How do you keep VTT players?

[The Mad Titan]

I just lost my ELEVENTH player for a single campaign. Even had to start the entire campaign over one time because three out of four players left at once and it wasn't fair to the three replacement players to not to start from the beginning.

For those of you who have run successful campaigns in VTTs, what are you doing to keep people interested and onboard to the end? What are your secrets? How on earth have you managed to make it work?

Seems to me that if you're not on the level of Matthew Mercer, Chris Perkins, or Matt Colville, then new players aren't going to take you seriously and you're just wasting everyone's time. It's depressing. It's disheartening!

How do I fix this?

[Archetype of Greg]

So first things first don't beat your self up too much, the type of players who join a game at the drop of a hat tend to also be the type of players who leave just as easily. I expect about 50% of randos to drop games within the first month of playing because of bad scheduling or not being great with commitments (these are never your fault). Then you are going to looses another chunk of players because you game is just not the right fit for them and is ok as well.

But you are looking into how to mitigate this. The best thing to do is become friends with your players; it is a whole easier to find reasons to stay in a game if you like the GM as a person. Good ways to do this is to always do something on game days, if some people can't make it to the session play video games with those who can. The reverse of this strategy is also useful get people you are already friends with to join the game. If you only have one slot that is rotating in new players your game will feel more consistent and be a better experience for those involved. Lastly run shorter games, this will lessen the burden when players do chooses to leave and give a natural exit point. This does not stop people from leaving but it makes it feel a whole lot less worse. I would recommend games that only last 4-5 sessions till you get a solid group.

[Watery Soup]

What were the reasons they gave for leaving?

How did you recruit?

[The Gleeful Grognard]

A few things:

- Have a good session 0 that sets out the wants / likes / dislikes / hopes of everyone in the group. AND tempers them reasonably, some people are lost during this step and that is fine.

- Prep well enough to probably keep your players invested, only a very small number of people are good enough at improve that it can hold a campaign together in the long run. I know GMs who have thought they are good enough and know for certain given player response that they aren't, passable isn't the goal, the goal is to be consistently fun.

- Keep firm schedules and adjust for missing players, if a schedule becomes unreliable people who are more reliable will stop making time for the game in their lives and it will have a knock on effect. A missing player is a sad thing, and sometimes it can be adjusted around but the choice should always be in the hands of the other players who can make it.

- Know the system and know when to delegate

- Know the VTT software and know it well, there is nothing worse than technical issues

- Use background music, ideally not bombastic combat music or music from games but ambience tracks. The main reason to use BGM like this is it is low repetition, low effort and it will keep people thinking about the game while also muffling background noises that can be distracting and come through mics. (it doesn't even have to fit the scene perfectly, I have run dungeons with the sound of a babbling brook and wildlife in the background).

- Focus on pacing, a faster pace will guarantee people pay close attention to events and there are more chances that someone will have had a memorable event in a session that gets them excited for the next one or gives them a goal. In 5e I would aim for 5-10minute combats tops, in PF2e I aim for 15-30minute combats, 40 if it is a multi stage big combat.

- Foster interactions between players, make sure they interact with each other at the table rather than just with you as the GM. A group that is interested in playing with each other rather than just happening to be at the same game together will tend to engage better.

[SuperBidi]

The Mad Titan wrote:

I just lost my ELEVENTH player for a single campaign. Even had to start the entire campaign over one time because three out of four players left at once and it wasn't fair to the three replacement players to not to start from the beginning.

For those of you who have run successful campaigns in VTTs, what are you doing to keep people interested and onboard to the end? What are your secrets? How on earth have you managed to make it work?

Seems to me that if you're not on the level of Matthew Mercer, Chris Perkins, or Matt Colville, then new players aren't going to take you seriously and you're just wasting everyone's time. It's depressing. It's disheartening!

How do I fix this?

As others before, I wonder how you recruit your players. For longer campaign, I only take friends or friends of friends. If you want to start a group with complete strangers, I'll start by playing something short (PFS), then a bit less short (Plaguestone) before going on a long term campaign with a group I'm confident with.

