True first-come first-served is kind of crazy.  First-come first-served with the caveat that it has to be a RTJ of at least minimal quality works fine.  I'll echo everyone else's experiences with players that write a good game up front but fall apart in play.  Hell, there have been a few characters that just never resonated with me (or resonated in the wrong way) that I was the problem with.

There's also the consideration that what works well in prose may not work so well in the actual game.  Some concepts stretch and twist in unfun ways when they meet interaction with other players.

Did you honestly expect a different result?  Do not get me wrong true, it is the GM's game and we are the ones in control, however it is the player's character.  Depending on the GM and their RTJ requirements, a player can invest a lot of time into creating their character.  Then, once they find out they have been accepted into the game they have to ENDURE, your word, an extensive workshop to get their character just right for the story you want to tell.  I realize some workshopping or tweaking, use whatever word you wish, has to be done to insure the character fits within the setting.  But, if I had to totally tweak the character through an enduring process, I would find that a turnoff to the game and would most likely leave too.

I didn't really think so.

I enjoy the storytelling aspect of role playing, but my actual "writing" takes place elsewhere and is published elsewhere.

I use my games to get a feel for what others might, or might not, have done in a "similar situation" as my characters. I appreciate getting differing perspectives and/or reactions on/to things.

In reply to Shiv (msg # 18):

There's a big gap between 'I'll take anyone' and the weeks of preparation method.  And if it's "I'll take the first x decent RtJs" that's not truly FCFS.  Also the FCFS method might indicate a GM who can't be bothered to create much himself, and thus be no fun to play with, if indeed the game actually gets going.

There is no formula for getting that magical mix of players/GM/scenario that results in an awesome game, or at least a very good one.  When I look back on games I particularly remember (for good reasons) some of them were less restrictive for RtJ than others, but I can't think of one that didn't have some planning by the GM.  In fact the best had players hand picked and invited by the GMs, character creation and history done together as a group since all characters knew one another, and the GMs had pretty much written a book of background and CC info for us; unfortunately there's no way to guarantee the GM will remain in good enough health to play.  *sigh*  But it was awesome while it lasted.

I also remember one, not so happily, where the GM took anyone who applied, including a player we had all warned him about.  The guy couldn't fit into a story, his posts were incomprehensible, no matter how many times you read them, and he often (usually?) ran counter to what other players/characters wanted.  Like the game where he had a hissy fit when other characters suggested masking the hooves of his centaur before they tried to sneak into a rock cave.  In the game I was in with him, he died at the hand of other characters when he attacked the elven queen (also a PC) because he didn't like elves, despite having been told when he went into the game that there was a wide range of character types.

Yeah. And it happens. The goal, of course, is a process that respects both the story and the character. Take what the player gives you and try to tie it into the story so both are enriched.

But it's not for everyone. Some people just don't like workshopping at all. Some people aren't interested in changing anything. More often, my players find the workshopping process both fun and useful. But in either case, it's a necessary step for me. I have a hard time GM'ing characters I don't understand inside and out.

All I can do is warn people it's a thing that happens. And then the people that are into it stay, and the people that aren't, they go.

It's worked out for me far more often than it hasn't.

I never apply to first come first served adverts. This is purely because it takes me so long to write up characters as I'm registered dyslexic.

Writing can be a challenge for me sometimes especially if I'm tired so I tend to see an advert for a game and spend the day thinking about a concept for it then write it down, spell check and spell check again before applying, by the time I've done that for a FCFS game its usually been fully booked up.

I had the good fortune to stumble upon one of Ron's aforementioned FCFS games...saw the ad just before I had to go to work.

So I sent in my RTJ...which initially consisted of, "I have to go to work right now and don't have time to properly write out everything you asked for...but I want to get my foot in the door, and let you know I'm interested, and I'll submit my character tonight after I get home from work."

I've actually taken that approach on several games.  It doesn't always work...but it's surprising how many times it does, especially if you follow up and actually send in a completed, formal RTJ within 24 hours or so of the initial "save a slot for me!" request.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 41):

Actually this is my favorite approach to see.  Then again, I don't ask for much during an RtJ... I just want to know if the system is going to work with you.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 41):

True story. I've done that many times, and had many players do so for my games.

One thing I don't like about fcfs is the feeling of being rushed, like I need to figure out if the game is something I actually want to spend time on while spending very little time figuring that out.

Of course, maybe that's just because saying "d20!" isn't a good enough reason for me to join a game.

None of the games I'm in are d20.  Personally, I feel that if a game doesn't sound intriguing right away, I don't bother with it.  There are enough interesting options out there that I can find something I don't need to deliberate about joining.  I've also found that the games I persuade myself to join end up feeling like a chore to play, and I find myself sighing in relief when the game grinds to a halt.

Jarodemo, I'm on the same page as you with respect to this.

As a potential player, FCFS games definitely put me off from applying to games. On the occasions I have pushed myself past this point, I have ended up regretting it. One of the most frustrating things to me is that many GMs out there seem to not even try with quality control when selecting people to play in their games. As a result, many times I have joined games where my fellow players' ability to write is not in line with my preferences. It's not about elitism. Text is our medium, and for me, having a game with good writers really helps add to the immersion. It's a preference.

