First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Zodia195 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Zodia195** on Thu May 04, 2017 12:29 am

Here's a topic I am curious to hear about. Most RPGs I've seen with Character roles/slots use the First Come, First Serve rule. But I have seen other RPGs not using that rule and the GM eventually picks the best character out of the pool of characters for a slot. Most of the time in this case, the GM uses this as a means to get dedicated players.

Me personally I don't like it when the GM picks the character, especially if you're required to make a detailed character profile. And there's no fool proof way to guarantee that the character you do pick is going to have a dependable player behind it.

Also, I am just too use the 'first come, first serve' system. This is why though in those rpgs there's a reserve system in play.

So which system do you guys like best?

Crichton · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Crichton** on Thu May 04, 2017 1:57 am

I think the most unfortunate thing with either way is exactly what you mentioned– that there is no fool proof way to guarantee dependable players, regardless of how much effort you put into the process. We previously discussed an application process on the forum which some people have begun to use: basically a 'GM picks the character 2.0' with far more intricate hoops to jump through before you're allowed to join.

Personally, I like to know that I've not put all that work into a character for nothing. If there's something the GM doesn't like about my character then they are free to tell me, and I'll make the necessary changes. That is of course unless I decide the compromise would have an impact on my enjoyment of the RP in which case I'd give the spot to someone else.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd rather have it 'First Come, First Serve' with a focus on co-operation between GM and player to make sure both parties are happy, although I can understand some GMs being more picky about their players, particularly if the roleplay requires more maturity than the player exudes.

Zodia195 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Zodia195** on Thu May 04, 2017 11:14 am

*Nods* One way I looked for to see if someone was going to be interactive was to see if they talked OOC wise. Also, character profiles aren't going to be everyone's strengths either. I've been roleplaying for years (17 years), and character profiles are still not a strength of mine. In fact, my drive to create this topic was the other day I had signed up for a character role in one of those "GM Picks the Character", and someone actually created a profile for the same role I created. That character looked more impressive on paper. However, with the way that RPG is looking, all of the characters are too serious. The premise of the story is pretty serious, but I feel the story needs a few comical characters and that's the kind of character I created for it. Still I will respect the GM's decision.

Crichton · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Crichton** on Tue May 09, 2017 2:24 am

OOC participation is definitely a clue, although not 100% reliable– but then what in this world really is? I have a lot of respect for letting the GM have a final say on things, after all they put the work into creating the world for us to play in and they have a vision for how they want things to go.

There is a very strange trend happening on the site which was not here when I first started with a different profile, some years ago. There's a greater separation between the 'types' of roleplays you see– usually evident by the types of Faceclaims demanded by the DM or the level of coding people put into their profiles. It's not just divided by genre, which I would expect from a roleplaying site, but it seems to me like the same sort of people usually play with the same sort of people, which means that as a newcomer or someone returning to the site it becomes very hard to get a foot in with any of the groups.

I find that a 'GM Picks The Character' solution only amplifies this divide between players, which I'm personally against. Just because someone doesn't like the way your character "looks", that shouldn't mean you're any worse at roleplaying than they are. I like coding, and I think it's fun to play with even if I'm not really good, but I wouldn't demand it of others. Overall the whole thing baffles me.

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ** on Wed May 10, 2017 2:23 am

"First come, first serve" sounds like a great way to never receive a chance at a roleplay if you are unlucky enough to be busy during prime hours or live outside one of the United States's time zones. Maccotango explains her position very well here so I won't dwell too much on that front. I agree with her on most points with the biggest being that " I'd rather be rejected on the basis that someone else's character was better than mine, or that they were looking for someone who could commit more than I could." I've seen all too often a roleplayer reserve a character, drop off the face of the planet, and then have the GM forced to write off the role because nobody wants it anymore. Roleplays are fragile in that sense, but that's not something that can ever be fully remedied.

The issue that sticks out to me in this debate is the fact that at the end of the day it's the GM's roleplay. The roleplay does not belong to the players, the moderators, or RPGateway, but the GM. Why shouldn't the person with the full vision of the story in mind decide which characters fit the story the best? If they want a story full of silly, WASPy high schoolers or anime edgelords then that is their prerogative. Banking on somebody being open to changes is pretty risky, especially when they will already have to depend on whoever they pick to stick around for the roleplay (and do their character justice) in the first place. Rather than having to go that extra step of telling someone to change their character (and risk them dropping out entirely) it seems more efficient to pick the character that fits their vision from the beginning.

