| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, we all know that PbPs tend to produce more roleplaying and go much slower. But there are some other aspects I've noticed I don't see discussed much.
1. Tactics
Play-By-Post gamers tend to be more tactical, as a rule. Unlike in a live game, they are given time to examine the area. A "Player by Post" will rarely make those simple mistakes like blundering into a room alone or missing a flank, nor will she or he lose their temper at an NPC (note I'm talking about the player, not the PC), nor will she or he make those classic errors in judgement like, "Yeah, I'll just go through that trapped square, I can take it."
It can happen, but it's not as common. As such, a scene in a game that relies on the players reacting in real time—such as an imposter with holes in his story, or an obviously trapped room—will not be as effective, and you might want to consider doing something else. On the other hand, more convoluted challenges, like puzzles, might be better-suited to the right group.
2. Memory
Play-By-Posts are not good for the memory. They go slow, and what happened "yesterday" is really half a year ago for players.
This said, dedicated players have the option of using the Search function. Weirdly, I rarely see this—both in games I run and play in, there's always someone saying "Who's ____?", even when five seconds with the thread searcher would dig up the exact information they should have on them. But it does make things more convenient for players who do think to look back, as well as for GMs who need to recap, or remember how an NPC talked.
3. Cheating/Mistakes
There are two sides to this, and I'm not going to get into player cheating (because most of it isn't unique to the player half of the equation). Instead I'm going to get into GM fudging. Basically, you can't do it.
Oh, you might be able to get away with it in some cases. "This guy actually has 100 HP, not 70, so that scythe crit doesn't one-hit him" or whatever. But you have to remember: Players are watching. They can expertly analyze every single post you make, and often they will. "Uh, this guy hit on a 20, why don't I hit on a 21?"
I was playing in a tabletop game at the con where our rogue got swallowed by a monster, and he would have died had the GM not "forgotten" to roll swallow damage every round. But we really wanted to save the guy, so he let it slide. That would never happen in a PbP. The GM would have to explicitly say, "I'll ignore swallow damage". Otherwise, someone would remind him. Because rounds take a while and people have nothing to do but look at what's already up.
This also leads to major challenges when it comes to mistakes. In a tabletop, the GM will sometimes forget things. These mistakes will be noticed. Rules errors get caught ("That failed Acrobatics check provokes an AoO") and misunderstandings get pointed out ("No, wait, you can't move that far.") And that NPC whose voice you couldn't remember? If you're inconsistent about him, or his story, or anything, someone is likely to notice (remember, players only remember stuff about the NPCs when you don't want them to). A casual error sticks longer.
That's all I got for now. Can anybody think of any major differences I missed?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
#1 is, I think, kind of system-dependent. I'm running a mapless 5E PbP, and people's actions have felt pretty organic, rather than tactically perfect. I think it's because 5E isn't as punitive of organic action as Pathfinder is, not because of whether it's F2F or PbP.
#2 is important. I try to predict when a decision point might suffer from WhatDoWeDoNow-itis, and put something at the bottom of my post saying, "What now? Do X? Do Y? Do Z? Something else?"
As for additional notes, pacing is very important. For instance, if you have a time of open-ended roleplay before leaving town, a F2F group that sort of stalls takes about 3 seconds for the GM to see if the party's ready to move on. In PbP, that could take days, and really kill the momentum of the game. Dealing with that is an entirely new skill the GM has to learn.
4.) Save or Sucks are (somewhat) less frustrating.
My major complaint about the big league save or suck/lose/die spells like Hold Person or Dominate, and so on is that it essentially means "you're done for this session". Your options are A.) Hope somebody fixes it (generally unlikely...they're too busy trying not to die), B.) Sit there and twiddle your thumbs for a few hours while your character does nothing, or C.) "All right guys, guess that's a night. See ya next week."
While the general time elapsed in a PbP is longer (on the order of DAYS, sometimes), the feeling of frustration and time wasted is lessened or gone entirely. You're used to occasionally having to wait a few days for a post, and it's a game that happens all day every day (sort of) rather than something you've planned and set aside hours for, only to have that planning be worthless.
