What do you consider a sign for something bad to happen in a roleplay? Bad referring to negatively impacting the roleplay; be it by ruining the mood, causing it to die and etc.

For example, I consider it a warning sign when a majority of an RP is made up of people new to the guild. I don't want to stereotype or anything but these people have a very bad tendency to speed or overpost in the beginning and then vanish without a word. I'm not saying existing guild members do that but they have a lesser tendency IMO.

Big warning sign for me is when the GM doesn't put all the information you need out there in the open but still expects you to adhere. Had this happen a few times, and it often leads to 'little' things being left out of their narrative when the roleplay starts proper, only to get thrown in your face like an invisible smoking gun.

I tend to get antsy about a roleplay when more than half of the characters have an 'edgy' backstory. Tends to turn into a power struggle for who can narrate their angst better.

That being said, I haven't been in enough roleplays on the Guild, so I can't speak to the community here.

A sign I consider bad for a roleplay is when the GM posts to move on the roleplay after everybody was ready and then only one of the people who had posted before that posts after. Another sign is when you accept A LOT OF CHARACTERS. Though having quite a few people around is great an all, some GMs will get overwhelmed by a large amount of characters going about. The final sign I've seen often enough is when nobody says anything in the OOC for at least a week. At least, anybody who isn't the GM or Co-GM talking in the OOC. If people disappear from the OOC and don't post in the IC then it is going to be a good sign that they have disappeared.

When people don't join our obviously far superior RP?

Foolish hubris and all that nonsense aside, we'd say that much of the above is relevant. Non-critical reviews by GMs is what we consider a major warning sign. Accepting Mary Sue characters is a bigger sign.

We're generally careful with reviews so we can be less strict IC. That let's us find the bad apples before they make too much of a mess. Overly impatient players tends to ring our warning bells. Eager players don't to the same degree, however.

When people don't join our obviously far superior RP?

Because it isn't the greatest RP in RPG history.

Allaria.

Hahahaha.

Also, bad signs? A basically dead OOC. My biggest thing when running a RP is an active OOC, because it shows people are still around and interested.

Another bad sign is when a person posts and it is completely out of left field and has little or nothing to do, or reference, anything currently happening.

alosacceptingellriisoftenabadsign

Hah, @Rilla.

There's no single RP that is greatest. Just as there isn't a single worst.

There are lots of great and terrible ones, though.

We've seen something far worse than people posting stuff that is completely out of left field... When they post stuff that completely contradicts things others have posted IC earlier because they either didn't bother to read the IC or just skimmed it.

A dead OoC can be dangerous, but if the RP uses an IRC, the OoC will often be less noisy. Best thing is if it uses such and both are active.

Except Allaria, greatest thing going! Until Guildfall. :(

xD. I'm just messing though, it was a good RP.

And yeah, if you use the IRC, as I did, the OOC can be quiet, but I preferred to try and keep both active, updated, and welcoming as possible.

Completely closed GM who won't take any criticism for an answer, even on something that is a blatant logical fallacy.

Sitting for a week or more (people justify it with work and slow schedules; I disagree when plenty of folks come online with an opportunity to do something and when other roleplays move at a faster pace).

A boss without depth. I am of the mind that there can be "big bads" that do quite well, even though they can wipe out characters in one swoop potentially, by developing them and allowing for holes. That doesn't happen when you have characters that are simply OP at everything with no drawbacks and really have no reason to continue letting heros do anything for any other purpose than amusement. That changes the entire course of it; a chance to fight back and possibly defeat the bad guy vs. an obvious throw-in OP. I draw on one time in particular when I saw a roleplay (offsite) that was stat based with the boss having 20x maximum player health limit, tons of regeneration, super fast attacks, one hit kills NO MATTER WHAT, and no backstory, or even a real name. Needless to say how fast that crashed. I didn't even need to criticize it considering everyone else in that thread was doing it for me.

Inconsistent postings that are unregulated. If there is a system to posting, alright. If it is spouts of extreme activity where others don't even get to blink and half the roleplay is done right in the course of two people and an hour... that's not good. Folks ought to wait for some reaction and interaction before doing another post. Sometimes I have opportunities to reply in posting strings; but considering I often don't have the time allotted to post except for every evening, I try to show the same respect lots of roleplayers have shown to me when it comes to not advancing a plot too far and leaving folks into the dust.

Probably other things and this could use a little proofing, but typing this makes me realize I have another roleplay I need to start on 5 minutes ago.

