Does seeing a GM post multiple new games seeking players influence whether or not you consider the game?

I've noticed that many times a GM won't just advertise one game, but will advertise two or three one after the other.

To me, it feels like the GM won't be able to really focus on the games she's offering.  I know plenty of GMs run multiple games, but getting a game off the ground takes considerable time and effort, but the plate-spinning invloved in getting three up at the same time will just cause a mess when the plates come tumbling down.  If I see three new game start-ups from the same GM, I less likely to even read the game adverts.

Does that matter to anyone else?

If it's three -new- games all advertising at once; yeah, that's a worry to me.

SOmetimes however, when they're advertising 2 or 3, one might be new, but the others are after replacements.

I run multiple games; and when I start a new one, I might advertise for any replacements any others need at the same time, just because I'm on a recruiting binge.

So long as they can keep up. Their number of games does not influence my chance of sending in an rtj. Now, if they have 4 or 5 with more posts in the players wanted forum then in their game. That is a different story.

Then again about 1/3 the games I join tank so what do I know?

I always investigate GMs other running games (if any) any time I am considering joining a game. If I see a bunch of games with a few posts, or huge lapses of inactivity it sends up a red flag in my mind. Seeing a wall of newly advertised games is another red flag that the GM might have a bunch of great ideas in their mind, and probably mean well, but probably are going to have difficulty sticking with one game long enough to make it worth the effort to submit an RTJ.

Yeah, I meant three new games, rather than one new and a readvert for new players in the old ones.

And a GM having a rack of inactive and deleted games is a major red flag, but adding a bunch of new games is a deal breaker.

In reply to Evil Empryss (msg # 5):

Fair points, not many games catch my eyes. Another red flag for me is poor spelling and bad grammar in the wanted ad or in the game's posts.

It also probably depends on the games.  If someone is running a bunch of old school hack and slash games, starting up three of them might not be that difficult.  One roleplay/scenery intensive game could require more work than 3 or more hack & slash dungeon crawls.

I don't really look at the number of games a GM has - I have a few on my list that still exist because the players still socialize in them even if the game itself is long-dead, and a lot of my games tend to die for a while then revive suddenly at random.

What I look at in deciding to consider a game or not is the GM's RTJ, and how they come off when communicating with them - if they are overly picky or standoffish, I bail. With system games, a long list of stuff that's been banned/houseruled, or anything hinting at a rigid thought process is a red flag for me that they're going to be difficult and not fun to play with. bad spelling and grammar will turn me off almost instantly as well, and a GM who displays a lack of understanding of the themes and conventions of the game genre they're running (how many X-Men games have we seen where half the cast are vampires/faeries/demons?) will make me do an about-face too.
This message was last edited by the user at 05:39, Tue 06 Jan 2015.

Also, in d20-esque games, random ability score rolls. I hate random elements in my characters, as i invariably roll badly and end up being the weakest character. I see random score generation, and i don't look any further. There is no rolling method I find acceptable, at all. I want to play what i want to play, not what the dicerolls dictate I must play, and I want parity with everyone else off the starting line. let the imbalance come from in-game decisions, not the system itself.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:19, Tue 06 Jan 2015.

I'm with eternaldarkness on this one.  I don't think I've ever looked to see how many games a GM is running or even advertising.  My willingness to RTJ is primarily built off of three factors...

1) Is it a game system with which I'm familiar?  If so, my odds of considering it go upward...but it's not a make-or-break prospect for me.  I've skipped games in familiar systems, and I've RTJd games in unfamiliar systems (though I always tell the GM I'm a newbie at the system, if I do.)

2) Does the setting of the game intrigue me?  This, far more than the rules system, impacts my willingness to RTJ.  If I read the game ad and it makes me want to read more, GREAT.  If I read the game background information and part of me says, "YES, I really wanna play THIS game!" then I'm likely to RTJ.

