PDA

View Full Version : PbP Optimized games



Fri
2009-08-18, 10:13 AM
I suck at witty opening, so I'll straight to the point.

What do you think is the best game system for PbP? And what is the worst? Why?

And do you have any tips for optimizing a game for PbP games?

Do you have any idea for a system SPECIALIZED for PbP games?

Jair Barik
2009-08-18, 10:29 AM
Low player numbers and a familiar system.

E.g. solo D&D 3.5 or a homebrew freeform/ semi freeform game. Solo or low numbers mean that its much easier to play as its a simple DM post player post, Dm post player post system and if you are both on at the same time you can advance quickly, this does however sacrifice player to player roleplaying.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-08-18, 10:32 AM
D&D is, despite it's predominance on these forums, not a good choice in my opinion. The focus on distance, location, and detailed combat rules tend to bog games down in technicalities that are hard to overcome without complicated map-making programs. Both 3.5 and 4e (and, I'd imagine, AD&D and 2E) suffer from this problem, although a skilled DM who focuses more on writing and story that rules can still make it flow well.

My advice for D&D? Keep things simple, and reward creativity and good writing. Don't bother with complex maps: just play combat by ear, and let good story-telling on the part of the DM or the players override the rules whenever you feel necessary. Does a player write something excellent? Maybe then that wizard's last ditch dagger attack against the overwhelming foe will stand a decent chance of hitting and deal more than the measly 1d4-1 damage the rules say it will deal. Maybe the fighter doesn't need "obscure feat X" to pull of that well-written stunt.

The New (and Old) World of Darkness games work a little better, as the rules are more fluid and stunt dice help players who want to tell a story more than just play a game, something that I think PbP is more suited to do. The problem is the amount of re-rolls for high dice and the assignment of stunt dice for well-written and in-character posts, although this is somewhat easier to compensate for.

For this, I'd roll stunt dice yourself, adding them quietly to the player's roll before determining the outcome. Have players include a few extra rolls in their post (under a separate section of the spoiler) in case of 10s. Don't worry about the complicated minutia that the rules sometimes have: focus on the core system and the ancillary abilities, but don't get bogged down in the exact way that combat or social encounters function. Again, play it by ear, working mainly on crafting a story. Try to open the rulebook as rarely as possible to avoid slowing down the flow; ad-lib dice pool modifiers, allow some freedom with how abilities work (if well written) and so forth. Inspire creativity, not rules-lawyering. You're working in a text-based medium, so your writing should be taking a top priority. Hack-n-slash games are, in my experience, fun from the company and the mood around the table: away from that, my plot takes precedence, even over the rules.

Deadlands, another system I'm familiar with, just doesn't work. The card mechanic doesn't really work over the internet without special programs. I'd leave this one be.

Wushu and The Window, two VERY rules-light games, work well in a story-focused group with strong writers, but fail if you try to turn them into a mainly rules-based game or a hack-n-slash adventure (normally). For these, just go with the flow and reward good writing and roleplaying.

Free-form works really well in PbP, but that relies on mature players who are also decent writers, preferably excellent writers. In free-form a DM is not even a necessity if the players work together well.

Jair Barik
2009-08-18, 10:41 AM
If you do go for free form though you have to keep the players to a low number. In heroes of Mythology there is a few of us who post on a regular basis with fairly large posts, the other players have either officially dropped out or just don't post. With Buccaneers and Broadsides (one I GMed) I let lots of people in as everyone seemed pretty interested but then over half the people never posted or even replied to my PM's, and all but 2 people then stopped posting after their first post, in the end I had too many PC's who I had to DMPC and it was unrealistic to go any further with the game

Tengu_temp
2009-08-18, 10:44 AM
The most important houserule for PbP is to make initiative more fluid - if several players move after each other without any enemies in between, then they can move in any order they want.

Mutants and Masterminds is a good system for PbP due to fast combat with little bookkeeping. Probably the best one I tried.

Exalted seems to be a good game for PbP, but it really isn't - each time one character hits another, there are several steps, and each of them can use a charm on each of these steps. This bogs ther game down. Also, its initiative system makes it almost impossible to use the fluid initiative houserule.

