Quicker way to PBP - Would this interest you?

[Entropi]

I've been toying with an idea to speed up the glacial pace of combat in PBP games. This borrows heavily from the Core Coliseum on the WotC boards, and is something of an amalgamation of the conventional PBP format and the moderated battle format used in the CoCo.

The basic idea is that the game would begin and proceed as would any conventional PBP game. However, when a combat encounter begins, the DM describes the situation, the enemies (making knowledge checks for monster lore as appropriate), the battlefield (most likely by posting a map), and any special terrain, limited visibility conditions, etc. Each player then posts 'tactics' for the battle for his character, which is a description of how the character will fight (including target priorities, powers favored, special tactics they look to use, contingencies for certain situations, teamwork opportunities they will seek to take advantage of, etc.). Once each player has posted tactics, the DM then runs the battle off-line, making a good-faith effort to follow the party's written tactics as true as possible, but also utilizing common sense as the need arises. The DM would keep a record of the battle and could then post the results in the form of prose (accompanied by a game-info rundown of damage caused, surges used, etc). He could include screenshots, etc.

The advantage to this system is that battles that might last a month or more in a conventional PBP format could be resolved in a day or two. The disadvantage would be that the players would have far less control over their actions in combat.

I've framed my post in 4E terms, but it would work just as well with 3.5 or any other RPG that includes tactical combat.

Would this kind of format interest you?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I've been toying with an idea to speed up the glacial pace of combat in PBP games. This borrows heavily from the Core Coliseum on the WotC boards, and is something of an amalgamation of the conventional PBP format and the moderated battle format used in the CoCo.

Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

The hard part here is the complete removal of player choice in the battle. From a player's PoV, if you are all about character concept and RP, this might be OK, but as a tactics person like I tend to be, you lose something.

 

[roguerouge]

You should probably break it up a little. Have players post their opening gambits, then the DM simulates the opening rounds. Snapshot for the players to study. Then you do the middle part of the combat, based on their new instructions. Then you do end game.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

You should probably break it up a little. Have players post their opening gambits, then the DM simulates the opening rounds. Snapshot for the players to study. Then you do the middle part of the combat, based on their new instructions. Then you do end game.

That would help lots. Hey, it would also help while converting published adventures. Minor, non plotty encounters get more play.

 

[Umbran]

I have played in games that use such systems - and, as you'd expect, if the details of what you do in each round of combat aren't your main focus, it can work out well.

You can, on occasion, get some griping from people who feel they'd have played a combat differently than the GM (always in terms of them being able to do better, mind you). The GM needs to be ready for that kind of criticism.

 

[stonegod]

One of the reason some folks PbP is to try out new concepts which includes experimenting with the battlefield tactics. Take that away, and they're missing half the fun. This is something that needs to be cleared with the players.

Emergent behavior or in-game surprises will also tail off (sometimes a PC comes up with something out of desperation or left-field that cannot be specified in simple tactics). For example, a monster that changes drastically when bloodied or new foes entering the field would require another tactics check. So a few checkpoints instead of run-until-done would likely be more suitable.

I've been tempted to do something similar in my Expedition to Castle Ravenloft game but, having been been forced to do so in other games where players have vanished, I don't think it'd fly. Its a lot of work and not particularly rewarding for me as a DM. As a player, DM-run combats are only a few steps away from having a computer adjudicate the game (though the descriptions are more evocative).

Loosening up initiative (monsters, then PCS, not strict ordering) and NPCing folks after a time limit tend to work best for me.

 

[vagabundo]

I wonder if this would work well over gmail - it has a very message board like feel.


Maybe break the combat into three sections, so Players would get two chances to change tactics.

Hmmm i'm feeling and urge to run a session with some of my regulars mid-week over email.

 

[Oni]

It's an interesting idea, but as personally I'm not sure that I would enjoy it.

One of the things that I like about PbP is that you can mull over your actions a bit, both in and out of combat, in a way you can't do when playing in a more conventional manner. You can enjoy a greater level of detail. And I prefer to make what decisions I can myself.

 

[CubeKnight]

I wonder if this would work well over gmail - it has a very message board like feel.


Maybe break the combat into three sections, so Players would get two chances to change tactics.

Hmmm i'm feeling and urge to run a session with some of my regulars mid-week over email.

Or, instead of posting their tactics for a complete fight, make it on a round-per-round basis.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

The thing I'd miss the most this way is posting a witty mid-battle comment.

Even along the lines of:
DM: Okay, you've just beaten the fire giant chieften when his army bursts into the room.
Player: Well, out of the frying pan and into the fire.