Transcript of previous version before things got heated:

LissaAzules

I have experience on both sides of this equation and am curious about:
1) Do you think DMs/GMs have any obligation to inform players why they weren't chosen (or even that they weren't)?
2) What experiences (good or bad) have you had being told you/your character wasn't accepted to a game?
3) How have/do you handle letting potential players know you selected someone else?

Sir Swindle

"I'm sorry you were not added to the game at this time."

That was the message I sent last time I ran a game.

They aren't under an obligation to anyone. But it is certainly polite.

I've only gotten pushback one time from someone. He litterally said "Let's put making sense aside." During a discussion about his character. So I wrote him off and stopped talking to him. He was mad when I added other players. But fuck'em.

Window Watcher

You might not be obligated, but I certainly think it'd be polite.
At the very least, letting them know (even without an explanation) doesn't leave them hanging, waiting for a reply. Not like it takes much of your time.
Telling them "sorry, we're just full at the moment" is easier on their nerves. Maybe they can retry later.
If applicable, could let them know what would need to change to let them in.

If they're just a troublesome applicant, can tell them "sorry, this isn't going to work out," and if they continue pestering, ignore them.

This probably depends on the nature of the game, and workload, but: When I have the amount of players I want, I don't bar others for joining, I just stop actively advertising. (Not to say people automatically get in.)


I've been in the situation of "sorry, we're full" only to later see another character added, haha. (Did get in later though.)

Advisor

Yeah so far what the others have said I agree with:

1) There isn't an obligation to inform, but it is polite to at least say you didn't get in. Anything beyond that is nice but not needed. In a new game situation there are probably quite a few RTJs and it's understandable for the DM to not give individual responses to everyone saying 'you didn't get in because xyz reasons' and someone else 'you didn't get in because abc reasons' etc. But a generic message of 'I have now picked my players from the many RTJs I received. Thank you for applying however your application was unsuccessful.' Just copy paste that to everyone who didn't get in. At least they are aware and can move on. If they ask for feedback you can give it to them if you want, ignore them or you can give them another generic message of 'Sorry but it would be difficult for me to respond to everyone asking questions for feedback, thank you for your time.'

2) For me just following #1 is enough. So a bad experience is not being told I didn't get in and the only way I know is a look and see the adventure has started and I'm not in it, frustrating. A good one is just telling me I didn't get in so I know I can move on and start looking elsewhere. A great one would be a personalised response that says why I didn't get in. This is great because I do not require or expect it so it is nice if someone goes to the little extra effort to inform rejected players on why they were rejected. But as I said in #1 I would consider that a kindness if they do that rather than a rudeness if they do not.

3) Exactly what I said in #1, a generic message to the failures to let them know to move on. Usually I will ignore any further responses after that. The only exception is if it was someone I really liked and it was just a case of I was looking for 6 players and dthere were 7 really good RTJs then I might give a more detailed response to the rejected player along the lines of 'I really liked your RTJ and honestly it was a tough decision. If you're ok with it I'd like to keep you in mind in case players drop out.'

V1510n

All good advice to this point.

I'd add that you should make it clear in the RTJ what the process will be after the play submits the RTJ. It's kind of a contract about what you are expecting and will be doing e.g. you won't review until some date, you hope to have completed by some date, and so on.

Advisor

Definitely a good point, I would suggest that being in the RTJ info itself. Also in that you can include if you're going to tell them if they failed or not. You could just say 'If you have not heard from me by x date you did not get in, thank you for applying.'

Window Watcher

I'll put something like "Give me a week to respond to your RTJ/character pitch. If I don't get back to you by then, ping me."
Sometimes I'll reply to their RTJ "I'm tied up and won't get to this for a few days" or such.

It might be good to mention in the RTJ thread that not everyone will be accepted (group size limit or whatever), just to reduce the blow of rejection.

LissaAzules

From the player side of the screen, I just feel that "you weren't selected" is kind of a rude f you to the person who put a lot of time and thought into a character concept...

