With that example, I would have to say that's probably the special snowflake self righteousness.

And because I was seriously curious about OP's RTJ format, I went spelunking and found a 3.5 game advertising for players with this as the public RTJ post.


Are you being frustrated by people that submit paragraphs instead of filling in the blanks?  For a play by post style game, I could definitely see some people choosing to go that route since they don't seem to have much of an outlet for showing off their writing ability.

I'll deviate from my earlier position now and presume to speak for others.  I think the real answer might be that they find your format too limiting and don't have enough room to say what they want about their character idea.  Maybe you should include a disclaimer that you aren't looking for players that like to write a lot?

EDIT: Grammar strikes again!

DOUBLE EDIT:  Just noticed OP's post above mine.  That RTJ format is a little different from what you actually have posted.  Your actual public RTJ format seems more forgiving of deviations and only mentions "bonus points" for those that keep things shorter.  I think the issue is that you haven't properly communicated your expectations in your RTJ advertisement, so you're catching the interest of players that you wouldn't otherwise want to attract.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:07, Mon 29 Aug 2016.

The specific example of what's being deviated from is very helpful to making it more of a discussion, and I gotta say, that's pretty straightforward. What are the prospective players doing to deviate from your templates? Writing too much? Not including the information asked for? Including more information than you wanted?

I'm gonna start by assuming they're giving you character backgrounds, since that's the most common thing to include in an RtJ and you don't have a slot for it there.

I've had many instances of what I believe the Op is complaining about.  games where I have put specific limitations in an rtj (pick any class but beguiler, or your characters are starting with no knowledge of the orb of doom) and receive multiple rtjs with exactly what I asked to not be included.  Those pretty much show either an inability or lack of interest in reading an rtj request, or applicants specifically feeling that the rules do not apply to them.  Neither makes for a good application.

Ultimately, though, complaining about it doesn't solve much.  It will still happen, and will still pretty much mean an application is ignored out of frustration.

OUCH! What was that?


This venue for gaming attracts many types of people, but I would think the majority of those here like to write. I wouldn't be surprised that you get wordy, even flowery, RTJs. I know from experience that it can be frustrating to apply for a game you'd really like to play in, and feel like the things asked for in the RTJ are very narrow.

I guess I tend to "fill-in-the-blanks" of the RTJs I apply for, but at the end I add anything else I think might sway the GM to give me a second look. Also, more involved and lengthy RTJ processes have a way of weeding out those who are either more casual or not willing to stick out a game. It can be a great filter.

Honestly though, I don't see why the OP is so upset. If he's that bothered by it, he should just delete those RTJs that don't fit his mold... without reading them! ;-)

Thanks, that helps.
My intention is actually to just get an idea of a person's writing style, while putting a limit as to content. Personally, I gain more insight on a person's gaming and writing style when limiting the amount of nouns, adverbs, adjectives, etc... they may use.
 Now when creating sheets and posts, I absolutely, I encourage long flowerful posts.
To answer questions i have gotten 2 rtj's that followed my request. Of which, I thought was pretty straight forth; however, after hearing responses I can fine tune I suppose, :)
Other responses have been from full character sheets to 1500 + word descriptions.
I get it, With some character concepts, I find my self lost in fleshing him/her out!
But I still follow rtj requirements, and then after dialogue is established I introduce more.
Not that what I do matters. I guess this was prompted by what I see as general societal occurrences I recognise as much as it has to deal with my silly game that I love so.
So I guess I owe someone for an hour psych fee... lol

Was that sarcasm, or is it actually a common practice to carry around the same character from game to game, "shopping" until you can play it to your satisfaction?

I mean, I know that some players will make the same character over and over. I have one friend in our club who played three Pokémon games and created three Psychics with Espeons with the same name. (Although a lot of the other details were changed.) But personally I've always made a character from scratch for every game and would find it quite weird to rehash an old one.

I know some people re-use a character till they can play it for a decent amount of time. As in, if their character is in a game that dies after only a few weeks or months, they may take that same basic concept and try again. I do that sometimes. But the moment it's been in a game for long enough, that concept gets retired.

I myself am one of those players who likes to recreate the same characters in multiple games. That generally only happens until I get to actually play the character once or twice, which can take going through a number of games before finding one that lasts beyond the characters being introduced. What I find weird is players who outright refuse to make the same character more than once, even if they never got a chance to use the character made for a game that died. That's so strange.

I did see one explanation of why a GM wouldn't want a character who was created for another game, though. It apparently  puts up a different set of expectations from the player, assuming they'll get to do the same things or end up growing the same way, telling the same story. Not sure why anyone would want to do that to themselves, but it's apparently happened before.

i take my characters seriously, and they are like my children. lol so, i can empathize with wanting to use them to the intended purpose and satisfaction. i mean, who wouldn't after lovingly hand-crafting them, from concept, to polished up finished result?

I'll admit I've had a couple of characters that I lovingly created and only got to play for one day before the game died, and it still pains me. Unfortunately, those tended to be very specific games rather than "generic D&D", so the characters aren't really reusable. And in games where I could easily use the same character over and over, I've always made new ones. Go figure.

