Is there a link to any play by post adventures here where both "sides" are played by different rpg groups?
Meaning the adventurers are one group and the "monsters" are played by someone other than the DM and actually played by another rpg group?
If so can you post the link to the best one.
Thanks in advance
Phew, that sounds like one heck of a project if someone has undertaken it.
I primarily run Play-By-Post games and while a similar idea has crossed my mind, the logistics get pretty messy pretty quickly. In these sorts of games, roleplay tends to go fast and furious without players needing to worry about turns or permission, but slows down dramatically when it comes to round-by-round encounters. Across five players, this isn't terribly bad with one player handling the bulk of the encounter math, but I imagine the logjam gets much worse with nine or more.
There's also the issue of how involved saving throws, adjudicating rules, map placement, and the like could get. When running these long form games, there's definitely times of "oh, we need to retcon that - I wasn't aware things worked that way," which can be tough in a slow format, but lessened when the impact is typically limited to the GM's creatures. Having that happen with to other players could be another thing altogether.
Sorry! I don't mean to come off as a negative Nancy, but it seems like a very simple idea at first that is surprisingly more difficult than it looks. I really wish you the best in finding this!
A local university RPG club ran a PvP finale for a DnD game day nearly 40 years ago, and while it was fun for the winning side (mine, *tee hee*), it was miserable for the losers. Both sides (unknowingly?) played the same builds for parity, but the first party to notice the other buffed up and ambushed the other while they were occupied crossing a moat with a monster (so both in combat and somewhat spread apart). Utter destruction, would not recommend running with third parties, but wouldn't that then devolve into just gladiatorial combat? And yes, the logistics of running two tables with a master table unseen by the players made it ridiculously slow even with several DMs. We were intended to separately enter on opposite sides of a target castle, clashing at the finale, yet didn't even enter the building.
The only way I can imagine PvP being fun is if one party truly plays the expected-to-lose monsters knowing that's the case, and playing multiple creatures throughout the scenario. Even then they'd accumulate more PC knowledge than warranted, and would use tactics some tables frown on like hitting downed enemies and focus firing on healers/casters. To temper that they'd have to play more as a GM than players, meaning it's kinda like having multiple GMs more than multiple players. And with play-by-post, it's simpler to GM anyway, so...?
What exactly are you expecting here? To learn from excellent examples so you can set up something similar? How much info/meta would the monster side have? What's gained by them being individuals?
|
You can do pvp single encounters (like an arena game--I've done that), but I can't see how anything else would be possible. They'd have to be entirely separate games for everything but that one encounter. With pbp games especially, the passage of time is going to diverge wildly between the two campaigns.
I could imagine a game with the GM, the standard players, and a couple or three NPC players whose job is to role-play the main villains - specifically deciding how they react to their plans being foiled by the PCs and narrating their dialog when those villains have any screen time.
These NPC players wouldn't be part of every gaming session. They would just be consulted by the GM regarding their reactions to notable events in the campaign. And would join sessions to give villain monologue speeches as needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware of that. The concept still translates though.
You can do pvp single encounters (like an arena game--I've done that), but I can't see how anything else would be possible. They'd have to be entirely separate games for everything but that one encounter. With pbp games especially, the passage of time is going to diverge wildly between the two campaigns.
Just wanting to read a pbp where the “monster” side was truly playing to survive.
Thought it would be interesting and a more pure “realistic” pbp
Is there a link to any play by post adventures here where both "sides" are played by different rpg groups?
Meaning the adventurers are one group and the "monsters" are played by someone other than the DM and actually played by another rpg group?
If so can you post the link to the best one.
Thanks in advance
It wasn't in Pathfinder but I once ran a pbp Mutant & Masterminds game where I ran two separate groups on different forums playing the same story. The story was a little convoluted with clones and stuff. Sadly one of the forums I ran it on got shut down so... yeah...
I've always run the enemies as truly playing to survive (or kill or other win condition, depending). They try all the same things that PCs do, it's just that encounters & resources favor PCs, otherwise the narrative would end too swiftly. A 50/50 encounter isn't more realistic, it's just deadly since even the winning team will likely lose members.
I say this as a GM willing to let parties err and encounter OP monsters; one example being a rare TPK where a player acknowledged that all the warning signs had been given, yet they'd gone in too cocky to a lair they should've avoided (at least for the next few levels). My players learned that the setting itself was realistic with its various power imbalances, and not adjusted to suit them even though they had the limelight of being main characters (and hence always had something reasonable to occupy them, even if they wanted to toy around elsewhere). Players learned to equip means of escape and have plans to retreat, which isn't easy to coordinate on the fly in the face of an enemy that understands Common. Of course as they grew in power & influence, they reaped the rewards of being on the favorable side of such imbalances while I didn't have to disturb the world's verisimilitude to introduce powerful foes/obstacles/allies; they'd been around, a few quite aware of the party's progress...
ETA: There might be something in the campaign journals. I haven't read those in over a decade so couldn't advise which ones, but there used to be some that showed the monsters as legitimate threats (even if ultimately their fate's were sealed).
|
I've never played in a game where all the monsters were played by other players, but I used to play some of the important NPCs for a friend's game. Those were some of the funniest game sessions I've played in. Usually, it was NPCs the party was meant to interact with for a while before the Party realized they were the bad guy of the session.
The idea of having a separate group of players play all the monsters is interesting. I wonder if running it as two separate game threads might work. That way the main party and the group playing the monsters are only acting on info their characters or monsters have.
You can do pvp single encounters (like an arena game--I've done that), but I can't see how anything else would be possible. They'd have to be entirely separate games for everything but that one encounter. With pbp games especially, the passage of time is going to diverge wildly between the two campaigns.Just wanting to read a pbp where the “monster” side was truly playing to survive.
Thought it would be interesting and a more pure “realistic” pbp
While certainly not fitting into your criteria, my Play-By-Post server does regularly save all of our completed games as PDFs and I think our GMs do a good job of playing monsters realistically.
Here's one of our games from way back in 2022 - spoilers for PFS Year of Shattered Sanctuaries.