SO MANY NO SHOWS- CHARGE A FEE PER GAME HOSTED OR FOR THOSE THAT SCHEDULE GAMES & DO NOT SHOW UP

Currently Roll20 has a large number of games that GM's post and simply do not show up for or never accept new players essentially "littering" the looking for games with non-options that appear to be options. This is incredibly discouraging for those that want to play in actual games that do meet and play.  I am a PRO subscriber (and have been for several years) and have run long term campaigns that are well attended by multiple players.  In attempting to find other groups where I can play, I feel there are too many "free" games listed that either A) never actually play or B) do the bare minimum to be listed as a free game but don't actually accept any players as a lot of games have 1 player with loads of open slots that they never fill.   Roll20 should find a way to police games that are just "time wasters" like this that make it harder for people to find actual games.  These games could be bad actors trying to download the quality of the "looking for games" listing hoping people will get frustrated and just join a pay to play game or could be people that were never serious in the first place about running a game.  Please add a small fee ($5 a year?) to run a game and maybe give one game free with a paid subscription and two free games with a pro-subscription.  That would solve this problem quickly.  Any feedback or other potential solutions are appreciated.  Thank you, Nice Guy Eddy

Doesn't really sound like a solution to me. It would probably just better to close LFG after a certain period of inactivity. Or generally have a fixed time limit where you need to find players.  I think the attractiveness of roll20 will be diminished by forcing GMs to pay, and will ultimately end up in pay2play games only, so the DMs can pay the subscription. 

Pay-To-Play is allowed on Roll20 by following their policy. So, you can GM a game and make it "Pay to Play" so that the players might be less likely to no-show, since they've paid you. Likewise, you can look for Pay To Play games, and join them, thus giving insurance to your expectation that the other group members will show up too (the ones who also paid, and the GM you paid to). So, this suggestion basically already exists, but the Suggestion seems to be saying to make everyone pay, not to have it be a choice of the GM? You have the option now to join only games with people who pay, as it is, already.

Marco's idea of closing games that are inactive after a period is a good idea but won't completely solve the problem. There needs to be a consequence for people creating games that either A) Never accept players or B) accepts players but the GM never shows up.  As I said even a modest fee would prevent this.  There are plenty of people that just want to play and/or run free games.  People are posting games they never intend to run hurting the quality of the "Looking for Games" almost seems to be the point of so many people doing this likely to drive traffic to pay to play games that are frankly low quality and not worth what they are charging. I am urging Roll20 to make there be some consequence to this or you will lose paid subscribers.  I can run my games over discord or some other platform but I love the ease of Roll20.  This is a big deal for me and several others new to Roll20.  I have had several players show up or try to get in games but they are never accepted as players or GM's flake out and show up so they are surprised to find an actual free game that runs smoothly, is respectful of peoples time, etc....

An alternative would be to limit the number of LFG-posts a person can have open at the same time. Even if you are a full time work-addict GM, I cannot possibly see the need for a single person to have more than 10 simultaneous LFG-posts going.

Nice Guy Eddy said: Please add a small fee ($5 a year?) to run a game and maybe give one game free with a paid subscription and two free games with a pro-subscription.   While I understand you concern, you base the above on the assumption reliable GM's are willing to pay to host a game. Asking reliable DM's to pay a fee to host games will more likely result in fewer reliable GM's hosting games. I already put in a great deal of my time to be ready for games I host as well as pay for modules, rulebooks, etc. I can tell you, I am not going to pay any additional fees for every game I run. I mostly run long campaigns and am not going to pay even 5 buckzoids a year for that on top of what I already pay. I sure as heck would not do it for one shots or short adventures that I might do from time to time. You think it is hard to find a good game now, wait till reliable GM's stop posting new games. Last, what you propose is a penalty to reliable DM's by making them pay for the faults of others.  The better path is to just close inactive games as suggested above. The reality is in a free community with free services, this sort of thing is going to happen. 

Closing inactive game listings already happens. There are several policies like that, in place, mechanically. For example you cannot post an LFG more than 3 months in advance, and they automatically disappear after the date passes.  There is not a limit on the number of games that a Roll20 user can create. Keep in mind some of these GM's might collect Applications until near the game's day, and only then the GM chooses which players to Invite, and then closes their LFG.  Just because an LFG is posted without any applications being accepted yet, does not mean the GM is necessarily inactive.  GM's can take their time & decide for themselves which Players to invite and when. Hoot said: The better path is to just close inactive games as suggested above. 

