Is it just me or does it seem like there aren't a lot of new games happening over in the recruitment section? I am running a the Reign of Winter AP and I am loving it, but I think I would like to join a game. My in person group has "temporarily" disbanded because of life seven months ago, and really have the itch to play.
I know this might be off brand because this is the Paizo PBP section, but is there anywhere else that is more alive for Pathfinder 1st ed games?
I've tried twice to start up a Pathfinder adventure but it's kept falling through.
I want to stick to Discord for ease of communication and bots, but I've never had a group stick through.
I'd love to give it a third go if I could figure out what adventure to run.
I don't think it's just you Squirrel Ninja. At least I've found that when there is a new posting, so many people apply that there is high competition. In every case I've seen so far since I've applied for a game, the winner of the recruitment is typically someone who's been playing a long time and knows how to build a character to be the most efficient. I am an amateur who has mostly played in Homebrew games, and I'm probably an intermediately skilled character builder. I have never been in a high level actual campaign that wasn't homebrew, so the likelihood of me knowing how to build a great character for some of these games is slim, and thus are my chances of getting picked so I can improve on this site.
I've been soaking up information though, and in the meantime I am paying attention to those mentioned boards and hopefully soon I'll get to get in on one.
As for other locations of PbP or Pathfinder 1st ed games, I have not seen other places that appealed to me that are active, sorry. I wouldn't mind trying Discord. Isn't that a chat engine?
I still have some spaces in a high-power Mongol-era game and one set in the Ninth World of Monte Cook's Numenera. I have tons of house rules, and the characters are about 4 times as complex as a normal build, but I'm recruiting nevertheless if you'd like to take a gander.
I saw that game and was tempted, but the system is killing me to try to understand. I got down to feats and gave up. So many unique systems that I have no idea about is causing too much chaos for my liking. It's sad too because I had a concept that would have been pretty fun to play.
Keep in mind that a con started mid-January on Discord and the next Outpost con will start in March around the time the Discord con ends. Those take up a lot of bandwidth. Looks like there are over 50 games being played on Discord for the con there.
Also recruiting for PFS usually happens in the Flaxseed Lodge thread while SFS happens in the Flaxeed Station thread. You can also find links and announcements for cons on those threads. The general recruiting thread typically has AP's or non-society games.
Seems slower then it used to be.
Ironically, I've been pleased at the fact that there've been a number of PF1 recruitments at all--I expected the drop off to be much steeper after PF2 came out.
I think the drop in recruitment is more because I think a lot more people are playing games via Discord and other "live" sort of means rather than play-by-post. It's also just a busy time of year and slower for recruitment than summer when people have more time.
One thing is I see some players who are already in huge numbers of active PBPs rapidly dominating recruitment posts, which lowers the chances of new players of getting in. (I'm in five or six after a recent recruitment and don't plan to app in to any more until one I am in ends.) I want to throw out a suggestion to recruiting GMs to err on the side of recruiting players who are in fewer games so newer players (meaning not people like me) have a chance of getting into a game.
I appreciate that GMDQ. I would love to have characters in a few campaigns on PbP here.
I was thinking of reserving a couple of spots for anyone who has also GM'd a play-by-post as a way of incentivizing people to run more games, but I don't know if that's kosher.
I think that's totally kosher. I actually am running a Pathfinder campaign IRL for the GM of my last game so that the poor man can play. Sometimes they need to not worry about everything going on in the game all the time. To reserve a spot for GM's is great in my book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically, I've been pleased at the fact that there've been a number of PF1 recruitments at all--I expected the drop off to be much steeper after PF2 came out.
I think the drop in recruitment is more because I think a lot more people are playing games via Discord and other "live" sort of means rather than play-by-post. It's also just a busy time of year and slower for recruitment than summer when people have more time.
One thing is I see some players who are already in huge numbers of active PBPs rapidly dominating recruitment posts, which lowers the chances of new players of getting in. (I'm in five or six after a recent recruitment and don't plan to app in to any more until one I am in ends.) I want to throw out a suggestion to recruiting GMs to err on the side of recruiting players who are in fewer games so newer players (meaning not people like me) have a chance of getting into a game.