I'm currently running a VTT campaign (Abomination Vaults) and I've decided to not care at all about player leaving. I've taken a lot more players than I need and play with all of them. I was expecting a high leaving rate, but it has been quite low for now, so, I end up with more players than I expected but it's not an issue per se.

[Arachnofiend]

I wouldn't know what you're doing wrong (or even if you are doing something wrong) without playing in your game myself. I'm going to work with the assumption that you're a decent/good GM and advise that you work on fostering relationships with good players. No matter how good you are people will drop for one reason or another, whether it be because they don't like the game, they just don't jive with your style, or because a new commitment came up and an online campaign is the lowest on their priority list.

So what you do is you just stick it out through a rough campaign with people dropping left and right. And then you find the person who doesn't drop, and you hold onto that player for dear life. Exchange Discord contact info, give them first dibs on new games. Eventually you'll have a group you can trust to be consistent.

[bjanu]

Play by post servers offers a good breeding ground for committed players. You get an opportunity to meet them beforehand, to see how dedicated they are, befriend them. So if you are interested to start a long term campaign I would start there or at least have a thorough interview with the potential players that i don't know to evaluate if they are worth the time investment.

[Megistone]

The online group I joined consisted in three real-life friends I also knew, and four other people they had recruited on some forum. I wasn't there when the recruiting happened (I joined when one of the three persons I knew decided to leave, not liking the online format), so I don't know how difficult it was; anyway, the group stuck more or less together for a few years.
One took a break and came back some months later, another left definitely when his real life took priority; eventually my two friends decided to leave too, for other reasons, but as I said this happened after a pretty long time.

After that, the four of us remaining have kept playing for several years yet, and we still do; but when we tried to recruit more people, no one lasted more than a couple sessions. The last one was actually trying to derail the campaign, and was probably frustrated that we weren't biting... good riddance! After that, we stopped looking for more.

So, what can I say about my experience? Recruiting for Pathfinder was probably easier when 5e wasn't out yet; today it seems rather hard to find players who are willing to stick.

[TwilightKnight]

The simplest answer is run a better game and/or recruit better players. Some might think that's a harsh position, but most people are not great GMs, and many aren't even good (YMMV). Also, if you are recruiting random players from the aether, then you very well might get a lot of trash before you find the diamonds. I find org play to be an excellent recruiting tool. It gives you a chance to play with a wide range of people before you have any commitments to each other. I am currently running three campaigns, each with five players (13 unique) all of whom I met and recruited through PFS.

[The Raven Black]

Are the games for free or paid by the players?

Money changes a lot of things, especially in our hobby.

[Cellion]

Based on experience with Play-by-Post:

Vet the people you invite to the game. The more you dig into someone's history as a player, the more you can get a feel for their consistency, their temperament, and their expectations. For VTT, this will probably need to take place as a trial run of something short like a Society Scenario or quick Module. Its like a job interview - you want to get a good fit for yourself and your other players. Don't be afraid to say no if you see even the slightest indication that someone will be unreliable or disruptive. If you do nothing else, do this. In PbP, this is the main thing I see GMs fail to do and then suffer with dysfunctional groups.

Make the type of game and your style very clear to players that are signing up, so they can also ensure it'll be a good fit for them. Do some introspection beforehand and work out what type of game you actually are going to run. Challenging with tactical combat, laid back with lots of zany bits, mostly political maneuvering and intrigue, etc. Even if you're running an AP, you can slide along these spectrums quite a lot, maybe even without realizing it.

Get players you've played with before. Even a mix of known and unknown players is better than all unknown.

Consider picking up orphaned campaigns rather than starting your own. An orphaned campaign is one that lost its GM but otherwise already has willing players. If the group isn't stable, it wouldn't have stuck together to go looking for a new GM, which means that the players are at least somewhat invested in continuing. Of course, the points above still stand around vetting and getting alignment on game type.

Run more permissive games rather than adversarial ones. Adversarial games where the GM is quick to deny player ideas and build up opposition for the PCs can work for some groups. Some players really enjoy and thrive in that kind of environment. But I'd say they're more the exception than the rule, and the less you know a group of players, the less I'd recommend that. Most players IMO tend to appreciate games where both their good and bad ideas gain traction.