3) Does the GM seem like someone I'll jive with?  This is every bit as important to me as anything else.  If I read the game info and get the impression that the GM is inflexible, utterly reliant on a rulebook for every detail, etc...or if the GM just comes across as a jerk...then I'm going to skip that game, because those are factors that will make the game unenjoyable for me, no matter how comfortable I am with the rules or how cool the setting is.  (I also prefer GMs with good spelling and grammar, but if the game is intriguing enough, I'll work around that.)

I'm nowhere near as strict about rolling up attributes, however...some of my favorite characters have been characters where I went with the roll of the dice at every opportunity...but when you get Vulcan orphan raised by Klingons, the dice are giving you a lot of fun material to work with.  I've also been pretty thoroughly hosed by the dice on occasion.  I prefer not rolling and making a character that will be what I envision...but I'm not utterly opposed to letting Fate take a hand in my character creation from time to time.)
This message was last edited by the user at 08:10, Tue 06 Jan 2015.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 10):

Pretty much everything you said I agree with, but let me clarify on the random ability gen subject: I don't mind random story elements, but I hate random statistics. As long as the randomness stops at background/fluff, i can deal. I want my actual numbers to be what I make them though, within the structure of the game, because I can use those numbers to take the fluff i've been given and bring it to life in a way i'll enjoy.

In reply to Evil Empryss (msg # 1):

For me, seeing the same GM advertise multiple games at the same time, especially when I see them again and again, completely puts me off playing in any of their games.

Also if I see that a GM has a lot of games with small numbers of posts, and/or a lot of deleted games, then that also concerns me.

In reply to eternaldarkness (msg # 11):

No, I understood what you meant.  The example that came to mind was literally a case of sitting down to start a new game, the GM saying, "What do you want to play?" and me saying, "I have NO idea.  We're gonna let the dice decide this time."  Everything, at every point of character generation where there was an option to roll dice to figure out what the character was going to be, was rolled...stats, race, background, profession, rank, etc etc etc.  It could have been total strudel...very easily.  I was expecting some kind of train-wreck somewhere along the line.  It ended up being a remarkably playable character.

But, like I said, the dice were being very cooperative that night...

I should add, in a different vein, that seeing a GM advertise for new players when I'm in a game that they've abandoned without any word to any of the players, is pretty much a guarantee that I'm never going to look at ANY of that GM's games again.  (Yes, that has happened to me...to make matters even worse, the new game the GM was starting was practically identical to the one that had been abandoned...set in a different locale, but it was the same concept, in the same universe, using the same system...and there were twenty or so players in the old game asking if anyone had heard anything from the GM...)
This message was last edited by the user at 08:18, Tue 06 Jan 2015.

I do want to say that sometimes you have to be overly picky for the good of the game.  I have a military themed game and I require that the players have either experience in or with the military.  I've seen WAY too many players that try to play or run military themed characters or games and have no clue how to do it believably.  And it's usually not the ones that are upfront about not knowing, it's the ones that THINK they know how things work because they've watched a lot of TV and movies.  I would much rather turn down a bunch of otherwise good players because they don't know at least the basics of the military than to let one in that thinks John Rambo was a decent depiction of what a Green Beret is like.

I would much rather have a GM that is picky for the good of the game, than to let in players that will destroy the setting because they can't play a believable character.  It's why I don't even bother trying to play any medieval games, I can't get into that mindset.

Well, if you want to be picky for the good of the game that's your right. But you also will likely lose some players because of it - as long as you accept this, then it doesn't make a difference to me if you want to be picky.

I did check out (Try) one of these style games/GMs you note above. I did not like the style of it all, ... it felt very much turn base. Which meant logging in and waiting your turn to reply.

In the case I talk about above it can work to have many games because it takes 2 or 3 days to get everyone in and in order. One small sense can take a week or month. So YES, a reasonable GM can handle these type of games because it take very little time to reply to one or two post x 4 or five game.

