GMs - what is your vetting process for finding new players?

[MNblockhead]

A follow-up to my original post: does your vetting change if playing face-to-face versus online? For face-to-face, are you more careful if you run your games from you home versus a public location (game store, pub, etc.)

@Jd Smith1 mentioned that his vetting process remained mostly the same.

For me, I was much more careful with whom I invited to my game when running it face-to-face from my home.

Online, I'm much more open to bringing someone in for a session with little to no vetting. How they get on with everyone else in that session is the vetting. In a worst-case scenario, I can easily boot someone from Discord and Foundry. I've never had to do that, but knowing I could makes me more willing to take risks with new players.

If I'm running a game in a public place, at least I know I won't have to deal with that player after the session. But even so, I just don't want to deal with much drama in a public place, and it is not like I could kick the player out of the game store. Still, if I bring in a nightmare player, I can always just pack up and leave.

But I want no drama what-so-ever when running my home games.

 

[GrimCo]

I play almost exclusively face to face and at home with friends and good acquaintances. It's been a while since i had completely new players (as in people i didn't already know from before). Last time, they were recommended by one of the players and i generally trust his judgment of character. Both new players were good guys, fun, relaxed and i'm sorry they left group after only few sessions cause of scheduling problems.

Most important thing i look for in new player is how you get along with everyone and are you fun to hang out. My sessions are in equal part about playing game and hanging out and joking around. Long off topic conversations about interesting subjects are normal.

Long story short - if you are fun enough to grab a beer and hang out with, you are good for my game.

 

[Ondath]

My vetting process depends on how I'm recruiting the player:

1- If it's from my friend circle, I try to infer from conversation if they'd be a good fit for my play style. If I'm looking to recruit a player for an ongoing campaign, I might first have them join as a guest with a simpler character, see how they interact with the other players. If everyone seems to get along, they then get fully integrated with a proper PC.
2- If I'm trying to recruit people online (or for any situation where it's not my friend circle like a club event), it's harder to determine who might be a good fit. I try to heavily advertise my play style (if I'm running an Old School Essentials game, I might note that the game will focus primarily on dungeon crawling, that the hazards are deadly etc.). I also really underline that wangrods will not be welcome by noting that I'll use the X-card, have Lines and Veils, content warnings etc. That tends to keep the problematic people away.

 

[The Soloist]

I found that no amount of vetting could prevent some new players be total anti-social jerks after 2-3 games. Their real personality comes out once they believe they are part of the group for good. Such a waste of time. That is why decided to play in solitary mode 80% of the time.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Is it appropriate to ask why this is one of your rules? Oddly specific o_o

During the F2F days i instituted it after one mind-breaking PC in a long-term campaign.

In online gaming, it seems to work as a useful filter.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Can you elaborate on this last point. After the previously described vetting, what would PC-creation reveal that would lead you to not move forward with a player?

To use the two booted players: one became visible upset because I told him that he should introduce his PC in the Discord IC chat server, because I don't like burning time at the table RP'ing things the players already know. It quickly became apparent that he was going to have issues 'sharing the spotlight'.

The other guy wrote an extensive backstory for his PC, in which it was established that this male PC was named Katherine, after his mother. When I pointed out that my group was a bit too inclined towards crude humor to make that sort of PC concept work, we parted amicably.

In both cases, it is management of expectations on all sides.

 

[bloodtide]

I start first with a basic interview. Who they are and all about them as a bit of an outline. Then much deeper about gaming, RPGs and such. I'm a good judge of people, so I can get a good "feel" for a person.

I'm really looking for if they can go 10, 20, 30 or 60 minutes without using their phone. If they have to check their phone...well, by the 5th time I will just tell them "no". And if they get a phone call that they "must take" and it "takes" more then five minutes...I will tell them to find another game.

I'm looking for someone who seems to want to play the game and it willing to make a commitment. I really like when someone can say they will make time for the game and move other things around to do so. Anyone more casual about it....people that are like "the game is a waste of time for me" or the one I hate the most "I'll just game until one of my real cool friends has something for me to do".

Then we get to my Big Test: My House Rules. And my rules are seen as Extreme. A good half of all potential players will simply leave once they read a couple. Though, this is one of the main things the rules are made to do.
A couple that drive people away quick:

The fact that I ask players to attend the game every time on time

I have a Three Second Rule: whenever there is Action or Combat, you have three seconds to state your action. If not, your character will stand there as a Clueless Target until next round.

I have a Deity Eye Rule, where your deity watches and judges each use of divine power and spells used. If you follow the deities ethos your fine...if not you get backlash, smited, or loose divine power.

I have Dangerous Magic. A lot of this is just using the 2E rules here. Though also some more brewed.

Character Death: Let the Dice Roll where they may. Your character might die anywhere anytime.

Such rules nicely keep away players of types I don't want to game with anyway.

 

[MintRabbit]

I run an online gaming community but most of the players are local. I started it when I went to university, so I recruited by putting up advertisements. I'm not the only GM in the server at this point, but pretty early on we knew that we wanted some sort of boundary for folks who wanted to play with us, especially since I wanted to make my table friendly for queer players.

We have a series of rules that new folks to the server have to read through before they can access the rest of the server. Your typical no hate-speech, honour personal boundaries, etc. It's not that different from a lot of Discord servers these days. We have a few basic safety tools that are considered in-use for any games run in the club. I run a lot of one-shots and short sessions, so I'll open sign-ups to anyone in the Discord server, sometimes making it clear that new players are going to be prioritized over veterans.

We don't really advertise anymore, but we still get new folks pretty regularly, I'm guessing through word of mouth. It isn't all smooth sailing - we've had competing viewpoints, folks who couldn't find games they were looking for, and misunderstandings in games. But overall I'm really happy with the group of players that have managed to find each-other.

 

[uzirath]

I rarely play online, so any vetting happens for face-to-face games. In general, I know the people in my adult groups through work or other connections. For games that I GM, I don't have much of a process, but I consider some of the following:

• General interest and enthusiasm
• Thoughts from the rest of the existing group and my own sense of social chemistry
• Gender balance (I was always irked by how male-dominated the hobby was in my youth)
• I lean toward folks who are more interested in the creative aspect of the game (interesting characters, being part of a story, etc.) than the gamist stuff (none of my players care about "optimal" builds and that sort of thing)

I also run a few youth gaming clubs and "summer camps" that are open to anyone. For these, there is no vetting at all. With younger middle-schoolers, this sometimes means that I spend as much time mediating personal conflicts as with the actual game. (As a middle school teacher, this is how I spend a significant portion of my professional life, too, so I don't mind.) I do sometimes remind the kids that just because they're friends in "real life" doesn't mean that they necessarily want the same things out of the game. Helping them with "session zero" types of conversations goes a long way toward resolving conflicts.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

I run a lot of one-shots and short sessions, so I'll open sign-ups to anyone in the Discord server, sometimes making it clear that new players are going to be prioritized over veterans.

I also run a few youth gaming clubs and "summer camps" that are open to anyone. For these, there is no vetting at all.

Both of these suggest a good genera follow-on question:

Do you vet people differently for games that are planned to be ongoing campaigns versus one-shots or short adventure arcs, and if so, what are the differences in your criteria?