[Planpanther]

Try smaller at first. Advertise that the ultimate goal is to gain a long term gaming group to do campaigns or APs. Though, before you get there you are going to meet and run one shots or PFS scenarios first. This allows you to see who will stick it out and which playstyles mesh the best.

[EdwinM]

Unless you're an absolutely horrible GM (which I assume you're not) - there's little you can do. It all comes down to luck.

You can conduct interviews and vet players all you want, but they still might leave after one game or never show up in the first place, while folks who seem to be mostly disinterested can whether all the storms.

[HammerJack]

Part of this is honestly pure luck of whether things change in real life for people. And A LOT of that has happened with a lot of people over the last year.

[Dr A Gon]

Ask the players why they are leaving. Why guess? How would we even know?

We're the people that you ask after you have feedback from the players; once we know the issues we might be able to suggest something.

[The Mad Titan]

Watery Soup wrote:

What were the reasons they gave for leaving?

The reasons given (when given at all) varied widely.

Watery Soup wrote:

How did you recruit?

Mostly be leaving posts here on the forums, on Roll20, and in a number of Reddit groups.

The turnaround is so high that I've quite nearly accepted everyone that applied.

The Raven Black wrote:

Are the games for free or paid by the players?

In my case, it's pay to play. It's literally the only income I have at the moment thanks to the pandemic.

Dr A Gon wrote:

Ask the players why they are leaving. Why guess? How would we even know?

Many of them do state why they're leaving. Others are quite vague. Still others seem to be lying in order to save face (there's, or the GM's) or just to have an out.

[Dr A Gon]

So what are the reasons stated? Again, how can we help if we don't know?

[NielsenE]

I think there is a bit higher mobility in VTT campaigns than in-person just because its a little easier to change groups.

But no matter the format, long campaign are hard. I have Paizo 6 APs under my belt as a GM either through completion, the group disbanding, or on-going.

1) Wrath of the Righteous with an in-person group of colleagues after work. Successfully completed. Already being where the game takes place helps a lot with dependability/inertia.

2) Kingmaker with an in-person group of PFS and random strangers that went the distance. I'm always a bit surprised this group made it, just due to the haphazard mix of players. It helped that it ended up with a fairly consistent high-end power-game mindset from the players. Might have been past my preferred balance point, but definitely better than have a wide range of balance points among the players.

3) Tyrant's grasp, 1/2 over lap with the Kingmaker group (when Kingmaker ended), but fell apart midway through book 2. Even with a core, successful group, even when 1-2 people change sometimes it just doesn't stick together. We had some new to PF players who wanted to give it a try, but that was a bad choice with an AP.

4) Age of Ashes, another in-person work group, that's been online for at least as long as it was in-person. We've had three players move across the country during this time, one drop out. But we're in the middle of book 6 and I expect it to finish. It helps it was a 7 player group (with work-based groups I expect any given session to have people with conflicts, so ~5 players is more common at any given session).

5) Extinction Curse, as a drop-in online GM for a premade set of players looking for a GM. Session 0 left a lot of warning flags in my head; and after about two months; I said they needed to look for an alternate GM. What they wanted, and what I do were just too different. The players were all committed and dedicated, IMO. It just wasn't fun/rewarding for me to run for them. Felt like most of the players wanted something more like a Fate style game/narration system; and they didn't really want to play a game with combat as a key game system. This experience has definitely soured me on trying any form of open recruitment as a GM (or even joining a campaign as a player) for anything longer then an Adventure (module), without knowing everyone.

6) Extinction Curse, with my local PFS crew entirely in the online era. Only thought we'd do book 1 and take a break/run something else, but we're in the middle of book 3 now. A couple of the characters are butting heads a bit now and its cascading to player-level head butting, and that's something I'll need to try to address to make sure the campaign doesn't derail.

[The Mad Titan]

Dr A Gon wrote:

So what are the reasons stated? Again, how can we help if we don't know?

One didn't realize it was pay to play, despite my being very clear on that point in numerous places. Only found out after several days of investment. I suspect he just wanted a fancy character sheet, character photoshop/illustration, and digital tokens done for free.

