My experience of APs played over PbP is that they often average around a year just for the first module.
I would like to hear suggestions on how to increase this rate (remember, PbP) to make them more likely to come to conclusion.
Thanks in advance.
what slows down PBP for me is when players do not post often enough. For a PBP game to work, you need players who will post at LEAST once a day, preferably more often than that...reacting to each other and the GM and so on. Otherwise, a single round of combat can take two to three days to post...
Thanks gigglestick!
This is certainly true of any PbP. But what about the AP perspective of things. How can we speed up that side of the equation?
If you are running a PbP, combats take A LOT of time. It is easily the slowest part. As a DM I think it is important to understand what fights are needed and what fights are kind of just there for XP so your PCs can take on the BBEG. Thus, leveling up according to plot/story line makes the most sense.
I don't want you to get the idea I'm suggesting you play any sparknotes or diet version of an AP. PbPs have the advantage of character development and roleplaying. All I'm saying is to play to the strengths of the format.
When I run a combat in PBP I try (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to get the players to post their actions and a possible supplemental action to keep the game moving.
"Reticular will strike (Power Attack) at the Kender with his sword, moving on to strike the Eidolon attacking Oopack once the Kender goes down."
And then I don;t take advantage of knowing the next action. That way, once turn one is resolved, the people who HAVE to post a special action can do so, but I don't have top wait for everyone to post before resoilving the following turn.
And unless there is an emergency, I rule that anyone who does not post in two-three days during combat either loses their action or just continues to hack away, regardless of whats going on around them.
Basically, in today's world, if you can't check your email at least once a day (yahoo groups will do a daily digest) then you should not be in a dedicated PBP game. Its not fair to everyone else to have to wait for you to act...
A few other things I try to do:
1) Identify who are your prolific posters and make sure that the most important plot hooks involve them (involve as many as you can, but if you have someone who posts 3-5 times a day, tehy'll move the plot along if they can)
2) Don't be afraid to have a minor NPC (best to have a bunch and let the players decide who they like travelling with instead of forcing someone on the party) who doesn;t oveshadow anyone else's abilites but ahs a few ranks in knowledge skills (and whatever other skills the aprty lacks...) This NPC can be a great source of information for the party, also filling in info that the party might have missed or forgotten to ask about.
One of the great advantages of a PBP game is that the long monologues that are sometimes required in tabletop RPGS, which can get boring, may be put foreward as posted monologues that the players can copy and refer back to throughout the game.
3) Have a file or database with NPC names and descriptions as the game goes on. Players who can remember "Mooki, the Meat-pie salesboy" are more likely to go back to him for information. Which in turn allows you to give the sort of hints you need to keep the AP moving forward.
4) For things that do not require die rolls or are not vitally important to the game, let the players assume some success...don;t make them wait for the barmaid to come over...unless they want to talk. Let them narrate a bit without interruption.
For example: Reticular sits down and orders a beer from the comliest waitress. Once Reticular's food is brought, Reticular will look around for a group of drinking men, hoping to start a game of Bounder. Pulling out Reticular's dice, Reticular approaches the table, pulls up a seat, and says, "RETICULAR IS HERE TO PLAY BOUNDER! WHO WILL GAMBLE WITH RETICULAR?" (Yes, everything Reticular the Bararian does is done first person for him...)
The same goes for familiars and animal companions. Let the players control their actions and reactions as much as possible and they will post more often.
5) Find a manageable number of players. Too many, and it will take forever to resolve an encounter. Too few, and they wont react often enough to drive the story. I prefer 5-8 PCs as a decent size.
In the end, you are trying to run a big module/campaign with an assortment of players. It's going to take time. You might get through one combat a week...but it can be a lot of fun when the palyers are interacting.
Because everyone has a different schedule, one thing I do in combat is to allow people to skip around in the initiative order so long as their turn would still come up before the next enemy's.
