Nope, the least I can do is not even read their RtJ, and I always read RtJs, and reply to them.

But since I've already told people what I expect in the way of an RtJ, which will specifically include sections of bold red text saying things like, "No Ninjas!", or "No Psionics!", then I'm not seeing why they deserve a second chance after sending in a psionic ninja character.

Because, frankly, if somebody can't comprehend and follow a few simple instructions about character creation, then what are the odds that they'll be able to understand and respond to posts in the game?

Sorry, but I have other applicants to spend my all-too limited time on.  Ones who are capable of following instructions.


This is very true.  Any GM is free to refuse any applicant to his game, for any reason (or for no reason at all).  There is nothing anybody can do to change this - access to a game is at the GM's discretion.  If the GM decides he's only going to let people join if their used names begin with "C", then no matter how good our RtJ is we aren't getting in without a name that begins with "C".
This message had punctuation tweaked by the user at 10:21, Mon 14 July 2014.

In my opinion poor spelling is excusable; poor manners is not.

I rarely have the luxury of turning people away, as my games tend to be non-standard, with few applicants. However, if I had a hundred applicants I would reply to them all.

Why?

Because it's polite.

If someone has complimented my game by sending a RTJ which, in and of itself, says that they find my game idea interesting and appealing, it would be impolite to ignore that compliment.

I will, therefore, reply to them, thanking them for their interest, but telling them that their RTJ wasn't in the top five. If there was a glaring problem with their RTJ I will inform them so that they can improve their chances next time.

If they argue, however, my politeness will rapidly evaporate.

Having said that, although I am fairly tolerant of errors in posts, there are limits. If the posts are so bad that I have difficulty in interpreting them, I probably won't want that hassle day after day and week after week. However, I've seen nothing above that I would reject out of hand. All of the above posts are intelligible.

Regarding personal information, it's not a matter of distrusting the intended recipient, though that is a separate issue, it's simply a matter of the entirety of the internet being about as secure as CB radio. It's the hackers earwigging on the side that worry me.

I will send what I believe to be adequate information in the hope that the GM will see merit in the rest of my RTJ and will accept me into their game. If they're pedantic, there are plenty of other games.

I agree with the OP that some GMs are very narcissistic about their own games. They seem to think that players are going to sift through pages of background information and Chargen material, looking for trick words to include in the RTJ, and spend days formulating a perfect response, just so their application can be rejected along with twenty others.

Get real, guys, your game isn't that important to anyone else but you.

That is admirable, and I try to do the same myself. However, some games will get dozens and dozens of applicants for maybe just 3 or 4 slots. While it would be nice for the GM to enter into a dialogue with every RTJ about how it could be improved, why should they? If they have 6/7 good ones they will explore those further then select the 4 they want. If you are no.50 on the list and your RTJ is poor then the GM gains nothing from entering into dialogue with you, just the potential for hassle.

A simple 'sorry you didn't make the cut' is polite and IMHO all that is needed without having to give a critique on the pros and cons of the submitted character concept.

An RTJ is very much like a job interview.  A GM that accepts you is going to have to want to see your face for the next several months / years as the game progresses.  If your spelling and grammar are painful for the GM to read, then why would they subject themselves to that torture?

However, keep in mind that every interview works two ways.  While the GM is interviewing you, you're also kind of interviewing them.  If they give you RTJ requirements that you don't like... consider that a warning sign.  If they don't communicate sufficiently... consider that a warning sign.  I've applied to and even gotten into a few games where the GM and I just didn't mesh.  It happens.

I find that the quickest way for a player to get bonus points with me is by using good formatting.  Even if it's just a bit of bolding, I like folks that clearly understand how to make things readable on RPOL.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 71):

Again you don't get what I am talking about, I am not talking about reasonable responses here. If you have big red letters saying no ninjas and some one sends you a ninja then yah stop right there and be like... did you even look at the rules?

Heck you can simply reply "no ninjas" and be done with it, copy past and ban if needed due to hard headedness.

