>Players make a group and are looking for a GM
>They put up information on how to run the game and what can and can't be done by the GM
>Dozens of listings like this
/tg/ we need to have a heartful discussion here. Is it right to let players make a group and then find a GM for them and then tell the GM how to run their game? Is the GM not the God of the table?
I ask you with a bit of concern since this seems to be a growing fad amongst the player base. It seems the whole tradition where the GM was in charge of the game has fallen apart.
So tell me /tg/, what do you think of this?
>>43548793
>Is it right to let players make a group and then find a GM for them and then tell the GM how to run their game?
Yes.
>Is the GM not the God of the table?
They can be.
>I ask you with a bit of concern since this seems to be a growing fad amongst the player base. It seems the whole tradition where the GM was in charge of the game has fallen apart.
It is. Every player and the GM are supposed to be in charge of the game. It's a collaborative effort now.
>>43548793
If the GM wants to run a game the same way as the players want, it's not a problem. Players are also a important part of the game.
Players should have the first say because they are the ones who know what kind of game they want to play, the GM is there to facilitate their needs.
>>43548866
Nice double dubs.
Roll20's community is a baseline shit show. Mods there need to be shot, in the face, with gun. The players for the mainstream games like DnD/PF are some of the worst shit shows I've ever seen.
I saw one guy who only ran the same character over and over in every game. Saw a few dozen furry ninja players. I've had probably about 2 dozen flaker GM's and at least 50+ for players in the game.
Hell some of the players that play shit like WoD have reputations bases of who is a good and bad player/GM. I know there's at least 3 on the site now that have done some insane shit.
Roll20 went down the gutter after it got popular.
>>43548866
>>43548875
>>43548910
People who have played exactly one game in their lives before the DM dropped them like a sack of shit.
>>43548982
I am the DM though.
>>43549048
It's bait anon. Just ignore it.
>>43548960
We managed to get a grand total of 2 regular players for the only fucking fallout game on the listings. It's mindboggeling how basically the only game you can run and hope for players there anymore is DnFuckingD.
And yes, the mods need to be shot. I'm glad some of them are dumb enough to include RL pictures, so I can avoid them if I ever see them on the street.
>gaming on roll20 with randoms
Not even once.
>>43549064
You think that's bad? We only needed 2 players for an Exalted game once and it took a month to find people.
Another time it took 3 weeks to find someone who actually read the rule book for a VtM game. Jesus fuck, the applications were "Hi, I'd like to play this!" And jack shit else. Hell we had a guy who applied once and didn't even know where to find the fucking books. Don't even get me started on how many people thing that non-DnD games are DnD games.
Roll20 is basically where you go to play shitty games of DnD. Every fucking DnD GM on there I've had has been god fucking awful.
>>43548960
Eh, thankfully people are not forced to interact with the community.
I arranged all my games off the site and they've gone well.
Frankly I'd prefer to use MapTools, but between Java being shit and convincing people finding more options intimidating I always fall back to Roll20.
>>43549150
Pray tell do you organize your games? I've yet to hear of another good site to start game postings
>>43549149
Truth.
>>43549182
game finder
that one reddit subreddit is pretty ok too
>>43549212
I've had nothing but bad luck on gamefinder. Back 3-4 years ago I would have said otherwise, but I've had so many flaking GM's that I don't touch it.
>>43549149
40k is the only other franchise that fills up like hot cakes on roll20 in my experience. What's crazy is that it's fucking Fallout, which is huge, and people just seem to want to play Forgotten Realms. I don't get it.
>>43548793
>So tell me /tg/, what do you think of this?
I think they're not finding a GM.
>all this bitching about roll20 with randoms
do any of you put up applications? I do. I have a fantastic group now of 3 players for a 5e game. They are really good roleplayers and incredibly cautious.
I've got them in Ravenloft now. Put some effort into your rules and restrictions in the form of a questionairre application or else fuckwads who don't give a flying fuck about your shit because this is the internet are just going to inflate, flood, and shit on your game. Or just not show up.
And if you can't find players for your system, add the best players as friends (skype/steam whatever) and invite them to play that system. Or run "d&d" or whatever they want and then thinly veil it as a setting based in that game, and essentially transplant some mechanics. Maybe after that session they'll be interested in that system?
>inb4 you're lucky
no I just make sure I don't get fuckwits from wherever.
>>43549228
As one of those flaking GMs, I apologize.
Often times I'll start a game, and within a month or two of sessions I will realize that the players are terrible, so I lose any and all interest.
I'm really picky, and it is hard to screen for good players.
Sorry if you were collateral.
>>43549149
You're using Roll20 wrong obviously. The way to use Roll20 is to already have a group of friends to play with. Anyone who uses Roll20 to find games is a fucking dumbass weirdo.
I am a DM, and I've been running games on Roll20 for...a long-ass time now. My ongoing campaign has been almost 2 years now, with lots of side-groups.
There are three things I will never ever touch:
1. A reply from a player saying nothing but "I want to play" and nothing else. One-line messages are an instant ignore. If you cannot be bothered to communicate like a human being, I can't be bothered with you.
2. Groups of players who have lost a DM, or worse, like OP states, have a specific set of rules they think a DM is going to follow in order to play. The kind of people who say "I want to play this kind of campaign, we're playing these characters, this is the allowed content, we've decided on the adventure. We just need a DM to do it". Yeah, good luck with that.
3. Text players. Fuck that shit. You speak like a normal human being.
>>43549228
sorry to hear than anon.
>>43549121
Actually, it can be pretty good if you know what you're looking for. As a GM if I ask for specific things from applicants to games I can pretty easily weed out uncreative, disruptive, annoying, or immature players pretty swiftly. As a player I really go out of my way to make sure I only ever look into games that are similarly not junky.
My regular group met on Roll20 more than two years ago now, and we're pretty tight friends. I've been so far as unironically invited to one of their weddings.
>>43549257
what if they don't wana play d&d?
>>43549273
>voice players
Next you're going to tell us that players should also use le face cameras, and that only girls can play female characters
>>43549273
>The kind of people who say "I want to play this kind of campaign, we're playing these characters, this is the allowed content, we've decided on the adventure. We just need a DM to do it".
I wish I could find more people like this. As a DM and figuring out all of this shit is hard. Just give it to me straight and I'll do it done easy. Why can't more players be straightforward in what they want?
>>43549273
My best group ever has been running for like two years. We use text for our characters while talking on voice when we need to ask a question or something.
>>43549273
>3. Text players. Fuck that shit. You speak like a normal human being.
Text based games are superior for online RPGs, especially due to the handy-dandy fucking log file. Voice for board games? Sure. Voice for RPGs? Tried it a couple of times, found out people don't speak like normal human beings. So, fuck that shit.
>>43549273
>3. Text players. Fuck that shit. You speak like a normal human being.
since when do neckbeards speak like normal human beings?
text is a perfectly viable method of roleplay. if it's not your thing, it's not your thing, but don't treat it like some kind of heresy.
>>43549257
DM here, I don't usually have questionnaire-style applications, because right off the bat I will never consider someone who has a character concept before they know the game being played, players who value combat over roleplay, etc.
Instead of giving players a questionnaire and letting them feeling that maybe they will fit the group, I'm going to tell you the game that I intend to run and my style of play, what you can expect from my game and what kind of players I'm looking for, and if you don't fit that, then don't bother.
>>43549292
beginning with, I run the system I want to play. In this case, it was 5e. If I wanted to run something different, I would alter my questionnaire but my picking would stay the same that go with your standards of what you want and expect out of your game.
But if you make it a questionaire that essentially asks them to give you a Resume of their tabletop background, then you get an idea if they are fuckwit, or if they will be any good for YOUR game and how YOU play it. That way things like "fuckwits" won't happen to you.
