>running weekly game on Roll20
>it's fun, but the group isn't amazing
>8 out of 10, breddy gud
>still feeling unfulfilled
>decide what I need is to sit in the Player seat for a while
>browse the LFG on Roll20
>garbage, utter garbage
>decide I'll check out play-by-post games
>find a game that looks kinda interesting
>put my all into creating a complex, well-thought out and interesting character that isn't edgy, a snowflake, a mary sue, or a cliche
>write an amazing application that all the other players give me kudos for
>easily get in, gg ez
>game turns out bland, boring, and uninspired
>all that work for this?
when was the last time you were really disappointed by a /tg/ ?
No, it's like these go. What you imagine is stronger, more vivid, and better constructed than what you can convey under the given constraints. Apply this to other people as well and you find out why shit's disappointing every time. Well, at least when removed from its proper, social, milieu. People you enjoy the company of and understand well compensate for this problem a lot: it's easier for everyone to 'get' everyone else, and the company is a boon in and of itself.
Or maybe it's clinical depression.
So you could shitpost on /tg/, of course.
Chin up, anon, you never know when you might run into a good DM just itching to set up a game and lacking for players.Seriously, the oddest people play D&D nowadays.
>invite lazy NEET friend to group
>Clean and kind hearted but dumber than a rock and no attention span
>tries his best to roleplay but makes shallow and forgettable characters
>forgets dice and sheets all the time but honestly tries to remember
>studies roleplaying but just can't do it
>declines all help because he wants to better himself
>he gives up and goes back to playing FF14 all day
So much potential. We tried out best but he gave up on himself
I had similar experience with one of ny friends.
>Loves to roleplay
>Usually free form and WoW RP
>Invites to D&D despite him leaving last time due to lack of interest
>Makes a great character and even provides a vibrant voice for him
>4 sessions in he doesn't respond if he can play at given time
>Doesn't show up and no message
Yeah, I wasn't dealing with the same bullshit again so I grabbed my other player buddies and we made a new campaign with people actually into D&D
>expecting play-by-post to be good
Just go back to browsing the LFG. Stop looking for D&D, try something else.
Of the several dozen PbP games I've been in over the last year or two, I'd say that two of them were actually quite well-done and enjoyable. One of them ended after three weeks, the other has been rolling for 9 or 10 months now and is actually better than my IRL game (which happens to be a very average IRL game with a bunch of faggots but whatever).
PbP isn't ALWAYS a dead end. Just, yeah, most of the time.
>like one off adventures, Saturday morning cartoon style. Use the same characters ofcourse
>have less than zero interest in doing online sessions, just not the same
>love RPG's, but not enough to dedicate every Saturday for years to one
>not many people like me
>tried being a PC
>want to play like a hero, so do heroic things while everyone else wants to be as tactical and safe as possible about everything
>DM wants constant attendance
>fuck that noise, RPGs are not the only thing in my life
>leave games kind of unsatisfied
>One month of not gaming due to scheduling fuckups
>on top of being out of work
>totally inspired to run multiple games in different genres and universes
>no gaming to be had
what is this suffering
>GM a game
>want to play but nobody else wants to GM
>try out 5e Adventures League, which is basically just one-shots at the FLGS
>every week I hate 5e more and more
>I will never play the system that I actually like unless I'm the GM
>tfw I make characters when I'm bored
>and now I have 8 of them that will never see the light of day
> party comes across an odd rune
> poke at it
> it explodes, does some damage, fuck
> party comes across another, placed at the edge of a staircase in just such a way that it would knock a person off
> poke at it from a distance with a pole
> it explodes, no harm done
> come across another placed on a pile of fuel
> one of the PCs directly walks up to it and pokes it
> fucking annihilated down to a negative million health
> blames the GM for making an unavoidable trap
"So there is this very obvious pile of high explosive, and a time/control unit on it"
"I wanna fuck with it"
"Are you sure anon? it looks pretty unstable/not a ogod idea to touch"
"Nah I got this"
"But you have very little skill in bombs"
"Nah, I got this"
He didnt got this
he now hate sme for 'tricking him'
>Have constant new ideas on concepts for sessions/campaigns
>Time rolls around for latest game
>Literally nothing planned and stutter/bullshit my way through a session and fail horribly to get it across how it was in my head
> and now I have 8 of them that will never see the light of day
I know your pain, so very much I know your pain. I almost want to write stories about these characters that I love so much that I will never play.
>Im good at it, players cant wait for another session.
>Im writing/drawing shit for plot/characters/places.
>spend couple hours per week on it because Im perfectionist
>every few months, when i ask for change of gm, as a break form my campaign, i get half assed stand alone adv From one player
>cheap plot, no World creation
> after and before we finish, he just ramble how much time it took him to create it.
>meanwhile he tries to punish me for every bad thing that his character suffered in my camping to the point of laughing at me and trying to get me butthurt over it.
>when i crit him after, he Just ignores me
>rest crew dont gm ever
Im helpless but i cant walk away, its last conceptual thing that i do nowadays. I albo like my players, even the asshole one, it Just that noone is trying to give something good back.
Welcome to Forever GM.
Let it fester within your soul until you go on a murderous rampage, killing your players and then yourself before rising again as a tortured spirit of hate and bitterness to seek out other players for slaughter.
The world shall bathe in the blood of filthy casuals, the tears of That Guy and the virginal essence of selfish fatass NEETs! Burn them all! Destroy!
They deserve no better than oblivion -- and thou art the fury that shalt bring it!
I doubt it. Everyone seemed to enjoy the campaign him included, then sudden meltdown from nowhere. It is possible he didn't like the campaign, the game or such but we've roleplayed on and off together before and got along very well.
I really like tabletop play but I feel like sooner or later I'll have to cave in and join Roll20.
Will I be disappointed? Or worse, will it be great, and tabletop play will never be as enjoyable?
>run various games for my high school friends who are casual gamers
>it's not great but it's something
>they slowly lose interest
>unrelated, but my mental health starts to decline
>my players all move off to college
>every online game I join is absolute shit
>anxiety/depression stops me from going out to a FLGS to find a pick up game
>recently moved to a new city
>don't have a car
>tfw I just read the books, listen to podcasts, and mourn my inability to enjoy my favorite hobby
I'm a great roleplayer with interesting ideas and a lot of game knowledge, I promise.
It's about the same, honestly.
With a few caveats:
1. Groups will form and disintegrate much faster
2. because of internet anonymity
3. and that's not a bad thing because you are spared the cringe and PITA of dealing with shits in person
My disappointment stems a lot from my players.
>I'm a perfectionist of a DM.
>Write my plots out like, 10 levels in advance, usually using complex flow-chart diagrams that help me make sure every event leads together naturally and I can keep track of where all the interweaving plots are going.
>Not only that, but maps. I'm a by-commission map artist, so I do a ton of work to make sure I always have high-quality battlemaps and things for players to be immersed in.
>Background music, sound effects, voices, character art, all of it.
>And in return I get half-assed, barely-cogent responses from all the players that basically seem like they're saying "Dude why do you care so much?" without actually saying it.
>And if it wasn't this group, and it was another one instead, it'd be the same thing, because I don't actually think players have the ability to invest effort into games.
Well groups dying out is my biggest problem, but that does sound like the best solution.
Is it difficult to find a game? What's the GM to player ratio like? Is it elitist because of said ratio?
And I guess as an obvious question, how do people usually communicate? Text? Voice? Video?