I am talking about people rejecting or not responding to some unspecified factors only in there head, some times from games that haven't had any settings or rules set forth yet or ones that arn't clear.

You are talking about reasonable reasons to turn people down, and people that clearly arn't paying attention to your rules.

I am talking about people doing everything the GM said, but the GM making rash judgements on what isn't enough to judge some one on.

icosahedron152 has a good understanding here....  It is just plain rude.

If they took the time of day to read over everything you typed out, and put a thoughtful response forth. Then you should be able to take the time of day to at least give them a helpful and polite response. Even if what they put forth is completely unexceptionable, if they keep in line with what rules and info you gave them then there is no reason to not let them try again if they wish too.

If some one is not reading what you put out, not listening to what you tell them, and the like that is a totally different thing.

But if some one is working with you, and listening to you, then there is no reason you shouldn't give them a chance. It don't take much effort to skim over a RTJ and look for unaceptable things.

I have a disorder in written language, reading can be slow and tedious some times. Particularly when there are large paragraphs to go through. Yet I will still go through every RTJ reply as long as a person is trying.

And I agree, I am pritty much talking about the GM being a Jerk and generally it's a sign you don't want to RP in there game anyway.

But it's the principle of the thing, how hard is this really to just ... well not be a jerk about it?  There really isn't an excuse for it if you ask me, not that anyone did.

Azraile, your idea to "not be a jerk" sounds nice, but it's so subjective. What you may think as rude, another gamer might think of as civil, or clear and direct, or condescending, or needlessly apologetic. A lot of it could depend on the mood of the recipient of the message. If there's nothing in the rejection that would violate the RPoL Rules/Policies, then take your NO and move on.

Sometimes, I'll reject a player during character creation. Things seem nice in the RTJ, but then seem wrong as we start to talk to each other.

Recently, I rejected a concept and asked the applicant "What else do you have?" He/she only had the one concept. I still said no. I got a message back, something like, "I can't believe anyone would so hastily dismiss..." And I thought, This is supposed to win me over? Please! Don't be mad at me for not liking your one idea. Be mad at yourself for only having one idea!

I almost sent that in a reply back, but then I was distracted by cool RTJs and the bad one went out of sight/out of mind.

I like clear and direct lol

The RTJs that prompted this were not what anyone seams to think they were.

Like I said I sent one in, it was a very short char concept and all it was doing was asking if it would fit in there setting or if they wanted it. I even said I didn't expect it would. They responded saying not the the char was unacceptable that I was. I had not given them anything to go off of BUT the abstract idea that even I said was weird and just something I wanted to try out. I asked what they were looking for in a char, or what was wrong, they just ignored it.

A few of the, you fail at English, kinds.

One or two where I never got ANY response.

One "Sorry, we are full" when they were still looking for people, even talking about it in an OOC thread.  (Seriously a simple rude no and ignoring is better than being lied too)

and similar stuff.


I've only gotten 5 reasonable RTJ responses. One I didn't care for the game idea when it was explained apon request. Another were we just couldn't work things out due to the fact I have no idea about anything DnD 2nd Ed it seams, and they were every helpful in trying. Two others, simply put I'm in the games. And the last we got off on a rather bad foot, but they were polite and talked about things and now we are working things out and I will probably be in that game.

Everything else has been wholly unprofessional.


And, yes.... that is there prerogative... it's there game they CAN be Jerks if they want to be.  I am just saying we should try to be better than that sorta stuff.

This isn't me whining hoping something will be done about it. Just starting what I think is a problem too few people just let slide, and a good way to do something about it is to talk about it.

Talking about it dose, if only a little, help as it gets views out there to people and people get to see what other people think about things. Communication always leads to learning.... just not always relative information lol

IE, Eggy.... Call me a big fat hippy. lol XD

From my own experience, many Notices aren't fully thought out and described in the Players Wanted thread. The GM may have a good idea in his head, but doesn't always convey this in the description of his game.

Yes, it's frustrating to get little or no feedback with a rejection. But, I've learned to follow-up by checking the progress of those games. My unstatistical feeling is that such GMs often have high player attrition rates, resulting in an early demise for the game.