So if they don't want to play dnd, that's up to you, you're the one making the system in the first place. If it's wod, do the same. The method doesn't change, just the system/settings.
I am a forever DM going on 25 years here and have run many long term successful groups over the years. Including Rifts, D&D B/X, AD&D 2nd Ed. AD&D 3rd Ed. Pathfinder, Gamma World.
The finished basement of my otherwise modest suburban home is my gaming lair where I welcome my friends every Tuesday night for 5 hours of food, fun and camaraderie.
A DM must wear many hats:
Event planer, organizer
Adventure Writer
Amateur Thespian
Director and Producer
Party Host and Cook (or at least handy with the Pizza delivery places number.
Referee and rules subject matter expert
What I will never be is a fucking patsy to the players. My table, my rules. I treat all players with respect. Respect the DMs role in the game of narrative storytelling just as I will respect and integrate your characters into our joint adventure and tales of daring do.
>>43549232
I'd play a Fallout game if I could find a good system for it.
But you want shit though? Seriously let me tell you something here.
The WoD community on Roll20 is a living hell. There same GM's have been running for like a year. Rarely are new GM's actually posting on them, and for those that do about half flake.
There's one GM on roll20 that's so hated by the WoD community that absolutely no one, I repeat no one but her boy toys join her games except for noobies. She's fucking insane. She ruined several people's games by joining with her boy toys and then trying to kick the GM out... I wish I was kidding.
>>43549182
Same as Games IRL.
Meet people, invite compatible ones to play, ask if they know someone who would be interested and keep playing with those you had fun with and avoid the rest.
I've got a whole skype account full of fa/tg/uys and ca/tg/irls I've been playing with for years now whenever the opportunity arises.
>>43549297
>Next you're going to tell us that players should also use le face cameras
Not mandatory, but I wouldn't be averse to it. But voice is absolutely mandatory. We roleplay like normal people, that means you talk like a normal person.
If I couldn't voice my NPCs and actually make them interesting and engaging that way, I wouldn't DM.
>>43549313
Congrats?
>>43549321
>Text based games are superior for online RPGs
This can never, and will never be true.
The only thing text does is coddle socially awkward idiots for refuse to put effort in, and allow them to play non-committal games where they don't have to pay attention to anything, because it's all gonna be written down.
I would rather shoot myself in the face than sit down for a 4-hour session where no actual roleplaying happens.
As someone who has been playing RPG's for over 20 years at this point, please know that flakiness is pervasive throughout the gaming community. I'm running a game on roll20, one guy is my friend irl, and is a good gamer, another guy is the worst nightmare powergamer, another guy doesn't know shit, another guy is a good intentioned power gamer, and the other guy is pretty cool. Also we've had about three people drop in and out for a few sessions then just never show up again. I finally had to end it because the uber pg guy would incessantly skype me schematics of his characters plans.
Am I the only one who has seen that there's a fucking ton of furries on Roll20. Like a huge fucking amount of them. Anyone else had a game ruined by them?
>>43549388
>The only thing text does is coddle socially awkward idiots for refuse to put effort in, and allow them to play non-committal games where they don't have to pay attention to anything, because it's all gonna be written down.
Wrong, they put in even more effort because they have time to read it and think about it clearly. Once they are able to do that, they can put in what they truly mean through text because they're a faggot and can't express themselves through voice.
>>43549297
No. Text only is so god-damn slow and cringy. If you're uncomfortable using your voice you're not sociable enough to roleplay properly with a group.
>>43548793
what bugs me about this shit is that if you have a full group and you have such specific demands, one of the players needs to nut up and DM the game himself. The philosophy is literally "I don't want to, let's make a stranger do it"
like, I'd rather play than DM, but I'd rather DM than not have a game at all. it just seems incredibly self-entitled to insist someone else come and run the game you want to play.
>>43549365
We use d6 adventure with a couple of faster rules inspired by mini-d6 tossed in(static damage, for one). It's pretty sleek and very flexible, so it fits Fallout like a glove.
I tried WoD like a year ago. DM invited us all into a skype chat, and he essentially ran it like a sweat shop, with absolutely no concept of social interaction. So, I bailed and haven't much looked into WoD on roll20 since.
>>43549346
>>What I will never be is a fucking patsy to the players.
This is why I've always turned down the offer to be a paid DM, to take money to run games.
The minute I start having a player dictate what I can and cannot do at table, the day my DMing turns into a service for the players rather than an activity for myself, is the day I give up tabletop games.
I will never be shy about explaining how I run my games, my table rules and my ways of doing things, what you can expect from my games, etc. I'll always tell you exactly what to expect. But I will never change the way I do things because it's not what a player wants in a game.
>>43549411
same as any community with anything roleplaying linked to it, any excuse to force their "fursonas" on people.
>>43549330
>players who value combat over roleplay
you see that's the point though. They are telling you what they like. If they have no idea they have no idea. But the point is they are GIVING YOU INFORMATION and the INFORMATION IS TELLING YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THEM. it's not necessarily the answer to the QUESTION you ask, most of the time it's HOW they answer that question that tells you much, much more.
For example: "if i gev yo u a respons liek this you knw I am not worth the efort"
>I'm going to tell you the game that I intend to run and my style of play, what you can expect from my game and what kind of players I'm looking for, and if you don't fit that, then don't bother.
you should already be doing that in the description of your game that roll20 gives you. The part where you tell people what the game is about.
And you use that, WITH the questionairre you wrote, to see if they even READ your description and what/how you run your games.
for example here was my description.
>>43549388
>This can never, and will never be true.
>The only thing text does is coddle socially awkward idiots for refuse to put effort in, and allow them to play non-committal games where they don't have to pay attention to anything, because it's all gonna be written down.
>I would rather shoot myself in the face than sit down for a 4-hour session where no actual roleplaying happens.
You, I like you. You got some skype or something, because you sound like a fun guy to play with.
>>43549432
>If you're uncomfortable using your voice you're not sociable enough to roleplay properly with a group.
>expecting /tg/ to be sociable
>>43549426
>because they're a faggot and can't express themselves through voice.
Yes, and I'll just enjoy my sessions with people who actually can express themselves, enjoy roleplaying in-character with NPCs, and don't want to type things because it's boring.
Again, my games work because my group loves talking to people, and I love acting out NPCs and scenes.
>>43549433
>it just seems incredibly self-entitled to insist someone else come and run the game you want to play.
Ever think about it from the DM perspective though? Maybe they want to bring fun to a group of players.
>>43549453
I do, but...I'm not really sure why you'd want it?
>>43549456
I've always wanted to clear this up. Be honest about this, because this is all anonymous. Is /tg/ really full of social misfits?
Don't you have a decent job? Aren't you in a healthy romatic and sexual relationship? Are you actually in poor physical shape?
I mean, I can buy mtg players, but this truly can't represent the majority of us, c-can it?
>>43549482
>Maybe they want to bring fun to a group of players.
No DM will have fun coming to a game where they don't set the rules, and where everything about the campaign has been decided for them before they get there.
>>43549491
Cause if you ever run a game, I want to be in it. You sound like a guy who hits players with rulebooks for being munchkins
>>43549432
>>43549388
>voice means "actual roleplaying"
Uhuh, dream on, faggot. I have never seen less "actual roleplaying" than in voice/cam games. It's different at a gaming table, with people around you, but on camera, or on mic, your autist count increases dramatically.
In text games, it's easy to filter those people out by how (and what) they type. What you generally end up with is a group where roleplaying actually happens. As for speed, it's generally the same. Text, at times, is actually faster and gets more plot done.
Then again, maybe you're someone who types with two fingers instead of ten. In that case, please stay out of our text games. You seriously could not keep up.
>>43549403
>end it before of the most dedicated player
I feel for him.
