I have seen a few games recently that have been advertising for new players on a first come, first served basis. IMHO that's fine if you are selling coffee or suchlike, but when seeking players for a game surely you want good people, not the first couple of jokers that happen to see your advert and respond.

My question is why would a GM do this and risk killing the game they are setting up? Why not do some quality control? Why not invest in good players who might actually contribute to the game?

Also, as a potential player would this put you off from even RTJing, knowing that you risk joining a game where the GM is just accepting anyone rather than good people?

Am I wrong? Are there good examples of games that have flourished on a FCFS basis?

Thoughts...?

I dunno. I think there might be too much effort spent on getting 'the right person' when writing samples really don't tell you a lot. I don't go first come, best served myself, but I don't rely on writing samples; I look at concepts. There's no guarantee of who I get will be good; and there've been some mistakes made; but in the end I end up with a good group.

Which is generally how games work in PbP I think. You struggle along with having to replace players for a while; and then you get a good group together.

I personally, hate the competitive nature of the RTJs of 'quality control'. I think you're going to turn away good, but inexperienced players; and doesn't help you to encourage the next generation of gamers.

I've seen games with extremely stringent RTJ requirements; stuff like 10,000 word back stories and references from other RPOL users that fell apart before they even started.  I see no problem with first come, first serve as the likelihood of it being a good game is at least equal to games with Elitist requirements.

It would depend, I think, on the type of game a GM wants; the first people to ask are likely to be ones who have a very strong enthusiasm for the game concept you're presenting, for whatever reason made them post so fast.

And it doesn't necessarily means those players are ones that will lose interested quickly either - the first game I ever joined here was on a "first come, first served" basis, and it went on for over 15'000 posts with those very same first three players who joined it.

I wouldn't personally use that particular method for new players, myself - I prefer to select ones who give me a solid character concept, like willvr says - but that's a matter of taste (I prefer peole invested enough in their characters to want to play them out). If one wants to start a game quickly and the tone of the game requires players who are strongly enthusiast about it, then taking the ones who joined it the fastest might be best.

TLDR: RTJ format is just another tool to tailor your game with - each type has its uses.

I won't even RTJ a game that wants a writing sample.

I don't think I've ever seen a game advertised that way either. I've seen games advertised as not first-come.

I would never run a game on first come, first served. That said, if I have 4 spaces and feel 2/6 applicants fit, I don't generally wait around before adding those two.


I don't ask for a lot in RTJs anymore. I find the more 'rules' and 'guidelines' a game has for RTJs, the more it puts people off submitting them. I just filter out afterward.

But I do generally expect an RTJ to contain a proper character concept summary (more than 3 sentences), to show that you've looked at the game info at least briefly, and to show interest.

But you don't even have to do that much, because if I feel something is missing I will ask. It's when you don't respond to the PMs with anything resembling interest or enthusiasm that I cross you off the list. (Or if you stumble on the unwritten Don'ts).

That's not at all fair. Asking for [whatever] as an RTJ doesn't mean anyone is or isn't Elitist. It just means that they want players willing and able to do [whatever]. And anyone not able or willing should look elsewhere. No snap moral judgments required.

I tend to run very specific games with very specific stories and very specific tones. I try my best to be very clear about what, exactly, I'm trying to do and how I plan to go about it. I've found that, most of the time, being very upfront about my plans and vision tends to attract players into whatever it is I'm doing.

I would never go FCFS. I need some sense of what kind of player they are before I can know if I want to tell that story with them. And even a short RTJ can tell you a lot. I've only ever ignored my instincts twice in all my Rpol days, and I've only ever had two players problematic enough to ask them to leave a game.

And yes, lots of my games fall apart for various reasons. Most games on Rpol fall apart for various reasons.

But whichever way you do it, player selection is essentially a crap-shoot.

Which of course was my point.  I wasn't judging GMs for having Elite requirements.  GMs are free to decide what is or isn't important to them.  What they think makes for the best group, etc...

Its just been in my experience that, in the long run, it doesn't seem to matter one way or another.