I think it's a really frustrating catch-22. My last open recruitment, I made sure to try to pick one or two folks who were new to PBP. I found one I really liked -- and then he disappeared. With people who have a long track record, you have more expectation that they'll stick around.
I'm on the verge of finishing a game, which means I'll probably start running a new AP sometime this year. And I'm going to be torn between doing an open recruitment and trying to give one or two new people a chance to get into a game the way I got a chance when I was just starting out, and just picking from people I've now played with and know will post with the quality and frequency I want from my players.
--
That said, while I think the recruitments had dropped off for a few months, I feel like it's actually really active again right now. There were a few I wanted to throw my hat into the ring for but I'm at my limit. I do think we see a few more PFS recruitments instead of AP recruitments than we used to, but I don't think that's horrible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am talking in part about folks who are already active in 7+ games and still apping into new games... Which often means they end up dividing their attention far too much, as well as hogging the spotlight. I recruited for something a year or two ago, took someone on only to realize they were already in like 10 games and they flaked out almost immediately because they were too busy. (Also I remember one person in that recruitment threw a hissyfit about not being selected and being mad about being looked over; they made it sound like he NEVER got into games; then I checked their post history and they were also in like 9 other games. So there was a weird sense of entitlement going on.)
Other players may not currently be in a bunch of games but often have enough of a post history that you can tell whether they will be a reliable poster. Out of game posting can also tell you how much time they have and how civil they are--usually a responsible newb stands out from an irresponsible one if you pay attention. Moral of the story is check the post history and judge well.
And because I feel like a hypocrite if I don't acknowledge this--I have taken on other players with high game counts recently. The reasons were especially circumstantial and the recruitment was closed; the applicants were right for the situation which I'm not going to bother getting into here.
I'm just noting in general the competition is tough because there's some folks on the boards who are sort of serial game-appers. I'm trying to be more aware of that and am sharing that along in hopes it's helpful to others.
In answer to the original question... you are partially right. But a lot of that is, for lack of better word, cyclical. There are only so many folks that feel comfortable GMing on the forums (and they themselves go through cycles of burn out and, gods willing, return) and those folks only have so many hours in the day to make games come alive.
One of the reasons I have never taken up the challenge of GMing myself is the sheer amount of time it takes to plan out things for your players. I mean, even with PBP (where you can control the pace over the course of days instead of multi hour intense sessions) and even with prewritten modules/APs (where a lot of the major arcs are written for you to adapt to your players actions, often with variants for different likely outcomes) it still takes time and effort to make everything really come alive for us players. Every game takes love, time, and care to make seem real enough for the players to put their own love, time, and care into.
And when you factor in that even the shorter campaigns can take months... or years... to get through... a GM might not have a new opening for a brand new game for long periods of time. At best you might have sporadic rerecruitments to replace players as real life intervenes. Or the occasional recruitment to get a new GM for an existing campaign for similar reasons.
...
I seem to have gotten off of a tangent, but if a month or two passes without much in the recruitment threads... just be patient. Eventually new games will come up as old games finally close or new/returning GMs come to the tables.
In answer to the new player conundrum... honestly, a lot of GMs I have seen in the past will try to go the extra mile to get a new player or two into their tables when possible. And I have, for my part, deferred a slot or passed on even applying for a game to give new folks a better shot of getting in. (And once, came aboard a game to ensure they had enough folks so that the newer players had a chance to play.)
Ultimately it is in everyone's best interest to try to allow new folks to play (within reason, of course) especially in the shorter games. At least, that is my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I have seen what seems to be a drop in overall open new games lately. Currently down to my last PBP game which is looking to be over within a month, so I was hunting for a new one.
A few of my more recent games seem like they got just barely past the introduction before fizzling out. Then some of the longer running ones the DM's either had RL get in the way or just seemed to have disappeared into the ether without warning.
I've been part of Pathfinder Society in the past for a few games but I didn't particularly like how the DM's handled things as the game felt forcibly rushed to a completion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In answer to the original question... you are partially right. But a lot of that is, for lack of better word, cyclical. There are only so many folks that feel comfortable GMing on the forums (and they themselves go through cycles of burn out and, gods willing, return) and those folks only have so many hours in the day to make games come alive.