I personally have 2 active games and in 1 year got about 1000 + ICs (total 5000 +)in just one of my games, ..... I would say I have triple the activity compared to the 4 or five games that I was in before. And the players and I are enjoying ourselves, which is all that matters. As much as I would like to bash this multiple game thing, I do run a few myself and in fact if they were turn base I could do many more then just 2.

If I find a game that I TRUELY NEED to play, I admit to looking at the GMs list of other games.

If the GM has 10 other games that all have 60 posts each, some or all now deleted I am very wary as to his/her ability to actually run the game.

If the GM can't communicate in basic English, that is a red flag (to me).

If the GM can't or won't get back to me within a proper time frame (what I consider to be proper) that is also a red flag (to me).

Picky-ness, game system, random or bought attributes ... I don't really care that much if the game is really something I want to play. I do admit though, that seventeen games listed and all with few posts is a real red flag to me. And three games posting all at once that  are all new ... I really wonder at that GMs ability to keep them all going ... especially if he/she has other games going.

Note that I do know at least one very kind/nice lady here running probably a dozen games ... and she IS very good at keeping all the plates spinning ! There is a shout out to a favorite lady.  :)

While I don't question the right of anyone to run a game as they see best, nor am I asking anyone to change their modus operandi, I'm going to be pretentious for a moment and say this mindset seems somewhat antithetical to the idea of roleplaying.

The whole idea is that the player should place themselves in the role of that thing rather than actually be that thing, when you insist the player already be that thing, there's less role to assume.

If there's a point or benefit to roleplaying, it is finding empathy for someone or something that is fundamentally different from yourself in at least one way.  It's taught me a lot of tolerance for people who aren't culturally, philosophically or biologically the same as myself, personally.  If you aren't stretching at least a bit to be that character, why are you playing that game as the player?

Sure it's going to be hard for someone who doesn't know what the actual military is like to speak correctly, and I certainly understand people pretending to know something they don't is frustrating, but I can't wrap myself around this mindset.

Not to mention someone who served in a foreign military or in a different decade from the GM's reference pool is still going to be "wrong", no matter how authentic the player may be.

What's really important here, each player getting the exact slang terms correct, or players learning what it's like to have to follow orders that could very well kill you to little or no appreciation?

I just find this criteria bizarre.  What if I want to run a game of Drow conducting political intrigue among each other?  Do I insist on all female players since all the major movers in that society will be women?  Or do I have to insist on actual dark elves only applying to that game?

In reply to drewalt (msg # 18):

I think his reason for pickiness was not so much concern over slang or terminology, so much as a grasp of the basic military mindset.  Yes, there's a lot of variations, based on where you serve (different nations have different military philosophies), which branch you served in (Marines will have a totally different notion of what boot camp is than Air Force), when you served (post-Vietnam 70's was a very different time for the military than during Desert Storm, which was very different from the current climate).

But I have enough friends in the military to notice that many of their stories, regardless of where, how, or when they served have familiar themes.  Knowing how a command structure operates, basic principles of small-unit operations, understanding how a sergeant, despite being lower in rank, can garner much more admiration than the officers above him, etc etc, are things that make a military game run smoother...but they're also things that a 'Hollywood soldier' won't necessarily grasp.

I agree with you that roleplaying is a chance to try and be something you aren't...but I can also understand how a GM with real military experience could have very little patience for players whose depth of military understanding is limited to Hollywood depictions.

In reply to drewalt (msg # 18):

Facemaker did an excellent job summing up my position.  Out of twelve players 2/3 have no direct military experience, and none have any Special Operations experience.  It's all a matter of being able to play a realistic soldier, particularly an Operator.  I've just had way too many bad experiences with people that have learned their idea of the military from watching one too many poor Hollywood depiction of it.

It severely strains credulity when someone is supposed to be playing an elite soldier and they run out in the middle of the street with a machine gun to "Hose the enemy down.", where Privates are flying jets, where all the officers treat the troops like pawns, snipers say "I always work alone.", and I can keep going on and on.  (I was in games where these have happened.)

