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...?