One of the reasons I have never taken up the challenge of GMing myself is the sheer amount of time it takes to plan out things for your players. I mean, even with PBP (where you can control the pace over the course of days instead of multi hour intense sessions) and even with prewritten modules/APs (where a lot of the major arcs are written for you to adapt to your players actions, often with variants for different likely outcomes) it still takes time and effort to make everything really come alive for us players. Every game takes love, time, and care to make seem real enough for the players to put their own love, time, and care into.
I think this misconception is what a lot of non-GMs share that holds them back, unfortunately.
It is...shockingly easy to run a satisfying game for players with a bare minimum of planning. And I don't mean just making a sandbox game and letting the players do what they will.
As long as your players buy into the game, it's very easy to keep things running smoothly whether in a complete homebrew game or some kind of pre-published material.
That last bit is most important though, and one I don't think enough Recruitments take into account. A lot of games fizzle within a month because the GM makes the mistake of choosing CHARACTERS rather than PLAYERS. "Wow these characters have interesting backstories and are mechanically interesting or synergistic with one another, so these are the 4-5 I choose" seems to be how most Recruitments work, and the usual result of that is 3 of the 4-5 players flake out, have conflicting personalities with some of the other players that push them out, or are so unmotivated to post that they stall the game and it dies.
That kind of thing leads to a cycle of burnout that has, in part I think, led to the decline of new PbP Recruitments in these parts, because the ratio of successful games is so low.
So you have a perfect storm of a lack of influx of new players (because these forums have been slowly dying for a few years now), a severe shortage of new GMs because everybody has this weird misconception that a GM is some mystical being who needs a special skillset instead of just being a guy who shows up consistently enough, and existing GMs who haven't learned the lesson that they're looking for the wrong thing in a game and drop it after a week into a game that took a month to recruit for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Storm Dragon, I trust you are a indeed a mystical being of a GM who can accomplish anything. Good for you! However, speaking as a PBP GM who has been successfully running a moderately-to-slow paced PBP game for the last couple years or so... for me personally, I find that PBP GMing takes a lot of prep and is a lot of work. I find I have to read ahead (or outline adventure seeds if I'm winging it), create maps, build and maintain NPC lists (I'm running Skull and Shackles so there's buttloads of NPCs that have to be managed), read ahead again, and track complex combats. PBP combat is especially overwhelming--even with many streamlines I have worked in to make it easier--because it falls even more on the GM to make sure everybody is on the same page with what's happened than in an RL tabletop game where everyone is witnessing the same thing at the same time and able to converse in real time. In PBP, I have to have time to make sure I've created the battle map, tracked conditions, damage, monster abilities, etc. and roll and update attacks often for many monsters at once. If I have multiple monsters in a fight (and single-monster fights tend to be too easy for PCs due to action economy) just rolling online and then updating after seeing the results can take me a good 30-45 minutes, which is a whole lunch break (which might be the only opportunity I have to post!). As a player in a PBP I might be able to post from my phone with ease from anywhere, but as a GM I have to be able to post from where I can consult my notes, track combat progress... as well as answer sometimes complex rules questions. (Sometimes I paste my monster stats into my profile so I can access my monster stats easily from anywhere, but that risks player metagaming). If anyone slows down a combat, it's usually me because I've had a busy day and can't take the time to update the combat. And moreover I've noticed that many games I've played where the GM flaked, it was in the middle of a combat, where players were waiting for the GM to respond to be able to proceed. Which leads me to...
Speaking as a player, I've been in FAR more games that died due to the GM getting overwhelmed than players flaking out. Yes, I've definitely seen player flakeout but if the GM is willing to keep going and/or recruit more players, the game will continue. It won't if the GM disappears. A lot of GMs clearly bite off more than they can chew and then disappear rather than own up to feeling overwhelmed. I've been in a few campaigns where the GM disappeared within just a week or so of the campaign beginning. Other GMs have the decency to say they are going--but it is almost always because they are overwhelmed and no longer have time to run the game.