One said it wasn't what they were looking for several games in. He neglected to elaborate. (I suspect he had an issue with large groups as he quit the moment I announced the addition of a 5th player).

One person (the aforementioned 5th player) played half a game, leaving in the middle while saying they had been recruited so quickly they neglected to inform their family of the game. Later said it wasn't going to work out due to said family.

Two drifted away when two other players quit unexpectedly and I wasn't able to get replacements quickly enough to resume the campaign.

Two simply ghosted us.

One's wife contacted me to inform us that her husband had been hospitalized (I think he actually died).

One rage quit in the middle of a game. Said he had a scheduling conflict come up, but I suspect he felt unfairly targeted by the enemies due to a misunderstanding we had.

Two left due to irreconcilable differences with another player (the aforementioned rage quitter).

I now have three players left; one who has stuck with me since the beginning (even through the campaign reset), one who is an online friend and GM from another game, and a foreigner whom I can barely understand half the time.

Of all these players, none have directly voiced any concerns over my quality of GMing. Even the rage quitter insisted to the other players that I was a great GM as he walked out the proverbial door.

[Watery Soup]

In my experience, the ratio of applicants to GMs for APs is very high. As a GM, you should have the luxury of being super picky with your players; but you seem to suggest the opposite. That's the strangest thing I see.

Can you link to a public recruitment post or something that people can critique?

---

Other than that, the distribution of reasons for leaving seems pretty normal.

Playing with strangers is always harder than playing with established friends. And pay-for-play is going to lower the level of success just because money is involved.

Maybe try getting a solid group to run through a shorter adventure or PFS scenario first, and then move on to an AP if they're all enjoying themselves?

---

Edit: General comment - it doesn't matter whether you think you're being clear. Communication is about the other person receiving the message, not about you sending it. So even if you think you're doing a great job sending the message, if people aren't getting the intended message, you need to find a different way of communicating.

[The Mad Titan]

Watery Soup wrote:

Can you link to a public recruitment post or something that people can critique?

Sure.

[Dr A Gon]

I've been reading the issues posted. Aside from the usual ephemeral nature of VTT, I think the majority of the problems are due to lack of communication. Are getting regular feedback from players and talking through issues?

[Ravingdork]

Dr A Gon wrote:

Are getting regular feedback from players and talking through issues?

We had a pretty thorough Session 0 (twice) and I solicit player thoughts roughly every four games.

[CrystalSeas]

Perhaps you could change your business model (at least in your head).

If people are only willing/able to play for a few sessions at a time, quit trying to put together a team for an AP. Stick to one-shots; short adventures; things that don't require a long commitment. Make your money off what is actually happening, not what you'd like to have happen. Let people audition for positions on your big-league team by proving their commitment in try-outs.

Then you can slowly build a list of players who both say they want to commit to longer relationships, and behave as if they want longer relationships.

Prep a bunch of short games and reap the efficiency of getting multiple uses out of a single prep. You might make more money in the long run. And have more enthusiastic customers who give you good references. And a team of players who would stick with a long-term game.

In a couple years, you might be able to drop the "audition" games entirely.

[Plane]

Ravingdork wrote:

Dr A Gon wrote:

Are getting regular feedback from players and talking through issues?

We had a pretty thorough Session 0 (twice) and I solicit player thoughts roughly every four games.

Aha, this is you. I have enjoyed the nutty posts from your games and would enjoy playing with you. I'll keep your game in mind when I move to another time zone. I don't stay up late enough for your current time.

Best of luck to you!

[Ravingdork]

Plane wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Dr A Gon wrote:

Are getting regular feedback from players and talking through issues?

We had a pretty thorough Session 0 (twice) and I solicit player thoughts roughly every four games.

Aha, this is you. I have enjoyed the nutty posts from your games and would enjoy playing with you. I'll keep your game in mind when I move to another time zone. I don't stay up late enough for your current time.

Best of luck to you!

Drat! Forgot to wear my mask before going out.

[Dork Smurf]

Oh smurf it.