>>43549508
/tg/ is full of autistic people. Like heaps of them. Most of them would piss their pants if they had to do public speaking.
>>43549388
>If I couldn't voice my NPCs and actually make them interesting and engaging that way, I wouldn't DM.
Then text clearly isn't your thing, and that's fine, but do you seriously believe that a character can't be interesting unless they have an audible voice? Have you ever read a book?
I play in two groups. One meets in person, and, naturally, roleplays at the table. The other plays online, and while we use voice to coordinate the mechanics of the game and ask relevant questions, all the RP happens via text. They are different experiences, but one is hardly intrinsically superior to the other. Don't be a sperglord.
>>43549228
I have had a 3+ year long game and counting off of it.it's not free though
>>43548793
The game I'm in was one where we all worked out the bare bones of the plot (mostly: who the bbeg is and the loosest details of what their problem is) collectively then the person who was going to GM bailed and I filled in.
I think the reason the group's worked so well together is that everyone was invested in building the "plot" from the start. I've built on what we had and now know the deep dark secret motives and behind the scenes scheming, but the high level stuff was all a team effort. They metagame a tiny bit, but they do it to keep their characters on task with the plot because ultimately they WANT to be in the plot.
Online games are hard to get asses in chairs for to begin with, so getting players invested early is very good and having an agreed upon setup and rules of engagement probably helps.
Then again, my question for these groups just desperately waiting for a stranger to come in and GM when they clearly know what they want is "why isn't one of you stepping up?"
>>43549511
>You sound like a guy who hits players with rulebooks for being munchkins
I usually try and breed this out of my groups by never recruiting a munchkin to begin with. My games are, by and large, slow-paced narrative experiences where players are usually kept more mundane and lower-powered so that the world seems more interesting around them. I usually run a lot of intrigue and horror atmosphere too.
But I probably won't be recruiting for a game any time in the near future.
>>43549518
>As for speed, it's generally the same. Text, at times, is actually faster and gets more plot done.
Nigga, that's factually wrong. Speaking is at 300-400 words per minute. Typing barely breaks 100 on a good day. And text doesn't convey emotion like speech.
>>43549365
>I'd play a Fallout game if I could find a good system for it.
From the dark halls of the Glow, a computerised voice whispers: "GURPS".
>>43549518
>but on camera, or on mic, your autist count increases dramatically.
Nigger, the fuck are you talking about?
>>43548793
>"God of the table"
>>43549558
Their reasoning is usually that they don't how to GM which isn't wrong.
>>43549440
>It's pretty sleek and very flexible, so it fits Fallout like a glove.
SPECIAL only feels sleek because there's a computer handling all the heavy lifting.
>>43549566
>Speaking is at 300-400 words per minute. Typing barely breaks 100 on a good day. And text doesn't convey emotion like speech.
Where the fuck are you even getting these numbers fucko? And obviously text doesn't convey emotion like speech. They're fucking different.
>>43549482
>Ever think about it from the DM perspective though?
It's comparatively easier (and IMO more reasonable) for a DM to find a group of players than the other way around. And isn't that how it should be? If I'm in a game I want it to be something the DM is passionate about, not something that he's doing as a favor.
I'm not saying it can't work, it's obviously a matter of degrees, but I just find the underlying attitude distasteful.
>>43549566
>400 words per minute
You won't be conveying emotion. Half the people listening to you will phase out and stop paying attention.
That said, I kept up perfectly fine via text once when my mic broke, while conveying my character's emotions in detail in text, with everyone else on voice. The average speed of how fast things move along is generally the same. You will not get more done in a voice session than a text one.
>>43549566
Yeah, you pretending to be a dwarf with a fake Scottish accent is going to convey emotion so much better. Because everyone is a master thespian, right?
>>43549665
>Half the people listening to you will phase out and stop paying attention.
As opposed to all of the people in a text game not paying attention.
>>43549518
Actually, I HAVE done my fair share of text roleplay, which is why I know that most of it can't keep up with either my rate of typing (using grammatically coherent and varied writing styles to boot), or real-time voice roleplay. It's true that you can root out weirdos based on shit like bad writing habits, but this does nothing to say that text-only games actually do this, as most people who play those games do so because they are weirdos who can't get into voice games. Those who aren't autismos are generally there because they haven't tried text games, and they generally leave rather swiftly when other people simply can't keep up with them.
>It's different at a gaming table, with people around you, but on camera, or on mic, your autist count increases dramatically.
This is simply poor player control/selection on the part of the DM.
>As for speed, it's generally the same. Text, at times, is actually faster and gets more plot done.
This is laughably wrong.
I don't think anyone is saying text-only games don't have their place. It's just that we're saying that their place should be way the fuck away from us because they're awful games full of awful players.
>>43549615
Which is why we use mini-d6, which is a couple pages and simple as fuck.
>>43549585
q.e.d.
>>43549682
There's always players who don't pay attention. Fuck them.
>>43549665
>You will not get more done in a voice session than a text one.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Holy shit you delusional fucktard.
>>43549614
This is true, but I didn't either. You never learn if you never try, and then the game never happens because nobody wants to GM.
Is a bad game (with the chance of it turning out well) ultimately worse than no game at all?
I guess what I wish I could say to these people is don't let your dreams be dreams.
>>43549682
Then you have shitty players. Never been a problem in my groups.
>>43549388
I like you. Don't ever change anon.
>>43549566
I'll bite. What words do you commonly use that you can say 5 times per second? Do you just make a guttural clicking sound?
Text generally yields better roleplay.
>>43549705
>There's always players who don't pay attention
Text game are, by definition, not something you pay attention to.
>>43549682
If someone isn't paying attention in a voice game, you have to repeat yourself. If someone isn't paying attention in a text game, they can scroll back up to read without disrupting much.
>>43549732
>Text game are, by definition, not something you pay attention to.
This is subjective.
>>43549682
Being even less engaged with the game does not make you less likely to goof off. Besides that, those are just straight up shitty players.
>>43549715
>Text generally yields better roleplay.
The only people who think this have never actually roleplayed.
>>43549693
The early Fallout games are also a bit clunky, so it depends on what one you're using as a base.
>>43549686
Honestly, the only person in this thread who sounds like an awful player right now is you. Everything you claim about text games equally applies to your oh so precious voice games and vice versa. It isn't the medium that's the problem, it's the dipshits incapable of using it properly.
As far as text games are concerned, this is probably you.
>>43549752
What is actual roleplay then?
>>43549771
If he doesn't say LARP or amateur theater, he's talking completely out of his ass.
>>43549738
>>43549747
Dude, text games are fucking ASYNCHRONOUS.
You're not sitting around for a 4 hour session where people engage banter, talk to NPCs, make plans, and get through an encounter in text. You're sitting there either staring at a screen and waiting for the other players to read through backlogs and write a message, or you're more likely watching Netflix and waiting for your turn to type because the DM cannot deal with multiple people at the same time, since it's fucking text.
No one stares at a chatroom actively for the length of a session. You're going to tune out.
>>43549686
You're hilarious.
>It's true that you can root out weirdos based on shit like bad writing habits, but this does nothing to say that text-only games actually do this, as most people who play those games do so because they are weirdos who can't get into voice games. Those who aren't autismos are generally there because they haven't tried text games, and they generally leave rather swiftly when other people simply can't keep up with them.
Followed by...
>This is simply poor player control/selection on the part of the DM.
Do you not recognize the clear double standard?
Also, your experiences are subjective and your opinions are not absolute. You're projecting so hard you sound exactly like the kind of faggot you're strawmanning.
>>43549302
You probably shouldn't be DM'ing, anon.
>>43549752
>The only people who think this have never actually roleplayed.
The only people who think this have never actually roleplayed.
>>43549566
>300
Yeah, no. 200 words per minute is the upper end, and that's fast. Average is closer to 100.
