During PbP format it's common for players to come and go as they get bored, run out of time to devote to the game and so on due to the prolonged periods that a PbP goes over to accomplish much.

Question for you GMs: are there certain types of players that have a higher/lower frequency of leaving the game?

In the games that I have played in (from a player's perspective, and only D&D 5e), I have the feeling people leave mostly when the combat-roleplay ratio doesn't match the players' expectation. Especially when there isn't enough combat. Even when games have a clearly stated goal of this ratio, it can easily happen that there isn't any real action for the first two months - and that's when those players that want more combat leave early.

Another thing I have noticed is that such players have often created a not-so-talkative skulking assassin sort of character. Does in your experience the 'talkativeness' of a player influence the chance of them leaving?

Are there things that increase the chance of a player sticking around? Perhaps things such as the player being involved in several different rpol games?

I do find that those who are more talkative in the OOC threads are more likely to stay, but it's hard to quantify why a person would leave. I've had just as many leave for RL issues, as have left for a IG reason.

To combat this I try and be upfront with people about expectations, as well as bring in about 50% more players than I eventually want to run. I'm also picky about those I let in, trying to build a group that will work well together. I have a writing sample from each person, in the form of having them give me a background sample, combat post sample, and regular post sample.

I have noticed that those who do quick one line posts in a regular post tend to not be into the game as heavily and drop out more frequently.

A phenomenon I have noticed are people who put tons of effort into character creation, get pushy to get in games when there isn't a natural jumping point can often disappear quickly.  I think there is definitely a type of player who really enjoy extensive character creation but lose interest playing the game.  I may be psychoanalysing this but I wonder if there is something a bit narcissistic about this?  They want a 'perfect' character but don't want to use it.

OOC is a good sign too.  I agree, if people contribute to OOC they are likely to stay and it's amazing how much borderline rude and passive aggressive behaviour takes place in OOC.  Spotting those types is good for keeping the right kind of player.

I agree with recruiting more than you need but a couple of other things spring to mind.  First of all keep up momentum as a GM.  If players aren't posting or are stuck make something happen for them.  A GM on here should be thinking, 'I want this to be my player's main game'.  This means they post in yours first because they are engaged.  If they are bored you drop down the list or they join other games.  This week I joined a pbp offsite and it is now my second favourite game.  The reason I looked elsewhere?  No action in games 2, 3 and 4 for me.  I'm still in them but they've dropped down the list.

Also, unless you're GM'ing with competent players you know well be wary of sandbox games.  Keep a group together with a purpose.  Aim to high or be too wide and players inevitably pair off and do their own thing in sub-forums making it really hard for players with nothing to do.  When one of a pair drops out it's hard to get the remaining player back involved.  When one in five drops out you can keep the momentum going.

Tim, in answer to your post:

From my experience when my players leave, it was pretty much always for the same two reasons:  RL stuff, and other players driving the posting rates too fast.  The first is just how it goes, you can't tell someone not to put their bills first.  The second, I try to mediate by guessing player's posting rates before I recruit them.  I also think that from here on out I'm going to run games with less players involved to lessen the feeling of overwhelming my less active players.

As far as the specific example pertaining to DND, I've never had that problem when I was running 4e.  To be honest, though, I personally wouldn't let a DnD game to go 2 months without combat, DnD is a system that relies heavily on combat for character advancement.  Think back on those games: was it that there wasn't enough combat, or that the things happening in between fights was boring?  If it was in fact the former, then what I would do is simply plan to include a lot of combat in my DnD games.  If it's the ladder, look at what those GM's did that made that game boring, and try to avoid making similar mistakes.

As far as dealing with players who want to play an introvert character, I literally ask them during the RTJ process how they intend to leave room in their concept to interact properly.  In a party driven game, I would want to hear a pretty good explanation here, because a player who can't get along with others well could hurt the game for others.

As far as lessening player loss, the best thing you can do is run a better game.  If you're intending to try your hand at it for the first time, take all the time you need to prepare and make sure you have all of your ducks in a row before even posting an ad.  Make sure your rules for how you mediate your game stem from a consistent system.  Inconsistent rules cause problems in pretty much any grouping of people.  Also, it was mentioned before, but keep the pace up.  If you let yourself fall behind, players start to pay less attention, and things spiral in an undesirable direction.  This also means getting rid of dead weight players immediately, getting a new player ASAP, and knowing how you intend to keep the party rolling short-handed.

@Tim: Interesting point about expected combat-roleplay ratio.

I can’t really say on quiet vs. talkative characters… But I think it would make sense that a quiet character would be less involved since they wouldn’t partake in conversation as much.
(Not to a say a quiet character is doomed. They might compensate with non-verbal expression, or focusing on actually doing things.)

@Barry: Agreed on trying to keep people together in a sandbox game. Even if just a general area (a town, a city), so they can meet others if their buddy drops.