I don't advertise as "first come first serve".  I thought it was implied and to me the logical method of processing requests because I do process rtj's in a fifo like que but that does not mean I don't have criteria for joining and pass on some people that are not a good fit for the game.

If you get 50, 100, 200 applicants, do you go through every single one of them to pick the best? Work backwards from the most recent request to the first?  Check them randomly until you fill all your player "slots" and ignore the rest?

First come first serve games may be open to beginners.  Let them join and start working on a character before dismissing them out of hand.  Nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps "first come first serve" is a nicety so that the GM need not get into a confrontational back and forth with someone regarding rejecting them.  They can simply just say the game is already full.

EDIT: For full disclosure, I have only started one game as a GM on this site.  Much of my experience is from elsewhere.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:40, Tue 07 Apr 2015.

I think I can answer this handily.

Of the several games that I have run - the ones that usually crash and die; do so very early-on, and you usually find-out who is going to cause it not during the RtJ; but during the character creation or first few RP posts.

This is almost invariably (for me) caused by players who write well, pitch a cool, very-in-game-concept character, and then immediately want to run ramshod over the entire game by turning fluff concepts into bonuses for themselves and nearly crit successes at all times.  They get in the way of other players, and usually try to shout-down everyone else (not just in-character, but otherwise).  So, either A you try to work with said player, and the game dies a slow death over the next two months, or B you remove said player quickly; but, then find yourself in need of another player or two.

From there, it really is 'first-come, first-served' because guess what: I just pull the next player's RtJ out of the list.  If not, I tend to work with anyone willing to join at that point.

I am finding more and more: that the players who RtJ early and so-so on frequency, are the ones that make the game enjoyable and stick to it.  The ones who put as much effort into RtJs as some games are asking... end up being disappointed when the game itself does not live up to the same standards as the RtJ requirements.  This is of course just my finding.

My most successful games? The ones in which I have almost no RtJ requirements at all; and instead just ween people-out through the character generation process.  If you don't get along with the others in the OOC; guess what: you're not gonna cut it.

Why would someone go FCFS for a game?  Well, if they're a new GM, they likely haven't developed specific criteria they look for.  If they've been aced out of a game because the GM sat on their RTJ until someone 'better' came along, they're probably determined toavoid giving someone else the shaft in similar fashion.  They may just be putting something together to play-test a concept or try out a new system and as such, they aren't too fussed about who's playing, because they know it's only a very temporary arrangement.  There's probably a few other significant variations, but ultimately, they all boil down to this:

Because they wanted to.

I've never gotten anywhere near 200 RTJ's for any game I've ever run. I got well over 50 for one, once. And I did, indeed, read every single one. Both as they came in, making a short-list, and then again when I stopped accepting new applications.

I ever did get 200, then I would do the same. Read, read, short-list, short-list, re-read, repeat until done.

it could also be a technique to give possible players a motivation to apply in a timely fashion.

All of my games are "first come, first served".  Then again, I always advertise new games in my existing games first, so the first applicants are always people I know pretty well, and get along with.

Only if I still have slots left will I post an ad in Wanted - Players.

Back in the Golden Days we used to have a Gaming Club at the local library.  There was a first come, first serve policy in effect because of the limited table space.  The DMs were allowed in first along with the Host  A few minutes later the Players were allowed to find seats.  It was like musical gaming chairs.  The campaigns were ongoing, but the Players could change from week to week depending on where you stood in line outside the Game Room.  Long time players knew a little about each campaign because you never knew where you'd end up sitting, but everyone had a favorite.

Odd little rivalries and alliances cropped up, but it was all in good fun for the most part.  Dang I miss those endless summers...

I have to wonder how far people actually take the idea of 'first come first served' in games.  I mean I can understand if you have five slots and you get five players right away who meet your RTJ requirements, there is no need to wait for any more.  But how many GMs who claim to run first come first served games will work with a player who obviously isn't right for the game (didn't fully read or adhere to the RTJ, has an unfitting character concept, uses TXT talk, takes a belligerent attitude, etc.)  If it's just a matter of 'I have all the RTJs I need and they're all good', I don't see a problem with the format.  But I'd be suspicious of joining a game where the first people who happen to click the 'request access' link are the ones who get in, period.

