The Unseen Servant forums

Alright . . . here you go: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1520.

Guys, feel free to chime it with anything I've missed.

Lookie lookie, new DM (sorta, he has PbP a bunch of games, just not here) starting a new game.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1521

He already mentioned to me that he'll need support on USS as its a new board to him.

Be well everyone!

I cried myself to sleep last night holding my 3.5 and LL books after reading this thread.

I jumped up and was going to type, but wait! Someone was trying to start a 3.5E game!!!

Then I realized it was you Fearghus.

Sorry man. Little love for 3.5E (but I bet that changes as the site grows) but much love for you!

**leans in for a bro-hug**

Fearghus wrote:I cried myself to sleep last night holding my 3.5 and LL books after reading this thread.

Convert to DCC with me brother its 3.5 with the appendix N flavor the grognards can get a taste for! Your in my campaign you know whats up.

I wholeheartedly agree with TK but, alas, I just started a game on another board. I'm also currently a player in five PbP games so I have no time for anything else but should the opportunity present itself, I think I'd like to run a game here. Time will tell.

I am DMing 3 games right now.... I think my plate is full !

thirdkingdom wrote:I count 24 active games. These 24 games are being run by 15 DMs (unless I miscounted).

What these statistics indicate, combined with the surge of newcomers, is that we clearly are having issues with existing GMs already being overworked.

Let us do the math. 24/15 = 1.6 average games per GM. With an average of 6 players per game (and I think this could be higher) and assuming each GM is also playing in at least one game that gives us:

15 people running games for 129 people who aren't running anything. Plus an unknown number of people joining and waiting to sit on a game.

Eye-balling it I'd say we have a pool of about 100 people twiddling their thumbs. They should be the ones that pick up the tab; not the 15 who are already working their butts off.

To put it perspective, a hundred folks are enough for 14 full gaming parties of 1 GM + 6 Players. That is more than most FLGS have available. If we aren't having enough games being run to meet demand then the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of that pool of people. Come on, you mean to tell me you can't find 14% among that group who are willing to be GMs?

thirdkingdom wrote:So, I'd like to see some more people step up and start running games.

Perhaps the new arrivals, instead of chiming in on the introduction board: "Hi guys! I am eager to play AD&D/BX/whatever." should instead be saying "Hi guys! I am eager to RUN AD&D/BX/whatever." Also, the people who should really be stepping up to run games are the ones that aren't running any at the moment and are *playing* in one or more.

I think there is a more than a bit of an entitlement mentality going on here. Not only is this site free, it is like people are expecting a GM to be on beck and call to take their order when they arrive.

thirdkingdom wrote:I think most of us running games already are fairly experienced; I know we've got a number of games over the 1000 post mark, which is pretty good as pbp goes, so I think we all would be more than willing to help out with advice or questions.

You don't say...well, that can be easily explained.

You see, one of the blights of the hobby from its very onset is that a minute group of poor schmucks had to take on the role of GMs, spend all the money, do all the work, while a massive group of entitled people just expected to be entertained...just because. (this at least was my experience, and I got so disenchanted with the attitude I stopped GMing altogether IRL for awhile until I moved countries and found a real gaming community where there were several GMs running games for each other). Us "very experienced" crowd are more likely than not the result of this selfish, enltitled, lazy IRL player attitude. I had to be a GM for years before I got the chance to sit down at a table as a player.

There should have been a "Rule -1" stating that you can only join to play if you are willing to GM yourself. You should start prepping your campaign as soon as you start playing as a player and mastered the basic rules. And if you absolutely suck at GMing, or if you simply refuse to do it, then you must contribute in some other way. You're the guy that keep notes, drives other players to the game, brings the food and drink, provides the gaming venue, etc...and you're replaceable if a new player-GM wants to join and there's no room (unless having you around is *really* entertaining).

Yes, I am aware that some people actually like GMing, prefer GMing and don't even like playing as players; but that is the exception that proves the rule, like siamise twins. Also, from my personal empirical experience, and from I read in forums/blogs and hear in podcasts, such folks tend to have some nasty authorial/authoritarian/dictatorial/dominance issues and don't even realize it.

In PbP this problem becomes more serious because of the snail pace at which games progress. Even if you want to have some rotation in GMs it just ain't possible. Even short modules take from 6 months to a year to finish.

I sense a raw nerve.

Everyone should sign up to run a game, no matter how screwed up I , i mean, they, make it.
I'd say he just about nailed it. Except the part about GMing for years before being a player.
I ran my own game, on paper, by myself (no players, just me), for years before I ran into anyone else who played.
I would take the 'module' and hide/cover important sections, as best I could, only peeking when absolutely necessary.
I LIVED for Boxed Text.
I guess you could say I was a player for years before I even met a GM.
THAT is probably why my dwarf talks to his turtle?

Stonjuz wrote:Everyone should sign up to run a game, no matter how screwed up I , i mean, they, make it.
I'd say he just about nailed it. Except the part about GMing for years before being a player.
I ran my own game, on paper, by myself (no players, just me), for years before I ran into anyone else who played.
I would take the 'module' and hide/cover important sections, as best I could, only peeking when absolutely necessary.
I LIVED for Boxed Text.
I guess you could say I was a player for years before I even met a GM.
THAT is probably why my dwarf talks to his turtle?

Huh?
Did you know they have 'endless quest" and "choose your adventure" type books?

Bloodaxe wrote:

Stonjuz wrote:Everyone should sign up to run a game, no matter how screwed up I , i mean, they, make it.
I'd say he just about nailed it. Except the part about GMing for years before being a player.
I ran my own game, on paper, by myself (no players, just me), for years before I ran into anyone else who played.
I would take the 'module' and hide/cover important sections, as best I could, only peeking when absolutely necessary.
I LIVED for Boxed Text.
I guess you could say I was a player for years before I even met a GM.
THAT is probably why my dwarf talks to his turtle?