Typing itself is only around 50, but even so, that's half-speed, rather than a quarter like you're trying to claim.
>>43549798
Funny, I've had text games that were a steady, engaged flow of typing where no one "tuned out". It's not the problem of text roleplay if you find yourself incapable of paying attention to a chat room. That would be your problem. Your problems do not translate to all of humanity. We are not you.
>>43549302
You are an embarrassment to the brotherhood. Turn in your screen and dice.
>>43549752
Great absolute statement bro. I've roleplayed with voice and text alike.
Voice games are fine for beer and pretzel style games, but it greatly amuses me when poor bastard DMs try to do ANYTHING remotely serious, let alone horrific, with voice chat.
>>43549836
>We are not you.
Thank fucking god, because I can't imagine how miserable a game is if the BBEG can't even have his own voice.
>>43549798
We have a 9 man party that's only manageable because we use text. It means you can have 3 different conversations going between groups of characters at the same time, and the GM can still keep up with what's happening. People keep what they have to say relatively short and no one has to keep asking what someone said because they can backread. Nobody can talk over anyone else, nobody has obnoxious background noise, it's kind of nice.
It's super dependent on the group though, if your group can't focus for a session on a text game then that's the end of it for you.
>>43549798
You're completely ignoring the fact that most of the proponents for text games in this thread are also suggesting using voice for these exact elements of play.
>You're not sitting around for a 4 hour session where people engage banter, talk to NPCs, make plans, and get through an encounter in text.
>>43549798
A DM can't deal with multiple people doing different things with voice either. Have you never had points in an RL game where people lean back and start chatting with eachother? It's the same damn thing.
Only difference is in a Skype call or whatever, you can't even do that, since you have to talk over people to get heard, and it's harder to tune people out compared to sitting around a table.
>>43549853
>>Voice games are fine for beer and pretzel style games
Again, according to fucking who? My group is absolutely not a "beer and pretzel style game".
>but it greatly amuses me when poor bastard DMs try to do ANYTHING remotely serious, let alone horrific, with voice chat.
So the actual act of roleplaying somehow makes a game worse for you. Ok. I don't think this hobby is for you.
>>43549865
Yeah, no villain in any written literature in the world has ever been compelling.
>>43549865
>I can't imagine how miserable books are if the villain can't even sound like Skeletor
>>43549757
>This is probably you
But it's not.
I'm not even suggesting that it's an inherently bad method of playing and I don't doubt you when you claim you've got a good text game. I'm saying that by it's nature it attracts bad players, which we are both agreeing are the root problem. You're getting all bitchy and resorting to randomly flinging wild, guessing ad-homs at anonymous posters over the internet who aren't disagreeing with you because you feel too personally attached to something. It's not worth it.
>>43549866
How do you handle people talking over each other in text? Do you just answer the first question then get to the next? It's a problem I get when my character is being slammed ball by two other characters and I wonder how I'm supposed to respond.
>>43549865
>He thinks funny voices make for good atmosphere
>>43549853
>Voice games are fine for beer and pretzel style games, but it greatly amuses me when poor bastard DMs try to do ANYTHING remotely serious, let alone horrific, with voice chat.
Pretty much my experience. I run a serious horror RPG in text. It works -great-. I play game of the week in person with my friends, and it's also fun and cahoots. Having varied tastes is delicious.
>>43549891
>So the actual act of roleplaying somehow makes a game worse for you.
Amazingly poor reading comprehension bro, I can see why you prefer voice chat.
>>43549930
I go in order of asking, though I find a lot of the time you'll have two people asking the same question within a second or two of each other if enough eyes are on you.
>>43549928
No, you're getting called out because you said ALL text roleplayers are shit. The backpedal is nice, though. I'll take it.
>>43549932
>>He thinks funny voices make for good atmosphere
Voice in general makes for atmosphere. Why do you assume everything is "lol he doin a silly voice omg so funny!"
You can't take anything seriously, so if your DM ever tried to play an NPC you'd just roll on the floor laughing telling him he's ruining your gaming experience by trying to be serious?
>>43549930
"Response to one question," character says, before turning to the other, "Response to the second."
It's really not much more difficult compared to a voice game, and you also have a bit more time to think on who you want to reply to first and how to respond properly.
>>43549913
Myaah!
>>43549979
>because you said ALL text roleplayers are shit.
He ain't wrong.
So angry. Would you play online with these guys, OP?
There is your answer.
>>43549508
I work a productive and respectable job that gives me respect in my community, but I am kind of a misfit, yeah. 30 year old virgin, morbidly obese.
This was normal in the RPG community until the cool kids took over nerd culture and hollowed it out.
>>43549996
If you want to create atmosphere, changing your voice alone is not going to cut it. Put some music on, dim/colour the lights, get people engaged and use gestures and body language to emphasise your role.
Oh, wait, roll20's jukebox is horrendous shit and you need to "create atmosphere" with your voice alone. Good luck.
>>43549273
I like having voice chat on, but text gives you the sweet portrait, so it's clear who is saying what in a dialogue, and you can reference everything that's been said instead of asking people and the GM to repeat themselves. It's pretty good.
>ITT: different people have different tastes
I, personally, can't get into text-only games. One, because it takes so long, and you have to qualify who you're talking to instead of having a natural conversation, and two, because in my own personal experience, roll20 is full of weirdo sperglords whose magical realm I dare not enter.
>>43549928
>I'm not even suggesting that it's an inherently bad method of playing and I don't doubt you when you claim you've got a good text game.
OH OKAY>>43549388
>The only thing text does is coddle socially awkward idiots for refuse to put effort in, and allow them to play non-committal games where they don't have to pay attention to anything, because it's all gonna be written down.
>I would rather shoot myself in the face than sit down for a 4-hour session where no actual roleplaying happens.
>>43549432
>No. Text only is so god-damn slow and cringy. If you're uncomfortable using your voice you're not sociable enough to roleplay properly with a group.
>>43549682
>As opposed to all of the people in a text game not paying attention.
>>43549686
>I don't think anyone is saying text-only games don't have their place. It's just that we're saying that their place should be way the fuck away from us because they're awful games full of awful players.
>>43549706
>Holy shit you delusional fucktard.
>>43549732
>Text game are, by definition, not something you pay attention to.
>>43549752
>The only people who think this have never actually roleplayed.
>>43549798
>Dude, text games are fucking ASYNCHRONOUS.
>You're not sitting around for a 4 hour session where people engage banter, talk to NPCs, make plans, and get through an encounter in text. You're sitting there either staring at a screen and waiting for the other players to read through backlogs and write a message, or you're more likely watching Netflix and waiting for your turn to type because the DM cannot deal with multiple people at the same time, since it's fucking text.
>No one stares at a chatroom actively for the length of a session. You're going to tune out.
>>43549865
>Thank fucking god, because I can't imagine how miserable a game is if the BBEG can't even have his own voice.
>>43549891
>So the actual act of roleplaying somehow makes a game worse for you. Ok. I don't think this hobby is for you.
top fuckin kek
>>43550024
^This.
Stopped looking for players on here a while ago.
TIL there are people that think roleplaying via text is normal and preferable to audio
>>43549999
Having more time is what I like about it. I can work out "big" responses in a text editor window while other people talk, and I feel less like I'm on the spot.
>>43550099
TIL People think they can police the fun others have in a hobby largely filled with people that aren't good at socializing
>>43550099
TIL there are people that think le randum accents is personality and emotion.
On that note, the asynchronous nature of text communications is why they're PREFERABLE. You can have an OOC and IC chat going on at the same time, so that you can keep several conversations going at once. If you use voice, you have to take turns speaking, which brings things to a standstill.
>>43550071
>Oh, wait, roll20's jukebox is horrendous shit and you need to "create atmosphere" with your voice alone. Good luck.