The first game I joined after becoming a member of this site said specifically that it was not FCFS. The game went on for a couple of years and some five thousand posts and was one of the best games I've been in. Not everyone was a novelist, but the posts and the play were good and it was great fun. It did eventually "fall apart" but I don't think it fell apart because the writing was too good.

Since then, I've almost exclusively applied to games that are selective - which in my experience are rare.

---

As a GM, since I've been playing on here five years ago, I've experimented with a variety of models for taking players. My philosophy is that if a player can't jump through a couple of hoops, they're not really interested in the game and I don't want them. I'd rather have a small number of people that match my criteria than a large number of people who don't have high standards for their writing or the writing of their fellow players. I want to create a certain atmosphere, so I'm alright with being selective.

This is not terribly helpful, but the best way of finding people I've found so far has been to recruit from existing sources (people I already know are good writers and not likely to go AWOL). Sometimes I want new blood though, fresh faces, or I just don't have enough players that are interested from my own sources so I have to go public. (insert shudder)

The last time I put out a game to the public, I did so after already sourcing about half the players in the game. It was for an extended campaign that I knew would be long, so I specifically asked for people that were able to make a commitment. I asked also for the following:

• A writing sample - but I let them share a link to a post from an existing game, I didn't make them answer to a prompt.
• Specific examples of any long running games they've been in on RPOL, and what characters they played in the game.

Two things of note here:

• I received only six responses. Not many, but I was only looking for about three more people. It was fine with me.
• Of the three I selected, two are still in the game.
• The one I selected that disappeared on me was great while he was there. He was also the only one who didn't have a referenced long running game he was in because he was presumably new to RPOL. I took him regardless of this. I should have known better.
• The game is still going strong.

To an GMs out there who want to be more stringent but are afraid they won't get people, you'll get enough people and they'll be more in line with what you want, and you'll enjoy running the game more and all your other players will appreciate it all the more.

Of course, history with long-running games isn't everything.  I've been in several, but I've also had periods of my life where I vanished because of RL issues.  Heck, I'm only just now coming back after one such incident.  I'm a solid player as long as I don't lose my job, but... well, that's not really predictable, is it?

Personally, I find that your options for timeframe will vary wildly with the system/setting/whatever you're using.  If it's something not-so-popular, then you can accept applications for a bit.  If it's super popular (D&D and its derivatives), though, you're likely to have twenty applications in a couple of days.  Keeping the window open longer is just not helpful.

It's not. That's why I did my due diligence, talking to the GMs of those games.

There's no getting to 100% certainty on anything, but that doesn't mean that you can't try.

Another way to look at FCFS is, as a GM you know what you want for a group make up within your game.  Because of such you are willing to take the first applicants who submit those classes you are looking for.  If it takes 15 RTJ's to get that group composition, then so be it.  This can be classified as FCFS, but in reality it is not FCFS.

The one I love most are those GM's that require "GOOD WRITERS".  No I am not picking on anyone in particular, but I have only seen 2 people volunteer the information on their credentials tomnb able to judge who is or is not a good writer.  One an editor and the other with a Masters in Education.  I have a running joke I used against the grammar and spelling Nazis; If you are not a qualified teacher or an editor, you are qualified to judge or correct my spelling or grammar.  So when I see these GMs requiring good writers I have to ask myself, how are you qualifiedmto judge my writing skills?  Again, only a joke, but definitely a signal to me that someone is an elitist when gaming.

When GMs start a new game they always go to those they have gamed with in the past and had fun in those games.  We are all guilty of this as GMs, but to see someone shudder at the entry of a new person (sorry Waxahachie, not picking on you, I promise), it makes me think if I ever want to game with that person.  Asma GM I have the belief that not only is it my responsibility to run my game, but also to propogate the hobby of rpgs.  If I came across someone who wanted to learn the system I GM'd, then I would welcome them with open arms, whether the result was good or bad.

Waxahachie if you are offended by my singling you out of the crowd, I apologize.  I have said not before and I will say it again, every GM has the right to run their games the way they want.

Actually it is, in one very specific case...  If the player has a known history with my long-running games, then I know all that I need to know about that player.  Which is why I offer games to players that I already know before throwing out a public ad.

That's a bit different, but it still doesn't ensure a person is going to remain reliable.

I was in a similar situation with a group of folks that shared games mostly among each other for 3-4 years, but the last few games were riddled with RL issues and multiple, formerly-reliable players vanished.  Just because someone was a solid player yesterday doesn't mean they're a solid player today.

It's a criteria that I use, myself, though, so I'm far from arguing against it.  I'm just pointing out that it's not perfect.

When I throw out RTJs, I look for a handful of things (with #4 being the trump card):

1) Can they actually read and follow directions?
2) Do they type in a manner that doesn't want me to kill them?
3) Do I get a feeling of "character" from their application or is it just a "I want to be a fighter!" mechanical thing?
4) Do I know them from somewhere, and is that good or bad?

