PDA

View Full Version : How to make a PBP game that will last?



Mr. Mask
2015-03-06, 05:45 PM
I was considering that, some day, I'd like to play through a plethora of different systems with a group, so as to try them out. Admittedly, I wouldn't mind if the players in the group changed, so long as I was able to experience one game, then another, then another, etc.. This got me wondering about how you might make a PBP game that can survive and last. I had a few thoughts.


The GM is one of the most critical components. If they break down, generally the game cannot progress, because others weren't aware of where it was heading and he won't have left enough notes more often than not. How can the GM be made more stable, is the question?

1- Use a Module. If you use a module, so long as it isn't altered too significantly, another GM could pick up from where the last one left off. You could also get your GM to make some barebones notes, that they leave in case they need to take a break or stop.

2- Wing it. One of the players, GMing assistants, or just someone who kept up with the game looks over the situation, guesses where it was going or how to continue, then GMs their own interpretation.

3- GMing Assistants and Backups. If possible, you could simply have a backup or assistant who knows the game and can take it over.

4- Make their job easier. If players or GMing assistants can make the GM's job easier, they are less likely to break down. It could be as simple as running a combat encounter while the GM is on vacation, or crunching math for a player while the GM isn't on. Having a couple of GMs working on a combat encounter could be interesting, resulting in slight confusions as is realistic to combat tactics with groups.

5- Don't have one. Some games work without GMs. Many systems would be hard to run without a GM, but you could try to work out some clever improvisation. EX: Whenever you are in a situation, other players have the job of naming complications that occur, the harder the complication you bypass, the more points.



Players can be, sadly, an equally critical asset despite there being more of them. For one thing, one player leaving can have a chain reaction, where the lack of response decreases others' interest, including the GMs. It can be difficult to work out how you replace or handle their character, which can make the situation awkward for GMs and players. And of course, the longer a game has been going, the harder it can be to find willing replacement players.

1- Use a troupe system. Instead of 6 PCs, you have a band of a dozen or more characters in the party. If a player dies, they play another member of the troupe. If a player leaves, their character goes back into the troupe. If a new player joins, they were one of the characters in the troupe. In this system, be prepared to cook up reasons for sudden swaps.

2- Someone takes over the character. Whether the GM, a player, a new player. This system is probably lesser than the troupe system, but it can be necessary till you get to a situation where a switch is possible. This can also help with game balance, if a puzzle would be too hard to complete without that PC's participation.

3- Have a lot of players. This one is total theory. Theoretically, with a lot of players, you'll have more interaction, less quiet spots, and more people to fill the gap when something goes quiet. This can help encourage GMs and players, but it can also be stressful for GMs.

4- Have few players (per GM). Completely the opposite of the last point, almost. With few players, they can get more attention and trip over each other less, and you can be more selective in picking dedicated players. Theoretically, you could have a lot of players, if you have several GMs for them, and they were kept a little separate.

5- Have meetups instead of timeless PBP. Generally, I think people are more hesitant to miss an appointment than they are to stop posting when they're not sure what to say. OF course, this comes with a large set of problems that remove the advantages of a PBP and make it a non-PBP entirely. However, it may be advisable to sometimes have meetups for particular events. It doesn't need to be the whole group either, it could be two players, a player and a GM, or any combination.

6 - Give XP for regular posting. Silly as it sounds, it might be a good idea to reward players just for participation, to make them feel it is worthwhile. It may result in players spamming a lot of activity, but... wait, isn't that what we want? You'd want to adjust the XP reward so good post get more, of course, to prevent drivel posts.



General thoughts and ideas.

1- Blog: It might actually be helpful if your group was blogging the adventure or the like, or had some other obligation tied into the adventure. The game gives them something to blog about, and so it fulfils a need which gives an addition incentive/obligation.

2- PBP Incentivising Site: A more extreme idea is to have a site dedicated to PBP and encouraging it. Potentially, you could have stuff like experience points you build up, daily/weekly streaks for continuously posting in your game, achievements, etc.. GMing and assistant GMing would be worth extra points, with potential for people to give you points for an awesome post whether you're player or GM. Also the option to buzz players to draw especial attention from them, or even to request a player reply to your post because it needs feedback from them (or potentially them out of several possible persons). This site has a few problems, but one in particular--it'd need to get reasonably popular before it was effective, and needs to be effective to get popular, as well as to get popular to get popular. Interesting idea, but probably not feasible, especially as someone would need to invest serious time to make it.

3- ???

4- Bankruptcy.



So what are your thoughts, experiences, and ideas on how to curb PBP games breaking down?

Beta Centauri
2015-03-06, 05:58 PM
For the GM, I recommend winging it and getting lots of support from the players. For a long time I tried to read and understand modules to make them work, but I usually just determined that they were silly and I couldn't stand by them, and anyway the players would usually diverge from them quickly. When I gave up on them, and on planning my own adventures, and also started asking the players for ideas I really started enjoying the game more.

That said, the longest running PbP I've been in has been from modules. But this GM has a real head for them. He doesn't like to deviate, and none of us are too big on trying to.

For players dropping out, I recommend setting things up so that it's easy for new players to get involved. There are lots of ways to do that, and lots of ways not to do it. If the PCs are all part of a prophecy and they're in the middle of the desert miles from anyone, it's hard to introduce a new character. If the PCs are important but not unique and they're in a region or locale where they might plausibly run into individuals like themselves then it's easier.

The modules in the long game I'm in have centered around a region of civilization, where new members can plausibly come from. I think most D&D modules tend to be good about that. Homebrew games don't always make such a consideration, but generally could.

