PbP Basics? Tips/Advice for a newbie?

I found this site a couple days ago and decided I wanted to run a play-by-post game. I plan on starting with DnD 5E, but I have no idea to run a game that's not in real-time with my friends sitting at a table.

Social and environmental encounters seem easy enough to manage, but how does combat work? Do you have everyone roll their attacks and then make a single post about what happens during the round, or do you reply to one character's actions at a time? Or is it better to have huge clusterfuck?

Do you prefer long, detailed posts or a bunch of short posts? What other advice would you give someone who is GMing a PbP for the first time?

I'm gonna lurk around some more so I can steal learn from other games, but I figured asking directly couldn't hurt. Thanks in advance for any responses!

//Handle

I've not run any games (yet), but I've seen combat handled in different ways.

Initiative can be per-person, or per-side. Per-person mimics the straight tabletop version, but one disadvantage is that here, players have to wait until the person in front of them posts their move.

Per-side can either be an average of the players' rolls vs the DM, or the DM can determine both. The advantage to initiative-by-sides is that players can post their actions without having to wait for someone else. The disadvantage is if the players are on the losing side of initiative; suddenly a horde of goblins all with free shots at the PCs is very frightening (and in 5e, goblins are scary)!

Some DMs respond to each player's action, updating the scenario with the results. Of course, this means that as a DM you're basically sitting on top of the forum thread like a vulture, waiting to swoop in at a moment's notice. On the other hand, for players it's nice to see their actions leading to an immediate result, and it helps other players write their own actions if they know that the person before them already killed the monster.

I'll be watching this thread. I hope to glean some knowledge for running my own games.

It might be helpful to get into a game or two and experience how they are run -- but barring that, CancerMan is right that it varies. It's mostly a GM style thing.

My style involves a houserule. I follow the per-side approach that CancerMan described. It's evolved into that throughout my Red Hand of Doom game, mostly due to constraints imposed by the nature of play by forum (PbF) games. I've found it's very important for PbF games to be constantly active, that is, at least a post every day (this doesn't always happen, but that's the ideal I strive for). When a PbF game stalls, it risks death. Combat in game systems that have rigid initiative (like D&D 5e) can kill a game fast. So, I do three things to keep the pace up during combat:

1. I use Player v Monster initiative blocking. This means players can post their actions whenever they notice that it's the player turn and they haven't. I roll initiative to save time. I roll for all party members, all monsters then the 'group score' is the average. Surprise rounds still work as normal. I compensate for the added difficulty (if monsters go first PCs end up hamstrung) by being a bit more liberal about healing supplies in treasure (I toss a few healing potions in most treasure hoards).

2. I resolve the Monster turn when there is 1 player left to act (then that player gets 2 turns worth of actions when they post next). Sometimes everyone posts before I get to it, but this ensures that we're never waiting on 'one player to post' then wondering if they've forgotten about the game and if they're ever coming back.

3. I only use maps when necessary (and when I do, I use something easy to manipulate like a Google Slides document). Having to take time to update a map and post it requires me to have the time to do those updates before I can post the monster turn. By not using maps I have to make sure every post I make includes a clear description of the relative positioning of the monsters and players. You can see some examples of this in my example linked below (it makes me kind of feel like a MUD :P).

In the first approach I rolled initiative as normal, and let players act in any order within their blocks. You can see a combat run this way here. Another approach in this vein is to do initiative as normal, but encourage players to post their actions as soon as they know what they will be (which, in some cases, will be long before their turn comes up), but resolve actions in initiative order. This is how spaceseeker is running his game, which has been in its first battle for a bit now - see here.

These approaches work fine... but can still lead to some stalling. Players availability is variable, and so the first format can mean some blocks proceed more slowly than others. The second format puts a lot of work on the GM (having to resolve in order, even though the posts may not be in order - and spaceseeker also does maps).

So, this led me to the approach described above. As I said, it's purpose is to keep the pace of the game up. Here's a combat run using the 'player v monster' init blocks. It was a pretty complex one, with new enemies turning up periodically, monsters trying to flee and even a new character joining the party in the middle. I thought it went smoothly (this one I used a Google Slide map - because the battle happened in a keep, and so it would've been more difficult to describe the layout of the various rooms repeatedly than to just use a map).

You can find my houserules for D&D 5e (most of which are specifically for PbF play) here.

I actually love the pace of PbP. It allows for a lot of flexibility in the narrative that a GM can provide. Sitting around the table, it's easy to fall into the trap of speaking Rulespeak ("You roll a 20 and do critical damage. So that's a total of 13 damage. Bob, what do you do?") versus the interesting and narrative description that suits the environment. So my first suggestion is to relish the ability to be a better narrator which, in person, is a hard task unless your command of the rules is complete and your ability to improvise is very good indeed.

Combat wise, I've seen both mechanics described above and both work. In each case, I think it really depends on how active your players (and you) are versus the mechanic you pick. I recommend being flexible and find something that works for your group versus being devoted to one mechanism or the other. An active group with several posts/day can easily make a strict initiative model work, whereas a group that posts more like once per day apiece benefits from something a lot looser, especially with different time zones in play.

