Why do PbP games fail?

[Grumman]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and would like to find out what other people think about what appears to me to be the high failure rate of PbP games.

The first thing I was thinking was that since you face encounters far slower than in a real game you gain XP a lot slower, so you're stuck in the low levels (before you can start to customise your character with PrCs) a lot longer than anyone is willing to bear.

As an example, in one of the games I'm in has been running for three months, and we're only halfway to our next level. Extrapolating from this, we'd only be likely to level up twice a year, and it will take almost a decade to reach level 20. Obviously, this is about as likely as hell freezing over - it seems like I'm lucky if a PbP game lasts months, and quite simply can't see myself wanting to keep playing in this campaign when I'm in my 30s.

Thoughts?

[Math_Mage]

1. Non-realtime progress + irregular hours = slow pace.
2. Unfamiliar groups + low commitment = unreliable games.

[Aik]

Well, there's a bunch of reasons, but I think inappropriate systems is a good one. You just can't pick up most tabletop systems and try and use them in a PBP game and expect that to work well. These systems were designed with real-time communication in mind - a back-and-forth battle with dice rolls and the GM as the facilitator/bottleneck is just not efficient in this medium. Hell, it's barely efficient in real time.

(I've been talking to Samurai Jill about this recently in PM - check out this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124470) )

[Innis Cabal]

The main issue isn't


1. Non-realtime progress + irregular hours = slow pace.
2. Unfamiliar groups + low commitment = unreliable games

Its the systems that are used. Most games are not intended for PbP format. At all. Freeform games do just fine, in fact better then fine. Look at the Freeform section of this very forum, you'll find games that have gone on for years. Even with people dropping them.

D&D espcially is not made for a PbP game, -espically- 4th Ed which is tied so distinctly to a game board.

[PhoenixRivers]

+1. These games require constant updating, and more work on the part of all parties to accurately visualize where everything is in relation to everything else. IRL, you move a piece on the map. PBP, you update the Img file, upload it to photobucket, and provide a new link.

Also, the slower pace is frustrating for many.

[Talkkno]

Its the systems that are used. Most games are not intended for PbP format. At all. Freeform games do just fine, in fact better then fine. Look at the Freeform section of this very forum, you'll find games that have gone on for years. Even with people dropping them.


Also to add, rules light games like Maid RPG and Wushu.

[Neon Knight]

I am going to disagree with all of the posters above, except for one:


1. Non-realtime progress + irregular hours = slow pace.
2. Unfamiliar groups + low commitment = unreliable games.

This guy, I feel, has got it.

People play extremely crunchy, complicated, and involved systems like GURPS and Exalted (and nutty ones like RIFTS) online successfully, and I've seen Wushu, MAID, and freeform games all fail. Player involvement and interest is the only thing that really makes games work. Without it, even the simplest of exercises fails, and with it, the most "inappropriate" of systems may be employed successfully.

Maintaining interest, both as a play and a DM, is actually quite difficult. It isn't a flaw or a sin to lose interest and motivation; it just happens. Sometimes, a game doesn't even need to be really bad for it to happen. A perfectly competent game that is otherwise nothing special can be hard to have enthusiasm for. The thing is, you spend little chunks and pieces of time here and there on PBPing, but you don't ever really sit down and dedicate lots of time in one go to them. Face to face sessions can span multiple hours; I can sit down and play a video game, watch TV or a movie, or read a book as much as I want, but a PBP game can only be enjoyed at its pace, which can be highly variable and quite slow at times.

PBP games fail because they do; it's a risk you have to accept when you undertake one. If it works, it works, and you have fun. If it doesn't it doesn't, and you move on to something else.

[Aik]

A poor system for the medium will lead to an unnecessarily slow pace though, which you note as part of the problem. I agree that those things are a problem, but system is definitely one as well. Yes, you can do it, but it will be excruciating and missing the things that the PBP format actually does well.

I've seen plenty of freeform games fail too - but freeform brings in its own problem. Rules (assuming they're good rules) help along the game and keep it fresh and dynamic. They also control the pacing, and just like some systems can slow it to a crawl I've been in freeform games where a few players basically take over the game because they're in the same timezone and cover a huge amount of in game time where others don't get the chance to reply. A good PBP-specific system would fix that.

I agree with you in part - those things are the key problems, but system matters a lot when it comes to exacerbating or alleviating those problems.

[Neon Knight]

A poor system for the medium will lead to an unnecessarily slow pace though, which you note as part of the problem. I agree that those things are a problem, but system is definitely one as well. Yes, you can do it, but it will be excruciating and missing the things that the PBP format actually does well.


Unfortunately, this has not been my experience. I have had what you would call "good" system games move slowly while "poor" system games running at the same time moved at a swifter pace. And I've personally had more problems making posts for a freeform game I wasn't too interested in anymore while zipping along in a very crunchy game.

[Ichneumon]

I don't think it is a problem inherently lying with the systems used. True, many systems work less than moderately on a play-by-post medium, but good games can be played with whatever system you use.

The main problem with PBP-games is, in my view, that many are planned and played just like regular RL-games. Pasing is in most cases similar to a normal game. This is problematic as a regular campaign might take regular hours and hours of weekly play, a play-by-post game might take weeks to get to the point at which a regular game would be within 1 session. Combat could take weeks too and levelling is almost unheard of.

Therefore campaigns should be made shorter. Entire campaigns should be made to have a length of what would normally be 1 session.

Although I am still new to the pbp-medium as a DM, I try to make my campaigns not last longer than 2 months, max.

[Math_Mage]

I am going to disagree with all of the posters above, except for one:


:smallcool: You don't mind if I sig that, do you?