I don't really care whether a potential player served or not, it's a matter of whether they can decently play the part.  Heck, the best roleplayer of military characters I know never served a day in his life.  His parents weren't military either.  The slang, that's the LEAST of my worries as a GM, occasionally I might say something about "It's really called ___" but that is rare.  The game I run, all the slang is stuff about the zombie apocalypse and it's effects, like zombies referred to as "Zulus".

Working off your example, it would be like me trying to play a Drow character like a thug from South-Central.  It doesn't fit into the game.  I wouldn't care whether the player was male or female but I would insist that the players could decently play a Drow.  Someone playing a Drow like an Orc barbarian would severely strain the game's believability.

How many of us really can get into the medieval mind? I would suggest that's a game genre where nobody will get it 'right', so it doesn't really matter. Your concept will be no worse than anyone else's.

Anyway, it would depend on the style of the game, surely? If the GM is running a tongue in cheek Hollywood depiction of Robin Hood or Camelot, you wouldn't really need to get into a genuine medieval mindset and you could just have some fun. Of course, if frivolous games simply don't appeal to you, that's a different matter.

In reply to icosahedron152 (msg # 21):

I don't think it's necessarily a question of whether or not it's 'right'...because, as you pointed out, who among us is actually going to play anything medieval in an appropriate fashion?

However, if you don't feel comfortable trying to play in a particular setting...if you feel like, no matter how you're doing it, you're doing it wrong...then it's perfectly understandable to want to avoid that particular setting.  That's one of the reasons why I stopped playing Vampire and Werewolf in the OWOD system (and haven't gotten back to them with the release of new editions)--there were only two or three options within each game that I found I could play comfortably, and everything else felt so foreign to me, on a fundamental level, that I just didn't enjoy the games when I tried playing something more 'mainstream'.  I enjoy the system, for the most part...but their settings and all the fluff just didn't feel like a good fit, to me.  So I can understand someone else having the same sensation about a specific historical period or some other setting or even specific plotlines.

Ok, Facemaker, QUIT reading my mind!  LOL

Again he got it right.  I don't feel comfortable playing in it.  I have to get 'into character' to post and I just can't do that to a degree I'm happy with with those games.  Well I can, but it takes a LONG time for me to do so and then I only spend a short amount of time posting.  If it was a face to face game, I probably still could (I haven't tried for a good 15 years).

As for frivolous games, I rarely play them.  Another thing that I have to do face to face.  I'll play funny/wisecracking characters, but almost never the setting itself.  I never thought about it, but it's kinda weird, IRL I'm rarely serious and constantly joking (you should see the eyerolls of my oldest daughter) but I'm usually playing in serious type games.

*grin*  Sorry, just speaking up in a situation where I feel like I understand where both sides are coming from (and, by representing your side of it, I also feel like I'm helping illustrate that it's not 'just you being you' and that there are, in fact, other people who understand or even share your position...)

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 24):

In all seriousness, thank you.  It's just strange to have someone sum up your viewpoints so succinctly as opposed to my normal rambling, meandering way of doing it.



I think this must be one of the signs of the apocalypse!  Lol

*laugh*  I've had it done enough times for me that it seems only fair I do it for someone else (the clear explanation of a rambling thought process, that is...)

Which (to bring this back to the question of looking for criteria upon which to select a game) highlights an aspect of what I mentioned earlier, about feeling like a GM is someone I could work with.  No, I'm not in any of pfarland's games.  But if the way he's described them in his ads is anything like what he wrote here, I probably would look into them, if I was looking to add another game (I'm actually at the point where I just declined an invitation to get into another game, because I'm concerned about having the time to stay on top of the ones I'm in now).

Find a GM whose thought processes make sense to you, or whose logic seems clear to you, etc...you'll find your game experience is a lot more enjoyable, if my experience is any indicator.  If they're asking for a bunch of stuff that doesn't make sense to you, then it's probably a good indicator that you should steer clear of that game.

