This thread isn't about going "neener neener!  You can't keep your own theory straight!"  It's just about an observation I've been thinking about in regards to the thread Paying for Reliability.  Since my point is entirely different from the topic in that thread, I've decided to give it a new thread.

The core of JimBob's point in the other thread is this:

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm thinking one way to ensure that players have a sense of investment in the game, and the GM, is to get players to pay some nominal sum to the GM - say, ten bucks every four sessions - it could be more or less, this is just for the sake of argument.

Elsewhere in the thread, JimBob comments that this is about retention of players.  I may be gravely mistaken, but the thrust seems to be on retention rather than screening.  That's fine.  We all want to keep players.

JimBob, the key problem I can see with this problem is that it violates the reason you game, the theory of Cheetohism.

To refresh for others, Cheetoism is a theory of gaming which says gamers play because they want to.  They also play because of the snacks and socialization.  That's a quick summary, but I don't think it's a mischaracteriszation.

By asking players to pay to play a game as a sign of committment, I think its safe to say that the implicit statement is made that it's about the game, not the socialization or other reason.  I may be mistaken, but the point seems to be to retain players who would otherwise flake, or to keep players playing who actually don't want to play.

So, I think you're inherently not going to like the results.  It's at odds with what you have stated you enjoy about gaming and the way you view the hobby.  It would be switching styles for you.

Cheetoism doesn't really apply to online games, because the people you game with online are rarely your friends in any sense of the word.

I was talking about paying for reliability in online games. I specifically noted that this was different from giving players a sense of investment in face-to-face games.

For face-to-face games, I talk in the linked article about Getting Players to Give a Toss. I would not suggest the players paying the GM an honorarium in face-to-face games, there are better methods for getting them to be regular and reliable, and for screening them.

Online games are a different matter. Let's consider the basic description of Cheetoism

QuoteWe game for the snacks. And also the dice. But mostly, just to hang out with friends and tell tall stories.

Rpg books are just a bunch of guidelines for how to tell your tall stories, and give you a fair excuse to roll lots of dice and eat cheetos. To make your games more fun, talk to your group.

In any game, it's part social, part game. For most gamers, it's social first, game second. Game first, social second - that's for people who get paid to do it. Mike Jordan never said to his coach, "but it's just a game, who cares about the rules"; he took it seriously, because of money. Well, give me ten million bucks a year to roleplay, and I'll take it seriously, too. Until then, I am a Cheetoist. That's it.

Let's consider this. "Part social, part game." Now, what is a difference between online and in-person interactions? Online, it's not very social. The people you hang with online are, in general, not your friends.

Consider the people you're friendly with, knowing them only from online interactions. Are they black, white, male, female, straight, gay, Jewish, Manidean, like pepperoni on their pizza, married, single, happy, sad, angry, have a beard, have a belly, have big biceps, or what? How many people called Tetsujin28 over on rpg.net their "friend"? But how many sent flowers to his funeral? How many didn't know until months afterwards that he was dead? How many didn't know his real name?

We're not your friends. Online interactions simply aren't the kind of "social" that Cheetoism or anyone really thinks about when they say "social." The social, friendly element is quite simply largely absent in online interactions.

Take away the social, and all you're left with is the game. Then, some money - even if only an honorarium, a nominal sum - can come into it. Cheetoism doesn't really apply to online games, because the people you game with online are rarely your friends in any sense of the word.

Y'know, looking at this again makes me realise a small, but very important change I'd suggest...

QuoteWe game for the snacks. And also the dice. But mostly, just to hang out with friends and create tall stories.