Why not tone it down then?
I mean, I'd love all that (pls be in London) but if people don't care, you might as well stick with a vinyl erase mat, some markers, and, "You all meet in a tavern, there's a dungeon in the cellar."
We all know this suffering. Why can't we run short rotating games for each other? We're all competent DMs. I'm gonna put something in the game finder thread tomorrow looking only for Forever GMs for short campaigns (3-5 sessions)
>Why not tone it down then?
Because I can't. It wouldn't be fun for me, I wouldn't enjoy the job.
It's like asking a writer who's not selling why he doesn't stop trying so hard and just start pandering to the popular trend to sell books. It's not hard to do, but it's not what you want to be doing, so there's no joy in doing it.
And no, I'm not in London, nor do I have the ability to run in-person games due to not knowing anyone.
No offense, but I don't trust other DMs.
>>Doesn't want to regularly attend games.
>>Cries about not having a game.
>>Pff, I'll show up when I want to.
>Man, I wish you would have just started by saying you're a moron.
Am I the only one okay with a player who can only make it sometimes?
If they let me know well in advance and are fine with the main plot never directly involving their character, I really don't see the problem.
>Am I the only one okay with a player who can only make it sometimes?
I know I'm certainly not, and my group certainly not. Especially not if it's someone who only shows up when they feel like it because "I have a life, man". Fuck that guy.
>spends days a month to prepare open world/king maker games for my players
>constantly ask for and incorporate feed back into my game
>try never to rail road but keep things moving
>other gms in group railroad us hard
>they drown us in dmpcs, last having 6 with our group at start and having them talk among themselves for 10 minute increments
>throw out sections of rules they think are useless without any thought how it effects the game
>grind to a halt when you do not follow their story
>Especially not if it's someone who only shows up when they feel like it because "I have a life, man". Fuck that guy.
Technically he said, "RPGs are not the only thing in my life"
There is literally nothing that I am prepared to sacrifice every Saturday of my life for.
Sometimes people do other things over the whole weekend, you know?
Also, being an unreasonable shit is never okay.
>People who work really hard on their games
>Just want good players who care
>Just want to play in enjoyable and lively games
>They've worked so hard and put so much into their game mastering that nothing they play in with satisfy them
>Nobody else can meet the standards that they do
You'll not find your salvation on /tg/
/tg/ games have a very bad reputation for a reason.
You'll never find those fantastical green text story games here.
They barely exist as is.
Nobody is going to put time and effort into a campaign for /tg/ players.
Finding art, finding good maps, planning out a good game, making sure the group as a whole is good...
Yeah, not happening. Not here. Not on roll20. Not on Myth Weavers.
> dumber than a rock
> no attention span
> makes shallow and forgettable characters
> forgets dice and sheets all the time
> studies roleplaying but just can't do it
> declines all help
> gives up
> So much potential.
> latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
>Am I the only one okay with a player who can only make it sometimes?
Yes. I tend to make sure every player gets something out of a game. XP, challenge, loot, character advancement, plot resolution.
I'd have to do pretty generic stuff for it to work anyway and I like my games more on the personal level.
That said, when there's good reason (emergency, important family issues and/or your future more or less hinges on it) and as reasonable a heads-up as circumstances warrant, no problem.
But to play in my games, as a prerequisite, you need to be able to friggin' play in my games.
I'm running a game for TG players, they've all been great. Not saying that's the norm, but it does happen.
Granted, I probably scared off all the faggots by saying, 'keep your lewds to a min till we all get to know each other better, your GM (me), is a furry herm, and you're gonna be cool with it or go home. '
I'll be starting that back up soon. It started back in june.
>mfw I dealt with a year of this playing Pathfinder society because I knew of no other alternatives
Full of nothing but 500 pound lardfats who want just want to murderhobo everything in a linear path. I actually tried to instigate roleplaying with those shits.
>I tend to make sure every player gets something out of a game. XP, challenge, loot, character advancement, plot resolution.
Done right, they still can get all of those things.
I am sorry, but I am just not seeing the problem with a player that just drops in occasionally.
You know how the DM brings in a quest with an npc with a problem?
Switch out the npc with the PC and adapt it to their character.
Like a reoccurring character in show.
The player gets to join, adventure, and have fun, but then the character goes and fucks off for a time.
The DM of my old group had a friend that was a roleplayer and in town for a week, so they joined the game in progress.
Their character was introduced, fun was had, and then the character moved on.
If the player and the character returned, it would have been fine.
Yes, the PC would not have a hand in the Main Plot, but neither do any of the npcs.
I just don't see the problem, assuming the player in question is a good player to begin with.
>But to play in my games, as a prerequisite, you need to be able to friggin' play in my games.
Understandable. But if they can't play in most to all, they can't play in any?
It just seems needlessly excessive.
>group of 4 friends
>playing d&d...good times
>DM bro moved away
>other friend volunteers
>game day..he prepared nothing
>I offer to run something on the fly
>warn them it may suck..
>it doesn't suck.
>now I am forever DM.
>that was 9 years ago
I want to play dammit!!!!
Yes. They tried a couple times. It was fucking awful.
>Yes. They tried a couple times. It was fucking awful.
This is the true trap of a Forever DM
Whenever I play, I spend half the time ignoring all the DM's "mistakes" and the other half walking through plotlines I can see through like greasy paper.
That's the exception, not the rule. Your pointing that out doesn't change that unfortunately.
Exception not the rule ect
You seem self aware of that at least.
Truth of the matter is most everyone here won't find a suitable group here.
I give them multilayered plots..with all kinds of options.
They gave me a railroading plot that often had the DM say " I don't know guys..just stick to where you were going"
I give them witty sly enemies with minions and bosses.
They give me "I rolled a 1, so encounter. 4 orcs. Roll init"
I gave them fluffed out setting and maps.
They gave " ya, its just s normal town. Probably an inn, I dunno"
>Finding art, finding good maps, planning out a good game, making sure the group as a whole is good...
This is literally my work as a DM. I do all of that shit, because all of that shit is what makes playing RPGs fun for me.
I sure as fuck would never DM for anyone from /tg/ though, you're right about that. I'm sorry, but you are all miserable fucking inbred cancer-sores and I would thank you to stay far, far away with your meme characters made to copy greentext stories, your edition wars and your tier lists, and your cries of "RAILROADING!!!!! PLAYER AGENCY!!!!" that keep any DM from ever touching you with a 10 foot pole.
You want a game? Don't let anyone know you're from /tg/. And then proceed to never reveal it.
I've played with one from tg.
DM started us off as slaves being forced to fight in arena. We literally started in a cell. At lv 1.
Tg player bitched for ten minutes that his druid animal companion wasn't inside the cell with him.
Refused to help us escape..because "why bother? If I don't have my horse in here with me, fuck it"
Next session: staying in inn. DM calls for spot check. Tg player demands to roll one for his horse as well, because his horse is up the stairs in the dining room with him.
I bailed. Fuck that.