Also, just noticed this got moved to PbP General Discussion. -.-
That's the fastest I've seen the mods straight up kill a thread.
re: #2,
Maybe I'm different, but I find PbP games extremely memorable, maybe even more so than live table top games. There something intangible yet effective about writing out your post that helps commit it memory, at least in my experience. Tabletop or PbP, unless your GM is a great stage-setter and actor, most players will forget the NPCs name unless it is written down (unless it is a particularly funny or clever name), so I don't see much difference there in the two game styles for memory.
I am still newish to PbP -- I've been GMing my homebrew open-world game on this website for just under a year now. I was reluctant at first but it has been an extremely rewarding experience in ways I hadn't considered when compared to my more typical live tabletop game night experience.
Speaking as a PbP GM and as a player in another game (and in a couple that fell apart), I find PbP games very memorable indeed.
I'll throw in one of my own, though maybe it is the most obvious one.
#5) Narrative Power.
A stark difference between the two play styles is the PbP's ability to carefully weigh and measure every word of every sentence to instill maximum flavor and narration in any given post.
In a tabletop game, there is plenty of room for open RP, but you don't get to "unsay" what you just said. You don't get to undo what you did.
In a PbP, I can reread my words over and over again, allowing me to cut/paste/reword my thoughts into a more powerful delivery, and ultimately a more colorful narrative experience. In a PbP, you might type out a detailed course of action, read over it, and then completely change your mind and do something completely different because you hadn't yet clicked "Submit Post".
I think that is a powerful distinction.
Play-By-Post General Discussion? Once again I have aroused the mods' wrath. And now they're just being mean about it.
You're having a general discussion about Play-by-Post games. Why would it not belong in this subforum?
You're having a general discussion about Play-by-Post games. Why would it not belong in this subforum?
Because about 5 people read this sub-forum because it's buried about 5 layers deep.
Hard to have a "General Discussion" with no people.
It was in "Gamer Talk" before, it fit just as well there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know; the best resources for PbPs are in this subforum. Not only that, before it was created, they were swimming around in Play-by-Post Discussion with a million OOC threads, and they still managed to thrive.
On topic for the thread, I disagree with #4. I can't stand being taken out of the game for days and days by cause fear or the like. At least in a face-to-face game, I can go grab a snack or watch TV for ten or fifteen minutes and then get back in the mix. Being told I rolled low so I don't get to play for a week or two stinks.
6. Dungeon Crawls aren't a good fit for Play-by-Post.
I love a classic dungeon crawl at the table, but in play-by-post, the game almost always stalls out when there are too many small decisions. Which door to open or which way to turn takes less than a minute when everyone's sitting around the table but can drag out for days in play-by-post.
I've seen some GMs try to avoid this issue by narrating the party past blind alleys and empty rooms and only throwing the impetus back to the players when a combat is triggered, but long dungeons can make this seem like GM-story-hour. The best solution I've seen is for a group to agree on rules of engagement like "we'll open every door we come to and always take right turns"; this preserves some of the feel of a dungeon at the table without slowing down the gameplay thread every time there's a choice of which way to go.
And a corollary,
7. Open sandboxes tend not to work well in Play-by-Post, either.
This one surprised me. Because you have so much time to consider and refine PC and NPC actions in play-by-post, it would seem tailor-made for open-ended scenarios. In most instances, however, you really lose the energy of all the players thinking about the same thing in the same place at the same time as they build their plans. Even when I intend to consider a "how does the party approach this" scenario when I'm AFK, I tend to forget about it and only remember when I go back and check the thread again. It's another opportunity for the thread to lose momentum while the players flail around.
Instead of giving a wide-open "what do you do now" question, I think a PbP GM is better off giving the players a limited set of options: "Do you begin by approaching the guard, gather some information around town, or plan a frontal assault on the tower?" That leaves it open for the players to come up with something not mentioned but gives them some structure if they're out of ideas.
7.) Preach it.
I'm running a homebrew sandbox-ish Thieves Guild game, and Skull and Shackles right now, and they move like molasses no matter what I try unless I just say "Do you do X, Y, or Z?" which kinda ruins the feel of what's supposed to be an open ended game.
All that considered (and after 2 years of PBP I agree with all of it), are there any AP's especially well-suited to the PBP format?
I used to see Kingmaker games here a lot, but it seems like a PBP nightmare, for instance.
I tried running Dragon's Demand, but the second dungeon took it right out of me. Too much work on the GM's part to keep the story moving, even with the party deciding on S.O.P.'s.
