I kind of feel like there are a select number of people who are just RTJ'ing all the games... maybe each genre has a crew for this or maybe not.

I see a lot of players talk about how they are tossing a similar char in several different games, or just that they are in several games, and often times I see first come first serve ending almost as quick as a game is posted....


just for games to crash, or die out, or otherwise not survive.

I am a casual player, and I was indeed on hiatus recently, but I saw it back when I played before hiatus and I kind of see it now that I am back, perhaps I am judging a little hasty but it looks and feels damn near the same.


There are still plenty enough games I am getting into, so it isn't exactly causing me to lose out... but I distress on things that effect people overall so it still troubles me.

a lot depends on the  GMs …. some GMs  want a finite number of players.. they think they cannot handle more then a certain number.

 In my games?  I bump my ad every week.. I don't take  all players .. I have s  sort of interview, to make sure the understand the game..some elave.. some  RL steals them...so..i always look for new players.

 My games  aren't for everyone..i don't  try to make them that way...in the end? the players  that stay , are not  only damn good players, but   they  help new folks settle into the games.

 I have seen GAmes , been in one that died. because  the GM  only want 'this  type"..or "this  number"..then..after the table setting ws  done, and the game moved on  POOF..peopel ghost or  are gone.

 so?.. pursue the  genres  you like, try to get  in to the games, and watch the   'bumped' adds...check to see how many games were deleted... check to see how many the GMs  have runnign, that all goes into the process, of how active ..and how long, a game will last.

I've been here for quite a long time -- a decade or more -- and I've seen that myself, the whole time.

There are players who will immediately jump on any game with a halfway decent premise. Sometimes within hours of posting in PW, you'll see some familiar faces popping up with RTJs. The only time I do the 'first come, first seated' thing is when I need a replacement player and I need them fast.

It's also not uncommon for a new game to have a whole stock of players, enthusiastic as all get-out while they're making characters and bouncing ideas around. Only to lose all their energy shortly after the game truly begins. I've seen it happen far too often to count.

To me.
Any game which states: "First come, first serve," Lose most of my interest right there.
If you as a Game Master can't wait till you have the right players who will likely stay with your game, will ask questions about what the game will revolve around, is interested in the group dynamic, is pointless.

My solution: I ignore those games, unless it sounds VERY! interesting, in which case I hold my expectations on a very low burn.

I admit my guilt.  I have the first come, first serve on my PW when I post them.  I don't see myself as a strong ST/DM/GM whatever.  I feel comfortable with a certain number of players.  Now, if I have that number and feel I can add more to the story I will.

Still, there are multiple reasons that could explain why a certain group of fans attract to specific games.

There are certain genres that fans attract to.  There are hosts of fans in DnD 5ed games, while fewer test out the older versions.  A clique is formed when a DM/ST discovers a certain group that enjoy a game that isn't the main attraction (regardless of PbP forum).

Some players either don't understand or appreciate certain gaming systems. This also plays a role in how many players a DM/ST is going to attract.  Most players won't go to a game if they don't like the gaming system being used. But there will always be a group within the population that do like the system. (example such as Star Trek Decipher vs Star Trek Adventures). The same story can flourish in one system but never have a chance in a second.

STs usually stick with gaming systems they enjoy/are comfortable with.  a lot of players are like that too.  and once they find a ST that runs their favorite system they stick to that ST like glue.

I have given up on applying for any game that is first come, first serve.  I have character ideas, but not fully typed up RTJs ready to go at the press of a button.  It's definitely caused me to miss out on games that I've really wanted to play.

But one problem area I've found is when someone gives a deadline for character submission, but then starts choosing early.  Then you see "I've already made some picks, so your entry has to be really special to be considered."  So if I submit something that's equal in quality to one of the DMs current picks, I get left out for not being fast enough, instead of having the chance to be selected over that other player.  Why have a deadline then?

Yep... I think the  'first come, first serve' GMs  are  just in a hurry to get thier game going...i'm thinking 90% of them are dead in a  few months  if not weeks.

 as  I mentioned  above?  I bump my adds every week.. I don't see me ever having 'too many' players, and  it is very rare  a character  is left out of  something unless they went  dark and  didn't tell me.

 ::chuckles::  I have even had   people on the wanted   thread make  fun of me posting it  each week?..but..i never see it.. I don't look at My ads  except to bump them?  ..but?  this  formula  works for me..maybe  other   did  go with  character limits and such. But  that is  for them to deal with

Oh my, glad to see I am def not the only one noticing this phenomenon... I wonder why it's been so prevalent then. I'd think 10 years later and wed have a few unwritten, or written, policies about sharing the fun so that a handful of people arent hogging all the games... just to leave them... thus swothing through like a swarm of locusts making the land barren, or nearly so, of games.

how would such a policy work? limit the number of games you're allowed to join? I mean I really can't see how a policy like that would be enforced or fair to people who just enjoy playing alot of games.

