I'm just curious what other GMs have seen in regards to interest check thread posts when compared to actual requests to join?

One recent example is an IC thread that got 8 "I'm interested" posts, but only one of those converted to a subbed RTJ.

Another recent example is 6 "I'm interested" posts, but only one of those subbed a RTJ.

So is it just me? Am I doing something wrong in the process here?

Advice or pointers from other GMs or RPOLers that have been around here longer would be appreciated.
This message was last updated by a moderator, as it was the wrong forum, at 20:28, Fri 13 June 2014.

Well i recently started a game and of all of the people who posted interest only 1 joined.

i dont know if it is a case where they take a look at the RTJ requirement and then change their mind or just miss the "i started a game, come join" part of it.

It's not just you. It's one thing for a person to say "sure, I'd try that" but quite another for them to submit a full RTJ. On the other hand, I've had 'dud' ideas that had few responses in the interest thread, but I was overwhelmed once I posted in Wanted: Players.

I actually did and interest check and 3 of them that expressed interest (out of 5) joined, plus 4 more from here and a friend I know from Playbyweb.
Interest does not always mean they will actually join. It depends on if they have the time and if the actual game, once set up, can hold their attention.

I don't check the interest threads.  I wait for the actual game.  There might be a host of interested people, but if the eventual game presentation isn't good, does it matter how many people liked the idea?

I think it also has a lot to do with the system that you are running - offer to run a Pathfinder Adventure Path and you will have an easy 20 folks stating interest and an even easier 25 rtj'ing.

As I haven't tried to run any other system, I can't speak on that, but I'm pretty sure that the more popular the game system, the more applicants you'll receive.

Interest doesn't equate to RTJ.
So don't take it too hard...

The RTJ may have other requirements that may cull those that cannot commit to your game.

There are other aspects too. I stated interest in a 5th ed DnD game, but there were two problems that prevented my rtj.

First, the GM didn't link his when he set it, nor did he state what the name was or anything else. I had to use the search function on his name to find the game (thank goodness he had only the one game).

Second, I got held up with work and real life, so when I did eventually find the game, it was no longer accepting players.

By all appearances, it was first come, first serve, on that front too, making any rtj from pointless.


Also, generally speaking the interest check will have just a basic idea, but the rtj and info thread usually has more, and players may like the basic idea but be unhappy with where you went with it.

Please do not forget those of us who might be interested, but cannot find the time for an addition game to add to our cart.

In reply to liblarva (msg # 1):


Probably not.

I've just opened a game. No play has happened yet. Everyone's still in character creation mode.

IC yield: 3
RTJs: 10
Rejects: 2
Characters: 6 (1 from the IC)
Lurkers: 2 (1 from the IC)

It's up to me to make the game good, but I think the group I've got is pretty boss. I've played with them almost all before in different games. Never all at once, though. Looking forward to this.


Sorry, but I don't have any stats on my previous games. I've started 2 on my own and CO-GM'd some others. Out of the games I've owned: one was invite only and the other was built out of a game that died and already had players. For the CO-GM games, they were pretty much already rolling when I got there.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:40, Sun 15 June 2014.

I'm a very casual gamer. I don't take umbrage when someone has to drop out or can't post for awhile or has too much going on. So I'm not grumpy about anything. Just curious. For me, being interested means I also have the time for the game. But that's just me, I guess.

Thanks for the feedback.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:50, Sat 14 June 2014.

Your experience is about par for the course, liblarva, but I'm with you, if I 'express interest' it means I'm willing to RTJ unless something prevents me or the subsequent discussion of the game takes it down a route I don't want to follow.

If I'm intending 'neat idea, but I don't have time to join' I'll either lurk the interest thread and say nothing, or I'll actually say "neat idea but I don't have time to join" just to give the enquirer moral support for his/her idea, but at the same time not setting up any expectation of my RTJ.

But yeah, that's just me, too. :)

For me interest means I curious enough to check out your game and see if the final product is a game I'd like to play in. More than once I've found RTJ's off putting,  the jelled games not what it sounded in the interest thread or the game system they picked is one I don't like.