How does this somehow equate to text being better?
>>43549508
Currently unemployed, joining the Air Force as a linguist. I hide my powerlevel pretty well, at least until I get girls back to my room and they see all the books and minis and shit, but by then it's usually gonna happen anyway.
The sad thing is, I think a lot of /tg/ IS Comic Book Guy. I know at least one of my players is. It's a hard cycle to break out of.
>>43550031
>cool kids are to blame
First step in self-improvement is realizing your own faults.
>>>/fit/
Read the sticky, breh. Strength gains are like leveling up in real life.
>>43550141
>TIL there are people that think le randum accents is personality and emotion.
It does. That's how humans work.
I cannot comprehend what is going on in your head that makes you think a DM (or a player) voicing a character somehow makes anything worse.
>>43550099
>TIL people have never considered that:
>people with vocal damage might play
>deaf people might play
>people learning another language might play
>people with a busted mic might play
>people with busted speakers might play
>people too poor to fix the above might play
>people who communicate better via text might play (and not in a sperglord can't speak way, but a "I got a B in speech, but an A in analytical writing" way
>>43550141
Dude, normal conversations are taking turns speaking. Nothing's stopping you from telling tales in a tiefling's tavern while you message the DM about trying to palm the silverware.
>>43550160
>joining the Air Force as a linguist
You sir, are going to achieve maximum Chair Force.
>>43550185
>deaf people are stuck in text-only online games
Jesus Christ, those poor bastards. Nothing but furries and weebs as far as the eye can see.
>>43550185
>people with vocal damage might play
Not in my games.
>deaf people might play
Not in my games.
>people learning another language might play
Not in my games.
>people with a busted mic might play
Not in my games.
>people with busted speakers might play
Not in my games.
>people too poor to fix the above might play
Not in my games.I stream my sessions to a fairly large audience. They seem to not mind that we don't exclude text-only idiots.
>>43550219
>STREAMING SESSIONS
Yep, you're what's wrong with the community.
>>43550207
Run three text games with fairly stiff applications and up front 'no ERP, no spergs, no animu' etc., and they've been fine.
>>43550198
1A8x1, so at least my chair will be flying and I'll be somewhere neat.
>>43550149
If you're making a case for voice, roll20 is a bad platform for it. In person interactions, which have an entirely different group dynamic and setting, are what you want to go for.
Roll20 as it currently is supports text games, or mixed text/voice games (Text IC/Voice OOC, or vice versa), both of which you set up like any other online game. Thing is, if your music is on your same channel as your mic, you'll run into your first problem. Then you'll get the people who start actions with "I...". Until everyone can recognise their voice, play is going to be slow. Now, this isn't actually a problem for me. I have a good ear and good voice recognition, but, for some people, it is. Then you have the questions, which in text, you can clear up on the side. In voice, it's an interruption every single time.
So yeah, for roll20, I find text games, or mixed games, preferable to voice only. You have a chat room right there. Why are you not using it for anything you don't want to clutter up voice?
>>43550234
I don't see how. We've been playing for years as a group. I just set up a program to broadcast the screen, and people want to watch. Nothing about the group has changed.
You don't like it, that's fine. You're the reason games are shit anyway.
>>43550254
Sounds cool enough. I take it that's enlisted only?
>>43550266
>>Roll20 as it currently is supports text games, or mixed text/voice games
I've been on Roll20 since it opened, and never run a game with text.
>Thing is, if your music is on your same channel as your mic, you'll run into your first problem.
This isn't how it works, so no problem.
>Then you'll get the people who start actions with "I...". Until everyone can recognise their voice, play is going to be slow.
Literally has never been an issue.
>Then you have the questions, which in text, you can clear up on the side. In voice, it's an interruption every single time.
D&D, since the day it was invented, has always involved stopping for a second to answer questions. This isn't an issue, it's just a part of playing the game.
>Why are you not using it for anything you don't want to clutter up voice?
Because "cluttering up voice" has never been an issue anyone on the planet has ever raised.
>>43550276
Fenoxo, is that you?
>>43550219
>text only idiots
>accident victims are idiots
>deaf people are idiots
>people learning another language are idiots
>people with busted equipment are idiots
>poor people are idiots
And you're NOT the idiot.
>>43550343
Not sure who that is.
>>43550320
>im white
Lying little fuck, that's clearly blue-grey.
>>43550360
Oh boy, the PC police.
>>43550336
>I've never seen these problems, which means they don't exist
>>43550400
I've got enough of a sample size of games to say that yes, they don't exist.
>>43550336
>DnD
Would not touch with a ten foot pole.
>>43550343
Kek
>>43550360
One of my best text players is deaf, yes.
>>43550336
>Because "cluttering up voice" has never been an issue anyone on the planet has ever raised.
God, you're insufferable. Is it that hard to just say "I haven't encounter this problem" instead of acting like your experiences are absolute? You and I both know you can't possibly speak for everyone on the planet, and the internet tough guy act isn't impressing anyone. If you have to reinforce your point with hyperbole, it can't be that strong to begin with.
>>43550320
Yeah. Supposed to be easy to get to OCS from that job, though, and if I don't get my shinies, then after six years I have some kind of useful language, TS, and at least a bachelor's, so I should be alright.
>>43550418
I bet you're republican.
>>43550489
>not learning a new language by speaking
Accent over grammar in the beginning, Anon. Perfect grammar doesn't mean shit if nobody can understand you anyway.
>>43550498
How much you wanna lose on that bet?
>Text for roleplay
>Voice for combat
This is the best system.
>>43550476
So if you go to OCS and graduate, do you get a different AFSC?
>>43550522
>Text for organizing the date and time of the session
>Voice for roleplaying
FTFY
>>43549321
Voice for board games are essential.
I mean how else can you hear the insults?
>>43550543
Hahahaha, I usually don't play with people who flip out at me. The rare times it does happen, it's fairly amusing, though.
these threads are literally nothing but That Guy threads
just post your horrible players and GM's in That Guy threads
roll20 has nothing to do with it. people have everything to do with it.
>>43550363
https://www.youtube.com/user/fenoxo
He's the guy behind Corruption of Champions and Trials in Tainted Space. Plays with Savin (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWJsIJi2Fzj3vOYC5lwSfEA), Adjatha, and some other people I think.
Don't know what the streams are like, though.
>>43550540
Not everyone is a fucking thespian normie.
>>43550517
Libertarian still counts.
>>43550534
Yeah. I'd end up being some kind of intelligence officer, I suppose. But that's down the road; right now is running and staying qualified and having as much sex as possible before two fukken years of training.
>>43549388
>Not actually larping your D&D sessions
>Not actually role-playing
Top kek m8.
>>43550659
So when are ya joining up?
>>43550651
>Normie
I have been playing Warhammer 40k for nearly 20 years, I have visited every ComiCon in the last 10 years, and I've spent more hours in tabletop session and video game than I have in school and work.
This is the first time in my life someone has called me a normie, and apparently it's because I'm not embarrassed by pretending to be an Orc so my players can roleplay a little bit.
>>43550742
Record your Orc voice for us (http://vocaroo.com/). Show us that your voice adds to the experience.
>>43550703
Already in the DEP. I leave early January.
You in, anon?
>>43550651
>theatre kids
>normal
Nothing could be further from the truth, friend-o.
>>43550788
Nah, I'm joining the Army next year.
>>43550780
Lo and quiver before the Mighty Orc Rick'lee
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1tY8i4bqxmd
>>43550780
Hooray random voice clips which will inevitably invoke the response of "lol i cant take u seriously if u talk silly like dat"
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1JPA8Ql7VyX
>>43550846
You sing pretty good, anon. Shame about the crackly mic.
>>43550877
Kinda sounds like he's under the influence.
How about this?
