One of the major problems game groups have is getting reliable players and GMs who are willing to make some effort to make the game fun - whatever kind of gaming is fun for you.

This is a particular problem online, where players and GMs are less reliable than in person. I've recently written about Getting Players to Give a Toss, giving them a sense of "investment" in the game sessions, so that they show up regularly and make an effort. That was about face-to-face games, though. Now I'm thinking of online games.

I'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.

So you pony up your $10 for the next four sessions, and whether you show or not, that's gone to you. Whether you show or not, the GM has got that money, and if they're an honest person, will want to "earn" it. So the GM will make an effort with the game world, maybe put up a webpage for it, try to bring it alive, and everyone will try to show up on time and regularly for the game sessions, and give them their best efforts.

It'd also act as a screen. Just now chatting in #therpgsite (Magicstar server), a would-be player was saying he wouldn't now pay that amount for a campaign he'd previously asked me to run, because he wasn't sure he could make it. Before I suggested that nominal sum, he'd been willing to give it a go. So that miserable ten bucks for four sessions screened out an unreliable player - it made him be honest with the potential GM and himself about whether he was really that interested or able to play regularly.

Again, it's not something I'd really consider for face-to-face play. There, it's much easier to screen out the lazy unreliable players, and you can encourage a sense of investment in other ways, as in the linked article above. But online, you don't have so many options. It's harder to know people in general, including how hard-working and reliable they are, and it's easier to be conned by their great enthusiasm which they'll forget half an hour from now.

So the nominal sum could act as a test of and encouragement to some comittment from players online.

I realise the obvious response is, "why pay for what I can get for free?" But the honest truth is that what I'm talking about here is something you often can't get for free online - comittment from the GM and players, knowing that the game you play today will still be running next week.

Thoughts?

A refinement would be giving money to the GM, which you recover if you show up.

Quote from: hgjsThe obvious question is how to handle the money transfer.  Do you have any ideas on how to do this?

In my case, I'd use paypal. I already use it to get money from rpgnow.com and other writing sales.

But it's not that relevant to the main point. Where there's a will, you'll find a way. Where there is no will, no way need be found. I'd like to talk more about the will, here.

Quote from: JimBobOzIn my case, I'd use paypal. I already use it to get money from rpgnow.com and other writing sales.

But it's not that relevant to the main point. Where there's a will, you'll find a way. Where there is no will, no way need be found. I'd like to talk more about the will, here.

My original comment was not insightful at all, so I have changed it to something else.

Ah yes, so I see. That'd be more of a "bail bond" system, than a "payment" system, though.

A bail system would create something less of a sense of investment in the players - since they get the money back, it's like lending your game book or dice to another player, quite a different thing from giving it to them - and none in the GM, since the net gain is zero.

The unreliable player was me, for those interested. My work schedule's all over the place (and that's true for the rest of my offline group as well), and just arranging one session a week is difficult enough.

It took me a bit to warm up to the idea, but it seems like it might work. I told Kyle he should try doing it, and see whether he could actually get players to do it. The proof of this will be over the longterm, I think. It'll depend upon whether players are willing to continue paying for the game, or whether they'll go with the less reliable, but free, alternatives.

Quote from: JimBobOzAh yes, so I see. That'd be more of a "bail bond" system, than a "payment" system, though.

A bail system would create something less of a sense of investment in the players - since they get the money back, it's like lending your game book or dice to another player, quite a different thing from giving it to them - and none in the GM, since the net gain is zero.

Yes, my proposed alteration more like a bail bond than a payment.  I favor it because it provides an incentive to show up rather than relying on players being influnced by sunk cost.  I also think that people would be more receptive to it.

Why is it bad for players to be influenced by "sunk cost"? And what incentive does your bail model offer GMs?