Huh?
Did you know they have 'endless quest" and "choose your adventure" type books?

I have some of the books such as ,"If you attack the creature, go to page 43", etc...and they got me thru some years too.
Endless quest?, Never heard of it. What is it?

RE: Vargr1105

Hey, now. I run two games at another site, one with 6,000+ posts and the other just about to hit 3,000. I hardly think it's fair to characterize every new person who appears here as some entitled, lazy brat who isn't willing to contribute. I actually joined up at this site because I was hoping to NOT be a DM for a change.

Plus, the idea of making people DM is as terrible as it is foolish. Some people are just awful at it. I know, I've had the misfortune of playing in their games. Even those who are willing to put in the effort and time may still be bad at it. Railroaders, coddlers, killer DMs, Mary Sue self-insert DMPCs, sexists (and other forms of extremely awkward bigotry); not to mention people with no concept of pacing, monty hauls, whatever the opposite of monty hauls are called (once played in a game where we went on an incredibly dangerous mission that resulted in a PC death and we only got paid 15 silver each for it), control freaks, egotistical jerks, stoners (god, that was the weirdest game I ever played in)--and that's just the bad DMs I've had to deal with myself; there are even worst ones out there, too (ever hear of That Lanky Bugger? His story beats all of mine together).

Point being, some people just aren't any good at DMing; and others just don't want to put that much time and effort into something, they just want to have some fun--and you know what? That's fine, too. A game without players is no game at all, they're equally important to a DM in the equation.

Endless quest, Fighting Fantasy, Lone Wolf, the same kind of books.

Daos Soulstaff wrote:RE: Vargr1105

Hey, now. I run two games at another site, one with 6,000+ posts and the other just about to hit 3,000. I hardly think it's fair to characterize every new person who appears here as some entitled, lazy brat who isn't willing to contribute. I actually joined up at this site because I was hoping to NOT be a DM for a change.

Plus, the idea of making people DM is as terrible as it is foolish. Some people are just awful at it. I know, I've had the misfortune of playing in their games. Even those who are willing to put in the effort and time may still be bad at it. Railroaders, coddlers, killer DMs, Mary Sue self-insert DMPCs, sexists (and other forms of extremely awkward bigotry); not to mention people with no concept of pacing, monty hauls, whatever the opposite of monty hauls are called (once played in a game where we went on an incredibly dangerous mission that resulted in a PC death and we only got paid 15 silver each for it), control freaks, egotistical jerks, stoners (god, that was the weirdest game I ever played in)--and that's just the bad DMs I've had to deal with myself; there are even worst ones out there, too (ever hear of That Lanky Bugger? His story beats all of mine together).

Point being, some people just aren't any good at DMing; and others just don't want to put that much time and effort into something, they just want to have some fun--and you know what? That's fine, too. A game without players is no game at all, they're equally important to a DM in the equation.

Ive ran many games on the Goblinoid Games site. There aren't enough players over there!! So Rredmond sent me here.

to add a little bit of newbie perspective to this.

I just found this site today and signed up. I also haven't played a pen and paper RPG for almost 20 years. Back when I played, it was just 5 or 6 friends deciding to roll up characters and play some random night. I usually was dm for my little group and 90% of the adventures I ran were totally off the cuff. Players would suggest an action or ask a question that would lead to an interesting thought in my head and I'd go with it. Dungeons were built by random rolls from the back of the dm's guide.

That said, after looking around the forums at the games in progress, the thought of jumping in and running a game is very intimidating. There looks to be a lot of thought going into the games (read: lots of prep work). Couple that with, in my case, not being as familiar with the rules as I used to be and it looks like a recipe for disaster.

I would love to run dragonlance and oriental adventures 1st ed add games, but i do not feel confident doing so at my current experience level.

I offered a Labyrinth Lord game after my 3.5 bid (I admit, a 3.5 proposal here was silly on my part). With no feedback / constructive criticism given to my LL proposal, it is odd to see this thread get so much attention.

Fearghus wrote:I offered a Labyrinth Lord game after my 3.5 bid (I admit, a 3.5 proposal here was silly on my part). With no feedback / constructive criticism given to my LL proposal, it is odd to see this thread get so much attention.

Yeah, not sure why, Feargus. Looks like a good description of expectations and game background. Might just be that some of the newer players don't know what LL is. Never hurts to bump the thread...

(Bumped...)

Keep trying Fearghus you should find people eventually sometimes you just have to reach out for a while. I'd join but i'm saving my time for the possibility of expanding my DCC campaign into two separate ones so I wouldn't have the time.

Alethan wrote:

Fearghus wrote:I offered a Labyrinth Lord game after my 3.5 bid (I admit, a 3.5 proposal here was silly on my part). With no feedback / constructive criticism given to my LL proposal, it is odd to see this thread get so much attention.

Yeah, not sure why, Feargus. Looks like a good description of expectations and game background.

I disagree. A recruitment thread should have more vim, less GSN spiel and state clearly what system and module are going to be run. Colored text and pictures help too, that's what I did.

This "Pooling for Interest", "What do you guys think?", "Gather round the fire children and lets talk about it" recent approaches I am seeing on recruitment threads don't seem to work very well. Personally, I get put off from reading the whole paragraphs of sterile text and ending up not knowing *exactly* what is going to be run.

It doesn't make much sense. Supposedly we have more people than ever wanting games, but the interval o time between the adds being posted and the game starting (if at all) has increased visibly.