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1eSZs20ms2K
>>43550928
Is that modulated? That sounds pretty heavily modulated. I can't say I approve of cheating like that.
>>43550952
No, that's all me. It's recorded on a laptop mic, and I was deliberately going for gravel.
>>43548793
>Players make a group and are looking for a GM
>They put up information on how to run the game and what can and can't be done by the GM
This is completely fine as long as the GM is aware of these rules before they begin and agrees to them.
>>43549297
>Next you're going to tell us that players should also use le face cameras
no
>and that only girls can play female characters
yes
>>43550820
>inevitable inter-branch derogatory statement
But really, gl anon. I have quite a few friends in the army/ex-army. Go SigInt if you have any skills with computers and are okay with making good money in exchange for living near DC/Maryland.
>>43551096
>>and that only girls can play female characters
>yes
>tfw all the good female characters I've encountered have been played by men
>>43551106
Nah, I'm gonna do something stupid, something combat arms.
>>43551096
So, text games give everyone twice as many potential character concepts? Great!
>>43551193
there's also that thing where there's no girls on the internet so no
>>43548960
There is this increasing and scary trend where people talk about tools like they are communities.
Roll 20 is a tool, for gaming over the internet. Haven't used it myself, but from what I've seen it looks fine.
So what is this talk about human fucking beings?
>>43551293
>people talk about tools like they are communities
roll20 has a community
>>43551146
Be a tanker, Anon. Live the dream. If you're gonna get shot at, have a bigger gun than the other bastard.
>>43551336
Nah, I was thinking more 12B with Airborne thrown in.
>>43549388
I ran IRL games and online games.
You're full of shit, but you're welcome to your opinion.
>>43549411
Furries get a lot of shit. I know some furry guys, even RP furry characters. But always do so that makes sense in game and not disruptive about it.
>>43549287
Did you go?
>>43548960
>I saw one guy who only ran the same character over and over in every game
I've seen someone post on /tg/ that they did that. They said they were an online player too. Might be the same guy, but more likely it's just multiple shittiness.
Back onto the topic of GM vs. players.....
Should there be a way to automatically mark a player's profile if they have often left games after only participating in one or two sessions?
>>43551649
Seems like a system ripe for abuse.
>>43551712
This is the correct answer.
Besides that, sometimes people just don't mesh together.
A player might run into a string of shit GMs or something.
>>43551649
No, because holy shit a lot of online games fall apart fast.
>>43550742
>He's well adjusted enough to be able to play pretend without the comforting emotional distance text based gameplay affords you
REEEEEEEEE
>>43548793
Reading submissive profiles online can be intimidating, especially when subs are very descriptive and particular. Their description can feel like a cage that you need to fit into, which seriously disrupts your mojo as a dom. Because, you're right: dominating IS about being in control.
Here's the thing, though: subs with picky dating profiles aren't talking about *you*, they are talking about *themselves*. Because really YOU should be the picky one, YOU should be the one with the power to accept or reject a plaything, and when subs put themselves out there for you to browse that's exactly what is happening. You can reject the ones who aren't a good fit (If I see "brat" or "bratty" ANYWHERE then I'm out, but another dom with different tastes might be running a search for those words!). Conversely, if a sub DOES catch your eye, then that picky description of an idealized dom just gave you a roadmap to their soul. Knowing what they fantasize about tells you right where their buttons are; knowing their expectations gives you every opportunity to play-to-and-yet-subvert those expectations, as your own whim dictates.
Yes, the dom calls the shots. Submissives often don't know what they want, or they do know but it would spoil the fun to ask for it, so you can't be a good dom if you can't assert yourself and follow your own muse. At the end of the day though, if your plaything isn't getting whatever he or she was looking for and walks away, then that relationship was a failure. You might be in charge, but no submissive is obligated to give you what you want, any more than you're obligated to give them what they want. It's all about mutual pleasure. Yes, there's always some compromise (and it goes both ways!), but if its ALL compromise then you haven't found the right partner yet. It should never be a chore, you should both be eager and excited to play again.
GM, I mean. Sorry. That's what we were talking about, GMs and players.
>>43552853
Iris please.
I guess fa/tg/uys can be biggots about damnednear anything, huh?
I rp'd online for years before I discovered tabletop RPGs, but that was like 10 years ago, at this point I have a lot of experience with both and they're both awesome for different things. It's cool to hear why some people prefer one or the other, but the righteousness is very silly.
>>43549261
Truth.
>>43549149
What makes a bad GM in your opinion/what is the horror of d20?
>>43552853
>dominating IS about being in control
>the dom calls the shots
Other way around, bro. Being a sub is about being in control, as they have veto power -and- set the terms. Its a very special kind of control fantasy -- the ability to make people so obsessed over you that they do anything and everything they want for you, devote all the energy, etc. etc.
>or they do know but it would spoil the fun to ask for it
Pic related. A sub is a special kind of control freak who wants everything done for them perfectly without letting them know.
>but no submissive is obligated to give you what you want
Well of course not. The sub is the one in control. You do what master wants, period.
>It's all about mutual pleasure
Keep in mind its about the sub's pleasure first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh, and somewhere down the line the dom may be entitled to some gratification after the sub's super specific laundry list has been satisfied.
>GM, I mean. Sorry. That's what we were talking about, GMs and players.
Witty and apropos here, though.
Seriously, though, the only chance of finding an actually submissive person is to steer clear of people who describe themselves in terms of subs and doms.
>>43549388
I know I really shouldn't be giving you an extra (You), but I spend hours on Skype fucking around with my friends and playing vidya, and I wholeheartedly prefer text gaming to voice gaming.
Get off your fucking high horse and stop holding your opinion up like it makes you superior. Because that's all text vs voice is, personal preference. Some people prefer one, some people prefer another, and some people are self righteous assholes on the internet about their preferences.
>>43553078
>/what is the horror of d20?
Everybody knows how to play it, so it's got most of the spergs and morons.
>>43553093
>letting your sub get out of hand
They said they wanted a dom, they're going to get it.
>>43553093
>as they have the veto power
I hear this all the time and it's such a fucking weird thing to say. Doms have EXACTLY as much veto power as subs. And a gm can walk away from the table as easily as a player can. A dom/gm doesn't need to exercise "veto power" in the same way, but that's only because they are the ones who plan the play and decide what will happen, and the subissive/player is in the position of either accepting the play wholesale or rejecting it and walking away.
Its a total yin/yang thing, each side contains the other, its complicated and its confusing to talk about. So you can say that the submissive has JUST AS MUCH power as the dom, and that will be true, in a certain sense of the word "power". Its true in the sense that the dominant's needs and urges are not more important than the submissives, and its true in the sense that both sides participate only so long as they mutually enjoy it.
But it is also untrue, in the sense that the submissive has no ultimate power to decide WHAT will happen, only IF it will happen. Whereas the dominant gets to decide both "if" AND "what".
I think you CAN say that the submissive is the star of the show, in the same way that players are. The dominant/GM crafts a performance and that performance revolves around the emotions and reactions of their player/submissive. And there's a kind of power that comes through in that, that's the ying-and-yang part, the way that each side contains its opposite.
But you seem to be asserting that the submissive's wants and needs matter more than the dom's, which is the same as when people act like the players are the only ones who are supposed to have fun, like the GM's fun doesn't matter. This is completely wrong. GM/Master is there for their own enjoyment too, to exactly the same extent as player/submissive, and has just as much right to walk away if they aren't having fun.
>>43553380
This is as much a personal-taste-thing as the voice-verses-text argument. There's no right or wrong way, just right for you or wrong for me.
I'm not pulling your leg, I really DO know doms who thrive on having a bratty submissive, they thrive on the sparks and the struggle, and it makes them feel more powerful and gratified when they win.
And then there are others who call themselves "doms", when I would personally call them a service-top, but I don't argue with what they choose to call themselves because I'm not a shithead. Both sides have fun and it's all good.