So interest means to me 'maybe, I'll take a look at it' and not 'I'm 100% going to RTJ that game'.

I'll just say here that there've been several ideas I've expressed interest in, only to balk at the RTJ requirements. In one particular idea a guy wanted to run a Diablo game, but he wanted a bunch of stuff other than the character sheet. It's an action oriented RPG, so no, I don't have time for that.

When it comes to games like pathfinder. You pretty much get to play god.
I have played on here for 3 years and getting into a pf game is like winning the lotto :(

In reply to Andrew Wilson (msg # 15):

And on the flip side, as someone who prefers to a much less known system, i threw out a IC and got a grand total of about 3 people, one who didn't join, another who dropped out later. So yeah it's a little disappointing, but most people will either jump all over free-form or a version of DnD or another.

About a year ago I posted two ICs 1 got 5 intrested and 4 made it through char creation. The other got 5 of 5 from the IC. And all of them stuck around for some time too.

I just want to say that I find it extremely bothersome when I post what system I am going to use and people pop off with stupid d20 crap. Seriously you might as well be talking about genocide.

In reply to liblarva (msg # 1):

considering I am one of the people that expressed interest in a game your IC for(and have yet ot put my RTJ in), I guess I will apologize for not having it submitted in yet. But not really. I am still working on the concept for said game, and I am not really comfortable enough with it that I have not put in my RTJ yet. Considering how these kind of apps work, half-appled applications don't do anyone any favors. Especially when actual character creation starts with others and concepts bend and change.

In reply to liblarva (msg # 1):

I'd be curious to know the following.  When you look for interest in your game do you tell people then what the expected posting rate will be?  What detail you'll be looking for in posts and character applications?  What house rules you'll be implementing?

When you follow up and make the game, are you clear about deadlines for submitting applications?  (If not, how long do you wait before deciding not enough people are applying?)


I know that I sometimes think a game looks interesting, but then the GM does something totally whacky I didn't expect -- like make the game with a rules thread saying that they want 3 posts a day come apples or high water.  Or they make the game and it introduces the GM's own house rules which I don't think I could play under.  Or any number of things they didn't put in the interest-seeking thread so that the game I was interested in is no longer the game they're offering.

Very rarely I will express interest in an idea that I can't play in, but will be very clear about not being able to participate myself. When someone seems to be developing an idea for a game and not simply a "who's in?" message, input can be helpful.

The interest expressed can only be an indication of interest until the "final product" is made available.

If I say, "Who likes cake?"

I'll get a lot of "I like cake!"

But the people who will line up will be different if my cake is:

A. Strawberry Shortcake
B. Pound Cake
C. A bunch of different Cup Cakes
D. Twinkies
E. Cheesecake
F. 18-layer Wedding Cake
G. Plastic Molded Into Cake Shapes
H. Pie


I tend to think the more that is hashed out in the GPIA thread as to tone, entry requirements, posting frequency, experience with the system, writing amounts/quality, the more likely any 'final' interested parties will submit an RTJ.
This message was last edited by the user at 15:45, Sun 15 June 2014.

Epic Pie Time!

After all we have enough Applejack Daniels for it.

Don't forget the cupcake money!

(What's with all the red apples anyways?)
=============

Joking aside, I definitely agree with the previous post.

In reply to Wyrm (msg # 19):

I'm the one who needs to apologize if you felt singled out by this thread, and that goes for anyone else who expressed interest but has yet to RTJ. It wasn't my intent to single anyone out or put them on the spot. As I said above, this isn't a new phenomena, I'm just curious what others' experience is in this regard.

---

In reply to cruinne (msg # 20):

Actually, no. None of that. The expected posting rates, application details, and house rules (if any) are clearly listed in the RTJ threads I put up in the games themselves, though not in the Interest Check threads.

Posting rates are fairly lax across my games, one IC post every 48 hours; typically I'll ask applicants for 2-3 concepts at 100 words each, and pick based on group composition; and I try to keep house rules to a minimum unless the game is explicitly labeled as a hack or the regular rules will cause things to slow way down in a PbP game.