>run a campaign
>everyone loves it and they're calling up for double sessions
>They rant to their friends about how awesome some session was
>Said friends want to play now, group gets unwieldy large
>I work twice the hours as any of the players in a very serious job
>I'm down to 3 hours a sleep a day, 2 meals a day
>Start turning into zombie DM
>Try to eat my co-workers brains
>I start calling my players to slow down how often we play
>They agree to slow down and I eat their brains too
>I can see how the rest of the campaign will play out exactly at this point, and it bores me(I never finish books or movies either)
>Lose the energy to perform and continue to push off having a game until our 100 session campaign evaporates
>take a vacation and saturate myself with real-life experiences
>Dirt, locations, people, food
>Dig deep into libraries to read some phenomenal books
>Something sparks and a whole new fantasy is starting to spin out of my head
>Can't DM anymore, players have no brains now
>playing long, long, 150+ hour wargame.
>Getting into the swing of things, starting an operation Sledgehammer (It's a WW2 game)
>Two other guys in the group of five have a huge ass argument over something completely stupid and minor, and one of them quits the game.
>Doesn't really work with 4 players, at least not without someone switching sides, which none of us really want to do.
>whole thing fizzles out, and we agree to table and start a brand new game.
>>Can't DM anymore, players have no brains now
That's what you get for devouring interested and engaged players.
>>I can see how the rest of the campaign will play out exactly at this point, and it bores me(I never finish books or movies either)
Cynicism is terrible trap.
Remember anon: only boring people can be bored.
>Be longtime alternating GM of group.
>Very good run of interconnected campaigns set in same world, but usually different parties throughout.
>Campaign #7 was absolutely amazing, if I do say so myself, and even though it was literally years ago, group spends a lot of time reminiscing about it.
>Campaign #8 was a flop. It wasn't terrible, and the group seemed to enjoy it, but it definitely was a lame duck after #7, being a fairly linear adventure through a big evil deathtrap dungeon and disaster striking while they were away at the end.
>Take a sabbatical from Gming for a while.
>When come back, don't touch my world which we had all the big grand adventures in.
>Group keeps asking to go back, finish things once and for all.
>Don't feel the magic anymore. 99% sure I can't live up to my previous stuff.
>Afraid to try.
>Keep putting it off.
>Hate not being able to either man up and discard the setting or make a grand finale that would actually be grand.
>There is literally nothing that I am prepared to sacrifice every Saturday of my life for.
The DM isn't asking you to enslave yourself, he's asking you to show up at a certain time to have fun! It's his and the rest of the groups time too, and the DM puts a lot more work into the game than you do and still manages to show up.
If you can't put in the effort to show up at game time then why should you be in the game in the first place?
Not really. See below
>The DM isn't asking you to enslave yourself, he's asking you to show up at a certain time to have fun!
No, the DM in this scenario is asking the player to show up at a certain time *every week* to have fun!
>It's his and the rest of the groups time too, and the DM puts a lot more work into the game than you do and still manages to show up.
Assuming well enough in advance notice is given, how does the absence of one player prevent the others from enjoying the game or detract from the time they spend?
Why does *every player* need to play *every week* or the experience is ruined.
>If you can't put in the effort to show up at game time then why should you be in the game in the first place?
Because they are a good player and maybe even a friend, add to the experience when you do play, are enjoyable to play with, and because roleplaying games are not an all-or-nothing engagement.
>>Be in a group that has a hard time keeping a game running.
>>Decide to do pretty simple basic DnD save the town stuff in a small woodland town setting in the north of my world I created for my games years ago.
>>It's going pretty good, everyone is having fun, a 4th player joins.
>>I start to lace in a more long-running plot to the background with a recurring villain (bullshit Elf-Lich Reincarnation druid/wizard who keeps leading monsters to fuck with the PC's because he hates humans).
>>Use some things never seen before in our local games, like hordes of crappy mooks, traps, ambushes, and real life riddles.
>>It goes over great.
>>This time will be different, I finally get excited.
>>Write out extensive backstory for main villain, meticulously plot out encounter with him at a freaky-deeky blood tree, complete with sound track, spell list, battle plan, etc.
>>Do the same for another encounter and surrounding events that should give them clues to were the BBEG's lair is.
>>All prepped for seriously epic next session.
>>Most unreliable fuck in our playgroup (no longer invited to my shit ever) flakes out.
>>Other player is out of town for two weeks
>>I'm busy the week after that.
>>Schedules conflict for a few weeks more even.
>>Game dies with a piece of my soul and like 6 hours of planning.
10/10 would play at your table to match wits with, just don't...murder me ingame or irl if I make you redraw the maps drastically due to horrific acts of terrain alteration due to the natural progression and execution of plans made by me listening to my dark voices.
Maybe you could contact the owner of the FLGS and say that you want to go, but your condition makes it hard as hell? You could ask about some time when the shop´s always empty or something similar, so you can spend there some time alone and get used to the place. You´ll also have a familiar face there.
That should make it easier to go when there´s more people, and actually being there probably pumps you up and helps you even further.
Hold on with that depression, anon. It takes long, but things gets better. You just gotta keep going on and trying to get out. Write a diary and force yourself to do what you used to do, maybe join a gym or some martial art classes. It worked for me, at least.
No no, this anon must be me. Along with a half dozen anons ITT who must litterally be me.
Am I the godhead of menutia and disappointment?
I feel angry and depressed on all of our behalfs. I'd strangle those players if my arms could reach out your collective eyes.
Yes. I have a GM with our really good group. But my Gm has had depresison and angst problems for a few months which has caused the campaign to lose pace.
Currently us players are plotting against each other to keep the campaign going until it'äs over. But it seems like that won't happen as of yet.
It started out great too. A WoD like campaign has issues when there's no one at the helm making the rest of the NPCs actually antagonistic.
The vampire-"prince" of the city has even gone so far as to sit in his room and delegated to one of our buddies all of the day to day work. The local hunter chapter has no issues as long as the vampire follow a sets of rules. Which they do.
Shit, even the warmongering fey have chilled out. One of them is even dating a player.
It's like I went from angst-ville to happy-town. It's incredibly disappointing.
We haven't played in our campaign for at least two months due to scheduling, and last time we finally had a date nailed down the dude who was hosting called in sick.
He turned up to work next morning anyway.
>don't like character creation
>most systems have too many options, I stress too hard.
>can't optimize worth shit, don't really care to.
>concepts sound nice at first then later I find they are coming off uninspired.
>don't want keep up a character with a kooky or zany personality for months.
>end up playing the silent type
>don't get to rp much
>other players are smart/experienced enough to know what to do in any situation witnout my input.
>pretty much combat only character
>think gming will be my shit
>love world building, mainly maps
>can make kooky charactees and have tgem die in one session
>can't think up story for shit
>don't want to railroad
>not fast enough to know what to do when my players zig when I thought they zag
>stammer though session
>people getting bored at tge table
>probably not getting another chance for awhile
Sometimes I thing ttrpgs might not be my sport.
Semi-railway. Make the story like one of those block puzzles you give to kids -- the ones where you drop circles through circle holes, and squares through square ones. The holes can be arranged however, but you'll always drop the circle through the circle, and the square through the square.
So if they go to the desert, a dust-devil djin sweeps them up and tells them that they have to find him an orb of power or he'll force them to be his dancing boys for all eternity. But if they decided to go to the jungle instead, a ruined imperial outpost leaves clues that warn of an orb of power that must be found, or the snake-men will burn it and release their evil god of immortality. Either way, same plot; get the orb. But you've given them some degree of agency.
And that's just the "super-plot". The actual sub-plot -- the bit you play -- will come naturally. Imagine; the players have to find the orb. You don't need to do anything here. They'll come up with something; they'll ask the djin if they could ride a phoenix to the nearest great library, or they'll go full Rambo in the jungle using that torn imperial map you randomly described to find the orb. And that's the story. The players playing is the main meat of the matter.