Long-time rper, I'll vouch for 'dead OOC' - yeah, sometimes they can be all in the IRC, but if you're in the rp and the OOC's dead, then either they're not in the IRC, or they are and haven't told you. The latter can be a symptom of poor communication that, later, will result in people getting mad at you because your character actions interfere with a plot developed in IRC that everyone knew about except you.
Related, if one player starts plotting around their character and someone else's character without notifying the other person. That's just asking for a grudge to develop.

Also vouching for the GM who won't take criticism even for a blatant logical fallacy. Like, let's say the rp's backstory would influence player's characters' backstories and personalities in a very significant way. However, the GM does not share this backstory until about halfway through the rp, and he's sharing it because he's complaining about how his 'shades of grey' are being considered purely evil and unreasonable. This being directly the result of the fact that he did not inform players of relevant information at the rp's beginning. Also related, a GM who cannot be flexible. I'm sure their plot was very interesting and epic and all, but sometimes you just have to either get VERY creative in getting the players back on track, or cede the fact that they want something else and roll with it. Insisting OOCly that they need to follow the story the GM planned in defiance of characterization, logic, and common sense should be considered a red flag and a sign to leave as fast as possible.

And, one last bit for a sign to avoid - a GM placing restrictions on player characters and then proceeding to violate those restrictions. I don't mean something like 'your characters wouldn't reasonably know about the legendary artifact we're looking for but mine does because they gathered you all here'. I mean stuff like 'no one can have an edgy past' and then writes one for their character.

I know there's a lot of focus on GMs. I'll probably post later for warning signs from players.

Long-time rper, I'll vouch for 'dead OOC' - yeah, sometimes they can be all in the IRC, but if you're in the rp and the OOC's dead, then either they're not in the IRC, or they are and haven't told you. The latter can be a symptom of poor communication that, later, will result in people getting mad at you because your character actions interfere with a plot developed in IRC that everyone knew about except you.
Related, if one player starts plotting around their character and someone else's character without notifying the other person. That's just asking for a grudge to develop.

Also vouching for the GM who won't take criticism even for a blatant logical fallacy. Like, let's say the rp's backstory would influence player's characters' backstories and personalities in a very significant way. However, the GM does not share this backstory until about halfway through the rp, and he's sharing it because he's complaining about how his 'shades of grey' are being considered purely evil and unreasonable. This being directly the result of the fact that he did not inform players of relevant information at the rp's beginning. Also related, a GM who cannot be flexible. I'm sure their plot was very interesting and epic and all, but sometimes you just have to either get VERY creative in getting the players back on track, or cede the fact that they want something else and roll with it. Insisting OOCly that they need to follow the story the GM planned in defiance of characterization, logic, and common sense should be considered a red flag and a sign to leave as fast as possible.

And, one last bit for a sign to avoid - a GM placing restrictions on player characters and then proceeding to violate those restrictions. I don't mean something like 'your characters wouldn't reasonably know about the legendary artifact we're looking for but mine does because they gathered you all here'. I mean stuff like 'no one can have an edgy past' and then writes one for their character.

I know there's a lot of focus on GMs. I'll probably post later for warning signs from players.

I've seen this.

Yup. That can happen.

As a GM, it can be very challenging to make sure you follow all the rules you set for the PCs. Thats one of the reasons we both keep CoGMs and expect the players to speak up if something is wrong. After all, a GM can't improve when the players don't let him/her know something needs improvement. The problem, of course, comes when the GM either won't accept criticism, or marginalizes the problems with excuses.

Its a GM challenge to not only be open for criticism, but also accept it and adapt to it when it proves to be justified. Too many GMs fail to do that.

We're all for GMs keeping secrets, players don't need to know everything, but those secrets cannot be essential to the story functioning. Nor can the GM expect the players to build their stories around things they don't know. If its a GM secret, then it cannot fully affect the players' plot until it stops being one. It can still affect what the GM does, of course.

Say the pointy-eared elf consistently kills all orcs but always burns the bodies of the priests after killing them and apologizing. That might seem odd to many. But then the GM might eventually reveal that the pointy-eared elf is himself/herself a high priest(ess) of the same deity. Until that unveiling comes, the players can only ask questions about why those particular bodies are burned and such. It would be natural for the players to debate why this is so. If the GM expects the players to not debate on the why, then they cannot keep the truth a secret.