   Its like  pick up  football games... some people let  folks  Join in even after the game starts.

  others won't let anyone  in after it starts.

 and still others only let  certain people in..in the end?... I'd Just pass on even 'checking out' games that have deadlines and   linits...UNLESS..it was a genre  you  really , really like, then talk to the GM  through RTJ, and  tell hi to put  you on a waiting list.

 because?  we all know, full and well, people who start the game  are gone  with in a few weeks/months..and  those still playing  wanted to be there for the game.. not the  'honor' of being chosen.

  doesn't cost you a penny to ask.. doesn't cost the  GM a penny to answer.

Given how quickly some games die out I see this more as a thing where players keep joining hoping to find that lasting game.

As a ST/GM/DM (what ever your particular choice for an RPG calls the head person) I've come to some realizations that will help any future endeavors at running a game.

• Make sure to allow more players than you want to join, many will drop during or soon after character creation
• Set posting requirements and pace of game early on as part of the RTJ or otherwise.
• Make sure you as the DM are posting daily even if it's to update some stuff to keep interest up.

I am sure there's a few more but that's some of the basic stuff

Bingo.

I reckon I could play a character well in about 3 games tops where a 4x/week postrate is maintained by all. After that my RP and post rate would start to suffer. But boy howdy do games fall off a cliff, particularly when combat hits and you have to wait... for... that          one                               player


to






            finally







                                     post his




                                               dice roll.

Ugh. Makes me think that combat needs a player action preference set list so the DM can take over if the player doesn't show.

So yeah. I RTJ games I'm interested in because those games pop up at around the same rate as games in my stable die off.

die rools ..back in the day there were the  EZ-Boards..best RP   sites   in the world...looked  worked a little like here..but not as smooth..at the time? it was great.

 Dice rolls killed a lot of games.. even here it does... so?.. In my games , I do all the rolls  off board... if something very bad happens, I will allow the player to roll with the Understanding, that roll  counts  no matter  what.

 This also  gives   more  RP into the game as  I Mod the rolls depending on the  post...

 I have had no complaints in my Home brews.. and  the semi-D&Dish game some folks make their rolls and i'll use  them..but? that's because they did...indeed..post the roll with thier  answering posts

 if  I  what/need them to roll they get an POOC post or a PM, helps  keep the RP threads clean.

With the moderate term success rate of most games being what it is, I'm sure more than a few players keep throwing things at any wall which presents itself in the hopes that eventually something will stick.

I wouldn't be too worried about not getting into a game that was FCFS because the GM closed applications before you even had time to know the game was recruiting.  In order for games to be successful it requires a lot of work, quite a bit of persistence and strategy, and a good dose of luck.

I'd bet a few bucks that if you tracked the success rate of those games that you could have potentially been a part of but missed the opportunity, you'd find way more hits than misses.

So I wouldn't stress about it too much.  The games that have deliberate, specific, RTJ requirements and lean towards recruitment windows measured in time vs size of the RTJ pool (which gives people not so quick on the draw the chance to apply) have been, in my anecdotal experience, more successful overall in the end anyway.  So you're probably not missing out on much except for whatever joy can be had from going through Act 1, Scene 1 of various stories over and over and over without likely ever seeing Scene 2.

I don't select the first backgrounds.

I choose those who show interest.  Usually an RJT or PM saying 'Hello, I'm interested. I'll start working on my background"

Is good enough for me, I give people time to create their characters.  Sometimes it takes a little work to come up with a concept that is going to work for a certain story.

I respond with 'Welcome' and this is what I need now (usually a name, but that can change) and an idea (which allows me to create threads that the character might have interest in going to in game (also able to change).

Still, I understand that the game systems, genre, and/or story background  impacts who and how many show interest.

I wasnt making another vent thread, there is a thread for that. I presented an issue... people agreed...


I would absolutely think a limit on 'pending games' or 'games joined' or even 'games you have an active or accepted RTJ in' would help this.

If they can only join so many, say 5, they wouldnt spam their premade rtj to every game they see just to drop 95 present of the games they are accepted into... or even just to not notice most the games they are accepted into.... only to keep the trend up. I am all for using the law of probability, but when it overwhelms the system and other peoples probability is impacting mine... I'd like to see a more fair ratio of probability spread around.

This is a measurable phenomenon, if RPoL keeps track of these stats. I suspect the magnitude of this problem - to the extent it is a problem - isn’t as great as you’re suggesting. In any case, maybe the forum admins know the relationship between RTJ rates and drop rates. That’s a good question to ask.

In reply to Shinoskay (msg # 16):

I don't believe it would fix the problem.  Players will drop one game and jump into another.  They would be giving you stories they had issues with so now instead of not getting first dibs on new stories, those left out are left with stories with issues which will lead to another thread with someone complaining that the only available stories are the one that have issues.

I have to agree with Sarge67 in saying that it simply wouldn't fix the problem.    I don't really see how you could limit the number without people whining about it, saying that they applied for a dead game or that they weren't accepted.

As far as why a player might place the same character into play in multiple games is a rather simple one.    There's no guarantee that you'll ever get to play a character, irregardless of how many games you apply for.