Another topic brought up in the other thread (linked earlier) was that of "cultural fit" and relating a job interview to that of a roleplay application. It seems agreeable to me (at least) that rather than hire the first person to enter a company, one would go through their resume, interview them, etc. to make sure that the potential hire fits the bill. Why is that so strange in the context of a roleplay? True, this isn't a job, but some people use roleplaying as an escape from their hectic lives. As much as some people want to be judged, others want a creative outlet where they actually have a means to tell their story the way they want it to be told.

In fact, I find that the GM choosing the characters doesn't really show any more bias than other methods (especially in application form). Everyone, new or old, is on equal footing and they put their money where their mouth is by writing up whatever is necessary. Obviously, one can argue that the GM will just choose their friend over whatever else is put up there, but that really only does a favor to you, the applicant since I doubt you'd want to roleplay with such a biased person.

Ultimately though, I think a good roleplay selection process depends on joining the GM's needs and the players' wants (and vice versa). Both parties are better off when both of their characters and intentions at the forefront and I think that having a potential player present their character does just that.

Crichton · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Crichton** on Wed May 10, 2017 4:45 am

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ wrote:I've seen all too often a roleplayer reserve a character, drop off the face of the planet, and then have the GM forced to write off the role because nobody wants it anymore. Roleplays are fragile in that sense, but that's not something that can ever be fully remedied.

GMs picking characters won't make it certain that the person stays with the roleplay. Things happen IRL, and there is no way to prevent that. As you say, picking characters is no remedy.

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ wrote:The issue that sticks out to me in this debate is the fact that at the end of the day it's the GM's roleplay. The roleplay does not belong to the players, the moderators, or RPGateway, but the GM. Why shouldn't the person with the full vision of the story in mind decide which characters fit the story the best?

I don't think anyone here has argued otherwise. Regardless, as players and as GMs ourselves, we are allowed to have opinions. And personally, I find that if a GM has planned the roleplay to such a degree that they have extreme opinions on the personality and appearance of characters that are going to be played by different people, then they are going to be disappointed. Yes, the GM holds the power, but the roleplay itself is a co-operative story told with multiple voices and they have to respect that as well. Things are not going to work out exactly as they planned– that's why IRL GMs have to make back-up plans based around possible outcomes. Why shouldn't a forum GM be able to do the same?

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ wrote:If they want a story full of silly, WASPy high schoolers or anime edgelords then that is their prerogative.

Mate.

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ wrote:Banking on somebody being open to changes is pretty risky, especially when they will already have to depend on whoever they pick to stick around for the roleplay (and do their character justice) in the first place. Rather than having to go that extra step of telling someone to change their character (and risk them dropping out entirely) it seems more efficient to pick the character that fits their vision from the beginning.

This is interesting because the main argument for applications as I understood it was to further complicate the process so as to make sure the player is going to stick around. If the player isn't willing to make any compromises for the RP at an early stage, they are likely not going to be willing to make any compromises later either: in RPs involving battle, for example, that should be a huge red flag. I'm not trying to argue this is a perfect solution in any sense of the word, but I'd find it preferable.

I discussed applications in the other thread and I've spoken my mind on that so I don't see any reason to get into it now.

Zodia195 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Zodia195** on Wed May 10, 2017 11:29 am

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ wrote:"First come, first serve" sounds like a great way to never receive a chance at a roleplay if you are unlucky enough to be busy during prime hours or live outside one of the United States's time zones. Maccotango explains her position very well here so I won't dwell too much on that front. I agree with her on most points with the biggest being that " I'd rather be rejected on the basis that someone else's character was better than mine, or that they were looking for someone who could commit more than I could." I've seen all too often a roleplayer reserve a character, drop off the face of the planet, and then have the GM forced to write off the role because nobody wants it anymore. Roleplays are fragile in that sense, but that's not something that can ever be fully remedied.