Quote from: wikipediaBehavioural economics recognizes that sunk costs often affect economic decisions due to loss aversion: the price paid becomes a benchmark for the value, whereas the price paid should be irrelevant. This is considered non-rational behaviour (as rationality is defined by classical economics). Economic experiments have shown that the sunk cost fallacy and loss aversion are common, and hence economic rationality -- as assumed by much of economics -- is limited.

In other words, people value what they pay for.

Quote from: wikipediaKnox and Inkster (1968) , in what is perhaps the classic sunk cost experiment, approached 141 horse bettors. 72 people who had just finished placing a $2.00 bet within the past thirty seconds, and 69 people who were about to place a $2.00 bet in the next thirty seconds. Their hypothesis was that people who had just committed themselves to a course of action (betting $2.00) would reduce post-decisional dissonance by believing more strongly than ever that they had picked a winner. Knox and Inkster asked the bettors to rate their horse's chances of winning on a 7 point scale. What they found was that people who were about to place a bet rated the chance that their horse would win at an average of 3.48 which corresponded to a "fair chance of winning", whereas people who had just finished betting gave an average rating of 4.81 which corresponded to a "good chance of winning". Their hypothesis was confirmed - after making a $2.00 commitment, people became more confident their bet would pay off.

In other words, after people have paid for something, they become more optimistic about it.

The "sunk cost" wiki article goes on to talk about "the sunk cost fallacy" - when you've spent money on something, you'll be inclined to continue spending money on it, even if it's failing, in the hopes that it'll stop failing and succeed.

Quote from: wikipediaBy deliberately using the tactic of incurring sunk costs beyond the point of no return, economic actors may get ventures going that otherwise would not have. In his autobiography, film director Elia Kazan explains how he repeatedly used the tactic of sunk costs to get his films started: "My tactic was one familiar to directors ...: to get the work rolling, involve actors contractually, build sets, collect props and costumes, expose negative, and so get the studio in deep. Once money in some significant amount had been spent, it would be difficult for [the studio head] to do anything except scream and holler. If he suspended a film that had been shooting for a few weeks, he'd be in for an irretrievable loss, not only of money but of 'face.' The thing to do was get the film going" (pp. 412-13). The same tactic has been used for the construction of bridges, tunnels, and other infrastructure. Very few partially built bridges exist, because once construction has started sunk costs are too high to revert the decision and stop again. The sunk cost tactic often causes cost overrun.

In other words, after people have paid for something, they're willing to put more effort into it.

So what we have is that when people pay for something, they value it, are more optimistic about it, and are willing to put more effort into it. I fail to see why this is a bad thing; in fact, it's exactly what I'm after! Players and GMs valuing their game, being positive about it, and continuing to make efforts with it.

The article mentions several times that "sunk cost" is not rational. But we are human, and not purely rational. It seems better to base our decisions and plans on actual human behaviour than on some rational ideal. The article also doesn't mention the fact that sometimes when something is failing, if you put more effort in, it succeeds because of that extra effort.

It may be true that people would be more receptive to a bail system than a payment system - you'd get more people signing up. But would it be more effective at keeping them in the campaign?

Remember, I'm not talking about getting an online game group - I can do that within half an hour. I'm talking about keeping an online game group. That's a different thing entirely. Getting and keeping are different things, just ask anyone who's had a one-night stand!

Quote from: JimBobOzWhy is it bad for players to be influenced by "sunk cost"?

It is not bad, it's just silly.

QuoteAnd what incentive does your bail model offer GMs?

It incentives them to make the game poor enough that people occasionally don't show up, but not so poor that they leave and stop paying the ransom.

$10 for four sessions?  are we planning on getting the homeless to GM for us?

I think it's fair to demmand players show a minimum level of investment in a game they're playing.

I've long told about how I require players to own their own corebook for the game being played, dice, paper, and writing instrument.  As far as I'm concerned, if they won't show at least that much committment, then they aren't worth playing with.  And for a very long time, that was a good sign of player retention as well.

