This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I'm the Dungeon Master.

Regardless of what I'm running.
2
I do plan on disallowing cyberware to be hacked, though.

why? Hacking implants is such a stable of the genre?
3
Really should start another thread, but honestly I feel this discussion has been had before and there's little left to say which hasn't already.

Except...

He was also an elitist wannabe-academic.

If you pay attention to his stories, the only people that ever really come across as "wholesome" people are academics and a few others that operate in a very similar, narrow band of society. The wealthy are morally degenerate, rural people are inbred and morally degenerate, cities are presented as dark, decaying places full of squalor and degeneracy, and so on.

And by an astoundingly bizarre coincidence the Radical Left is also full of elitist wannabe-academics who (except for the city part) make exactly the same conclusions.

My point was that while Lovecraft was racist, I think it is possible to run games that are Lovecraftian without promoting racism.

You forget we're dealing with a contingent that considers all otherness to be a metaphor for racism. And their beliefs aren't even coherent here as they consider Orcs to be stand-ins for Blacks despite the former thinking and acting exactly like the Fascists they claim to hate.

So no, it isn't, not as far as these folks are concerned. And they'll be more than happy to tell you why right before they cancel you.
4
Personally I tend to fall back on Dungeon Master, just because it's what I grew up with, but I'll concede Gamemaster as the more generally recognized term.

The way I see it, the GM has three somewhat unrelated roles to play:

1. The "World-Player": The one who plays the setting and NPCs.
2. The "Referee": the arbiter of rules and outcomes
3. The "Game-Manager": Not always the case, but usually the GM is the one that schedules games, arranges locations, recruits new players, etc.

There isn't really a single term that encapsulates all three, so Gamemaster will have to do.

That looks like something you could divide between three people: a starting World-Player who has an experienced Referee fudging monster rolls/decisions/moves, and also giving hints through NPCs when things are bogged down, while the World-Player focuses on the design and main plot elements/interactions in game. The Manager can help with everything else, including drawing up maps and other handouts that might need organizing for everyone's reference.

Theoretically you could, but as others have alluded to, you run into the problem that in any cooperative enterprise, someone kind of has to have a deciding vote to keep things running smoothly. If you were going to split the job up, I suppose you'd give that power to the referee, but you still have an issue of manpower. it's usually hard enough to get enough people together for a good game, without multiplying the number of necessary roles.

Anyone can do the "game-manager" task, and its not rare for non-GM players to do it. It tends to fall to the GM partially out of tradition, and partially because they're usually the most motivated. The referee can't --or at least probably shouldn't-- be a player, though, because it opens the game up to suspicions that they are biasing their rulings in favor of their character. That's precisely why so many people are so steadfastly opposed to so-called "DM-PCs". In theory, having the referee also be the "world-player" spreads their investment out across a wide spectrum of characters and elements and so mitigates the temptation to bias. You could do a co-GM kind of arrangement where you have two people, neither of whom play PCs, and one does design and lore while the other runs the game, but that isn't quite the same thing. And again, it's just more people you have to get in the game.
5
Why not just advertise what it is that you are looking to run?  Just filter people out, with your pitch.  "I am looking to run game "X", via ruleset "Y",  with true old school sensibilities.  If you can handle that, and that sounds like fun to you; let's try to set something up.

Then any further filtering, can take place in private.

Look at my sig. I lay everything out, extensively list what I want to run, what I'd prefer to play. I went out of my way for clarity.

People simply don't read.

If I can presume to try and read Jam's mind, the usual procedure in the VTT world is to do your posts with a specific campaign pitch. i.e., "I'm running X kind of Campaign with Y system, at Z time, and I need XX number of players." I think he just meant you might get more frequent/reliable applicants that way, rather than with a general game-group listing. You might have better luck advertising specific campaigns first, and then using that to build a player group.

That's kind of what I did, without meaning to. When I started on VTT I didn't have time to GM, so I just went looking through Roll20 for games to join. Currently I have two games I play in (with a third possibly starting soon) and one which I run. In my game, all but one of the players are people I invited over from games I was playing in.  Between my player games, I've got a network of about 12-15 people that I can invite into future games already knowing they're solid players.

The thing about game selection is that certain games are biased towards certain player groups. What I mean by that is that I suspect a lot of grognard types only play OSR games, not because they aren't willing to try other systems, but because they know that they're more likely to get the kind of players they want in those games. Personally, I'm willing to try almost any system (other than PBTA, which I have tried and did not care for), but I'm much more willing if I know some of the people involved. I'm pretty reluctant to apply to join games in the more popular systems (5e, Pathfinder, CoC, even Savage Worlds to an extent), because I know that I have a high probability of winding up in a group with players that are likely to annoy me.