XD

[EdwinM]

Oh, as a fellow premium DM I completely understand your plight.

I have an Agents of Edgewatch game that is just cursed. Hemorrhaging players. Two players had to leave after just a couple sessions: one had to cut down on expenses, the other had work issues. Then another had to quit due to changing schedules. Then another drifted away. A few replacements didn't work out from the start and vanished before a single game could end. Another replacement ghosted after several games, while one more couldn't afford the expense anymore. Recently one ragequit due to a stupid misunderstanding (which might have been my fault, honestly). Two new players quit after a single game: one stated he did not vibe with the group, the other just ghosted.

So yeah, this is a mess. It's a pain. It's tiring and disheartening. Recruiting new folks for ongoing campaigns is always hard. But the few players that persevere are still happy to play, even with all the turnover. And it's the only one of my games that has these problems, as once a group coalesces, they tend to stick together. And I'm doing 5 campaigns right now, with a sixth on its way. For example, the other AoE campaign lost only a single player (and a short term 1-game replacement) in 6 months after some initial hickups.

So, do I have any good advice? Nope. I guess you have just endure. And in enduring, grow strong. But if the problems won't go away in more than a single campaign, maybe indeed starting with a smaller scale would be better. I don't know, never tried. Good luck.

[Heather F]

Insults have no place on these forums. If you don't like something, please flag it and move on without engaging, as moderating will remove posts that quote content that has been removed. We don't have to agree, but we also don't have to be hurtful. Be respectful of each other, or just don't comment.

[Watery Soup]

The Mad Titan wrote:

Watery Soup wrote:

Can you link to a public recruitment post or something that people can critique?

Sure.

1. I've never looked at a pay for play ad before, but nothing jumps out at me.

2. It seems comparable to other ads of the same type. As a matter of fact, some of the language is shared with ads from another GM - not sure if it's standard boilerplate language or one of you copied from the other, but I did notice.

3. The recruitment response seems typical for other ads of the same type. Maybe even a little better.

4. At first, I thought $15/session (4 hour session?) seemed steep, but they all seemed comparable (some were $/hr and some $/session and I didn't nerd the whole thing out so I don't know exactly what the spread is).

---

As others have said (some were in now-deleted posts so I won't quote), it's not obvious there's anything wrong with the process here, which means the only thing you can do is do the best job you can and let the chips fall where they may.

It's been repeated a few times but I think it's worth re-re-repeating: consider using a free/discounted, short-term game as a screener/feeder system for your long-term/premium game - and to hone your skills. It's certainly a model that has worked well with some successful podcasts (Glass Cannon, etc.). This model also provides a connection between the GM and the players and between the players that will predate the current campaign (this is really useful when conflicts inevitably arise).

I note that may not be what you want to hear if you're depending on this income. It's not unique to you - most businesses don't make money until several months/years into the venture.

Just about every successful self-starting venture (which is exactly what you're doing) requires a LOT of unpaid work up front. In an ideal world, this would be done before you start charging, and you charge before you need the income. One of my other hobbies is poker - a common saying is that you should quit your day job to become a poker pro when you can't afford not to.

[David knott 242]

Another issue: While repeat players would provide a steadier and more predictable income, how much less profitable are players who only stick around for a session or two to you? If you can still make money with very limited repeat business, you may just need to adjust to the situation.

[CrystalSeas]

Quoting for truth:

Watery Soup wrote:

I note that may not be what you want to hear if you're depending on this income. It's not unique to you - most businesses don't make money until several months/years into the venture.

Just about every successful self-starting venture (which is exactly what you're doing) requires a LOT of unpaid work up front. Just about every successful self-starting venture (which is exactly what you're doing) requires a LOT of unpaid work up front. In an ideal world, this would be done before you start charging, and you charge before you need the income. One of my other hobbies is poker - a common saying is that you should quit your day job to become a poker pro when you can't afford not to.

The IRS allows you to show losses for 5 years when starting up a new business. Generally, it takes around 3 years to generate enough profit that the business can support the owner's normal living expenses.

