The first rule of Shadowrun RPoL games is....

RTJ while you can, because 24 people will express interest in 24 hours, and the game will stop accepting new members before you even have your concept fleshed out.

What other rules for games have you discovered?

(Edited to improve thread on pfarland's suggestion)
This message was last edited by the user at 01:01, Wed 01 Oct 2014.

Good idea for a thread but I suggest to call it: "The first rule for _____ RPoL games"

Oooh good call, thank you. I don't want to discourage people from popping in with observations on other games.

How about do not write up rtjs when sleepy? I know this one from personal experience >.<

...is you do not talk about RPoL games!

lol

For real though, it seems like on a lot of games you gotta know a secret code and bribe the bouncer. There's just some games that no matter how solid of a character you have in mind, the ST wants a 15 chapter novel that details everything of your character from birth to now, plus a 100 question psyche test to determine personality, and that's just the RTJ. That doesn't even guarantee entry.

But anyway. lol

I think people forget the real #1 rule of any game, and that's to have fun. Way too many people here are too uptight about their games.

The first rule of Pathfinder RPoL games is....


...don't apply with a Spiked Chain welder. Even Leo Tolstoy doesn't have the writing skills to make this cheesy concept more believable.

Spiked chains are over exaggerated. They're not that good a build; unless you really focus. Even then, they're no better than hundreds of others.

I didn't know you could weld in fantasy games.

In reply to PsychoJester (msg # 5):

It's important to not let yourself get discouraged if you don't get accepted into a game.  No matter how solid your character concept may be, if someone else RTJs with a character that is more in line with what the GM had in mind for the game, the GM would be foolish not to take the more natural fit.

After all, for a lot of GMs, the RTJ process is as much about learning whether or not they can work with the prospective players as it is about figuring out who the characters are going to be.  And if someone comes along at the same time who just 'clicks' with the GM, it's only reasonable to expect the GM would want that player in the game.

Not all GMs work that way...I've worked with a few GMs who will accept anyone into the game who is willing to put in the legwork to create a character.  Those games also seem to have a core group of four or five characters and a hefty amount of turnover in the others (because the players don't 'gel' with the GM and it causes a lot of grief all around.)  Some people may be able to do that...I know I couldn't.  I'm very much a believer in the importance of chemistry between everyone involved.

So, when my RTJ gets rejected, I just shrug and figure it wasn't a good fit, for whatever reason, and go look for another game where I'm a better fit.

So, I guess that would be my first rule...don't take rejection personally.

And there are some games like mine that are exclusive for a reason.  I try to weed out the people who don't know enough about the military to play a believable character.  I'm trying to have, as close to reality as possible, realistic Special Operations soldiers.  Not everyone knows how to play a soldier right in my experience.  One player trying to play Rambo would ruin the whole feel of the campaign.

I don't like telling people no, but I have to for the game itself.

It's a double whip made of metal. I doubt plausibility was ever the highest priority. It just looks awesome.

Set expectations on posting frequency and schedule.  It's now my first question when applying to a game.  I work for a living and there have been a few cases where I've posted at midnight, come home and logged in at 6 pm and the GM introduced some NPC in the morning.  Two or three players have conversed with the NPC and the adventure has moved on, shutting out the other players.

 I feel like the first rule of any PbP game should be, know how and enjoy reading and writing. What are you doing here if you don't like to read or write?

The RTJ should be explicit.

The players should have the ability to play on an equal footing.

These are both faults/mistakes of an inexperienced GM.

Speaking of that, of all the GMs I've had, 3/4 of them were not very good/experienced. They usually feel as though they were pushed into being a GM rather then actually wanting to be one, or they want to tell a specific story, and the players are simply along for the ride.

Perhaps someone should make a "How to GM" guidebook. RTJs can have their own section.

Anyone want to help?

Oh, and the first rule is, "Don't take it personally, unless they explicitly say it is personal."

You have not yet encountered the rare and powerful Wand of Acetylene.  (I think Acetylene was an Elf, from the sound of it.)  It is an item so powerful that it can blind the user, unless he/she is protected by the Mask of Don't Blind Me While I'm Using The Wand of Acetylene.

If you give one to a Gnome... well, consider yourself warned.  And consider anyone wearing plate armor to be wearing a large "prank me" sign.

In reply to Eur512 (msg # 16):

This almost makes me want to play a D&D game with a welding weapon, lol.  AWESOME reply!!!

Even with an explicit RTJ, I expect a GM to naturally gravitate towards players whose initial concept and personal chemistry seem to be a good fit for the game.  Yes, if you need players and the only person who's applying needs to be coached a little bit to get the game concept straight, then work with that person...but if you've got five slots, and fifteen RTJs, I expect--as a player--that the five best-matching concepts will wind up being chosen, regardless of what order they were received in.