[Neon Knight]

Nope. Feel free.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I've tried pbp games, but I just haven't been able to maintain focus as a DM or player. It's like reading one page of a book every day, and nothing more -- I guess I just can't deal with the maddeningly slow pace.

[Kurald Galain]

The glacial pace kills it for me. You can spend weeks playing out a single action scene.

[Oslecamo]

The glacial pace kills it for me. You can spend weeks playing out a single action scene.

Indeed, it's quite easy to lose interest due to the slow pace

First you need to find a good active DM who's always there to reply to the player's actions. Many PbP games I saw die simply because the DM disapears, making the game completely stall, as the DM is the center piece of a campaign.

Then you need good active players. They don't need to be as active as the DM, but they need to be able to take iniative by themselves when it's their turn to move. Waiting for other players to act can be deadly. If nobody else speaks when there's need of making a decision, don't be afraid to take the leader position for the party.

Something that helps a LOT is making all players act in the same iniative during combat, as this way players can post their action after the monsters move whitout worrying about their own allies iniative. Players who take too long to post should be ignored for the turn, and recruiting new people as needed if too many people disapear.

[Eldan]

Interestingly, I've been on two other roleplaying fora, and the dying phenomenon only seems to happen here... I was on a german forum where we played through pretty much every Eberron adventure ever written in a year. On Myth-weavers, there are games going on pretty much forever, though not all of them.

[Tengu_temp]

There are two keys to a successful PbP game:
1. A strong, interesting concept. The game's theme must be something fun and unique, something that will attract people who'll be passionate about it. Generic Fantasy Group Goes Adventuring And Dungeoncrawling will die much faster than Teenagers With Superpowers Are Recruited By A Non-Government Organization To Fight Mysterious Aliens.
2. Activity. You need people who are willing to post often - at least once a day - and be one of those people yourself. One of my friends has the approach of "it's a PbP game, it's supposed to be slow, there is no need to hurry". All of her games died quickly. Coincidence? I think not.

[juggalotis]

personally every pbp game ive been in has failed due to one or 2 players just not posting for days at a time slowing it down or they cant post for several weeks due to holidays etcetc, other players get tired of waiting on them and just drop out.

[juggalotis]

There are two keys to a successful PbP game:
1. A strong, interesting concept. The game's theme must be something fun and unique, something that will attract people who'll be passionate about it. Generic Fantasy Group Goes Adventuring And Dungeoncrawling will die much faster than Teenagers With Superpowers Are Recruited By A Non-Government Organization To Fight Mysterious Aliens.
2. Activity. You need people who are willing to post often - at least once a day - and be one of those people yourself. One of my friends has the approach of "it's a PbP game, it's supposed to be slow, there is no need to hurry". All of her games died quickly. Coincidence? I think not.

personally id add a third in there, similar hours to play. the game moves so much faster if the players are on around the same time, instead of one post per day you can get in a bunch.

[Tengu_temp]

That certainly is an important factor too, yeah.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Things I've learned from my PBP experiences:

1.) If you're looking for a good game that will last long, avoid sandbox games, or games that seem to focus around player initiative (this often includes evil games, mystery solving games, and RP-heavy, character-driven games). Giving players control and immense freedom seems to lead to a general paralysis of indecision. A good PBP game will give players a few simple choices, and lots of exciting combat and interesting situations thrust upon them.

2.) A game will not survive if the DM is poor. Before even getting interested in a PBP game, look at a DM's recruiting thread. Is there poor spelling and grammar? Is the DM's writing style or general attitude disagreeable to you? Are they running a sandbox/RP-heavy/character-driven game? Chances are you should save yourself the trouble if any of the answers to the above questions are 'yes.'

3.) When you've been on the PBP forums a while, take notes. Note down who is active, who writes well, who has interesting ideas. Equally (if not more) important is to note who is a troublemaker, who's confrontational, who can barely write coherent English, who's playing in a million games but posting in none, etc. Add them to your own personal list of people to avoid, and you can save yourself some trouble.

4.) Avoid games that have more than five players. Anything more is beyond the ability of even the best DMs to handle, and usually reflects a DMs inability to make decisions and cut people from recruitment threads.

5.) Avoid games with massive, long, tedious, stagnant recruitment threads. If the DM running the game cannot make a decision within a decent amount of time, that tells you something. Throwing a character into competition with 20+ other submissions is likely a waste of your time.


In general, I find PBP games are at their best when the DM is throwing regular, interesting combat scenarios at the players. People fill out the character sheet for a reason: to use their spells, swords, and skills. A serious DM should take the time to make good maps, and upload them to the thread.

Also, DMs need to exercise their power better in PBP games. They need to be willing to move things along, even if that means taking temporary control of inactive characters, making tactical choices for otherwise nondescript or vague players, and knowing the rules like the back of your hand.

Always move forward. Stagnation is what kills PBP games.

[Volkov]

Things I've learned from my PBP experiences:

1.) If you're looking for a good game that will last long, avoid sandbox games, or games that seem to focus around player initiative (this often includes evil games, mystery solving games, and RP-heavy, character-driven games). Giving players control and immense freedom seems to lead to a general paralysis of indecision. A good PBP game will give players a few simple choices, and lots of exciting combat and interesting situations thrust upon them.

2.) A game will not survive if the DM is poor. Before even getting interested in a PBP game, look at a DM's recruiting thread. Is there poor spelling and grammar? Is the DM's writing style or general attitude disagreeable to you? Are they running a sandbox/RP-heavy/character-driven game? Chances are you should save yourself the trouble if any of the answers to the above questions are 'yes.'