Those first two or three years are really rough. And the businesses that fail are usually under-capitalized: the founder doesn't have sufficient income to tide them over while they get the business to not just break-even, but to generate sufficient profit that the founder no longer needs to live off of savings (or a day job).

PM me if you want suggestions. I've worked as a small business consultant and mentor for more than 10 years. Becoming your own boss is not easy.

[Planpanther]

60 bucks a month per player is a lot. I can see why some of them might not have been able to afford it.

[Ravingdork]

Planpanther wrote:

60 bucks a month per player is a lot. I can see why some of them might not have been able to afford it.

Not even minimum wage for the GM when you account for prep time as well as game time, plus expenses.

[HammerJack]

Both of these things can be true at the same time.

[Ravingdork]

Planpanther wrote:

60 bucks a month per player is a lot. I can see why some of them might not have been able to afford it.

Ravingdork wrote:

Not even minimum wage for the GM when you account for prep time as well as game time, plus expenses.

HammerJack wrote:

Both of these things can be true at the same time.

???

I did't suggest otherwise.

[HammerJack]

Then I misread the intent of your post. It read to me like:

point 1: "That's a lot of money, I can see why some of them might not have been able to afford it."

counterpoint: "That's not much of an hourly rate for the amount of my time that it buys"

and not as a point/(separate point not intended to counter).

[CrystalSeas]

Ravingdork wrote:

Not even minimum wage for the GM when you account for prep time as well as game time, plus expenses.

That's normal for starting up a new business. It usually takes 2-3 years before you can support yourself from the profits.

I'm wondering where you're getting your data about your competitors' personal income. Do you know how long they've been GMing professionally? Do they have any other income stream that is helping them pay the bills, like a partner or parents?

Accurate data about 'service' or 'entertainment' businesses, especially when they are sole-proprietorships, is pretty hard to come buy. And it's in those folks best interest to create the illusion of success, whether or not it is true.

Any entertainer gets more fans and supporters the more successful they appear. You may be giving them more credit than they deserve.

[David knott 242]

Ravingdork wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

60 bucks a month per player is a lot. I can see why some of them might not have been able to afford it.

Ravingdork wrote:

Not even minimum wage for the GM when you account for prep time as well as game time, plus expenses.

HammerJack wrote:

Both of these things can be true at the same time.

???

I did't suggest otherwise.

Of course, these two statements taken together would suggest just how difficult it would be to make a living as a paid GM.

It would also suggest why retaining customers could be difficult. There are few forms of entertainment in that price range that I would indulge in more than once a year or so, no matter how much I enjoy them.

For all I know, the main customer base just might be nostalgic former RPG players wanting to get their annual fix of a hobby that they are no longer inclined to spend a lot of time on.

[Watery Soup]

Don't forget FICA taxes, and other crap that someone else usually takes care of when you get a paycheck from an established corporation. And for gig/independent contract/self-employment work where the weekly income varies, people often self-report their best weeks and gloss over their worst weeks.

Ravingdork, nobody in this thread contests GMing is a whole lot of work. As a matter of fact, I think my concern is that you're actually underestimating what needs to be done here, and that you're getting discouraged not because of something unusual, but something that is usual.

Yeah, you'll end up working 60+ hour weeks just to get by. That's normal for your baby-aged business. If you're a good GM, your business will grow, but not instantaneously. And if you're not a good GM, do the best you can while putting in extra time/effort to get better.

[TwilightKnight]

Ravingdork wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

60 bucks a month per player is a lot. I can see why some of them might not have been able to afford it.

Not even minimum wage for the GM when you account for prep time as well as game time, plus expenses.

I wish you luck, but you may want to reconsider your business model. Unless you are an absolute rock-star GM, on the level of Jason Bulmahn, Chris Perkins or maybe the Dungeon Bastard, players are not going to be willing to pay anywhere near $60/month for the privilege of playing in your game when they can literally play for free at a thousand other tables. Its not a matter of valuing your time or minimum wage, etc. Its a matter of what players are willing to pay for their hobby. I think most of us would love to be able to earn a living from playing games, but that is largely a luxury reserved for professional athletes and the top-tier creative writing talent. If just anyone could do it, we would.