That's very close to my acceptance process honestly. Most of that is intuitive. On (3), I use my RTJ to try and ensure that I'll get more of the former and less of the latter.

I was going to stay clear of it since it is drawing things off topic, but as criteria for evaluating RTJs, posting frequency is a big one for me.  Each game doesn't always have to be high, low or some preconceived posting rate, but the group of players selected need to have similar posting rates.  No matter how good the players writing example or enthusiasm for the game, if you have one person that wants a game with something going on every day and another that posts just once or twice a week....

EDIT: and this can be another reason for a fcfs.  Perhaps wanting people that are quick to read and respond to posts.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:57, Fri 10 Apr 2015.

In reply to tulgurth (msg # 49):

I typically don't volunteer information about my degree. I don't like the idea of throwing it around, especially since no one would really know if I'm telling the truth (I am ---got 60k in loans to prove it ;) )

Honestly, I really don't need to know what qualifications people have to judge writing because I can typically see it in their own writing. Chances are, if I am applying to the game, I seen at least someone there I believe can write well enough.

I'm not sure I need to be qualified to decide what I like. Think about it like this: I think people that aren't Michelin rated chefs can still make a choice with respect to where they might like to eat dinner. Similarly, if I'm the GM in a game, I can make a choice about what type of writing suits me without needing a degree to prove it.

As a GM advertising a game, I feel like I should be honest with prospective players with respect to what I'm expecting from them - and what their fellow players will be like. I put an effort into my games, and I ask that players do the same. I put an effort into writing coherent sentences, with correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation to the best of my ability. I've never asked from my players something that I myself am not willing to do.

My predilections regarding FCFS games is entirely one of respect for others:

• As a GM, I don't run FCFS games because I don't want people to waste their time on an RTJ if it's unlikely that I'll accept them.
• As a player, I don't apply to FCFS games because I don't want to waste the time of the GM and my fellow players. While they may not write in accordance with my own stylistic preferences, I still respect them as fellow people and players. If I feel uninspired, I will bow out, so I try and save everyone the time and let their story progress in the fashion that they most enjoy.

There are many kinds of people and writers and they are all entitled to have fun in their own way. In being selective and using quality control to try to ensure a certain gaming experience in my games, which may not be for everyone, I'm only doing my part as a member of this online community to make sure that people are where they want.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:50, Fri 10 Apr 2015.

The only issue I have with extremely elitist games is that I don't think it helps perpetuate the hobby as a whole. How is someone new meant to get involved? This is becoming more prevalent as there are more and more people who's first experience in RPing might be through an online medium. It also tends to make it harder to get people to improve.

I don't tend to do FCFS either; but it's close. Despite my desire for improvement, I do occasionally come across a player I won't let into my games; and I won't play in the games of. But this is not ever due to writing quality - as I've said; I'm a fan of getting people to learn, to improve. Even if we're looking at my online gaming experiences, if no-one was willing to give me a go 10 years ago;  I probably wouldn't be now in the situation where some people tell me "Don't worry about a writing sample; I know your ability well enough by now". But occasionally, someone rubs me up the wrong way - someone earlier commented on compatibility; and this is what this is about.

But as long as we never get to the point where -all- games require those elitist demands, it's all good. If anyone asks; I'll always argue against intensely elitist requirements; because if too many do, we struggle to get new players to the hobby; and if we never get new players, we stagnate. New blood is good.

 To be honest, I believe some games are in such a niche genre, sometimes a GM takes anyone who shows up. When an idea is popular or likely to be popular, GMs tend to screen players more because they can afford to be more picky. Sometimes said niche ideas start slow but then interest surges and the GM has to cut off letting in new players because they already accepted the max amount of people who were there first. You can not have some one join your game, then kick them out so a better writer can take their spot.

When I am preparing to run a game, the last thing on my mind is perpetuating the hobby. I'm looking to find enjoyment in working with people who want to play out a story.

I don't see requirements for basic spelling and grammar to be 'elitist' and am getting tired of that label. Isn't it more exclusionary to expect someone to understand the nuances of a complicated system? believe me, I have heard many horror stories about people who belittle someone who doesn't understand the arcana of some of the popular systems out there and who offer little or no help.

My RTJ is always pretty simple, once we get past any age statement. Just tell me the name of your character and what she/he is like ( a few sentences suffice). If I know you -- have played with you here -- it certainly affects my decision, but I'll generally include anyone who doesn't seem off the wall.

I'll work with players to craft their characters and figure out the relationships with other PCs, if needed. I like to get the game on its feet and the first scene started within a week of RTJs. I've started games with just two characters, prefer three to six, and have started with as many as nine.

I have a personal commitment to bring every game to a satisfactory conclusion. There was only one I had to close down because I'd taken over a system and genre from the original GM and found it wasn't a good fit for me.

I generally run Call of Cthulhu, Trail of Cthulhu, and Savage Worlds.

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 58):

-That- is not; but there are some which are extremely elitist. Which makes it hard to encourage new players; which, in turn, means you're playing with the same people all the time; which if it goes on long enough, starts getting stale.