It's easier if you do it by text. You can think longer, and you don't stammer. Maybe you should get some practice in like that; but you could just do it by voice. People really won't mind a bit of stammering, or some pauses to think.
>Run a game
>Four great people set up
>Wonderful intro arc
>Great feedback, lots of praise, lots of back and forth with players on how to make the game fun for them
>One player starts sleeping through game times, pushing back games
>One player has a panic attack and deletes the game room, losing weeks of logs and plans
>Fourth player never arrives as expected after intro, and goes radio silent completely
>Hiatus of 2 weeks while I find a new player, make the game room, etc
>No one shows for 90% of games for 2 months, frustrating new player
>Announce that we need to sit down and chat about times and agree on a time with everyone' conflicted schedule
>Everyone agrees to show
>No one shows
>Scrap entire game
>the DM in this scenario is asking the player to show up at a certain time *every week* to have fun!
Not for the rest of his life. Do you not know the meaning of the word hyperbole?
>Assuming well enough in advance notice is given, how does the absence of one player prevent the others from enjoying the game or detract from the time they spend?
Nothing wrong with that.
>Why does *every player* need to play *every week* or the experience is ruined.
Because that's how playing in a group works. What's hard to understand about this? Why should a flake be accommodated?
>Because they are a good player and maybe even a friend
A good friend doesn't flake out on plans with his friends, a good friend doesn't waste their GM friends efforts to make a good game for everyone.
Why should a GM make any plans or plots for a character that he won't know will be there? Why should he try to engage a character that won't always even be there?
>add to the experience when you do play, are enjoyable to play with
They sure as fuck can't do that when they're not even there.
>and because roleplaying games are not an all-or-nothing engagement
Ok, so? So it's impossible for someone to assign a time per week to spend time with their friends?
The autism here is incredible.
Why is it when dealing with people outside the /tg/ spectrum, having to miss out on something for whatever reason is no biggy, they wish you were there, maybe next time.
Yet when it comes to people like this anon, missing out for any reason less than bleeding out in a gutter somewhere is cause for an incredible amount of bitching and whining.
> You know how the DM brings in a quest with an npc with a problem?
The games I have don't even have questgivers anymore. But even if I did, if PCs are in the middle of something else when a game begin what do I do? Do I have to disrupt the pace and rush things up so I can send McQuestgiver? I can give him control of an NPC when it happens, but then, he ain't really a player like the rest. He's an extra at best.
> Yes, the PC would not have a hand in the Main Plot, but neither do any of the npcs.
I am afraid the main villain, the hutt, the entity at the edge of the galaxy, Krath Lord Tenebros, the Republic's Secret Services all have a hand in the plot.
> But if they can't play in most to all, they can't play in any?
Yes, and no. I have little issue running the game every other week instead of every week, syncing it with that player's availability and playing another game the other week. But if it is more or less at random, then no, it is not worth the hassle.
> No, the DM in this scenario is asking the player to show up at a certain time *every week* to have fun!
No, the DM is offering the opportunity to show up at a certain time *every week* to have fun!
> Assuming well enough in advance notice is given, how does the absence of one player prevent the others from enjoying the game or detract from the time they spend?
Why does *every player* need to play *every week* or the experience is ruined.
Because players have agency. One part of the plot might end swiftly, decisions have to be taken, consequences might be had, ideas might not. The only "i" in team is the a-hole.
> Because they are a good player
Good players commit.
> and maybe even a friend,
Friends don't feel shackled into spending time with you doing something enjoyable.
> add to the experience when you do play, are enjoyable to play with,
Which only makes his absence more disturbing.
> and because roleplaying games are not an all-or-nothing engagement.
I'll correct that: A campaign is a low-priority long-term commitment. This means people usually understand if work, family, studies and emergencies take precedence once in a while. But if you flake out because "you don't feel like it" or "you wanted to go watch a movie tonight", soon everyone will and we'll end-up with no game at all. I'd rather see you go.
I run games for teeg all the time. 80% of players have been solid, 10% have been sorta distant and quiet, a further 10% were whining complaining backseat GM shitstains who I filtered out.
I think it's cos I run GURPS and not something like DnD/PF. I get the impression that's where the horror stories come from.
>>and because roleplaying games are not an all-or-nothing engagement
>Ok, so? So it's impossible for someone to assign a time per week to spend time with their friends?
What? Does that mean you do believe it's an all-or-nothing engagement? If so, just wow.
Also, letting your group know you can't make it to next weeks game because of x does not equal flake.
Flaking is not showing up without proper notice.
>The autism here is incredible.
>if PCs are in the middle of something else when a game begin what do I do?
I try very hard to end sessions not in the middle of things for this and other reasons.
>Do I have to disrupt the pace and rush things up so I can send McQuestgiver?
>I can give him control of an NPC when it happens, but then, he ain't really a player like the rest. He's an extra at best.
That's the natural consequences for not making the previous session. The player should understand and accept that beforehand just as the group accepts him not being able make every game.
>I am afraid the main villain, the hutt, the entity at the edge of the galaxy, Krath Lord Tenebros, the Republic's Secret Services all have a hand in the plot.
Not certain I follow your point, but you sound like a good GM
>it is not worth the hassle
My opinion is that it is actually less effort, because their character is less involved and integrated to the plot.
They are just an extra character.
>No, the DM is offering the opportunity to show up at a certain time *every week* to have fun!
But, according to some, if the player can't make regular session the opportunity is gone.
>Because players have agency. One part of the plot might end swiftly, decisions have to be taken, consequences might be had, ideas might not.
Okay... Why does *every player* need to use their agency *every week* or the experience is ruined?
>Good players commit.
>Friends don't feel shackled into spending time with you doing something enjoyable.
They do when they cannot ever do anything else on the weekend, ever, or they lose their friends forever.
>Which only makes his absence more disturbing.
True, but understandable.
>I'll correct that: A campaign is a low-priority long-term commitment. This means people usually understand if work, family, studies and emergencies take precedence once in a while. But if you flake out because "you don't feel like it" or "you wanted to go watch a movie tonight", soon everyone will and we'll end-up with no game at all. I'd rather see you go.
This is a really good point, but not really what I was talking about.
I'm talking about a situation like when a player moves further away and gains additional responsibilities, so making the games every week becomes much more difficult.
>You did not make the effort.
>That makes you an asshole. Period.
So, if you physically can't make it to the game, let them know well in advance, but still want to play with the group in the future, you believe the appropriate response to that is:
>Fuck you, you're an asshole.
If that happens more than once every few months? Yes. You should do the group that actually wants to be there a favor and leave so they can recruit someone who cares more than you.
kind of depends on the reasons for absence too
to be honest as a dm if a player finds the game night isn't convenient any more I will happily discuss whether it's possible to reschedule with the group
While I do struggle with depression regularly, I'm never really disappointed by anything. Low expectations are a good thing.
On the other hand I'm a shit tier gm and in awe of anyone who does a halfway decent job gming.
I sunk a part-time job's worth of hours into my roll20 campaign, and never really got any feedback beyond" it was good" from my players. Over 2 years, custom made-maps, custom-built NPCs wit h complex backstories, intricate lore, etc...and "bretty gud."
