| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, I was wondering if anyone else has any interest in working on something like this with me? I've done some modding in a non-organized way when running my own games, but I'd like to develop a robust set of houserules that I can just start using in all my games.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some things that cause problems off the top of my head:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) waiting for the DM to tell you whether you hit/you beat SR/you beat DR/what the monster got on its save/etc.
2) the DM saying "Okay, everyone roll perception." or "Everyone roll initiative."
3) abilities that have to be declared after a roll, or in reaction to something
4) normal initiative rules
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Potential solutions:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Something like players roll all the dice, probably tweaked a bit. The key is that players be able to resolve their own actions as they post.
2) DM always rolls reactive perception for the group, and always rolls initiative for everyone.
4) Not sure how to fix this.
5) Run initiative in blocks. Party as one block, and then identical monsters as a block. Average initiatives for each block.
Are there any other major problems people come up against? Any other solutions people have to the above issues?
Actually, on second thought, let's try to keep this to strictly mechanical modifications. I'll edit the OP to reflect that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run initiative as normal with identical creatures in a block, it works out ok. I can usually get 1-2 rounds of combat done each day.
I usually roll way more dice than the players. I roll all initiatives, I roll mass Perception rolls when needed. I'll roll AoO's for players if an enemy provokes.
I usually ask my players to provide some if/then statements in regards to character actions.
IE: If the goblin fails Gandalf's color spray, then I'll charge the Orc in the corner. IF not, I'll shoot my bow at the Hobgoblin.
Dot for interest.
I have only just seen this thread and may be able to help. I am new to paizo but not to pbp; been playing via pbp since 2006. While DMing I created a mapping and combat resolver system which greatly improved both character roleplay of combats (especially since D&D/PF is combat centric) while reducing the amount of work required by GMs. I am a programmer by trade and created a website where players logged in to resolve their character's combat. The system was a little clunky but the advantage was well worth it. I have been thinking recently of rejuvenating this system to be made available for all Paizo games. Here's the general workflow process:
1) GM loads the relevant information into the system at xyz.com. This information includes name, hit points & AC at a minimum. Eg: Goblin 1, 7, 13
2) Butch (the fighter) rolls his attack roll using the paizo die roller and receives a 14.
3) Butch logs onto xyz.com, selects 'Goblin 1' as his target and enters 14 as the roll.
4) xyz.com informs Butch that he has hit.
5) Butch rolls his damage via the paizo die roller and receives a 6.
6) Butch enters that damage into xyz.com
7) xyz.com informs Butch that Goblin 1 still lives. (If he had rolled an 8 Butch would have been informed that Goblin 1 was down.)
8) xyz.com removes the damage from Goblin 1's hit points.
9) Since Butch knows that he hit and did damage he can now fill out the gory details of how his maul smashes the goblin in the chest and now the little fellow buckles at the knees, wheezes for breath and looks for the nearest exit.
The mapper allowed players to move their own characters and identify which target(s) were in range.
There's the mechanics to improve combat resolution. Here's the other changes I made but it may not work for all games.
1) Anytime a player is realistically doing nothing except rolling die (eg: initiative, perception check) the GM makes those rolls.
2) Combat works by all players resolving their turns at once and in no specific order and then the monsters.
3) Initiative works as follows. All players roll init as normal. The monsters roll init 3 times and average. All players who have init higher than the monsters get to attack, then the monsters attack, then all characters including those who won init. Combat rounds continue as point 2.
4) Since there is no player order I forbade any combat discussion in the OOC thread. All discussion had to occur in the in-game thread and verbal instructions had to be limited to what could realistically be said in about 3 seconds. This allowed time for other characters to hear and comprehend. This whole ruling was to prevent too much strategizing happening. In a real battle I imagine there's very little time to create complex strategies.
Back to xyz.com: If there's enough interest I would be prepared to get this system back up and going again. This would be made available for all games for free. I may decide to request donations but only to the amount of the hosting cost (probably US$50/year). The reason for doing this for free is so that others can provide code to create a dynamic and useful system. The combat resolver should be able to resolve battles for any system so it is not system dependent.
I think I have covered everything. (I'm sure as soon as I click 'Submit Post' I'll think of something else.) If you would be interested in using such a system please let me know. If you have questions or other ideas again please let me know.
Interested to hear everyone's feedback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually do what you describe your website as doing in a low tech way. I put the necessary monster stats in my profile in a spoiler for some of my games. Then the PCs can resolve their actions with no GM input in a similar manner by looking at the spoiler.
I also roll passive skills for players.