Duke of URRL
2015-03-07, 01:23 AM
So what are your thoughts, experiences, and ideas on how to curb PBP games breaking down?

I'd say that the first one is:

Find people that really want to play. This is a RL problem too. Some one will post that they really want to play. So the DM makes up a game and posts. The player makes all of two posts....and vanishes. They are not online again. So what happened? It could not really be the game, as the game is only at post count of five. But the player just vanishes. And sure, some RL stuff might have happened....but something so extreme that the player could not take less then five minutes to post once a day?

And it's so simple.....a player that wants to play, will post. They will, amazingly, find that ''less then five minutes'' to log in and post every day...maybe more then once.

PersonMan
2015-03-07, 02:59 AM
Regarding the larger party - this only works if you get players who are both very active and into intraparty interactions. Ten people all waiting for the next GM post to move the plot isn't better than four doing the same, and if you have ten people who barely post it's worse than four.

The difference between people who post once a day or once every few days, and people who either have a lot of time on their hands or just have regular small windows of time to post and can therefore check the game and post regularly will do a game quite a bit of good.

As far as regular 'meets' are concerned, I'm not sure that'd be an especially good idea - especially in games where the group is scattered over 5 timezones (GMT-5, GMT-3, GMT, GMT+1, GMT+4 have trouble finding one time everyone is on at the same time). Plus, the end result would just be the same as if you had people who had free time and stayed on the threads/checked email updates or similar with a high frequency.

Picking players in part based on their responses to a little questionnaire, something like 'How much time do you have to post each day on average? Can you ensure that if you and another player or the GM are online at the same time, you can reply quickly?' and similar. All too often I've seen scenes drag on endlessly because Player A and Player B, whose characters are talking, are both online for hours but only post once each.

Eldan
2015-03-07, 04:53 PM
Find a smaller site with fewer people. If everyone in a community knows everyone, they can police each other. No other way I can think of, really, to prevent players vanishing.

Dhavaer
2015-03-07, 11:28 PM
3- Have a lot of players. This one is total theory. Theoretically, with a lot of players, you'll have more interaction, less quiet spots, and more people to fill the gap when something goes quiet. This can help encourage GMs and players, but it can also be stressful for GMs.

4- Have few players (per GM). Completely the opposite of the last point, almost. With few players, they can get more attention and trip over each other less, and you can be more selective in picking dedicated players. Theoretically, you could have a lot of players, if you have several GMs for them, and they were kept a little separate.

Do both of these. Specifically, have multiple games each with a single PC. When two PC's meet, combine the games until they separate again. I had a game that went for over a year (two years? It was a while ago) doing this.

Gavran
2015-03-08, 01:28 AM
Do both of these. Specifically, have multiple games each with a single PC. When two PC's meet, combine the games until they separate again. I had a game that went for over a year (two years? It was a while ago) doing this.

That sounds interesting and kind of cool. How many players/games did you have?

Tengu_temp
2015-03-08, 01:32 AM
1. Find players who won't be flakes. It's generally a good idea to play with friends and other people you know first and foremost. Do a bit of a background check on other players. Some are well-known flakes, and you should avoid those.
2. Don't run a generic game. Published modules are out. Anything that focuses on dungeon crawling is out. PbP is very good for roleplaying but not as good for traditional adventuring, and you should generally play roleplay-heavy games through it. Also, pick a specific game premise for your game; this way you'll attract players who are interested in this specific premise, and who'll be more likely to stay.
3. DM laziness kills PbP games. Don't get lazy. Post often, and make sure your posts contain as much info as possible, to give players stuff to play off. This is the point I broke most often, and it always resulted in a failed game sooner or later.
4. Heavy story focus works better than sandbox. Just make sure it's a story the players are interested in. Don't be afraid to push the game forward if players are meandering and pussyfooting around when they should be making decisions. Don't let the game lose momentum.
5. Do anything you can to speed up combat. The PCs should never have to move in a specific initiative order; it's best to use group initiative, with one roll for NPCs and a separate roll for each PC, and with the PCs who beat the NPC initiative getting a "free round" before the subsequent NPC/PC turns, so to speak.

Dhavaer
2015-03-08, 01:56 AM
That sounds interesting and kind of cool. How many players/games did you have?

Five players including me. I ran five games, another player ran two. This is all IIRC, it was 7-8 years ago and my memory is foggy.

SiuiS
2015-03-08, 03:20 AM
Focus on the group. Just that.

Focus on the group.

You need a group of players, DM of the game included, who are all compatible in maturity, intelligence, emotional inteligence, game values, drama values. This can be cultivated but not easily just found.

A group with solid group dynamics can run itself. A group with solid group dynamics can switch game systems every month, keeping the same character (concept)s and world and simply change the rules, and be fine. A solid group can use D&D to functionally freeform RP.

A dysfunctional group dynamic or even basic static misunderstandings will ruin anything however.

Rallicus
2015-03-08, 07:52 PM
Simple: don't run PbP. Choose another medium.

PbP works best in freeform, without mechanics that bog the pace down or a reliance on a GM. The fact that people actually try to run D&D games RAW in PbP format is completely mind-boggling to me.

I'm nearing the year mark for my VTM PbP game (V20 works fairly well in PbP) and the only thing I can attribute to its success is the fact that I have players who stick around, two or three of which have been extremely committed since the start. Without them I would have dropped it fairly early on.

SiuiS
2015-03-08, 08:24 PM
We've had a three year game of changeling, and that only fell apart because the vetting wasn't sufficient and we weren't on the same pages.