DND 4e has combat with lots of tactical movement, and its system is pretty fast in normal play, but slow in PbP.

The most important element a PbP system should have are options. In a real time game, you won't be that bored with spamming the same attack/spell over and over again, if the pacing is fast enough. In a PbP game you need variety, or it gets boring soon.

Kiero
2009-08-18, 10:48 AM
I've had good results over the years with Wushu, which has the distinct advantage of handing the players a lot of autonomy which keeps the game in motion. A PbP game which stalls regularly is one likely to fail.

You need a system that is either very fast to resolution, or the GM does all the dice-rolling. If it's got multi-part back and forth, it won't work if you're trying to run it in the traditional face to face manner.

Of course the other part of that formula is good players who post regularly, and are willing to take the initiative, rather than wait around to be told what to do.

Jair Barik
2009-08-18, 10:54 AM
Avoid making firm plans for the future. Players drop out on a common basis so if the game uses encounter levels e.g. adapt the difficulty on the fly to suit the players. Also don't focus the game too much on the players/ a single player. This may sound bad but if you have 1 player of higher importance then the others will feel as though their just along for the ride, and if you have every with high storyline importance it makes drop outs all the more cataclysmic to the game

ken-do-nim
2009-08-18, 02:31 PM
Classic D&D, eg. Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X followed by Mentzer BECMI and the Rules Cyclopedia and its current incarnations BFRPG and Labyrinth Lord are excellent systems for pbp. Of course, any dungeon or wilderness crawling game still requires the DM to have map-making skills. In one pbp I play in, the DM uses Microsoft Powerpoint to create the maps. In the one I run, not being as tech saavy, I draw the map (for at least round one) and scan it in.

Kizara
2009-08-18, 03:22 PM
I've recently got into GURPS, and would love to play in a experienced GURPS PbP game, but I know its a horrible idea.

The combat system (while fantastic) is slowish even at the table at the level of detail I like to use, and would be almost unfathomable via PbP.

Elfin
2009-08-18, 03:58 PM
In my opinion the best system for pbp is D&D 3.5, preferably with a small number of players.

Doc Roc
2009-08-18, 04:23 PM
I have a couple of specialized homebrew systems that are ultra-lights made just for this sort of situation. If you like, I can lend you one.

Fri
2009-08-19, 06:16 AM
And... how does your ultra light rpg system work? I mean, what make it better suited for PbP? I'm curious.

Master_Rahl22
2009-08-19, 08:09 AM
I must protest the claim that 3.5/4E require "complicated map-making programs." For most encounters, i.e. not simulating the attack on the Sapphire Guard's castle with thousands of combatants on either side, all you need is your favorite spreadsheet program, the Print Screen button, and a free image hosting website like Photobucket. Each cell is a 5' square, you can easily have a key with the proper abbreviations, color cells for terrain, etc. I'm in a couple games where we have no graphic representation of the battle, and my immersion suffers. I either have to waste time going back and forth with the DM "How close are they? Can I make it there in one move action? This spell is close range, can I hit them with it?" It also leads to silly things like casters not realizing that somehow there are monsters adjacent to them and not casting defensively.

Saph
2009-08-19, 08:16 AM
To do maps for games on these boards, I'm fond of using the table function.

End result looks something like this:


{table=head]|A_|B_|C_|D_|E_|F_|G_|H_|I_|J_|K_|L_|M_|N_|O_|P_|Q _|R_|S_|T_
1|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W
2|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W
3|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|H|H|H|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W
4|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|H|H|H|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W
5|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|H|H|H|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W
6|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W
7|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W|W
8||||||||||||||||||||
9||||||||||||||||||||
10||||||||||||||||||||
11||||||||||||||||||||
12|||||||||G|G|J|D|L|||||||
13|||||||||G|G||T||||||||
14||||||||||||||||||||
15||||||||||||||||||||
16|W|||||||||||||||||||
17|W|W||||||||||||||||||
18|W|W|W|||||||||||||||||
19|W|W|W|W|W|||||||||||||||W
20|W|W|W|W|W|W|||||||||||||W|W[/table]

Has the advantage that you can do it from any computer, as it uses only the board software.

