Seeking some PbP Advice from successful PbP GMs & Players

Azgulor · May 6, 2009

The frequency that I get to play face-face falls into the “not often enough” category. I believe it’s a pretty common issue and like many, I’ve dabbled with PbP to help scratch the itch. I’ve had it be successful a few times but all of the games petered out after several months. I’ve also had a couple of false starts where the demands on my personal time couldn’t keep up with a game. Posting a couple of times a week works ok but having to post daily or even multiple times in a day just to stay in the thick of things isn’t sustainable. Sometimes work and family demands allow it but it’s rare.

Since I typically sit on the GM side of the screen, I’ve been toying with the idea of running my own PbP game. However, before I dive into the deep end of the pool, I was hoping to get some pointers from those who have had success with PbP games.

A few ideas I’m kicking around in hopes of increasing the success rate:

• Episodic-style game rather than full-on day-in-day-out campaign or adventure series/path style of play. I.e., shorter plotlines with more frequent jumping on points for new players or replacement characters.
• Set “post-by or lose your turn” dates. I’m thinking bi-weekly or three-times a week.
• Tighter campaign starters or themes rather than the usual “Strangers in a bar.” Whether it’s event-driven or a common theme, I believe the more that ties the players together the faster the game gets rolling and more compelling it is to stay involved. This may just be wishful thinking on my part, though.

Am I going down the right path? Would you be more or less interested in playing in a game with these types of boundary conditions?

Are there any other suggestions to increase success or pitfalls to watch out for?

Advice appreciated. Thanks.

EvolutionKB · May 7, 2009

Some things: 4E games have more interest(especially if you have allow more than just core) because the system is new and new things are published quickly. 3.5 and other systems are more rare, but some still go strong. I went against the "strangers in a bar" for my game and it has worked out so far. If you are worried about games petering out, check out the living world forums. They are a bit more work(because of the preapproval for adventures or characters), but since the characters are supposed to be long term, you have less chance of players disappearing from a game.

crazy_monkey1956 · May 7, 2009

My most successful PbP campaign thus far (running for two years next month) has some of the elements you describe.

Weekly posting rate - I generally post an update once a week.

Weekly posting time limit - If a player doesn't post within that week time frame, I move on without them. However, I write their character out with the opportunity to return should the player come back. Real life happens.

Episodic - While the campaign has a long term overarching plot, each adventure spans about three character levels and is designed to provide a satisfying ending. Each adventure is also designed to be open to player characters wandering off course, so to speak.

The one key, however, is the players. Having a core group of dedicated, good players is what keeps any PbP alive and going.

Rhun · May 7, 2009

I have two games here that have both just broke the 3 year mark, and I've had one that failed. The one that failed was an attempt to run a "weekend only" game, and I think that proved to be its undoing.

The biggest key I think is communication. If you aren't going to be able to post for a week, let your players know. If you need a hiatus, let your players know. Nothing kills a game faster than letting it sit around with no updates and no communication as to what is going on.

Now my games are campaign style, and they work for me and my players. But I can also see the value of an episodic style game. That would certainly work well in a PBP environment.

Also, I'm not a fan of the post or "lose a turn" style of play, because it doesn't make sense to me. Your PCs are in the middle of combat, and suddenly the fighter decides not to attack because the player hasn't posted? Doesn't make sense. So in my games, if the player doesn't post, I simply NPC the character for the round. If the player doesn't like the decision I make with the character, well they know ahead of time that I'm going to NPC them if they don't post.

kinem · May 7, 2009

One thing I strongly recommend for combat is that any PC can act when it's the PCs' turn. Whoever posts first that round, acts first that round. Etc. That way, the action is not held up while waiting for a specific player to post just because he is next in the initiative order.