In reply to Shinoskay (msg # 16):

RPoL does not track how many games a user joins, nor are we prepared to limit how many games they can join.

Especially not when they might join five games, reach their limit, then have four of their GMs vanish without trace, meaning that they can't join any more games until they contact the Moderators and get themselves removed from those games (which will, incidentally, take at least a week).

I can guarantee that we would soon have threads complaining about how the game limit was stopping them joining that one game that they were really interested in.  Followed soon after by threads from GMs complaining about how they weren't getting any RTJs because so many players had maxed out their game limit, or were saving slots in case the "perfect" game came along.

Furthermore, who is to say what is an acceptable limit?  For some players, their limit is one game.  For others, it is five.  And for still others, 25, if their games are slow moving ones (not every GM is looking for daily posting).

This is really the point to be made. For instance, I've got nine games on my played list right now, which doesn't count dead games I've removed from my list. I consider myself a fairly slow poster, and I've got no trouble keeping up, because almost all of those games are slow.

No two games are equal. Some are lightning fast, some post only once in a blue moon. Trying to limit the number of games someone plays in by some arbitrary number can't possibly treat all games (and all players) fairly. And even if it somehow did, five is incredibly low.

in the  end... The  main thing here, is the guy was gettign froze out of some  games he wanted to join.

 Yes..there are  players that hop on the  'new game wagon", then hop off  after they get  board, or something shiny distracts them.

 there cannot be a limit, because this place is  made for gaming. In the end..it comes  down to the  GMs...

  If you  are  running something 'pre-made' , and it  has a set cast of characters ,then you have to  go with that, it does  leave you open  for the  drop outs...and now you are stuck  with trying to fins someone who  fits that slot.

 If you are runnign a Homebrew? There is no reason to restrict the Number of player.. you can restrict   classes  or types?..But Numbers are needed, because  its  rare to keep players  of a while.

 My most active game  has  1 player  from the first start, 8+ years ago... I have 6-7 vets  who have been there  a while..I have even had  2  come back recently, after RL sucked them  away  a couple years ago.

 As a Player?..don't  fell bad if you can't get into a game, there is a good chance it won't even be there in a few months..As a GM?  Unless the player seem 'bad' in your interview, give other players  a chance.

In reply to donsr (msg # 22):

Personally I always restrict the number of players in any game I run, homebrew campaign or otherwise.  If the game features a small ship with a crew of six, then I recruit six players.  If I need replacements later, then that is when I will recruit them.

Even for a game that doesn't require characters for a specific number of roles, l still restrict numbers to a level that I feel confident with handling.

yep bignadon...That is the whole thing in a nutshell.. you should restrict  by the Number of  folks you  have in  a certain trope ( crew of a ship.. squad of troopers.. part of adventure folks)

 If you have  'first come first serve' there is a damn good chance  you  miss out on some good players..

I understand  restrictions  in my D&Dish  game , I won't use Psionics  and I try to keep Mages  low.

 In my sci-fi game, ( homebrew)  , I try to   keep folks 'normal' and not have outlandish characters... we do have some aliens, but to play that , they have to come up with a very good backround as to 'why"

The GM has every right to choose 'first come, first served' if they want. Or to limit the number of players that they accept. The players should have the right to join as many games as they think they can handle, as it becomes between them and the GM whether or not their level of participation is sufficient for them to be permitted to stay.

Not that my opinion matters, but I'm all for supporting ron's notion that there's no reason for the admins to step in and tell a player they can't join anymore games. That seems needlessly restrictive.

Not getting into a game isn't a reason to punish others for what a given individual hasn't managed to find, IMHO. It's an unfortunate situation which basically suggests that you should probably apply to more games, or if the community isn't producing enough of those games... you can either choose to run them or to hit up the GMs Wanted section to see if you can drum up interest in someone else running them. There are lots of options.

It isn't my responsibility as a GM to ask my players how many games they're in and which titles. If I want to go with FCFS in one game and choose the best background in another, I'm well within reason to do so. What I won't do is save a spot for the RTJ with the best sob story or the longest list of missed opportunities.

Recently, I rejected access and the applicant left with a rude parting shot. My advice to those with sour grapes is to just say "Thanks anyway" and leave it at that.

I think that a lot of players feel a sense of entitlement and forget about the person running the game, and that person's ability to enjoy the experience as well. It's a very different thing, running a game, and the enjoyment comes in different ways. Getting so focused on your own experience that you fail to consider others is rarely going to hold water with people who spend the bulk of their time considering everyone else within the scope of their game.

Obviously not everyone is like this and some GMs have their own issues, but in my decades of gaming, I've seen this in live tabletop, virtual tabletop, chat games, here, everywhere. It's pretty common, so I'm with Eggy: it isn't the GM's responsibility to worry about if one player is applying to a million games or whatever, just the suitability of the RTJs they see to the game that GM is running.

I have made a few very excellent friends of folks I've encountered more-or-less randomly over RPoL. I've also met a handful of folks I'd like to never see again, but that's a whole different kettle of fish. I will not try to put myself across as altruistic here: many of my games are explicitly designed with a specific player (or set of players) or character(s) in mind. This is no less awful that writing a role in a film for a specific actor even before they've been cast in it.