3.) When you've been on the PBP forums a while, take notes. Note down who is active, who writes well, who has interesting ideas. Equally (if not more) important is to note who is a troublemaker, who's confrontational, who can barely write coherent English, who's playing in a million games but posting in none, etc. Add them to your own personal list of people to avoid, and you can save yourself some trouble.

4.) Avoid games that have more than five players. Anything more is beyond the ability of even the best DMs to handle, and usually reflects a DMs inability to make decisions and cut people from recruitment threads.

5.) Avoid games with massive, long, tedious, stagnant recruitment threads. If the DM running the game cannot make a decision within a decent amount of time, that tells you something. Throwing a character into competition with 20+ other submissions is likely a waste of your time.


In general, I find PBP games are at their best when the DM is throwing regular, interesting combat scenarios at the players. People fill out the character sheet for a reason: to use their spells, swords, and skills. A serious DM should take the time to make good maps, and upload them to the thread.

Also, DMs need to exercise their power better in PBP games. They need to be willing to move things along, even if that means taking temporary control of inactive characters, making tactical choices for otherwise nondescript or vague players, and knowing the rules like the back of your hand.

Always move forward. Stagnation is what kills PBP games.

I have had many, very long running RP heavy gmail chat games with a friend. Of course they were freeform....

[Xenogears]

The lack of direct interection prolly doesn't help either. Most people I know(though not all) people play DnD primarily as a way of hanging out with their friends. PbP (even with friends) just doesn't have the same feel as sitting down with your friends, chugging Mountain Dew, munching on Cheetos, and rolling dice for a few hours.

[CockroachTeaParty]

I have had many, very long running RP heavy gmail chat games with a friend. Of course they were freeform....

Bolded the keywords there. I'm not talking about chat games, IRC games, or freeform games. I'm talking about PBP D&D (3.5) with larger groups of people. You can have all sorts of great games with small groups, free-form rules, etc. etc. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying what I think makes for survivable PBP D&D games, and what one should avoid.

[BooNL]

I've been around here for a while as well and to be honest, I don't think any of the games I've started have ever had a proper ending.

These days, I've basically given up on joining a random game with random people hoping they're any good. For a couple of months now I've been playing with a couple of regulars, who I know are active and fun to game with.

And that's the whole solution right there: commitment. I'm only in 2 PbP games now, one of them with a regular DM of mine, the other with Sliver (who I know is commited as well). I'd love to join another, and believe me I've tried, but most of the time I don't feel any spark or relation with the game or the DM, so I just drop out before the game even starts.

I agree with Ichneumon. The entire premise of the campaign should be kept fairly simple or short. The story and awesomeness of the campaign can be as complex as you want. But instead of building up to a major event, like you do IRL, you have to work in archs. Give the players something they can achieve in 2 months, if they're still there you can advance the story then.
Don't be afraid to speed up time. If the combat stalls and it looks like the players are winning already, just mop it up. No need to spend another 2 weeks rolling dice if you already know the outcome.

There has to be some bending of rules as well. Most 3.5 games I've played ended up pretty DnD Lite at some points. No AOO, no initiative, no complex things that mean 5 or 6 posts to resolve. Grease and Web may be wonderful spells, but they slow combat down to a crawl. Glitterdust et al work just as well.

[CockroachTeaParty]

There has to be some bending of rules as well. Most 3.5 games I've played ended up pretty DnD Lite at some points. No AOO, no initiative, no complex things that mean 5 or 6 posts to resolve. Grease and Web may be wonderful spells, but they slow combat down to a crawl. Glitterdust et al work just as well.

Bah, I say, bah. Only a weak or lazy DM can't handle anything you listed above in a PBP game. Sure, it means more work for the DM, but that's the DM's eternal responsibility and curse.

Consider the following: In an RL game, a spell like Web or Summon Monster might slow things down as people scurry to look up rules, stats, etc.

In PBP, you have access to all the rules you need, and can take your time looking them up, to make sure that each post is accurate. With the SRD, suddenly Summon Monster spells are just as easy to incorporate as Magic Missile or Mage Armor.

If any of the things you mentioned slow down a PBP game, they would slow them down in RL under the same DM. A strong DM knows the rules, and failing that, knows where to find the rule he/she needs quickly.

[ericgrau]

You're asking 4-5 random people you met on the internet to commit long term to a forum game involving complicated discussion. Why doesn't it fail?

[Akal Saris]

I'll chip in and say that player and DM lack of interest is the #1 killer. Winter holidays especially are killer, because nobody feels like sitting down and posting when you've got family over and travel and everything.

I started PBP games three years ago, and miraculously, the first game I joined is still active today, and the second game I joined took a 1 year break last January and we're just starting up again now (knock on wood).

When I DM'd a game myself, two players eventually quit because of the game style (and in part the system wasn't really great for PBP), and the other 2 PCs had a terrific time, but with RL commitments we all agreed to wrap the game up while we were at a high point.

As others have said, once you find a good group of people online, try to stick with them for other games, and you'll have far fewer games that fail rather than wrap up.

So far I've had one game complete as it was supposed to (joined in on the last year of a 5 year game!), and about 3 more wrap up somewhat suddenly, with the DM giving a 1 month to a 1 week warning that he was going to stop the storyline at the end of the current arc. Then...8 currently active games (3 of which have stopped and started again), and about 20 games that never got off the ground or didn't survive the 4 month mark, usually because the DM just disappears suddenly. After the 4 month mark, only 3-4 games have really failed on me.

[Starbuck_II]

Because the DM can't reward the players with snacks. Where are my skittles!?

