Like I said, if it's working for you...

Some players will be all over a game with RTJs like that (even as a follow-up).  Some would get through the initial round, get that, and say, "Are you kidding?  Haven't I put enough time into this already?" and stop answering questions at that point.

But the purpose is to filter players, and it's doing that.  You apparently get players that you enjoy this way, as you're clearly very supportive of the method and that implies solid results.

That's my advice to players and GMs, every time...do it however it works for you.  You won't appeal to everyone or fit in everywhere...but where you do end up connecting, it will be because the parties involved all share similar tastes in what the game should be and how you approach it.  Trying to get into a game whose RTJ process feels unappealing is, to me, the proverbial square peg in the round hole.  If you want a perfect fit, make sure the pegs and holes match.  If you're not so picky, you can round off the corners of the peg, or dig some corner-ish things into the hole, and hopefully get close enough that it still works.

But if it works for you and the folks you're playing with, you're doing it right, no matter how you're doing it.

My problem with online roleplaying is it feels very much like a job. Theres an application, an interview. The wait.. the let diwn. Came here to get away from real life and have fun, not simulate it.

^ This is why I keep my RtJ process to a minimum.  I have nothing against the method that other people have mentioned here about including a longer process; but, I find that natural attrition solves so much as it is.  The simple "can you successfully provide the 'I am an adult' statement does most of the work for me - seriously - over half don't even read it and just say "hey sounds cool can I join?"

I ask for two things - Age Statement + Character Name.. the rest - I WANT you to chat out with the other members of the group so you can come up with a coherent team instead of a bunch of brooding "I am dark and mysterious" characters huddled into a corner.

Well, kinda depends. When starting a new game I do; but if I'm recruiting due to attrition, I will look for the people who's first concept meshes the best. But I GM 3.5 and PF; and there has to be choices made as to who to let in, and this is as good a choice as any. If I was GMing less popular systems, I'd probably be more lenient.

As one of the players currently active within Machiara's aforementioned game, I can say that I credit his particular Request to Join style with just how well our game has done in this last year and a half.  I think that his lengthy RTJ process was designed specifically to get together what makes a great game: players who are dedicated to both their characters and the game itself.

Not to mention that everyone involved is a skilled writer, and has brought interesting and unique characters into the game.

Of course you're right in saying that many potential players will be turned off by a lengthy application process; something that feels like an interview.  But I have joined many games lacking in one and every single one of these became a serious disappointment and failure.  It has led me to the belief that casting a wide net and accepting any player will get you a game started quickly, but it rarely leads to a fulfilling, fun, or lasting experience.

I mean, during the course of the game, one of our players had twins!  This was early, near when we started, and he is still dedicated.  He even sends us the occasional picture of his adorable babies!  And now, another player just told us that he is going to be married in a few months.  Married!  And even he is still active in the game, after it's been running for nearly two years already.

I enjoyed filling out the questions to join Machiara's game.  It told me that he was a dedicated GM, and it let me know that everyone he accepted was going to be a dedicated player.  It also felt very good to be accepted after he had considered all of his applications, and tied me to my character in a meaningful way.  I mean, every character is going to grow and change as a campaign progresses, but when you already know your character so well it makes the growing simpler.



Oh, we don't have any of those.  That may be a common character type that many people enjoy playing, but like I said, even without having all of the players collaborate on character creation, everyone has a unique and colorful character.  The problem with a dark, mysterious character is it's been done so much that it isn't creative.  So all of us creative players who are willing to fill out a lengthy RTJ tend to avoid them.
This message was last edited by the user at 23:10, Fri 16 Jan 2015.

Oh, Xand!  You make me want to do Pisca the Dark Gnome!  She can have her own Gnome Cave.  If she can have her own Gnome Cave.  Not going to do it if she can't.

I just posted in Players Wanted and saw that I have an old deleted game (which was made on a lark for perhaps the least serious game I have ever run).  And I have two games with severely low counts, which are games I am working to get in order to potentially run, but aren't active.  Then I have two games with a moderately successful number of posts and good activity, one of which I am looking for a replacement player for.

I'm not sure what a potential player's impression of that list would be.  Five games in total, which isn't 100% accurate, as I resurrected a failed game, deleted all the players and content, and repurposed it to house one of the two new games I am working on.

I think the two active games with moderate post counts show that I can GM successfully on RPoL, but I don't know if having those low post count games in the wings or the deleted game will chase away potential players.

I guess time will tell.

Personally, I wouldn't judge you on the number of games that you had listed under your name.  I'd visit one or two, look at the cast list for things like numbers of players, last posted of each player, etc.  Look at the things you've written in your RtJ and other things.  I'd evaluate your writing style and organization.  And I'd try to read some posts to see the quality of your players.

Lots of things go into the equation.

Lol. I'm trying to picture the scene...