>>43551463
Furries have a bad rep around here due to them trying to establish dominance when /tg/ was essentially a sub-section of /b/.
Most of the people here have had first hand experience of the worst furries have to offer. That said, general sentiment to furries is still nowhere near what it once was. Though that's mostly due to G.R.3 preventing intervention on this board.
Regardless, we at least don't crucify someone for posting furry every now and then. Jus' a warning and a threat of ban, and that usually solves it.
>>43550087
Where do you find players and gm's then? I checked out all the flgs in a 25 min radius from my place. All four are mtg only. Currently planning on introducing friends to dnd 5e over the holidays but they're going back to school 2 weeks after.
I've been looking for a group for 2 years now and found 2. The first had someone describe their character as a furry ninja described how he'd been raped by a gang of orcs which led to him not trusting anyone. The second had two guys get into a fist fight and the group disappeared after that.
Where the hell can I look for games?
Any openings for a newfag?
I've only played Rogue Trader (currently playing with a noice group on roll20), a couple sessions of Fallout, and a round of Deadlands.
>>43553500
>Doms have EXACTLY as much veto power as subs.
Since the dom is doing ALL the work, especially in a text situation, that's totally irrelevant. That's like saying the person cooking dinner and the person eating it have equal veto power -- well sure, the former can stop at any time, but he still put a bunch of effort into it. So that doesn't actually give him any more power -- its just a self destruct ability. Its just another element where the sub has the power in the relationship, at best the dom can throw his effort in the trash can.
>Whereas the dominant gets to decide both "if" AND "what".
The sub decides the what and if. The dom is the one who is accepted or rejected as part of an ongoing process, the sub is taken as-is (unless xir turns out to be even more lazy and demanding than they first seemed and isn't even satisfied by a perfectly tailored scenario). The dom decides the implementation of the sub's exactingly specific scenario and hopes its good enough to please senpai.
>its complicated and its confusing to talk about
Well, its less complicated and less confusing than, say, every other form of remotely erotic/romantic interaction in which both parties have a remotely similar level of power. Its a simple supply/demand relationship: the sub is the one who demands and the dom is the one who supplies.
>player vs sub comparison in general
Only really apt when its just a 1 DM, 1 player kind of thing, and most players are nowhere near as bad as submissives. The DM has a hell of a lot more power and viability. Generally individual players aren't necessary and the show can go on.
(cont'd, sinec this entertains me)
>>43553778
>>43549411
I think people forget that 4chan is an anti-furry bubble. If you want to roleplay on the internet, and you aren't on a site that specifically bans furries, you're probably going to rub elbows with furries.
(One of my best bros and most valued IRL players is a gigantic brony and furfag. As far as online RP I've had both awesome and terrible experiences with furfags. )
>>43553900
>>43553500
cont'd
>But you seem to be asserting that the submissive's wants and needs matter more than the dom's,
Per definition, yeah. The dom's desires have to be fit into the sub's, not vice versa. This is why its the submissives that are always complaining about doms in ERP threads, and how the complaints tend to be very similar, typically the bitching about how people always want to roleplay their partner as having some sort of positive quality (like treating them semi affectionately and not just in a mind games sort of way after a rape, wanting to free the slave girl, or whatever). Its eerie how alike they are..
The only time the dom has an equivalent tier of veto power is when he's deciding to give it a try at all or not.
There ARE submissive style players (again, that doesn't mean a player who is submissive, but a player who is lazy and demanding) who will only tolerate very specific things, but its not as common, for me anyway.
>>43553955
>The dom's desires have to be fit into the sub's, not vice versa
This is entirely dependent on the nature of the agreement between the two. If the sub agreed to get on the dom's wild ride without stipulating anything else, they don't get to complain.
>>43553900
>Since the dom is doing ALL the work, especially in a text situation, that's totally irrelevant. ...
You aren't describing power.
The person cooking dinner really DOES have more power than the one eating it. They put in more effort and consequently get to have all of the control.
That's a weaker analogy because an eater doesn't act upon the cook in the same way that a sub acts upon a dom. Or even to the extent that an audience acts upon an actor. Audiences have more power over actors than hungry guests have over cook, and I think in turn that subs have more power over doms than audiences to over actors, the more interaction and interplay there is the more the power becomes blurred, as the performer's actions become influenced by the others' reactions and expectations. But any performer still holds power in a fundamental way over the one they perform for.
>Only really apt when its just a 1 DM, 1 player kind of thing, and most players are nowhere near as bad as submissives. The DM has a hell of a lot more power and viability. Generally individual players aren't necessary and the show can go on.
There are 1-on-one games, totally, and there are also doms with multiple pets. But yea dude that is a really important factor that I didn't mention so good point.
I don't know how to react to the rest of what you said, it seems like you're just asserting things that aren't true with no basis.
I mean, I don't mean "untrue", those things CAN be true for a certain dom/sub ethic and for certain people, and that isn't wrong, and I spit in the face of anyone who says it is. People do whatever works for them.
But you're making these assertions out of nowhere like they apply to all doms and all subs and I just don't even know how to respond. "No"? Is "No" a fair response?
Council of /tg/, for too long has roll20 been an awful medium for RPing, I propose that we pass the following edict:
No /tg/ user henceforth shall use roll20. This edict shall hold until roll20 can summon forth a more mature crowd.
>>43554132
REQUEST DENIED
>>43554132
That's like saying you can't go to the mall because people with no taste go to the mall.
>>43554114
>it seems like you're just asserting things that aren't true with no basis.
See
>>43552853
>subs with picky dating profiles
Perhaps its unfair to tar all subs with the same brush. This kind of person is essentially the only kind of person in the BSDM equation that leaks out onto /tg/ and bitches, so they're consequently the most notable.
>>43553955
>Per definition, yeah. The dom's desires have to be fit into the sub's, not vice versa.
Again, all I can give you here is a flat contradiction. No. That's wrong.
We can talk about it in greater detail if you give me more to work with. You seem like a cool dude and I'm not trying to be an ass, but you are asserting that the dominant's desires and expectations are intrinsically unimportant and I still have no idea why.
If I had to guess I'd say you were just surrounded by disagreeable (to you) subs and absorbed the idea from your environment. That happens to all KINDS of people though, like if the only potential partners you can find are on a certain wavelength or have certain expectations then you'll absorb those expectations and repeat them like they're true for everyone everywhere.
>>43548793
god of the table is faggotry.
getting all your buds together and asking someone to run your snowflake-inducing setting is whiny modern liberal bullshit.
it's welfare/obamacare for RPG gamers...
>>43553955
>the submissives that are always complaining about doms in ERP threads, and how the complaints tend to be very similar, typically the bitching about how people always want to roleplay their partner as having some sort of positive quality (like treating them semi affectionately and not just in a mind games sort of way after a rape, wanting to free the slave girl, or whatever). Its eerie how alike they are..
I can confirm this, by the way. It's a very common mismatch of expectations. Both players want to do the same rape scene, but one player wants that scene to be the first in an endless string of cruelty-RP, while the other sees it as a kinky and exciting launch-point for a romance RP. It's true to a lesser extent in real relationships I think, a lot of subs don't really want their dom to be a human being, they thinkt hat the sub is supposed to be a human being with all the sweating and squirming and suffering and the dom is supposed to be this looming archevillain, this platonic ideal of dominance.
That's a common attitude. Does this mean that a dom's needs are less important? Of-fucking-course not.
All that is only HALF the reason why you hear all these subs with the same complaints. Know what the other half is? *There is more demand for doms than for subs*. Submissive characters are more common and people willing to play doms can have their pic of submissives. This dynamic leads a lot of more power-neutral-types to represent as more dominant than they actually are, so that they can roleplay with the people playing the subs, which eventually means even more submissive roleplayers bitching about how they can't find the right dom.