Just some data points to illustrate what I am saying but I do hear what you are saying about being unfair to GMs- hence maybe you get a couple of games with a PRO subscription?  I suspect the worst abuse of this is happening with free accounts. As of the start of this post there were 23 pages of D&D 5th Edition games (30 listings per full page).  Of these 16 of the pages were pay to play games.  Of the 7 pages that were not pay to play roughly 3 pages of them had 2 players or less (i.e. likely not a real game or not a successful one).  Some of them may have been just starting but most games with only 2 people aren't a real game.   I'd be interested if these numbers hold up over time but as a paid subscriber for multiple years this has definitely gotten to be more of an issue over the past year or two.  Any relief or assistance is appreciated- stop fake game offers.

You are not entitled to people's time, nor anyone to DM for you. While there may be issues in activity it is, unfortunately, an issue that cannot be solved without alienated what makes roll20 unique. If roll20 made me pay per game, I would stop using roll20.

Could this at least partially be solved with a more organised system for applications? Instead of using the forums and PMs, if people register their application in a web-form. If you are not selected for the game, you can still get an auto-generated message like "You are not selected. The GM has invited 5 players to the game. Do you want to keep your application active in case more players are allowed in Y/N?" That would also make it easier to spot any fraudulent behaviour, when information can be aggregated from a database, rather than by browsing forum-posts. Another solution would of course be to prevent a GM form posting simultaneous games to the LFG.

Styx- none of my claims suggest I am "entitled" to a game- they are simply about enhancing user experience for paying customers and curbing behaviors (likely by free users) that waste time and provide "non-opportunity" games that discourage people.  I suggested perhaps Plus and Pro users should get one or two (or even two or four- whatever), so you would likely not have to pay.  "The Styx doth protest too much..." Jens F. suggestions sounds like a step in the right direction at least.

Nice Guy Eddy said: Jens F. suggestions sounds like a step in the right direction at least. :) There was another post about the players directory (not being used much). Perhaps a system could cover both needs. There are players struggling to find a game to join. This is basically a matching system, and there is a reason Tinder works better than the old forums-n-PMs.  (sorry for derailing, but it sounds like you are are looking for a discussion about this)

How about no limit and you let people do what they want? Paying customer or no. When I first started on this website I spent a year as a free user because I had no income, roll20 got me into D&D. If they asked me to pay for ANY game, I would've never used roll20, and perhaps never have got into D&D

I am not trying to create barriers to new users utilizing Roll20, however I am certain the organization could find a compromise that better serves existing paying customers and ends the "Not a Real Game come Join" shenanigans, Nice Guy Eddy

I think the money-part of this suggestion is what makes people sceptical. It is likely very few people that would actually object to a less messy platform. But to identify the problem: My impression is that most of these no-show games are  - Recruitment to other media, such as getting viewers to youtube-videos, more clicks on a web-page, expanding a discord server etc. (getting many viewers or members can help you become an influencer or for getting advertising-revenue). - Recruitments to p2p-games, using fake dates to appear on the top of the LFG-listings - Sales. Have only seen this a few times, but the games link to a site where the GM sells their home-brew rules etc - Genuine problems (tech-problems, personal problems, mistakes etc) The challenge is how to eliminate the undesired parts without hurting the last category. I think a monetary solution would hurt the last group, so perhaps that isn't the best option. 

People are the problem, Roll20 systems aren't the solution. I started out looking for games on here, with  limited success. It was frustrating. Then I looked elsewhere for a core of reliable players and GMs and found them on Facebook. You could do that, too... or stick with Roll20 and persevere. It may take a few years, but it'll be worth it. Even then, one or two c***s may get through and taint your experience. That's life, I'm afraid.

Jens F thank you for succinctly stating some of the issues.  Just saying "you have to recruit elsewhere" seems defeatist and imples the problem is insurmountable, though I appreciate the suggestions on other recruiting platforms.   Please take some steps to limit the bad behaviors Jens F points out and consider my initial suggestion (free games get zero Game Posts, Plus gets a set number[2?] and Pro [4?] gets possibly double that number).  I really thing that would eliminate the problem for the most part and would likely even encourage paid subscriber growth.