That aside, due to the fact that many folks have lives outside of RPoL, on those occasions when I open my games up to new players, I prefer not to use first-come, first served simply because of the multitude of excellent characters I've seen from folks who aren't the fastest gun in the west, but can write well nonetheless. What I will typically do is accept RTJs with concepts and writing samples-only for a period of time (usually one or two full weeks) and then select the players that I feel are a) the best fit for my storytelling style, b) have presented concepts that seem likely to work well in the kind of game being run (which is always somewhat different from A in a handful of ways that don't matter to most people), and c) will not detract from my ability to enjoy the game as an ST.

I think too many people lose sight of the fact that the folks who run games on RPoL do it because they enjoy it and we all have a responsibility to ourselves to not try to cram our games full of players who seem likely to make the game no fun for us. Yes, of course, the game is for players to enjoy. This is apparent, but the ST is there to have fun too. If we were being paid, it'd be a different thing altogether, but we are not (thank goodness). I certainly have no wish to turn my primary hobby into a second job.

Yeah, I'm not personally fond of FCFS but I can see why some use it and don't see any reason why people shouldn't be able to take advantage of that method in their games if they so desire. I've also noticed that some people are quite quick to RTJ, but it often ignores a lot of what's actually in the RTJ thread in the game, the game intro and other such resources, all in the name of speed. That never appeals to me, since it's doubling up on the work I need to do to accommodate such a player and sets a poor opening impression.

Selection is the privilege of the fact that the GM takes on the most responsibility and workload compared to everyone else involved in the process. Players are free to either partake based on what the GM has laid out, or move along in their search to other pastures perhaps more appropriate to their own desires.

As others have said, I couldn't care less if the player has applied to a dozen games.  The only RtJ I have any interest in is the one for MY game.  The only time I might ask a player about other games is when they are a borderline case for being accepted, and then I will ask for the name of a game that I can check to see their style. *

I will confess (and am not ashamed to do so) that I do play favourites.  Players that I know and like from other games will get priority when applying to a new game.  I consider these players to be my friends.

*Way back, RPoL didn't list games on the Main Menu with the GM name, only the GM alias.  So I got this RtJ and asked the guy what other games he was in.  "Well," he says, "I play Aaron in [game name]."  Which was odd, because I was the GM of [game name] and knew that this guy did not play Aaron, or any other character in the game.  When I mentioned this, he asked why I had two different names (GM aliases were listed with the games, remember, not the GM user name) and threatened to report me for having multiple accounts.

Ah... good times.  :)

Man... Some people, ron. Some people.

I have an opposite view on this. I have given up on filling RTJs with a deadline. To me it means there's just going to be 10 times the number of RTJs and mine won't have a chance to stand up. (I also have the irrational suspicion that a DM that demands such a big number of RTJs sees the players behind them as essentially interchangeable and replaceable, as non-entities.) I've grown tired of putting out my soul for display and pouring my heart -and losing sleep- into a 500-800 words RTJ, that will just be erased -and even will go unread- once the deadline expires.-Yes because many of these RTJs are also quite in-depth, detailed, and time consuming-. Even worse to see those same games having to replace players a couple of weeks in. Yeah, pretty encouraging.

Nowadays I center my efforts into Wanted GMs, both to find games and players. I also check the occasional players wanted, and will seek to join a game that looks fun and has a reasonable RTJ process, but never, never again will I waste time, effort and emotional investment on an RTJ that will be tossed without a second glance again.

I dont think people are really considering the actual issue here, what I have presented as the issue, and really anything beyond "nani! you want to tell people how many games they can join?"

There is clear evidence of an on going, at least 10 year long, issue... multiple people have presented this issue and even many of you have made side comments of its existence.

I am an everyone person, I prefer fair equality where everyone... no matter if they have all the time in the world or just a little time once in the week... I, and others, see an issue and I'd like actual discussion on an effective solution.

There is only one solution, find a small group who agree with you and put together an online group centered around playing together regardless of game, try out a game, if it flops, move on as a group.

Anything else is likely to do more harm than good.

Run more specific games? This must be a problem that affects popular systems with more generic settings as-presented, since I've never encountered it.

I'd imagine the perpetrators just go on and spam their favourite stat block (honestly they're not really a character if they're not adapted to having lived a life in the world of that one game setting) to all games of their preferred system, making the first step to a solution being to put in the ad itself that certain classes or whatever will be a harder sell. If someone ignores that and spams you a generic one of those, simple enough to say "sorry, that's not what we're looking for, see ad". It's something that needs to be fixed from the GM side (well, ideally those types would have a revelation that their tactics were wasting everyone's time and they could maybe give the next shiny game a day or so to see if their impulse to join remained, but presuming these folk are looking for something not specified in the ads, specifying things in ads might weed a few out before they pounce on a game with few slots 'in case')

Unofficially, friends could share warnings if they've seen the same character join several games of a type and then vanish, presumably in search of some perfect game not yet obtained, but there couldn't be a public implementation of that sort of list that wasn't vastly open to abuse and/or picking up players that just had a rough patch IRL.