Pretty much, with a LOT more detail.  I have a grand total of one game I run.  Though it's got 12 players so it's a bit larger than most.



I would say that for me it's not really necessary that the GM's thought/logic makes sense, but that he's willing to explain things.  The game's that I've had the most fun in have always been ones where I've asked "Why is such-n-such like this?" and the GM has been willing to explain their thoughts.  The ones I've had the least fun/quit are the ones that the response was "Because that's the way it is!"  A willingness to discuss (non-plot related) parts of the game (or even the RTJ) show me that the GM is reasonable.

The GM's that have been an absolute joy to play with are the ones that not only listen, but may even utilize what you say.  I've had a couple players in my game point out some things I was wrong about or they had just a better idea than I did.  Also, I've had more than a few approach me character ideas that didn't exactly fit into the game concept.  I haven't been able to fit all of them in, but I've always been willing to listen.

Most of those are players wanting to play non-military characters in the Spec-Ops group.  Even though (barring the exception below) up until now I haven't found a way, I've always prefaced it with "If you have a reasonable way to get the character into the group, I'll do it."  I've always been willing to discuss it with a potential player.  Just recently I've found a way to get a civilian in, but the person had to wait for a bit and take over a PC in the meantime (which looks like they didn't want to do).
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 20:10, Wed 07 Jan 2015.

Don't immediately discount red flags though, I have several low post games, but that is because they are all (except one) games for test playing an incomplete homebrew system mixed with my gming style being suitable more for sandbox than plotlines, (basically, I describe town and say "pick any road or tavern or shop or anything else you can think of to go do/find/see.") which seems to be difficult for those who are used to GMs that follow plotlines.

Yep, most of mine were/are play tests, too, and the ones that are running are sandboxy.

Multiple games doesn't necessarily dissuade me, though I will often look into those other games. A mastery of English is an absolute must, as well as the overall maturity of the advertisement content and name. I'm much more likely to seriously investigate a game titled "The Adjective Noun: Subtitle" than "XxnounxX.-.-.adjective:adjective Noun," with content that is well-organized and easy to follow, rather than a stream of consciousness. From that preliminary glance, the specific content of the advertisement itself plays a huge role in my decision. Does the author know what they're looking for? Has the idea been fleshed out sufficiently? How cool does this sound? Is the GM somebody I'd like to play with in real life? How creative is this person?

In reply to PeaceLoveScience (msg # 30):

Aka you would avoid my games rofl. You already know my writing skills!

In reply to Merevel (msg # 31):

Hahaha, all things with time, my friend. (;

I have to say that a GM with multiple active games would definitely make me think twice about joining.  As a GM myself, I'm just not sure it's possible to have a bunch of quality games going at the same time.  I know that there is no way I could run even two games to a standard I feel good about, but I am also a busy guy so a less-busy person who is really into RPoL might be able to keep two or three such games in the air.

I don't know if they could BEGIN three such games all at the same time, though.  In my experience the very beginning of a game is the most important part of its longevity--that's where you are going to set the tone and expectations of the game.  In my game, I began by running four individual threads for each of the four players with one post a day in each of the threads.  While this allowed the players to explore their characters, get to know each other, and become invested in the game, it also took a lot of freaking time on my part.  There is absolutely no way I could have done that with two games.

I also think that a lot of GMs underestimate the time it will take them to GM a good game, and end up abandoning one or all of those games when they discovery the commitment required.

Another thing I look at with GMs is their RTJ process.  The more extensive the RTJ the better, in my experience.  I've been in a several games where the GM was not very selective and those games were by-and-large not very good and are currently defunct.  I believe in this so strongly that I actually had callbacks for my game, where people with solid RTJs had to answer questions about what they were looking for in the game, what they expected of me, what they expected of themselves, and what they expected from other players, among other things.  This not only weeds out players who aren't willing to do the work of answering the questions (because if they're not willing to commit to that, how much will they commit to the game when other things arise, as they always do?) but it helps the GM to find players who are in sync with his or her style.

