What would an RPG designed for PbP look like?

[Vitruviansquid]

I had considered running a PbP game on these forums a while back, but it occurs to me that most PbP games using RPG's meant to be played in person don't always work, logistically, with a PbP format. On the other hand, the typical forum game I've seen have no mechanics to make them roleplaying games. They merely allow roleplaying if you choose to do it.

So, I come to ask if there are any RPG's out there that were designed from the ground up for PbP? Or is there one that is usually a tabletop game but actually works with little or no difference when used in PbP?

Also, I'm curious about what you'd think would be necessary in an RPG designed from the ground up for PbP.

[Tvtyrant]

A play-by-post RPG would be aimed almost entirely opposite to the modern developments in RPGs. The increasing need for exacting spacial control found in D&D and its derivatives bogs down PbP games and is difficult to express without physical representation (the miniatures thing). I think the optimal RPG format for a PbP is one where the characters movement is downplayed considerably, either by having everyone be ranged or by having everyone fight in extremely tight spaces where they can all hit each other.

If we assume the former position and make it an RPG about ranged attacks then you have to make clearly distinct types of attacks. Its not enough to do damage with each shot, you need all sorts of effects like lessening the enemies counterattack or doing damage over time.

[Siegel]

The most important thing is in my opinion that the system should generate conflict. It has to keep people exited. When you spend 5 pages just talking about stuff and nothing happening in the fiction than there is something wrong.
Everything you do should move the story forward.

Having a bunch of filler stuff to go through before something exiting is happening than i loose interest mighty fast.
Also conflict resolution shouldn't take more than 3 rounds per player. A 4E battle that takes an hour iRL takes hourS in PbP. When every player just has to roll 2-4 times than everything goes much smoother.

1. conflict, tension, drama -> and even without the GM having to prep all of that
2. quick conflict resolution (against the world and party intern)

[Vitruviansquid]

I actually imagine a PbP RPG would do away with a detailed model of combat altogether. Get rid of the paradigm for multi-round combat in which players say "I do this, roll" then the DM says "they do this, roll" and so on. Instead, I think one might go with a more abstract system where the DM can make one post in which he declares "battle's starting, this is the conditions of the battle, what do you do?" Then each player participating might make a post saying "this is my tactic, these are the resources I might be spending, and this is my desired result." And with just that exchange, the DM should be able to tell the players the results of the battle.

This is, of course, if the RPG in question was about physical conflict in the first place, which it might not be.

[Siegel]

I actually imagine a PbP RPG would do away with a detailed model of combat altogether. Get rid of the paradigm for multi-round combat in which players say "I do this, roll" then the DM says "they do this, roll" and so on. Instead, I think one might go with a more abstract system where the DM can make one post in which he declares "battle's starting, this is the conditions of the battle, what do you do?" Then each player participating might make a post saying "this is my tactic, these are the resources I might be spending, and this is my desired result." And with just that exchange, the DM should be able to tell the players the results of the battle.

This is, of course, if the RPG in question was about physical conflict in the first place, which it might not be.

In short, more or less what Mouse Guard does (and it's the same system for chasing, arguing, fighting a war or fighting a single enemy)

[Arbane]

The immediate thought I have is that you'd want conflicts (not just fights, any sort of conflict) to go scene-by-scene, rather than round-by-round. So, maybe something like Donjon, where winning an opposed roll allows you to dictate one or more 'facts' about how the scene goes, and then the other person involved has to narrate it?

(This would be good for a more free-form game.)

[Totally Guy]

I was going to suggest Inspectres as it does something very similar to Donjon where you roll for narrative control. Inspectres missions are completed when the team has accumulated enough successes. If you fail rolls the GM describes things getting scarier and makes the players roll to see if they lose their cool.

Here's a game I ran. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190164) The mission was completed by the beginning of page 3. Unfortunately enthusiasm waned on mission 2.

I bet Lacuna would also work well for play by post. It is as light as Inspectres and has conflict coming from the surreal dream setting as well as the player's own rolls.

[erikun]

I don't think I've seen a PbP-focused RPG, but the topic has come up before, and here were my ideas on it.