Well, a lot has already been said, and I've kinda been following along.  Just to bring things around a bit, I'll start from first principles:



Nothing is wrong with this kind of thing IF and only if the players doing this can follow through on their commitments to the games they are requesting to join.

Hmm... that might sound a little harsh, but it's true.  Sure, folks are going to drop from time to time - real life in the real world is like that sometimes, but if a person really can keep up with that many games, there's nothing inherently wrong with them applying.



One of the players I regularly play across a table from plays variants of the same character no matter what game it is.  That player has grown comfortable with that character type, and plays the part well.  Folks rib him about it, but he never fails to bring something worth having to the game. Personally, I'd rather my players be happy to be playing than worried about how they're doing as a player because they're playing a favorite character type.

Playing carbon copies of the same basic character type in several games would get a little boring for me, but I see where someone with a lot of time to play on their hands might be okay with it.

I get what you are saying about first come/first serve, but here's the thing:  the GM sets the tone for his or her RTJ requirements.  Some of the GMs here are downright devious about it - long-winded complicated processes that suck all the fun out of applying, Sisyphean questionnaires, and stuff like that.

I ain't down with that.  I basically want to know just this:  are you willing to play with others, are you able to accept the decisions I will make as GM, and can you parse and write a passable sentence in English?  If so, I will take care of the rest.

That game that just filled up so quickly that you were so interested in?  It probably had folks following it from it's proposal in Game Proposals, Input, and Advice who were there almost from the beginning and knew the RTJ was coming before you.  Nothing is quite like expressing interest early on to help win you a seat at the table.



Game mortality is a thing.  It just is.  GMs have been looking for the secrets to success in the long run for as long as roleplaying games have been around.  It hurts when a game just abruptly dies, but we learn to move on to the next adventure.

Are you meaning to imply that the reason these games crash is from the sheer weight of these 'game hog' players weighing it down?  I tend to think that's not the case - most games die because the GM fails in some way, or just from sheer bad luck or timing.



I really can't tell you how you should feel, but perhaps a shift in perspective might help you feel differently if you in some way are unhappy.

Judging is a thing folks do, and being hasty about it happens a lot, too. You can only judge for yourself based on observation and evidence, but in a medium like the internet things are not always as they appear.  Dig a little deeper before forming your opinions, and never ascribe to conspiracy what can easily be explained by human greed or stupidity.



I might get my hand slapped for saying this, but here goes:  from what I've seen, the crew that run this place don't make rules needlessly - they tend to act from a position of respect for the (actual real world) law and from experience with resolving problems that have occurred in the past.  Beyond that, they're all about folks having a good time playing games.  That attitude seems to work for most of us.

If you see a bunch of folks always throwing their virtual hats into the ring and then subsequently see those games die, maybe you should be grateful you didn't get to waste your time on something that was going nowhere, anyway.  Think of these folks as the canary in your virtual coal mine, if you will.

This place we share together is a bazaar where we haggle, horse-trade, and enjoy ourselves.  It is a marketplace of fantastical ideas where we can purchase enjoyment with our time and our contributions to those games being the only currency necessary.

You rolls the dice and you takes your chances.  Evidently you've been in some good games in the past.  The time will come when you are in good games again.

And what do you see as the issue?  That lots of people RTJ and you don't stand out next to their RTJs?

Circle back to your OP:



That's roughly how first come, first served works. The first people that get to it are the ones who are able to take those slots. And if those GMs want to run things that way, it's their business. If that doesn't work out for you, that's unfortunate, but that doesn't necessarily mean those are the only games for you.



So what's the problem, then, really? Nothing, basically? This isn't an issue of egalitarian representation on the site. There are almost 5,000 games out there and there are advertisements running all of the time. If you've been around long enough, you know which ones to avoid and which ones to pursue, and if you've got more than a single genre/setting/system you're after, then you're in an even better position. There is no real lack of games or opportunities, so what is it you're really driving after?

Unofficially and privately, yes.  Any public warnings would violate the site's rules, which expressly forbid public rating, blacklisting, or criticism of specific players and/or GMs.

And the major problem with this is, of course, that it's all a matter of personal opinion - not everybody views this as a major issue.  It affects some games or systems more than others, and some people never (knowingly) encounter it.

So one solution, as mentioned by DarkLightHitomi, is to find a group of like-minded friends and work with them to find/create games that meet your needs.

Another option is to jump in on a new game with a placeholder RtJ: "Hi.  I'm interested in this game and have an idea for a dark elf witch-hunter character who would fit perfectly.  If you're interested, I can give you a fuller write up tomorrow.  Thanks for considering me."  Register your interest, beat the rush, and save yourself doing all the work until you know that the GM is at least interested enough to answer your initial message.

In reply to Shinoskay (msg # 33):

I have a ten-year-old game. I also enjoy a game that has an incredibly dedicated fanbase. It's not unusual for me to run across the same players when I join similar games. I focused on one aspect of this thread because I do not consider my gamer community as a problem.