Example:
, Ghouls, Fighter, Mage, BBEG
Anyone whose name is BIG and bold could post their actions as soon as they are able. In that example, if the Cleric and Druid were afk, then the ranger or bard could go ahead and post their actions since they would still be acting before the next enemy (the Ghouls). However, since there is an enemy taking a turn before the Fighter and Mage, they would need until the ghouls had acted before they could take their turn.
If for some reason, one player was just taking an awfully long time to act, I would simply delay their action so as not to hold up the whole game. Should we reach the end of the initiative order and they still haven't posted, I'll most likely just NPC their action for them at the end of that round and leave them in that initiative spot.
In all seriousness though, having to wait around for players to post (whether in combat or out) is my single biggest pet peeve. In an AP like Serpent's Skull there are a ridiculous number of NPCs — it's going to piss me off if I'm just sitting back talking to myself. So yes, make certain that your players and you are capable of maintaining a fairly similar rate of posting.
Another thing that speeds up play is to set a policy that when someone wants to take an action, they make any necessary rolls in the post where they declare the action. The second half of that same policy is establishing the expectation that if a roll is required that has not been furnished then the GM will roll it rather than waiting around for the player to drop a die roll in the game. I've seen a few games where the GMs want everyone to wait until they ask for rolls, but IMO that way lies madness.
Lastly make use of a program like ShortKeys or AutoKeys to automate your job as a GM (check my profile for links on how to do this). If an enemy casts a fireball at the party, run your script that outputs everyone's reflex saves. When the party enters a new room/area, run your script that outputs all their perception and stealth checks. If you are consistent in doing so, this also solves the metagaming issue of players knowing that something is up because you make such checks all the time rather than only when something is there.
With that said, if players like making their own rolls and a battle is obviously coming up, if they get their perception, initiative, etc. rolls in there before I roll for the whole party, then I'll simply saw their results in in place of the 1d20 output by my script.
If there's any questions about whether or not this works, my group, while small, has gone through the equivalent of almost 2 AP issues in just under a year. (I had a couple homebrew story arcs I put them thru before starting Souls for the Smuggler's Shiv.) Not as fast as a local game, but I'm pleased with the results thus far.
Hope this helps.
My only experience with running PBPs ended in a pretty dismal failure, so bear that in mind...
Off the top of my head, if speed is the desired goal, I would suggest:
1) "Automating" combat - people often comment on the slow rate of PBP combats, so perhaps some compromise could be reached where the players post their general strategies and intentions, the DM collates all of them, runs a combat 'off screen' and then makes a one-post summary of the battle.
This would obviously require a fair degree of trust, especially given the possibility of PC death. It also seems to me to be the nature of PF that it's pretty combat-focussed. As such, skipping the combat might be missing out on all the good stuff. One final objection is that, although people say that combat is what slows PBPs down, I've also heard it said that that's one surefire way to get people to post relatively often.
2) Another speed-is-paramount approach would be to allow the DM more leeway in posting the 'story stuff'. Perhaps summarising plot developments, including PC responses to it and pausing at one or two 'key RP encounters' whilst skipping over others and making the party's choices for it.
3) Definitely bear my inexperience in mind here, but one problem I had as a player was a certain hesitation in knowing how far to push the action along. There are times when it feels like someone else is about to post something so you wait, unsure whether to speed things along to the next scene as everyone has finished talking or whether they're just away for the weekend. I think it's important as a player to make it clear when you are doing nothing, just as much as it is to comment when you are more central to the action.
None of these are perfect from an RPG sense, of course. But I think either would have potential to increase the speed. (And did I mention that I have next-to-zero experience with successful PBPing..?)
1) "Automating" combat - people often comment on the slow rate of PBP combats, so perhaps some compromise could be reached where the players post their general strategies and intentions, the DM collates all of them, runs a combat 'off screen' and then makes a one-post summary of the battle.
Even if I completely trusted the GM or vice-versa, as much as I love the RP experience, it would royally piss me off, if someone just NPC'd my character thru an entire combat and just summarized what happened. The only exception I can think of is if it was so minor of a challenge as to be a foregone conclusion.
