You fuckers told me I'd get tons of players putting up a listing on roll20

You fuckers told me I'd get tons of players putting up a listing on roll20.

I put up a 5E game 3-4 days ago and have had 2 people comment. I thought I'd be turning away hordes of snowflakes at this point.

Other urls found in this thread:

app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/93695/city-watch
app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/24305/search-for-the-golden-bowl
fantasybookreview.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/night-watch-paul-kidby.jpg
images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090201045017/rpg/images/3/30/TownOfFallcrest.jpg
img08.deviantart.net/f8ff/i/2012/355/8/2/talisman___night_guard_by_jbcasacop-d5ooxbv.jpg
archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/51461933/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Maybe your game sounds like shit

^^ he might be right you know.

Post a link if you are confident that its not shit.

If you come across like this on your D20 posting, chances are hordes of snowflakes might be turning you away.

Let me guess - you put in something like

>no autists, snowflakes, fucktards, sjws, rollplayer, etc need apply

Intentionally picked 5E, intentionally specified no restrictions, intentionally generic fantasy setting.

Of course I didn't write listing like the post here.

Is it text only?

Nope, video/voice chat.

Funnily, for another game, I've asked people to videochat and they call, but keep their camera turned off.

Now I see plenty of reasosn why someone wouldn't want to, but weird to just not say anything when clearly other person is videochatting.

>upset you didn't get to play that shitty game
Sounds more like you dodged a bullet. Go play Shadowrun on RunnerHub, or find something non-Veeky Forums to spend your time on.

>contrarian hipster spouting dumb shit

D&D, like most other RPGs, is fine and works well with a good DM. If his goal was to get the best possibility of finding non-autists in his game then choosing the most popular RPG is good choice.

The main issue in this case is likely a shitty ad for it so no one wants to play, too narrow an ad so you don't get a good cross-section, or just bad luck.

>Made an intentionally bland listing for a system with no shortage of games
Why did you think it wouldn't be ignored?

Shit, I've got no idea then.

I play text-games exclusively so I'm used to them moving slower, but for a voice/webcam game idk.

I'm a fan of (and want to explore) a lot of less common stuff, Tales from the Loop, Don't Rest Your Head, Dogs In the Vineyard, etc. But last roll20 thread up everybody was saying fantasty is what got people's attention.
Is that the case or not?

I lied, it's not generic fantasy, but what exactly is a 'good' listing, apart from not being a 'This is a rapefest' or 'You can tell I am an anal asshole by this posting'.
Maybe I'm being cynical but talking about how unique the 'Adventures in the Kingdom of LOTHARIA' where you can explore the ROES OF CANTERBURRY, doesn't actually make anything sound unique. And using Medival Thule type setting would just narrow down pool of players.


Because from last roll20 thread it seemed to be the consensus that that worked.

Link your game.

>I lied, it's not generic fantasy
No you didn't, that is generic fantasy. You need to give people a clear reason why they should sign up for your game over the dozens of nearly identical listings, without the appeal being so narrow that can't get enough people

That shitty example I gave is not the game....

Then show us the fucking listing and we can tell you what's wrong with it

Webcam turns a lot of people off. It does for me personally as well. I play a lot in person and being able to see the people at the table is a massive benefit there as you can see the other players entire bodies and it allows for more expressive roleplaying and physical notepassing/everything else physical gaming offers.

But it also carries certain drawbacks that come with physical gaming - notably being unable to separate the player from the character because no matter how they describe their character, you will only ever be able to see their face. Online voice only solves this problem to a great extent in my experience and allows for extremely immersive experiences. You can change your voice but you can never change your face to be your character.

Maybe others have reasoning similar to mine, or they're just really awkward spergs who knows.

I'll join that shit, fucking hook a nigga up. I want to play damn it

OP isn't gonna provide, because OP didn't make a post on roll20. He just wants to complain about something pointlessly. You'd be better off going on roll20 yourself and finding a game to join, user.