Another problem, of course, is that some players who write the best RTJs also are the ones who are the first to disappear- without notice. It's almost that they know they are good and can afford to be picky. There are plenty of games out there from which they may choose, and the grass is always greener...!

As a GM, however, I want decent spelling and grammar. I use a dictionary all the time, and care enough to edit/correct my posts if I see an error after the fact.

My feeling is that if a player can't be bothered to check his/her posts, how can they be good for my game? And, if one has dyslexia and wishes to PbP, that does make it harder.

But we all have issues in RL and have to deal with them as best we can.

I really like your response.  You are exactly right in what you said. BTW, just so you know, I'm borrowing appropriating stealing this.

Just as a general question... how many of the people complaining about a lack of feedback for rejection directly ask for it?

I did, but that is a good point. Some people do espect the right answers with out asking the right questions.

On occasion, there are actually reasons not to let someone 'try again.'  In my experience it seems that the longer you GM (or RP in general) the more you get an idea of who is going to be compatible with you or your other players right off the bat.  It doesn't mean there's anything 'wrong' with someone who's not compatible, they just aren't and no amount of trying again with character concepts is going to change that.  People don't tend to take it well when you tell them they're not going to work in your RP; especially if you can't point to one single thing and say 'this is why.'  Sometimes it's just an overall feeling, and seasoned GMs don't want to have to deal with putting the time and effort in to get someone into their game who they already know won't work out for whatever reason.

I myself once got tangled up in an unfortunate cycle of letting someone 'try again.'  The player was referred by another player so I didn't want to turn them down, but what they were giving me for the character was just not what I wanted to see.  The RTJ PM ended up at over 50 posts of me trying to prompt more than a few lines out of them for their character background and whatnot, and pointing out that the stuff they were giving me really didn't make sense.  I expected a certain amount of research for character background (though no more than what you would find on, say, wikipedia or other relevant online wikis) and the player apparently didn't want to do it.  Eventually the player got upset and felt that they were being picked on, so I, feeling bad about it, just let them in the game and said we'd keep working on the character after the fact.  Big mistake.  The player started posting while still not entirely certain of their concept, other players were noticing and getting annoyed that I let this person in the game.  Eventually I had to just outright say that they couldn't stay unless they put A LOT of work into their character to bring it up to the level of the other players, and they opted to leave.  I knew from the beginning that person probably wasn't a good fit, but I went through the whole rigmarole anyway.



Once again, sometimes there just isn't a good answer for why someone is deemed 'unacceptable' for a game.  I don't think there's any excuse to be rude, but I also think that people tend to complain about what GMs do without actually understanding their position.  Once you've dealt with a lot of belligerent players trying to drag you into arguments after you've said 'no thanks', sometimes it becomes the more stress-free option not to follow up with those not accepted once you've decided who gets in the game and who doesn't.  Most of us RP to de-stress, not to add more stress to our lives.  I know from experience that it's incredibly unpleasant to log on at the end of the day knowing that you have yet another message waiting for you filled with negativity and complaining.

I'm all about being polite. But not so much about being helpful. Aside from the practical concerns of giving every applicant a full-blown critique, it's not my job to assume responsibility for anyone's improvement. I agree that DM's should reply to every RTJ. And I do. Even the incomplete ones get my cut-and-paste 'Thank you but I went another way' response.

And if someone asks why, I usually fluff them off with a non-answer (so many applications, so few spots, had a few wonderful RTJ's that made the perfect party, just bad luck, so sorry, see you out there, good luck).

If they persist I'll try and be more specific, but I try hard not to be. Because, as other people mentioned, 100% of the time when someone asks 'Why' they don't like the answer. And it leads to arguing. 100% of the time. I've never once, ever, in all the years I've been PbP role-playing. Had someone ask why I didn't accept them, and say 'Thanks man I appreciate your time and effort' when I told them. Not once. I always get either no response or a lot of reasons why I'm wrong.

So I just don't do it any more.

