Success and failures in PbP

So this begs the question: what can I as the site developer do to help with this? What can we as a community do? Is it about building guides? Live chat/voice sessions? With irvanovich having graciously donated a mumble server, we could maybe setup "learn a system" sessions? I like the option in the other thread about getting new site members involved: adding flags to a game indicating they're "New to system" friendly and "New to PbP" friendly.

I think setting up game guides would be really good, as long as copyright law doesn't get in the way. Anything with an SRD licence should be fine, but the Star Wars game that Tuk mentioned would be out, as far as I know. You can't really make a guide to a system if you aren't allowed to reproduce the rules.

Great punt. I would like to get more general guides going in the Guides forum though. Stuff like general GM tips, general player tips, combat, handling certain situations, etc.

At another site, there are volunteer GMs for different systems. There is an "I'd like to learn [this system]" thread for each supported system, and people can apply for tutorial play (which is just a very short and simple story, usually played solo). GMs take the jobs by volunteering, so people can learn systems. I'd be up for teaching the basics of FATE or Pathfinder this way.

Re: The epic games discussion. It's anecdotal, but I will admit - I've dropped games because they were the kind of game where every day or so the GM was going to be dropping a wall of text. The only game with a high text content I am still in that I joined in the Star Wars game mentioned above, because the characters and players are engaging enough and the whole thing is fun enough that I carve out the time (every day or so) to catch up. That's an exceptional feature of that group, that overrides the drawback (ie, time) that goes hand in hand with high density posts.

In my games I keep things slim, and let interaction drive the deeper story (instead of relying on lots of descriptive stuff, for example). I think it works ok.

maybe once in a while we get a volunteer to GM a "training game" once enough people have expressed interest in learning a system?

I've thought that would be an interesting feature. Players requesting games, i.e., signing up before there is a gamemaster - this could be done with a Games Tavern post, of course, but it would seem (to me) to be more of an imposition if it wasn't built in or otherwise "officially" encouraged.

A gamemaster would then volunteer to run a game and system of the players choosing. If 4 people have signed up in the past week to play an Apocalypse World game in the style of Fallout 3, then there you go: Jump in and teach 'em how.

Maybe a "Players Seeking Games" forum does the trick.

This is a really smart idea. darthoingoboingo: part of what triggered me leaving your Shadowrun game was the fact that I was the obvious slow man in the group. Everyone else had a fair handle on things, and I just didn't. So having a game run for the specific purpose of teaching a system, where all the players in the game are unfamiliar, sounds really interesting to me.

I'd be happy to run such a game for FF Star Wars or D&D 5e (those are the only systems I have a really strong handle on right now).

I think the training game suggestion is really good, and I'm gonna look into codifying it somehow. Let's take the discussion of it to a thread for that topic though.

This has me thinking... "you let us rp as much as we wanted" meaning... you pc's just went at it and posted all willy nilly? Sometimes several times in a day or more kind of thing? I'm curious because if a few pc's go off like this and someone who wasn't in the rp finally shows up only to find that there is 30 posts already made while they were away... would they be upset at missing out? Would they be bummed how far the story line would have moved ahead without them? Curious about this aspect because allowing PC's to go ahead and have free reign with making posts is always an option but I suspect all pc's need to be all in or not at all.

PBP games can die off if the rules system being used is too complex. Trying to incorporate D&D into PBP seems pretty daunting considering a mele can take hours in face to face gaming. I can't imagine running it in PBP. I have been using The Window rpg system for about 15 yrs and swear by it. Its rules light but there is enough there to easily guide any game. The onus is on the players to move the game forward with role playing heavily and dice rolling minimally. Perfect for PBP gaming in my opinion. My point is... mentioning at some point in the welcome thread that using a rules heavy system can really kill your game. Using a rules light system or no system at all (Free form rpg'ing) is highly recommended. This comes from experience running a game that ran for around 3 yrs long ago and in that game, we used free form. As GM, I just guided them along with story inserts and making sure to remind them that they cannot post actions for another player for example "I punch Joe and knock him out". Uh... no. You don't. What you do though is make an attempt to hit Joe with a goal of knocking him out. It now comes down to dice or perhaps depending on the player... Joe openly accepts being knocked out and that player makes a post saying as much: "Billy's swing hits me full on the chin, my head whipping to the side and a blinding flash of light and thats all I remembered. Lights out. The next thing I remember is this beautiful woman over top of me shaking me gently asking me to wake up, wake up". That kind of idea. Once players get that they can try to do anything they want but at no time do they have control of the actions of someone else... then the game gets good. I think light rules are better than no rules though.

I haven't had any issues with running D&D 5e here, or even Pathfinder, which is even more rules heavy. I've adjusted a few things and set up some ground rules to speed things up as much as possible though, so that always helps. Rules light games do help a bit with the pacing, but rules heavy isn't always a game killer like you might expect.

That is good to hear. I don't know how you do it but glad you can.

In terms of RP, I've definitely had instances where all the PCs did was talk for pages. This doesn't affect the plot since the real time is just a few minutes, and allows for immersion when the GM is busy. Plus the characters are free to interject when they want to if they happened to miss out on some of the conversations.

Ultimately, the life of the game depends on the GM. Players may come and go, but they can be replaced so that everyone else enjoying the game can carry on. This is especially important for those who feel invested in the game, having put time and effort into their characters and what not.