Can confirm. Am awkward sperg and don't want to look at strangers on webcam. Because I'm always worried I'm gonna be doing something that looks dumb.

Alright. alright. Was getting antsy about sharing but better to get feedback and improve.

app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/93695/city-watch

The only thing that seems wrong with it is the 12 players needed part

I can understand hesitating about video-chatting with random strangers on the internet, but I can't relate to improving immersion via voice-only. If I hear someones voice I have an image of them person in my head. It's often way off, but I still have that image in my head, and need to switch it off the same way I do, when playing in real life at a table.
Most immersive I'd say is text only, sort of like reading a book. But text-only often is slower than voice …

A game with 2/3rds of the character classes and most of the races cut out of it; Oh boy oh boy, where do I sign up?

Congratulations, you made a pitch so self-evidently shitty that even people who can't find any other game don't want to touch it. Who the fuck would want a D&D campaign where fighter, rogue and ranger are the only options? Not to mention the unbelievable stupidity of thinking a game with 12 players would work. What were you thinking?

This was obviously a lie. There are quite some restrictions as mentioned by Plus 6-8 Player games are a horror for players. Just because some online people can do it (yes, there is this one online campaign with players and a GM much more experienced than you) doesn't mean you should either. 4 players is the recommended default, 3 or 5 players work, too.

It's a decent pitch, but really not one for the D&D crowd.

>video voice
>"Hurr why don't strangers on the Internet want to show me their ugly mugs they are likely very insecure about?"
You're an idiot. Stop playing the shittiest way possible, people want to get immersed in fantasy and having to listen to and look at retards while doing so takes one out of it.

>>hurrdurr I can’t play my Dragonborn codzilla

>12 players
>fighter rogue ranger only
>can't use all of their archetypes either
>human only
So first you cut the amount of content the RPG has by a factor of 5, then you demand three times the standard number of players, and yet you're surprised by no-one wants to play in your campaign?

Nigger you could have gone Cleric Druid Wizard Bard as your only classes and elves as your only race, it still would have been shit. The problem is cutting 80% of the class options, not which 20% you decided to keep intact.

>>ugly person ranting

>>“12”
>>clearly says 6
>>expecting >4 people to be consistent

This guy usb being optimistic

>>>ugly person ranting
>haha you can't join my game unless you're Chad, silly boys :)))

Oh please, you immediately jumped to the conclusion that people were insecure about their appearance and not way more obvious and universal concerns like privacy, convenience, or so that no one knows you're masturbating

So by that logic, you should include every class and every race in every splatbook.


Otherwise you’re cutting off 95% of the game.

No, but core only has always been the bare minimum

Make it voice only and you'll get slightly more.

But your game is awful is the problem.

>"what you've done is stupid and too the extreme. stop being a faggot."
>"Oh yeah? Well I bet you want to take it to the COMPLETE OPPOSITE EXTREME, so there!"
Thank's user. I've had this pic on my computer since 2015 and I finally have a chance to post it.

Don't be a fucking idiot. If it's in Core, you allow it. If it's in a supplement that both you and the player have access too, you allow or disallow it on a case by case basis.
This isn't fucking rocket science.

Cleric/Druid were banned in tons of 3.5 games for balance issues.

Divine classes are banned in some games for flavor reasons.

Bard and barbarian also banned a lot for flavor, less of the medieval feel.

12 players is wild. I'd avoid it, too regardless of everything else.

That's an insane amount of players, like way too fucking many.

Why not just the normal DM and 3-5 players?

There's a huge difference between banning 2 classes and banning all but 3. Also the absurd shit people did to get around 3.5's balance issues shouldn't be used as an argument for anything other than why we should leave it to the dustbin of history

>Cleric/Druid were banned in tons of 3.5 games for balance issues.
You say that as if it was a good thing, or is a desirable thing to emulate for other games. I love 3.5 to death, and eve I don't want that.

meant to reply to

Update, this faggot still hasn't added any of us to his game, he talked a lot of shit but won't put out

Probably doesn’t want 12-year old who doesn’t get difference between Veeky Forums -fag and “faggot”

>Being this new
If this thread wasn't already confirmed as one massive bait thread then this seals the deal.