Two other items to consider/look out for:

(a) have a rule on how you'll handle inactive characters. be up front about it. For example, I'l make actions on behalf of a player if they're not active in a situation where an action by them is required (e.g. combat). Usually I give this a 48h rule so people don't feel like they have a gun to their head, but also so that if someone has Real Life show up and can't make a post, they don't hold up the game.

(b) be careful about overindexing on interacting with active player(s) versus less active ones. If you have a player or two who likes to post every couple hours and the rest of your players are once a day, you can give too much air time to the active player if you also have the time on your hands. this can make the other players feel left behind. As with everything, this is one to play by ear and watch for what helps move the entire group along.

This is a big subject, because there's the logistics of running a game, and then there's how to use the site effectively, and then there's social best practices that are important to consider.

The others have talked about each of these, particularly the first (probably because you asked for that). The second is such a big subject that I am loath to touch it for fear that I'd end up writing a whole "Tips on Using the Site" forum. So for now I'll add to what falryx wrote about the third topic: best practices for how to play with others on GP (or any play by post).


First of all, I should say that I am still learning what is and isn't OK. I believe I recently mis-handled a situation where a player in a game skipped ahead of the story I had prepared for him and wrote a montage to get him back with the rest of the group. In doing so, he improvised some details that didn't make sense with the actual layout of the location (another drawback of using maps, in addition to what Candi suggested). What I did (and now think was wrong) was I edited the player's post to get the details right. In part, I was irritated that the player would skip my narrative and make one of his own, and so part of me wanted to "fix" it. And that was wrong, I think. A better approach would have been to ask the player in a PM (or Note in the thread) to go back and edit it to tweak the details of where/how his character arrived. In future, if that sort of situation ever arises again, I will ask the player to edit his/her post to revise it, rather than editing it myself.

Second, I wanted to talk about what we each narrate, as players and DMs. There are some RPG systems where the direction of all the characters and story are determined by the group at the table - such as Ars Magica - but I would advise against playing that way in most other systems. Such an approach should only be taken with explicit agreement from other players. In most games, the underlying assumption is that each player has control over his/her character, and the DM has control over the setting and NPCs. But these types of assumptions should probably be explicitly stated in a "rules" thread, because they may not be common to everyone at the table.

RPGs are inherently collaborative story-telling, but narrating what other players' characters are doing may take away from their enjoyment of the game, because doing that deprives the other player from a sense of control.

For play by post here on Gamer's Plane, I recommend that:
* each player narrates only what his/her character is doing (and how he/she reacts to what other characters say)
* the DM will narrate the result of rolls when they happen, the description of locations, and the actions of NPCs

Also, in every game I inform players that I will run their characters as NPCs if they are unable to post within 24 hours. Accordingly, I ask in every game for a "default action" guideline from each player, for what their character will do in the event that they are unable to post on their turn for whatever reason. This HAS resulted in a few instances where I've been running all the characters for a couple of days, but it has kept the game from stalling while waiting on one character.

Probably I should also have an agreement with my players as to what to do if I am absent for an extended period; I have a few games I have joined where the GM has vanished for weeks, and the players are unable to continue...one of them vanished right after I applied to the game, but before he clicked the "approve" link, and I haven't even been able to be introduced into the game thread! I don't want to leave my players hanging like that if I or a loved one is hospitalized or otherwise incapacitated.

I typed a lot of things out but in all honesty it turned out that most of what I was going to say has already been covered far more eloquently by everyone else, so I trimmed half of it out! But I will say that my initial (hah) takeaway from handling initiative was to allow the party to go first, with only elite enemies/special situations resulting in having to take initiative checks to establish a more traditional action order. I stuck to this principle in my game but due to my style it had the unintentional effect of making dangerous, high-impact fights even clunkier than the regular ones! I'll likely renege on that and stick to allowing the party to go first, choosing amongst themselves who does what, while substituting those rare initiative checks for some kind of surprise round/bonus action. Or at the very least allowing the faster characters to begin a turn with advantage or similar.

I'm also fond of the D&D variant where the DM never rolls, which works well in conjunction with enemy stat-blocks: that is, you as the DM post all the pertinent stats and the players therefore know exactly what sort of numbers they need to be rolling. Speaking of which, I've honestly just realised I could be trying that myself!

And it won't be very relevant for GMs and parties experiencing campaigns in established settings, but so far I've had a lot of fun building the world as we explore it in a very loosely defined homebrew setting. The players really stepped up in terms of helping to establish backgrounds, factions, and lore alike: I've tried to err on the side of player creativity when something comes up, resisting the urge to declare "well ACTUALLY I thought it'd be more like this" unless it very definitely flies in the face of what's come before. Which has yet to happen yet.