So yeah, I think the reason a lot of people don't GM is because for them, it actually is hard and takes a lot of work. As a gal who so far "consistently shows up enough," I can say doing so for me personally requires a focused commitment and ability to work through periods of burnout. Which isn't the "shockingly easy" scenario you describe. And I am aware as I get through an adventure path, there is always the possibility at some point I will get too busy and have to end the game.
Understanding that I am a sample of one, just for fun I just reviewed my own "Previous Campaigns" tab and how each game ended. Out of 21 campaigns that I am no longer active in, here's the stats (editing because I realized the math was off the first time I posted; if something is still off I apologize but this is just a thought exercise; hopefully you get the gist):
8 games where the GM announced they were leaving/having to end the game because they were too busy
6 games where the GM just disappeared in the middle of a scene, zero explanation
1 game where the GM ended things because he wasn't happy with how things were going with the game.
1 game where most of the players flaked out and the GM rebooted with a smaller group of dedicated players. (This was not a Pathfinder game, but Mutants and Masterminds, which is a system that tends to attract players that love to build characters all day long but don't necessarily commit well to playing one character on the long term. It was also a game where the GM laid out a very clear expectation/description of what the campaign was going to be like, and as the game went on it was clear many of the players had expected something different--which was not the GM's fault. )
1 game (a long AP-style one) where the GM stuck with it from start to finish. A few players left and new ones were recruited along the way.
4 games where I left because it wasn't a good fit for me. (However, two of them later died because the GM disappeared and/or got overwhelmed. One, a game that got started just about a month ago, is still active. Another just sort of petered out, that I'll call player flake--this was also not a Pathfinder game. I'm counting the two that died as "GM failed" in my final tally.)
So out of 21, 17 games ended due to the GM flaking, ending the game because they were too busy, or otherwise were ended by the GM.
Out of 21, 2 died to player flake. Neither were a Pathfinder First Edition game.
Out of 21, only 1 went to completion. (This of course doesn't count the five ongoing games I'm in, including the one I am running.)
So I'm going to say that there is in fact good reason GMs are hard to find, or at least the ones that do stick around. And while player flake is annoying as hell... it isn't what will kill a game unless the entire party flakes at once. (Which is very rare.)
ETA: And the one thing I agree with you is GMs do need to assess players and their ability to commit, not just characters. But that isn't what causes games to end in my personal experience.
^ Everything DQ just said. I've been GMing PbPs on this site for more than seven years now and am currently running four games, which frankly is at least one too many, and it's a significant commitment. The actual amount of time I spend posting in a given day may not be huge, particularly if the games aren't in combat, but as a hobby, it's competing with everything else I have to do during the course of a day: family, work, prior commitments, general life stuff. I would never use the words "shockingly easy" to describe the process.
EDIT: Of the 25 inactive campaigns in my tab, seven were completed, and fifteen ended because the GM quit, either with or without notice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a difference of experience; I've been in a lot of PbPs over the last 8 years or so on these forums (I used to have a different username, but eventually just washed my hands of the rest of the forums and started a new account just for PbP gaming).
I'll admit, a lot are the result of GMs dropping the game, which is understandable. I don't mean to completely understate how easy it is to GM, and the biggest risk is burnout (I've been running Skull and Shackles for 4+ years at this point and getting a bit tired of needing to drag the party along, as if they're not interested in posting without my direct input even in supposedly player driven sections), but the point I was trying to make is that it's not nearly AS hard as many make it out to be, and often reads as an unwillingness to even try with an excuse of "I'm just not good enough".
But more often than not IME it's the players that are at fault; either by actively contributing to the GM's burnout through lack of engagement, or by not getting along with each other, or losing their own motivation to post (hey, I get it; player burnout is also a thing).
Out of the games I've played in (not GM'd) that have ended (a total of 66 non-redundant campaigns; some have had multiple threads/been rebooted), only 2 have made it to completion (a pair of oneshots), 2 are on hiatus, a few I've pulled out of of my own accord, ~ 20 have ended because of irreconcilable differences, ~20 more ended because the GM wanted to run something else (I have a couple of "core groups" of people I play with a lot, one of them the people I run/play live games with on the weekends, and the other composed of people like Rigor Rictus I just happen to play with a lot), and the rest involve the GM ghosting everybody for a reason that was never ever revealed.