Being rejected because someone's a better fit has nothing to do with how explicit the RTJ is, and equally little to do with GM experience.  It's just basic human nature...we like to work with people whose vision either jives with ours, or they bring something further to the situation that we feel will enhance what we're trying to do.  Personally, if I'm the square peg, I'd really prefer someone not try and force me through the round hole, no matter how well-intentioned their efforts may be.

While it is nice to have players read one's mind when they send in character concepts, as a GM I like to read coherent sentences, see correct spelling and punctuation, and other such niceties.

Make a theme of it. A group of NPCs from a modern tech world found themselves in a D&D world and made a settlement before dying offscreen. Locals find the settlement and marveled at the strange weapons. The perfect excuse for a chainsaw... or welding gear.

If you have a chainsaw, you have to have a Boomstick.

In reply to PsychoJester (msg # 5):

You're right, the #1 rule of any game is to have fun. But the thing you're forgetting is that not everyone has fun the way you have fun. For some people, the 15 chapter novel and the 100 psych questions ARE how they have fun. And even more accurately, they have fun playing the kind of game that requires a novel and a psych test, and they have fun playing with the kinds of players who also have fun with novels and psych tests.

But so long as a DM is up-front about what they want in an application, and you willingly fill one out, you can't really blame the DM for having a long application. If it's too much for you, don't apply.

And as for having a solid character concept, this is both a subjective thing, and a case where what you're seeing isn't what the GM is looking at. You've got a concept you really like and that you think will really work. But the GM has their own opinions on what's awesome and what's not, and has a whole game to look at and make decisions for.

So sometimes your character isn't as solid as you think it is, and sometimes other concepts just work better for reasons you might not know.


Although I can understand your frustration.

In reply to truemane (msg # 22):

And sometimes even the GM might think a character concept is great, but just doesn't work in his/her campaign.  I have a Spec Ops game, and have seen some otherwise awesome concepts, but ones that just wouldn't work in my campaign for more than one mission.

So even a negative response may not be a reflection on you, but might be a reflection on the way the game itself is set up.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 23):

Exactly. Also, another factor that comes up in my games all the time is party composition. Sometimes I have to reject a great concept because something else just fits the mix better.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:26, Sat 04 Oct 2014.

I don't do that so much.  I tend to let people play the mission specialty they want and just design missions to the group's overall specialties.  Mind you I never really use any preprinted missions, I do them all myself, so I have a lot more leeway there.  Plus it's a modern day type game so that gives me even more leeway.

So:

1: Do not do rtj's when sleepy.

2: Look for something that interests you.

3: Do not force character creation.

4: Do not talk things personal if rejected.
   I submit rtjs with the expectation of not getting in. That way acceptance is a pleasant surprised.

5: Proofread.

6: Have fun(the most important rule)

Pray to the dice gods.

No, pray to the time/algorithm gods (rngs are usually seeded with the current time).

I always write RTJs when Sleepy

**rimshot**

Well played.

1) Do not overload your charries abilities right off the bat
 - Sorry your newly discovered your a mutant strongman may not be able to lift that 100 ton train.  If you are in a school setting ..take it that you have to learn and grow.

2) When submitting an RTJ read what the GM wants and does not want.
 - If a GM says no 'psychics' or 'teleporters', then do not create one in hopes the GM will accept it.

3) When submitting an RTJ pick a power that is not too bizarre.
 - If your base of operations is in a desert don't make your character a merman or such.  If your a tech base talent...rather doubt you would have learned it from hermit monks who do not have electricity or indoor plumbing.  Trust me...the fact your charrie can figure out NASA level quadratic equations with reguards to how it applies to aliens species is of little use if your attacked by a junkyard dog (you will get bit).  My suggestion would be K.I.S.S. it, you'll be better off.

Awww, why does everyone hate the cool and interesting ideas? :)

It is not that we hate them(well me at least I love "cool and interesting" ideas), just make sure they are ok with the gm first. Though I have only seen 2 gms willing to take telekinetics, and one of em was very wary about it.

Yeah, but it is very rare to find a GM that has any clue that the rules aren't actually rules but rather just guidelines. Or even following the rules without going munchkin can be troubling to find acceptance for unusual ideas (of which I have often, hence my hatred of classes).

For example, it took me years to find a GM that would allow me to play an awakened tiger, despite using only rules in the core three books.

Any creature, whether a giant, bugbear or awakened tiger, with racial HD is a massive pain to worry about.

Why would that be? I haven't seen any reason to think so.

Because, at least in DnD 3.5, every HD is worth a level, technically. But a racial HD is not worth nearly as much as a level in a class. So there's all these rules about how at higher levels you can buy off those racial HD. And if you don't use those rules (which I don't), then at higher levels, that monster is actually going to suck compared to his companions. Which, even if the player is fine with that, makes my job harder in trying to provide encounters that challenges everyone in the party about equally.

Or yes, you can kind of return to a 3.0 way of handling monster HD, and figure out what that awakened tiger is really worth. But even then, there's an issue that at first they're good, maybe on the powerful side, over time they lose out, and being down however many levels by 15th level is more of a loss than the gains you get indicate, even though it was fine when you first started playing.