I also do that initiative thing. Except I roll for everything and average like groups. If there are five orcs, roll five times and average it, and that's the initiative for all the orcs, etc. Then actions occur in posting order.
Thanks for sharing!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Jelani! I guess I'll be repeating some of what you already mentioned...
The issues I have noticed so far is:
1) player not posting and grinding the game down (especially for high level characters with many options);
2) surprise
3) initiative rolls;
4) passive rolls;
5) individual initiatives vs group initiatives;
6) player movements on the map;
7) resolving each action as it is posted, or grouping resolutions;
8) complex combat and rules discussions/interpretations;
9) AoO interrupting combat;
10) immediate actions interrupting combat.
The solutions I have seen:
1) 24 hour warning or "stunned" for the round / other players botting / DM botting;
2) Nothing yet. Surprise seems fuzzy...
3) DM rolls and groups all initiatives;
4) DM rolls. Not a real problem.
5) Group initiative works well, but if the Haste caster is not on, some players will likely wait for him to post... I think just grouping is not enough... Melee grouping separate from caster grouping might be an option? Sounds complicated though...
3-5) DM keeps a file with group information for initiatives and perceptions, which he can easily copy/paste;
6) players are allowed to move their tokens, sometimes using arrows to show their movement (seems easy enough to do with Google's sharing;
7) allowing players to resolve their attacks by knowing some of the creature's stats;
8) allowing players to resolve their provoked AoO, knowing the monster's stats;
7-9) players roll all the dice variant.
10) banning immediate actions? Not sure how to fix this, but it can be a real problem...
(I don't like some of the solutions btw. I just posted what I'm aware of.)
Ideally, since players participate in more than one PbP, the more the rules are the same, the better, but I'm not so sure to what extent this is possible...
DM Jelani!
I've had a few ideas that require some "playtesting". I'm thinking about running a module specifically to test some.
4 Players, 2 characters each
Why? Controlling two characters allows for players to roleplay interactions between two characters without long periods in between. This could allow for richer posts. The risk is it could lessen interaction between players.
An additional bonus is it expands each player's range of effectiveness. So if player with a healer isn't posting, another player has a healer that can do it.
To adjust for CR, I would resolve combat rounds the following way. After 4 characters (2 players) post, the GM moves on to the next round. If more players/characters can jump in before the GM resolves the round then great. The GM would adjust the combat round narrative as necessary for inactive characters (via "botting" or . There's an incentive for players to post more quickly, especially during combat. If it turns out that all the players are posting quickly then you add more beasties to combat encounters.
Billy, He's our leader.
Have the players generate characters and choose the "leader". This character is the primary decision maker of the gang and can help the GM facilitate the game forward. For example, when presented with a few options, Billy gives quick orders of what to do and the GM moves the game forward.
This controlling can be balanced by RP sessions in town, or bars, or whatever, to make the non-leader character still be fleshed out.
Problem with this: what if the leader doesn't post? Sure, if the post is delayed then that allows for some RP time, then the leader can read and make a decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've tried the leader thing before, JJ. It works great as long as the whole party agrees, and the leader posts. They also need to be making good decisions or the party will end up screwed. What eventually happened in that game was the leader stopped posting and the game ground to a halt almost immediately afterward.
I like a non-real leader better, in the form of a SOP (standard operating procedure). That way the DM can put the group on autopilot when they aren't posting in dungeon crawl segments. If it's an RP segment, the DM should be able to move things forward regardless.
The idea of players having two PCs is cool. Might be really fun with the right group of posters.
Crazier idea...changes the game completely, and would require the right kind of players:
Game consists of 2-4 player/GMs. Each player creates an "encounter tree" for one other player, who then leads a group of 4 characters through the tree.
The player writes the details while the GM merely comes up with the skill DCs, CR ratings for combat.
For example, GM comes up with the following:
4 climb checks, DC 25, one character = success; failure = falling
OR
10 swim checks, DC 15, all characters; failure = drowning
The player can then write up the narrative for the 4 players they control. So in this case, they would be faced with the option of crossing a river or climbing a cliff face. If a character makes it to the top of the cliff face then can let down a rope and the encounter is successful. Or their characters could try to swim across or use magic or whatever.
This ends up being more like a fiction writing exercise with some random variables in between and less like a tabletop RPG but maybe worth play testing as well.
I am working on a homebrew adventure to maximize the value of the PbP format and minimize the weaknesses.
The plan is to make it episodic in nature and have many things ready to go with spoilers for the GM posts. The GM would have blocks ready to go similar the blocked text in the old modules the GM was supposed to read, but much would be behind spoilers to account for perception, sense motive, and knowledge skills.