Quite a few hit the nail on the head here when they mention posting frequency and attendance to the game. The best thing a GM can do is make it absolutely and concretely clear what they expect from a player regarding their involvement in the game itself. In the case of PbP, this means posting frequency. Also, the more structure, the better chance the game has to survive. If you take the time to address what is PbP's greatest weakness with an open and honest approach, you'll have a better chance of creating a lasting and enjoyable RP experience for everyone in the game. Allowing more specificity can only help, and still allows those who would prefer a more sporadic and 'post when you feel like it game' to play that way.

To each their own. For some people, that might be the perfect kind of game. I think most, however, are looking for something a little more consistent, wherein one player can't throw a wrench in the works via their interpretation of posting frequency policy combined with other psychological and time constraint variables, not realizing that some of the players are waiting on them, quite frequently perhaps, to advance the plot.

One way try to create concrete structure is I try to bring a table top environment to my PbP FFG SW game by mimicking the "let's play on Saturday" next week feel. I simply set consistent regular 'active game periods' where the group knows they are expected to participate. The more specific, the better, as it lets everyone involved know exactly when the 'game is on'. Just like a table top game, the players know where and when to meet, so to speak (e.g., my game starts Monday 12:00 PM GMT and ends Friday 12:00 PM GMT). My players not only understand the expectations, but most have also told me they appreciate the game structure as a means of ensuring an involved and engaging game. It still has the convenience of PbP, but also a little bit more of that organic feel you get from TT. And, psychologically speaking, when the players are participating closer together in real time, the story remains more salient, more engaging, and naturally will have a much better chance to continue.

I think the opposite is very true as well: when a player can more loosely interpret when they're going to participate (post), it allows them to back away from the game. And even posting policies of "1/day" allow loose interpretation, wherein view "1/day" as an average goal to meet, rather than a literal policy (either could be true, depending on the GM, who should concretely specify).

The problem with this interpretation, I believe, is one of an underlying nature. For those players who might have become stalwart mainstays, core players in the group, they become disenchanted. They check their games, waiting on so-and-so to post, and, as a result, even though they may have been looking forward to turning the page and seeing what happens next, they are instead left disappointed. That disappointment, especially if repeatedly occurring, can easily become part of the reason games slow down and come to a halt. There are, without a doubt, players who come to that "screw it" mindset and assume the game is going to die, which only exacerbates the problem further.

A big part of this, as another GM mentioned earlier in this thread, is enforcing the rules as a means of preventing all of the aforementioned problems from ruining the game. As GM, you have to have the nerve to kick someone who is dragging the game down. It's not personal, and you shouldn't enjoy doing it (unless that player was just a blight). But, at the same time, everyone in the game is counting on the GM to enforce the rules and policies. As a GM, I won't let down the rest of the group, as far as expectations, to accommodate problematic players who aren't meeting expectations. In that way, it's almost business like, sadly. However, if they're aren't interested enough to be involved, oh well. Somebody else will be. The game will go on.

The thing is, wouldn't we do the same thing in real life? If someone is missing the TT game on a regular basis, there's really no point of them being in the group. It's kind of just a downer for everyone involved. Even worse is the no-show player, which is more common on PbP to be sure (someone else also mentioned PbP's anonymity coming into play; this is undoubtedly very true).

The bottom line is that, in most cases, the less structured the game, the less likely it is to continue to be a game. Posts become sporadic and disjointed, and I think for some players that can become very contagious, their attitude becoming "what's the point". The simple subconscious mindset that 'nobody is posting anyway' creeps in, so you just stop checking as often. Naturally, you value the game less and less as your involvement wanes and the story becomes less salient, which has the snowballing effect of leading you to check less frequently. You can see where this is going.

Some of you may have experienced what this feels like. Some of you, vested in the game, kept checking anyway, until you "put a fork in it." And, as many of us have seen, the game you wanted to play died off, quite frequently because of 'PbP attrition', or the other killer, 'GM Abandonment'. It doesn't have to be that way though. The GM can play a large roll in overcoming attrition by enforcing the policies and expectations of the game, and reinforcing the players' ranks when attrition occurs.

Keeping the game going is primarily on the GM. The players are important as well, as their participation makes the game more interesting, but the person who has to be most committed to the game is the GM, just like in a TT game. If you have players interested in the game, they'll keep playing, and the game can continue. And when you do have some player casualties, the best thing to do is replace them, as needed. Even if your game gets down to one player, if they are invested in the game, it can move ahead. A good GM who cares enough to do so can make that happen while waiting for other players to fill in the vacant seats at the table.

Following this approach, sooner or later a good core group should evolve, if you didn't start with one. Again, maybe you lose one occasionally, but just like in a TT game, you keep on.


As far as things that could be done within the GP site, not that I'm an expert on website development:

(1) Allow GM's to customize the posting frequency part of the game application page (e.g., 1/day Monday-Thursday or Monday-Wednesday-Friday). This provides a concrete and very salient point of reference every applicant should see as part of their application process.

(2) Create an attendance tracker of sorts for the game forum itself. Something that shows how often the players have posted in the game in (a) the last week (b) the last month. At a glance, this will allow GM's to determine who potential problems players might be, relative to the game's expectations (just like in a TT game it would be obvious who doesn't participate or show up to the game). Also, on another level, since players will know their participation is tracked in a way like this, I think it would help motivate them to participate more frequently. Peer pressure isn't always a bad thing.


Maybe the above ideas aren't feasible. But, if they could be integrated into GP, it would definitely be an improvement. GM's have more responsibility than the players, and being able to see who is actually involved at a glance would be amazing.