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.