[Tengu_temp]

2.) A game will not survive if the DM is poor. Before even getting interested in a PBP game, look at a DM's recruiting thread. Is there poor spelling and grammar? Is the DM's writing style or general attitude disagreeable to you? Are they running a sandbox/RP-heavy/character-driven game? Chances are you should save yourself the trouble if any of the answers to the above questions are 'yes.'


Disagreed with the bolded part. I'm currently participating in three long-running (from half a year to one and a half) games, and all of them are RP-heavy. Neither is sandbox, though.



4.) Avoid games that have more than five players. Anything more is beyond the ability of even the best DMs to handle, and usually reflects a DMs inability to make decisions and cut people from recruitment threads.


Disagreed again. Two out of the three games mentioned above have more than 5 players - the third one had 6 players, but one of them dropped off in the meantime. While it's true that a smaller number of players helps, player activity is much more important than the number of players.

[BooNL]

Bah, I say, bah. Only a weak or lazy DM can't handle anything you listed above in a PBP game. Sure, it means more work for the DM, but that's the DM's eternal responsibility and curse.

Consider the following: In an RL game, a spell like Web or Summon Monster might slow things down as people scurry to look up rules, stats, etc.

In PBP, you have access to all the rules you need, and can take your time looking them up, to make sure that each post is accurate. With the SRD, suddenly Summon Monster spells are just as easy to incorporate as Magic Missile or Mage Armor.

If any of the things you mentioned slow down a PBP game, they would slow them down in RL under the same DM. A strong DM knows the rules, and failing that, knows where to find the rule he/she needs quickly.

That's not the point. I agree that having all the rules on hand is one of the main advantages of PbP (that said though, how often do we not post without having any splatbooks on hand? I can never recall my spell's effects...)

My point was, casting those spells generally slows combat down to a crawl. Instead of finishing the fight in 5 or 6 turns, suddenly you're leaping to 8-10 turns.

Ofcourse, you can have tactical combat in PbP, but every player would have to be commited to that. I've tried doing a purely RAW game PbP once where every single thing in the DMG was accounted for. The first fight lasted over a month and in the end I just grew tired of the game.

For 'RP-heavy' or regular campaigns where combat isn't the main focus, the battles should be kept a bit simpler. Players shouldn't expect to be in the same fight for 2 weeks, because that's when you'll notice interest dropping (hard).

[TheCountAlucard]

Generic Fantasy Group Goes Adventuring And Dungeoncrawling will die much faster than Teenagers With Superpowers Are Recruited By A Non-Government Organization To Fight Mysterious Aliens.You talking about Rangers: the Morphing? So much fun to be had! :smalltongue:

[Tengu_temp]

You talking about Rangers: the Morphing? So much fun to be had! :smalltongue:

Close. I'm talking about Still Not Safe, a campaign on this forum that was once described as Power Rangers Meet Evangelion (although instead of Power Rangers, Tekkaman Blade would be a better fit). Probably the best game I'm in, and one of the long runners I mentioned before.

[CockroachTeaParty]

That's not the point. I agree that having all the rules on hand is one of the main advantages of PbP (that said though, how often do we not post without having any splatbooks on hand? I can never recall my spell's effects...)

My point was, casting those spells generally slows combat down to a crawl. Instead of finishing the fight in 5 or 6 turns, suddenly you're leaping to 8-10 turns.

Ofcourse, you can have tactical combat in PbP, but every player would have to be commited to that. I've tried doing a purely RAW game PbP once where every single thing in the DMG was accounted for. The first fight lasted over a month and in the end I just grew tired of the game.

For 'RP-heavy' or regular campaigns where combat isn't the main focus, the battles should be kept a bit simpler. Players shouldn't expect to be in the same fight for 2 weeks, because that's when you'll notice interest dropping (hard).

That's not a spell or tactical issue, though. A fight only lasts as long as the DM lets it last. For instance, in my game, I have a '1 round per 24 hour' rule, and if nobody posts anything I take control of their characters for that round. That helps moves things along quickly.

That said, an important thing I should have mentioned in my first big post was that good PBP games are usually played at low levels. At levels 1-7 or so, the number of PC and monster options are simpler, more limited, and fights should rarely last longer than 5 or so rounds. You don't have to worry about Contingent spells, targeted dispels, 83 negative levels, blah blah blah.

However, how does a spell like Web or Grease slow down combat? Especially in a game where a fight will take between 4 days to a week to complete anyway? If anything, once an enemy has been debuffed, immobilized, or otherwise screwed, the mop-up should make the fight finish even quicker. In the interest of speeding things along, you can have the DM finish up a fight once the enemy has been properly inconvenienced. That's fine, but what it is not is a necessary dumbing-down of the rules.

What you said in your initial response was that PBP games require a simplification of the rules. I would argue that they do not. It depends on the DM. If a DM is going to ban what they would call complex spells, or ignore things like AoO's and initiative, that's their call, but it is far from necessary for having a successful and interesting PBP game.

[Neon Knight]

Disagreed with the bolded part. I'm currently participating in three long-running (from half a year to one and a half) games, and all of them are RP-heavy. Neither is sandbox, though.

Disagreed again. Two out of the three games mentioned above have more than 5 players - the third one had 6 players, but one of them dropped off in the meantime. While it's true that a smaller number of players helps, player activity is much more important than the number of players.

I'm going to back up Tengu's objections, as they mesh well with my experiences. RP heavy games are in fact the only ones that have worked well for myself and the other players I have been with. All the more conventional dungeon crawls or combat focused exercises have fallen apart. I've also had success in games with surprisingly large groups of players.

[Orzel]

I also found the heavy RP games hard fewer issues. I believe it's more of a game design issue.