This is how I view character applications. For me they are a template. Some may not be as skilled at making character applications as others. Also, even before I joined this roleplay forum, I was too use to the 'first come, first serve' format. So for personal preference, it's what I like. And I really don't take rejection well either. It's something I've coped with, but I am more likely not to apply for a roleplay if the gm creates again since I don't think my character applications will ever meet the GMs expectations and I know I am a good roleplayer too. Most of the rpgs I've been in though, the rpg fails due to the lack of interaction between the gm and other players. Hell, first RPG where I applied for a character that was "GM picks the characters" never made it off the ground because the GM vanished and hasn't been online yet. But as Crichton said, there's no fool proof way to know if the players (and GM) are going to be committed.

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ wrote:The issue that sticks out to me in this debate is the fact that at the end of the day it's the GM's roleplay. The roleplay does not belong to the players, the moderators, or RPGateway, but the GM. Why shouldn't the person with the full vision of the story in mind decide which characters fit the story the best? If they want a story full of silly, WASPy high schoolers or anime edgelords then that is their prerogative. Banking on somebody being open to changes is pretty risky, especially when they will already have to depend on whoever they pick to stick around for the roleplay (and do their character justice) in the first place. Rather than having to go that extra step of telling someone to change their character (and risk them dropping out entirely) it seems more efficient to pick the character that fits their vision from the beginning.

Um, about the "WASPy" highschoolers part, I don't think that was a nice thing to say. Some of my favorite roleplays (and one of them was the most successful rpg I was in) involved high schoolers. Plus not everyone wants to be in a complicated dark storyline. No type of RPG is better than the other, but that's another topic. When I first started roleplaying, I created characters I could relate to or get into the mindset of. I was a freshman in college at the time so I created characters around that age group. Now that I am my 30s, I can create more complicated characters due my own experiences that I didn't have over 15 years ago.

I do agree that ultimately the RPG belongs to the GM, but I think that's why its so important for OOC interactions so all players can cooperate and keep the RPG going when the GM isn't available. What I like about this site is that you can right rules. I can remember only in one instance when a mod (and this wasn't on on Gateway, but Yahoo! Clubs/Groups) asked someone to change their character to make it less OP (overpowered) and that person threw a fit and left. From my experiences players are open to change, but it was rare for a GM to ask someone to change something about their character to begin with.

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ wrote:Ultimately though, I think a good roleplay selection process depends on joining the GM's needs and the players' wants (and vice versa). Both parties are better off when both of their characters and intentions at the forefront and I think that having a potential player present their character does just that.

At the end of the day, it's all personal preference. For me, no way is full proof. I can't fully give my opinion on the "GM picks characters" rpg since I've yet to actually participate in one. But I have been good rpgs. There are ways to get get players excited to participate and that's first starts with a good premise. I don't join RPGs unless I like the premise. Plus, I find it's imperative for players to interact OOC so you know the player is active. I also think a GM needs to be open his- or herself to ideas from others. The GM should be respected, but the GM should respect other players too.

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Thu May 11, 2017 8:23 am

I have a problem with "It's the GM's story" argument that is being tossed around. I agree to an extent that this is true, but if the GM is not willing to budge on anything then they may as write the whole story themselves. The fact is, the players need to be given creative freedom and be allowed to cultivate the story and bring it in directions that the GM never imagined. And at the end of the day, the story matters more than GM or player preference. If it doesn't fit in the story, the players and GM should talk about how to change it.

However, I think the whole issue of FCFS vs GM's Pick only comes from the problem of having face claims for every RP. Personally, if I've read far enough into your summary that I get to the face claims, I already have an idea of a character in mind. I'm not going to be happy about playing the cookie cutter character #4. I do understand that some players may want this sort of structure, but that limitation further blocks any creative freedom that the player may have had.

I've been involved in a series of RP with some players that have been running for 6 years now. It only made it this far because the GM let go of her creative hold on the RP and allowed the players to shape the world and make something bigger that the GM wouldn't have been able to realise by herself. There were still instances where she had to lay down the law and where players dropped out. It happens in every RP if it runs for long enough.

Crichton · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Crichton** on Thu May 11, 2017 9:16 am

Mr_Doomed wrote:However, I think the whole issue of FCFS vs GM's Pick only comes from the problem of having face claims for every RP. Personally, if I've read far enough into your summary that I get to the face claims, I already have an idea of a character in mind. I'm not going to be happy about playing the cookie cutter character #4. I do understand that some players may want this sort of structure, but that limitation further blocks any creative freedom that the player may have had.