First, do away with initiative. Waiting on people can work when everyone is sitting around a table and get the active player's attention, but not when different players live around the world and will understandably not be active the entire time that combat is happening. Rather, do a "GM turn" where the GM figures out what the NPCs are doing and has them act together, and a "PC turn" where the players determine what they are doing. Also, no PC-initiative. Everyone can say what they are doing in any order, can work and coordinate together, and can change actions depending on other decisions the other players have made. Actions are "official" once the GM posts and begins another turn. Basically, it boils down to the GM saying "Okay, this and this happened, and now it's your turn. You have 48 hours until the next turn."

Second, have the players do the rolling. In a typical D&D game, combat looks like, "It is the orc's turn; it runs up and swings at you for d20+4, hits, and deals 2d6+7 damage." Rather, what I see as more interesting would be, "It is the orc's turn; it charges the rogue for d20+4 attack and 2d6+7 damage." At that point, the rogue could choose to run away (negating the attack but otherwise doing nothing), or they could choose to stand there and take the damage. Or another character could choose to get in the way and block/take the hit instead. Or the cleric could move up and heal the rogue after they take the damage. Regardless, as above, it's giving players the chance to work things out any make decisions together, rather than just reacting to what happened on the GM turn.

No "immediate" or "interrupt" or "opportunity" actions, of course. We want to keep things moving smoothly. If there is something like that, then should be some automatic damage dealt out, so that players and the GM can apply it as they take their actions, rather than waiting for the other any applying it afterwards.

Minitures would need to go away, as they require seperate software to produce. It shouldn't be too hard to turn "I stay nearby the opponent to interrupt archery and spellcasting" or "I stay behind cover and keep away from the big guy" into meaningful mechanics, even without a combat grid.


I never really went any further than that, as most people didn't seem interested in such a change or direction as that.

[Tengu_temp]

A play-by-post RPG would be aimed almost entirely opposite to the modern developments in RPGs. The increasing need for exacting spacial control found in D&D and its derivatives bogs down PbP games and is difficult to express without physical representation (the miniatures thing). I think the optimal RPG format for a PbP is one where the characters movement is downplayed considerably, either by having everyone be ranged or by having everyone fight in extremely tight spaces where they can all hit each other.

That's not modern developments, that's just DND. Pretty much all other modern RPGs have very abstract or simplified systems for combat movement and positioning.

What a PbP game needs is a fast combat system that lets you finish a fight in a small number of actions. DND 4e, where most fights last 4-5 rounds, is too slow, for example. A game that encourages creativity and good descriptions is good too, as well as one that lets you perform many various actions - it's PbP, so you're not in a hurry and can afford to think up more complex strategies. There shouldn't be more than one window of opportunity to respond to/interrupt each action - for an example of how not to do that, look at Exalted where attack resulution has like 7 different steps where the attacker or the defender can do something. Finally, such a game should have an initiative system that takes it for granted that all characters on one side move simultaneously, in the same "turn", to speed up the game.

[JellyPooga]

I think the optimal RPG format for a PbP is one where the characters movement is downplayed considerably, either by having everyone be ranged or by having everyone fight in extremely tight spaces where they can all hit each other.

If you don't mind my saying, that's a really weird conclusion to draw from the premise! I agree that 'tactical' positioning in a PbP game, like we see in D&D, should be considerably downplayed or outright ignored, but to go as far as to say that the game will have to be ranged combat heavy or take place in cramped condtions is a little bizarre...

I would suggest something like the system used in The One Ring for combat; players pretty much get a round (maybe two, maybe none, depending on the situation) to let loose with missile fire before combat is joined. Then each player decides what "stance" he's taking; aggressive, defensive, etc. The more aggressive stances mean you hit more often, but are similarly hit more often by enemies. Foes are divided evenly between all participating PC's, except those that are taking the "rearward" stance (which is pretty much only for people running away, on deaths door or who have no melee capability). I think it'd work well in PbP.

[Prime32]

In short, more or less what Mouse Guard does (and it's the same system for chasing, arguing, fighting a war or fighting a single enemy)I've heard in PbP Burning Wheel's negotiations end up taking longer than a D&D combat. As Tengu said, speed in PbP is determined by the number of actions you take and not how complex they are.