Any thoughts? PBP is very difficult because even a small change in routine can make the desire to post on a given night vanish altogether.
|
Maybe the biggest thing I've noticed about PbPs that's different from a face to face game is that, and sadly this happens often in PFS Scenarios, all those environmental threats that happen over a few hour period, like travelling through cold, high altitude are extremely boring and just do not flow well with the game.
In a face to face game they are interesting, but in a PbP, they are terribly boring. It just might be me and the way I tend to run, but I'm at the point where I basically just skip that part of the scenario and call for a few checks.
As far as APs go, I have not played any yet, so can't say for sure (I did a few, but they died out fast), but Legacy of Fire, Reign of Winter, Shattered Star, and it looks like Giantslayer might all work pretty well. I think it would really depend on the GM's, and also the players play style a lot too.
#6 (Dungeon Crawls), I disagree with, but only in my experience with PFS and a few Modules. A home campaign, I couldn't say. But these honestly tend to be the most preferred game as far as PbPs go for me. Almost any character (in PFS at least) is designed with some combat in mind, while a Cleric/Fighter/Paladin/other is stuck with 2+Dump Stat skills and not a lot of non-combat options in any play style, it's kind of the one thing that everyone can contribute too to a degree. There is still RP, mystery, story, and the rest, but a lot less people sitting there waiting to finally be able to join the game.
#7 (sandbox), on the other hand, unless that was made clear up front to everyone before building/bringing characters, does seem to be the PbP killer. Again, just my experience. A player or two might love it, but when the rest of the team drops out, it's basically over. Or, you get a lot of PMs to (respectfully) please make something happen. ha ha
#8 On Record: Mentioned a few times before, and if used properly, (by the players) even though the game does move at a slower pace, I feel it's also much more rewarding. Being able to look back a few pages and reread things adds a lot of flavor that is missed in face to face games, at least to a point, and I absolutely love the feeling of looking back and seeing all the pieces fall into place in retrospect. It adds a lot to the story and I'd have to agree, it really makes the entire game/scenario much more meaningful. Add in that it is much harder for the DM to fudge things, I think that also adds to the heightened sense of achievement and stronger story.
#9 The World is my Oyster!!!: So, I first began PbPs, essentially running from scratch because, well, I deployed. There was no PFS, or any gaming for that matter, and well, I wanted to game. Being back home, though, the other side of that is that I love the fact that I can take a 10 minute break at work and check the progress of my game, update, and then in a few hours come back and it's all fresh again. I've also had the opportunity to both run for and play with people from all over the world who I would have never met, and also to learn a lot about both the individuals and different methods/tips/tricks of running and playing the game. With PbP, I can play at any time, and while not any where, a lot more places than I can in a Face to Face game, and meet a lot of new players and characters.
Yeah I am trying to run a sandbox and I am basically having to lead the party around by the nose so to speak. I have to keep them going in a direction or they don't post:(
About ready to start my first true dungeon crawl on PBP so we will see how it goes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
10. Cut to the chase
This is complementary to letting the players do whatever they want -- in a sense it means forcing the players to do something at the times you want them to do something.
As a GM I feel I can easily get caught on utterly useless scenes, useless details; I need to pick the scenes and the conflicts that will really enrich the play. Anything can be enriching, but some things are marginally so, and these we should just skip.
I have caused mild discomfort to players by aggressively fast-forwarding to new scenes, but I think overall it creates an interesting pace. But for that you need to constantly keep in mind what are the forks in the story; you really have to think if you are about to get players to make a decision that will have no meaningful impact in the game. I think the most ludicrous example is to ask the players if they will enter the tavern and after they answer saying "Ok, you are in the tavern. What do you do?" -- that just cost you a week.
All that considered (and after 2 years of PBP I agree with all of it), are there any AP's especially well-suited to the PBP format?
I've been very pleased with my Reign of Winter game, though I think that's also because it's got a really good group of players. However, I think one of the big keys is it's a very streamlined adventure, so the goals are clear and even the basic way of getting there, IMO. There's plenty of room for roll-play, but you don't get lost in sandboxes (which I agree has been difficult in my Kingmaker game, to the point I've really tried to streamline that).
--
One of the things I've found really helpful is simply asking/saying "Let me know when you're ready to move on." It gives players a chance to role-play but they have explicit instructions to tell me when they're done. Similarly, I'll sometimes move the scene on and be sure to note they can retcon in a final question/action, meaning sometimes I'll be dealing with events at two times.
