Game etiquette

When we start a game together, we make a social contract. If the GM or the player can't fulfill the commitment, I believe it its only right that the player or GM informs the rest of the group.

In the last few months have experinced that the GM just disappears with no warning. Ones I got a PM from the GM telling me/us that his RealLife commitment had grown and had to withdraw from the game. It could have just as easily have been a game forum post, but still it is the right way to go about it.

My goal is not to mark anybody as a "bad" player or GM. I just what it to be the norm that players or GM freely can excuse them self from a game for whatever reason. That is is better than just leaving, and leaving the rest of the group wondering.

Sometime this happens, a GM or player will just vanish. It's annoying when you never get a heads up, especially when you check the Absence threads and there's nothing there as well, but those things happen. And sadly, you'll never be able to force people from giving you a heads up if they don't feel like it. It sucks, but it's one of those things we have to learn to deal with when it comes to online games...

I agree with what you're saying, but I've grown to just accept it. Games die. A lot. So make sure you appreciate the ones that don't ;)

Agreed, happened in two games I am in. But in one, the GM still continued on in other game or games as a player! I PM'd the GM as well after a good amount of time had lapsed. No response. This is just wrong. I get it that people get busy with real life. Happens to us all, but that's just plain rude. I guess after a time you learn who the trustworthy GM's are.

Sometimes it is not even the persons fault, they might need to rush off to the hospital for a family member or themelves. Sometimes they feel bad being away and that causes them to stay away longer. It happens, on this site and others.

I agree that real-life crises sometimes strike unexpectedly. But I also believe that the anonymity of the Internet makes people behave differently than they would in a face-to-face game. Too many people just believe that "ghosting" on others in a virtual space is perfectly acceptable behavior.

I halfway wonder whether a reputation system would be a good thing for Gamers Plane to introduce. If I'm a GM preparing a new game, there's no real way for me to tell if a player who expresses interest is going to be a reliable poster. If I could see positive comments left on that player's profile by other GMs, it would go a long way toward helping me avoid flighty players (or GMs!) who have a reputation for ghosting on games.

This sounds like a secret feedback system: you score other players in games you share and then the GM can see the average score of all players that applied. From what I've seen in the forums, the key here is secret, but this is probably an implementation nightmare and can easily be worked around :(

Yeah, I didn't mean anything secret. Whatever it would be would be publicly visible. It could even be reserved for positive comments only. Or no comments at all, but rather an indication of average number of posts per day, or posts per game, or something like that.

The problem is that running a game as GM takes a ton of work, so when a player ghosts you, it really shows a lack of respect from them.

Now I agree that it is bad manners to just drop out without saying anything. Still some go silent for a period as other things on their mind in real life that do not make it a priority to contact a game site. For this reason and others I hesitate on a reputation system for once a player gets a bad rap, earned or not that players ability to get into a game is greatly reduced if not completely done. this means if a player who was inconsistent in the past for whatever reasons may make it so that they as well leave the site even if they would have been better moving forward.

Also it has the problem of favoritism or bad blood between members. Who gets to vote on the reputation and what are the criteria. Is it just on bailing on a game or is it going to be lack of posting when the game states x/per day? Is it only when a player bails on a game without notice or what if a game turns out not to be that players cup of tea. I have had a certain player bail on more than one game I am in or am running but still plays in other games and seems doing well and is liked on the forum. Should the fact that i would be hesitant to put them in another game of mine really effect other members from accepting them into their games. Once a bad rap is given it takes a lot more good reports to overcome .

ah yes, it wasn't based on your post alone. I think I read some people discussing rating ideas somewhere and the problem was always that players can fake it and bump their ratings. Based on that, my suggestion was that only GMs would have access to the those scores of those applying (basically I wouldn't be able to see my score to manipulate it... even though some GMs could probably tell me).

Another issue is that most player that ghost games will probably be off GP anyway, so their rating will be pointless. Lots of people trying it and then giving up

EDIT: Clearly the rating need to be reversible and the initial problem was people not giving any warning and being disrespectful, that is, dropping a game without warning anyone. Live happening is not really what runekyndig was talking about

Gotta take into account the fact that life sometimes gets in the way. Sometimes people lose their internet in hardship or get sick or end up in the hospital. I'd hate to come back from something that kept me from being able to post anything just to find out I have received a bad rating. If this is the route it would take then there would also need to be an option for appeal.

The day GP implements a reputation system will be the day this site becomes more political and less relaxed and welcoming.

As is, you really just have to assume that anyone who's been on the forum for less than a year or so (?), is going to be gone within 6 months. I would say that's about been my experience of it. If they turn out to stick around longer, that's great. But I'm going to prefer users/Players who've been around longer, which I realize may contribute to the cycle of ppl not sticking around, but... well it's a balance and not a hard and fast rule. I want to give new players a chance to see what this forum can be, but I really don't like having my time wasted.

When selecting players - if I have a lot of options, extenuating circumstances (that will cause me to look harder at very new players) may be that:

1. if the user is active on the forums in visible places (the Tavern, Introductions thread, etc), I consider that a good sign.

