In the LFG tab...

An option to exclude posts with 0/negative spots left.

Seconded

+1

Additionally, I'd love to see search options for max/min slots. It's unfortunate to get excited about a game, then look to the right and see that they've already got a dozen people (and are still looking for a few more).

manveti said: Additionally, I'd love to see search options for max/min slots. It's unfortunate to get excited about a game, then look to the right and see that they've already got a dozen people (and are still looking for a few more). Yes, this too

manveti said: It's unfortunate to get excited about a game, then look to the right and see that they've already got a dozen people (and are still looking for a few more). How excited can or ought one really be, if you've only looked at part of the Search result listing, haven't glanced over to the number of players yet, and haven't even clicked on the details of the campaign yet? (Sincere question, not meant to appear snarky.) At that point you've only seen the Picture and the Title. I've found it takes 2 to 5 seconds to glance over and see the numbers. A similar amount of time to look at the proposed Days, Time, Game System, to see if those details are what you want. Any potential player applicant should spend at least several minutes becoming familiar with the full text posted by the GM before you'd know if the game is a good fit or not anyway. The 'number of players' is something you can see at a glance in the search results to tell you, at a glance , whether or not it's a fit with what you're looking for. This seems like a tiny drop in the bucket of the time spent searching for a good game fit. Just because a game is currently full of players, does not mean (to me) that the GM should be penalized against advertising for alternate players. If the GM is not looking for players, they can remove the listing. If the game is appearing in LFG listings, it should mean that you can apply to join, allowing the GM to decide who they want to let it, or put on a waiting list for a spot that could open up soon. 0 Spots currently open does not always mean 0 applications would be accepted.

>OPTIONS

Maybe not "jumping up and down" excited, but there's a certain perking-up of the ears when one reads a description of what looks like an interesting game. This situation arises because the most efficient way for me to skim a large data set is to keep my eyes on one column and scroll down, so I either pick the column with the names and descriptions (interesting; requires sentience to process) or the column with the times and player counts (boring; can easily be processed by a computer). I like interesting things, and I think a pretty good case can be made that I'm sentient, so I tend to pick the former. I don't see a set of search options based on number of players as penalizing the GM; it's more a parallel to the search options based on days of the week. It doesn't benefit anyone to show someone a search result that they're never going to accept; a person searching for a 3-5 player game with at least one open slot simply isn't a potential player for a game with 14 out of 12 players. The GM of the overbooked game isn't losing a potential player any more than the GM of a Tuesday game is losing a potential player when someone restricts their search to weekend games. I'm not advocating for auto-pruning LFG listings for (over)full games (in fact, I've argued against it in another thread for exactly the reasons in your last paragraph); I'd never advocate against informed choice. But I don't see why people who have already made their choice need to be forced to revisit it quite so frequently. The whole point of having a search system is to let you make that choice once, at the start, then click "submit" and let the computer deal with only showing the relevant results. An "advanced" search with a field for every game property (with upper and lower bounds for the numeric properties) would achieve that goal.

Good point about options. I thought someone said to automatically un-list the games or push them to the bottom of the search, but on closer review that wasn't said in this thread. To that extent my reply was misplaced here.

Additionally, there are some games ran so rarely that seeing them in LFG might get some fans overly excited, before they even perform further research.

Simon S. said: Additionally, there are some games ran so rarely that seeing them in LFG might get some fans overly excited, before they even perform further research. There are only 4 choices for the GM for "frequency" right now. There's "one time only", weekly, every other week, and monthly. Then of course there is Next Game Time. If you put "Monthly" for the frequency, it's already highlighted in [Red Brackets] on the LFG (making it easier to look past red [Monthly] games if you don't want that). It would be nice to have a lot more options for Frequency. GM should be able to choose things like Daily, Twice Per Week, Irregular Schedule, or "3 sessions to complete this" for examples.

Gold, I'm pretty sure Simon is talking about games that are less popular, so you see them less frequently. Not campaigns which meet infrequently.

I don't follow. How would we know how rarely a certain game system is run? Lots of campaigns being played on here are offered in the LFG for a matter of days, if at all, then they run for weeks if not months or years after the GM's voluntary removal from LFG listings.

Brian said: Gold, I'm pretty sure Simon is talking about games that are less popular, so you see them less frequently. Not campaigns which meet infrequently. Exactamundo. You can effectively find a game for the more popular games, such as Pathfinder, or 5th Edition DnD, without an issue, almost constantly. However, the more obscure games are rarely run, due to their nature of being obscure. Some people herald certain obscure games as a nugget of wonder, a divine penultimate collection of rules and setting. Thus, when someone runs such a game, those ravenous fans of the system might jump in feet first without bothering to read any commentary other than someone is willing to run the game. For example, how many times have you seen Wraith: the Oblivion run via Roll20? Chances are, not very often, yet there are some diehard fans that would jump at the chance, regardless of what you stated in the campaign description. You could probably preface it with "During the game, I will be playing a mixture of polka and Kenny G, there will be a baby and a vacuum cleaner providing background noise, and I will periodically fall asleep in the middle of running the game." and you would still have people salivating at the chance to play. I apologize for my lack of clarification, and hope this illuminates my original intended message.

I think the purpose of LFG is to let Game Masters list their offerings & for Players to find a game that is a good fit for them. I agree that some people get excited and then figure out the offering isn't a proper fit afterall, and they are feeling disappointed and let-down for a moment's time. I think that's okay, normal, and expected. It's part of the process of finding a campaign, looking at the details and finding out if everything is a match with your requirements, and moving on if you find something doesn't fit for you. It's much the same in real life when someone offers a tabletop game. EDIT: In conclusion I agree with Suggestions for improving the search options for Players to find what they want. I wouldn't agree with limiting the GM's options and abilities for listing their game offerings how they like, whether that's a game system that someone considers obscure, or keeping the listing up even when the number of players appears full if the GM feels they have a reason for doing so (such as allowing Alternate applicants for upcoming vacancies).