number one gm |
Greetings most esteemed forum denizens! Today I'd like to present to you a most unique and exciting new PbP format which I, in my certifiably insane musings, have dreamt up.
Besides creating fake recruitment posts for silly troll campaigns, I've enjoyed my brief time here on the Paizo boards skulking through shadows of the play-by-post sections. My empiricism has rewarded me with a very important conclusion:
PbP games simply take too long. This fact, compared with the sluggishness and complications of combat, means that many PbP games wouldn't be able to make it past even the first chapter of an adventure path. Although some may like this relaxed pace, I'm certain there are plenty out there who'd love to play a character past these bottom levels. Perhaps the simplest fix for this would be to increase posting frequency, but this of course is more demanding on both players and GMs and can be difficult with a group of 5 or more strangers all with different schedules and whatnot. The other option then, is for the GM to take matters into their own hands - making up their own adventures which are light on combat while still heavy on experience points. the downside of this approach is that the increased demand on the GM can lead to GM burnout, the ultimate PbP killer.
This brings us to my idea - what would happen if one were to "eliminate" combat by automating it. All player's would have a 'tactics' section in their character's profile, detailing how their character will generally act in combat. Then at the start of each combat the GM would present the scene and the players would make tactical adjustments as necessary - at which point the GM would play out the combat on their own and then post the results (in excruciating detail of course!) for all to see. For particularly complicated battles, there could even be multiple 'tactical adjustment' points whenever some new development arose. Essentially, instead of running combat round by painstaking round (which of course can take days or even weeks), 5 or more rounds would be condensed into 1, massively reducing combat time.
What this would mean is that the GM could comfortably run an AP while keeping character advancement at an exciting pace and sticking to the real meat of PbP - the actual roleplaying.
+++
So having read my silly tirade (which I humbly thank you for), what are all your thoughts? Good idea? Terrible idea? I'd certainly be down to run something like this but would anyone be willing to play? Let me know down below.
Cheers!
number one gm |
My use of punctuation this time around? My semi-legible ideas?
The reason I made those troll threads is because I would get the urge to try and start a campaign, but I'd know that I didn't have the time and it would ultimately just result in disappointment for me and my players, so I would make something stupid and pointless to "get it out of my system."
Now that I have a bit more time and feel a bit more comfortable taking on the illustrious mantle of PbP GM, I decided that I'd test the waters with a serious interest check.
I do wish I could change that silly troll name though...
DoubleGold |
I would be interested if you are serious, but you reputation that some remember so they would think it is a fake recruitment even if it was real.
If you want to bot everyone during combat, knock yourself out, combat is faster, and roleplaying is what players make it. And if you have an AP book, this would be the way to have it done in under a month, assuming that wouldn't get people killed. But a homebrew where my character is a robot in combat and outside combat I can roleplay as much as I want, hell yes.
Also, this is an important question, but do you actually say the names of creatures when you do combat? I know combat is automated, but when DMs say the names of creatures, it can affect small things in combat, rather than if you were just describing them. I have a set of botting instructions ready if you flat out name the creature and set of botting instructions ready if you merely just describe it.
YoricksRequiem |
But a homebrew where my character is a robot in combat and outside combat I can roleplay as much as I want, hell yes.
Something about describing your character as a robot in combat caught my interest more than the rest of this thread.
It seems to me that the true challenge for the GM here would be, not just to present combat encounters that feel cinematic and interesting, but to make sure that they are true to the characters. I think your "Tactics" idea helps with this, but there would still be a lot in the actual description of events.
It also may happen such that downplaying the importance of combat, as well as the rolls, might yield players who create different builds than "I smash stuff", which could be interesting. Given that going into Combat also gives them no real satisfaction, it may prompt them to approach things differently.
However the drawback there, of course, is that there is no longer any fear of combat. When you lose the control, you lose the responsibility. If your character dies in combat, now, it's because the GM is an a~@&~*~.
Depending on the game one has in mind, this could be very interesting and unique. I'm not sure how it work for an AP, because I think you'd end up wanting a game that's heavy on story and light on combat as it is.
DoubleGold |
You can always say stuff like, "if I get below a quarter of my HP, I run away from combat." as this might increase your chances for survival.
"if said creature is humanoid, I try to reason with it during combat." is another option.
Or you can pick Ranger as a class or some other ranged character and have little fear of this.
YoricksRequiem |
Oh no, I realise. What I meant was that, by removing the player's responsibility for their own character's well-being, you also remove some of the tension.
During a game, it's natural for both the players and GM to pretend not to know that the GM doesn't really want to kill them, because then the game ends, and it's not fun for anyone. But you still leave a lot of it up to the mechanics of dice, and that creates variables, which give room for excitement.
I think 'automating' the combat process would remove a lot of that.
number one gm |
Definately some very valid points from DoubleGold and YoricksRequiem.
On the issue of automated combat taking away the responsibility from the players, it's important to remember that combat would be automated only up until some significant development (such as one player falling dangerously low on health) brought the need for more choice and a reconsidering of tactics from the player. The best analogy I can offer is that combat would be (hopefully) sort of like one of those choose your own adventure books - where the players are given enough of a say in matters that they feel their choices as well as their characters' lives are in their hands.
On the topic of APs, I really haven't read any in depth so I'm unsure as to how well they would work in this format - I merely figured it would be easier for a prospective GM (myself) to have an outline of the entire story arc instead of having to stumble through the dark or spend all this time creating their own. Naturally, any AP run like this would have to be modified to be nice and heavy on the roleplay, so that the players aren't just mindlessly running through encounter after encounter.