I do think you're probably pretty badly restricting yourself demographically, too. I saw in your other post you specified Gen X or older Milennials with a lot of free time. My sense of VTT players is that a lot of them take to the internet precisely because they have a restrictive schedule, which would make it hard for them to do home games, and Gen X and older millennials (which I take to mean around 35-55 years old) are right in the time of life when they're likely to have the least free time.

Speaking for myself again, I took to online gaming precisely because I had an (at the time) newborn baby and a more than full-time job, and could only play after the kid went to bed on weeknights.

I wish you all the best with it, though, as someone who was in a somewhat similar position not that long ago. Frankly, if you've got two games on the go, that's pretty good in itself. Online gaming seems to have slowed down in the last year or so. When I started it in early 2021, I was pretty spoiled for choice, but I've been hunting for another game to join for the last few months and only just found one a few days ago.
6
Why not just advertise what it is that you are looking to run?  Just filter people out, with your pitch.  "I am looking to run game "X", via ruleset "Y",  with true old school sensibilities.  If you can handle that, and that sounds like fun to you; let's try to set something up.

Then any further filtering, can take place in private.

Look at my sig. I lay everything out, extensively list what I want to run, what I'd prefer to play. I went out of my way for clarity.

People simply don't read.
7
I've read some of your other posts, and I can see you're having a hard time.

I should be clear about this. Putting together players has been a LOT of work, way more than it would be if the hobby wasn't such a mess. I have some frustrations, I sometimes use hyperbole for comedic effect, and this site is about the only place for a guy to have a good moan about something without sparkle trolls parachuting in.

I've got two games starting up next week, and although it's slightly stressful (especially since I'm also learning a VTT to run them on!) it feels good to get something going, and I'm hoping the games will become self-perpetuating, and I'll also get to play.

I'm learning to use Fantasy Grounds, and I'll be slowly porting games to it (although, sadly, most have little to no inherent support,) which may even lure my wife in to playing again (she likes the ROLE part of roleplaying, but not the math.)

TLDR: I'm frustrated but hopeful.  8)
8
Why not just advertise what it is that you are looking to run?  Just filter people out, with your pitch.  "I am looking to run game "X", via ruleset "Y",  with true old school sensibilities.  If you can handle that, and that sounds like fun to you; let's try to set something up.

Then any further filtering, can take place in private.
9
Are there entire genres you won't play?

Games which try to be deliberately funny, or games where you play as kids. I have friends who won't do genre X, and in each instance it's not because of the game, but the people they gamed with. Sadly, this one bad experience has scarred them for life. But I guess it is what it is.

Do you only ever run the same game system exclusively?

We have systems we like and systems we don't. That's sort of vague, so let me narrow it down. Both extremely rules lite and extremely rules heavy are out, for different reasons. We like rules medium games, like Savage Worlds, B/X stuff, D6, Traveller, D20 Modern.

This is all very weird, and wrong, and weirdy-wrong to me.

It's a weird world, and it's getting weirder. I've read some of your other posts, and I can see you're having a hard time. I don't know if my advice will be useful, since I don't game online and don't look for players online. But here it is, anyway. Advertise like this:

* I am 50, looking to GM for a committed group. Prefer older players (30+) or younger players with a mature mindset.
* I'm running a campaign set in Game of Thrones using Runequest (or whatever is your thing.)
* We meet every Saturday from 12 to 6. Bring snacks. 
* Mature players only. No smoking, no drinking, etc.

Don't:

* Mention "no politics" or "no Woke." Just stick to gaming and the things you like. 
* Be open-ended about things. "I am running X" and that's it. Don't even talk about other games.
* Compromise. Don't lower your standards or stray from your vision.

10
As fellow old warhorses, are you guys this fossilized in your gaming foibles? Are there entire genres you won't play? Do you only ever run the same game system exclusively? This is all very weird, and wrong, and weirdy-wrong to me.

There's a fairly wide list that I would run in theory, but in practice it narrows pretty darn fast.  I've only got so much time for gaming, I love running in person, I love running longer campaigns, yada, yada, yada.  I'm not opposed to things other than S&S to heroic fantasy.  However, what happens is all the gonzo fantasy, superheroes, online games, historical campaigns, short campaigns, etc. get bumped down to about priority 4 or lower on a list of 10-15.  Which practically speaking means they don't happen right now. 

Working on my own system has cut this down even more, because now I've only got time for the top 2 things instead of top 3, and I honestly would rather work on that system than make priority 3 happen.  Out of the 20 odd players that I get to sometimes come to my 2 groups right now, they feel even more strongly about it.  They are fine playing a different system for a moderately long campaign (e.g. 18-24 months), but they do not want to change systems very often.  I'm the only one of all those people that even care about learning new systems.

My suggestion is find something you can get people to do, focus on that, get it working.  Then when it settles into a good groove, start something completely different, from scratch.  You can invite some of the players from the first group, but don't expect any takers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10