Have you ever wondered if you didn't make it into a game because the GM just didn't like you? Or inferred something from your RTJ?


Do you ever go into GM's/Players wanted and participate? Or do you think that just shifts the FCFS problem to someone else?

They probably just don't see it as a problem.

Because it isn't a problem.

Look, it would be nice if every GM accepted players based on quality RTJs and conversations with the person applying before just running down the list and slapping 'Accepted!' on the first ten RTJs that showed up... but you can't force people to do that. For everyone that prefers a nice steak dinner, someone's going to go to a fast food place and order off the dollar menu because it's cheap and easy.

If you don't like it done that way, you don't have to RTJ for things that are First Come, First Served since you think it's not fair... but it's every bit as unfair to claim that other people Can't/Shouldn't Be Able To run things that way if they want to.
This message was last edited by the user at 15:20, Sat 25 May 2019.

the whole thing in a nut shell....

 this was brought up  by a player who very much....wants..to play in certain games..but, gest  beat out in Games that have a finite  roster limit.

 In the end? Its like  buying  a new Video game or  Book, or trying to get into a theater to see a new Movie..some GMs  flat out  , can't handle the work load.

 As stated  before , there is a Gleaning process …. Unless I have some on who was 'sent to me' by one of  my  players.. no one gets  rubber stamped... some folks , after a Month or so  leave..some, I thank for the interest and remove them..which is why I always    bump my ads...

RL sucks...people's  tastes  change..or you end up with a Player that doesn't get along  well with   your  game.

 Thus far, the best  suggestion is..don't apply to   games  with limits

 from  my point of view?.. apply for the games  you  really want to play...if yhou don't make the Numbers..or 'class' limits.. just shrug it off, tell the GM  to send you  a PM  or Rmail when he has an opening ( because they will)..then  YOU can decide  if you want to play there.

I'll just mention that I rarely see games at the initial stages where Memeber Names are even posted. Most GMs either create the characters with Character Names or use a placeholder like Player One, etc. So how can anyone say, generally, that it's this few "game hogs" filling up all the slots? Maybe it's a large and diverse group of players who just strike quicker than those who feel like they're unfairly being blocked.

Who knows?

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 43):

Once you have interacted with people enough times, you can pick up their tells.  A way of writing, or perhaps they keep using the same character name over and over.  Or if you GM a few games yourself and see that a few people have applied to all of your games.

I think that if the situation outlined by the OP is true, it would be fairly easy to find out after playing in a bunch of games.

I don't know if it is as bad as the OP suggests.  But I have picked out players I've played with before based on their writing patterns, and a few on their posting times.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:28, Sat 25 May 2019.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was inflammatory, at 19:28, Sat 25 May 2019.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was moot, at 19:31, Sat 25 May 2019.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was inflammatory, at 19:31, Sat 25 May 2019.

This message was deleted by the user at 20:32, Sat 25 May 2019.

I think what we're seeing here is a lack of substantive commentary. There isn't really a problem here, just a grievance from an exceptionally small group of people over something which works just fine for the majority. Like, the root premise of this thread is kind of like... what?

"Oh no, people apply to games. That's bad!"

Like, what? That's nonsense. At it's root, that's just nonsense. This thread is about complaining that people apply to games, and DAMN GMs who accept RTJs which come in "before I've had a chance to RTJ."

And that's just non-sensical. There is no logical, sensible root to this discussion.

I'm sort of flabbergasted by the level of entitlement which defines the start of this thread, I guess. It's tripping me up.

This idea that GMs should have to care that the same players are applying to many games is just ludicrous and ridiculous in my mind. Like, the OP notes "there are still plenty of games I am getting into," so why are we even having this conversation?

No one is "hogging games."

If people are accepting only first-come, first-served applications, then they also aren't doing quality control and the game is going to be crap and why would you bother? There are tons of GMs out there who are garbage; players have to be a little selective too, not just GMs. Look at what is involved in the RTJ, feel out the process. It's not always that hot.

The premise of this thread is so absurd, I don't even know where to start. "Oh no, people apply for too many games" is just so inane that I can't get over it. A limit on 'pending games' or 'games you have an active  or accepted RTJ in" is absurd and punitive for no reason. You even admit you're not having trouble getting into games, so you're basically starting crap because why? Nothing, basically. It isn't a problem. There are 5,000 games, and you're arguing to penalize people for applying to games, which is inane. At best.

There isn't logic here. There isn't reason. There isn't even a demonstrated problem. What you have is a non-complaint for the sake of making conflict, plus some vague commentary about a 10-year issue without actual proof that there is an issue. It's ridiculous.

I believe as GM, no matter the system or game, you are that universe's god. As ST, you are so powerful that you do not have a sheet and if a GM isn't enjoying running the game, they are utterly free to end the game and thus they can pick and choose their players by any criteria they'd like. I know many GMs simply do not allow players into their games unless they are personally invited and they do not advertise their games, yet people still send in RTJs wanting to play and get very upset, sometimes even harassing the GM when their policies are explained and they are rejected. The vast majority of GMs I  know don't even allow lurkers as they feel it ruins some of the mystique of the game and unfairly exploits/reveals their players. .