Secondly, as a GM I'd be rather resentful if my players expected me to just "play with myself" whenever a combat came up. Might as well just sit down and write a novel at that point. I really enjoy the tactical aspects of combat and you lose a lot of that if just one person is resolving all the actions. Nevermind that running all the enemies and NPCs is enough work without having to 'bot' multiple PCs.
1) "Automating" combat - people often comment on the slow rate of PBP combats, so perhaps some compromise could be reached where the players post their general strategies and intentions, the DM collates all of them, runs a combat 'off screen' and then makes a one-post summary of the battle.Even if I completely trusted the GM or vice-versa, as much as I love the RP experience, it would royally piss me off, if someone just NPC'd my character thru an entire combat and just summarized what happened. The only exception I can think of is if it was so minor of a challenge as to be a foregone conclusion.
Secondly, as a GM I'd be rather resentful if my players expected me to just "play with myself" whenever a combat came up. Might as well just sit down and write a novel at that point. I really enjoy the tactical aspects of combat and you lose a lot of that if just one person is resolving all the actions. Nevermind that running all the enemies and NPCs is enough work without having to 'bot' multiple PCs.
Sure. I kind of mentioned that problem ("It also seems to me to be the nature of PF that it's pretty combat-focussed. As such, skipping the combat might be missing out on all the good stuff"). Nonetheless, it would make things go quicker.
Also, I dont think there'd be any resentment - presumably it would all be talked about and agreed beforehand. I wouldnt suggest just switching to a more narrative style undiscussed..
The key to speeding up PbPs is to find players that are willing to go quickly and post as often as possible, up to several times per day. Some players enjoy a slower pace game, and trying to force them to speed up just frustrates everyone involved.
Very interesting suggestions so far. It is true that combat can slow things down and I am worried to hear how often it is the main culprit.
As Steve mentioned, removing some of the decisions could be explored, but as he himself and others have warned, it is one aspect of the game many of us seek... This brings me to enforcing posting rules and expected frequencies. In my case, I try to start combat when I know I can be very regular in my posting, then update at the end of the day. Extensions for players should be exceptions, and should be limited in time.
Some of you have mentioned that APs have some fights that are more "fillers" than events meant to move the game forward. They provide XPs and loot, basically. Anyone has a idea of the proportion of these? What if I were to remove all those, perhaps grouping some, only to keep the meaningful fights? Of course, I can't use XPs anymore, but may be that's a good thing in an AP.
I like the idea of using NPCs more to move the plot.
I also like the suggestion to limit the back and forth usually happening in a face to face game, where a player can quickly interact with the GM and vice versa, and replace it by a more driven writing. I would say that it's not that simple to implement as the group also need to discuss and find consensus. When you can't read body language, that can take a while.
All this brings me to another question: If you want better pace in your PbP, shouldn't you opt for "railroad" instead of "sandbox" campaign?
Just thought of something else. Using conversations between the NPCs (while you are waiting on players) can help to flesh out more of the plot and give the players more exposition to work with. This can help to preempt posts that are merely asking for clarifying details so they can get to the 'good stuff'.
In terms of railroad vs. sandbox, having an actual employer, clear goals they are working towards can help. To this end, in our SS game, I modified the plot hooks fairly significantly.
Unfortunately, while attending the ball at which the new knight was introduced at court, word arrived that the Governor of 'Sargava' has been assassinated and Alis was going to have to take over.
Rather than being strangers from different ports of call, the party were the official escort of a young noblewoman who was to be installed as the new Governor of Sargava. As such, there has been a much greater sense of urgency to get off Smuggler's Shiv before the government completely collapses. Once they have reached safety, many of the lower-challenge threats can be handled either off-screen or by NPC parties that report back later.
Essentially, it's like taking an Elder Scrolls game and actually following the main plot because you are treating it as urgent. ;)
That sense of urgency alone has kept up the pace and kept folks focused more than anything else.