I once wanted to design a game for PbP where all the "rolls" are done at the start of the game. The same rolls would happen in the same order for every character. Place the numbers 1-20 in a random order and anytime a d20 is rolled, you just move to the next number. Combined with a quickly resolving, low option, and near programmable combat/conflict system, a GM/team leader can resolve combats/conflicts by themselves (with permission). Decisions made before and after conflicts (the parts that don't stall the game) would be made more important. This way dropped, forgetful, or slow players would have less effect on the pace.

[Ernir]

Lack of commitment, I say.

It's easy to drop out of a PbP where you are only playing with a bunch of strangers. Just stop posting, and you can even avoid the ":smallfrown:" look on the DM.

Also, I'd guess that a lot of new PbP DMs think DMing for a PbP is super-easy. When they find out it isn't always that way... well, bye bye game stability. =/

[Shardan]

I've been in 3 PbP games now. 2 have completely fell apart before the end of the first encounter. the third never made it to an encounter. At least one person just stops posting. then everyone else bails and quits. Because its by post some people feel no remorse because they don't know the players/dm

[Blaine.Bush]

Lack of accountability. In real life, there are people you know who will hold you to your commitments. If you break these commitments off, there will be some form of consequence. On the internet, however, no harm comes from this. If you lose interest and stop posting, what are they gonna do about it?

[Weimann]

The theory I have is 2-and-a-half-fold.

1) It's a time stretch, as has been mentioned. IT takes forever to get anywhere, and it also stretched your own attention way to thin. Okay, so 10 minutes a day is easy, right, but it very soon gets tedious. I'd rather play 4 hours once a week.

2a) Players are not as attached. This is just logical, in fact. If you know your circlemates, you will enjoy your game more. It's that easy. This isn't a flaw of PbP games as such, but since most PbP participants are raised on forums, they're very likely to be strangers. This, and the anonymity of a username, makes people drop games much easier than normally.

2b) Since players are less attached to each other, the game itself must entertain all the more. As has been stated "Heroes Clearing Dungeon 12b" will not see much activity. The DM has a lot more on his shoulders, and must make the game as such interesting and compelling. Which, of course, makes good PbP games more rare.

[Ozreth]

If I ever decided to DM a PBP game the requirement will be that all of the players have smart phones, that whey they can post all day : )

Also, it would be a 4e game, which means they could all access iplay4e.com to quickly look at their character sheets and keep track of everything in the game.

[Akal Saris]

I just remembered that there have actually been two games that I've successfully finished, not one :P The one I forgot is a 2E straight dungeon crawl based on the 1E module "Against the (Hill) Giants".

Entirely combat-based and with some incredibly difficult fights. RP-wise we ended up with a very good party dynamic, albeit one that was completely stereotypical (I'm the short-tempered dwarven fighter who uses an axe or hammer, for example). Still, almost all of our RP was while our characters were killing giants or looting giants :P

Now we've started a new module, which is why I forgot that we had finished the original game. I just yelled at a room of 30 frost giants and threw my hammer of thunderbolts at them, so it's time to roll initiative and clear these bastards out too :D

[drengnikrafe]

Let me tell a short story. I was part of a campaign once that happened over an online gametable. It reminded me of a PbP in a messenger window with a grid, effectively. Me, my ex-DM, and 2 people I'd never seen before were testing out 4e in a PvP. The battle, 4 versus 4 (we each had 2 characters). It took about 4 hours. Granted, there was some rules-bickering here and there, and some "hold on, I have to look at my abilities" now and again, but... 4 hours, real time. Even that thing died of lack of interest and lack of fun after that one "session".

[The Demented One]

1.) If you're looking for a good game that will last long, avoid sandbox games, or games that seem to focus around player initiative (this often includes evil games, mystery solving games, and RP-heavy, character-driven games). Giving players control and immense freedom seems to lead to a general paralysis of indecision. A good PBP game will give players a few simple choices, and lots of exciting combat and interesting situations thrust upon them.

2.) A game will not survive if the DM is poor. Before even getting interested in a PBP game, look at a DM's recruiting thread. Is there poor spelling and grammar? Is the DM's writing style or general attitude disagreeable to you? Are they running a sandbox/RP-heavy/character-driven game? Chances are you should save yourself the trouble if any of the answers to the above questions are 'yes.'

You make God-Kings of Lotus sad.

[BooNL]

That's not a spell or tactical issue, though. A fight only lasts as long as the DM lets it last. For instance, in my game, I have a '1 round per 24 hour' rule, and if nobody posts anything I take control of their characters for that round. That helps moves things along quickly.

That said, an important thing I should have mentioned in my first big post was that good PBP games are usually played at low levels. At levels 1-7 or so, the number of PC and monster options are simpler, more limited, and fights should rarely last longer than 5 or so rounds. You don't have to worry about Contingent spells, targeted dispels, 83 negative levels, blah blah blah.


This is very true. I've tried high level PbP a couple of times. It's just too tedious to do.



However, how does a spell like Web or Grease slow down combat? Especially in a game where a fight will take between 4 days to a week to complete anyway? If anything, once an enemy has been debuffed, immobilized, or otherwise screwed, the mop-up should make the fight finish even quicker. In the interest of speeding things along, you can have the DM finish up a fight once the enemy has been properly inconvenienced. That's fine, but what it is not is a necessary dumbing-down of the rules.

My experience IRL and PbP has been that some spells can actually lengthen the total turn number of a battle. I used Grease and Web as quick examples, though they're not neccesarily the best. Solid Fog might have been a stronger contender.

