fixed as to the connection . 

It'd be valuable for players and GMs to have info about unreliable players/GMs - the ones who flake, the ones who try to do weird rules-lawyering that disrupts the game, the ones who are creepy or vicious to other players. However, there is no way that Roll20 wants to host those conversations, which quickly turn into dogpiling and namecalling and accusations of legal slander.  I suspect part of the problem is that D&D has gotten popular enough, from shows like Critical Role and Acquisitions Inc, that it's drawing swarms of people who've never played. They have no idea what a normal gaming group's dynamics are like, no idea what character concepts work well in a group, and are shaky on game mechanics - so of course they have no particular loyalty to a random group that had an interesting premise that, once they're in the game, has no similarity to the image in their head. On the other side, more experienced players can join a group and discover it' half newbies, and decide they don't want to be spending their gaming time telling people when to use a spell vs when to use a dagger.  And not all experienced players get along. I don't mean personality clashes, just differences in play style: if you want kickass combat victories, and the other player wants to smooth-talk the guards, and the GM wants political intrigue (or vice versa), you won't enjoy the game--and it's easier to walk away than to try to have a discussion with total strangers about whether small things could be changed to make everyone happy, or whether there just are too many different preferences. There's no easy solutions. Simplest is "just keep playing, and keep a list of players and GMs whose style you like, and another list of those you don't want to be in a game with," but that costs time and effort. Most effective is likely to understand what you're looking for in a game, and hold several discussions before that to find compatible other participants - and just ignore the ones who drop out mid-conversation; assume they realized that this wasn't what they were looking for.

one thing i tend to do is look at the player profile and also their messages and forum posts , that does i think give an idea of that players suitability to the game that you are planning to run , obviously it doesn't work for new players but it does help me , for instance have they compleated the roll20 tutirial

Rob said: one thing i tend to do is look at the player profile and also their messages and forum posts , that does i think give an idea of that players suitability to the game that you are planning to run , obviously it doesn't work for new players but it does help me , for instance have they compleated the roll20 tutirial Yes, a GM should certainly ask players to prepare with the Roll20 Tutorial.  It takes about an hour, but if you complete it you get a "mortarboard" icon in your Profile.  There are a lot of good role-players but they don't know their way around the Roll20 stuff. Before there was a Tutorial, there was also a set of YouTube videos which are still around in the Roll20 channel.

I'd just realized I hadn't done the tutorial - I don't think it existed when I started. It has some features that don't work in Opera (like the dice rolling on screen), but most of it works fine. I had gone through whatever form of tutorial existed before, because I did know about most of the features.

Pierre S. said: Rob said: one thing i tend to do is look at the player profile and also their messages and forum posts , that does i think give an idea of that players suitability to the game that you are planning to run , obviously it doesn't work for new players but it does help me , for instance have they compleated the roll20 tutirial Yes, a GM should certainly ask players to prepare with the Roll20 Tutorial.  It takes about an hour, but if you complete it you get a "mortarboard" icon in your Profile.  There are a lot of good role-players but they don't know their way around the Roll20 stuff. Before there was a Tutorial, there was also a set of YouTube videos which are still around in the Roll20 channel. I, too, look at prospective players profiles and forum posts and use them as a barometer of whether the player is suitable. I also regularly trawl the LFG forum to see what people are playing and who is looking to play what and read what people are writing about what they want. I also look for gamers that already have a group that knows each other as that seems to increase the chances they will show up via peer pressure. My plan for short mini-campaigns works pretty well. It allows me to string a bunch of them together if there is enough interest to continue or to drop it completely if the players completely flake out.  If it gets too stressful, I choose to do something else and take a break from gaming. Or at least take a break from meeting new gamers. /Matt

"flakes: Folks who say they want to play but don't show or people who play for one or two sessions and then go ghost" Like everyone has alreayd written, it is the general problem of so called "internet culture". A lot of people feel that when the communication happens through the internet, there are no responsibilities or codes of conduct. One extra source for problems is that eg. in Roll20 you can't really get a quick glance of people. I mean in real life just by looking at what a person looks like, how they move and behave and how they talk, one can "screen" the extremes. It takes seconds to do so. In Roll20, it can easily take an half an hour of work to get the same amount of info. Mys "solution" is to build campaigns around "good" players. "Good" meaning reliable, interested people who actually roleplays. And then fill the "extra slots" with new people. That way even if the new people suck balls, I usually manage to get at least reasonably fun campaign. This also enables me to expand my roster of so called good players when some of the new people reveals to be a good one.

I have to concur that internet anonymity does not make for the best behaviour. When you're not looking someone in the eye it is a lot easier to stand them up, flake out mid-session, etc. I've seen campaigns die in childbirth, make several false starts or go on life support as a result. Bad enough for the other players, but extremely disheartening as a GM. I concur that the key seems to be finding a group of players that works - both for you and for each other - and then holding on to them for future games. I'm hoping groups such as this FATE group will play a beneficial role as well, as there is a touch less anonymity?  

A lot of Roll20 people are setting up a game for their good buddies that they already knew "from the old days" who are now geographically distant.  It brings them together again.  But therefore they don't advertise their game generally.  There are often shockingly few Looking For Group ads compared to the total user base of 3 million.