YoricksRequiem |
On the issue of automated combat taking away the responsibility from the players, it's important to remember that combat would be automated only up until some significant development (such as one player falling dangerously low on health) brought the need for more choice and a reconsidering of tactics from the player. The best analogy I can offer is that combat would be (hopefully) sort of like one of those choose your own adventure books - where the players are given enough of a say in matters that they feel their choices as well as their characters' lives are in their hands.
Ah okay, interesting. I think you might have a good balance going here. I might throw in an application for this when it's time.
On the topic of APs, I really haven't read any in depth so I'm unsure as to how well they would work in this format - I merely figured it would be easier for a prospective GM (myself) to have an outline of the entire story arc instead of having to stumble through the dark or spend all this time creating their own. Naturally, any AP run like this would have to be modified to be nice and heavy on the roleplay, so that the players aren't just mindlessly running through encounter after encounter.
Agreed. I can see how something like Rise of the Runelords wouldn't be great for this. Unless the GM adds in a lot more, from the players point of view it can easily appear as simply moving from one combat encounter to the next, which we wouldn't want for this.
I'm only in Book 2, but Curse of the Crimson Throne seems like it could be decently slotted in for this. Council of Thieves might work well, too, though I haven't played it. Those both have a good deal of social intrigue, though. Carrion Crown might work really well, since it's meant to be a horror game. You could even put it together in such a way that there's a stronger horror / Cthulhu-esque vibe to it, where combat is incredibly dangerous and is something to be avoided.
I don't think Kingmaker, Wrath of the Righteous, Skulls & Shackles, or Mummy's Mask would really work. And I'm not super familiar with any of the others.
Me'mori |
Still.. It would be interesting (and educational) to eventually develop a flowchart of statements for the character as they grow. Granted, as I like playing monks, there may be several charts to flop between, but I like the idea of the mental exercise.
Count me in to plonk a sheet in.
Might I suggest a limited party size to see how things go initially? Say.. Three to start, and then expand from there so you're not overburdened with actions and options from the outset?
number one gm |
The players would need to submit "simple" characters, in the sense that won't need many tactical options, but a reduced optimized ones. Something the DM can work on, and the player won't feel "cheated" on. Sounds hard to do, if you ask me, more if it is your first time.
I don't think that a complex character would necessarily be too difficult to handle - after all, as a GM I am already responsible for objectively and fairly portraying the tactics of everyone but the PCs no matter what. Adding in a complex PC would be akin to having to control an extra boss monster with more tactical depth in every fight. While I agree could easily become difficult and slow combat in a live game, the pace of PbP would make it far easier.
Also I think I should mention that while I'm new to the PbP scene, I am bot new to GMing - and while I don't proclaim to be some crazy, master-class gamemaster - I am fairly confident in my ability.
YoricksRequiem |
The players would need to submit "simple" characters, in the sense that won't need many tactical options, but a reduced optimized ones.
I'm not sure I agree with this - the player's characters should be as they always have been. Just because the combat is relatively automated does not mean that the player characters have to be any different.
The more that your character can do, the more options available. For instance, with a Bard, you could say to the GM, "Hey in combat, I want to be focused on inspire allies". As a Cleric you could be readying a channel waiting for a use for it.
There may be some specialisations that get lost on the way - like this wouldn't be the ideal setting for a whip master. But I think what the GM is looking for here is to speed up combat, rather than dumb it down or replace it entirely. It sounds like there's still a decent amount of player input involved - in how their character would act, and even 'Okay things are going badly, what do you do now'.
It may take a bit to find the correct balance, but I think it would be a lot of fun.
number one gm |
I've been researching a couple of the APs (namely the ones suggested by YorricksRequiem) as well as toying with the idea of just throwing it all to the wind and doing something from scratch. Choices, choices, oh why must you be so difficult!
I've also begun hunting for some good 3PP/homebrew options to give the players more options outside of combat. If anyone knows of any hidden gems I should check out I'd be much obliged, as the sheer amount of stuff people have created is both awesome and daunting (I've been looking at some 3.5 stuff as well).
PS: Of course miracles happen Corsario, all you need is a paltry 25,000 gp worth of diamond dust!
YoricksRequiem |
I've also begun hunting for some good 3PP/homebrew options to give the players more options outside of combat. If anyone knows of any hidden gems I should check out I'd be much obliged, as the sheer amount of stuff people have created is both awesome and daunting (I've been looking at some 3.5 stuff as well).
I... don't know that I'd go too far in that direction - especially if you're going with an existing AP. It can be easy to get carried away, and certain options may enable the players to do some game-breaking things. As the GM, you'd have to be up on all the different mechanics, and incorporate those into the combat that you're running entirely yourself, which can be complicated as well.
With that said, you could use the new Advanced Class Guide that comes out in a few weeks - it introduces something like 10 new classes that are mostly "hybrids". Like a Bloodrager that combines the Barbarian and Sorcerer. An "Investigator" that combines the Rogue and Alchemist. Things like that. The Dreamscarred Press stuff for "Psionics" is also really fantastic - I actually prefer their system to the normal Pathfinder magic system. They just had another book come out recently as well.
As far as Homebrew stuff goes, I'm a very big fan of the MultiClass Archetypes, which have similar ideas to the Advanced Classes. Some of the synergies work really well together, and yield some very interesting concepts. Talk about options, that thing alone opens up hundreds.