Doc Roc
2009-08-19, 08:37 AM
And... how does your ultra light rpg system work? I mean, what make it better suited for PbP? I'm curious.

Fewer contingent rolls, simpler turns, less focus on spatial combat, stronger emphasis on tactical play such as the use of cover, suppressing fire, and an elegant way of running held actions.

Oslecamo
2009-08-19, 08:39 AM
D&D 3.5 works pretty well with a low number of players, but if you can get enough good players who post frequently, it can work with mid numbers as well.

Basically, any system that isn't based in action-reaction works relatively well with active players.

The Demented One
2009-08-19, 08:42 AM
I'm not sure if it's the best, but Exalted works beautifully over PbP. The tick-based initiative system helps cut down on the issue of everyone waiting on one player to post in combat; it places little importance on tactical movement, so maps are pretty much non-necessary; and it gives mechanical incentives for describing actions well, which encourages players to make just beautifully detailed posts, instead of "I attack with my axe."

The Rose Dragon
2009-08-19, 08:50 AM
Exalted seems to be a good game for PbP, but it really isn't - each time one character hits another, there are several steps, and each of them can use a charm on each of these steps. This bogs ther game down. Also, its initiative system makes it almost impossible to use the fluid initiative houserule.

Actually, there are only two steps that matter: defender and attacker. While the steps that are given is nice to have, since you can use only one Charm without a combo, and each combo is set, they only matter when Dragon-blooded are involved.

At least, in my experience.

Fri
2009-08-19, 08:55 AM
Fewer contingent rolls, simpler turns, less focus on spatial combat, stronger emphasis on tactical play such as the use of cover, suppressing fire, and an elegant way of running held actions.

That... sounds almost exactly like what I imagined/needed. Care to publish it here or you saved it for... dunno... special friends or paperback publishing?

Oh, and your suggestions helped a lot. It gave me quite some ideas.

The Demented One
2009-08-19, 09:06 AM
Exalted seems to be a good game for PbP, but it really isn't - each time one character hits another, there are several steps, and each of them can use a charm on each of these steps. This bogs ther game down. Also, its initiative system makes it almost impossible to use the fluid initiative houserule.
Attack steps look more complicated than they are. Assuming the players just roll the attacks and the ST rolls the damage for them after soak, resolving an attack in Exalted scarcely takes more time than in D&D. Charms can muddy things if both sides use a lot - but really, it's never that bad. Most attack charms are used along with the attack, so they don't take up any time, and letting players use defensive charms is just a matter of dropping them an IM, and asking if they want to use any charms to defend.

Doc Roc
2009-08-19, 09:08 AM
They're creative commons licensed. You'll need to roll out settings for them. Here is a link to... probably the lightest one (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AXSejsvFzTdyZGhwN256aHZfMTFna242NnhkOA&hl=en).
Unfortunately the one I normally use is currently running through peer-revision for it's 1.5 release after a year and a half of playtesting, so I can't link to that because the most recent revision consists of 60% profane comments, 27% out-dated rules, and a few sad emoticons for flavor. :smallwink:

ken-do-nim
2009-08-19, 10:35 AM
In my opinion the best system for pbp is D&D 3.5, preferably with a small number of players.

3.5 is terrible unless you alter the combat system. You need a system where everybody declares their actions and then the DM resolves the round, rather than "okay now it's Ted's turn" and waiting on just one person.

Weezer
2009-08-19, 02:40 PM
3.5 is terrible unless you alter the combat system. You need a system where everybody declares their actions and then the DM resolves the round, rather than "okay now it's Ted's turn" and waiting on just one person.

Actually I've used just such a modification, everyone posts whenever they can, then the DM (me) posts resolving the round, slightly modifying peoples actions if nessecary to fit changed circunstances. eg. Orc A dies before Char A could make his declared attack so I'd say he attacks Orc B instead. I've found that that works out pretty well, but I cant say anything about any other system, haven't tried any.

Blackjackg
2009-08-19, 02:45 PM
I've had good results over the years with Wushu, which has the distinct advantage of handing the players a lot of autonomy which keeps the game in motion. A PbP game which stalls regularly is one likely to fail.