As for a chip in fee, I think the difficulty would be in determining a good price.  As far as I'm concerned, many gamers game not because they want to, but because it is the only entertainment form available for their resources at the moment.  By pricing 4 games at something like $15, then playing an online RPG becaomes a greatly superior option.  By pricing 4 games at something like $5, you've made the expenditure completely disposable.  And ultimately, that level of disposability will vary according to the player.  Then there's the issue that paying for the game carries a connotation that the player will get something in return.  If they don't, then the backlash will be much greater than with a free game.

On the good side, if someone pays and never shows up, at least you have the money.  And people will still pull no shows.  Here at work there are a few employees who have memberships at health/exercise spas.  They never go, but they pay their membership fee every month.  And, speaking for myself, I paid for a month of City of Heroes and never logged on for the entire month.  The fee idea isn't a surefire thing.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe "sunk cost" wiki article goes on to talk about "the sunk cost fallacy" - when you've spent money on something, you'll be inclined to continue spending money on it, even if it's failing, in the hopes that it'll stop failing and succeed.

In other words, after people have paid for something, they're willing to put more effort into it.

Interesting.  Do you think this would hold true of a bad campaign? I mean, if everyone has put in $20 or $30 (8-12 sessions) then will they be so ready to bounce a bad campaign? Just a thought...

I can see it now.  A business of providing GM services.  Brilliant. You could have Unions and everything!

Quote from: GabrielI've long told about how I require players to own their own corebook for the game being played, dice, paper, and writing instrument.  As far as I'm concerned, if they won't show at least that much committment, then they aren't worth playing with.  And for a very long time, that was a good sign of player retention as well.

  That's just blinkered horseshit from beginning to end.  It's patently absurd for any group that doesn't A) play hugely crunchy games and B) play really long campaigns, and even those groups that do do both of those things it's very much YMMV.  you may well be uncomfortable socialising with people who aren't willing to commit financially to your relationship but this is about as far from a rule or even a guideline or indication of anything as you can get in this hobby.

Quote from: James J SkachInteresting.  Do you think this would hold true of a bad campaign? I mean, if everyone has put in $20 or $30 (8-12 sessions) then will they be so ready to bounce a bad campaign? Just a thought...

Probably they won't bounce a bad campaign so quickly, no. But I have a few thoughts about that.

The first is that it isn't so bad if people have one or two bad sessions, don't enjoy them much, and then stick them out to see if they get better. Sometimes, when something isn't working so well, sticking it through, making an effort, makes it better. As I noted above, that's something the "sunk cost" article doesn't talk about - that sometimes when you've got something which is going badly, if you put more effort into it, it ends up going well - because of that extra effort.

The second thought is that "sticking with the campaign, even though it's crap", is hardly a new thing among gamers. Plenty of them hang around for years in groups they don't enjoy much. Their threshold of tolerance, of shit they put up with, is quite high. People's threshold of "putting up with shit" is a lot lower online. I mean, over on rpg.net, there are people with over one hundred people on their ignore lists. If you ignored that many people in face-to-face life, you simply couldn't function, couldn't get a damn thing done. This low tolerance threshold is very bad for trying to get a game group together and keep it going online; slightest problem, they leave. I mean, online I have people hear an idea and say, "don't like it," and they log off, and they're gone. In person, I have never had a person simply get up and leave in the middle of a game session - they stay and discusss it, or mutter to themselves - but they stay at least till the end of the session. Adding a cash or some other kind of investment to things might raise that tolerance level a bit.

The third is that a bad campaign, people will always quit it eventually, whatever they've spent on it, whether that cash went to the GM, the game store, or the 7-11 for munchies. But gamers talk, and gossip - so if a GM is consistently bad, word will get around, and pretty soon no-one will pay them to GM; whereas if they do it for free, someone will always give it a try, even if just for ten minutes until their miniscule shit threshold is violated...

Mr. Analytical, I said that ten bucks for four sessions was just an example. Don't be a cock.