As for deadlines and deciding that not enough people are applying. No, I haven't set deadlines, and I'm not complaining about not enough people applying in general, rather specifically curious about other GMs experience with those who express interest in a proposed game compared to how many of those same posters actually submit RTJs.

I've had the misfortune of being one of those that express interest in the interest check only to be rejected later because of too many applications(and that being the only reason I was rejected, while there were more accepted then expressed interest). While I understand, it's frustrating to be in that position. I try to make it clear if I have any problems before hand in the ic check, like going to be out of town for a few days.

Unless I am looking for something specific, I am always open to the Gm offering ideas or suggestions on making a character that will work for the game. Only once have I refused to change a character at the request of the Gm and that was because they were asking me to play something outside my comfort zone.

Sadly, I have seen a few games stagnate because people who do apply drop off the face of the earth. As someone who takes pride in my word, though sometimes there are events that cause me to be unable to post for a few days, I think joining and then vanishing is a bigger pain and disappointment for everyone else.

In reply to chaosninja (msg # 24):

I like to keep a list of who applies, even if I don't let them in the game. Then if a player drops out, I can rMail someone else and see if they still have time/want in. Sometimes it works.

In reply to Eggy (msg # 25):

Oh wow, mind if I steal that?

In reply to Merevel (msg # 26):

Sure. Lotta free ideas around here, mate.

Here are some things I've seen or suspect might happen.

Sometimes the initial post is something along  "Do you think something like this could work?"  and not "How many people would play if I started a game like this?"

Recently, I responded to one mentioning something I thought might be an issue but overall I thought it was interesting.  Poster thought I wanted to play - I was just trying to give some feedback.

I find that often the Interest Check post is fairly brief.

I might be "that sounds cool" but then as the thread goes on...

You learn more details about the game.  Post rate, adult or Mature, what type of characters will be allowed, what level the characters start at, what game supplements might be used and so on.  Sometimes you don't think the game is as good a fit as you once did.  How often do people drop out during the first few weeks of a game? (rhetorical question)  I'd rather have people figure it out sooner than later and not even RTJ.

I've seen GMs discuss and alter the actual game system they will use with their setting.  You please some, you lose some.

People start to learn more about the GM and how they interact with others and respond to their questions.  One might feel they are not too compatible with the GMing style.

The GM starts the game but never marks the game as requesting players.

I'm not sure if the forum rules allow one to "advertise" in the discussion thread?  Other GMs might also be unsure and not give the name or worse not even say they started the game!  Seen it several times.  People don't even know the game is started or have trouble finding it.

The discussion runs on a few days, sometimes weeks.  Meanwhile you've found another game that has started and you get accepted.

Yes, in fact they do.  They're very specific on that point.

Personally, I keep an eye on the Interest threads, just to see if there's anything interesting in the pipe, but when it comes to making an actual RTJ, I look at the game itself. I look mainly at the Game Description, RTJ info, Chargen Info, and House Rules. There's one GM who always has D&D 3.5 games running that look like a TON of fun to play in, but I don't RTJ to his games because of the chargen restrictions (i.e. Good alignments only, or Core books only, and so on). There are games I've run like hell from because, while they sounded interesting, they used house rules that I hated, like the E6 rule for D&D (where you never go beyond level 6). There are games where there are posting rates I just couldn't abide by, and so I didn't RTJ. There are games where the Game Description is literally two sentences long, with poor grammar. In a text-based medium, that's a HUGE red flag to me. I could have been completely psyched about the game from the interest thread or the Wanted-Players thread, but there are things which will keep me from sending in an RTJ.

Yeah, the basic spelling and grammar bit is a biggie for me. I'll generally ask for some kind of writing sample or a bit of text for the RTJ so I can get a handle on how well a given player will do in a text based game.

So a related question. How much is too much for an interest check thread? To cover all the relevant bits it seems like you're looking at a few thousand words at least depending on what type of game you're setting up.

How much can be hashed out in an IC thread that's not breaking forum rules, I know character creation is reserved for the actual game, but what about hashing out other details, such as the setting?

All I know is I have seen games practically designed in these threads.

I'm not sure there are blatant rules for all situations, but BBR does come around periodically to shut down threads he believes are far enough along.