Just to clarify, are you opposed to faceclaims in general, or just in instances where the GM has chosen them already? From your description I assume it's about the RPs where the GM has chosen FCs and a few character traits for the different characters they want, which I agree takes a lot away from the player. Whenever I joined a roleplay like that I found that I was often scared to "do too much" with the character or in the setting the GM created, in fear of stepping on their toes– which doesn't really make for a good experience for me nor the GM.

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Thu May 11, 2017 6:57 pm

I'd say for most cases, no face claim is better than any face claim, but if it's just things like "King, Knight, Queen, Prince, etc.." without anything else (even a picture) in place for them, I'd be fine.

Kato · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Kato** on Fri May 12, 2017 3:37 am

Mr_Doomed wrote:I have a problem with "It's the GM's story" argument that is being tossed around. I agree to an extent that this is true, but if the GM is not willing to budge on anything then they may as write the whole story themselves. The fact is, the players need to be given creative freedom and be allowed to cultivate the story and bring it in directions that the GM never imagined. And at the end of the day, the story matters more than GM or player preference. If it doesn't fit in the story, the players and GM should talk about how to change it.

I think that my experience is rather different from the prevailing culture at RPGateway but I'll explain my position. As far as I'm concerned the GM should be running the game for the enjoyment of the players. The GM sets up the framework for the players to make a story among themselves. Of course, the GM can also BE one of the players, but it shouldn't be so much about bringing the GM's vision to life as it is to bring the players' visions to life through the framework that the GM creates. The players' creative vision should be included in the RP, and the GM should be there to make sure everything fits together, that characters balance each other out, and that interesting challenges are thrown at the players for the characters to resolve, whether that is through NPC interaction, environment, or conflict. The majority of the RP should revolve around the interaction of the players' characters with each other, and the GM should develop the RP from that standpoint. However this doesn't seem to be a very popular way to do things on this site, and I guess this comes down to cultural difference again.

Because of this I have to agree with Mr_Doomed above. "It's the GM's story" strikes me as quite a childish line to take, the equivalent of playground games where some kid tells another kid "It's MY game. You can't play. Because I SAID so." The story should be made between the GM AND the players. If a GM has a story and characters completely set out from the get go, there is no point in this being a roleplay. It should be the GM's story only in the context that the GM sets the rules, creates the world, reseolves conflicts, keeps the game on track, and decides what the parameters of the roleplay should be. Including whether or not they want to pick characters or use a first come first serve system.

Back to the main point of the thread. I think that first come first serves works best if you have an unlimited world, with a large group and lots of room for different characters. GM's pick works best if there is a small team or crew with specific roles. But FCFS can work just fine without derailing the RP as long as the GM is upfront about what kind of RP it is, what posting length/frequency they expect, and what level of interaction is expected of the players. I think both approaches are valid and useful for different things, and totally up to the GM. I personally wouldn't want to deliberately set up a competitive structure, but I've said my piece about that in the other thread and frankly don't wish to repeat it here.

Zodia195 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Zodia195** on Fri May 12, 2017 11:40 am

Kato, I couldn't explain it better myself with that first paragraph. I started roleplaying LONG before Gateway came about. I got my start back in the Yahoo! Clubs (which eventually became Groups). The most success RPGs I was in had plot lines. However, the Creators of those rpgs (who had mods under them to help keep the group running), created open worlds. Like my favorite RPG was also the longest RPG I was in (we completed one Arc and got 3/4ths of the way through the 2nd arc). The "Big Boss" there, created the storyline. Like she would say "Okay, here's what is going to happen next" as far as major plot points came in. What happened within those major plot points would be up to everyone there. Also, she was open to ideas for the major plot. Like I had a character who would dream of different locations and she would use those locations as future places where the characters would go. Also what helped make the RPG successful was at the core there were 4 of us helping to keep the RPG going. We did have players that came and went, but it helped that there was a few of us who were very dedicated. Only reason why it ended was because the creator started having Real Life issues get in the way and she also lost her internet connection and by the time she became active online, she lost the drive to keep the RPG going, which is understandable. Also, I think it partially helped that we were all still young too and didn't have the demands of adulthood thrushed upon us yet. Like I was the oldest being in my early 20s. The rest were in their late teens still in high school or just starting in college like me.