>Players always wanting to make their DnD characters be shonen anime protagonists
>Always wanting to wield giant swords or have "edgy" magic that is "totally different" than everyone elses
>Get tire of it and ask if they just want to play an over-the-top anime inspired game
>They say yes
>Break out GURPS and have them make me some characters with free reign on what they want to play
>Come up with a story about a bunch of demigods and minor gods getting corrupted and tossed out of the heavens
>In their rage and sorrow they are causing massive devastation to the land by throwing giant tantrums
>Players get done and show me their characters
>Get the most grounded western low fantasy characters I have ever seen.
What did I do to deserve this?
>forever GM for the same group for 2 years
>group is great, but i just want to be a player for a while
>a guy i met tells me that he wants to try to be a DM
>great, i can join him
>"anon, why don't you try these furry races that i've created"
>"no thanks, human forever and ever eheh..."
god damn it, he literally said that, and he showed me his drawings, ALL furry porn, i don't want to tell him but he's not going to find players if he creates this kind of magical realm
>Forever DM's should be paid actual money for the shit that they do.
There is such a thing as professional DM's you know.
But it's a hobby, if you're not enjoying it then why the fuck are you doing it?
I haven't played too many session on roll20, but the ones I have played, have been terrible.
>the DMs were all incredibly unimaginative and lazy.
>the one exception being a guy that hosted a CoC one-off.
>maps were all white grids with literally two bushes on it
>dm's dissapearing for weeks without notice
>in turn lead to players not showing when the dm's actually did come
>mfw showing up and i'm the only one online
You can't make enough to pay rent by charging people $5 per sesson.
If I got an actual living wage for it, I'd go back to GMing because I know I'm good enough to make it worth peoples' while.
I kind of do and kind of don't want to meet one of these magical real DMs.
I'm all for experiencing as much as possible, and off the top of my head, creepy pervert DM and fist fight at a wargaming tournament are up there as things I need to see
>You can't make enough to pay rent by charging people $5 per sesson.
Actually the reason you can't make rent is that you can't find any customers.
The professional GMs that do exist usually charge completely inordinately large sums of money, but you won't find many people who are willing to pay any amount of money for a D&D session, much less what these people usually charge.
>when was the last time you were really disappointed by a /tg/ ?
Everytime my players open their mouths
Honestly, thats what you get for going Play-By-Post.
Every PbP game I've been a part of died very quickly for one reason or another.
2 because the DM had some issues and couldn't commit t it anymore, 1 where the DM stalled the game on one spot for basically no reasons before he up and vanished without a word to anyone, and another 2 where plays just kept dropping and the DM just had to call it quits.
I just avoid PbP these days. EVen the best campaigns died off before anything interesting could happen
And yet they bitch and moan that they have to compete against a hundred other applicants and the groups all suck...
Meanwhile, we've got Forever GMs burning out like crazy.
By the way, it's not unreasonable to charge $1,000 per month to run a game when you're putting 40 hours a week into it -- compare it to minimum wage.
Players are entitled little shits who don't appreciate what they get. Fuck all such bastards: they deserve to rot in the layer of hell known as the Roll20 LFG listings.
From now on, I will absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the application of a player who doesn't say my creative output is worth a living wage.
>"I deserve a living wage for participating in,my hobby"
This post is possibly the single most entitled thing I have ever laid eyes upon.
If you're putting 40 hours a week into preparing D&D session then you're fucked in the head.
Enjoy your endless shitty groups that disintegrate after the second session.
Hint: how would you feel if your boss told you to work for free or else he'd call you an entitled twat?
You can't teach selfish normalfags how to respect others.
I know your pain brother, but look at it this way:
As DMs, our job is to create a story for everything, because the players can be interested in anything.
Your particular group might not have got around to appreciating the campaign to its full extent, but no group is mean to.
However you could pool everything you've created over the campaign into a PDF, and then maybe release it so others may enjoy the parts your group went by.
It's probably not going to get you many personal thanks, but it's going to bring grand tales of high adventure to more people.
You're better off finding a group outside of roll20, because like OP said, the community is shit. The program itself works as intended. In my experience, people often communicate by voice, but you want to set up a mumble server because roll20's video client is bloaty and awful.
>Enjoy your endless shitty groups that disintegrate after the second session.
I'll enjoy both my groups, one of which I've been with for two years, the other of which I've been which for 6 months, both of which are great fun and both of which I found in /tg/ Game Finder threads. Sure I've gone through a couple shit ones too, but it's not like paying for something guarantees quality anyway and since it's my hobby I accept that a bit of lost time is involved in arriving at good experiences and that time is effectively what I "pay" for the hobby.
Enjoy never playing again since you'll never fucking find anyone that'll pay you.
>Hint: how would you feel if your boss told you to work for free or else he'd call you an entitled twat?
If you consider GMing work then you're doing it severely fucking wrong.
And if you actually NEED the amount of time you're suggesting to fill a four hour session then you're likely just fucking shit at it too.
You stink of the same kind of entitled arrogant common to many amateur authors, your work is pure genius meant to change the work but those STUPID PLEBS JUST WON'T BUY IT! Never mind that you spend 5 times as long to shit out a book as most writers do.
Here is my lot
>dark heresy over roll20
>start with this new group
>all cool first session nothing really out of the ordinary
>after some time our main face, a sororita, who is supposed to be the leader of the party stops talking at all
>literally mutes his mic for 5 hours during our sessions the last 5 weeks, hardly said over 50 words. And that is only when we got in a fight.
>other sorirta in party decides to play chaotic retard.
>she hates psykers
>i play a psyker
>says she will kill me if she finds out IC
>i have a bandolier full of grenades.
>i managed to disguise my usage of powers through these last sessions.
>he metagames as fuck saying his character realized i am a psyker
>literally doesn't stop gainsaying the gm about rules and shit. he lets it pass because he wants us to go on with the story
>at one point she fills our transport with like 10 dead corpses "for scientific research", says sororitas can't get corrupted.
>says at one point that he is autistic
>dead silence for like 2 minutes
Our last session ended with her trying to pull on me and me showing my astra telepathica badge with my right hand and my left hand is on the pull of the master pin of my bandolier.
I am taking her and the leader with me if she doesn't stop with this
>how would you feel if your boss told you to work for free or else he'd call you an entitled twat?
First a biy annoyed.
Followed by calling HIS boss.
Actual jobs are required to pay you for your hours put in.
Charging people to DM isn't an actual job.
>Flesh out tons of shit
>Group metas the FUCK out of it
I cant really be mad that they arnt following the cliche model of heroic adventure, but holy fuck its kind of depressing. Examples:
>BBEG about to reveal his secret identity. Group says "We attack him before his speech.", because they laugh how protag's always let the bad guy talk
>Groups low on money, man comes with proposition to pay them for help releasing a slave or two. "We just kill him and take the money he'd pay us with. Leaving town anyway".
>Party tries to purposly find reason to break up because "I dont like scooby doo games where we are just a blob with multiple heads! My character would go alone!" and expect me to run 5 different games.
No matter how many consequences, they insist on makeing life harder for me and the other players.
>>Groups low on money, man comes with proposition to pay them for help releasing a slave or two. "We just kill him and take the money he'd pay us with. Leaving town anyway".
Was the guy planning to pay them in advance or something, or what's he doing carrying around their pay before they've even accepted the job.