You are correct about the mop-up sequence, in that case the aformentioned spells are pretty handy. However, most of the time any of these were cast I've seen OOC discussions on 'what can I hit, where can I move' last for at least a week.
This does ofcourse illustrate the neccesity of a good battlemap, but I've been in few PbP games where a map is used consistently.



What you said in your initial response was that PBP games require a simplification of the rules. I would argue that they do not. It depends on the DM. If a DM is going to ban what they would call complex spells, or ignore things like AoO's and initiative, that's their call, but it is far from necessary for having a successful and interesting PBP game.

My own interest in gaming lies in roleplay and a good story. Combat is an important aspect of the game and it is always something I build toward, but from my experiences PbP isn't the correct medium for extensive tactical battles. At least, not if every player is focused on it as heavily as the others.
I'm not, so I usually drop out of games where a single combat can last 2 weeks. I'd rather have mechanically simpler fights that derive enjoyment from the player's and DM's descriptions IC.

[horngeek]

You make God-Kings of Lotus sad.

This.

Seriously, God-Kings of Lotus is all the proof needed that this isn't true.

It is: player-driven. TDO only presents problems, how to solve them is entirely up to the players.

Long-running. The game is up to two threads. Three, if you count Echo's side-adventure in the Exalted equivalent of Hell. Where, incidentally, he's helping a demonic brothel with their problems. :smalltongue:

Awesome. SERIOUSLY. FREAKING. AWESOME.

[El Chupaqueso]

I've been running a PbP campaign for a little while now, and even though I've gone against some of the advice in this thread (It's an Evil D&D 3.5 campaign midway between linear and sandbox, with about a 60/40 or 70/30 ratio of RP to combat) it's gone pretty well so far. I guess I could attribute this mostly to knowing the player's really well, though. Being that we all know each other personally, the players are a little more invested, and less irritated when I prod them to participate (and there are definately some players who need prodding...).

I think the best pieces of advice for a DM looking to run a PbP game is to know your players to a comfortable degree, update frequently and keep them interested. You can do a successful PbP campaign with a respectable amount of combat, but you have to keep things interesting at all times. You have to work extra hard on the plot. You have to have somthing to keep them hooked. In the case of my campaign, the theme is "secrets." Most of the NPC's are hiding something or other, and I even encouraged the players to come up with secrets that the other players wouldn't find out until later. (My personal favorite is a fighter who everyone thinks is insane because he talks to his sword, which is actually possessed by a demon.) This sort of thing tends to keep the players interested because they always want to delve deeper into the plot to find things out.

I suppose I would sum it up by saying that what PbP games require most is almost-daily attention by the DM, and you can't just slap one together.

[Simba]

I have been blessed with a group of people who play with me as their DM on these forums. They are dedicated, active and we can always work things out. Of course there are times when things slow down, but sofar they have always come back once the game gathered speed again.

Most PbP groups are different from tabletop groups inasfar as they are more diverse in age, language, time zones, online hours, culture, gaming rules etc.

I feel there are a few things you have to do differently in PbP games in order to make the game run more smoothly and give your players some fun and profit. I have run tabletop campains for over a decade and have only about half a year's experience in PbP, but this is what I think is relevant:

- faster pace: running around in a town for a (real time) week or 4 becomes too much in most cases and for most players. Handle downtime quickly, get back to the action as soon as you feel things get too slow and your players lose interest. Let them get what they want, but don't make extended shopping tours with single players, at least not in the forums. PMs work for that just fine.

- faster leveling: If you follow the rules of XP you will not level much in a PbP game. I discarded XP and simply give my players a level or some special loot whenever I feel they have done something significant enough to warrant some bonus.

- more possible sollutions: in tabletop games many DMs tend to give the players scenarios with only one good sollution and gradually steer them towards it. As decission making is more tedious in a game where you have to wait for hours before you get someone's answer you have to make choices more easily made. I don't say it has to be easy, but it has to be more straightforward. When your game does not move for a week because players are discussing their options it is just fine, but only as long as they are really discussing them and making headway. Inactivity kills PbP games. Let your players find a plausible sollution and go with it. Don't plan too exactly in advance, don't wait for them to find the same sollution you had in mind. Trust them to find a good way in and out. PLan obstacles and use them, don't plot the whole way!

- fewer options: this is almost in oposition to the point above, but not really. The more options there are the higher the chance that one or more of your players will decide to do something else, leave the group, whatever. Groups will easily lose focus when they are faced with many, many possible things to do. Present them with 2-3 possibles courses of action and they will do fine, more than that is sometimes too much. If you want all those options, present them one after the other, serail, not parallel.

Many might - and surely will - disagree with me on thses things, but they work for me and my players. Post your ideas and reservations, I am open for sugestions.

My 5c :)

[The_Snark]

It is true that sandbox games are harder, though. They put much more of the burden on players: they have to be proactive rather than reactive. Characters with well-defined goals are essential, and the player also has to be able to come up with a plan to achieve that goal, because the GM isn't going to plan that for you.

Not that it's any easier for the GM. They have to second-guess their players and plan out various options in advance to the same degree they would playing a normal game, and they don't necessarily get to choose what sort of adventure they're fleshing out, and they have to give the player enough detail that they can come up with a plan and don't feel at a loss.

This doesn't mean it's impossible, just really tough.

Also, I wouldn't actually count a game where players were presented with open-ended challenges by the GM as a sandbox*. If they decide one day, "I'm going to usurp the Duke of Chutney," and then devise and execute a scheme to do just that, with the GM providing input about how many guards are stationed at the gatehouse and whether the Duke's beloved aunt is too nearsighted to recognize an impostor duke... that would be a sandbox. If the GM comes up with the Duke's castle and then says to the players, "Okay, find a way to replace the Duke"... that is less sandboxy. It's a fun open-ended adventure, more akin to a meandering country road where you can wander off and go bushwacking than a railroad, but not quite a sandbox. The key difference is player initiative, to me. In most games, the players could theoretically abandon the GM's plans and wander off to do their own thing, but most players are pretty happy working with the GM's plans as long as they're not too restrictive. In a sandbox game, the players create the plot hooks and the GM reacts.