KameJLa · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **KameJLa** on Fri May 12, 2017 12:36 pm

Speaking only from a role player, not GM, I also started my days in yahoo chat. I was everywhere in all sorts of rps. I wasn't picky so long as I enjoyed the writing of it.
Now I do love the freedom that comes from being able to choose your own faceclaim and making the character unique. I also do like having a faceclaim already set depending on the type of rp. There are pros and cons to each, and I think it all depends on preference.
Now I have been in rps on here, and back in yahoo chat where the GM was super strict on personality and faceclaim and other things that made me go 'if you want the character played a certain way then perhaps you should just write this rp yourself.' This does not mean that I don't mind some strictness in the GM rules.
The first come first serve basis is what I like, but as someone posted above, that can not be good for people not only in different time zones, but have a life outside of rp. I have learned this now that I have a two year old, that I am not able to be on everyday. My browser is always open on role play gateway, but that doesn't mean I am at my desk.
To address the character sheets, I agree that some are not strong on character sheets. I admit I like to keep a few things vague so I can have a feel for the character in the first few posts before I solidify things. I don't understand GMs that ask for four paragraphs of personality. That is not my strong suit, and I like to get a feel like I said above, before solidifying things because it can change.
As for the enjoyment of the rp, I think that comes from everyone's contributions towards the rp and the characters. The GM has the responsibility to open the world for us. I highly enjoy bouncing ideas around with the GM and other players to keep things interesting, and challenge my characters.

Verix · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Verix** on Sun May 14, 2017 3:25 pm

Hello! I’m here to add my two cents into the mix!

Now, I’m biased in my standpoint where I prefer the application process over first come first serve rule. But I suppose it’s partially due to the fact that in my earlier years of RPing I had to send in writing samples to GMs in order to be accepted. Points of entry, from what I’m seeing, makes a difference in opinion which is A-OKAY.

One is not inherently better than the other, they both have their pros and their cons, but its when people start looking down and condemning the other that it becomes a problem. We all have different playing styles since we’re all different people, and if you found an application process (first come first serve, writing samples, apps, etc) that works best for you then good on you! Join those RPs! No one is stopping you.

As well, if you find that more and more RPs have an incomparable application process with your own view, no one is forcing you to join them. If it’s distressing that your preference is slowly dying out, then be the person who keeps it alive. Make an RP where you decide how you want to chose characters. If you don’t have time to GM, but you would still like to join an RP then it’s not your decision to dictate how the other person decides.

My point here is that I’m not going to argue about why my side is better and the other side is worse, or vice versa, but to point out the fact that you decide how you wish to experience RPing. We all have a choice, even if it may not seem like it at times.

Crichton · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Crichton** on Mon May 15, 2017 6:46 am

Anyways.

I think the amount of power the GM should have is probably up to the GM themselves and their play style.

That said, I started playing D&D IRL long before I even thought of joining forums, and so to me it came quite naturally that aside from major plot points, a lot of the power was given to the players in interacting with the world the GM had created for them. Obviously there are some major differences, as is required to make the forum RP flow as seamlessly as a tabletop game, but I think it is comparable to a point.

IRL tabletop usually has the advantage of everyone being present at the same time, so the GM has more control over things NPCs and information, although they rarely if ever have a 'player character' themselves. Forums, I've found, are more effective if the GM puts down the ground work and then creates a player character to explore that world alongside the other players, while sharing the rest of the power with them. Thus, the players are not restricted by having to wait for the GM or vice versa, and more importantly they can continue the RP even if the GM disappears.

As the creator I'd still expect a GM to keep track of players and their attitudes, give warnings to anyone not behaving according to the rules they've set and suchlike. They'd have the final say on group discussions pertaining to plot and development. But first and foremost, I'd consider them one of the players, making things easier for both themselves and the other players. Any GM who wants the players to follow their instructions to the letter would be better off writing a book.

Kato · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Kato** on Tue May 16, 2017 3:38 pm

Yep! It's interesting comparing GMed and non-GMed RPs. I too play a lot of tabletop games, where a GM takes charge, and either has no player character (as in D&D) or has some major NPCs who are almost comparable to PCs along with the rest of their multitudes. I enjoy these kind of games, although more as a player than a GM in honesty as sometimes I find I can't keep track of playing a bunch of NPCs in real time.