You're in the pub, some guy invites you to make up a foursome playing darts and he'll buy you a beer.
You hold his invitation in abeyance while you question him about his game playing, who his fellow players are, whether he's played in this pub before, how many beers he's already drunk and what he thinks his chances of winning are if you deign to join his team...

Or the other way, you're looking to make up a foursome, but you don't just ask the new guy if he can throw, you question him about his score average, where he's played before, who can vouch for him, how many games he's won...

If this were the County Darts Finals or the Role Playing Games World Championships, with a hundred grand of prize money at stake, I could understand the interviews, but it's just a friendly game you're playing with a few friends in your spare time.

Does it really matter who you play with??

Yes.

We aren't trying to mash out a quick game to pass the time.  The analogy with the darts indicates an interest in forming a group together only for a single gaming session which will last a single evening.

Looking back through many of the failed games I've taken part in, it is that exact line of thinking which leads to unsatisfactory, disappointing, short-lived, and just plain bad games.

What should be focused on is putting together a group to last many months, years if you're lucky.  People who you want to be friends with for a while, not a single evening.  If all you're looking for is a quick game with no future then by all means throw a random group together into the melting pot and see what nature your disappointment will come in.

If, however, what you're really interested in is a game that will last years, with players who will stay for those years and become friends, you have to be selective.  It matters very much who you play with in this case.  Even a single player can ruin a game if they refuse to get along with the others.  It causes people who might have otherwise stayed to stop logging in, or to quit outright.

The best way to be selective is to ask questions before letting people in.  To interview them.  As GM it tells the prospective players that you are serious about the game you intend to run.  As a player, it tells you that when you are accepted into the game, the other players will be on your same level.  And that everyone involved is both interested and dedicated.

I can't reiterate this enough, but for one final time; yes.  It does matter who you play with.

As much or more than the setting or the system.  A bad mix of players can totally ruin a gaming experience.

I agree, a bad player can alienate players, contribute to GM burnout, and sabotage the game. The problem with the weeding out process for me is that the most toxic players I've had in my game were at first some of the most promising, creative, enthusiastic, etc.., I'd rather work with a player with sloppy writing skills and occasional attitude then have another maestro of the keyboard suck the life out my game.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:33, Sat 17 Jan 2015.

One of the games in which I play has perhaps the simplest RTJ process I've seen on RPOL...but the game has been running, very actively, for nearly four years.  Another game I'm in had nothing more to the RTJ than a statement of interest and a brief outline of your intended character...it's been running four about three and a half years...

An elaborate RTJ is no guarantee of getting great players , just as a simple RTJ isn't a guarantee of getting a load of half-hearted slouches.  Over time, most GMs develop recognition of signs of players they'll enjoy or dislike...some like a comples RTJ to ferret out those signs and some can recognize it after two or three simple questions.

Like I said, if it works for you, do it that way.  But human nature being what it is, no matter how you do it, some people will think you're not doing it 'right', and you'll still get some false positives (someone who seems like they'll be a good player but proves disappointing) and false negatives (people you reject who would actually have been great).  There are things you can do to minimze false results...but it's still going to happen.  I've been in several 'invitation only' games, which you'd expect to have a phenomenal result since everyone was invited due to some proven qualities...they still have problems, just like evryone else.

Personally I just ask if people are interested and just show me your concept. I make sure I get back to them to tell them im full and not be a dillweed and leave them hanging

Does it really matter who you play with??

Oh, very much so.  I'm another guy who does a pretty extensive RTJ process.  Character-creation itself is the RTJ.  I typically do character-creation as a workshop process, inviting the other potential players to ask questions and make suggestions.

I see the process as an audition for both the potential player and for myself.  If either one of us decide part-way through that it just isn't worth continuing, it's better to find out before we've reached in-character play.

I am investing several hours on the character-creation process alone.  If I suspect that I'm just not going to get the quality and commitment, and collaborative participation I hope for, I have to consider if it's worth it.

I also look for other things: are they prepared to argue (constructively) for their decisions?  Can they make concessions without being told to?  Do they participate in other players character-creation threads or are they solely focused on their own character?

Because of this, I have a small group of players I feel comfortable inviting to play in a new game without them needing to go through quite as rigorous a process.  I already know they're awesome!



Actually, my analogy was more about not dissuading potential players rather than specifying a game length.



And the other line of thinking will result in no game at all unless you have an over-abundance of applicants - a luxury which my preferred genres seldom experience.



I agree with you entirely there. A good group of players and a good, fun game are the goal. However, my experience leads me to believe that most players are decent sorts who get along together just fine, RTJ or no. It may be that a long, cold RTJ dissuades more bad players than good ones, but as I say, I don’t have the luxury of turning people away unless they prove to be a bad lot - in which case I’d simply ask them to leave.

As Facemaker says, if it works for you, go with it.