Well, I mean, if they're all gonna be protagonists they've gotta start low
just run with it, within a few sessions maybe they'll all learn that their parents have been killed by their shadow-clones or something
The man was desperate, scrounged up some cash and was willing to pay them to get his family members back from local crime lords who stole his property as well. With the party face rolling some good diplomacy of "show us the money first. gotta make sure your not just going to scram once we bust them out.", they just jumped on him once his hand touched his pouch.
>Groups low on money, man comes with proposition to pay them for help releasing a slave or two. "We just kill him and take the money he'd pay us with. Leaving town anyway".
I mean it's clearly a dick move, but this is when their faces start showing up on wanted posters.
They meta the game, because it's just a game to them. They think they can play the system without the system playing them.
They need to be reminded that their characters aren't these abstract concepts housing a bunch of stats that fly around the setting, but an actual part of it. If it takes them getting thrown in jail, and the campaign having to grind to a halt while they figure a way out of jail, or spend a couple of years there, abandoning their current adventure (which they are wrecking already from the sound of it), then that's what it takes.
If they can't take the responsibility that comes with their brand of interaction with the setting then frankly the kind of game you're giving them is not the kind of game they're looking for, and you'd be better off just making a dungeon crawl.
>>Party tries to purposly find reason to break up because "I dont like scooby doo games where we are just a blob with multiple heads! My character would go alone!" and expect me to run 5 different games.
This is the point where you take the game out of character and discuss with your players that it's in everyone's best interests, for game purposes, to work as a team in most efforts. The same way that character in-fighting might be logical, but usually shits up the game, so it's bad manners.
Also, you have a couple options. You can take them into separate sessions. If that's not possible (timing reasons?) you can reduce their sub-adventure down to a roll and summarize the effort. "Blah blah happens and you get the gem but you've lost half your HP and the captain of the guard is pissed at you and knows your face now".
I REALLY envy your players. You sound like you're a lot of fun to play with. Whenever I DM, I try to put a lot of work into the world and NPCs and all my players just end up saying I'm wanking it to the stuff I've built. That's not too fun.
My best friend runs a game and he hates when I try to be creative or use my resources to better my character. I once circumvented an encounter he had planned. It was VERY clear that he was angry. He didn't talk or describe anything in detail for the last half hour of the session, and finally called it before complaining to me on the phone for a hour because I 'wouldn't let things go like he planned'. The worst part is that I wasn't trying to be 'video gamey' or any of the other buzz words the dudes who taught him to DM used. I was just playing my character and that's how things worked out.
Anyway, again, I really envy your players since you sound like fun.
>"I dont like scooby doo games where we are just a blob with multiple heads! My character would go alone!"
>My character would go alone
Tell that asshole to roll up a new character. It's a group game for a fucking reason.
>I once circumvented an encounter he had planned.
This to me is case and point the folly of prep heavy gm styles. When gms spend an excessive amount of time preping you are doomed to be frusterated when you find out that players are not predictable little chess pieces.
>Because I can't. It wouldn't be fun for me, I wouldn't enjoy the job.
>It's like asking a writer who's not selling why he doesn't stop trying so hard and just start pandering to the popular trend to sell books. It's not hard to do, but it's not what you want to be doing, so there's no joy in doing it.
I mean, I don't wanna be mean, but at this point you basically have no one to blame but yourself.
You say you need to invest large amount of effort to have fun, but then you complain about the players not appreciating it despite literally saying that you don't believe that it's possible for them to appreciate it.
If a writer writes a book that he knows there isn't an audience for then why would he bemoan it when it doesn't sell?
Either learn to appreciate your prep-work for it's own sake or stop doing it.
Eyyy! That's me! Sup, C.
> tiny progress, no level-ups
> broken combat system (just wait)
> ridiculously slow post speed from priest and rogue
> the barrel did 300d6 damage
> THE BARREL DID 300d6 DAMAGE (>mfw)
I was already salty due to similar experiences that you missed in earlier sessions. (e.g. player does something stupid, THE WRATH OF 1000 SUNS OBLITERATES THEM.)
I felt bad because I was becoming "that guy" and you were all generally cool people, including the GM.
The feel of the game was really grating to me and I wanted to like it, but I couldn't. So I left.
>I REALLY envy your players.
I mean, I wouldn't. I'm not an amazing DM, and no one ever really tells me they enjoy my work. Which is not me being salty that I don't get compliments, I really don't care, it's more that I've been running a group for almost 3 years now, and the only indication I've ever gotten that people actually like my DMing is that they show up every week.
I've said it before, but if I could put together my idea group, one that would keep me happy and consistently working harder to make every session better, all I would ask for is a few players who are convincingly enthusiastic and excited to be there. That's all. People who let me know they're having fun.
I have been told by outsiders (and this may be retarded) that I'm a lot like the DM from Critical Role, in the way I do almost everything. But by god, I have never once had players remotely as interested or excited to play, so it's a bit of a wasted sentiment.
I haven't burnt out yet, but who knows how long that'll last.
I have met lots of GMs that have great games that I am thrilled to be part of and will invest lots of time and effort into.
But they always allow one or two THAT GUYs to fuck up the game again and again and again until it isn't fun for anyone. Please, for the love of all things holy, remove your shit players or you will see your good players disappear first.
I tried being excited and obviously involved with my group. Coming up with plans when I had free time during the week, telling the DM they did a good job and that I was having fun, etc. All it got me were two statements: "Stop kissing my ass" when I give compliments and "I think you're cheating" when I got excited about the dice rolling in my favor.
Naw. I played like half a session with him, realized he was shit, and bailed when I tried Sandy.
I did in fact leave that group, though. Finding another one halfway decent is hard.
Yeah, I really can't wrap my head around a DM saying something like that. All I know is, with my "new" group (one I've been DMing for about 10 sessions now), it's been an uphill fight just to get them involved in the game and actually roleplaying. Only very recently did they actually realize things are better if they put some effort in, and so they are almost trying now.
But most every player I meet are these boring, monotone people who pass their game sessions sounding like they would rather be anywhere else.
I know I'm never going to DM for a real group of people who put in remotely as much effort as I do, so I try not to dwell on it that much. Though it is really disheartening when you're throwing descriptions for really tense scenes where something is happening, and all you get out of the guy in front is "Huh. Hey, guys..watch out there's a thing....". At that point, you might as well turn off the music and stop, because any work the DM tried to do is gone.
Reminds me of this one Rogue Trader GM I had. The one other good player (my best friend, who is very cool and awesome when he's not GMing) and I kept coming up with absolute mad plans that kept working. Everytime we'd get invested in the roleplay (which amounted up to us talking to each other without input from the GM or other players), the GM would eventually interrupt with this monotone "Okay so uh are you guys ready to proceed?"
It was worst when my Rogue Trader gave rousing speeches and the GM would have the crew just say "Ok" instead of cheering or showing strong emotion.
It seems like, even in a good group, you'll only have maybe two or three people that invested. Most campaigns I'm involved in have three guys who really care and three/four who sit around and do nothing unless prompted.
What system is your new group playing anyway?
>What system is your new group playing anyway?
Pathfinder. I also have a 5E game, but I wouldn't consider that a campaign.
I don't want to complain too much, I have a weekly game with guys I've known forever, and they're all great guys, they let me DM how I want (slow with tons of roleplay), and they don't complain about me sending them through winding plotlines that make no sense to them until the end. They're a good group and I don't think I somehow deserve a better one.
I guess I'm just turning the wheels and doing the job, in hopes that maybe they'll be more excited and engaged when they're higher level? Maybe then when I end a session on a tense spot, it'll evoke some sort of reaction from them? Maybe then there will be some pay-off from the players? I guess I hope that, but I sort of know it probably won't happen.