By contrast, in the olden days almost all the RPs I did online were non-GMed RPs, where players would just bring characters to a scenario and decide things among themselves with regards to plot, setting, etc. and if anyone was behaving inappropriately, you'd just ... not play with them... :/ This kind of thing works fine among two or three friends but once things get a little bigger there needs to be a bit more control.

Anyway I was thinking about what my preferred mode is for RPs such as on this site, and I think I've decided now. (It took a while because ... well it's a difficult topic.) My preference is for moderated approval. Which means anyone can submit characters, as quickly or slowly as they like (although probably within some time limit if the RP is popular), and they will mostly always be accepted if they meet the RP guidelines, but will need approval from the GM, which might involve adding more detail to a CS, clarifying things, changing parts of their character or suchlike as is needed to fit in with the scenario, with the GM being open to giving fair and honest feedback. That way it is inclusive without being about speed or ability to schmooze the GM.

miraclegem · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **miraclegem** on Tue May 16, 2017 10:44 pm

Crichton wrote:
Anyways.

Wow. I think that's just about the rudest thing I've ever seen on this site. Congrats. I feel like I've walked into a youtube comment section.

Moving on from that however, I understand that DnD GMing is obviously easier to moderate since its done in person. Of course, even this thread doesn't even get into all the IRL problems of moderating a campaign, like that One Dude(TM) who's only in it to pick up chick, or That Guy who plays "chaotic neutral" but is really just in it to fuck with things regardless of the narrative, their character's narrative, or tbh any of the campaign. (Limited to, but not excluding other bonus appearances like: that one girl/guy who NEEDs their Mary Sue to be some untouchable God-tier hero, and won't play along.) GMing is precarious work at all times, regardless of medium.

That's why I agree more with Verix.

Verix wrote:
As well, if you find that more and more RPs have an incomparable application process with your own view, no one is forcing you to join them. If it’s distressing that your preference is slowly dying out, then be the person who keeps it alive. Make an RP where you decide how you want to chose characters. If you don’t have time to GM, but you would still like to join an RP then it’s not your decision to dictate how the other person decides.

Even though earlier comments on here disagree with "GM's prerogative" you have to remember: the GM is sharing their world/premise with players out of their own goodwill and enthusiasm. GM's RPs are never free things that you can take for granted. Almost all of them take hours of work and emotional labor to create (whether you can see how long it took or not). If you are sad to see that there isn't any content that you are interested in or comfortable with, make your own! Maybe the others who were making their own are now uncomfortable sharing (especially as you say, there are GM's who are obviously draconian and only realize after the fact that they weren't ready to share their ideas after all).

A lack of FIFO rps is only a call to action! You obviously aren't finding what you want with your current actions if you have to complain about it, so instead do something about it! Or empower a friend/fellow rper to do something about it! I've read a lot of subtextual calls out about character application rps (correct me if I'm wrong here, though), and what I am basically understanding is that many people see character applications as "pretentious" or "too much work." I personally believe that a character application should only consist of enough to sell the premise of your character--elevator pitch it! It'll be less effort, and the general time/emotional investment put in at entry should hopefully keep the rp alive for a little longer at least.

Of course, there are also GMs who go AWOL a days, a couple week, etc into an rp--empower yourself. You can scope out a GM as much as a GM can scope out a player. More, even! (You don't even have to show interest unless you believe in the GM!)

I feel the FIFO arguement at its base is more that many people are hungry for casual rps where they have similar power to the GM in creative control. In that case, connect over an interest thread! Cooperatively plan an rp! No need for applications when everyone's working together to make it.

In summary, never feel like you are being handed the short end of the stick when you see an rp with a moderation process you don't agree with. GMs are protecting themselves and their intellectual property--and you can do the same. Use you dissatisfaction as a call to action as opposed to an acceptance of an uncomfortable modus operandi.

Crichton · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Crichton** on Wed May 17, 2017 6:10 am

miraclegem wrote:
Crichton wrote:
Anyways.

Wow. I think that's just about the rudest thing I've ever seen on this site. Congrats. I feel like I've walked into a youtube comment section.

Huh. That's neat I guess.

miraclegem wrote:
Moving on from that however, I understand that DnD GMing is obviously easier to moderate since its done in person.