Players absolutely have a choice in the games for which they RTJ. Just as when it became clear in games I have RTJ'd for when I realize the GM's playstyles and mine will not mesh, I have the freedom as a player to retract my RTJ and leave their game, and yes I have even had GMs tell me I'm not allowed to leave their game, and despite my requests I have had GMs refuse to delete my characters from their game when asked.

I will not lie I have experienced some absolute horror stories on this site from GMs when I wasn't even in their game. I mean, I've had GMs try to retroactively turn the concept I submitted to them into pedophiles, GMs who flat out told me that they wouldn't accept character concepts due to race or other criteria which were not made clear within their game in any fashion, GMs that have tried to run material against the ToS, and I've had GMs accuse me of all kinds of things by my RTJs alone.

I keep notes on users around the sites whom I have had negative experiences with as a player and a GM, and when I run games, I do not permit those players into my game. Many of my friends who GM have a similar policy and we have shared notes in the past as players who are problems in one of our games have a tendency to RTJ in all of our games with the same concept and look to cause trouble elsewhere as well. GMs do talk off-site especially if they know each other offsite, and every player I have turned away from a game I did so either because they had proved to be a problem in the past, or because the concept they pitched wouldn't be likely to have much to do in my campaign and thus I worry that player would be more bored than anything.

 Are there certain players who apply to a lot of games over time and submit characters with the same name/type? Yes. Is it as prevalent as OP is making it out to be? I've noticed it only a few times, and usually only because those are users who I've had negative issues with previously, and it helps me avoid them.

 Do I think GMs or players should be limited in any way? No. Users are free to make their own decisions. GMs have the right to set any and all criteria they want for their own games that they sink hours upon hours of unpaid uncompensated work into for the enjoyment of those they want to participate. Players have the right to either accept that agreement and conditions for each game they play, or they have the right to go to a game with conditions they are willing to meet.

As Warrax has said, there are around 5,000 active games currently on this site, and players Wanted has ads for new ones everyday. The idea that some person or group of people are just going around applying in every single one of them solely so other people can't play seems a bit far-fetched.

Wow!!! This thread is still going.

Game Hogs?  I don't see it.

I see cliques, yes groups of friends playing with friends.

Why does an ST/DM have to change anything? There are 1 DM/500 Players on here.  Several DM/STs are running 5 or more games.

Solutions for not getting into games?

1. Run a game yourself, get a group of friends and join their games.  Games don't have to be completely serious, rules are guidelines that DM/STs can change with what their idea is for their story.  You can be as funny, odd, dangerous, or easygoing as you want it to be and I guarantee there will be enough to make a group.

This also applies to players that want the golden goose of immortality. The ones that want the strongest, richest, and most loved characters (called NPCs).


2. Be Flexible.  Be willing to try out game systems that you never played before. There are always new games being opened.  Some from game systems that I can't even remember from decades ago.

3. Post in here in the PROPER THREAD and create a bio of the game systems and genres you are interested in..Maybe some random reader will say 'hey I got a game I'm planning I'll invite this person.'  It may also show the players that those with very narrow systems result in very few options.


DM/STs enjoy telling stories, but they also put a lot of time and effort in creating something others will enjoy too.  That effort should not be rewarded with being forced to allow players that aren't playing many games just because.
This message was last edited by the user at 15:14, Mon 17 June 2019.

Oh hey, this thread. Here are some thoughts

1) For game systems there are, as sarge said, definitely cliques. When I run a Pathfinder game I almost expect to see a few familiar names. Same with Mutants & Masterminds. Same with Vampire. There are some very active players who apply to a lot of games. If they can keep up with those games then what is the problem?

2) As a long time GM I like a mixture of new and old blood in my games. The old people are known quantities. I know what they will post, when they will post, how they will post. I know they won't cause drama. I know that they won't murder-hobo my games. That being said I also tend to know how they'll react to things so getting some new blood is important but new blood is a risk. You don't know any of those things. They can flake out or try and cheat or turn out to be drama llamas.

3) Good RTJs are good RTJs and poor RTJs are poor RTJs. Having seen hundreds and hundreds of them it is very clear who has taken time and care in crafting their applications versus who has just shot off something super quick off the top of their heads. If you're constantly getting rejected you can ask for tips on how to get in next time. Sometimes it is entirely not your fault due to party compositions or the direction you take your character vs. how the GM wants the game to go but many times there are a lot of feedback critiques that can help you step up your game. It's like applying for jobs. Little things can add up to a big Yes or a big No

indeed ,  but  there is  still a bit of an interview  I have despite RTJs.. most, I know will understand..the ones that don't understand ..most likely  will just lave.. or.. if they   give it a shot.. they will bail.

 I don'[t mind the  bailers , as long as they say thie r are leaving... it doesn't take much guys to  say ".. This  game isn't  for me.."