I recently did a rtj for a game where the DM wanted backstory, background, personality traits, ideals, bond, flaw and a writing sample with your character interacting with an NPC...  the response was "the rtj has been closed and unfortunately you weren't selected"...

I admit that, on the surface, that seems like a polite rejection but it still leaves me with unanswered questions...

Was my concept poor? Was my writing sample bad? Did my concept just not fit this particular game? Was it a good concept/writing sample but others were just better? Did you not even read mine because you got so many requests that you found enough players before you even reached mine?

And on and on my mind spins into the dark abyss of doubt...

I try to let people know, not in novel length detail or anything, why they weren't selected...  Kind of a "treat others how you want to be treated" thing but, unfortunately, the prevailing attitude seems to be more of an "I've got my players so go away"

Not on this site, but I once got just "No" as the response to a request I had sent to join a pbp game...

Advisor

I do get where you're coming from for your example, you spent a lot of time on an RTJ and you received very little in your rejection.

However, there are a couple of points I would consider:

First, there are tiers to the response a DM could give: No response, simple rejection (generic sorry but you weren't selected), personalised rejection (I didn't feel your concept would mesh with the others I selected), detailed rejection (this part of your backstory doesn't work, someone else I preferred picked this same class, I didn't think your writing sample would be a good match for me, etc).

Now obviously the more in depth they go the 'nicer' they might be. So already the DM is at least making some level of effort since they could have just gone silent on you. I would regard a simple rejection as at least being 'polite' and anything more than that is being 'nice' or 'more considerate of the time you spent to RTJ'

Second, RTJs can often fill up a lot especially if it's a popular system or setting. So either the DM can be nice and answer everyone with some amount of detail which could potentially take an hour or a few hours which is a lot of time to dedicate to being 'nice' instead of just 'polite'.

In addition, despite the time the DM invests being 'nice' people might still get upset just because they were rejected or, a bit more extreme, because they spent hours on this RTJ anything less than a 5 paragraph response would be considered a slap in the face. There is no objective metric.

Third, often these decisions are not made in one block. By which I mean a DM won't necessarily ignore all the RTJs until the time comes and then sit down and read every one of them, making notes and picking out the best of the bunch over the course of however long that would take - probably a few hours at least depending on the number and detail of responses.

More often a DM will read them as they go and note ones they like and shelve ones they don't as 'maybe reconside this later if I don't get a lot of better ones'. Therefore if the DM has waited a week or two they have already read through the majority of the RTJs days or maybe close to two weeks ago. To give detailed feedback would probably mean re-reading most of the ones they have already dismissed, and why would they do that just to be 'nice' to some people they might never encounter again when they could better spend that time onboarding the players they have selected? A simple 'polite' response will be enough for the purpose of not keeping people hanging around.

Fourth, this is completely opt-in. By this I mean we choose if we are willing to spend our time creating an RTJ with the full understanding that we likely will not be successful. So the amount of time spent on an RTJ is, to my mind, not a reasonable justification for how a rejection comes simply because we choose if we want to RTJ and we know how the system works. A simple 'You have been rejected' I understand it sucks more to hear if we spent 5 hours on it compared to 5 minutes because we feel we wasted a lot more of our time but that is all on us, we chose to RTJ somewhere that would take 5 hours knowing there was a decent chance we wouldn't succeed. Besides it's only time wasted if we let it be. All that time and effort can easily be repurposed for future games.

Sir Swindle

Depending on the system any level of detail starts to be very difficult. Like any d20 game, Exalted, probably some others. You get like 30 RTJs. All that extra detail is basically tie breakers for what are sure to be good and workable concepts.

I try to give meta data about applications during the application process so people can adjust if they weren't married to their initial concept. Like for exalted I might give a running total off how many RTJs I get for each caste.

RTJs for that are almost all 50% Dawn, 25% Twilight, 25% mix of the others plus three dudes that want to app as a different splat. But usually if I post that I have 15 dawn caste applications a few of the dawn's pitch secondary concepts.