I think you may be onto something about being wary of those that put A LOT of effort into their characters, and the possible narcissism involved.
It might be like “look how awesome my character is,” but once the new-person-spotlight moves on, they don’t get the amount of attention they want, so they pull out.
They might also feel other players aren’t “at their level.”

Forcing a character into a game isn’t good either. During the RTJ process I’ll try to call out things I think won’t fit, even if on their own they’re interesting and well written.

~

I think another type of player to be wary of are overthinkers and those that can’t decide on something. They spend so much time thinking about what to do, trying to get things exactly right, or jumping between options, they never actually do anything. Then momentum is lost, etc.

During RTJ, I think if someone is leaning on you to motive them, or feed them entire character concepts, that’s not a good sign.

Also during the RTJ process, I think one line post conversations are a bad sign. (Unless maybe you tell them to start out like that.)
“Hi, I’d like to play an elf ranger.”
“Okay, sure. That would work. What else did you have in mind?”
“They would be from the forest but driven out by orcs.”

Also-also during RTJ, if they stop replying, I won't chase people. I assume their gone, and probably wouldn't want them around anyway (lack of commitment, like hoppa said).
This message was last edited by the player at 01:56, Sat 04 Nov 2017.

Watcher just reminded me of something else.  Whenever a player shows me a character that doesn't get along well with others, I worry that the player similarly doesn't play nice.  During the RTJ process, I usually pay extra mind to check these players to make sure they are flexible enough to get along with my other players, and with me.

Rather than setting essay-length RTJ responses, I simply invite applicants to chat about their characters and their expectations for the game. Their ability to converse with me often mirrors their character's ability to converse with others in the game. I'm also getting a writing sample without asking for it, and I get some impression of their posting rate (but everyone posts well for the first couple of weeks).

Of course, this doesn't provide any clues to RL workload, calamities, etc, nor does it tell me if they will get bored or frustrated with the game.

But nothing does. We just have to live with RL, and make the game as interesting as we can for the majority - bearing in mind that you can't please all of the people all of the time. We just have to live with that, too. Drop-outs are inevitable.

Regarding narcissism, another factor may be that, having created a great character, they don't want to put it to risk in the game.

There are some nice perspectives in this thread.

@ike - I love that conversational approach to RTJ.  You're getting a feel for the person, their writing and expectations.  It's a great way for both player and GM to see if they fit.

As for 'silent assassin types' I would be exceptionally wary, especially if 'doesn't get on with others' is part of character creation RTJ.  They almost certainly will be a problem for the party by refusing to contribute or turning left when everyone goes right.

I made a mistake in a game once, I envisaged my character as having few friends, living in a forest so he was 'quiet and sullen'.  He's now a rather humorous chatty character, still a rural loner type though.  The reason I changed was being quiet isn't conducive to pbp!

I think what people miss in movies, books, comics etc about silent characters.  They are often the sole focus of the medium which isn't great for a group game.  Likewise, in 'good' media brooding characters develop and form relationships, show vulnerabilities and develop.  I think some rp'ers miss this.  I'd go as far tonsay I wouldn't have a 'silent' character in the game unless I'd already rp'ed with them and know them.

Generally my only rule when it comes to assigning rules is: Don't be a jerks. The party integrity should be maintained in almost all situations.

But I also am usually against the lone-wolf archetype unless I know the person is capable of playing into the group despite this drawback. As Barry correctly pointed out, in other forms of medium it's ok because they are usually the focus of the story and on top of that there's often exposition as to why they are the way they are so that we can care about them or at least become invested in them. That rarely is a possibility in a group game.

Yeah this is something that can be both part of this topic, and the core of a new topic.

There are those who constantly try to buck the trend, so to speak, wanting to go somewhere opposite to where the majority of the party wants to go.

In some cases it's due to the player being contrarian for a variety of reasons.  Anti-social, or "I'm just playing my character!!", or what have you.

Sometimes it's due to the player being bored.  Could this be the start of a new thread, Advisor?  How to keep your game on track without railroading, and keep your players 'in the game'.

Loner characters can be a problem. Yes, a thorough questioning of the player about how their character is going to fit in can give you some clues about the player and their motivations.

Without doubt, the good of the game trumps playing your character every time, and if the player doesn't accept that, there's an ultimatum coming.

I created a sociophobic character for a game once, and I know it worried the GM because he asked me about it at some length!

However, when I explained that the character was a scientist and although he wasn't socially talkative, he could come up with ideas and actions that would enable him to play a vital role in the team, the GM gave me a chance. I've been playing that character for 5 years now and his ideas have become a focus for the group on a number of occasions.

But that's probably the exception.

Ike, I do have a similar thing in my RTJ threads, but I don't do it to get a writing sample.  I do it to get an idea of how much interest the person has in playing.



That's for one of my old Shadowrun games.  #1 is to see what kind of character they have in mind.  #2 is to see if they are paying attention.

I've been surprised by a few people's reactions when they ignored #2 and I called them on it.  Needless to say they didn't make the cut.