You need a system that is either very fast to resolution, or the GM does all the dice-rolling. If it's got multi-part back and forth, it won't work if you're trying to run it in the traditional face to face manner.

Of course the other part of that formula is good players who post regularly, and are willing to take the initiative, rather than wait around to be told what to do.

I'll second that. I haven't tried Wushu on PbP yet, but it seems like an ideal system... maybe even better than in person, because it's easier to identify the number of components in any given action when it's in writing. Not the most well-known system, but that's hardly a problem because it takes five minutes to learn and is available for free online.

ken-do-nim
2009-08-19, 02:54 PM
Actually I've used just such a modification, everyone posts whenever they can, then the DM (me) posts resolving the round, slightly modifying peoples actions if nessecary to fit changed circunstances. eg. Orc A dies before Char A could make his declared attack so I'd say he attacks Orc B instead. I've found that that works out pretty well, but I cant say anything about any other system, haven't tried any.

I basically did the same thing when I ran a 3.5 pbem, but there were a few times when I stopped and asked a player what he wanted to do when the situation changed dramatically before his turn. I only had 2 players, so it moved pretty zippy.

Ecalsneerg
2009-08-19, 03:33 PM
I'm going to support the above idea of Mutants and Masterminds, for its simplicity and ease of running. That, and unlike many d20 systems, you don't need a grid. Heck, with people running and flying about shattering the sound barrier, I'd probably discourage it.

mikeejimbo
2009-08-19, 04:05 PM
I've always wanted to write a system specifically for PBP games. One that, preferably, could run for a while without a GM.

Blackjackg
2009-08-19, 04:26 PM
I've always wanted to write a system specifically for PBP games. One that, preferably, could run for a while without a GM.

That's easy. Recruit players who are interested in roleplaying and say "I'm leaving for a week. Talk amongst yourselves."

Fri
2009-08-20, 12:28 AM
Maybe with something like... 'prepared action'?

Dunno if we can make a system out of it. I mean, something like readied action in combat, but wider.

Something like, "if enemy attack I seek for nearest cover and start shooting with my gun"

or "I attack enemy A. If enemy A already dead when my turn, I attack enemy B"

or even, 'standard passive action' that's only nullified by active posting ?

something like passive spot check, but for non combat actions.

those are kinda bad example, but you get the idea.

ken-do-nim
2009-08-20, 06:54 AM
As a big fan of simultaneous actions, I came up with the following system which is ideal for pbp but can be used in the regular game too:

3.5 D&D PHASED COMBAT ROUND

Action Declarations
DM silently decides on NPC actions
Players go around table and announce actions
DM declares what the NPCs have started doing ("the evil wizard begins to cast", "the minotaur starts to charge", etc.)

Initiative is rolled at the start of each round.

Each of the following 3 phases is handled in initiative order.

Phase 1
Standard or move action
First attack of full-round attack

Phase 2
Standard or move action, the opposite of whichever was performed in phase 1.
Remaining attacks of full-round attacks
Other full round actions complete

Phase 3
1 round actions complete (note that summoned monsters do not get to immediately attack, so their init bonus is actually important)

**************

Note that action declarations do not have to include targeting information. For instance, it could be "I move and attack with my staff", "I cast magic missile", "I ready an action to set my spear in case the enemy charges", "I take out my bow and fire".

Actions are begun as soon as they are declared. This means that if you declare you are casting a spell, if you are hit before the spell completes you have to make a concentration check. Phase 1 actions are locked in. Phase 2 actions can be aborted with a move substituted instead. For instance, if your action declaration was to move and attack but before you get to move in phase 1 someone puts a wall of iron in the way, you'll move and bump into it. On the other hand, if you win initiative and move in phase 1 but then an enemy puts a wall of iron between you and your intended opponent, you can abort your planned attack of phase 2 and instead move somewhere else.

*********************

This system has one flaw. Because move+attack is split up, you can win initiative, move up to your enemy, and the enemy - who has a lower initiative than you do - gets to attack you first. I haven't figured out the best way to handle that except to say that you are not allowed to melee attack anyone who didn't start the phase within reach (except via charge, of course). This does have the advantage of not allowing the defender to take a full attack against the opponent who moved up to him, one of the critical flaws of the 3.5 default system.