I don't know how exactly this would work but I've got an off-the-wall idea.

It would be nice if there was a way for party members to signify that they have seen the threads and are ready to move forward.  How many times is momentum lost while the DM is waiting for everyone to post just to find out that the players were waiting on the DM?

Or...

Player#1 says, "I think we should do 'blah-blah-blah'", then players #2-6 feel it necessary to post, "Ok", "Ok", "Fine with me", "Ok", "After a little thought, Bobo nods in agreement".

Wouldn't it be nice if, for example, all the party's names were listed above the header inside the thread.  If you're a player and you don't have anything to add to the conversation you can just click on your name and it turns from red to green.  NOW, you have a DM that knows that he doesn't have to wait on you.  If all the players names are clicked then the DM's name goes from green to red and he, and everyone else, knows that they're waiting for the DM to give them the next bite of the story.

Is something like this possible?

In the Cast List the GM can see the exact time when each player last logged in to his game.  That would seem to serve the same purpose as what you are proposing.

I've had this happen repeatedly.  I can see Johnny's point, and while BBR is right about being able to see the login times, just checking in doesn't tell anyone if the player is planning on writing a response post or just cooling their heels waiting for someone else to post.

Whether as a player or a GM I usually resort to PMing everyone in the scene and nudging them to find out if they're ready to move on--but then I have to wait for everyone to check in again and make time to answer the PM.  If I'm a player and (heaven forbid) one of the characters in the scene is secretly a GM character, the login in time could be totally bogus and no help whatsoever and I'm still kept waiting for a response.*  I think Johnny's idea would streamline that process if it weren't too difficult a thing to code.

*I actually got annoyed with a GM PC once when it looked to me (a player) that the player had logged in and was ignoring me, when in fact the random assignment of login times to GMPCs was messing with me.

Would this be like a "ready check"? The GM clicks a button, and all the PCs click "ready to move on" or "I still have business to do here"?

That's what I'm thinking.  "Move on?"  Check.

Wouldn't be needed all the time, but really helpful when it is.

While a good idea in theory, in practice I can see taht the same players who delay the game by not posting will similarly not check the "move on" box, creating the same problem, but maybe even exacerbating it because then the GM really thinks the player is not ready to move on, rather than just not doing anything.

Just clicking on their name at the top of the thread doesn't really tell you whether they're planning to post or just cooling their heels either.  Or even if they've bothered to scroll down to read the latest posts.  It just tells you that they were in the game (which is what the Cast List does).

Note also that RPoL's policy on privacy is that only the GM can know the times when players log in to their game, everybody else sees only the date.  Requiring players to "sign in" would seem to go against that policy - players would know who had logged in since the last post was made.  Which, quite frankly, is nobody's business but theirs and the GM.

Additionally, as soon as anybody did post, it would very likely cancel all the sign-ins before that (since the site only tracks the time of the most recent post).  So two players mark that they've seen the thread, then a player posts.  When the GM comes in he sees the new post, but no longer sees that the other two players have looked at the thread.

Personally, when I'm GMing, I make a point of asking if people aren't ready to move on. If a player spends too much time 'just not doing anything', they probably aren't for my game anyway. So if I see all those little green indicators, I'm moving on :D
This message was last edited by the user at 18:27, Fri 11 Apr 2014.

I might not have been as clear as I meant.  It isn't about tracking sign-ins.  I've had (have) a problem with some players trying to push things forward before everyone else is ready just because they see that the cast lists says the person has logged in that day so they assumed no post meant no input.

Clicking "Move on?" would be the player stating that they are ready to move on without having to making the kinds of one-word posts Johnny was referring to or the nudging PMs I was referring to.  The cast list says someone has checked in to the game at some point in that day, yeah, but this would be specific to the thread it's in, not the game in general.  It's meant to facilitate play, not keep a log of who's online at the moment (someone could check in long enough to mark the box and then go on about their day--it doesn't say what time they marked the box or if they're currently online).  And it kinda would mean that they aren't typing a post, or they wouldn't check it and they'd be typing the post instead.  Knowing that someone has had the chance to give input before

Someone posting in the thread clearing the checks would actually make sense since one would expect the other players to go read the new post before agreeing to move on again.  That post might have changed events so that someone wants to respond before moving on.

I'm not married to the idea, but I do think it would be useful in the games I run and play in.  If it's too cumbersome to execute or unpopular I can leave it be.  I'll just keep knocking my players about the head with PMs and rMails.  :)

Couldn't you create a thread for this purpose?

When the GM posts 'Is everyone ready to move on?' in the thread, players can say 'Yes', 'No', or just not bother to post kinda like they'd do with a checkbox.

Yes, and I do that with PMs.  But if you've got a slower game where people only log in once a day or every three days, the process can take a lot longer than in a fast-moving game: The player logs in, decides they haven't got anything to say to move the scene along and will wait for someone else, then logs off without saying anything.  Now you have to wait for them to log in again to see the PM.  If there was a "Move on?" type deal, they could read, decide they had nothing to add, then check the box, streamlining the process.

Yeah, it's not going to solve the problem of players too lazy to say or do anything without being directly prodded, but it's better than nothing.

Then again, if it's a slower moving game, it doesn't matter that the process takes longer, because the game is slower moving anyway.

As mentioned above, you can achieve exactly the same effect by posting a thread and asking players to let you know if they're ready to move on.  It also has the advantage that their responses would not be cleared by new posts in the IC thread.  If one player has decided he has nothing to say, he doesn't have to keep going in to check a box to indicate this, just because somebody else posts five minutes after he clicks the box.  Instead, if he changes his mind, he just as to go and delete/edit his "nothing to add" post once.

There's a HUGE difference between waiting a day or three and being delayed a week or more waiting to get your players to respond.  I think it would simplify things for me, but I can see that this isn't a popular idea so I'll drop it.

I understand the point, but the implementation would seem to be problematic for the reasons said.

If the player logging into the game (viewable by cast list) does not show proof of some kind of participation, showing that the player opened a given thread doesn't show much either. Both could happen with a browser refresh I believe.

I've never attempted slower-paced games, but my general rule of thumb is that if a player has logged in at least two days without posting -- or if they do post, but it's something in the OOC thread that isn't quite a question -- they have nothing to contribute to the current situation for whatever reason. If they did want to but miss their chance, well they will post going forward.

Sort of like how threads can be bumped, storylines can be bumped too. If nothing is going on, change something. In important situations it can be something relatively minor like an NPC adds more dialogue, there's an environmental effect, whatever.

It's a relatively gentle "nudge" that says "Anything else guys?" without coming out and saying it, and the new development will oftentimes be enough to elicit a response. Not that there's anything wrong with asking directly OOC (nor is it wrong for players to be asked to mention OOC when they have nothing to add).

Similarly, I implement a "48 hour rule," meaning they cannot complain if I update the game and they have not posted in the last 48 hours.  ;)

Wow.  Quite the discussion.  :)  I thought this was a good idea for all the reasons that Evil Empryss mentioned.  Being that I couldn't argue my point any better than she did... well... I guess I'll let it drop as well.

I hadn't tried a "Are you ready to move on" thread.  Maybe I'll do that and see if it keeps things flowing.  Thanks for the discussion.

I'm glad I wasn't alone in having some lag frustrations. :P