There's "talking" and then there's "posting".

I'm fine with people playing "silent protagonists", even in a tabletop setting, but they must still communicate what their character is doing in scenes.  I've had to drill this into a few Player's thick skulls sometimes.

I expect this is a much bigger problem in PbP.  However...

In a game I've been in here for two years we've a Player who is attentive and follows the thread, but he only posts when his character needs to do something or he feels he needs to say something (he went two months once without posting as this character).  He's playing the "strong (stupid) silent" type.  It's been working fine in that group... and I know it's not just the Player as in another thread (the GM is running multiple groups on different adventures in his game) he's playing a talkative character.




Again, there is a difference between "talking" and "posting".  The Strong Silent Protagonists are still doing things in every scene, even if it's just lurking in the back ground or perching on a building top all moody-broody.




This "writing sample" thing has always annoyed me here on Rpol...

When I RTJ I rarely have a character built, sometimes I have an idea in mind, but that idea can change radically bewtixt "request" and "finish character".  Thus I have no idea what their voice is like at this stage.

Sure, you want to see how I post... but that's also going to change depending on the character.  Is it a Stronk Silent type?  Then I'll be posting more actions than speaking, even if it's just "Leans back and coolly watches the group try to negotiate" type posts.  If it's a chatty non-combatant, then yeah, they'll be 'talking' up a storm until combat starts, then my post rate will plummet.

I don't know, maybe I'm looking at this thing all backwards, but I never know how to respond to this, other than to go grab a post I've made in another game and duplicate it.

evileeyore, think of the writing sample as a test. ;)

It speaks well to a person's character, and I mean the person, not the creation they want to play.

Copy and paste an example?  Sure.  Easy, efficient, some may think it lazy, but I lean towards efficient. ;)

Write something off the cuff?  Quick thinking and creative.

But the person who says, "I only have the barest of ideas for a couple of characters I want to play.  I've not thought over their background or history much, but I'm working on it."  Them?  I want them in my game.  Being frank and honest is refreshing.

But then, I'm don't use the writing sample to see how well they can write.  It's a bar, a door, an impediment to entry.  If you can't be arsed to write something useful, some thought out response, then I can't be arsed to invite you in. :)

    I've got that problem with one person in my game - I think he created a "Combat Monster", and most of the stuff right now has been RP in nature. For the moment, he says little and does less. Problem is when it changes and we got into combat, he's fine and the others are tapping their feet. I'm trying to make it a more 50-50 split, but it isn't always easy. The guy wrote me enough in PM's putting his character together, but I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't have given him a more RP-friendly character and left the fighting to the NPC's.

   As for writing samples? I don't mind putting one together - it is a test of a person's creativity, after all. If you are not going to make the effort to put one together, how does a GM know what you'll be like in the game? I also like to post either an RP-centric post (for an active character) or an Action-centric post (if the character is going to be partially in the background.



   Yes, being honest about your character's idea is the best thing you can hope for out of a player - at least it shows their thought processes and gives me an idea as a GM or where I can help or guide the player. Better that than a fully-formed idea that the player doesn't want messed with.

This is a particularly good point, and maybe should go in the Keeping Posts Going thread. Too many players only post when their character is either talking to someone (all too rare) or doing something heroic.

Consequently, the game lags because everyone is silently waiting for someone else.

It's vital that players have their characters communicate in a post even in periods of inactivity.

A post saying 'Sigmund anxiously grips his sword while he waits to see what Tessa will do' punches well above its weight.

Although the character has said and done nothing, the player has added to the atmosphere of the scene, has told the GM and players that he's still present and following the plot, has indicated to Tessa's player and the GM that he's waiting for a response from Tessa, and has led the other players by example with good gaming technique.
All that from a one-liner.




Copying 'the best bit of righting what I ever writ' to one RTJ after another might indicate to the GM your capability limits, but I think what most GMs are looking for with a writing sample (those who are not asking for one just because everyone else asks for them) is partly to see if you can string a few sentences together and make yourself understood without so many spelling, grammar and punctuation errors that reading your posts becomes a chore (not a given, alas), and partly to see if you can actually converse with more than one sentence at a time.

Certainly that's my goal, and I find I can achieve that better with an informal chat across several posts than I can by asking players to present a stock paragraph.

However, I game in 'fringe' genres. I usually have few applicants and I can afford to chat with each one. If I regularly had 20 or 30 RTJs hitting my desk overnight, I might need to revise my RTJ style.

Every game I've run on here had 10+ applicants before 24 hours was up. Maybe it was because I was newer to Rpol, but that's been the case.

I do know that GM's get a reputation as they play. There is one GM I personally have never run a character with, first because I've seen his posting for players in numerous games and every single week for over two years. Then I asked my friend about this one, and found out that the person has a bad reputation as a GM. (Please don't name names, I am not trying to talk about the GM directly. I'm just using it as an example.) I think this is a reason why some people get a lot of applications and some don't.