I tend to view the RTJ process as an audition for the GM as much as it is for me, the player.  I know of at least one GM out there that posts great game concepts, but the two or three times I've applied to their games, the process was so convoluted and painful that I avoid their stuff now (and I got through it to play the game, too, so it's not sour grapes talking).

If you ask for exactly X, Y, and Z, I'll give you X, Y, and Z.  I might add some formatting to make it clear that I know how to use the system and maximize readability, but that's about it.

well, of the two games i've participated in so far, i can say that my concept didnt make it into the game without having to be changed a bit... but i still came away satisfied.

With the aid of specific examples, I will modify my response, too. :)

The first example (msg 18) is pretty specific, and allows for very little deviation. You might want to put the word ‘physical’ in bold or capitals, to help prevent an actual failure to read from delivering background details, if you want to exclude them.

The second (msg 20) is less specific. You offer a ‘bonus’ for someone who can use 100 words or less, but you don’t state that someone who uses 1000 words will be rejected. The rest of it is very specific.

Alas, I don’t know what PrC is, so I can’t comment on that.

The problem I see with both of these RTJ templates is that they are so specific that they offer little or no opportunity to shine. From the player’s point of view, you are going to receive perhaps 10 or 20 identical RTJs and which ones you choose is pretty much luck of the draw.

The first example is the worst for this. If one person submits:
Fred, Wizard, god1, red hair and wears a blue robe,
and another person submits:
Joe, Wizard, god2, brown hair and wears a yellow robe,
How on earth do you choose between them? Toss a coin? Roll dice? How do they make their character catch your attention more than the other guy? You’re giving them no opportunity to shine, no opportunity to present you with a witty, lively, must-have character.

And surely you’re shooting yourself in the foot? Suppose you choose ‘blue wizard’, on the basis of your limited RTJ template and then find that the character (or player) is a total waste of space? If you’d allowed more opportunity for ‘deviation’ you’d have caught that a lot earlier.

Also, word limitations are fine if you only want to attract language masters to your game, but many players will hope that if they present a really brilliant idea for your game, that you will give their concept more value than their word count.

I’m not convinced that those player desires classify as either self-righteousness or a failure to read, they simply demonstrate an appreciation of your game concept and a desire to join it despite what they see as a frustratingly restrictive (and potentially self-defeating) RTJ template. Is that wrong of them?

Of course, if you make a specific statement like ‘no evil characters’, and someone presents you with an evil character, they deserve everything they (don’t) get.

So a suggestion might be to ask for the short '10 peso version' up front, and mention that if the characters wish to wax eloquent, then they may tack in onto the end. That way you can get your specifics up front and not miss out on a great player just because he or she wishes to write a novel for a RTJ! ;-)

Prestige class. Almost all (though not all) prestige classes in D&D have both severe mechanical requirements and a heavy lore requirement. You're not just "more powerful Fighter", you're the blessed protector of something or other. So if you want to head towards a PrC in a few levels, it's best the DM knows about it so the story can be adjusted for that.

Thanks Flint_A. :)

D&D has changed somewhat since I played it. Back in the day, we'd have added an I and a K to describe that sort of character.

"Is his character a Paladin?"
"Yeah, I reckon he's a Paladin"
"No, I'm just the Blessed P..."
"He's definitely a Paladin. Right, I'm going to..."

Fade to Black in the interests of a General Certificate...

I don't even bother asking people for character details. I just ask for a writing sample of about a paragraph or two, then a name and general concept. That way I can see what quality of writing the person can do, and also get a feel for what kind of player they are. That's what I've been told works well. Then the person can come up with the character details once they are accepted and we see what the cast looks like.

I agree, it is better to see if the player and GM can get along before wasting their time. Some players have complained about my rtj process before. I do not think they realised I want to know if we will get along before bothering to create a character.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:08, Tue 30 Aug 2016.

I feel like every time I create a new game, I run into new and unexpected problems with applicants.  It's hard to anticipate every complcation.  I've had games where everyone applied to basically be the same character at first (all six applicants the first day asked to be the same class race mix) those are situations where one applicants style might make them shine over others.
Then I've had people with very good writing skills and long and detailed character descriptions apply to be a character that doesn't fit the game at all, often because they didn't bother to read the threads on the game.
So its hard to judge exactly what makes the best rtj approach.  To me, try to give the gm exactly  what they asked for, and then ask if they like more.  Though, to be honest, its been a long time since I applied to play in a game.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 19:33, Tue 30 Aug 2016.

I know for me a lot of the time it's hard to see all the rules a GM wants, especially if I'm in a hurry.
Now, yes, that's on me, not them, and so is the fact that normally I have access through my phone. But, I've known GM's (no need for names, we've all had them) that if you didn't cross your T's and dot your i's perfectly the first time, then it was a no go. Period.

That sort of thing never sits well with me either.

In reply to Lord_Johnny (msg # 40):

Well, that kind of GM is probably going to be the same in game, so you don't want to play there anyway, better to find out up front.

Quite honestly RPOL seems to be for people who may not have much time in RL to game.  I have stopped even applying for games that have extensive rtj requirements.  how many times have I spent multiple hours on multiple days to get into a game only to have the gm bail on the game before it even starts.  If I put forth 5-10 hours of effort just to get into the game you best have more commitment to it.

I cant imagine why any gm would expect that much effort for an rtj.