*Disclaimer: there is no official definition of what a sandbox game is. Your definition may vary.

... er, back on topic: various people have given all of the reasons already. I'm inclined to lay most of the blame on player and GM fatigue: if somebody isn't enjoying posting, their posting rate will slow down. And it's very easy for that to happen: maybe work is getting hard and the last thing you feel like doing with your free time is writing or running an involved combat, maybe the slow pace means you're having trouble maintaining that initial excitement... it happens to practically everybody, and while not everybody drops, it does tend to slow things down.

The system does play a role—if combat takes a long time (and in many systems it does), then it's more likely that people will stop being excited—but it's not the primary killer. If the players and GM are all excited enough about a game in the long term, then a slowdown won't kill it. If the players lose enthusiasm, it doesn't matter how freeform and fast-paced the system is.

[DonEsteban]

I feel that most everything has already been said on this topic, so maybe it doesn't harm to derail it a slight bit. I don't think that the system is the main reason for PbP games failing, but it is still an interesting question:

Are there any game systems (or variants of other systems) designed with PbP in mind? Are there important house rules helping PbP games not to fail?

The 24-hour rule, group initiative and faster leveling have already been mentioned. Anything else?

[BooNL]

Good stuff

Well said Simba. Have I ever told you I'm glad I've found you as a DM?

[Simba]

And I am glad to have found a group like you. it is fun playing with all of you.

[Kiero]

Lack of momentum, simply put.

A game that doesn't start with activity will stall and fail. Breaks, pauses and hesitation are death for PbP games.

With that in mind, the system matters a lot; those which take forever to resolve things, and don't give players any agency to move things along will tend to stall and fail.

I've run an entire scenario with Wushu that went from start to finish in a month. Lots happened in that time, and that was facilitated by daily activity from both GM and players. Lighter systems are much better at keeping up the momentum. Either that, or the GM has to handle all the mechanical stuff themselves, with players just giving their intentions.

That's the other side bar system, it requires daily posting to maintain interest, and the GM needs to be attentive to the thread and keep things moving. If that means jumping on queries or seeming inactivity, then that's what has to be done.

[AmberVael]

It is true that sandbox games are harder, though. They put much more of the burden on players: they have to be proactive rather than reactive. Characters with well-defined goals are essential, and the player also has to be able to come up with a plan to achieve that goal, because the GM isn't going to plan that for you.
Quite. Quite quite.

I'm currently running a somewhat sandbox game right now (that The_Snark is in, in fact), and it is kind of difficult, to say the least.

I've been trying more and more to give it more structure despite it being a sandbox game, and I think - to an extent- it's working. I've still got a bit of a way to go though before it gets where I want (things still seem too vague).

Still, I will say this is the first game of mine that has continued for a nice amount of time (we've been going for what, five months now? Most games that fail do so before that), so yeah, it can be done. It's just a bit harder (especially for a person like me who really likes improvisation. Improvisation doesn't work so well, and I learned that the hard way.)


Not that it's any easier for the GM. They have to second-guess their players and plan out various options in advance to the same degree they would playing a normal game, and they don't necessarily get to choose what sort of adventure they're fleshing out, and they have to give the player enough detail that they can come up with a plan and don't feel at a loss.

This doesn't mean it's impossible, just really tough.
Pretty much what I was attempting to say above, yeah.

[toasty]

PbP games fail because people leave or stop posting. Why does that happen? Well the primary problem I have always found is a lack of interest or a lack of time. It is very difficult for players to plan 1-3 years in future and see if they will still have the time for games.

The key then, is a group that is dedicated. This is difficult on the internet. A person can create a wonderful character, play really well for several months, and then just outright disappear. This happened to me once: we had an active GM simply disappear. About a year later he came back and said: "sorry, I got divorced and life sucked for a while. I'm kinda/not really back now. Sorry." Crap like that happens in real life and people can't plan for it.

I've seen several successful groups play several games that have lasted for years. I know one GM who has a very good group of players who have yet to leave a game. These are the jewels that all PbPers should be on the lookout for.

Any game can fail, there is no magical formula. Good players can (and will) disappear. There are the rare gems that rarely do, but even the best players can find themselves on a business trip for a week. Don't expect a lot of players to be active during the holidays, for that matter.

Obviously, rule-light, fast-paced, plot driven, games will succeed more. But rule heavy, character based, slow-paced, games can also succeed.

One poster said it really well: You expected those 5 random guys from "the internet" to get together and truthfully commit to what is possibly a 2 year commitment. It just doesn't work like that. So yes... that's why PbP games fail.

[Cuaqchi]

Personally I think it comes down to 2 factors;

1) DM/GM/Referee quality. The big issue with a PbP game is a lack of contact between players and DM's, so a poor DM will hit a snag earlier than a good DM and whereas a FtF game it might only mean part of a session spent working out the bugs it can take days or weeks in PbP as any communication is limited by when people can post and the resulting delays can kill any game.

2) Player involvement. Like the DMing issue personal contact is a huge part of the game. As such the longest lasting games are those that are deeply involved and responsive to the group as a whole. It is part of why on both these boards and Myth-Weavers the distribution of H&S, Roleplaying, and Puzzles is mentioned; if you don't like the distribution, you won't enjoy the game and you will either drop early or kill the game for everyone else.