2. if the user GMs games, I consider that a good sign, basically because I've experienced less ghosting from GMs than Players.

3. users that don't bother to upload an avatar is a huge red flag for me

Ultimately, I've found that if you really want a game or system to happen - you just have to run it yourself.

Maybe others have vastly different experienced, but I'd say GMs and Players alike would do well to note the above...

But also, talk to your players - a lot. Show them the human on the other side of the screen. Players, engage back, if you want to do this and have a good experience. At the very least, this decreases straight up ghosting (maybe), and may at least get you an exit-note.

So this kind of turned into a slightly off topic ramble, but... Just be the change you want to see. Everyone. If you want more commination, communicate more.

I've also seen people mentioned that a GM may want to take in a couple of extra players, assuming ghosting will happen. With that in mind, I'd suggest that those extra spaces can be used to get a good mixture of new and old GP members, addressing the issue of "closed groups" that feed the "cycle of ppl not sticking", while making it likely that the game will still have players after awhile.

I think that's right.when a game gets quiet for even a couple days, new users, who are not in the habit of spamming refresh, get out of the habit. They may go a few weeks and then "Oh wow, I completely forgot about the play by post game. Ah, I am too embarrassed to return."

In my head, that's what happens. Attrition is too high to simply think it are mostly due to IRL tragedies.

I'd ad 3.1. players that don't bother to upload a pic for their character is also a huge red flag for me...

I don't always add a character picture, because I can't always find one I like. _/o\_

I think this is a good example of how personal metrics for judging another member's conduct or attitude can be mistaken, and why trying to erect a common framework for such judgment is a flawed, and potentially damaging, undertaking.

I know that being ghosted, by players and GMs, is both hugely annoying and a fairly common occurrence on GP. I've been upset by it and sometimes very vocal about it when it's happened to me. But I also know how easy it is to become overwhelmed, particularly if you have depression or some other mental health issue. Avoidance is a very common coping mechanism under such circumstances, and it doesn't take long for one to feel so stressed or ashamed for having fallen behind that it's simply impossible to take the action necessary to either catch up or send one's regrets and withdraw.

While it's unlikely, as stated earlier, that all the instances of ghosting are due to RL tragedies, it's entirely likely that most are in some way attributable to depression.

The best way to deal with the problem - in my opinion - is to accept that it happened and will happen again, and to be compassionate, because you might one day find yourself in that person's situation. A reputation list is a step in the opposite direction, and it would inevitably become a tool for exclusion. To me, GP is an oasis in the internet world precisely because it's so welcoming, open, and lacking in overt judgment. It would be a shame for that to change.

I think this could lead to a interesting set of guidelines in also how to avoid bias (like if someone is missing an avatar), due to a number of reasons. That said, I've considered a rating system before, and realized that abuse of such a system (unless I was able to make the perfect one) is almost inherent. If I'm ever going to add something, it'd be a kudos system, only positive, and would only represent fluff.

Moonbeam, I don't feel like you're addressing me only, or anything, but I can only speak for myself, so I write this post as if you were addressing me.
I agree, it sucks. But facts are:.

1. You sometimes can't accept everyone who is interested into your game.

If there's not more interest than there are slots, I absoluteky accept every and anyone. But even if you have to make a cut, good players have to leave games too. And it's virtually assured that if you're interested in a specific game, if you stick around, you'll eventually get in. That's the biggest step, just being around (and being responsive is the only way anyone can know if you're around).

2. But, given 1 is a fact., you therefore must choose/deny ppl sometimes.

I used to just go on a "first come first served" basis, but have just been burned way way too many times, and way too badly. New ppl can seem very eager to play, and express such great ambition. But it just means very little, I've found. What I've found means something is the metrics I've mentioned. Unfortunately.

3. If you do this long enough, you will likely realize that the "criteria" I mention ring true - and/or you will develop your own set of observations.

No, they are not hard and fast rules - and they shouldn't be followed at every turn as if they are (and I don't), but you can't help but notice things if you pay attention. And to ignore one's own lived-experience is to ignore rationality.

4. This is the big one: I owe it to myself and my players to try to craft the best collaborative storytelling experience possible.

Otherwise why an I doing this? Why should I expose anyone to a greater risk of failure than is necessary? Why is someone else's experience more important than my own and others?

Where does all that leave us?

I wish I could "help" everyone, and take a chance on everyone. But I'm a person too, with my own needs for self-care, and suffering through aggravations that I can potentially avoid - particularly when suffering them likely changes nothing for the other sufferer - is not something I can ask of myself. Nor something anyone should ask of others, might I add. It's a personal choice.

I've accepted that ppl ghosting is part and parcel with this medium for the hobby. But why should I ignore options that I've found minimize that part of the hobby?

All I can do, that I can see (please tell me if you see something more ppl could reasonably be expected to do), is clearly communicate my expectations, try to facilitate healthy communication and gameplay with those that I can/do take on, and try to create the best experience possible for everyone and thereby hopefully help the situation of the ppl I can "touch".