I'm not sure I meant to imply it was easier. I mean, the problems you go on to list are just some of the problems that arise, ~~like the problem of getting a bunch of nerds to coordinate~~, so you have a point there. My idea was more to work off what people had said earlier about GM involvement and see how the two compared– how much is a GM really involved in the process and how much is necessary? I agree that you should have respect for the GM and their willingness to share the idea 'with the world' so to speak, but beyond that, how much control should they really have?

Also,I don’t think there’s anyone here who disagrees with Verix, dude. There is nothing to disagree on. Yes: if you don’t like a thing, you are welcome not to engage with that thing when there are other choices present. However, expressing your frustrations with how things are run, and most importantly discussing things the way they are, are not bad things. Especially in a site that is constantly looking to improve itself, the user base should always be giving feedback and one of the ways we do that is by discussing how things are run amongst ourselves first.

I didn’t respond anything else to Verix’s post because frankly, I was baffled by the fact that someone felt the need to tell us we had freedom of choice, like that wasn’t something we knew. The point of a discussion isn’t whether or not one way of doing things should be thrown off the site, it’s debating the pros and cons of each, the reasonings why you might prefer one over the other. Yes: frustrations come up, are acknowledged or challenged, addressed and then allowed to subside. I personally find debates a great deal of fun, so I engage with them. I didn't feel like I had anything to say to someone who seemingly missed the point of having a debate to begin with.

I know it feels a lot like we're condemning one over the other in this thread but that's mainly because anyone representing the other side has been either rude or telling us to do something else. Hence why the discussion has now evolved.

miraclegem wrote:
I feel the FIFO arguement at its base is more that many people are hungry for casual rps where they have similar power to the GM in creative control.

I don't agree that the want for FCFS is necessarily because you want your RP to be more 'casual' than others. There's nothing inherently 'casual' about wanting more of the same power as GM. When I ran a campaign where most of the power of my plot was in my hands, it died almost immediately because players never dared to step outside any imagined boundary. They never dared interact with the environment I created for them, apparently out of fear that they would step on my toes. Perhaps that was miscommunication on my part but I'm not sure how many ways I can say, "please explore and do as you will, and if you're unsure, please ask." Comparing this to experiences I've had with less GM control, where players add more to the stories themselves alongside the GM, I'd say they have the potential of being just as 'advanced' as any other RP.

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Wed May 17, 2017 7:08 pm

miraclegem wrote:In summary, never feel like you are being handed the short end of the stick when you see an rp with a moderation process you don't agree with. GMs are protecting themselves and their intellectual property--and you can do the same. Use you dissatisfaction as a call to action as opposed to an acceptance of an uncomfortable modus operandi.

I think the market reflects a call to action. Just not a call to action in the same way you were expecting.

If you look at the first page of the New Roleplays list for tab RPs, there are only 1/5 RPs that have more than 2 characters submitted. All of them are moderately non-restrictive when it comes to character creation and submissions (at least at a quick glance). And that's over a week's worth of RPs being submitted.

It isn't a GM's market. It's a player's market and I suspect that a lot of people are willing to either wait, adapt their preference in terms of genre, or move to some other part of the internet than they are willing to budge with a GM who's methods they don't agree with.

Blackbird26 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Blackbird26** on Wed May 17, 2017 8:06 pm

Hm, I don't know how much worth there is to my two cents here since I've been running the same RP series for the past six years (thus haven't been around much) and the way I do things is just the way I personally do things, but whatever...

Personally, I don't do First Come First Serve and I don't reserve characters. If there are multiple character applications for the same role I'm going to pick the one I think is best. And when I say 'best', I mean the character I feel has the most creative potential, the player I feel is most open to collaboration and less likely to cause needless drama with other players, and a number of other things that will help things run smoothly along the way. So yeah, I expect you to fill out a character sheet the way I want it, but I'll also PM you about your character and run ideas by you to see how you react and how you may or not add to those ideas. I'm going to either like you or I won't, and that's going to play a part as well. I'm going to demand some effort from you, but I'm also going to put in an effort to work with you, and if that results in nothing, well, we tried. *shrug*

To put it simply, I think the issue is more along the lines of both players and GMs trying to find some automated system to know whether their RP will work when a) there will never be a guarantee and b) chemistry also does play a part on whether two or more people will successfully create anything together.

That's what I think anyway.

First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

a topic in Game Design Workshop, a part of the RPG forum.

First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Re: First Come First Serve vs. GM Picking Characters

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online