But with those requirements to join, he really is a faggot.

...

>want things to go smoothly without looking at a rulebook every few minutes

This is what session 0 is for.

You have all your retarded possible things written down somewhere so that in the first session when I want to cast color spray and dazzle someone we're not looking up and down for AoE & whatever the fuck dazzle does.

I could actually make this schedule, huh. Maybe

Put description into description field instead of forum post.
>Audio / Visual Video and Voice
Change to Voice only to get more (worse) players.
>D&D 5E humans only, 3 classes available
Have you tried not playing d&d.jpg.

Obligatory:
app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/24305/search-for-the-golden-bowl

>12 players
>Really lame image
>Generic name
>Video required
>Need to click on forum thread to see more information than that
>Only humans
>Only 3 of the 4 most boring classes allowed
>Even if you picked the most varied and interesting classes in the game, 3 classes allowed out of 12 is a shit restriction

Pretty gud desu

How are Fighter, Ranger, or Rogue boring classes? They have tons of cool tricks they can pull, you don't need spells for that.

>I attack, and using my class ability I.. attack again!
>I attack! With an occasional hunter's mark or other level 1 spell because the rest of the list is shit or will never be reached
>I attack! and hide again
You don't need class features for a game to be fun, you could play a peasant and it could be ok, but that doesn't mean that resource management and meaningful options in combat don't improve the experience significantly. Some are totally fine with attacking each round, I find it boring. Besides, half the reason they are the most boring for restricting play like this is that they only have 2-3 archetypes, and each of them have an archetype that is garbo. So with only those three classes across 6-8 players, with no non-PHB options, you'll have 1-3 EKs, BMs, hunters, thieves and arcane tricksters, or even worse, you'll have someone playing a beast master, champion or assassin.

No you can do stuff like fighting dirty, feinting then grabbing the opponent's sword arm, headbutting him, unbalancing him etc. Ranger can do traps and has all kinds of nature skills, and I'm not even gonna start listing the all kinds of legerdemain a Rogue can up to if he sets his mind to it. They're interesting class archetypes, and if you just use standard attack you're missing out 99% of the fun in the entire game. Describe your actions!

>No you can do stuff like fighting dirty, feinting then grabbing the opponent's sword arm, headbutting him, unbalancing him etc.
As I said, any character can be fun to play but resources, abilities, choices of what to use in combat makes it a lot better. Every single character can do those things, it's not an excuse for some classes having fewer options exclusive to them. In 5e skills are generally the same for all classes, a bard can do anything your rogue can with Nature or Survival and shit because expertise is basically the only ability that affects skills. Rogue is as good as bards when it comes to skills, but lose out in all other aspects except pure, boring damage. The skill system isn't that strong either, seen in several spells being auto-succeeded skills, usually with some added benefit as well.

>Describe your actions!
So you're using fluff to argue why a class isn't boring? Describing options doesn't make combat any more interesting, it just makes the experience of playing more fun. Of course you should do it, but it's not a defense for why some classes are uninteresting in comparison to others. As said, all classes can do this.

>As said, all classes can do this.
...which is why it doesn't matter one jot what class you play QED

>...which is why it doesn't matter one jot what class you play QED

Unless you play a spell-caster. They get to do that AND have spells.

>Some are totally fine with attacking each round, I find it boring
While it's an exaggeration, my point here is that the afore-mentioned resource management and meaningful options improve combat a lot, even if it can still be fun without it. The argument was how Fighter, Ranger and Rogue are boring /classes/. Not why they make playing the game boring. These are very different things, I can still have fun with a boring class, being creative and all that, but I'll very likely have /more/ fun with a different class.

None of the stuff mentioned (grabbing someone's sword arm, various tricks and improvised actions; as well as pure fluff from describing your actions) is exclusive to classes, it can be done for all characters, which means it has no bearing on how boring a class is at all. It matters a lot for making the game fun, but it doesn't impact the classes themselves. This is all for me of course, some people find resource management dull and tedious.

