Samurai Jill
2009-09-10, 07:14 AM
I thought I'd take another stab at this question after a long hiatus, but to recap: The basic problem with PBP role-play as I've been able to observe is that there is no current RPG system really optimised for the purpose. This is ungood. Doubleplus-ungood.
Difficulties.
There are a few principle, but crippling, areas of friction that I can see:
* IIEE (Intent, Initiative, Execution and Effect.) Games that rely on a fixed initiative order translate very poorly to forums, because posters get online at unpredictable times that might not bear any correlation to the in-world scheduling of events.
* Informal negotiation, back-and-forth dialogue, or interpersonal queries of any sort are painfully slow, for similar reasons. So are many forms of task resolution where you can't just 'go ahead on your own.'
* PBP gamers seem eager to provide lots of colourful description for their actions in order to enliven things a bit, but different posters seem to have drastically different ideas of appropriate levels of detail. Some will write thousand-word tirades, others a dozen words- often side-by-side in the same transcript. In theory, this is just a question of taste, but I personally find it distracting, and detrimental to the transcript-as-artifact.
* PBP games are plagued by unannounced dropouts and absences, but I would contend this may be due more to sheer boredom than anything else. Still, some formal mechanism to facilitate 'carrying the torch' might be handy.
Opportunities.
With all that said, however, PBP games have several key advantages that seem to go almost completely unused:
* Posts can be edited. Don't like the way things turned out, or want to elaborate on an exchange of witty banter? There's nothing stopping you from improving on the record of what happened- within the limits of consistency, anything goes. Conversation, in particular, could be 'filled out' substantially this way, since it rarely has binding in-game mechanical effects.
* You're not limited by the mechanics of physical dice or strict integer math, and have a great deal of time to perform resolution of independent actions- in theory, this could could greatly facilitate certain forms of heavyweight-simulationist play.
* Unlike tabletop play, PBP seems much more similar to collaborative fiction. The written transcript of events could, in itself, have artistic merit, and possibly reach a (slightly?) wider audience than just the people who played it.
Observations.
The real question here is how you can get the players engaged with what they can do, there and then, when they sit down at the keyboard. How can they strategise, or immerse themselves, or cut to the emotional core of an issue, right then and there, without having to consult anyone?
* The heavy emphasis on descriptive colour and general narration, together with the difficulties associated with crunch-heavy play, would tentatively suggest a Narrativist direction for development. The problem is, Narrativist play often involves a great deal of informal negotiation over the stakes of conflict and world-building concensus, and precise IIEE is apparently very important for Nar play.
* The Burning Wheel system has several mechanics that could work well here- specifically, the ideas that most actions are scripted in advance and resolved simultaneously, and the Beliefs/Instincts/Traits framework that formalise PC goals and behaviour, which could help to patch over absences and dropouts. (The BW scripting approach has one major problem: actions must be written down and kept secret until resolution calls for them, or initiative mechanics just rear their ugly head again. In PBP terms, this might amount to private messages sent to the GM- but who's going to ensure the GM doesn't script his/her actions last, in the full knowledge of what the PCs are planning? Or perhaps some .php scripting facility could cater for this?)
* Following the idea of action-scripting, gamble-heavy Gamist play could in theory work quite well here, possibly taking a cue from Rune in the distribution of GM-adversity between players, and with the actual GM serving principally as arbitrator or referee.
* If an original system is going to gain any traction over the web, it needs to be light as a feather. It can't be big and complex and sprawling and full of endless rules-addenda. Players just won't invest the effort in learning it first.
I'm not making any definite recommendations yet, but I did want to explore the subject a bit before I try my hand at a fixed design direction.
Difficulties.
There are a few principle, but crippling, areas of friction that I can see:
* IIEE (Intent, Initiative, Execution and Effect.) Games that rely on a fixed initiative order translate very poorly to forums, because posters get online at unpredictable times that might not bear any correlation to the in-world scheduling of events.
* Informal negotiation, back-and-forth dialogue, or interpersonal queries of any sort are painfully slow, for similar reasons. So are many forms of task resolution where you can't just 'go ahead on your own.'
* PBP gamers seem eager to provide lots of colourful description for their actions in order to enliven things a bit, but different posters seem to have drastically different ideas of appropriate levels of detail. Some will write thousand-word tirades, others a dozen words- often side-by-side in the same transcript. In theory, this is just a question of taste, but I personally find it distracting, and detrimental to the transcript-as-artifact.
* PBP games are plagued by unannounced dropouts and absences, but I would contend this may be due more to sheer boredom than anything else. Still, some formal mechanism to facilitate 'carrying the torch' might be handy.
Opportunities.
With all that said, however, PBP games have several key advantages that seem to go almost completely unused:
* Posts can be edited. Don't like the way things turned out, or want to elaborate on an exchange of witty banter? There's nothing stopping you from improving on the record of what happened- within the limits of consistency, anything goes. Conversation, in particular, could be 'filled out' substantially this way, since it rarely has binding in-game mechanical effects.
* You're not limited by the mechanics of physical dice or strict integer math, and have a great deal of time to perform resolution of independent actions- in theory, this could could greatly facilitate certain forms of heavyweight-simulationist play.
* Unlike tabletop play, PBP seems much more similar to collaborative fiction. The written transcript of events could, in itself, have artistic merit, and possibly reach a (slightly?) wider audience than just the people who played it.
Observations.
The real question here is how you can get the players engaged with what they can do, there and then, when they sit down at the keyboard. How can they strategise, or immerse themselves, or cut to the emotional core of an issue, right then and there, without having to consult anyone?
* The heavy emphasis on descriptive colour and general narration, together with the difficulties associated with crunch-heavy play, would tentatively suggest a Narrativist direction for development. The problem is, Narrativist play often involves a great deal of informal negotiation over the stakes of conflict and world-building concensus, and precise IIEE is apparently very important for Nar play.
* The Burning Wheel system has several mechanics that could work well here- specifically, the ideas that most actions are scripted in advance and resolved simultaneously, and the Beliefs/Instincts/Traits framework that formalise PC goals and behaviour, which could help to patch over absences and dropouts. (The BW scripting approach has one major problem: actions must be written down and kept secret until resolution calls for them, or initiative mechanics just rear their ugly head again. In PBP terms, this might amount to private messages sent to the GM- but who's going to ensure the GM doesn't script his/her actions last, in the full knowledge of what the PCs are planning? Or perhaps some .php scripting facility could cater for this?)
* Following the idea of action-scripting, gamble-heavy Gamist play could in theory work quite well here, possibly taking a cue from Rune in the distribution of GM-adversity between players, and with the actual GM serving principally as arbitrator or referee.
* If an original system is going to gain any traction over the web, it needs to be light as a feather. It can't be big and complex and sprawling and full of endless rules-addenda. Players just won't invest the effort in learning it first.
I'm not making any definite recommendations yet, but I did want to explore the subject a bit before I try my hand at a fixed design direction.