Ah, now if you’re including character creation as part of the RTJ, then my RTJs are not so short. This is where I find out a lot more about the applicants and they find out about me. I’ve had a few drop out at this stage. :)

In reply to icosahedron152 (msg # 55):

My personal requirements run to more than decent people.  More even than decent people who show up three to five days a week.  I require people interested in building story, not just playing the mechanics.  That means posting more than one liners.  That means showing up to post even outside of combat.  That means taking the story somewhere themselves and not relying solely on the GM to move things along.

Different people come to this game for different experiences.  That's just the sort of experience that I want.  And, I find that the GM's that have a more extensive, an more thorough RtJ procedure tend to provide the sort of game that I prefer.

I have to agree with Facemaker on that one:


I'm happy with the players I've found with my friendly, non-challenging and short RTJs, and my players have been involved enough to take a couple of games to over 5000 posts. It works for me, YM obviously V. :)

Yeah, I've been in several games where the GM accepts me into the game with the provision that, should we fail to come up with a character that he feels will fit well in the game, I won't be playing.  I'm fine with that.  That, to me, is totally different than asking me to devote hours of time before I even feel like I may be 'in the running'.

One of the reasons I know that detailed RTJs don't necessarily guarantee success is because many of the shortest-lived games I've been in had the most complex RTJs I could bring myself to endure...and after devoting that much effort to a game that folded in a matter of a few weeks, the whole notion of complex RTJs kind of soured for me.

Experience has also shown me that, for me, the best fits are games with a solid, complete background...and a simple RTJ process.  The exception to this is if someone I know and trust has invited me to participate in a game...because at that point, I've already got something that gives me assurance that going through the pain of a complex RTJ is going to have some solid payoff.  Without that, it becomes a question of how much time and effort I'm willing to sink into an attempt to get into a game--where I have no promise whatsoever that there will be a payoff for my effort.

As I said, being a good writer doesn't guarantee you are going to be a good player or positive asset to the game. As for having to jump through a gauntlet of achievements to be accepted into a game, I wouldn't play in a game that required that, online or tabletop. I want to play a game to have fun and enjoy some good times with my fellow players, not have a second job that I work at for zero pay. We haven't gamed much on RPOL, but the group I was thrown into as part of a pickup back in 2002 or so has remained in contact over the years and still email and talk to each other today. There was no process beyond, requesting to join and approving. Just my two cents.

I test for this kind of thing, typically I do a few tricks to really see whos paying attention and who really wants to have an adventure as appose to just "playing in a game"

What is wrong with Just Playing A Game? Reality check, these are just that, games.

Well, they are games, but they're also something you're going to be spending a significant amount of time doing, ideally for a period of years.  As Xand noted, RPoL games aren't analogous to beer-and-pretzel games you might play at a bar, or even at a game convention.  Given that, I don't think it's a bad idea to try and make sure the people whom you're going to spend so much time gaming with--and you don't know from Adam--are people who: a) you'd want to spend that amount of time with; b) would enjoy your approach to gaming; and c) would enjoy participating in the kind of game you're planning to run.  After all, these people are going to make or break your game.

There are a lot of people out there who RTJ just because they want to be part of a game, any game.  But my game might not be the best fit for them, and they might not be the best fit for my game.  I mean, it's just a question of degree, right?  Most everyone has an RTJ process.  You don't generally just take the first X number of people who want to join your game.  I know I would certainly be hestitant to play in such a game.  So if an RTJ process is good, then screening players is good.  It's just a matter of how much screening you want to do.

I feel that my RTJ process helps me identify the people who are good fits with my GMing style.  The RTJ isn't "work," as some people have said.  It's not like I'm having potential players write longform essays.  It's more of a conversation.  And if such a conversation is "work" for a player, then they probably aren't really the kind of player who would have fun in one of my games.

In reply to NeuroJester (msg # 61):

For me, role-playing is as much a social occasion as it is 'just a game'.  The games that I'm in all have rather active OOC threads, where there's a lot of discussion about stuff that has little to do with the game.  It's nice to have some sense that the people in the game with me are people that I actually have a little something in common with.  I've been in 'just game' games...and while they weren't unenjoyable, it was a very different experience...not necessarily something I would invest extensive amounts of time in.

I've noticed that people tend to think that an rpg is an rpg is an rpg, but truth is despite playing by the exact same rules, we c.f. an end up playing very different games, which leads to very different expectations and desires.

Example, Adam and Bill play tug of war. Adam is trying to pull Bill into the mudpit, Bill however, is trying to control the most amount of rope and considers the mudpit an autofail obstacle. Same rules, and they think they are playing the same game, but are they really?

Thus , I think spending the time to make sure everyone is going to play the same way, or at least mesh well together is important, synchronize the expectations and make sure that the game wont be disrupted and perhaps broken because everyone is trying to get something different from the game.