The spelling and grammar thing is tougher. I don't like being an elitist, but this is a text-based medium. It's the only way I have to know you and to interact with you. So while I would give some latitude to someone with dyslexia (or any other non-specific LD), it would only be a little.

If someone wanted to come to my weekly table-top game who smelled bad, even if it wasn't their fault, even if they showered and wore deodorant, I'd be apprehensive about that too. Regardless of intent, the impact is the same.

And final note, I always read RTJ's for players, not characters. Even if the application is only about the character, I'm looking for a certain kind of person, who talks a certain way, thinks a certain way, interacts a certain way. And I can totally pick those people out from an application. And the few times I've ignored my instincts, I've regretted it.

In reply to Silver_Cat (msg # 83):

Yah but it is kinda hard to make that kinda judgment on one post shorter than one of the quotes you just made. I can understand if there is reasonable amount to work with or some conversation. But not off of three lines of text, one of which kinda says "you probably won't like this but it don't hurt to ask." Making such an RTJ is not something you should make a final judgement off of. A person can't read your mind and know if you are going to be ok with something or not,and no... It shouldn't hurt to ask

And wow 50 posts that is some Buda like patience there. O.O

As someone who was used to very few RTJ's i'm not used to saying no to an applicant, but when i opened my first WH40k game i had a ton of applications and it's not easy to do more than, "sorry, the party has who we need in it" or "Sorry we're full" I have the players to deal with, so i'll respond but don't expect a full length review on the whys and why nots of your application.


As for spelling and grammar, i'm sorry but unless there is a decent reason why you don't do it well (Dyslexia, second language, etc.) You should at least try to do it correctly. I didn't believe spelling and grammar mattered when I was 12, so if you have no reason as to why you have poor grammar, then you're just not trying. It's like if you spoke very poor english at a face to face game, Unless english wasn't your first language or you had a speaking disability, then you both look like you don't care enough, and make it harder to get the point across. I'm not saying be a perfectionist since i'm not, but small grammatical errors don't get me, obvious ones do, so if you're being rejected due to poor grammar it's not little tiny mistakes, it's big ones that turn people off from bringing you in a game.

In reply to truemane (msg # 84):

Hu. I have only been here a while and I've had it happen, several times. Ok so only one person actually thanked me for saying why it don't work, which btw he is an awesome guy....best player I have ever had in any game ever. But usually when I say, no this won't work here's why, I get an "ok cool, how about this"  I only had one guy who I had problems with who insisted he was playing a vampire (and a brokenly my powerful one) in my mage game. I told him you are aware the sun is AWAYS in the umbral sky in space, and then I explained to him in the setting there was only one clan of vampires in space and if he was going to be one he had to be of there bloodlines. He keep trying to find reasons for his incredibly broken cross clan vampire to exists and be in space in my setting. I further explained these people have near complete control over organized crime and any vampire who isn't of there blood line and is in space would be hunted to the ends of it and killed. Things when's on like that till he gave up and stopped trying.

Everyone else has been understanding when I tell them strait up no and why.

The only problem I had otherwise was one.... 'Slow' player who just could seam to grasp some simple things and it got to the point where to many of the players shanked him out of them game so I had to remove him, he really liked the game and was not happy to say the least about it. But at the point he pulled out a gun that he no longer owned, called for covering fire from a person that wasen't there, kicked down a door that didn't exists, and take aim at attackers that we're not there... All because some one said "I'm not feeling too well' and collapsed (so naturally some one shot her!!! >.>) people had enough.

And no, I am not exaggerating it..... It happened.  o.o

Oh I am not saying flat out saying your full when you are is bad, but doing it as a way to get rid of people sucks, least just tell them flat out no instead.

As for spelling yah, if your not trying then that's different, but just because some one isn't trying in a chat don't mean they won't try in the game. You can say 'well I will aspect better grammar from your in game posts than this' and that has happened to me. Just as of today, I was not trying because I was info lay just chatting it up and using stuff like lol. I showed them me trying and the were quite satisfied.

