Do you have auditions for your gaming group?

[lior_shapira]

Recently my group needed 'recruitments' so I posted on forums in israeli RPG sites and got several responses. I've invited the first two over to chat about the campaign and the group. We rolled characters and they seemed nice enough and indeed so far its going good... (crossing fingers). So I do think an interview is important, to try to assess how well they'll mix n' match with the group.

My girlfriend told me to ask them first thing "Do you have or did you ever have a girlfriend?" as a first test of normalcy

Besides them most of the people in the group are friends, some of us have been playing together for over 10 years

 

[DrNilesCrane]

If the new player is known by someone in the group and is recommended as a good addition, I generally invite them on a trial basis after meeting them. That's the best way to go and generally the most successful.

However, when I've needed to find a new player or two from the world at large, I use a formal interview screening process with three steps, after posting on forums and local gaming stores. The process (similiar to a job interview) starts with 1) an email list of standard questions which I then review the responses with the group, 2) phone conversation, and 3) an in person meeting with myself and possibly one other person from the group. If the player commits through all the steps and seems like a good match, I invite them to join us on a trial basis. Then I make sure to check with the group as well as the new player to see if it's a good fit, if there are areas that need attention, or if it's just not the right mix.

While the process involves a little more work all around, it's definitely worth it in my opinion. I've found the process ultimately saves the group time in the long run in finding the best fit and it saves new players time as well--we are roleplay intensive, serious about the gaming experience and there are plenty of people who prefer a different style of play. Plus the fact the fact the process is a bit lengthier (requires a few hours of the new candidate's time) works as an advantage: players unwilling to commit a few hours to the interview process certainly aren't going to commit the time to the campaign (at least in my experience). Usually each of the three "steps" I use cut the field of candidates by 50% to 65%.

I've been using this process for about 12 years (refining it as I go) and am usually successful at finding good candidates, but even still, it boils down to the new person having the right "chemistry" with the existing group. It doesn't always work, but I firmly believe it works much better than a cattle-call approach for my group, given the wide variety of styles of play and the vastly different things many players like to experience in a campaign.

 

[Humanophile]

I haven't had much chance to actually game lately, but if I were picking up new players, at least one "audition" would be de-facto required. Gaming is a social activity, so I'd have to meet the prospective person in a non-gaming setting and make sure that they were ... well, normal before inviting them to my home or a friend's house. (Or even dragging everyone over to theirs.)

I mean, let's be frank. It can be hard to tell someone's gaming style and quality early on; munchkins are often masters at knowing the "right answers" to give. But the guy who just makes the combat-optimized character is a far sight better than the odiferous lout who makes the elven lesbian ninja combat twink, and it's for purposes of protection against the latter that some form of pickiness needs to be enforced. The creeps make things a lot harder than they need to, the rest tends to work out via natural selection.

 

[zodiki]

No, there's no reason for our group to audition players. As someone else pointed out, you can tell all you need to know after talking with them for a few minutes about the game. I suppose it is a kind of mini-interview though. Also, highly incompatible players will usually leave after a couple of sessions anyway - as long as the DM isn't a doormat.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

No auditions, no. However, new players are generally screened first by me, and then my group, and then me again during character creation. In addition, no one is really considered a member of the group until after 3-4 sessions. Until someone is considered a member, they are only invited to smaller adventures, side-treks, etc., holding off invitation to the "main campaign" until we're sure they're compatible with our group and playstyle.

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

My girlfriend told me to ask them first thing "Do you have or did you ever have a girlfriend?" as a first test of normalcy

And an answer of "yes" meant they had obviously been driven completely insane, correct?

On a more serious note, we have come across players with whom we don't necessarily like to play, but with whom we are fine on a personal level, contrary to the statements of many in this thread. We actually have an excess of available, acceptable players, and so we have kind of divided into two or three separate groups. I have found that the most profound divider among players has been play styles, which vary greatly, being highly contingent upon the style of the DM who introduced each player to the game. We don't tend to put a lot of stock in the divisions created by the American class system, although I tend to think that my wife and I can more easily "blend" with people of varied upbringings than can many others. I find that this is often a major issue with some people, more often than not with those of the "higher" class, respectively.

 

[3catcircus]

My group which consists of myself (DM) and 4 other players have decided that we would like to add a 5th player. We have selected a person that we think is going to work and are going to give him a trial run before giving him the go ahead. We were joking around as a group that we should have potential players come with a resume . I have been playing rpgs for some time and realize that just because someone plays doesn't mean he's going to Gel with the group (We've had some bad xp) . This is why we're selective about who we add. Anybody else like this? How do you add someone? Do you let them in easy? Or do you have a trial run/interview/resume?

We just interviewed a guy (and he is good to go.) The big things we look for:
Older than 21?

A real job (i.e. no Burger Jockies - if you are age 21+, unless you are still in college, you should have a real job of some sort - blue-collar, white-collar, whatever, as long as it is something that provides you 40 hours of work a week, unless you are self-employed (and good at it))?

A reliable car?

Clean (i.e. no stink)?

Normal looking (i.e. no pins and needles and s--t sticking out of your face, no goth clothing, etc.)?

Sane (this is the tough one - because you can run into a situation of (and I quote) "Looks normal, head full of crazy."))?

Only then do we worry about RP'ing experience, types of characters you like to play, etc. Of course, this is for an at-home game. I also DM a game at my FLGS - there, you generally have to "takes what you gets," and kick people out later, but all of the guys in my game are fairly normal (in fact, one is normal enough to also play in our at-home game.)

 

[fafhrd]

A real job (i.e. no Burger Jockies - if you are age 21+, unless you are still in college, you should have a real job of some sort - blue-collar, white-collar, whatever, as long as it is something that provides you 40 hours of work a week, unless you are self-employed (and good at it))?

I bet you like to play bozaks

 

[Humanophile]

On a more serious note, we have come across players with whom we don't necessarily like to play, but with whom we are fine on a personal level, contrary to the statements of many in this thread...

I'm sure most of us have met gamers who were fine as people, but who just didn't click over playstyles. Some of us in smaller towns "hold our noses", figuring that a compromise game is better than none at all. Others just have a talk, maybe point the fellow to a group that he'd fit better with, and part ways amicably. Such is bound to happen, most people have no problem with it.

Gaming has its own vast reprobate community, though, and these have to be watched for. These are the folks who make you feel like you need a long shower and a lot of therapy after dealing with them, so it's really best to avoid having them around your house and friends. When you bump into someone at your local FLGS and have a quick talk about the game, congratulations, you've served them their first "are you a socially compotent human being" interview, and all should be well from there. If you meet them via internet ad or "gamers meeting gamers" flyer, it's always best to give them a quick once-over before anything else, though.

 

[wizofice]

I'd definitely like to see that Social Contract, Scott-fs.

Was wondering if anyone's tried a Play Contract, such as is proposed at 2d10.com? I like the idea, especially with a group that hasn't played together much. It gets all of the expectations out into the open, and even relieves the DM of some of the storyline burden. Imagine if your players helped to take care of other players getting what they want out of the game.

I think it's a great idea, especially for people who don't have the time to experiment with a new group to see if it works. Just a little planning can take care of a lot of worry.