>>43554593
lol
>>43549566
>And text doesn't convey emotion like speech
Please go read a book with dialogue.
>>43549752
I've played both and, honestly, the text group ended up roleplaying and getting shit done a lot more than the text group. Which is ironic, considering the voice group had sessions that were twice as fucking long.
>>43549365
Try Morrow project. New edition came out recently and the game is basically "Fallout for hipsters" since it has a similar premise and predates Fallout series by several years.
Holy fuck this is the worst thread I've seen on /tg/ in a long time.
I was considering look into a game from the gamefinder threads but if this is the base we're drawing from I think I'll pass.
>>43553093
You seem salty.
>>43548960
I've used Roll20 to find three games previously, out of those only one GM flaked out, and that was because we were trialing a new game system and he wasn't happy with how it was working (FATE). The other two went very well (WoD, Burning Wheel), and I was actually surprised at the quality of players.
This might have been because I was lucky, or that I don't even apply for games that lack a thorough description of what the game will be about. That or it's only DnD/PF games that have a shitty community.
>it's only DnD/PF games that have a shitty community.
those things do seem to be highly correlated but it could also be that there are simply more 3.x games being played and thus more chances to run into That Guy
>>43548960
I don't get how people can sign up for a campaign and then flake every session. Christ.
> Playing a 5E campaign
> GM and I show up for every session on time
> Like 1 other player shows up the other times, and it's usually a different one every time
> GM shuts down the campaign and says that he's going to reform with a new group
> Everyone posts that they'd like to join the new group
> Even though they never showed up for the last one
what the fuck
>>43556456
Absolutely, shadowrun's got pixie playing katana wielding ultra weebs.
DND 4e has a bunch of guys looking to play the same build over and over again.
I've never had the pleasure of playing a Gurps game on roll20, but I assume there is something similar for them too.
>>43556464
This is what fucking got me.
I mean I've got a flexible schedule, I'm willing to form to you, but you can't even show up at a time of your goddamn choosing every week? What the hell?
>>43555598
The truth is that that about 70% are flakes and about 20% that are left are just plain weird or horrible people. That's a quick math made in my head when thinking about the games I've been part of, both running and playing. That's just in /tg/. Never tried to recruit or find games in other places.
>>43554132
Piss off.
>>43548793
Seems a bit ass backwards to me, but that's probably because I'm forever gm and haven't had to scrabble for players.
If they know what they want and how it should happen, why the hell doesn't one of them step up into the role?
>>43549365
Sounds like there are stories to be told about the dreaded she-beast of roll20 and her swarm of minions held in her sway by a curse of eternal thirst...
>>43548793
It is absolutely fucking cancerous and stupid. The players pretty much act like a bunch of entitled little shits, asking for a professional clown instead of a GM. I have seen people even asking GMs to run their homebrews, for fucks sake.
And not to mention that the actual group in action is godawful. I run once a game with a pre-made group. They wanted an intro to Dark Heresy, so I made a simple mission, follow a guy and his big mean statue from a Space Hulk to the surface of a dead planet. It was supposed to be piss poor in term of difficulty, with puzzles like "the red door is closed, you have a red key, what do?"
But these guys weren't interested in the investigation aspect, but they wanted to talk about stats and see the gore table in action. Three sessions in we have three PC deaths due to accidents/idiocy and a group that berated me because I don't let them roll deception for excuses like
>Excuse me Lord Commissar, would you like my friend in the abandoned alley to trim your moustache?
I refuse to run another game with a premade group. They already have formed their expectation on what they want from their GM. If the GM can't be the one in control of the table, then the game can take the unexpected turn of going through 5-6 GMs before it collapses in on itself.
>>43550360
It's an extrapolation of the asshole equation then?
"If you meet one asshole today you met an asshole."
"If everyone you met was an asshole, then it's likely YOU are the asshole"
>>43549411
Had a group that was nothing but furries and bronies.
I didn't find out until the game started to die out. Kudos for staying in the fur-closet, I guess.
Both voice and text games are fine and a personal preference.
Personally I like using text for IC chat and voice for OOC as it makes a natural barrier between IC/OOC stuff so people aren't asking "wait was that IC/OOC?" and I also find it easier to immerse myself when my party members don't all sound exactly like the same guys I play video games with.
>>43554132
You realize you can ignore the community and simply use roll20 as a tool for your already assembled group, yeah?
>>43553093
Eh, as long as I get a guy that I can fuck savagely for an hour without him begging me to stop, I'm alright.
There are too many cocky subs that think they can take the d even if they've had sex like 3 times in their lives.
>>43548793
In my opinion, if you know what needs to be done AND how it should be done - go and do it yourself already.
>These people acting like snooty faggots over voice rping
>No, clearly their method is superior under all circumstances for all people
Yeah okay, keep touting about how much more socially acceptable your way to play nerdy games of pretend with people over the interest.
I'm sure any outsiders that find out about it will see a huge difference instead of just thinking you're a loser for playing a tabletop rpg.
The rest of us who are rpers really give a shit too I'm sure.
Like seriously, are you for real with that shit?
No, your fucking voice rping isn't any faster than text rping, especially when people are generally more busy making funny voices and telling jokes.
Focused people who want to play are fast regardless if they're using text or speech. Unless someone is a very slow typist who isn't use to text rping.
But there are just as many people who are awkward and slow to speak up over stuff.
>B-but voice allows me to yell at people who aren't paying attention!
Cool, I'm able to PM and ping people and they'll receive and respond asap because they aren't busy paying attention to four other anons cracking jokes over voice.
Why the fuck are voice rpers so delusional?
>>43558208
>>people saying they are better than me
>no, the better one is me
>>43557851
Totally agree with this. Voice chat is a great way to handle rules questions, discuss tactics and explain your actions so that other players can offer input or better understand your methods or character's motivations, and for clarifying anything that doesn't quite come through via text or handling things that might be too trivial to write out.
Text-based communication is better for actually roleplaying and handling all the in-character banter and activities.
By keeping these two separate, you make a clear distinction between player and character, and at least for me that helps me care more about the character, and think of them more as an entity rather than an extension of a player.
this thread got really autistic really fast
>>43554132
Roll20 as a tool is perfectly usable, just don't use their forums and gather your groups elsewhere.
>>43549411
I'm actually in a game consisting almost entirely of furries right now, but they're from /tg/ and not Roll20's group finder thing. For the most part it doesn't get in the way, and despite not being a furfag myself there aren't really any problems. This seems to be the exception, though.
>>43558257
While I agree that text-based communication is actually better for roleplaying a character, I just cannot enjoy it much. I find the game goes 10 times slower and one gets sidetracked hashing out irrelevant details. There's also something you can't get from text, talking and laughing with other people. To each their own though.
>>43558224
>Say one method isn't superior to the other
>That means I'm saying my method is objectively better
>I'm just trying to bait and troll people
>>43558312
Porque no los dos?
Voice chat for OOC works fine for banter/fucking around.
Personally I find that text games go a lot faster because people get more focused on actually playing the game and get sidetracked less, but it is up to each group in the end.
>>43548982
Indeed
>>43558312
>There's also something you can't get from text, talking and laughing with other people
That's why I always use both. Like I said, text for the RP stuff, voice for OOC, rules, sometimes even crunch if we feel like just getting through the combat instead of describing everything involved so we can get back to less rules intensive parts of the game to roleplay.
>>43549261
>>43553078
Bite me. Working graveyard shift means I'm never off work when any local groups are playing, so I use it to find ones that play when I can. I've gotten Norwegians, soldiers & contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Aussies before. It actually works out pretty well, but I completely avoid d&d and pathfinder.
>>43549259
This. I can never get an online group that meets my standards like my old group in person.