Point is, try talking to a person before you throw them out of the game. This is not like a job application, it's like nearing someone new and trying to get to know them. Treating it like a job application you may get some info you are interested in, but your not going to get to know them if you just look at there 'application' and show them the door with out talking to hem. Heck most job applications have a part where you just sit down and talk, unless it's a place where they have or want a high turnover rate. Do you want your game to have a high turnover rate?

In reply to Azraile (msg # 88):

Well chatting and game are different, if you talk fairly poorly in OOC but maintain decent grammar in game, i don't really care, since the game is where your typing really matters.

This varies based on the type of game.  With PF or any other high demand game, you could not be more wrong.  When you RTJ to a game, it is exactly like sending your cover letter and CV/resume to a company.  If they look at it and are immediately repulsed by your lack of effort and ability to present yourself, you are never getting an interview.  If you send a resume showing your vast experience as a salesman in a design job, you are never getting an interview.

Az, since you want feedback, I'll tell you straight up that your misuse of "there"/"their"/"they're" and use of text speak would annoy me severely.  If you sent me an RTJ with that in it, you'd better have gold plating on the rest to get an interview.  Different people have different standards of communication, but I've been writing things for a living for a decade and it really grates on my nerves.

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 90):

Although, in fairness, he claims to have a learning disability. That makes everything harder.



As someone else said, an RTJ process is very much like a job interview. There are more applicants than spots and each applicant has a relatively small about of space to impress upon someone that they're better suited for the sport than anyone else.

I don't have the time or the energy to get to know everyone. That's why I have an application process. The RTJ is meant to give me all the information I need to make a good decision. If I find that my process is not giving me the people I need, then I need to change my process. Just like, if I kept hiring bad people at my day-job, I'd look to beefing up my interview techniques.

But if I find that, the majority of the time, I get the right people for my games, then my process works.

In reply to truemane (msg # 91):

+1 I agree with this, for me that's exactly how I would handle it and, its a fair way to oversee the process of a RTJ

And I can not start to tell you how sick myself and others like me are so so very sick of that one.

Particularly because a lot of stuck up "I am so much better than you are" English major nazzies beleave that NO ONE has a learning disability... that it's just an excuse to be lazy. That psychologist are stupid and just throw labels like that on people to explain things that they don't get, like people lying through there teeth at them.

It so ridiculously frustrating for those of us who put so much work into getting to and maintaining the level we are at, and constantly working to improve it. To just have people throw crap like that in our faces, over and over again.


As for being like a job application, you shouldn't treat it like one when you read a RTJ if you don't treat it like one when you make the RTJ thread/requests.

If you want to treat it like a job application you should take some responsibility yourself and make an RTJ thread, and PUT an actual application for them to fill out.

And a lot of people do, but if you don't... then don't judge the RTJs you get like you did. That's all I am saying when I talk about that.

If I see an application, I will fill it out and send it in. If I don't then I will address them in the RTJ like I would any conversation.

I agree with some of the posts you've made Azraile, but for the most part I think you have a fairly altruistic idea of how the process should run. Which is nice, it's sweet even, but a lot of long time GMs, especially long time GMs on RPoL would likely disagree with. Indeed, it seems many have, for one reason or another.

You might judge Steelsmiter to be harsh. I would say he's strict, but not unfair. He knows exactly what he wants in a game, and he's not going to compromise his own standards for anyone. Frankly, I think that speaks of a certain level of integrity.

And in the end, it still all boils down to the fact that every GM is free to address the situation however they feel appropriate.

Now, I agree that ignoring someone outright is a little rude. I don't do it. I will respond to every RtJ, even ones that I know aren't going to go anywhere. I can't tell you how many times I get an opening PM that says something like "Hey! I want to join your game!"

Then when I ask for the age statement before anything can begin, I never hear back from them. Side note: Maybe we should start a thread about truly reprehensible applicant behavior which has jaded so many of RPoL's GMs.