[Ozreth]

OD&D, AD&D and all of their retroclones are your best candidate. Rules light systems that don't use a grid, AoO's etc. That and combats only last minutes in those editions.

[Coidzor]

Either it needs to be more freeform about position or it needs to go to a "battlespace" or other "fight mode" for encounters to cut down on the complexity of squares and spacing taking up lots of time and space.

Probably would be more JRPG style fighting by necessity.

AFAIK, other than waiting for others to reply, the most time is taken up by encounters and fights.

[Eldan]

I think there's just one thing that needs to be avoided in a PbP RPG combat:

Situations where four people can't act because the fifth hasn't done anything yet. There will always be a situation where everyone makes their post, but one guy is away for two days, then too lazy to post immediately, then forgets it...

So, basically: the system should still function when one player isn't participating for a while. Imagine if you sat at a table, everyone took their turns, then one guy was juggling his dice for ten minutes, then looking at everyone and saying "Oh, sorry, was it my turn?". And everyone was slightly annoyed but went along with it.

So: no concept of rounds. Most likely no hard limit on number of actions/time at all.

More general, and moving away from just combat mechanics: mechanics that don't require a lot of interaction. Where one person can do their action without checking with someone else on every step. I can only imagine that, some games would be a major pain in PbP. "Do I hit? How many successes on his dodge roll? Okay, how many armour successes on his armour roll? Does he have a miss chance?" That way lies madness and two week combat actions.

What works well is: detailed description, long-term planning, interaction in large groups instead of one-on-one and few, short combats (or none at all). If an action can take three days of real time to resolve, but everyone can still do other things in the meantime, the game won't die as fast.

Coincidentally: I think I've had much more fun with nation games than classical RPGs on these boards. The level of abstraction and the time spans involved in every turn make this work much better.

[Whybird]

I think the solution is to look at the kind of thing that is easy to run with PbP.

PbP is very bad at doing things that need an instant response, but it's very good at doing things with long descriptions between players. So put in the setting something that prohibits players from using any of their skills at all most of the time; every week, they send a turnsheet to the DM who processes it and sends them an update of how this has changed the situation.

The idea that springs to mind for me: You are a pantheon of gods creating (and, later in the game, maintaining) the universe. The game takes place in the home of the gods, where you meet up to chat and watch the affairs of mortals.

You don't all get along; in fact, some of you are out-and-out at each others' throats. But because you're all immortal, you can't just smack each other around up on Olympia (or rather, you can, but it won't achieve much.) But what you can do is undermine everything that your enemy tries to achieve. Every week you send the DM a private message detailing how you're using your godly powers to meddle in the affairs of mortals, and the DM adjudicates how these attempts succeed or fail.

[Eldan]

I think the solution is to look at the kind of thing that is easy to run with PbP.

PbP is very bad at doing things that need an instant response, but it's very good at doing things with long descriptions between players. So put in the setting something that prohibits players from using any of their skills at all most of the time; every week, they send a turnsheet to the DM who processes it and sends them an update of how this has changed the situation.

The idea that springs to mind for me: You are a pantheon of gods creating (and, later in the game, maintaining) the universe. The game takes place in the home of the gods, where you meet up to chat and watch the affairs of mortals.

You don't all get along; in fact, some of you are out-and-out at each others' throats. But because you're all immortal, you can't just smack each other around up on Olympia (or rather, you can, but it won't achieve much.) But what you can do is undermine everything that your enemy tries to achieve. Every week you send the DM a private message detailing how you're using your godly powers to meddle in the affairs of mortals, and the DM adjudicates how these attempts succeed or fail.

Welcome to the team: we have played this exact game for years. Or rather, there's a new one coming up every so often :smalltongue:

[Urpriest]

One problem I've seen in PbP a lot is that everyone stops posting because they think it's one of the other players' jobs to post. In a real group this only lasts a short amount of time before social pressure makes somebody speak up, but in PbP it kills groups. So in an RPG designed for PbP it should always be clear whose job it is to post next. Perhaps a turn order that applies out of combat to description and planning as well.