To be clear we didn't skip the intro — quite the contrary actually. The characters were already well acquainted from about 3-4000 posts of roleplaying, urban exploits, going thru Crypt of the Everflame together (the noblewoman read about it in a newspaper and thought it sounded exciting), and the setup of another PbP involving the noblewoman's twin sister. After that, there was another 2500-post story arc I put together before we even began Serpent's Skull.
So much for "skipping" the intro, right? ;)
Anyway, kicking in the door to an RP tavern, interacting with a couple dozen players, then running a module for those who are interest is (IMO) a really good way of gauging interest, dedication, and compatibility without making a multi-year commitment completely blind. It's also a good way to learn your GMing tools and ramp up your skills. :)
I do think that a railroad AP will move more quickly than a sandbox one in pbp.
One of the things that strikes me as rather important is for posting times to sync up, not just for the players but for the GM as well.
My quickest moving pbp has most of the players and GM available at the same time of day. That way no one is really waiting for anyone and combats can move a lot faster. It'd probably also be a good idea to try to schedule it so that combats begin earlier in the week (Mondays and Tuesdays, say) rather than at the end (Friday). Regardless of time zones, all posting tends to slow down on the weekend.
I do two things:
Firstly, I play fast and loose with initiative and let characters post in any order. My combats go something like: Roll for initiative. Everybody rolls. Those who beat monster get to post (any order). Monster acts. Everybody gets to post. When everybody posted monster acts again. If someone hasn't posted after 24 hours, they are considered to be delaying and monster acts anyway. Repeat until monster is dead.
Secondly I don't allow conversations to drag on, but players are welcome to time-warp back and forth a bit to finish a conversation in parallel with the story moving on. It's worked fine for me (but then I'm mostly about old-school hack'n'slash.
Also when two characters agree on a course of action, I take it as decided, unless there is a clear disagreement.
But in the end, it comes down to how often the players (and DM, of course) are able to post. My PBPs each run at a slightly different pace. The quickest has finished the two first installments of Age of Worms and got well underway with the third in about a year.
Very good suggestions and sharing of experience. Thanks!
Do you often cut or regroup the 'smaller' encounters? In my mind, since combat is often identified as the main culprit, it would make sense to focus on big meaningful fights.
I tend to let encounters spill into each other (only I've gotten lazy lately and tend to run them as written). I figure that if you're going to spend a week on a battle, you might as well make it exciting. Huge harrowing battles are more fun in PBPs since there are fewer tactical errors, since everyone has more time to consider their actions and the DM can handle more complicated situations. The problem is when someone is taken out of the battle at an early stage, so it is usually better to have many small enemies than one large one, or even several fronts, so that everyone gets to contribute.
Mashing up two or three scripted encounters usually works for me and tends to speed play up a bit too.
If something is truly minor, I'll often go ahead and just narrate it as a foregone conclusion or something to that effect.
I do agree with Black Tom about having huge combats in PbPs though. I can say with certainty that the combats I've run in PbPs surpass even the craziest combats I've run face-to-face. It's just a lot more feasible to work out the tactics and such, have truly sprawling battle maps, run grapples, underwater combat, etc. when you can take the time to keep all the math and modifiers accurate.
Of course, if you are going to take advantage of such things, you do need to be efficient with your tools and record-keeping to ensure that you don't go crazy.
The method that I've been using is to note all durations, conditions, HP totals for the party in a ShortKeys macro that I output each time someone takes damage. Example:
DR 5/cold iron, SR 13, ER5: Cold Fire Shock ghoul fever 1/2 saves DC 16
diseased
ER5: Acid Fire Shock
------------
In the example above, I list effects that are on the whole party first so that the players and I remember to add such modifiers. If someone had taken non-lethal damage, I note that below their HP. Following that, I list any othe buffs/conditions and the round they expire. "Pets" are indented below their controller.
You'll also note that I have reminders for myself on characters who have resistances or disease that might be affecting them. After previewing my post, I'll delete most of these comments prior to posting just to keep things clean. I'll also delete the lines for anyone not involved in the fight:
ghoul fever 1/2 saves DC 16
diseased
NOTE: Even if the party is not "in rounds" if we are in an actual encounter area then I still keep track of approximately how much time elapses while having conversations, walking about, fixing up after a fight, etc. I keep track of time when moving overland as well, but not with as much granularity (15-minute blocks being the smallest unit of measure there).