Added point. The rejection letter is not the place to tell you what specific points didn't work. If the fact that you were a slaver in your backstory is a no go that needed to be said prior to final selections. I went off on a GM on rpg crossing because he refused to give input on applications and then canceled the games because the RTJs didn't meet his vision for the game (something like that).

LissaAzules

Sir Swindle:
Added point. The rejection letter is not the place to tell you what specific points didn't work. If the fact that you were a slaver in your backstory is a no go that needed to be said prior to final selections.


This is not something I ever considered but I will definitely incorporate it into my process. Thank you!

Sir Swindle:
I went off on a GM on rpg crossing because he refused to give input on applications and then canceled the games because the RTJs didn't meet his vision for the game (something like that).


Wow..  Just...  Wow    lol  Clarification: The DM, not you..


Advisor:
Besides it's only time wasted if we let it be. All that time and effort can easily be repurposed for future games.


Ironically, the character concepts (minus the writing samples and selection of traits) were ones I've toyed with for a few months as potential NPCs...  So the concept and outline of background were there...  I submitted them both, one as primary and a second as a backup, tp twp different RTJs (obviously tailored to the specific game being played)...  The first, I really didn't expect to get in because I am currently DMing the same module for some friends (which I always disclose to potential DMs) and he got too many RTJ and, unfortunately for me, went with someone without prior/current knowledge of the adventure...  The other game, the one with the writing sample, is the one my mind is spinning on...  lol

And ironically, on that second game, he selected a guy that is currently a player in two games that I DM...  And, he's using the same character in that game as in one of my games...  lol   I don't begrudge him the spot in the game because he is a great guy and a good player...  Plus he's been trying to find games to join for quite some time...  I usually message him when I see a game posted in Players that he might like...   I didn't tell him about this one because I REALLY wanted to play it myself because I want to run it later when some of my current games conclude...   lol

Suedog

 1. I don't think I'd say its a requirement. As a player, and a player only, I've appreciated it.
2. DMs have periodically given me feedback on why I've not made the cut, and its never personally bothered me.  Yes, sometimes its because my character wasn't original enough, or other things.   Not sure if this has helped any, but here you go.

I think it's polite to inform people that they didn't make the cut.  In past games, I have let people know that if they want to be on the shortlist to replace players that drop out, I am willing to invite them into the game when that happens.
This message had punctuation tweaked by the GM at 13:47, Tue 07 Feb 2023.

Ya, I really think that's the take away. Just about everyone agrees it's polite.

Weather or not the rejection should be personalized is somewhat up for debate.

One thing I was confused about was this response.



Is it not standard practice to give input on RTJ's as they come in? Like if a concept is way off tone or in some way against the rules/your houserules/ your preference do you just let them sit and allow them to fail?

Like beyond a rejection letter being polite. I also try to always leave a message to let people know I have seen their application as a curtesy. Even if it's just "I looked at your RTJ, it seems reasonable I'll be making final determinations on Friday."

I would hope that if a GM has some general input on RTJs, that it would be displayed in the RTJ thread, so that people wouldn't go through the trouble of creating an RTJ that contained things that would make the GM automatically reject them.

And I am as surprised as you are to learn that people are not considering this.

I'm not sure I've ever submitted a RTJ where I was given feedback as I went along... But, then again, I also tend to write them with a "I'd prefer to use 'X' but if it isn't allowed, I'll use 'Y' from the PHB instead"...

And what I meant by the quote you snipped is that I had never considered reviewing as they came in and giving feedback as we go...  I had generally been of the mind to wait until I received a particular number of submissions (usually 5 for a substitute player/10-15 for a new game)...

I then review the submissions entirely on the submitted concept without regard to the campaign and rank them... I then review my top picks for compatibility with the campaign and work with the player on any changes needed to fit in...

Based on your response, I was saying that it might be easier to do ccorrections on the fly...

