Hi, I had trouble coming up with a title, sorry.

So I met 2 people in an RPG chatroom and we decided to start a game in the near future. We’ve moved to a separate chatroom to start preparing. This chatroom had been previously used by another player on a similar campaign, but was empty.

Soon after, another persons joins the chat. Reading the chat history, they appear to have been the GM for that previous campaign. I waved at their entry, making my presence known. This was their only text message:

Hi ​_<chatroom owner>_. Good to see you back in the game. I’m interested in playing but I’ll let you know straight off; I can only play on <schedule>. Is that okay for your other players?

This isn’t sitting right with me.

  • No introduction.
  • Talking about me like I’m not there.
  • A certain attitude in setting terms to a game they’re not organizing.
  • The person they’re talking to can’t answer the question, and I wasn’t addressed, so what now?

Am I reading too much into this? Is this just they trying to communicate efficiently plus a lack of social polish?

Anyway, I’d love some external perspective.

Edit: thanks everyone, I’m glad I took the time to gather your input. I wasn’t sure I was reading the situation correctly and it looks like indeed I wasn’t.

  • @OneCardboardBoxEnglish
    10•2 months ago

    Maybe just say “Hey, X isn’t running this game. I am”. If you’re open to their participation, you could add “But if you’d like to join us, would you mind introducing yourself?”. If you don’t want them to join, you could say “Sorry, but I already have enough players for this campaign”

  • @TootSweet@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10•2 months ago

    Just off the top of my head, I’m thinking:

    • They’re probably expecting the GM and/or other players to respond with either “sorry, that schedule won’t work for us” or “yeah, that works for us, tell us about yourself.” Like, why type up a three-paragraph introduction when there’s like a 50% (or more) chance that bit of information will quickly indicate that no, it won’t work out.
    • Are you sure they didn’t just assume the chatroom owner was the GM?
    • So far I think they’re just trying to gauge whether it’s going to work out logistically.
    • Again, are you sure they haven’t just mistaken the channel owner for the person is most responsible for organizing?

    I guess just going on that information, it does feel to me like maybe you’re reading too much into it. It’s entirely possible I’m missing something that would change my take, though.