But regardless, I will acknowledge and reply to ever RtJ, but like most of the comments that have been made, it's just not worth it to go into detail over why you're not letting someone in. Most of the time it results in whining or argumentative behavior, sometimes truly nasty comments and name calling. Now here's the flip, I'm guilty of it. I just recently had a really bad encounter with a GM, and I still feel justified in my ire, and my response to him. But in the end, it's his game, and he has the right to refuse me for any reason he sees fit. He's also entitled to his opinion and perception, however flawed it may be in MY opinion and per MY perspective.

A lot of us having been doing this for a long time, and we've seen the potential downfall from all sides. Nobody likes to be the player who is playing in a game with a character that a 'too easy' GM let in in the hopes they'd get better. And as a GM, it always makes it more painful to have to kick that player out later. I've had this happen numerous times in the past. Letting someone into the game because you think you can overlook those personal issues, and then it blows up in your face.

And I'm sorry, but I feel that I can judge a person by their character. Even a short pitch. I've been writing long enough, and dealing with people long enough, that you get a sense for the type of person you're dealing with. As someone else mentioned somewhere, the internet distills a person's personality, it doesn't hide or cloud it. I may play a host of different personality types, but each one is going to give some insight into who I am. Most of my friends who roleplay with me frequently can spot my characters in a game. Because they recognize the pieces of me that are in those characters.

Also, while any GM COULD put in more work, more time, more consideration or allowance, it's not fair to say that any should. To use the blue cat creature reference from earlier. You say that GM handled it like a pro, and I don't completely disagree, but it was likely also a headache and ran the risk of souring ALL of the players in the game on the game itself. Or souring the GM on running the game in the first place. No GM should ever feel obligated to take that sort of lengthy approach to dealing with a difficult player. I've had games collapse because of negative interaction with a player that just ruins my desire to run it. There is no reason a GM should risk that kind of negative impact on someone who, as you say, they don't even know.

The way I look at it. I'm trying to run a game of intelligent, creative people. Something that inspires me to write, and inspires me to read. I'm not advertising to make new friends. While friends may come of it, that isn't the primary purpose. So I don't care about who a person is, or what potential may be locked away in them that I could potentially pry out. I want solid players, who meet my standards, and if you don't meet them, then I don't want to spent an inordinate amount of time trying to make you someone who does. Especially when, in my experience, most of the time when you do put in that effort, it still doesn't come to any fruition.

I agree with not ignoring people, and I agree with being honest. But being detailed is another matter. If someone isn't going to work, I'll tell them simply. "I'm sorry, but at this time we don't feel comfortable allowing you into the game."

You might get hung up on the 'you' but I stand behind it. I can tell from someone's character if it is just the character idea I have a problem with, or the character and the player behind it. And I will adjust my rejection accordingly.

In regards to spelling and grammar, I don't like to be too strict, because I'm not perfect. I use way too many commas, and forget to use the proper end punctuation at times. But spell check can at least make sure spelling errors are for the most part found, and when in doubt, dictionary.com and thesaurus.com are right there for any questions I might have.

While you might have a legitimate learning disability, and may have taken great strides to overcome that disability as much as you have, and that is great and inspiring, it does not mean that any GM is obligated to put up with the consequences of that learning disability in their game. Callous, perhaps, but true. I've known many people who are physically handicapped, and they are really nice people. But I wouldn't want to run a marathon having to push them in front of me the entire way just so they can feel included.

I can tell you right now, that if your in game posts contained the spelling errors, the incorrect words, and the improper uses of there, their, they're and your, you're etc... you probably wouldn't get accepted to one of my games. Because it is a pet peeve of mine. It causes me nearly physical distress. And my OCD is just as legitimate a condition as your learning disability.

In the end, I think while your approach might be nice, it's a little too idealistic. In actual use, it has far too high a potential to backfire and just make the GM's life more complicated and difficult. If you have the patience and compassion to put up with that, more power to you. But it's not fair to expect that from everybody. At the end of the day, it's all about finding players and GMs who are compatible with your personality, your ideals, and your standards. Getting upset over every GM who doesn't handle the situation to your liking is inviting too much stress into your life.

In reply to UnseelieLord (msg # 94):

An excellent post...