[Tyndmyr]

I actually imagine a PbP RPG would do away with a detailed model of combat altogether. Get rid of the paradigm for multi-round combat in which players say "I do this, roll" then the DM says "they do this, roll" and so on. Instead, I think one might go with a more abstract system where the DM can make one post in which he declares "battle's starting, this is the conditions of the battle, what do you do?" Then each player participating might make a post saying "this is my tactic, these are the resources I might be spending, and this is my desired result." And with just that exchange, the DM should be able to tell the players the results of the battle.

This is, of course, if the RPG in question was about physical conflict in the first place, which it might not be.

Detailed combat resolution rules aren't especially bad...initiative is bad. Works fine in real life groups, when you're trying to sort out a specific order, but online, everyone waiting on the next init count, sorting out actions that happen reactively on other people's turns, and things of that nature, can be...troublesome. Combat in say, 3.5, bogs down pretty bad on pbp unless you take rather a lot of shortcuts.

You want something that's both clear, so people know what they should be doing now, but also that doesn't mean everyone is waiting on that one guy who's on a trip/working/whatever.

[Urpriest]

On the plus side, an RPG designed for PbP could have very complicated calculations, lookup tables, etc., used between turns. Since there will be hours to days between posts anyway, everything can be checked and double-checked prior to posting, so the rules can be quite complex in that respect. On the other hand it takes a long time to correct mistakes, so you want something that's error-proof. I'd definitely want a hyperlinked SRD for a game like this.

[Tengu_temp]

One problem I've seen in PbP a lot is that everyone stops posting because they think it's one of the other players' jobs to post. In a real group this only lasts a short amount of time before social pressure makes somebody speak up, but in PbP it kills groups. So in an RPG designed for PbP it should always be clear whose job it is to post next. Perhaps a turn order that applies out of combat to description and planning as well.

From my experience, turn orders make the game grind to a halt as several people are waiting for someone else to post just so they will be able to post again.

[Urpriest]

From my experience, turn orders make the game grind to a halt as several people are waiting for someone else to post just so they will be able to post again.

If someone flat-out stops posting, then the game will grind to a halt anyway. If they're just taking a while to get back, then you don't want their turn to act to get skipped. Either issue can be solved in a turn order system by just enforcing a time limit anyway: if you don't act by X time, the next person gets to act instead. It's when nobody knows who the next person is that everything falls apart.

[Tyndmyr]

If someone flat-out stops posting, then the game will grind to a halt anyway. If they're just taking a while to get back, then you don't want their turn to act to get skipped. Either issue can be solved in a turn order system by just enforcing a time limit anyway: if you don't act by X time, the next person gets to act instead. It's when nobody knows who the next person is that everything falls apart.

Right, but when it's 24 hours for person a to post, then 24 hours for person b to post...then person C realizes that they have something triggered midway through person A's turn...that's tedious.

24 hours for everyone to post is a helluva lot easier, and avoiding triggered "other people's turns" actions is a plus.

[Tengu_temp]

From my experience: whether you let the players post as they see fit, or wait for everyone to do their actions before letting them do more, is highly dependant on the current situation in the game and should be left to the DM, not the rules. But in either case, forcing the players to wait for one specific player just slows the game down tremendously. And if someone is being a lazy-ass who doesn't feel like posting anything, the game's rules saying "you, post now" will rarely help with that.

[Vixsor Lumin]

its been done already on this very site! The game linked in my sig was designed to be streamlined for PbP. I have a link to the rules and stuff here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224297 and the one in my sig is of one of the playtests.

[Urpriest]

From my experience: whether you let the players post as they see fit, or wait for everyone to do their actions before letting them do more, is highly dependant on the current situation in the game and should be left to the DM, not the rules. But in either case, forcing the players to wait for one specific player just slows the game down tremendously. And if someone is being a lazy-ass who doesn't feel like posting anything, the game's rules saying "you, post now" will rarely help with that.

The point is establishing a point at which it's ok to skip someone. If there's no turn order/round structure then someone can post nine times for every one post another person makes and dominate the spotlight, just because they have access to a computer more frequently. A turn order with time limits makes everyone's spotlight time roughly one-for-one, and means that someone who gets less time in the spotlight does so for a fair and pre-stated reason.

[Kadzar]

I think the solution is to look at the kind of thing that is easy to run with PbP.