I am in one D&D game online that has been going for about a year now and we have been able to advance a party of 9 players from level 1 to level ~7 because we have multiple levels of communication. On the OOC level we are able to meet&greet with the other players and plan our actions. While on the IC level all of our characters are seperate entities that are learning about the other characters as 'real people'.

[Neon Knight]

... er, back on topic: various people have given all of the reasons already. I'm inclined to lay most of the blame on player and GM fatigue: if somebody isn't enjoying posting, their posting rate will slow down. And it's very easy for that to happen: maybe work is getting hard and the last thing you feel like doing with your free time is writing or running an involved combat, maybe the slow pace means you're having trouble maintaining that initial excitement... it happens to practically everybody, and while not everybody drops, it does tend to slow things down.

The system does play a role—if combat takes a long time (and in many systems it does), then it's more likely that people will stop being excited—but it's not the primary killer. If the players and GM are all excited enough about a game in the long term, then a slowdown won't kill it. If the players lose enthusiasm, it doesn't matter how freeform and fast-paced the system is.

This pretty much says what I was trying to say, only slightly better. Interest and excitement are leverage. With it, you can circumvent even the heaviest of system weights. Without it, well, you're sunk.

[Juk]

Lots of good points in this thread, almost all of them valid. It kind of points to the fact that there's really isn't one answer for this question. People are all different, what motivates us is all different so no matter what example you give for a campaign that worked or didn't work, someone else here has an example that directly contradicts that experience. I've DM'd a campaign that averaged over 1,000 posts per month and yet it eventually died. I've played in campaigns via email or PbP that lasted years (though in one we sometimes scheduled an ICQ session to push through a combat in an hour rather than weeks of posts).

What kills one campaign might just be a minor speed bump for another. If you have one player holding things up and players lose interest a good DM can save you by NPC'ing that pc. The game system can be a factor, real life pressures can be a factor, internet access can be a factor, lack of planning etc. the list is very long for what can kill a campaign.

There's no definitive answer to the question but here's my perspective on the foundation of PbP campaigns.

My experience leads me to believe that bottom line is this: all campaigns end the same way "when the DM's motivation drops below a certain point, the campaign is dead". It's really that simple, no matter why it happens or how it happens this is the definitive end of a campaign unless a new DM steps in (which for all intents and purposes means the DM's motivation is recharged). When you no longer have a DM who is motivated to drive the plot lines you no longer have a campaign. If the DM is horrible but motivated you might have a terrible campaign with rapid turnover but it will still continue until he gives up because there is pretty much always another player waiting to join a campaign.

If you have a good DM who is motivated then no campaign really has to end. Players can be replaced, characters can be added, lulls can be overcome, interest can be reestablished and the campaign will last until the DM becomes too fatigued/unmotivated to continue. If the campaign isn't interesting and players keep dropping this will put a strain on the campaign in that the DM will constantly have to be introducing new players or characters which will add to his fatigue and thus will eventually end the campaign. Obviously the higher the quality of the DM and the higher the quality of the players the longer the campaign will go. High quality players make the DM's job easier (if you agree to post daily or twice daily and you don't do it, you're adversely impacting the campaign and by extension the DM). High quality DM's keep players motivated by keeping the game interesting. Because this circular dependency works in both directions it's really a good idea to define what everyone hopes to get from a campaign. Some people want more hack and slash and some want more roleplay and if you have both in a group it almost guarantees someone will lose motivation and thus put more burden on the DM.

[Tyndmyr]

Time is a huge factor. Having a scheduled D&D time is a huge help. I go, I spend the evening, life is good. Any prep work needed is done in the two hours prior to playing.

Online...there is no set time. Real life is filled with distractions and other pressing things. You think...I'll post tomorrow. Sooner or later something comes up where events conspire to keep you away for a lengthy time. Catching up afterwards can be rough.

Im not surprised that pbps fail. If anything, Im surprised that so many of them work as well as they do.

[CockroachTeaParty]

This.

Seriously, God-Kings of Lotus is all the proof needed that this isn't true.

It is: player-driven. TDO only presents problems, how to solve them is entirely up to the players.

Long-running. The game is up to two threads. Three, if you count Echo's side-adventure in the Exalted equivalent of Hell. Where, incidentally, he's helping a demonic brothel with their problems. :smalltongue:


How many games like this are there though? It is a diamond in the rough, compared to the legion of dead or dying, blinkable games that filter through the forums every few months.

You can look through the 'currently recruiting' thread and literally count the games that are going to die a hard, hard death.

I find that following my cautionary guidelines goes a decent way towards pointing people to games with a better chance of survival. But even then it is still a crapshoot. I've joined games, giddy as a gurgling baby, convinced of their awesome potential, then watched them die of hideous game-cancer. Even if you try to avoid the pitfalls and speed-bumps, there are things that are next to impossible to divine unless you devote large amount of time into researching other games and other DMs' styles.

That's why I advocated taking down some notes, even if they're only purely mental. Note who is a good DM, who is a good player. Find those who cause trouble, who flake, who fade.

[BooNL]

That's why I advocated taking down some notes, even if they're only purely mental. Note who is a good DM, who is a good player. Find those who cause trouble, who flake, who fade.

This is great advice. But let me add one more thing to look out for: Note who has the same playing style as you.

A while ago I joined a game with a really good DM. Or, to rephrase that, a really good combat orientated RAW DM. He has had long running games last on this forum for almost a year now I think and I was convinced we'd get along.
After the first combat was over, I could just shoot him. We weren't a match at all, so I left and respectfully stated my reasons. I still think he's a good DM, just not the right one for me.