These are hardly iron laws, of course, but they're what I've experienced.  As for my bona fides, I've been running run game since August 2013 that now has 7700+ posts.  I still have the original four players who started the game, and we're all having a lot of fun.  They are fantastic players, by the way, and I credit them with a lot of the game's success.  But I couldn't have found them without the extensive RTJ process, and they might not have bought into the game in the way they have if I hadn't started out with such a time-intensive involvement in that particular story.

Your mileage, as always, may vary.  :)

I'm glad you acknowledged that mileage may vary...because I honestly couldn't answer those questions for any of the games I've joined.  What do I want out of the game?  An engaging form of entertainment.  No, I can't tell you what that means.  I don't join games with some notion in my head of what the game should be for me, I join games with the solidly-held perspective that it's the GMs game and whatever I get, I will strive to make the most of.

That being said, if you're satisfied with the results you get from a complex RTJ process, keep using it.  If it's working for you, there's no need to fiddle with it (says the guy who wondered why TSR came out with D&D2E when AD&D was working just fine for me...so take that with a grain of salt...*grin*)

That's really the thing...there is no one-size-fits-all solution to most of the questions involved in running a game.  Or in joining a game.  If you have a system that works for you, stick with it...you may want to tweak it, refine it, but keep using it if it keeps working.  Some GMs really like highly intensive RTJs, some find them burdensome, some are just willing to take whoever comes and try to make them work with what is going on with the game.  Some players look very carefully at the GM's track record before they RTJ, some just look at the game info...and a few just RTJ to whatever catches their attention.  If it's getting you what you want, there's no need to worry about trying it someone else's way.

If it's not...why are you still using that method?

Looks like you actually did answer the question, facemaker!  :)  I think everyone has things they're looking for from a game, and they've had experiences with GMs and other players that they liked and that they didn't like.  That's the sort of thing I'm looking for in my RTJ callbacks, to see if we have compatible expectations.  Your answer above would be more than sufficient for me to evaluate on that basis.

Hmm, I have different mileage, too. With a load like that I'm not surprised you find it hard going to start and run games. I tend to be a bit more laid back about who joins, and I'm equally laid back about attrition. Sooner or later you get a team that works, and hey, it's just a game, not an interview for a brain surgeon.

I think a RTJ process that intensive would put me off joining a game. What am I looking for? Fun. Is an interrogation fun? Nope. It's like trying to fall in love while someone is shoving a pre-nup in your face...

In reply to Machiara (msg # 35):

Every GM I've ever had ask that 'what do you want from the game' question expected a list of character goals, or specific challenges you wanted to face, or some kind of in-game achievement to be accomplished...

That's why I've stopped applying to games that ask that question (unless they make it optional, and then I give them the answer I gave you...*grin*)  I enjoy coming up with a character concept...and then watching that concept grow and develop over the course of the game.  I don't ever start out characters with an end-game in mind for them.

Well, I don't see it as an interrogation.  More like getting to know you as a player.  Here's a sample of what I sent:



This really helps me get to know the player somewhat, not just their character.  Is the player thoughtful?  Have they thought about what makes a good game?  Have they thought about what they're looking for in an RPoL game?  These are important things to know.  For example, if you're someone who is really into the tactical part of the game and finds role-playing a tedious slog from one exciting combat to the next then you probably won't enjoy my games very much.

If that puts you off from joining the game, then we're probably not that compatible as a GM and player anyway.  So either way its purpose is served!  :)

EDIT - And Facemaker, as you can see my questions are not really concerned with in-game achievements as they are with who you are as a player.
This message was last edited by the user at 08:13, Fri 16 Jan 2015.

Yes. That's what I find. I find that every game, from the most intensive of RTJs to the most laid-back, has a high attrition rate at first. Then you settle in, and as the game continues, you'll usually finalise a team that works; and the attrition rate drops. Occasionally you'll lose a player, due to RL, then there might be a period when you're swapping one position over a lot, but other than that...?

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.