I think it's much easier to split the party in PBP. I can have players in three different places in town and run them all at the same time.
11. Make it easier to be harder for the GM
One of the games I was most sad to have die out on me (two different times) was Skull and Shackles. I really wanted to be a pirate. That said, I could see that it looked like it'd be a really difficult game to GM.
I just downloaded Wormwood Mutiny so I can run it for a few friends and I have to say that while I think it'll be tough in PBP, I don't think there's any other way I could do it. This way, I don't have to memorize 20+ NPCs and their motivations and details, plus some new rules, game systems, etc. etc. I can take the time to look up each NPC every single time he/she is "on stage," as well as rules and whatnot. I would never have been able to remember all of that otherwise, no matter how many times I read the module (or made notes for myself) and I think a live game would be really aversely affected by that.
Can confirm: Skull and Shackles is a pain in the dick to run for PbP. You either end up putting it on rails at certain points, or letting it meander aimlessly for a while.
I think ones where the plot line is clear but not just having you go from room to room.
For APs:
As noted, something like Reign of Winter has gone really well.
My impression is Wrath of the Righteous would as well, though not everyone likes mythic and/or mass combat. The core storyline, though, seems well-suited to PBP from what I can see.
I think Iron Gods seemed like it would work well too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, what types of games do work? No dungeon crawls and no sandbox is a huge chunk, I'm not sure what's left?
Natural cavern systems or underground terrain without a lot of doors or choices to make as to which way to go now work just fine. As do overland or urban settings.
It's just that every time you throw up a choice like, open this door or that door? go right or left?, it's most likely going to take at least 24 hours to resolve. If it's a meaningful choice, like "do we try to rescue the hostage or go after the BBEG?", that's a pause worth taking, but if it's basically a coin flip to decide (no tracks, no clues, no idea what's either way), it's a sheer loss of momentum.
As motteditor says, campaigns with clearly-defined goals work better than just exploration for the sake of curiosity or loot or what-have-you. "Find the Mcguffin," "rescue the prince," "defeat the dragon" are better mission statements for a PbP than "gain fame and fortune" or "discover the secret of the creepy village." Concrete goals, not abstract ones.
About the thread being move from Game Talk, I would have never discovered it there.
Regarding what kind of campaigns work better, I totally agree, clearly goal specific line-streamed works better. As other already said, sandboxes are a party-(un)decision nightmare after the initial excitement, and dungeon crawls can stagger as well if the party does not count with a pusher player running a explorer kind of character, or become a boring succession of combats if the GM/party does not find other interesting things to do in-between.
The fastest-paced PbP I'm currently in has only four players, and that seems to speed up the choice process more than a little. (It also helps that most of us are able to check the boards frequently.)
On the other side, being 4 players means if 1 or 2 stop posting or starts doing it less frequency, the game really notices the lose of intensity.
However, in a 7 players game, 1 or 2 loses are far less noticeable. Plus more people often means more stories and RP ideas, making the game more rich and vivid, and more difficult to stagger.
12. In PbP it is easier to run larger groups
Yes, as a PbP GM they gave you a bit more of work, but the main effort to push the action and present the plot is already done. And the GM is usually able to attend all the inputs from the players, thus making less likely that a couple of players get all the attention.
13. Consensus doesn't work in PbP
This has somehow already been pointed out, but related to 12, the trick is the group has to accept you cannot be looking for full consensus in all decisions. Generating enough discussion so everybody is convinced about the next action can take a long time, and definitely kill the game momentum.
Instead, if 3 people (or even 2) are both pointing out they want to "knock the door" before "forcing the door open", it is better to assume their decision rather than waiting to see what the rest of the party thinks. Chances are the others think just the same, and even if 1 or 2 think different, the most probable is after some days discussion the majority will finally push for knocking the door as the first players have already pointed out.
14. Party reinforcement is important
A good rule to follow as a PbP player to is, if someone is working towards one action, reassure and support that action even if you would have done it differently. It reinforces the momentum and the party dynamics.
Of course, there are moments you want to stop the action and discuss if you have reasons to think the result of the action will be dramatic and you really have a much better solution. But most of the time what you are going to lose is a small tactical advantage or some roleplaying effect only you care, so why to bog down the game and cause distress within the party?
Why not to face the extra tactical or RP challenge your party members just created?