Say for instance that I wanted to add some lurkers to a game, but in order to be fair and kosher to the players I wanted to have them listed on the cast list so that the other players are aware that other people are present and watching what they say (which I'm aware would mean actually adding them to the game as players and not just Lurkers, but they wouldn't be actually playing so I'm calling them lurkers for the purposes of this question), and I decided to tag those people as 'Lurker 1', or 'Watcher 1' or 'Twinkletoes 47' or whatever so that it was clear that they weren't playing characters.

Ideally, I'd want to give those 'Watcher' characters NPC status, so that they appear unobtrusively down on the NPC cast list instead of cluttering up the main cast list with non-characters.

Are there any rules against doing that? I've seen players that abandoned a game and/or went on hiatus moved down to NPC status before (while still having control of their character), but I'm not sure I've ever seen players added with only NPC status.

I've seen and been such a visible lurker, but never heard of any rules against it.

As a GM you have complete control over whom you add/remove, grant NPCs, or PCs. The cast list is nice to separate by NPC and PC but there are no rules other than RPOL's own policies surround the game rating (Adult vs. Mature vs. general). In fact, no rule that you have to designate NPCs either. ;)

Pre-appending ~ to the name will force the name to the bottom of the list (a to Z sorted before symbols)

Good luck and have fun with your game!

If you change their tag to NPC, they will sort to the NPC section of the cast list. Perhaps that will help?

Oh, no no. I understand how to sort them (although the suggestion about the ~ is one I didn't know, and marvelous, thanks Drew!) - I had just been having an offsite discussion about it and someone mentioned that it might be against the rules to add players to games solely as NPCs.

That was the question I had. Thanks for answering it, folks. =)

Ah, very good.  Yeah, that's totally kosher.  Enjoy your evil NPC'g!  :D

Does the ~ work for game threads too, pushing them to the bottom?

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 7):

No.  Threads are listed in two types, Notices and "not Notices", and are sorted within those types by the date of their most recent post.

A lot of interesting discussion about this here.  I've never seen this done, but I'm still a relative noob.  As some have already mentioned, there's no stricture against a GM doing this in one of their games.

That said, I've lurked in a game or two, and my GMs always just told the players in OOC that a lurker had been added.  I subsequently posted OOC with a short "Hi, I'm here" so folks would know who I am.

This sounds like a good idea for an experiment.

for my games.. 'a few  'named' NPCs get a  Icon and  a CS....of other  2nd team  NPCs  they are just  written under the  posts..some times thier  name gets  put in the  box at the top right hand side of the post...but  most times it will be  under the heading of  , whatever is goig on.

....

 Players who control  an NPC that isn't a full blown PC just post under thier   1st string Character's  name

  simple is better , as  far as movign the  game and getting the RP in.

This message was deleted by the user at 16:57, Sat 25 July 2020.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Harley. As a player, I prefer to know whether or not people are involved in the game, even if their involvement is just watching.

Nothing skeeves me out faster than finding out that an unknown quantity of strangers are watching me play, it's like having someone peeping through my windows...but that's a discussion for another time. But hey, if you prefer to not know that there are lurkers watching you, then having them clearly defined on the cast list helps you out too, because then you know what to avoid! =)

I feel it's important to define that lurkers (whatever you want to call them) that are listed on the cast list aren't players, because it can give the impression to the other players that a lot of people aren't participating in the game or have dropped it if they're not logging in and posting regularly (and I certainly wouldn't want lurkers to be posting, obviously). Nothing makes a game look sad and dead like a bunch of players that aren't posting and participating, after all. Therefore, people that are lurking (to me) need to be clearly defined with something other than just a name that might be misconstrued as being a character.

I think that Harley Quinn's point is that no one should be able to secretly watch you play.  The GM should set all RP threads to be some group other than 0 so that someone who isn't in the game has no ability to see them at all.

I'd prefer this approach as well, though I wouldn't object to one or two lurkers in a game.  I am currently a lurker (officially) in a game run by someone who is a player in my game.  He had asked me in a PM for some ideas of how his NPCs might behave in a certain situation, and he liked my suggestions.  He then (at my request) made me a lurker so I could watch how it played out.  So I was more like a mini-co-GM than just a lurker.

That's my point, actually. Hence wanting to list them on the cast list. They're not secret, at that point, and technically no longer "lurkers" once they're listed (because there's an implication behind the term 'lurker' that equates to 'unknown' in my mind). They're just guests watching the game progress for whatever reason. Maybe they're trying to learn the system, maybe they're someone's buddy who's thinking of joining, maybe they're accepted players waiting for a spot to open up so they can bring in a character - whatever.