OP here, I like you. If someone can’t imagine enjoying themselves or having variety of stuff to do without spell-slinging or very specific clas abilities, would rather filter then out now.


Gonna pour over this shitshow a bit more but for the most part hearing “play generic dnd and how dare you include more than five words that disprove half these arguments in going to make”.


“Name is shit” - alright, I’m no great writer, give me a better one.

“Generic picture” - what exactly works? Map of game, more specific action sequence, what do you think would convey my description.

>>description field
Oh whoops, haha
Thanks! This is probably best takeaway from thread so far!

>>more experienced
years as permaGM
Thanks buddy, the only new element here is playing with all-strangers. I’ve run 6-8 player games before. Everybody has in if you have decent people management skills.

>the only way to get immersed is text-only at all times for all modes of communication
>I can only be immersed if I am simultaneously reading and writing novellas and exchanging them with other players while my GM feebly tries to suggest the existence of a plot hook
>this is what aspies actually believe

Then why the fuck are you even playing DnD? DnD is an awful system if you want to do a no-magic game. You don't drink soup with a thimble, or eat icecream with a fork, so why play martials only with DnD?

It was "Really lame image" and "Generic name". The image is just a bland photograph that doesn't even fit the roll20 frame so it looks cheap and like you just hastily put something there. Crop it to the frame (looks like it's 350x197 pixels) and choose an image that reflects the atmosphere the game will have, generally quite generic fantasy art fits D&D and you'll probably want something urban here. Examples:
fantasybookreview.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/night-watch-paul-kidby.jpg
images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090201045017/rpg/images/3/30/TownOfFallcrest.jpg
img08.deviantart.net/f8ff/i/2012/355/8/2/talisman___night_guard_by_jbcasacop-d5ooxbv.jpg

For the name, the generic name is indicative of a generic game. It's not a big detractor, and I'm probably overvaluing a cool name for attracting players.

D&D isn't the best choice for a martial-only human-only game IMO and I'd suggest Savage Worlds or Mythras instead. It can be ok though, it's not too messy even if it IMO relies on its cool powers to spice up combat and you're cutting that out for the most part.

If you fix the description field so you don't have to look through the forum threads to find info on the game, and set the player count to 6-8 on the main page, then most of my issues with it have been addressed.

>looks like it's 350x197 pixels
Nvm this part, I think the frame is vertical for the game page and close to square for the LFG list so decide which you want it to look good for and crop accordingly. I also forgot to say, keep it quite close to 100% scale, don't try to fit a whole image in what is essentially a thumbnail.

>Funnily

Did you consider making your campaign interesting to play in, or was that scrapped early on along with 75% of character options?

>No, but core only has always been the bare minimum
That's idiotic. Since the dawn of role-playing, GMs have placed various restrictions on what goes. Leaving casters out entirely seems like it cuts out a large portion of the game, and I can see how folks wouldn't find that appealing, but there's nothing wrong with the concept of restricting what you can play. Hell, some GM might have a dwarf- or elf-only adventure, centering around dwarf or elf politics or something. I swear, kids these days have a severe issue with entitlement and think that the rulebook is some kind of bible whose passages must be religiously followed by the GM if he wants to avoid being burned as a witch. Fuck that shit. You certainly don't have to join a campaign that doesn't interest you, but your opinions are bad, and you should feel bad.

