I've passed last 2 weeks studying a campaign for Pathfinder
Pretty standard setting with nothing special, stealing ideas here and there.
I manage to form a group with Game Finder players.
Everyone has got their sheets and we're ready to go
After 2 hours we're into it, one of the players (call him good player) leaves, but then explains he has a family urgency the day after.
I believe him since we spent a lot working on his character and he seems to like my way of GMing, but he can't stand two other player going full powerplay and repeating rulebook word by word.
After he quit another one leaves for work, even if I specified the session would have lasted at least 3 to 4 hours.
After good player calling out, the group tears apart, I didn't want to play with 2 powerplayers and a player that would always be available for no longer than 2 hours.
I manage to keep 2 of the old good players and look for more to reform another group.
We all set once again, 2 hours before the first session one of the player calls out because he didn't know it wasn't text only.
One doesn't show up, we still decide to start with 3 players only.
As I start introducing the setting one of them says "I'm not playing this campaign" and flakes.
Now, I can understand him not finding the setting interesting and such, but I had already introduced them to the main story when recruiting them for the campaign.
Now, is it my fault? Is it him being an asshole?
I feel like shit for even thinking of putting effort in something that involves people from the internet.
Good player told me that he's still playing whatever I feel like running, but I don't think I wanna try anymore, I'm too demotivated for this shit.
Tl;dr are players shit for flaking or am I shit at GMing
>>43925479
That's how finding groups online works mate. You keep sifting through shit, keeping the good players until you have a full group.
Then again, you should make sure everyone are on the same page before you start a campaign. A player should know that a game isn't text only, and the general gist of the setting so that he wouldn't leave the moment he sees it. That was your fuck up.
Now, it's always possible you're also just a shit DM, but that's impossible to tell from the information you've given us. It's also possible that except for that fuck up you're god tier.
>>43925524
Players who actually play usually like me, of course I can't give you any proof in a 4chan thread.
I supposed it was obvious since in the Game Finder post I mentioned roll20+skype voice call.
Any suggestion on how to read players? I try to ask them a couple question, but they always do the same answers "Yeah very serious here i like the game of where you play the role not le rolls" but then are always a bunch of murderhobos
>>43925479
Focus on what KIND of campaign you want to run, what sort of mood, is it dark and serious, upbeat and silly? Silly and dark? And so on.
Be specific with what kind of players you need, how long and how often they need to be available and any other relevant info, like voice vs text, time zones, minimum session length, rules for being absent, what system to use etc.
Kick people who don't obey the rules. The good players will see that they don't have to put up with disruptive players for long and be more inclined to stay if they know you're going to boot the bad apples instead of sucking their dicks because you desperately want to keep the gang together.
Be a little flexible. If all you really have is a specific setting you made up, there's bound to be people who'll be turned off by some aspect of it, so work with them if they seem good.
Honestly, most of my campaigns start by me telling people a bit about myself and what I enjoy as a DM and then brainstorming stuff together with the people who are on the same page.
Oh, and do yourself a huge favour and just pick some free rules-light system to run your game in. It serves the dual purpose of attracting people who might be awesome but didn't have the PF books or felt like the wouldn't have time to learn it etc, and it scares away the powergamers who always start shit.
You don't get any "muh system mastery" autists if you're running Barbarians of Lemuria or Lasers and Feelings.
I feel ya OP. I haven't run a game in more than a year. I don't play online because I find it takes more time and emotional effort, but I haven't had the kinda creative strength to even get sorted with the campaign notes I have half finished.
It's hard, getting the energy to run things, especially when other people flake or are disruptive at the table. They also never respect the GM's work as much as they should.
>>43925593
I just really wanted to play, so I picked Pathfinder because I supposed it had more players
>>43925547
>>43925593
Anon is very right in being open with players before the campaign starts. Giving up your preferred system to avoid autists is a bit too much though, IMO.
Just do everything you can to make sure you are on the same page on the way the game plays.
Ultimately though, there's no way to guarantee no one would be a miss attending murderhobo.
>>43925634
I'm pretty sure 5e is the most popular system right now. Its balance is better, and breaking the game (compared to Pathfinder) is impossible.
>>43925643
Not my "FAVOURITE" system, just the one I've Gmed the most since my IRL group wants to stick to D&D.
I actually would love to play Numenera, but noone knows/likes it so impossible to find enough players.
>>43925656
I've only tried 5e for a one shot as a player, so I don't feel like running it. I'm also looking for a group to play in, but can't find much that would fit my timezone
I feel really bad from these stories. The first group I ever found online was amazing, and we've been playing ever since. Going on 2 years now.
>>43925676
Let me join please
>>43925547
Ask them to describe their last character/group.
>>43925643
You save tons of time on prep work and between session work by having less rules to bother with when making npcs or new characters.
There's a lot less friction when having new players who are unfamiliar with the system joining in.
It's actually easier to make characters "just how they want them" since more broad, generic conflict resolution with less details mean that you have to spend less time figuring out whether or not something is possible or balanced and it's a lot easier to "wing it" or do a "counts as" solution.
Those are pretty big selling points for me, the fact that you get rid of a huge amount of rules-lawyers and powergamers along with the stigma against D&D or PF are just bonuses.
>>43925690
I'm not arguing against rule-light systems, I'm arguing against switching to them for the sole purpose of avoiding stereotypes.
>>43925547
>>43925682
This is actually really solid advice, I do that too.
When you ask someone what their last group project/work situation/relationship or gaming group was like and they go "Oh everyone else was an idiot" you can skip ahead to the "Don't call us, we'll call you..." part.
>>43925690
I usually don't consider rules, except when they advamtage the player.
And I donmt mean powerplayers, I mean actual good players that use tactics and cool ideas to overcome difficulties.
Eg. Fight in a dark cave
"Are there crystals or minerals in the cave?"
"Actually yes, the walls are almost covered in gems"
"I use prestidigitation to create a small but bright spark that reflects on the crystals and blinds the enemy"
It's dumb, it's unrealistic, it's against all rules, but the player used the enviroment in an unusual way instead of just casting burning hands on the foes.
>>43925682
>>43925713
Thanks for the advice. Any other help is more than welcomed
>>43925709
The only real argument for using them to begin with is that they're popular, and players that care more for specific mechanics and rules than the group or role-play as a whole is very often someone you're better off without.
When someone doesn't want to play unless you use system X they're kind of saying "I don't really care about the rest of you, I just care about making my specific character" or "I just want to know how to be the "best".
In online gaming groups you don't have the same situation where you can all sit down and talk crap and make characters, and it' s harder for the DM to know when people are being honest or not.
I would gladly run PF or D&D or other clunky systems with my real life friends, but online it's just asking for trouble even if you ignore the awkward fact that you're recruiting from a pool of players who can't find anyone who wants to play the most popular, generic role-playing game with them.
When I see someone looking for something oddly specific or something obscure, or for a general flavour/mood more than a specific system, I often get interested and I kind of think to myself "okay, they know what they want and I understand how it's tricky to find a group to play "Hogwarts but everyone is a lizard" or whatever.
When I see someone who's looking for a D&D or PF group I just think "So nobody can stand playing with you irl?"