I do not usually give feedback as the RTJs come in unless I need to clarify something or I am having difficulty deciding (say I want 6 players but there are 7 I like).

If an RTJ is good but not what I want for this campaign (like I get the impression the player would be good but they just happened to submit something I don't think would fit) I might give feedback about that to give them a chance to adjust.

However if the RTJ is bad because it violates info I put in the RTJ (like say one of the rules is no tieflings and someone submits a tiefling) then I will simply take that as an indication that this person did not read the RTJ info I provided and ignore it.

I do that as well... I rather think most DMs would go with that theory...  When I was saying about I about corrections, I was thinking more like something where I really like Player A's submission but they chose a criminal background and the backstory for the concept is that they escaped from prison... This doesn't fit well with the campaign (e.g. - the quest giver is the town sheriff/guard) and/or with an other character(s) (e.g. - Player B is a bounty hunter)...

@LissaAzules Those examples though have two things majorly in their favor though. One, they don't have to be escaped from the local prison, and two the Bounty hunter allows for some very interesting RP. (Think Jane, The Tams, and Mal from Firefly.)

My advice is to keep rejections, if you are going to do them, simple and not get into a big long discussion. A little feedback would be nice, but anyone who has ever run a game knows you sometimes you just can't take everyone, and the simple sorry not accepted message is enough.

I personally only tell those that submitted entries that I really liked that I couldn't take them, why, and encourage them to keep trying. I also tend to offer them first refusal for the next slot.

If someone specifically violates the rules I set for RTJ then I just ignore them. And if they weren't very good submissions, but were at least within my requirements, I just give them a sorry you didn't make the cut, type message.

If it's someone I'm really wanting in, say I have two slots and three REALLY good characters, I'll bring them in anyway, with the understanding that I may lose one within several weeks.

I have found that most exits from a game are either after a long time (life, schedule, burnout, etc...), or within the first four sessions. Most of these are simply not feeling compatible with the group.

This isn't always due to friction or anything bad. I have left games in the past simply because the story just wasn't interesting to me. I simply told the GM I wasn't feeling the game and bowed out. Nothing against the game, players or GM, just wasn't for me. Sometimes there are just certain playstyles that turn me off. Not that these are bad, but not my style. I have found games that were mostly kick the door down, kill the monster, loot types. I prefer more story. Others were personalities I just didn't vibe with. They weren't necessarily bad people, just not people I would get along with. In all these cases I just bowed out. So being rejected isn't a big thing for me.

Applicant's to my games will always get two responses. First a 'Thanks for your interest. I'll let you know by <date> if you're in or out.' So they know I've gotten their RTJ.* To me that's just common courtesy. And second a 'I'm sorry but you did not make the cut.' Sometimes with a 'I had 18 RTJ's for 6 slots.'

I don't give any feedback on why they didn't make the cut. Not going to go back and forth with "what if I change this' or 'how about if I play this character instead'. Done that, not doing it again.

Some responses it's like they never even looked at anything but the P-W ad "Hi I want to be in your game My character is..." Others don't answer everything I ask for in a RTJ.** But they still get a 'missed the cut' message.


*As a player it's frustrating to submit an RTJ and never hear anything back. Only to find later that the cast list is full and the game is no longer taking players.

**Character Name; Race, class, background (for DnD games); History and Personality (no more than 2-3 paragraphs each); One question that shows they've read the rules. One 'quiz' to give me a feel for their play style. All of which is spelled out in the RTJ text they get when they apply.

I think I've applied for one of your games before @jmurrell   lol
This message was last edited by the player at 22:18, Tue 07 Feb 2023.

I'm surprised to hear GM's don't give much feedback during the RTJ process.
I guess if you're only taking a limited number of players, know you'll have an excess of applicants, and are limited on time, it can make sense though.
Those that need the discussion/correction probably weren't gonna make the cut anyway. Can fine tune the accepted applications once they're selected.

(I still prefer the "let's have a discussion" approach, but I get it.)