But if they're listed, the other players know they're there, so they're not being secretly watched by anyone.

Then get off a public forum and do it in private. If it is public you have no right to privacy, no different if you were doing a game with your friends in the middle of a restaurant.

NOT MY POINT AT ALL.

Every game is open to every person to see, you have absolutely no right to privacy. If you want privacy then do it in a private location off the internet.

Besides this is the internet, if you think you have privacy then I have beach front property you might be interested in on the Sun.

You're actually 100% incorrect, Harley. The only things in games that are open to literally everyone who swings by are threads in Group 0, and character descriptions. (Edit: And Game Introduction - I always forget that one)

The only people on RPoL that have access to everything otherwise are the moderators.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:13, Sat 25 July 2020.

Most games I've been in have a lot of the game threads visible to the public.  And, unless it's a game being run by a GM I really trust, I wouldn't be very likely to join a game where I couldn't read up on what was happening and get some idea of the general tone of the actual game play.

As far as knowing whether someone was 'reading over my shoulder', either as an unknown lurker or just another user reading public threads in the game...no big deal, to me.  I don't post anything in a game that I'd be concerned about someone else seeing.  But I also come out of an art and writing background where all my work was put up for group scrutiny and feedback, and I know not everyone feels that same way.

That's one of the reasons GMs get to control those aspects of their games.  If it makes you uncomfortable, you can do something about it.  And since it's YOUR game, how anyone else thinks it should be run is only relevant if they want to join it.

In reply to Harley Quinn (msg # 16):

Hmm.  You deleted the post that I misinterpreted; I wanted go back to read what I had misunderstood.

I apologize for misrepresenting your position.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:34, Sat 25 July 2020.

for Lurkers?...i do not like them... you either  want to play, or not. I do not take Lurkers in my games...Most games can be viewed?... but it its highly ignorant to  read if you are not in the game...

 If you are ;checking it out'  fine?, but then make your  choice and RTJ  or   move on..

 My games  are for my players..it  gets  specific , at times  as  a Charcter  grows  and moves through the game..uncovering  secrets..knowledge  and  sometime it reflects on that  character's past..or   impacts thier  future//those players  are putting  the work in.

 if you don't have the time to play?  you shouldn't lurk

 if you have  the time to play..RTJ

 otherwise, join an  arena  games or something where you can pop in and out.

No offense intended, but do you take everyone who RTJs?  Many games do not.  Lurking can be for those who like a (possibly unique) concept but CAN'T play for one reason or another.  It's not usually about WANTING to play.

For example, I created a set of gestalt rules for D&D 5e which are now used in multiple games on here.  I applied for all of the games, and got into none of them (each had more than two dozen applicants for a game taking 3-6 players).  I considered asking to lurk so that I could see how my rules played out, as I don't have a local group to test them out on and so this was going to be my testing grounds.  If I don't have access to games playing my rules, I have no idea how good (or bad) the rules are.  I don't even know who the players are, to get their feedback.  I'm running a game, of course, for part of my testing, but I also wanted to do it from a player's (or non-DM) perspective.  Lurking would give me that opportunity.

So by your logic then the following should apply:
You are not allowed to read books, you must write books yourself.
You are not allowed to read the news, you must write the news yourself.
You are not allowed to watch tv shows, you must create your own tv shows.
You are not allowed to watch movies, you must create your own movies.

 people  fill out  RTJs... i have a very short interview  explainign how the games work and if they are interested , they  they geive me a charcter   name/concept  and poof... they  are in the game.

 sadly people who are not interested, have  the ill manners of not even saying 'no thanks'..they just ghost.

 i post every week   for new players.. the ones who join  end up  in  one of two ways.. they  either  'get into it' and hit the ground running..or fade away ( again with not even the manner to say ' sorry , this  game isn't for me"..which?..my games  are not for everyone )

 in the end, lots of players like 'joining'  more then playing..and  when the  'new' wears off, they leave.. so..i rather have  folks try it and leave.. then hide in the  corner peakign through the window.

::chuckles::  Quinn... that's  so goofy i won't even bother  answering it

Clearly you are incapable of understanding the point. Not surprised one little bit.

your point...your perspective... i don't know  how you can handle it in here  with perceptions like that?

 be nice  to make our own movies...

Just a reminder... RPoL allows every GM to run their game how they like (unless doing so breaches our rule on content).  How they choose to run their game is between them and their players... and nobody else.

So lurkers, whether listed or not, is a matter of personal preference.  No sense arguing about it.

Also worth noting that RPoL requires civility in the public forums.

Understood..just  don't like  be snarked.