Come on Jens. Vast majority of No-Show games weren't trying to scam people, but just tried to pitch a game & didn't like any of the applications that arrived in that period of time. Their idea for starting a game at-that-particular-time fell apart. This happens many times every day on Roll20 (a site with 300,000 active gamers daily, and 8+ Million registered users, and thousands of new games created every day, only a tiny fraction of which gets offered in LFG). Jens F. said: But to identify the problem: My impression is that most of these no-show games are  If you (or anyone) sees even one-single LFG listing that's a scam to direct traffic to sales or another site, use the REPORT button.  If it violates Roll20's existing Terms of Service, the Roll20 Team will remove that LFG listing.

If you (or anyone) sees even one-single LFG listing that's a scam to direct traffic to sales or another site, use the REPORT button.  If it violates Roll20's existing Terms of Service, the Roll20 Team will remove that LFG listing. Have done, nothing happens. In a few cases I even saved a link to the games and checked back months later, just to make sure there is plenty of time. Anyway I have no idea of the proportions (and neither do you) but I can see plenty of reasons why some people would want to spam games in the current click-economy.  But, yeah, I am fairly sure that a lot of the no-shows are just, tech problems, cold feet or whatever..and part of my point is that you don't want to punish those.

Certainly don't want to punish people for trying something!  I have thrown out my share of game listings for obscure (i.e. low demand) systems (Battletech 3025, Paranoia, Champions-Battletech crossovers, SCI-FI Hero System in the Expanse, etc...).  While Jens F. does mention things I have seen too (in particular people that want to add your discord handle then never play- granted not a lot) I think just "muddying the waters" by posting these benefits "Pay to Play" games as at some point some people will pay to participate in the hobby if they feel it is taking too long to find/assemble/join a game.  I have never run more than 3 active games at a time.   It feels smarter for us as a community to address this through economics and limiting the tools available to bad actors than allowing a growing problem to persist.

If you go for a monetary solution I think you get a few problems.  If I for example run Lost mines of Phandelver and then Transition into Princes of the Apocalypse (as suggested in the latter adventure ) that will be two fees for one campaign.  The whole module- vs addon-adventure-problem would need to be solved. I think people would easily find ways around the fees by creating a singe game where all their players would join. (perhaps even whole communities of players sharing the same game) Or did you mean a per-session fee?

My thought process was active campaigns should be counted only- if you don't have a "looking for games" listing active, than my rationale is it isn't "in the way" so to speak when people go to use the Looking for games tool?  Does this make sense? You would end one campaign when you started another in the Phadelver to Apocalypse example (or just re-label the campaign).   Definitely not thinking about a per session fee.

Did you report games that didn't actually violate Roll20's Terms of Service when Roll20 investigated it, or is this implying that Roll20 Mods simply ignored your report? Jens F. said: Have done, nothing happens.

I have never reported a person or game.  I will start if this will rectify the problem, but I think these are unrelated issues.

Did you report games that didn't actually violate Roll20's Terms of Service when Roll20 investigated it, or is this implying that Roll20 Mods simply ignored your report? I assume they missed it. They have appeared to have had lots on their schedule for a while. To assume that they deliberately want to have a messy platform would be very counterintuitive. (And this feels a bit confrontative)

Anyway If the monetary solution is the final draft of the suggestion, I withdraw my +1 and retire from the debate. (sorry if I derailed it from what you intended)

If this is about Spam games, then try it, of course. Please. Nice Guy Eddy said: I have never reported a person or game.  I will start if this will rectify the problem, but I think these are unrelated issues. It will help rectify the problem if the problem includes any games that violate Roll20's Terms of Service, such as the spam/profit/hotlink reasons that Jens listed above. If the game is against TOS, there's already a way to get it removed.  If it doesn't violate TOS, shouldn't it be allowed to stay?

Legitimate games should be allowed to stay.  Games whose sole intention is to add "clutter" in the listings shouldn't.  I believe my suggestion would solve the issue, but was frankly hoping smarter minds or those with access to better data would be able to eliminate the "bad/fake" listings issue.

Pay to play tends to eliminate people who don't show up.  Just saying.

Well yes but I would hate to see Roll20 become "pay to play" only.  To be honest the GM gets just as much out of the session as the players, it just takes them more time to prepare.  I think keeping free games as an option that are feasible and users don't have to look for through a mountain of fake listings is way better.

Thanks for the suggestion! After 30 days, Suggestions and Ideas with fewer than 10 votes are closed and the votes are refunded to promote freshness. Your suggestion didn't build the right momentum this time, but feel free to submit it again! We find that the best suggestions describe the problem you are having, and the solution you want. You can learn more about the process of making suggestions on the Roll20 Wiki! More details can be found here .