Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GQuail" data-source="post: 2971026" data-attributes="member: 30709">My current campaign is made up entirely of old friends, but in my Uni days I would play at the gaming club there and often pick up new players or join new games.  You sometimes get funny feelings but for the most part I had far more go wrong because I had high hopes than because anyone was "forced" on me.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />  Right now, new players are vetoed by the current players beforehand and then again after a few sessions: so new players are admitted on the understadning it's a "trial period", and it might not work out for various reasons.  (My current group is 7 players, so a new player let on might be told "we find 8 players just too slow" rather than "Dave and Jo think you're creepy" ;-) )In general in life, when I get a bad feeling about someone, it's usually justified.  This is apart from women, where I am a terrible judge: but most men are.  ;-)I found this piece of merelycompetent's houserules pretty heavy duty......because in my experience, watching an RPG is amongst the most boring of activities on the planet.  Hell, just splitting the group and having to leave players alone for 10 minutes can cause a lot of people to start to get a bit fidgety: going three full sessions straight watching would be flat-out mindnumbing, especially if after that the GM was going to judge me on how keen I was.  IF it works for your group, well, fair enough: but it would IMNSHO  turn off most people regardless of how suitable a player they are.  Roleplaying games just aren't spectator sports. No matter how good, how involving, how well-plotted an experience you provide your players, it's a whole different ball game to amuse watchers.  As posters above have said, if it becomes obvious you have a PKing nutball, you just have to make it clear beforehand what your groups stance on that sort of thing is: and yes, you just chuck him out there and then if he doesn't take the hint.  Of course, any time you take on people you don't know you encounter this problem: and I don't think some sort of vetting is unfair, but this "three session" suggestion sounds (frankly) pretty crazy to me.  It reminded me of the house rule I heard of on these boards which said that after 30 minutes past game time if you weren't there you still had to turn up but your player was NPCed: so you had to watch the game as a spectator or would get chucked in short order.  Hey, it must have worked for someone: but if I tried to pull that on any group I've ever ran for, no matter how horrible their previous experiences, I doubt I'd get far.Inviting prospective players to obsereve a single session (And perhaps help out in some DMly duties, like looking up a monster's AC for you or finding enough D^ for the spell the NPc just cast, to help break the monotony)  would be something I'd consider: I do think that showing the game in actual swing can say way more about your play style than anything else, as well as showing the group in action before the player considers what new PC to make.  Unlike th etime required to stage a one-off or mini campaign to test someone out, a spectator can just turn up to your next session as normal..... I gotta hand it to you, merelycompetent, consider I don't like your rule, I seem awfully keen on adapting it for myself.  ;-)</blockquote>

Verification