>whining about human-only games.
You are a bad roleplayer. Period. Get the fuck over it. If you cannot stand a "human only" game and you just NEED your dragonborn or dhampir or tiefling or whatever fucking edgelord faggot race you play to make yourself feel cool, then you are a shit roleplayer. There is literally nothing wrong with humans, and 95% of roleplaying concepts can be easily done as a human. What the fuck does being a dragon-blooded faggot add to the game, besides making you look cool, even though you probably don't even draw your character? It just weighs down the setting with more pointless races that no one needs. A setting should have five races, maximum. And the main race should be humans. Why? Because humans are the dominant race. No it shouldn't be elves, they live for-fucking-ever and should be special. An all-dwarf setting? Bleck. I mean, it could be cool for a rare weird setting, but a setting that isn't 90% humans and the other races are mostly a minority, is just fucking stupid. It ends up with the game being like goddamn Star Wars and you need fucking breeding tables to decide what happens when race #482 fucks race #71. It's retarded. What do more races add, besides weighing down the setting? Nothing. 90% of the time, nothing that you couldn't accomplish with a fucking humans with alternate culture. It's easy to do if you're not a shit worldbuilder.

I really am getting sick of these faggots who think they are allowed to play whatever race that they want, and that I will bend over backwards to include it in my setting. For shit-fucking-christs sake, the goddamn Pathfinder Races Guide includes like 10 new ones, on top of 7 or 8 in the core book, plus all the shit from 5e they insist on porting in. It's retarded. Get the fuck out. Extra races are unnecessary.

>I thought I'd be turning away hordes of snowflakes at this point

You made it impossible for people to play their snowflake characters, why is this suprising?

>11pm start time on a Monday
Found your problem.

This. Who plays on Monday? RPGs are for the weekends. If you can't play on the weekend because you still work at Burger King, then get the fuck out.

>>spending weekends trapped indoors

Someone doesn’t live in sunny California.

@56249100
Way to completely disregard every other complaint to post your shitty strawman.

Believe you me, I spent 30 minutes digging through my tg folder for a decent image.

First image has a too-historical feel, second is exotic/fantastical, and third is like medieval Stormtrooper.

Is it worse to have plainer image, or misrepresent the atmosphere of game.

I prefer Savage Worlds, use it reguarly, was looking to expand player base.

Nigger there's a difference between banning gay shit like dragonblooded/tieflings and banning literally everything that isn't Human.
Like seriously, the only races you'd absolutely have to ban for your setting are drow/dragonborn/tiefling/half-orc; nothin else fits poorly with your concept. So why ban it all?

OP, were you the one who wrote pic related?

Replies


It got everyone's attention.

Whole gist is players are natives of city, people are xenophobic, there'd be chance for a player to be half-orc or other halfblood, who'd deal with that discrimination from other citizens. Guardsmen are regular folk taking on a shitty dangerous job.

Hard to sell the vibe if half the fucking group is elf wizards, halfling bards, and orc barbarians....

Look, Lenin, I know this might be a tough concept to grasp, but human beings tend to be good and well-reasoned people. Especially when you can filter out all the shitty ones.
I.E. you can trust them with freedom.

Ban only the most outrageous stuff (dragonborn, warlocks, etc), and you will find that your players naturally make characters that fit the setting. Any wizards you get will be 'arcane detectives,' any monks will be more boxer than mystic, and any paladins you get will be justice-worshipers or other shit like that.

Trust your players, and you'll be pleasantly surprised more often than disappointed.

>It got everyone's attention.
I can't help but notice that this isn't a no.

>that whole icyclam-tier rant
Wow

And by clam I mean calm, WHOOPS

You can find the whole thread here archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/51461933/
There were a few """gems""" that didn't make it into the screencap

>Hard to sell the vibe if half the fucking group is elf wizards, halfling bards, and orc barbarians....
But that makes the game shitty. Like... if you want a zombie horror game where the players are ordinary people dealing with extraordinary circumstances, it's gonna be hard to sell the vibe if everyone's a halfdragon cyborg samurai with a giant pet octopus. But if you make everyone 1st level human commoners with useless skills instead, the game just isn't mechanically going to function very well.

has it right. D&D is just not the game to do human-only the three following classes. Find a system that can handle your vibe better or find a vibe that can handle your system better.

Oh no nobody chose an elf in the group the mechanics are *ruined*....

Listen I'm not baiting, genuinely confused at how you think game falls apart. If players incidentally chose martial classes, would the game suddenly implode? If everyone chose only dwarves and elves no other races, does the foundation of game crumble?