The most relevant blatant rule is:




My understanding from how I've used GPIA and seen it used, is that it depends a lot how you start the thread off as. (Undoubtedly I will be wrong about this). There are kind of four types.

If you are making an "Interest" thread, and your question is "Anyone up for a game of X?" then the thread proceeds like this:

1. You ask
2. Several people express interest with a few minor questions
3. You answer those questions to their approval.
4. No further problems arise, and you still have at least a couple people that seem interested.
5. Thread closed.


If your thread is "Help me figure this idea out":

1. You state your pseudo-formed idea and ask for thoughts about how to flesh it out
2. Some people answer that and any additional questions
3. Nothing else seems to come up / the thread is becoming more fundamental about how to run games in general. Sometimes transitions into an "Anyone up for X?" thread.
4. Thread closed if you quickly make the game, or is moved elsewhere to continue a general conversation.


If your thread is "I'm thinking I want to run system X, Y or Z with this and that sort of an encompassing theme. Would there be interest in it, and what kind of posting rates are you looking for: I think I could do either daily or biweekly minimum?"

1. You make that statement.
2. Several people chime in giving their 'conditions' on how they could join your game.
3. You bargain a little bit.
4. You feel there is enough interest presented there and make the game and include a link to it/ the thread simply stays silent for too long
5. Thread closed.


If your thread is "I have this very planned out idea, but I want to make sure this seems appealing to people, or why not" (generally only works with the 'popular' systems)

1. You make the thread and generally describe what you're doing, what system, what levels, races, highly unusual house rules, etc.
2. You make any room for 'compromise' known.
3. You get some constructive feedback.
4. After a few bits of enthused interest, your plans are solidified and you go off to make last minute changes to the game you maybe already started designing/finish up the game threads/mark it to accept players.
5. You post a link to your game.
6. Thread closed.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:51, Tue 17 June 2014.

In general, if I intend to play in a game, I'll put up an official statement of interest.  I have a pretty high rate of application to games I express interest in, as well.

Where I tend to have the biggest flops are trying to build games around items in W-G threads.  Either I'll not be able to jive my concept with the request or I just won't be able to get enough applicants to fill it out.  I also have a bad habit of biting off more than I can chew and letting too many players into games, which I've been working hard to correct recently.

If a thread is one looking for advice on a game (ie: the game is already running, but has hit a snag and the GM wants to know how to get past it) then the thread will not be closed unless it starts to drift too far off-topic.

If it's an interest check/game proposal thread and it reaches more than about 30 posts (so if it goes over about a single page), or wanders into off-topic conversation, then we ask people to stop posting and wait for the link.  This is done to encourage the GM to actually make the game, rather than just talking about it endlessly in a public forum (because there are some GMs who like nothing better than to talk about their game ideas).

A thread will not actually be closed down unless:

• It breaks the forum rules.
• The OP states that the game has been created (a link is not neccesary - a name will do, or a mention that there is an ad in Wanted - Players.  Or even a simple "game's up" - players can search using the GM name).
• The OP declares that the thread, or the game idea, is dead.

I've got a perfect example from last night/this morning. A GM posted an idea for a game, and a request for a system that would work for it. After a bit of discussion, the GM settled on an idea for how to run it and posted the game. Still interested, I clicked the link... and wasn't sure if I was still interested. Rules handling aside, I hate when GMs prevent OOC talk and force in character everything or force players to post in a certain way (in this case, the GM says all posts are to be made in past tense). I was interested in the game, but that level of control and prescription kills the experience for me. So in reading the rules of play, I probably won't be sending and RTJ.

So yeah, as others have pointed out, a post of interest is just that. Once you see the rules and the game as presented, you might decide that it no longer meets your initial interest. I'll still follow the Interest forum, since a lot of cool ideas and support comes out of there, but it can be hit and miss when a game no longer meets your expectations.

Yep I remember several IC threads I was gun ho about and then... gurps... besm... ok... idk these oh well lol. I so wish I have the cash for a library of game books.

I certainly wouldn't see this as a game killer. The GM is simply ensuring that the game reads sensibly.