PbP is very bad at doing things that need an instant response, but it's very good at doing things with long descriptions between players. So put in the setting something that prohibits players from using any of their skills at all most of the time; every week, they send a turnsheet to the DM who processes it and sends them an update of how this has changed the situation.

The idea that springs to mind for me: You are a pantheon of gods creating (and, later in the game, maintaining) the universe. The game takes place in the home of the gods, where you meet up to chat and watch the affairs of mortals.

You don't all get along; in fact, some of you are out-and-out at each others' throats. But because you're all immortal, you can't just smack each other around up on Olympia (or rather, you can, but it won't achieve much.) But what you can do is undermine everything that your enemy tries to achieve. Every week you send the DM a private message detailing how you're using your godly powers to meddle in the affairs of mortals, and the DM adjudicates how these attempts succeed or fail.

I participated in two games in this sort of format last year, with mundane characters, on the Bay 12 forums (same DM for both games).

The first one (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=73558.0) had turns that represented several in-game hours, with combat being a single turn of its own and taking up as much time as the battle would naturally take. There were a few occasions of players not agreeing with how their characters were portrayed in certain situations, but it was otherwise okay. Quite a lot happened before the DM lost interest in this game and wanted to move onto a new setting.

The second game (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=87174.0) was more at the pace of a regular meatspace game. Combat this time around involved us giving our actions for three rounds of combat each turn. Because the DM didn't need to supply lots of reactions for our characters, no one had any reason to complain. There was a lot of activity in this game, although we only got through a little more than a day in-game before the DM became too busy with other things to update anymore.

An interesting thing about these games was that we split up the party a bunch of times (not out of discord, more of as a "divide and conquer" approach), and the first game had eight players in it, while the second had seven, and, since all turns were simultaneous, this only ever slowed things down when some people didn't get their turns in right away (and in the second game, the DM occasionally just posted the actions of some people early if everyone in their group had already posted). Also, I don't think we often used any of our skills explicitly; we mostly just posted our actions and let the DM apply the most appropriate skill to the task or whatever he did. If you want to know how some of the stuff worked behind the scenes, you should contact Wierdsound (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=17271), the DM.

[Kadzar]

Oops, double posted.

[McMouse]

This question caught my game mechanic creation eye and I thought I'd throw the first thing that came to mind into the discussion -

You are looking for a system which handles encounters, as previously mentioned, with a maximum of exposition and a minimum of interaction. Here's my best stab at rough guidelines for a general encounter system that could handle this. Instead of rounds, break each encounter into stages. Each stage is a specified number of actions long (1 to 3, probably), and a character's actions must be specified in advance for each stage. Each stage has an objective and possible secondary objectives, each with a difficulty. The encounter moves to the next stage regardless of success or failure (though what the next stage is should be contingent on success or failure in the previous stage), and when all stages are complete the encounter is over.

The trick to implementing something like this is figuring out how to enable robust character creation with a range of player choices for things like spells, feats, skills, etc while simultaneously reducing character abilities to a set list of skills useful for completing stages.

Here's how I see it working when applied to a general fantasy RPG I.E. DnD:

-Melee and ranged combat strength are applied to a general Combat action
-Spellcasting/healing ability is applied to a Spell action
-Stealth, pickpocketing, acrobatics, and trickery are applied to a Skill action
-Diplomacy, intimidation, performance and speech are applied to a Negotiation action
-???

In the above system, each stage would have a DC for each skill, and game masters would be encouraged to have results for characters attempting an action of any type in any stage.

Different abilities influence the bonus you get to each of your action rolls, and provide unique actions you may perform during an action type. They also provide benefit for actions taken outside of an encounter.

There should also be penalties for failure/retaliation by creatures or encounter elements. This can be done in the form of penalties to action checks, disadvantages in ensuing stages, or something else. During combat, opposed rolls rather than static DC's can be used to represent varying strengths of creature groups.