D&D as a game is not really built to handle 12 people all playing the same race/class combo, no.

If you limited people to no full casters in a normal-sized game, that probably could have worked. Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Ranger, and Paladin gives a good variety where you won't have as much overlap between a more normal 4-6 players.

For 12 though? What do you expect them to all play? For 5e, the most you could branch out would be a Medic Thief Rogue with the healer feat to serve as the team's healer, and an arcane trickster to be the resident magical expert. Outside of that? Every other class and subclass for those boils down to someone who hits things with swords or arrows. They might do so in slightly different ways, but if it's also a city based game you won't have many people jumping at the chance to play Ranger, and unless somebody really wants to be a Fighter, you're probably going to just end up with a gaggle of Skill monkey rogues all defined by having expertise in different skills.

That's not going to be a fun game where every skill check is trivialized because -somebody- has it as their focus, and every combat boils down to a dozen people zipping in and out while tossing a mountain of d6 at enemies.

The simplest way I can explain this is that it's a matter of scale. Cutting 75% of the content out of a game tends to make it shitty because it's calibrated for all the content being there.

In a game where everybody is a mundane human, there will tend to be a vast gulf between, say, an accountant and a nurse, because that's the scale the game is working on. In a game like D&D, that distinction is likely to be having a skill or not, or entirely fluff, because that's the scale that game is working on.

So to answer your question, yes, a game of four dwarven rangers would probably be pretty boring and wonky, because the game just isn't set up to differentiate between them properly. Their characters aren't going to feel very unique, the tools they have to overcome challenges aren't going to feel very varied, and so on. Everybody wants and is able to do the same things.

This is why for the most part, players naturally gravitate away from each other. You get very few games where everybody just dogpiles in as a barbarian because that's the best class. You get a lot of games where players hum and haw about "what's taken" and "what do we need" and so on, because playing a good spread of any given system's choices is usually much more fun for everyone involved. Even when you do get two fighters or two spellcasters or the like, the players tend to try to distance and differentiate themselves from The Other Elf, because that makes the game more fun and functional.

I can tell you with no cleric, bard, or druid you're gonna get ultrafucked because 5E expects someone with Healing Word prepared on the team. Otherwise you're gonna spend a third your time dragging around unconscious lugs, hoping they make their death saves.

>If players incidentally chose martial classes, would the game suddenly implode?
Sorta, yeah. You always hear stories about campaigns where everyone shows up the same class and it sounds like its a load of fun to try out, but the reality is that the game is only interesting because of the gimmick, gets old very quickly, and only survives it the group are already close friends.

That last bit is important, by the way. You would have gotten a much different response if you had said "some friends and I played an all human-fighter campaign and here's what happened," then if you had said "I'm running a campaign and I'm only allowing human fighters."

The other reason mono-class games tend to work out is that's the whole point of the pitch, and the players are usually going to work with eachother to set themselves apart. Like if everyone plays bards, they're gonna focus on different instruments, skills, and spells when forming their band.

It's also a lot easier with spellcasters, but in terms of 5e I think you could squeeze out a full party of distinct-feeling Fighters. Shieldmaster focused on maneuvers knocking people down, Great Weapon master champion slicing people up, Archer providing stealth and long range damage, Eldritch Knight providing magical utility...It'd be possible to get something out of it, but at that point you're basically playing Cleric Fighter Rogue Wizard, except it's Shield, Sword, Bow, baby-wizard instead.

But trying to extend that out into a party of 12 is just insane, especially when you're asking for random people to cooperate to try and ensure you don't get two people who both want to be an archer or whatever.

You're game sucks....Period

>You're
>....
>No period at the end

You're right, but go back to R20.

Well that's about it for me checking this thread, super fine letting this die.

Thanks for everyone with actual advice, hope the rest of you work out your issues with a licensed professional.

My man!

Also you've probably just read other people's comments but I've pointed out several times it's not a 12 player game. But you know hey, average person's reading comprehension is 4th grade level so no skin off my back.