My two cents: One thing I would suggest is drastically simplifying dungeon crawls. There's nothing more tedious in a PbP than this:
Monday: GM says "You reach a T intersection; left or right?"
Tuesday: Player 1 says "Left, I guess."
Wednesday: Player 2 says "I want to make a Perception check first."
Thursday: GM says "You don't hear anything."
Friday: Player 2 says "Okay, left."
Saturday: GM says "Okay, you're in a corridor with two doors on the left and one on the right. Which door do you open, or do you go straight?"
Sunday: No posts, everyone is doing something else.
Voila! A whole week where basically nothing has happened.
My two cents: One thing I would suggest is drastically simplifying dungeon crawls. There's nothing more tedious in a PbP than this:
Monday: GM says "You reach a T intersection; left or right?"
Tuesday: Player 1 says "Left, I guess."
Wednesday: Player 2 says "I want to make a Perception check first."
Thursday: GM says "You don't hear anything."
Friday: Player 2 says "Okay, left."
Saturday: GM says "Okay, you're in a corridor with two doors on the left and one on the right. Which door do you open, or do you go straight?"
Sunday: No posts, everyone is doing something else.Voila! A whole week where basically nothing has happened.
That's true: Dungeons with lots of options are murder in a PbP. Unless everyone happens to be online at the same time for some quick back-and-forth, it can take days just to walk down a corridor.
Fewer labyrinths; more railroad tracks, at least when it comes to dungeon design.
Oof, yeah I'd punt the GM who tried to pull that in a PbP! Haha! XD In a PbP you'll just have to accept that you're providing maps of everything to eliminate scenarios like Hogarth described. :)
When I'm running the par-tay thru a dungeon (as I am right now), I'll make Perception checks and (if applicable) Stealth, Survival and Saving Throws for the whole party as they enter each area. (To reduce all that ungodly clutter and keep the game readable, I hide all rolls in a spoiler.) Also, I'll post an update of any applicable maps upon entry.
If you have a look at the post I linked to, you can see an example of the party running afoul of a glyph of warding and how I adjudicated it in a consolidated fashion along with the tracking information, etc. Also note that if any NPCs/GMPCs are present, I'll use them as a mechanism to help narrate thru anything that could become tedious to save players from needing to spend time on unnecessary questions. (i.e. What did that glyph say? Patch-up healing, etc.)
Laithoron, I will look into the Shortkey things during my time off. I've used a file at home called DM Screen where I keep all the stuff I copy paste.
I like the suggestion of having an area in each round summary where you state players' conditions, instead of always summoning their sheet...
About Hogarth scenario, I've experienced this also in RL games.
It is so true that there are fewer tactical errors (and yet, the players don't spend so much time discussing tactics), on both sides of the screen, as BT has mentioned, and that you really feel more comfortable running more complex encounters.
About Hogarth scenario, I've experienced this also in RL games.
Hopefully without the one day lag between comments! :-)
Having a party leader to decide some of the "left or right" stuff is handy in my experience, but some people like a more democratic (or anarchistic) party structure.
DW: I really couldn't see myself doing without it at this point, either for running a PbP or at work.
Right now I'm using...
6 for party tracking (calendar, hp, 2 different maps, xp, moon phase)
12 for commonly-rolled whole-party checks (initiative, saves, acrobatics, bluff, sense motive, perception, spellcraft, stealth, survival, and then a blank template)
27 for various other formatting and general-use items (spoilers, headers, quotes, daily disease/weather/morale checks for Smuggler's Shiv, base urls to spells and wikis, d20 rolls, dramatic chipmunk, etc.)
Dooo eeet!!! :D
Laithoron
I had a look at Shortkey, but noticed it's PC only...
Any idea for a Mac user?
Thanks Laithoron!
So far, the comments are great and truly helpful. Thanks to all of you!