I am working on a futuristic rpg with similar mechanics to Pathfinder. I would like to see the game have longevity on the boards. I am wondering what would be some helpful tips to make that happen?
Yep, totally agree with Thaneal here.
That thread has some really excellent advice and I learnt a lot from it. You would probably also benefit from having a look at some of the gameplay threads the contributors run, I know I did.
For me, the principle of pushing the action and keeping up the pace is the most important thing. Combat is notoriously slow so having a rule around botting people if they don't act within 24 hours is also something worth considering.
Thank you all. Great advice. I will use it in the future.
I wish that there was some way to tell how active a player will be during pbp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do what I do: Check their previous games. It takes a bit of extra time, since you have to go over their Campaigns manually, but it's a handy way to see how they might behave in the future.
I do the same, whenever I'm looking at joining a game (and I'm happily in one with Kobold Cleaver above) - I look at post frequency, quality and quantity, for players and DMs. I didn't used to do this, and had a few things not go so well for me.
All good advice once again.
I'd also second checking the quality of their posts. I have once or twice been fooled by a high post count that was mostly made up of dice rolls and one-liners.
You also can't go wrong with personal recommendations. I have contacted GM's of players who are either currently running games with them or are on their inactive list, just to ask what they were like to play with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And new players are a risk. Over 75% of them tend to flake.
Though if you are a new DM, you may have problems recruiting.
Running a popular AP though lets you choose from many applicants.
Kingmaker APs never go out of style.
All of these opinions are my own! However...
For players, the converse is true: check to see if the GM has shelved their campaigns. Some GMs flake.
Also, this may be personal, anecdotal experience, but it appears that homebrew campaigns tend to die more often. This could be due to GMs getting a great idea but not fleshing it out entirely, and not being able to keep up with the work of generating scenes, etc. There are in all likelihood notable exceptions to the rule, which would be some sort of homebrew that has been meticulously planned--not just some race and setting ideas, but an actual module. I think I have seen those on the boards, but haven't played in any, so again, my experience is anecdotal.
I am wary of excessively large parties (more than 6) or recruitment where the GM just says "sure, you're in," without scrutinizing player sheets. The exception of course being PFS, where they are already assumed to be legal sheets anyhow.
Thirding or fourthing the sentiment that checking others' post quality and quantity is really a great idea. GMs tend to be pretty articulate on here, but one can run into players who either don't role-play fantastically or just aren't around enough to feel like a part of the game.
Finally, life happens. The most dedicated players and GMs can poof due to real life stuff.
I am guilty of some of those things. The worst is when campaign is going great and some tough RL stuff happens and you miss a week.
I think next time I am going to flesh out the entire thing first. It might be hard with a sandbox type homebrew though.
Something that I'm trying in my new recruitment is to have a two-tiered approach. I've laid out my requirements for character creation, and what I expect, and I've said that I'm going to allow for a week for character submissions. After that, I'll stop accepting submissions, and I've said I'm going to open the recruitment page up for the initial rp. In this case it's WotR, and the last week of recruitment is going to be all those potential players at the festival in Kenabres that opens the AP.
I think that gives me first pass at seeing who's created a good character with a strong background, showing that they've invested in the character, and are more likely to keep playing it, rather than the person that throws a few lines together about "They did x,y,z and now are adventurer." So I'll have a list of those characters to pay particular attention to. After that, I'll watch how they interact, the style of post etc, and then make my decision.
I set them all down in a spreadsheet and have categories for background, character crunch, and rp, give them a 1-5 rating in each, and at the end, tally up scores to take the top 4-5 for the group.
I have noticed that plan and think it has merits. Some of us are not fond of 'roleplaying taverns', but some like them. The first week seems to be the easy part of an AP. Everyone wants to post then.
You will notice if you check some posting histories of applicants that some disappear from games and reappear later to join new ones like a bear coming out of hibernation. I avoid them. Now if someone says they are going on a mission for three months and reappear, that is different.