First, never played a game that lasted even 5 levels.

Second, I can easily take a weak character and defeat higher level characters. I use creativity, tactics, environment, etc to a much higher degree then most.

I have consistently played with munchkins and never even tried to munchkin characters, even had complaints about my characters weakness, and not once did I drag the party down. Usually, I was the one getting the munchkins out of trouble.

Thus I believe your argument is invalid, a theoretical issue rather then a practical one.

Munchkins tend to judge characters by the numbers rather then the character's actual success in play, which is a mistake.

If your character was more effective than the munchins' characters, that's a burden for the GM  to devise situations challenging enough for you all. I sure wouldn't want to be the GM of munchkins.

It's not theoretical. It's one I've seen, in practice. And yes, -you- may be able to do that. But most can't; and any prospective GM has to deal with what he knows - and unless he knows you, either personally or having GMed or played with you before online, he doesn't know you. He does know, however, that generally speaking, creatures with racial HD suck compared to creatures which can put everything in class levels.



Been the GM of munchkins. I don't actually think much of these 'munchkins' if their 'weak' character was more effective than their munchkin ones.
This message was last edited by the user at 13:21, Fri 10 Oct 2014.

What makes you think it oh so must be incredibly challenging?

I don't play this to play a minitures combat game, I play this as a roleplayer. I don't want grinds and endless combat. I want story. The encounters should therefore be plot points, not xp farms. Thus, no need for a lot of effort to make things awesomely challanging.

Granted that isn't everyone, but really, you shouldn't be making such assumptions about what the player needs or wants.

Besides, the difference between a good GM and a bad GM is the ability to adapt and adjust to the players, not just balancing them with the story, NPCs, and encounters, but also with each other. The ability to be a storyteller, to adapt the story to players choices makes a good GM great, but a bad GM just becomes slightly less bad.

Perhaps this dialogue should be takes elsewhere and that we return to the original.

Agreed, thank you. I think we can wrap this up as

"make sure the players and GM are on the same page about what they want out of the game."

That sounds like a good bit of advice.

In reply to Taurarius (msg # 43):

A good summary.  I would only add this by way of clarification...

As a GM, be aware that your 'common sense' idea could COMPLETELY elude your players...(A friend of mine ran a MSH game...X-Men oriented...he was so immersively versed in the Marvel Universe that he was incredibly frustrated that we--the players--couldn't figure out ways to beat villains that he thought were pretty standard.  Problem is, he'd been reading Marvel since he was old enough to read...most of the rest of us had only read about a year or two worth of X-Men comics, and that was only because he said he wanted to run an X-Men game and we all wanted at least SOME background knowledge...)  Also, be aware that the direction you want to take the game may not be the same direction the players intend to go with it.  At some point, either the game needs to go in those players' direction (or they'll get bored and leave), or the GM needs to assert that the game will be run his way (and run the risk of players 'jumping ship').  (I'm in a game right now with a very 'pulp fiction', early 20th Century sci-fi feel, even though it's set a few centuries in the future.  Several players keep trying to turn this run-and-gun, 'the heroes are always in apparent danger but never seem to get seriously hurt' game into a gritty, tactical, simulation game, right down to a guy suggesting armaments and using Palladium stats to describe the damage effects, and another guy citing options from a GURPS sourcebook.  And it's caused a lot of frustration on both sides...but the GM has yet to make a definitive, 'No, I'm not ever going to let this game go that way' statement (even though those of us who've been playing longer recognize the stance from the tone of his equivocation), and the players in question somehow figure that, maybe, even though the GM has said fifteen times already, "No, you can't build something like that with the resources available to your character," maybe if they ask ONE MORE TIME, he'll cave in and they can make the UBER-KILLER GUN that would hypothetically totally shift the balance of power in the game and win the war in five easy steps...

From the player's side, be aware that even though you may be comfortable and competent playing a specific character concept, that concept may not fit in with what the GM has in mind (like the Robotech game I'm in where the characters are all supposed to be front-line combat troops and Earth has only just barely developed robotechnology...but we had a whole series of people want to join the game as VERY experienced Veritech pilots that had an extensive background in robotech R&D.  In a different game, that concept works great...in this game?  If you're THAT good at design and engineering, they're going to have you BUILDING the planes, not flying them.)  If you want to suggest something exotic and unlikely, go ahead...but know that doing so increases the chances that a GM is going to say, "Nah...that really doesn't fit."  Not every GM is looking to build a menagerie of eccentric characters, no matter how cool the players of those characters could make them.  If you suggest something exotic, and the GM says no, don't take it personally.  You want to play a different game than the GM does, and it's best for both of you to get that clear from the start.  There are plenty of GMs who DO like really exotic character ideas...

Another good thing to remember is read some of the public threads. I recently informed a gm that if I had read some of the threads I would have submitted a different character to her game.