That's a fairly even spread of "GM's fault", "Player's fault", and "nobody's fault" that holds pretty true in my sample size of one, as it was put.
Just as a quick rundown to show where I'm coming from.
Well, that went sideways.
I am more in the school of thought of GMDQ and Joana than that of Storm Dragon... though, to be fair, he (she... it... do storm dragons have gender?) probably is right when it comes to the philosophy. It doesn't take a Shakespear level playwright to make a play that is entertaining. Similarly, it doesn't take someone with hours on end dedicated to plotting and planning out a campaign to make one that is engaging to players. I accept and concede that point.
I will say this though: the less time the GM has to put into making the world come alive (or the less talent, in some cases... but let's stick with time being the variable and talent being equal) the more time and energy will be required from the players to make the place believable, engaging, and hooking. There have been times where I don't have to add much beyond what my character thinks of a situation. Those typically have been in games where the GM clearly was putting in extra time to make the place seem real, and was taking the time to take my actions/reactions and react/act accordingly.
There have been other times in my career, however, where I have had to spell out not just what was happening to me, but how what I was saying or doing impacted those non player or non person elements around me... and I hate having to do that as a rule as a player. For some key moments, sure. Critical success or failure, with GM approval, great. But having to do so on routine matters in order to sell a scenario (often combat to be fair) to my fellow party members just strikes me as being reaching for fire I should not be touching... at least as a player.
I am, once again, getting side tracked... Ultimately, could I become a GM with a decent success rate? Maybe, maybe not. I haven't tried yet, so I don't know. And maybe that is being cowardly on my part. I just know that I don't think I have the time to really devote to bringing a setting to life for my players right now, and I don't want them to have to compensate for my lack of time. It wouldn't be fair to them, at least in my view.
I just personally had to end a game due to RL complications with some friends. My time was far too valuable at home, and I couldn't commit to running a tabletop game for them. Instead of ghosting, I just communicated my issue that time was a consuming problem for me with my other commitments, and then from there, worked on ending the campaign. With the players informed, they knew we wouldn't play on into eternity. My plans started to head towards a different ending than I anticipated, and the many people who were in my game marveled at how it ended.
On the flipside, my previous GM had a game, and due to school restraints, couldn't continue. His desired method to end the game was a single dice roll. You make the DC or die. There was no resolve to character's storylines, no effort to allow the story to continue on. No GM swap. Many players hated this ending, and some didn't even accept it lol.
My point with all of this is that if you are going to phase out, be it as a GM or player, let all parties know what is going on. Like Storm Dragon said, part of the problem is GMs don't feel like their players may be appreciating the effort they are going through. If players are flaking out or posting inconsistently because of life, this can be demoralizing. As that player, you should at the minimum communicate what is going on.
For the Gm who has to leave, that is understandable, but I've not been on here long and you guys also have GM Swaps. If you can't run the game, swap it with another GM, and above all communicate to your players what is going on. To leave people in limbo just would be frustrating, and I hope I don't have to experience that as a new person here as you all describe.
My experience is the complete opposite of GMDQ, but I put the cause of that on a focus on shorter, easily delineated adventures thanks to PFS. A four hour scenario is easier to complete in PbP than a full six adventure AP campaign or even an eight hour module. The ones I have had fail are entirely modules and I am only just dabbling in my first AP PbP.
Modules- 2 Successes, 1 Nonstarter, 1 3-part that had to end early due to GM departure and a player death, 1 that fell apart due to the group not gelling.
Scenarios- 42 Sucesses. A number of these were victims of GMs falling out and being replaced however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It annoys me to no end that Paizo doesn't have more content for sale on Roll20.