The more I work on it, the more I like the Core only format. It removes many of the interactions that mess with the flow of the game.
As for leaders, there once was the concept of a caller. The best fictional example is Chester Henderson in Dream Park. If players didn't pick their best and brightest to be caller, bad things tended to happen. Anarchy tended to happen without a caller.
The main problem with PbP is the social contract is not very strong. Many do not feel committed to post regularly, and dropping is quite common. As I found out in a thread, a once a week-day (5x/week) posting rate is considered too much for most players.
And, as much I like to get new blood involved, any time a take a player without an established posting history I am disappointed.
@GM Tribute If 1/day posting is too much for your players, there are more players out there.... My advice would be to network and find those who have a consistent post history and post rate. I tend to stick with the same 10-15 people in all my different games.
I see you have closed down a game when posting slows, which I think is something I should do more. I also was a fan of the four character AP, to keep the group small and reduce the number of 'points of failure'.
I tended to reduce the frequency of my posts to accommodate that of the players. But I agree it was something I did not like. A post Monday through Friday is what I thought was a good schedule.
My next plan is I will run an AP for four characters. The players will lose the character if they miss a posting deadline and someone else can take the character. I think I will have four threads, one for each character, and those wanting to help advise how the character develops can post there in discussion and be ready to grab a character when a player lapses.
I am running three PbP. One with six characters, one with five and one with four. Fortunately all three have fairly active (at least one per weekday) posters, but I have seen other PbP, my own and others, die the "it took a week for one combat round" death of slow posting.
I have been thinking of starting another, and I will limit it to four, maybe five if there are that many really good submission.
-- david
@DM Papa, What constitutes a good submission?
@GM Niles:
Objectively:
Fills the requirements set out in my initial post, ie. normally 20 point buy, all scores 10 or greater after racial, etc. In the one that I am thinking of opening, there are some additional requirements. Core Rulebook only, except one trait from any Paizo source (ask first). Which area are you filling, Warrior (melee), Divine (9th level spells), Arcane (9th level spells, knowledge), Skill (scout, traps, etc.). I have a monk in my home campaign that actually fills the Skill role as he took "Trap Finder" from Mummy's Mask so he can fill the role.
Subjectively:
Give me a decent paragraph or two on background / history. Do not Wall of Text me to death. At age 67, I loose interest in Wall O'Text quickly. Short description, short look as far as Prestige Class (if applicable), feats, etc. All the look forward is always open to change as the campaign progress.
-- david
Do you look at post rate, post history, how long an account has been active?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, I was wondering if anyone else has any interest in working on something like this with me? I've done some modding in a non-organized way when running my own games, but I'd like to develop a robust set of houserules that I can just start using in all my games.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some things that cause problems off the top of my head:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1) waiting for the DM to tell you whether you hit/you beat SR/you beat DR/what the monster got on its save/etc.
I actually have found the "hide the AC/defenses" mode of thinking to be increasingly useless. I think the idea has always been to "create suspense" and avoid metagaming but it seldom really has a useful effect and just slows things down.
So in TABLETOP, let alone PBP, I just write on the battlemat the creature's AC, DR, and SR (and in fact in very recent games I've just houseruled out DR and SR entirely in favor of other defenses), so the players can just do the math and get on with it. They still have to figure out in character (with Knowledge checks) things like the source of the DR (so the player knows they have DR X/silver but the PC does not know silver bypasses the DR), but I've got good players who don't cheat with that kind of knowledge. This has done nothing but improve combat and happiness around the table in my games.
In PBP I would strongly recommend doing something similar.
2) the DM saying "Okay, everyone roll perception." or "Everyone roll initiative."
The best/most efficient PBPs I have played have the GM do both. The players have no issue with this. They just use the die roller to roll in a spoiler.
For Perception checks, another method--and this is also something I do in tabletop for ambush noticing and the like--is I will sometimes roll a huge block of Perception checks at once. Then when a Perception check is needed, I check the block, use the results, and cross off the line once used. This spares immediate rolling but there's still some suspense and the players don't necessarily know when I'm checking the block. I do this of course only with explicit player permission.
3) abilities that have to be declared after a roll, or in reaction to something
I am not really sure I've seen that come up or have it be a major issue. Sometimes stuff is just going to have to be retroactive. If it's a matter of a reaction or defense that will always happen, then the player should put the reminder the ability exists in their race or class line on their profile so it shows up by their name in the PBP forum.