If everyone is posting differently, it gets to be a mess:

Pete: Pete dashed into the room and looked about him before drawing his sword.
Joe: Joe jumps up as Pete enters and struggles with his own sword.
Fred: I draw my sword and leap onto the table as the others ready for combat.

Much better to have conformity IMO:

Pete: Pete dashed into the room and looked about him before drawing his sword.
Joe: Joe jumped up as Pete entered and struggled with his own sword.
Fred: Fred drew his sword and leaped onto the table as the others readied for combat.

Honestly, I'm not seeing the difference there.

I get you. For me I inform everyone that I'm going to post in 3rd person past tense and don't give a crap what anyone else does, so if they're comfortable with that sort of stupid dissonance, they can join my game. So I get a few scenarios set up like your described mess, but strangely in the end, the only ones that tend to stick around for my games are the ones posting in the same person and tense as me.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 39):

I agree, not seeing the difference. I post in the tense that sounds right for the post.

For me seeing that 'must post in this tense' is a game killer. I exit right out and go on my merry way. I don't like to have to 'nit-pick' in my games. I'm here for a fun time, not an A on my English midterm...

As far as posting tense, I tend to prefer 'whatever feels right' in a situation over "must use X tense."

In reply to icosahedron152 (msg # 38):

I have to fully agree with this post, but I can also understand how posting guidelines like "__ person, __ tense" and "cannot use colored dialogue" or what have you might be interpreted as a giant red flag for a controlling GM or something. I plan on setting up similar guidelines for a game I'm working on, but in my defense, I genuinely have severe OCD and what might seem like only a tiny bit of dissonance to someone else literally bugs the heck out of me. ;P
This message was last edited by the user at 22:50, Sun 29 June 2014.

The truth behind IC and RTJ is pretty simple:

1. Who Checks What?
  Not everyone checks IC threads, so they never post interest, but they'll check the Wanted: Players. So that's why you may or may not get much interest on a good idea.

2. Standards
  Everyone's standards for a 'good' game is very different. Some people will judge very strictly before submitting an RTJ (I fall into this category), and some people will jump into any game that has an idea they think they can enjoy (not a bad thing, just not my thing).

So with point 1, you'll get a weaker IC thread with one or two posts, but a bunch of people who WOULD submit an RTJ. With point 2 you'll get a stronger IC thread, but when people like me see the game they may judge that it's not to their standards, and not post an RTJ. I admit I've posted interest in a few IC threads, then read the game and thought, "Nope".

In the past, what I have done with the IC board is make a thread with multiple ideas in it, and seen which idea is seen as most popular. If there's only one idea I want to run, I just run it and see if others are interested. The bottom line is, if you want to run a game, it's best to just try and if no one joins, oh well. If there are a few games you'd enjoy running but only want to make one at the moment, just find out what other people would be more interested in and enjoy.

In my experience, the actual game itself may be quite different from the idea of the game that I crafted in my head after reading an interest check post -- others have commented that this occasionally happens to them as well.  The post rate, house rules, what level the game is at, etc., may all be different.  This is also sometimes true for a Wanted: Players ad.

Interest check or wanted players ad: "A dystopian post-apocalyptic environment where a cohort of people have been recruited by the NavArmy to use magic and technology to fight zombies and spider walkers...  Uses System X."

Me: "Ooh, I like System X, that sounds like it'll be a great game.  I think I'll maybe make a lazergun marine* or a dragon magic shaman painter.  They're exactly the same class until level 3, and then only slightly different until level 5 when they really differentiate, so I hope we're at least level 5."

Actual Game: "House Rules and RTJ -- I'm only accepting one lazergun marine, and one dragon magic shaman painter, and I already have those so choose a different class.  Also, fatal basket weavers may only use oak limbs to weave their baskets.  I'm not using any of the Zombie Horde Hunter rule books or the Spear Brothers handbooks.  Also, all players start at level 1, and I guess I'll allow space pigs and folder coders as well."

Ok, yeah, not going to bother actually putting in an RTJ for that game.  If I don't have much else that I'm doing, I might whip up a System X level 1 character and submit it, but if the game owner wants me to write out three different dialogue samples and jump through even more hoops, well, I wasn't really interested in the game that much.