Adding what Donsr just said though, it is equally important that DM/ST at least PM reply an RJT just to say 'I haven't forgotten about you, just going over RJTs.'  I spent a week not knowing I was accepted to a game I applied to.  Figured  I was rejected.  After 3 days of no feedback in any form, I figure I'm left out and move on.

Actually it was pretty much dead, until you bumped it.  :D


Do NOT do this.  Posting in here to look for games will just get your post deleted.  Do it often enough, and you will lose the ability to post here.  If you want to look for a game, please use the Wanted - GMs forum (and only the Wanted - GMs forum).

There has to be a place (I used chat as an example) to post a bio. Where others can go and look at what game genres a player is interested in.

I admit, my bad for not pointing out chat was only an example...  An area only for bios.

That would be a decent idea, Sarge67.  The little bio section under our names is a bit too tiny to hold our list of game interests.  A small field for that would be cool to have under the user profile.

In reply to Sarge67 (msg # 57):

Not in a public forum there isn't, no.  But if you go to User Preferences (link at the top left of the screen, directly below the RPoL logo) you will see that there is an option to set up an autobiography which can hold up to 10,240 characters.

Been here almost 15 years and still learning new things.  Thanks, BBR! :)

Not to beat a dead horse here, but...*pulls out a club and winds up*

I've been on both sides of the FCFS/long-form RTJ process as a player.  I've had some good results from both, and I've had a lot of bad results from both.  It's a bit short-sighted to assume that this one element, out of the entire chemistry of what builds a game, will determine its success or failure.

If there's a group of prospective players that are spam-casting RTJs to games...so what?  Anyone who's been here for more than a few months can very likely attest to the fact that just because you RTJ does not mean you get to play.  I've had plenty of RTJs to games that I REALLY wanted to be part of get rejected, with every answer from "I've already filled all the slots" (even though the game ad is only a few hours old) to "Your character concept it too close to someone that's already in the game" (and I got no opportunity to revise the character and no feedback on what was too similar) to "Sorry, I should have taken the ad down, I've decided to fold up the game."  If these people are getting away with this, it's because GMs are accepting their RTJs...and that's the GM's prerogative.  There's nothing the players are doing that is making that more or less likely to happen.  On top of that, I've seen enough posts from people who are trying to start more obscure games and CAN'T get enough players to join to make the game enjoyable that I have a really hard time buying into the notion that there's some assortment of players out there who are RTJ'ing every game that comes along.

Yeah, I'm sure there ARE games that get swamped with RTJs by the same players...because there are games that are being run using systems that are currently very popular and familiar to a huge audience.  Why wouldn't a hundred people who love D&D5e RTJ to a new game that started up?  A decade ago, it was a different system, but the same phenomenon was happening.  That's basic supply-and-demand, the world tends to run that way.  Anyone who's being inconvenienced by this supposed problem can find a way to work around it...look for games who aren't taking FCFS RTJs.  Look for games that are looking for replacement players.  Look for games that aren't the newest, most popular system.  Focus on the quality of your RTJ, rather than the speed (someone mentioned sending a short message that expressed interest, rather than shooting off a shoddy RTJ...that works.  That was exactly how I got into one of the two longest-running games I'm in, by sending the GM a message saying I was interested and wanted to make sure I got looked at before all the slots filled up, but I wasn't ready to send the whole character write-up at the moment.)

If you're not the kind of player who's ready-made characters are standing by, waiting to be fired off like aerial seeding a lawn, hoping that one or two might find fertile ground and take root, then why would you want to join a game with a GM who is looking for exactly that sort of player?  Consider the chemistry of the game, first and foremost...if the GM is looking for players whose style is vastly different from your own, odds are good you're going to have a rough time adjusting to that game.  And if you're the kind of GM who prefers well-considered, thought-out characters, why would you take an RTJ that smacks of being a carbon-copy submission with little or no effort put into tailoring it for your game?

If there's a problem here, the problem is a matter of poor judgment from players and GMs, and that's not something the moderators are generally going to get involved with (unless said poor judgment violates the TOU or other site policies).  It's not something that's going to be fixed by some new policy, anyway, because it's not that kind of a problem.

I've found it best to just not take it personally, I mean, unless the GM rejects you in such a way that it's meant to be taken personally.  Which I've never had a GM do.  I've had the silent treatment, which kind of sucks, but what can you do?

There's always the next one to get into...

  over the eyars, the  games I did not get into was mostly,  " we have a charcter  that class already'

  I received a few " I'll  contact you if    we lose a player.."

  for  my part, as a GM.. I really don't care what thier     'classs'  is … I rather have them play what they  want?..I have a few folks who just  , flat out crashed  and burned.. leaving the  game  after wards.

 but, that's all part of it...I figure, if you let   folks play  what they want, they might  put  more effort into posting.

 there are some really   dumb ideas  I just shoot  down.. and  some     others     we pare  down to fit the game world..

 In the end?  none of us  are gettign paid here.. so  GMs   ….run the game how you want.... Players, join a game that  you think you will enjoy. If  if  it comes  down to  not getting in?..Like PDboddy said, look fore the next one.