4) normal initiative rules
I've had bad experience with the "block" system as people seem to get confused, but that may have been an issue with a particular GM/set of players. Normal initiative can work as long as either --
-- People post reasonably quickly on their turn (they should if it's a "I expect you to post once a day" and that is enforced by the GM), and if they don't, the GM bots them (this again requires advance permission i.e., "Yes it is okay you bot me if I don't post in 24 hours) OR
-- Everyone posts when they are able to post, and the GM just summarizes the actions in initiative order afterward
I'd say "eliminate initiative completely" if there would be a way to fairly determine what/when the monster(s) went.
Some of this makes more work for a GM but a lot of copy/paste can help a little.
Do you look at post rate, post history, how long an account has been active?
No, I don't look at those. I try to pick the best characters that fit the campaign theme and choose them. In the six person party, there is only three of the original six but that is ok with me. In both the five and four person party it is the original party.
-- david
|
I do look at posting history but I try to not let it be the sole factor is recruiting folks for my games. Typically I'll do a quick parse of their campaign history. If I see games that they seemed to have just stopped posting in without any sort of closure I'll poke around and ask questions. If I don't like the answers I get, that's usually enough for me to cross them off the list. 'Work was busy' or 'I had a girlfriend' is not an excuse to be a flake. It's a shame because I really do like meeting/playing with new people but a PBP campaign for an AP or something similar is a big commitment and the risk of not having that time/effort investment pay off in the long term is frustrating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest flaw with block initiative (which, as Jelani knows, has led us to hold up on using it in our game while we figure things out) is how dangerous "binary initiative" can be. Winning initiative is a bigger deal than people often assume, and letting an entire team act before the other team can make combats get bloody fast.
I've run combats where the party would open a door and lose initiative to a number of deadly enemies. Before anyone even has a chance to react, someone's unconscious or one side is crippled. It can be pretty nasty. Mixed initiative creates a much more balanced, give-and-take style of combat. It also keeps feats and traits like Improved Initiative from being totally pointless.
I always look at posting history to see how often the guy posts in his campaigns. It may not be "fair", but it's the only way to avoid getting a player who, say, only posts when he's asked a direct question or when his turn comes up in initiative.
People can invest a lot of effort into a really cool PC and then go totally deadbeat after the introduction sequence is over. You have a better chance at avoiding that if you look and see what they've done in other PbPs.
um
wait
1)2)
3)
4)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Potential solutions:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1)
2)
4)
5)
Three, sir!
A rogue who beats just one enemy in initiative can catch him flatfooted and attack. Won't happen with block initiative.
I will often give the enemy one or two initiative slots, relevant bad guys always get their own slot, orc minions would all act together.
And losing initiative to all four dragons with breath weapons 'is a bad thing'
I've found a somewhat slower but much fairer rule to be to simply not mandate initiative between sides.
This means that if PC 1 beats the dragon gang, but PC 2 and PC 3 falls behind, and the goblin minions fall behind them, it works as follows:
PC 1 can act
Followed by the dragang
Followed by PC 2 and 3, who act as a single block (they can post in whatever order they please)
Followed by the goblin minions.
This ensures that Initiative-boosting traits/feats remain useful. It also ensures that Initiative-based builds (like characters who focus on Sneak Attack) remain effective, and makes it way less likely to see an entire party getting jumped.
It slows things down a bit, but it tends to be worth it. It also makes combats much more interesting, since it's not just "pile on, everyone!". You have to take into account that if you charge into battle, the wizard won't be able to save you until after the goblins act.
I'm relatively new to GMing PbPs, but here's my take...
Combat more-or-less happens at once; initiative order is an abstraction that makes the game playable. I roll initiative for everyone, and announce the order.
Each round, I announce what the bad guys appear to be doing, and then let each PC announce their actions. I then make any rolls for bad guys and NPCs behind a Spoiler tag, and then sum up the whole round in a narrative, weaving it all together in more-or-less initiative order. (Sometimes I'll adjust action order if it would make a better story.)
Sometimes, I'll need to nudge player actions a bit (e.g. PCs 1 and 2 both attack Thug #2, who drops before PC2's action. I'll have PC2 attack Thug #4 instead.)
I roll PC Perception checks as well. It just makes the game flow better.
I'm new - but we have a fog of war system. All of my players post their combat actions under spoiler - with all of the rolls - assume you hit and that jazz, roll saves for spells. I resolve combat in the initiative order and roll anything they forgot. IE really similar to what it sounds like Hadir does :)
For immediate actions, my players normally set certain conditions on which they trigger. It does require a great deal of trust on the players part, but it works for us. When we are rolling we can get through 2 or 3 rounds of combat in a day :)