And even if the setting and basic premise are still interesting enough to want to jump through more hoops, several months ago I put in an application for a game like that with a space pig folder coder and the GM responded with something like, "I meant folder coders and space pigs, but not both because why would a space pig be a folder coder?"  I responded with something like, "Because folder coding originated on the space pig planet and even though virtually all folder coders are water ravens now, there are still some space pigs who practice the old ways like the ornithoptarians in Book Whatever."  I never get another response from the GM and after a month I saw the GM post something to the two people in the game (in the OOC thread), "Ok, I haven't had any more RTJ's, so I'm going to shut the game down."  I jumped back into my RTJ and added a new post saying something like, "So, how about that space pig folder coder idea?  Do you want to work with me on an RTJ, maybe we can revise the character concept?"  The next day the GM actually banned me from seeing anything in the game, which I sort of took personally because it meant I had to recreate the character concept from scratch for a different game instead of being able to copy/paste, but if he really didn't want his game to run then it's no skin off my back.  I've avoided putting in an RTJ for any of the games that GM has tried to run since.

*Yes, of course class and race names have been anonymized in this post. ;)

That whole post read as very Jabberwocky :)

Sounds to me like house rules and restrictions should be mentioned in the interest check.

Depends how firm an idea the GM has. S/he might not have figured out the house rules at the IC stage. However, if a player specifically wants to play a laser shaman pig folder in the game, it might be an idea for him to ask in the IC thread if such things would be allowed. The GM's response might help other interested parties to make a decision, and it might be at an early enough stage for the GM to adopt that concept, or to get first dibs on the character.

No calling dibs in the IC thread or the GPIA forum. Rules.

In reply to Eggy (msg # 49):

Yeah, you cannot ask about specific concepts/races/classes at all, so by the time the game gets made and you wanna try that unusual and/or controversial concept, it may well be too late or you may find you've wasted your time talking about it (the game) because the GM hates whatever you're trying to play as/use. I do not understand this particular forum rule at all, actually. Probably just another bizarre RPoL rule that has some excellent reason behind it that you have to look at sideways and squint hard to get.
This message was last edited by the user at 11:55, Mon 30 June 2014.

If you really want to 'call dibs', what is preventing you from contacting the GM privately via Rmail where you can discuss it prolifically and with (likely) better results?  :)

If the game proposal is at the point where people are ready to choose characters, then it's time to actually create the game (even says this in the rules of the forum).  Besides, if the GM has decided, "I'm only accepting one lazergun marine, and one dragon magic shaman painter." then GPIA is not the place for the three people who call dibs on one of them to argue about which two should abandon their idea.  There isn't the space to do it (limited length on interest threads) and the rest of us don't want to open the thread thinking it might be some new information about the game, just to find it's Bob explaining, for the fourteenth time, how he is better at playing lazergun marines than anybody else.

As mentioned above, interest checking threads have a limit on their length, so there isn't really space to spend time discussing "that unusual and/or controversial concept" and hashing it out with the GM.

As Shannara said, if you really want to discuss a character, then rMail the person who opened the thread.

rMail also has the benefit that, if the GM hates your idea for an unusual and/or controversial character, then you'll hear about it in a private thread, rather than a public forum.

Also, see here: /help/?t=faqs&page=Rules+Background for information on all of the site's rules, including this one.
This message was last edited by the user at 12:55, Mon 30 June 2014.

Here's another one that comes the mind. Say I like to idea. Everything's cool but when the game is posted, the GM asks for 2+ posts per day. My response to this is simple. I have a job. I have other hobbies and other games I play in. Maybe I have a girlfriend. For me to invest the time to follow 2+ daily posts from every player as well as write 2+ meaningful daily posts myself, I'm looking at a 4+ hour daily investment in the game. That's just not going to happen. I understand that PbP moves slowly and understand your need to cover ground so the game doesn't peter out, but I can't neglect my own life to meet your posting requirements. Thus, interest doesn't always mean I have an RTJ waiting. It just means you have my interest.