As an example one game had 18 RTJ's for 6 slots. 10 of those 18 didn't complete some part of the RTJ. If I say anything other than 'sorry you didn't make the cut' it leads to a back and forth of them trying to talk their way in. I don't have the time to spend on people who don't follow directions in the first place.

The only discussion during the RTJ phase is if the player or I are clarifying some point. Now once a player has been accepted there is discussion about fine tuning the character to the game.

Anyway, just my approach YMMV.

Any way. I have like an 80% "incorrect" or "incomplete" rate. But then I have a lot of stuff (probably more than I would read thoroughly as a PC) posted.

I also habitually run goofy systems that people haven't RTJd for 100 times. So that probably doesn't help.

It's partly a matter of time. I only have so much time available for gaming and I prefer to spend it on actually running or playing a game.

My last game I had ten uncomplete or incorrect RTJ's. Not to be harsh but I don't have the time to spend in discussions with ten people who have problems with reading comprehension or following directions.

Depends on what incomplete means I don't like long RTJs because they are pretty much a waste of time compared to PMing someone the next day and seeing how long before they respond.

So far the games I've run and applied to join have had more trouble finding players than having to exclude them. I suppose some systems are more in demand than others.

That said, I think it would be a bit annoying to create a character sheet, write a few paragraphs of backstory, and fill out a questionnaire for an RTJ (and some game ads I've seen have excessive homework for the potential players to do) just to get "nope" back as a reply.

But you've got to take getting turned down gracefully, just like if you ask someone out and they say no or you apply for a job and they decide to hire someone else. And a bit of politeness from the person doing the rejecting is I think the least that can be expected.

When I ran a VtM game, I wrote in my ad that RTJs would be dealt with on a first-come, first-serve basis, and in my experience, taking the wanted players flag off of your game is usually enough of a hint that your game is full.

That seems really callous. Like, yes, they will get over it and figure it out. But have a little respect for the time they took to apply and at least tell them that they didn't get in soon enough and the game is full.

Like just dropping the flag and not even putting up a notice in a public thread seems rude.

I agree. I've run a few games in the past on this platform and others, and I've rarely had enough applicants to have to reject some, but when I had to, I would take the time to at least let them know they didn't make the cut and (very briefly) why.

There was an attitude expressed in another thread that was to the effect of "If you're not part of the group, you mean nothing to me and I have no time for you." In my mind, this is one of the mostly toxic kinds of human behaviour. In this community it can be pretty disheartening, in the wider scope of society, it's dehumanizing and can lead to far, far worse acts.

The cure is really easy: just be kind. It costs you almost nothing, and the good that you will do by just being a decent human being to another human being is immeasurable. And before you reply to me saying, "It's a just a game, don't be so dramatic," even small acts of kindness in a limited environment like this one can make ripples. And believe me, I've played with kind GMs and GMs who are jerks, and in my experience, someone who is a jerk in the RTJ process is going to be a jerk in the game too, the minute you do something they don't like. If I get a whiff of it when I RTJ, that's a good sign that I'm not going to like the game, and I usually don't join.

Sorry for the extended rant.
[Steps down from soapbox]

That was the beginning of the original thread getting shut down and the topic restarted as #2...


Personally, I have never started a game where I've been facing a lack of potential players...  Maybe as someone said previously, some systems are more in demand than others (I play/run 5e)...  I haven't, as of yet, had to do a player wanted post for any of the games I run on here as my current rosters were all friends and friends of friends rounded out the groups...

That being said, I had requested this topic because I have been considering a new rPol campaign outside of the core group of current players (they are all pretty much maxed on games/time investment atm) and, after a couple of single word denials I got to my own RTJs, I was wondering how others dealt with letting folks down...

There has been some very good advice given, so I appreciate everyone that has contributed...  =)

That's why I'm in favour of the generic polite rejection, something that's a gentle let down but doesn't get into specifics. It's an acceptable middle ground of saving your time and fulfills the courtesy of telling the people they didn't get in without being a jerk about it (at least that's how it works in my mind).