I don't think I'd apply if the GM specified FCFS.  That might work out well, but if strictly adhered to, leaves it open to collect a group who have no idea how to do a proper RtJ anyway, who can't get in to other games and/or are no longer welcome with some, who can't do a writing sample (or compose a coherent post either), etc.  If the GM takes the first x number of decent apps, fair enough, but I've been in games where the GM will take anyone, and that was no fun at all.

On the site I moderate, several GMs plan well ahead and advertise games that will start after a specified date in the future.  Of course they also expect a complete character sheet, including history.  It's a smaller site and they probably know most of the applicants, which can help them pick also.  Sometimes one will make an effort to have at least one player they don't know, if the application is decent, to keep their pool of favoured players from becoming too limited.

In reply to Brianna (msg # 17):

Or perhaps you get players who are starved to play and are willing to post often.  The "first come" is most likely going to be seen by some one who is constantly on the site waiting to update in other games.

The assumption some make is that hard criteria = better players, but there's no hard evidence to prove that.  At least not in my experience.  There's really no way of knowing what you're going to get.

"Jump in and let's play right away" might work better than "Take a week to figure out which people I want, another week to create characters, another week to get things straight and then eventually... play."  By then it's the holidays or someones computer breaks down or work is crazy, etc...  Meanwhile the pick up game has been up running for a month.  Maybe the DM has to kick 3 players and bring in 3 new ones during that time, but at least it's alive and moving.

Just a thought.

I don't ask for writing samples.  That's so demanding.  It's a two way street, the GM finding players, players finding gms.  I prefer a sort of interview process.

I ask for short writing samples, just to see if a prospective player has a handle on basic spelling and grammar.

It helps me weed out the writers whose prose makes my eyes bleed.

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 20):

"Basic spelling and grammar?" As in . . . what, exactly?

Several of my Players are real world friends . . . and I have yet to find a Player who doesn't absolutely SUCK at punctuation.

As a writer and editor, it would drive me absolutely NUTS . . . if I allowed it to. I therefore only require that my Players post more than once a week.

That's asking enough of them.

I'm a little with Tortuga.. I don't require writing samples other than the profile write up, though. I have a Bachelor's in English and Masters in Teaching English, but I am not in that realm when I come here. I won't go through with a fine-tooth comb, but the common error with 's and there/they're/their, to/too/two... those kind of drive me nuts.

I find most player problems can be solved by bringing in a large number players regardless of rtj requirements. In fact I really only judge on two things, "is it clear they didn't read anything I posted about the game?" and "is it clear they will cause problems during the game?" if no to both, then I accept them.

Then in the beginning part of the game, chargen, discussing the world and getting everyone sorted into the start of play, some players drop out, others get kicked out (in theory, I have never actually had to kick anyone after the rtj), then I still have a full group after that. Additionally, I've found larger groups seem to be more active and last longer.

Of course my test games don't get enough players, but it was funny to get swamped with them when I ran a quick PF game.

The first question everyone needs to ask themselves, "Am I the one running this game?".  If the answer is yes, then do not set a FCFS statement and do things the way you want.  If the answer is no, then either apply or bypass the game.  The choice is yours to make.

In reply to tulgurth (msg # 24):

True that.

If you think the GM's favoured method of player selection doesn't work, whatever it may be, then simply don't join the game and stop worrying about it.  Because, obviously, the GM is of the opinion that it will work just fine for his game.

Having joined a couple of games that operate under the FCFS system (at least, they did when I joined them), I've gotta say that, years later with both games still actively operating, I'm not seeing a whole lot of reason to consider it a bad way to populate a game.

I probably wouldn't do it, myself, unless I stipulated in the RTJ information that I reserved the right to reject character ideas if I felt they didn't fit well...but I certainly wouldn't consider it a reason to NOT join a game.

Why not? How hard is it to cut and paste a post from another game you play in?

That's all well and good; but some games writing sample requires it to be for the character you would be playing.

