What are your recruiting standards for your F2F games?

[Catulle]

How do you pick replacement players for your regular face to face games?

This came up in another thread, and I think it warrants its own thread.

My current game is weekly, and has been together for 18 years. We play at a player's home chosen for its central location (I live out in the country, so even though I am the GM, I cannot host).

I maintain five players; in the rare occasion that I need a replacement, any potential candidate must be endorsed by at least one present or former player, and pass a background check (several of us have careers which would preclude gaming with a felon, for instance, and the host has small children).

In addition, we prefer players who are over thirty, ex-military, and possessing comparable personality traits and views with the group, although the first two are waiver-able. Regular and timely attendance of the game is a must; we average 49-51 sessions a year.

Currently we are not allowed to recruit female players by (several) wifely fiat, and by currently, I mean never.

If the prospect meets those standards, he will be allowed to join on a probationary basis, with permanent inclusion being subject to a group vote.

What a surprise, you're a sexist piece of Bleeeeeeep that ought to be banned on those grounds alone. Jeebus. Wasn't "no bitches at the table" at least a decade ago?

 

[Catulle]

Do you also ban non-binary people, FWIW?

 

[aco175]

I see where this discussion has gone. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Umbran]

What a surprise, you're a Bleeeeeeep that ought to be banned on those grounds alone.

Mod Note:

So, while I don't disagree with some of the sentiment here, you need to be aware that we don't allow foul language and insults. We try to apply those rules to protect EVERYONE. Even those we disagree with.

He has a rule at his table. His stated reason for that rule isn't great, but is not a ban-able offense.

 

[Blue]

In the group I started right before 3.0 came out and is still going strong, we're a group of friends who play together. Decisions outside the game - such as who we want to invite - are discussed by the group and anyone can block them.

In another group with rotating DMs that I joined there's a effectively a core group of two married couples and whomever is DMing also can invite others, but the other DMs have no requirement to invite them to their campaign when we switch. We have disinvited players for the campaign as well - we are a weekly campaign and had a pair (father and son) who later started a separate bi-weekly campaign for others on the same day. They had very good reason why that was the only day they could run, but we fluctuated up and down two characters every week and that ended up not working for everyone else. Sad that's how it worked out, the father was a blast to run with and the son was developing, but it was just too disruptive to the rest of play.

 

[Catulle]

Mod Note:

So, while I don't disagree with some of the sentiment here, you need to be aware that we don't allow foul language and insults. We try to apply those rules to protect EVERYONE. Even those we disagree with.

He has a rule at his table. His stated reason for that rule isn't great, but is not a ban-able offense.

I'll totally cop to my own poor conduct in that, but in what way is the "no women" rule not advancing an anti-inclusive agenda?

 

[aco175]

I'll totally cop to my own poor conduct in that, but in what way is the "no women" rule not advancing an anti-inclusive agenda?

I would think that since he is not advocating a no women policy, or any other group, for this website, I would think he could state his opinion about his home games. I can agree or disagree with some or all of his opinions, but banning everyone who doesn't agree with one person on the site would make the site just contain Morrus and maybe one more... for a while.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll totally cop to my own poor conduct in that, but in what way is the "no women" rule not advancing an anti-inclusive agenda?

#1 don’t discuss moderation in-thread. That’s against ENWorld rules. I could issue a warning for this, but I’m letting it slide this time,

#2 it is not anti-inclusive because- as explicitly stated- the “no women” rule was put in place at the request of the player’s wives. Accomodating their spouses’ wishes- even if they agree to do so out of sexist reasons- is not anti-inclusive, it’s respectful of their relationship.

 

[practicalm]

Face to Face, I run a game at my church and we let anyone play.

 

[MGibster]

Face to Face, I run a game at my church and we let anyone play.

What's their stance on smoking and chewing tobacco?