> want to play a star wars game.
> Don't want to run one, because I already run a couple games a week coz imma neet
> Start looking on roll20.
> Several games taking place in silly alternate realities
> not my thing nthx
> Several games being ran by a 57 year old sperg who rants on and on about his podcast
> Finally get in a couple games.
> First campaign has no story and is literally just combat against, GM's words, "silly hat cultists."
> Second campaign involves Darth Vader sending us on a secret mission.
> Things fall apart because we have to make a dice roll with massive penalties (several red and purple dice if memory serves) which leads to a shoot out we're clearly losing.
> Run away. GM no-roll kills us with tie fighters.
> Third game. Finally something good. Players are into it, there's roleplay and a story.
> 3 sessions in GM switches to D&D 3.5
I just want to play Star Wars senpai
Honestly? If I had a dollar for every time I heard people insist "I'm not like those players, I'm the good kind", I'd be a rich man. Even worse, all these people that clamor for game spots by saying how they're real, better roleplayers and whatnot, they get pissy at the fact that I have no way of verifying that, and that I don't take their word for it.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to test-run everyone in a game, so it's not worth the effort.
I hate recruiting.
> I try very hard to end sessions not in the middle of things for this and other reasons.
I personally like cliffhangers. Ending on the verge of a battle or something.
> That's the natural consequences for not making the previous session. The player should understand and accept that beforehand just as the group accepts him not being able make every game.
I need my players (not characters) to be on the same level. This might be my own autism speaking.
> Not certain I follow your point, but you sound like a good GM
Thanks, the point was that a player will not have a hand in the plot while NPCs actually will. The extra is actually less than a PC, a status I'd give for someone who wants to try the game before committing. Happened.
> My opinion is that it is actually less effort, because their character is less involved and integrated to the plot. They are just an extra character.
Offer me a 3-courses meal for 20 and a greasy burger and fries for 15. Burger is nominally cheaper, still not worth the investment.
> But, according to some, if the player can't make regular session the opportunity is gone.
90%+. And need good reasons / as much forewarning as possible. If every player uses their 10% to the fullest, we still miss someone during 60% of our games.
> Okay... Why does *every player* need to use their agency *every week* or the experience is ruined?
Because important decisions may need to be taken every session.
> They do when they cannot ever do anything else on the weekend, ever, or they lose their friends forever.
Damn that slippery slope. "You're not invited to the game" =/= "We're not friends anymore". We just have to hand another day of the week.
> I'm talking about a situation like when a player moves further away and gains additional responsibilities, so making the games every week becomes much more difficult.
Then that player made a choice in life. Choices have consequences.
> I don't believe in skipping sessions without reason
> but what if he has a haptic work schedule and ends up on call often?
Then he'd have a reason, no? We'd probably try, but if he ends up screwing our schedule... well... it IS the result of your choices in life. Sorry bro.
>when was the last time you were really disappointed by a /tg/ ?
Literally every time I try to get players or join a game from a gamefinder thread. You guys are the biggest flakes I have ever seen.
> Forever DM's should be paid actual money for the shit that they do.
Forever DM speaking here. Seriously, there's a lot of similarities between DM vs. Players and Women vs. men.
* A lot of demand for GMs, Players are expendable.
* Many players will accept to put up to a shitty DM and abusive relationship just to have something going.
* DM are able to set their own rules.
* Apparently, DM can now sell their services for money while the opposite is unthinkable, or at least a lot more rare.
* DMs are valued for their fertility.
* DMs have the luxury to blame their players openly while players can only whisper of discontent to other friends. Preferably those that don't deal with said DM.
>Be forever DM for years
>Finally get other people to run games, play all the characters I ever dreamed of
>Discover I am a shit roleplayer outside of being a DM, and I can't seem to enjoy things from the player side.
>Nothing ever lives up to expectations; always thinking about how I could run it better.
>really like it, think it is the best CCG out there bar none.
> cards out of print
>nobody plays, haven't had a game in literally close to a decade.
> post occasional card art on /tg/
> if I'm lucky, people ask where it's from.
> always act like I'm making up the name or joking when I tell them about it.
For the record, I would not want to be a paid DM. Not that I wouldn't love to get paid TO DM, but it would have to be for a game I already chose to do, I wouldn't want to turn my DMing into a service.
The reason I can run games I like is because I have the control. I have control over the tone, the pace, the characters and options I allow, and the players I let in. I regulate these things to create the desired experience I want to provide.
But if I were just DMing as a service, for whoever wanted to buy a campaign, I relinquish that right. It's no longer my game, because the player can easily pull the "Well I'm paying for this, so if I want to use X class/race/character/setting, I can.", and what could I do to that? Say no? Lose the money they're paying?
I can't square DMing as a service with DMing games I want to run.
>You willfully ignorant dipshit.
Ignorant of what exactly?
Ignorant of the reasoning behind this concept that if a player can't make it to every game then he shouldn't be allowed to play at all?
In that case, yes, I am ignorant, but not willfully.
I would honestly like someone to adequately justify turning a friend away from participating in your shared hobby with you simply because he cannot participate as often as you can.
>I personally like cliffhangers.
A valid opinion.
I prefer the opposite so that all the downtime prep, leveling, and other misc bookkeeping happens before or after the session and not in the middle of the action.
>I need my players to be on the same level.
I understand that, only I prefer it rather than need it, just like I would prefer to have all players every time.
>Burger is nominally cheaper, still not worth the investment.
It's more like serving those meals to your friends and the guy who doesn't always show up gets a sandwich.
It's less effort and if everyone was just getting sandwiches, it wouldn't be worth it.
But you still get the joy of cooking gourmet food for you friends and the one guy still gets to eat with his friends.
Insisting he should eat elsewhere is unreasonable.
>If every player uses their 10% to the fullest...
It should be the exception, not the rule.
One guy missing one weekend a month is reasonable & 77%.
>Because important decisions may need to be taken every session.
Missing out on partaking in those decisions is an unfortunate consequence of missing a session.
Unless, you are suggesting that the rest of the group cannot make an important decision without that player, in which case there are other issues.
>Damn that slippery slope.
Because there are not going to be any sore feelings over being told you can't play when you have time, just because you didn't play when you couldn't?
But true, sore feelings =/= "We're not friends anymore" unless that was the only time they spent together.
Also, I still think they will "feel shackled into spending time with you" if they know that if they miss a session for any but the most *dire* of reasons then they are out of the group.
>We just have to hand another day of the week.
>Choices have consequences.
Yes, but when the consequences are being unreasonably and unnecessarily enforced by friends, it makes those friends unreasonable.
> I prefer the opposite so that all the downtime prep, leveling, and other misc bookkeeping happens before or after the session and not in the middle of the action.
I valid opinion too.
> Insisting he should eat elsewhere is unreasonable.
Not at all. Within and without the metaphor I want to be able to plan ahead. Opposition, challenge, shtick.
> One guy missing one weekend a month is reasonable & 77%.
If it's always the same weekend (e.g. the second), it's fine, I can plan around it. We can alternate two games for example, one in which he doesn't play.
AND EVEN THEN, we can plan a game on another day of the week, different game times. There are other solutions. But if all of those lead to "I should be there about 3 times out of four and can't tell more than a week ahead of time when I'll be missing", I am sorry, I can't allow that.