Paizo doesn't decide what Roll20 makes available; that's up to Roll20. They have access to all the Paizo content, but they're the ones who decide what they make available and when.
when will paizo finish adding pathfinder 1st edition and starfinder adventure paths to roll 20? yall made this huge announcement about the partnership and lil to nothing has come of it. meanwhile DnD has all their stuff added to roll20 pretty much shortly after launch if not at launch.Just to be clear, Paizo (and Wizards) are not the ones adding content to Roll20; the Roll20 team determines the pacing of their content releases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This all just reminds me to thank each and every GM running a game for me (and others) right now.
As a person looking to start running a PF2 game, but also still trying to get into one or two just to familiarise myself with the system, I commend all of you for your diligence, dedication and most of all, passion.
I do think Storm Dragon makes an excellent point with regard to recruiting Players instead of Characters. Personally, I’m going to recruit from players and GMs who I feel comfortable with as I am ornery as hell and have super-specialised tolerance for personality, approach and even writing styles. I have very specific things I do and don’t want and will be upfront with the Player base about my desires. They can either accept or decline, no harm no foul.
I really want to know that inasmuch as is humanly possible I lay the groundwork for an enjoyable game for all concerned. I do think about inviting a new player, but you can bet I’ll be doing research first! Even then, I most likely will have a full roster...and those I choose all seem to be able to get along well with others. Unlike me, at times. ;)
Funny thing is, after all that, I’m genuinely really relaxed as a GM in terms of not sweating the rules overly, making sure the rules don’t get in the way of fun etc. My main problem will be avoiding frustration that I don’t get enough flavor in due to having an actual real life family, household, work etc... never mind the maps, NPCs, overarching and likely undiscovered metaplots etc etc etc...
Once again, hats off to you all!
My experience is the complete opposite of GMDQ, but I put the cause of that on a focus on shorter, easily delineated adventures thanks to PFS. A four hour scenario is easier to complete in PbP than a full six adventure AP campaign or even an eight hour module. The ones I have had fail are entirely modules and I am only just dabbling in my first AP PbP.
Modules- 2 Successes, 1 Nonstarter, 1 3-part that had to end early due to GM departure and a player death, 1 that fell apart due to the group not gelling.
Scenarios- 42 Sucesses. A number of these were victims of GMs falling out and being replaced however.
Short games, including PFS scenarios, are a great idea. And I think a starting PBP GM should definitely aim for a shorter campaign or scenario rather than a long one. It's less overwhelming for the GM and also more likely to keep a party together through the duration. (The only reason I attempted an AP was my initial invite was to my friends I usually play at table and I knew their ability to commit or not. As some folks have had to come and go due to RL issues I have recruited some folks from the board to fill in and that's been working out fairly well.)
My issue with PFS, separate of PBP, is it has always seemed to me like some secret club with all these terms and phrases I don't know (venture captains and venture lieutenants) and merit badges and stars and points and factions, and every time I try to read an invite to apply to a PFS PBP game it reads like someone trying to invite me into a very strict cult. "You must follow the chapter approved rules for the fifth hub and your kerfloogle points you earned in another game don't count here." [To the too-literal out there, this is an exaggeration to make a point, no one has ever said this to me, and I do understand PFS does not have, to my knowledge, anything called kerfloogle points.]
Some very kind souls have tried to invite me into a PFS pbp and offer a pregen character for me to play to be sure I'm within the correct restrictions (although I expect most of my characters actually would be PFS legal) and walk me through everything, but it always feels way too overwhelming to learn all these new things, and/or that somehow I am committing myself to something massive that I can't do (it didn't help that the last time someone did this I happened to be enormously busy and really just couldn't deal with joining any PBP, in fairness). I've probably made it out to be a much bigger thing than it probably is, but these days when I see invitations to PFS game my knee jerk reaction is "ooh, scary" and avoid them (probably much to the relief of the members of the Society).
My experience and feelings on PFS (in my online realm of PbP recruitment/games) matches yours almost exactly DQ, it is uncanny.
It is a great pity as the Recruitment forum is absolutely drowning in PFS2 games, and I would really like to play PF2, just without the S. I just feel entirely kerfloogled.
And yes, I am planning to start by running a short PF2 Scenario The Mosquito Witch with the setting changed and some flavor edits to ease into a larger campaign if the experience is enjoyable...