The greatest strength of PbP is that you can tailor the pace to everyone's taste, and its nature allows for bigger blocks of description than you might get at the table: and a more permanent record of those descriptions at that, which like I mentioned has proved very useful from a worldbuilding angle. In the past I've found that even more nervous RPers can get a little more out of PbP as they're not put on the spot and made to speak their character's actions aloud: they can muse on it for a little while and only hit post when they're ready. I try and streamline things as much as possible, for example treating "area transitions" as something that players opt-out of rather than expecting everyone to dedicate a post to opting in, but from experience (especially before I joined GP and its wondrous built-in dice roller) I've found it helps to have a laid back attitude to edits and retcons. Sometimes people will post at the same time and contradict each other, it's inevitable!

Edcrab, your discussion has given me an idea for initiative that I'm going to roll out in my next combat:

1. Players always act first, then monsters (us vs them blocks, but always players first so that the party doesn't get obliterated by an unlucky init roll when facing a bunch of goblins)

2. Roll init as well and post the list. Players (and monsters) have Advantage during the first round only against those lower than them on the init list. This ensures that players with high dex, or other bonuses to init, still get something special for their investment in initiative.

That's a brilliant idea! Excellent way of assuring that attribute/feat investments towards init don't go to waste without giving too much of a boost. And if you want there's plenty of room for bonus mechanics too, such as additional feat choices that alter or increase the duration of the buff.

@CancerMan, I've started to see that the GM's activity is tied to how active the players are in the threads. If the posts are slow, then it isn't practical to wait on a single player to post for the story to continue. If the posts are coming in blazing fast, then the GM can afford to respond to each player individually.

Personally, I prefer the per-side method for simplicity's sake. I'll probably respond to posts individually if I think it warrants a quick reply, like for simple hit/miss info or if they kill their enemy. It would be awkward if three players attacked a monster that was already killed by the first hit...

@Candi, dang yo that is some sweet info. The links you provided were excellent examples, that near-death combat with the minotaur was executed very smoothly. I noticed that combat stopped for two days at one point, I'm not sure how I would've how long my patience would have lasted if I was in your place!

Your houserules for keeping the game flowing are great, I'll be sure to steal them like a thieving raccoon try them out when I run a game. I'll probably require the players to make some default actions (like gambits in FF12), cause there ain't no way I'm waiting more than a few days for a 'I swing my sword at his face' post.

@Falryx, I totally agree about how PbP allows for a lot more creativity for both the players and the GM. Finally, I don't have to come up with random-ass names when my players decide they want detailed info on the goat farmer's family!

One of the downsides of PbP is that it is hard to judge how the players feel about how the game is going, but I've never played in one yet so maybe my opinion will change. Do you make a dedicated 'Complaints / Questions' thread or just rely on the players PMing you directly if they aren't having fun?

@SpaceSeeker19, good on you for admitting to a mistake. Those kind of situations keep me up at night.

I'm repeating myself, but yeah the time limit / default action rule is a good way to keep the game flowing. Just like a regular tabletop game, PbP relies on active players... hopefully I never run a game that gets so inactive that I'm doing all the player's actions myself. That's another thing that will keep me up at night.

@EdCrab, giving the player the stat-blocks is actually sort of genius... there's really no reason to hide something as simple as AC anyway - the players will figure it out in a few attacks anyway! If the players know the AC they can edit their post with more detail and flavor, which leads to more fun! (Theoretically)

My first tabletop ever was DND 3.5 and I H A T E D it. My first character got mind-controlled by the GM and my second character was killed and eaten by another player. Ever since then I've been laid back when it came to tabletops, so my GMing might be a good match for PbP game. PbP seems pretty fun the way you describe it, hopefully the games I run turn out that way.

//Handle

With respect to the 2-day slow down - I don't enforce posting requirements over a weekend, so my games do often have 2 day 'silent' periods that usually stretch over Fri-Sat or Sat-Sun. My patience is managed because I only check the website when I get an email (I subscribe to my game threads). If I was refreshing the site manually to check, I could see myself getting impatient.

I technically ask players to provide 'default actions', but I tend to just resolve the monster turn when 1 player is left (and give them 2x actions when they post next) instead of taking a player's action for them. I'm of the mind that, even if it's just "I swing a sword at his face", player's fun comes from playing their characters. So, I try to avoid ever having to play their character for them (except if they go on holiday or something, in which case I get default actions; or let the character stay 'sleeping' and rebalance encounters).

Also, if a player gets the "Zzz" icon beside their avatar (only shows up in forum posts), that means they haven't logged in for 2 weeks. At that point, I tend to recruit a replacement player (and I also send the absent player a private message). If that player ever returns, I'll always make room for them in the game again (by making encounters more difficult ;)), but that's never happened yet.

I've got nothing to add here but I just wanted to say this is a great thread as I've been considering running a game myself. So a welcome to handle and thanks to everyone else for being so educating.

The OOC thread can be a great place for meta talk and checking in with your players. In my Force and Destiny campaign, the "side talk" during an encounter helped me get a feel for the players and reinforced a perspective that they were enjoying themselves with it. I've been running canned adventures as I've been learning the FFG system and how to GM it -- so there are also some good, natural stopping points. In one case I explicitly asked the players if they wanted to be one-and-done, or if they were interested in keeping going.