> Unless, you are suggesting that the rest of the group cannot make an important decision without that player, in which case there are other issues.
Each character has his own personality. Each decision is a bargain between my players. You call it a problem, I call it the game's very essence. You're there, but you're still missing the game. You're there, but still doing something your character never agreed with.
> Because there are not going to be any sore feelings over being told you can't play when you have time, just because you didn't play when you couldn't?
Yes. If the reason they're out is not personal but a consequence of their actions / choices, and brought as such. Once again, we'll try different solution, like moving the game altogether before we do.
> Also, I still think they will "feel shackled into spending time with you" if they know that if they miss a session for any but the most *dire* of reasons then they are out of the group.
Wow, what a strawman. I specifically wrote "This means people usually understand if work, family, studies and emergencies take precedence once in a while."
>We just have to hand another day of the week.
Hang*. Must have had a stroque.
> Yes, but when the consequences are being unreasonably and unnecessarily enforced by friends, it makes those friends unreasonable.
If, after trying to move the game another day of the week just to accommodate your lifestyle choice, you think that I am being unreasonable, then you're just playing the victim. This is a symptom of toxic behavior I do not want to hang around with. You're asked to leave.
Your family / job or need for variety in your entertainment takes precedence. I can understand that. I can respect that. But it is going to destroy what we're building for ourselves. It has before. I'm not sacrificing everything we've got just because you feel offended.
Stick to your goddamn decisions.
Wait, how is that b8? He's implying the first guy is a whining redditor, either literally or figuratively. There's no b8, it's just a plain insult.
Are you unfamiliar with how to use b8 macros?
>playing FFG Star Wars
>after first session, write up ~500 words describing how the villains reacted to the party's actions, like how you see Vader and Tarkin interacting while Luke isn't around
>people moan and groan and complain that they have to read "fanfiction" to understand the story even though I said it wasn't necessary
>DM's gf interrupts interesting roleplay to spend ONE HOUR organizing loot out of character
>DM spoils everything constantly
>DM's gf locks up when faced with any roleplay situation
>DM's gf wants to be face of the party next one off
>decide to run a quest here
> not too well received, but manage to get a handful of players anyway
> literally fail them after one thread because every single possible thing that could wrong in my life went wrong
> i'm still fucking depressed about it all
With randoms, generally no.
It requires specifically plotting the game that way; or heavily abusing suspension of disbelief for why is this guy always popping in and out. Randoms are generally not worth it.
You can make it work in superhero game: they just grab whoever's on the base when shit goes down. Even if the incident lasts several sessions, you can easily excuse it by auto-KOing the missing guys or having new arrivals show up as reinforcements.
Or shadowrun, if you're a part of a bigger organisation that arranges teams on per mission basis.
But for something that is more straighforward long plot, random vanishings are much harder to justify.
>finally get friends into tabletop (dark heresy)
>spend like a week or two walking them all through the lore and rules
>most people finish sheets in a few days
>one friend delays for three weeks
>say that he's got it handled when we ask
>week three rolls around entire party drags him into a skype chat to offer help
>"sorry guys I just cant immerse myself in the world"
And that is the story of how the a tabletop group died befoere it began.
Rule #1 of tabletop games:
Your friends do not give a shit like you do, and when you try and get them to play you're only going to end up disappointed when they lose interest immediately.
If they were interested in playing, they would have done it already.
>And no, I'm not in London, nor do I have the ability to run in-person games due to not knowing anyone.
Online games dude.
Like, right now. Designate timeframe on roll20 and throw up an ad here. See what you get.
It can't get worse.
>But for something that is more straight forward long plot, random vanishings are much harder to justify.
Unless you ended the last session in the middle of a dungeon or whatever, the character's absence can easily be attributed to them going off to take care of something else in their life.
In the middle of saving the world?
Well, maybe there's an important thing that needs to be delivered to accomplish that and the character does that run while the party achieves another goal.
It just takes a little imagination.
>If it's always the same weekend (e.g. the second), it's fine, I can plan around it. We can alternate two games for example, one in which he doesn't play.
>AND EVEN THEN, we can plan a game on another day of the week, different game times. There are other solutions. But if all of those lead to "I should be there about 3 times out of four and can't tell more than a week ahead of time when I'll be missing", I am sorry, I can't allow that.
This is fairly reasonable.
My major objection was to the sentiment expressed earlier in the thread that if a player can't make every session, then they're out for being an inconsiderate asshole.
I personally have no problem with a player that can only drop in once in a while (with advance notice) if they are good when they play.
Like how guest stars on tv shows don't necessarily throw off the narrative and ruin the show.
>But it is going to destroy what we're building for ourselves. It has before. I'm not sacrificing everything we've got just because you feel offended.
Or, you know, it's completely not a big deal and you need to relax.
I've heard it both ways.
> level one sorcerer bombs himself from over a hundred feet up
> between the explosion, being set on fire, and falling, there's really no way to not die from this
> 300d6 damage is suggested as a joke by one of the players
> clearly the combat system is broken and not our sense of humor
I know, T.
Nothing is as simple as "game sux, 'that DM' lol. I'm smart, he's dumb." And the other guy is pretty foolish for thinking that.
I'm obviously in the wrong here.
I made a poor decision. I'll own up to that. Checking the barrel was stupid.
Yes, the 300d6 damage was very silly, I got it.
I just wasn't laughing. Maybe it's not my kind of humor.
I never claimed that my stupid barrel death had anything to do with the combat system and you already know why I don't like the combat system.
I told you to your face, remember?
The combat system could and would be a OHKO if ever the baddies won initiative and had one round on us. Same for the players winning vs the baddies.
The combat could be decided by one dice-roll. That's what I mean by "broken".
But that wasn't my problem, T.
My problem is that you meticulously planned for 1000 ways to fail. Most things could go wrong and most penalties for failure had an easy potential for an OHKO.
And I got the impression that you delighted in this.
You told us everything that we missed and messed up on after every session and how you were "so surprised" that we weren't further along.
I hated that.
I hated the feeling that your whole game was just you jerking us around.
And some people love that. That's fine.
I just didn't play your game correctly and I didn't know how. That's all.
So for the record, is everything entirely your fault? No.
Are you "that DM"? No.
Would I have "done way better" in your shoes?
Am I entirely petty for leaving your game? No.
I want your game to succeed, and obviously I'm not the player for your game.
I'm an idiot who checked a clearly marked barrel.
I obviously have grievances with your style, but everyone else was happy.
So I left.
>Game with group for years
>People come and go, core group stay around
>Oldfag of group keeps cancelling because his bitch of a wife doesn't like us
>Weekly gaming nights stop
>Invite group round mine for party, we reminisce, decide to start playing again
>Have a few sessions around mine, everyone has a blast
>Next week nobody shows up
>Oldfag cancelled again, other players never go anywhere without him
>Nobody bothered to tell me they weren't going to show
>Group dies again
>mfw no group at all now
I just want to roll some dice, is that too much to ask?
She was not a pleasant person. At one point she made him halt a game ran at his own house so he could go out and buy her biscuits. She was perfectly capable to getting them herself, but made him do it anyway.
I asked my other half what he'd do if I tried that. He said he'd tell me to fuck off and get my own biscuits. Which is the correct response.
How much shit should I be willing to read about a setting? A custom one, I guess.
I personally give out a few paragraphs that could fit on a rendered webpage but I never know what the average quantity is expected of a player.