And, although I take the one post a weekday as a social contract, you will find out it is rarely the norm. Some special DMs have managed to pull it off and get in multiple posts a day. They have finished APs on the boards. For my best campaign I play in as a player on the boards--Age of Worms AP-- we are Level 9 and have an awesome group, but.....we lost three characters due to attrition along the way and have five left, one a recent replacement. The main reason for success is the DM had a great reputation, he had numerous players to choose from, and he picked players all with long posting histories.
And new players are a risk. Over 75% of them tend to flake.
Though if you are a new DM, you may have problems recruiting.
Running a popular AP though lets you choose from many applicants.
Kingmaker APs never go out of style.
New players and new DMs are risks, esp. when you consider that in its own way, PbP/PbEM gaming is really not as easy as you might think (Painlord illustrates that really well in the thread linked above). This is true for both players and refs, and after a few bad experiences over the past four years I think there's a small fraction of people out there who are trolling the boards for the lulz, recruiting for games they have no intention of actually running. As a result I'm very reluctant to submit to games run by people w/o a posting history.
This complicates the already present Catch-22 there--how do you establish a reputation for consistency as a player/DM, when you need a rep to get into/set up a game? And then you've got the negative feedback, when a new DM shows up to try to run a game, the good veterans hang back because hey, new DM, and the only players s/he gets are the pathological submitters. Then the DM gets discouraged when half the players vanish after the first couple of weeks and drops the game, putting a mark on their record and making it even less likely that a veteran player will want to join their next game.
PFS goes a long way towards cutting that particular Gordian Knot, in that the scenarios are short and don't call for a huge long-term commitment from players and GMs. Along those lines, if you're a GM new to the boards, you might want to consider running a module instead of an AP, just to build a rep and get a handle on the ins and outs of PbP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to lay out a philosophy that is contrary to many that I've read here.
The key to a long running PbP is consistency of posting and post rate. Nothing more.
If you are the GM and you post consistently at a rate that your players can match, then your PbP will be a success.
If I'm looking for a player, I don't care if they write novels, sonnets, soliloquies or short stories. I ask myself Do they post? Do they post often enough? Do they have a consistent and lengthy posting history? I do not care about their crunch or anything else. Posting > everything else.
I'm going to support GM Niles (in a way).
The best way to make sure to run a PBP with longevity is for you the GM to 'just do it'. I know it sounds cliche but, if you are enthusiastic about telling a story, which is what gaming is, yo will find a way to do it. Enthusiasm (and an open mind and willingness to change) is everything.
You may have to switch players along the way, train new players, learn something yourself but, in the end, you'll figure out a way.
Once you find yourself some players (whatever method), start playing and being enthusiastic. You want players to post more often? You post more often. You want players to move the game forward, post something more significant than 'one liners', etc. then you show them how to do it and tell them that this is expected. Some (most?) players will recognize your enthusiasm and happily comply. Others won't but you just 'refine' your group by switching them.
When you kick players out, be nice and give them an elegant way out (perhaps you over committed or this isn't the type of game you would enjoy, etc.).
There are plenty of successful GMs here that can show/tell you details about maps, posts, etc, but, as long as you enthusiasm, then the rest is secondary.
Happy gaming!
To help speed things up
1.Roll all initiatives for the group, maybe even perception
2.When battle stats, have a botting rule(After X amount of days, I will bot) ask for suggestions for what the characters might do if the players will be absent
3.As above, good rping is important, but don't always insist on a lengthy post every time. Sometimes a simple yes or no is fine. People can get burnt out on ideas.
I propose situational awareness.
One liners work depending on the conversation. The GM sets the tone of course... be flexible, some characters are the strong quiet types, others are passive especially at first level.
A character in one of my games didn't write very much because his char was a teenager among seasoned adults but now he has come into his own, which makes sense.
Also, know when to cut your losses. If as a GM the game doesnt work for you, change it or dump it. Keeping it going for the sake of it is a mistake.