Also, not everyone who's a RPer is a terrific writer. Should that ban them from playing -any- games?

I'm not actually stating that I'd never apply to games which require a writing sample. I have, and if the concept of the game interests me, will probably again. But I think there are valid reasons for people to not. Writing samples aren't my favorite forms of RTJ; because it takes me time to get into a new character; which most games with writing samples that I've come across don't take into account. In fact, the majority of games requiring writing samples that I've joined are probably due to the GM knowing me from other games.

In reply to Jarodemo (msg # 27):

And how does your cut'n'paste relate to the character you're wanting to play in that particular game?  As a GM I would not accept some random cut'n'paste (which might not even be the player's own work - yes I've had players copy "their" writing sample from a game that they aren't even a member of.  Really easy to find that out when you're a Moderator  :) ).

Well...having been in a couple of games where I have to regularly re-read sections of their posts in order to have ANY idea what they're actually saying...

I'd say it's a case of figuring out if someone's writing style is so far 'out there' that the amount of effort required to decipher their posts will never be outweighed by the fun of them being in the game.  And that bar floats to different heights for different people.

I mean, I have a GM who routinely misspells words.  His punctuation is terrible.  His grammar is marginal, on a good day.  But he tells a very enjoyable story, so I generally don't have to try real hard to summon up the enthusiasm necessary to figure out what he actually means when he puts the wrong word in a sentence or spells an NPCs name seven different ways in three consecutive posts.

There's a player in that same game whose spelling is pretty good...his punctuation is as bad or worse than the GMs, when he bothers to punctuate.  And he apparently doesn't read anything past the first three lines of any post, even when it's your character directly addressing his character (in all fairness, he's getting better at that).  But he does NOT tell an enjoyable story, and trying to follow his line of thought through a series of posts is almost migraine-inducing.  If it was my game, he probably wouldn't be playing in it.  As it is, I try to avoid one-on-one situations between our characters because it's kinda like listening to someone scratch on a chalkboard for an extended period when it happens.

So, yeah, I can see why a GM, who has to pay attention to EVERYONE'S posts, would potentially have some interest in making sure that their players had a writing style that was at least remotely enjoyable...or, at the very least, not painful to deal with.

ROFLMAO

"Face," that's what I call writing in a foreign language! LOL

It happens far more often than it should.




Wait a minute! You mean to tell me that you know Players that don't do that? Do they play Sword & Sorcery style games? LOL

It happens a lot. I usually spend a considerable amount of time cleaning those up, just so as not to confuse my other Players. "What in the heck is he talking about? That's not what so-and-so said!"




OMG! Someone with the same pet peeves! Do you play Sword & Sorcery games? LOL

In reply to Mystic-Scholar (msg # 31):

Hahah.. no. I have been RPing since I was at least 12 (when I got my first computer... lolz). I have always done freeform only because I considered myself to be less of a gamer and more of a writer. I don't have the attention span anymore to learn about the world of systems and rules.

A tend to focus on three things when evaluating players I haven't gamed with before:

 -Concept (will it work for the game in question?)
 -Player personality (Are they confrontational or a team player?)
 -Compatibility.

That last one is HUGE. I have had amazing players in various games who for various reasons CANNOT get along with one another due to fundamentally different play-styles. I can game with them separately in different games, but they cannot be in games together.

Compatibility actually ranks nearly above everything else.

I'm with you on that WarriorPoet. Although I'm generally less concerned about the character concept itself than I am with the player behind it.

I'm generally looking for whether or not this player will work in this game. As such, their character concept is really only useful to me as a lens through I can view the kinds of stories they want to tell.

If I want to play a down and dirty street level game focusing on interpersonal problems and social conflicts, and I get a pitch for an orphaned assassin with no friends or social connections and who only speaks with the edge of her sword, then it can be the best concept ever, and they be the best player ever, but clearly we're not interested in telling the same story.

I've had lots of players apply, be accepted, and then I asked them for a whole new character for whatever reason. And all my players undertake (endure) extensive character workshopping. And I've lost more than one prospective player because of that.

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.