Here's how I visualize it playing out

DM: As you force open the sewer grate, a wash of filth surges around your ankles and knees, then dissipates down a drain in front of you. A room opens up beyond the narrow hole - twenty feet long and just as wide, it is dark and damp with slick stone tiles and a puddle of fetid sewage in the far right corner. You see a number of large, reptilian humanoids turning towards you and unsheathing weapons. One, taller and more muscular than the rest, points towards Torag with a clawed finger and barks a word of command. Another, bedecked in rotting black robes, begins an eery chant.

We are beginning an encounter. There are seven lizardfolk in this small chamber. The first stage is one action. What do you do?

--The DM has decided that there are several parameters to this fight. In the first stage, a successful Combat or Spell action will kill several of the lizardfolk but not the leader, two successful Combat or Spell actions will kill the leader. A successful Skill or Spell action will disrupt the spellcaster, two successful Negotiation actions will stop the lizardfolk from attacking. There are also penalties for failure: A failed Combat or Skill action deals damage, a failed Spell action applies a penalty to further Spell actions, and a failed Negotiation action provides the lizardmen a bonus to their Combat roll or DC. If the party does not stop the spellcaster, he will summon a Void Slime which will begin stage a second stage.

Fighter: Torag unsheathes his greataxe, lets loose a war-whoop, and charges at the tall lizardman.

Combat action, using Power Attack and Cleave for a +4 bonus, bringing my roll to +12

Wizard: Shen-zia slinks backwards and attempts to counterspell the chanting lizardman

Spell action, using Improved Counterspell for a +2, total +9

Cleric: Edmund chants a prayer to Tor, strengthening his allies

Spell action using Prayer at +13 to give allies +2 to their checks

Rogue: Tibbius sneaks around the edge of the fray and unleashes a crossbow bolt at the chanting lizardman

Combat action using Sneak Attack for a +4 bonus, bringing my roll to +10

--DM rolls successes for Tibbius and Edmund, and failures for Torag and Shen-zia. He decides, even though he had initially decided that Spell or Skill successes were necessary for disrupting the spell, that Tibbius' Combat success would be sufficient.

DM: Torag hacks his way towards the leader, leaving bloodied lizardfolk in his wake. The muscular creature, however, is as quick as he is strong and easily parries and sidesteps the powerful swings of the greataxe, retaliating with a ringing blow that nearly splits Torag's helm in two. Torag takes 20 damage. The lizardfolk begin to surround the staggered fighter, as Shen-zia calls out mystic words to summon a sharp gust of wind in an attempt to knock the spellcasting lizardman out of its trance. Unfortunately the overwhelming smell of sewage sinks deep into her delicate nostrils and causes her to retch at a crucial moment. Her spell fizzles and she fights to regain her concentration. Shen-zia suffers -2 to Spell rolls for the rest of the encounter. Edmund's voice rings out, righteous and true over the shouts and yells and clash of steel, and the party feels themselves bolstered by the divine presence of Tor. Blood that trickled from Torag's arm abruptly dries as his minor scratches and wounds knit up. Torag heals 5 points of damage, the party receives +2 to action rolls. Softly padding in the shadows around the edge of the room, Tibbius takes a deep breath and sights down his crossbow. Waiting until his breath steadies and the wind from Shen-zia's misfired spell dies down, he picks his shot perfectly. The bolt hisses from the crossbow and buries itself deep within the lizardman's ribcage. He squawks and gasps as he attempts to regain the magical energies which flutter, dissipating around him, a look of sheer desperation crossing his face as Tibbius' second bolt takes him in the neck, bringing him crashing to the ground.

Most of the lizardfolk remain alive, including the leader, but the spellcaster has been slain. The second stage is one action. What do you do?

--With the spellcaster dead, the DM has decided that the second stage will be the final one. Two Combat or Spell successes will dispense with the last of the lizardfolk, a Negotiation success will convince them to lay down their arms, and a Skill success can be used to explore the pool or notice a slightly glowing rod tucked into the body of the dead spellcaster.

Etc!

Now obviously this sort of thing needs a whole lot of tweaking and has a lot of unanswered questions - How do you keep things from being incredibly repetitive, how do you include people whose skillsets are not required for an encounter success, how do you create challenging but not impossible encounters, how do you reward character advancement? I'm not sure! I just think that this sort of simplification could be used to great end in PbP, condensing the decision-making into 2-4 rounds of posting rather than the dozens some fights may require.