D&D 5E PbP games: what works and what doesn't?

So.

A year ago roughly I started a thread about how 3/3 PbP games I had been involved in had collapsed, while I had created a character for a 4th only not be picked as a player.

The consensus from that thread was "it's a bit of a coin toss, keep trying". So I did, joining a lot of game, and recycling one character to save myself some work on character designed

Aaaand for a while it worked, almost too well! I was in four (!) games. But one of them has since stopped, one has slowed down significantly, and one is just about to be completed (congrats [MENTION=59816]FitzTheRuke[/MENTION] !). After doing these, I *think* I've learned a few lessons on what seems to work and what doesn't. I am not sure if I'm right however, so comment away!

1: It may be futile to try to do a huge level 1-20 (ish) adventure path. The game that we are about to complete took us from level 4 to 7 (It's 99.9% sure we will be finished in 1-2 weeks tops). It was a somewhat sizable dungeon, but *clearly* not a full-sized campaign... and yet this took us almost 14 months in real life! So I think that doing one module, or maybe a series of 2-3 small adventures, is very reasonable, but a full campaign (like say one of the big ones published in 5e, or a Paizo adventure path) is probably not achievable. Knowing that there is a clear, achievable conclusion in sight can keep people motivated too. [MENTION=59816]FitzTheRuke[/MENTION], how much time do you think this would take to finish in person?

(and I'm sorry Fitz because I'm praising one of your games and expressing doubt on another... still having a lot of fun with that one though, so maybe it will prove me wrong?)

2: The start of a game is important. There can be a *lot* of energy and excitement at first, and it's important for the GM to take advantage of it and go with it. This energy can be spent designing the characters and the setting, but I think it's important that not TOO much effort be spent on this, because the start of the adventure can then feel like a let down! So starting the actual game with a bit of a bang can be good. I known it's good to have an easy "introduction-battle" to let people gel, but it can be boring. On the other hand, that bang shouldn't be something too railroady. "Oh that idilic town that you guys spent 2-3 weeks thinking about? UNSTOPPABLE INVASION, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!"... not always the best. (I've had it twice and both games didn't complete. coincidence?)

3: On the topic of railroad, too much choices can paralyze the campaign, so a clear path forward help things move along

4: Returning to starting a game - I don't think starting at level 1 is great. I think 3 is the minimum, and if I was to run a game tomorrow I would have characters start at level 4 or 5. Fighting kobolds isn't that fun. You don't want to make the players wait to hit that "D&D mid-level sweet spot". If the game won't be super long (see point 1), why not *start* there? Besides, it makes for characters with more robust and varied backgrounds, and multi-class (if you allow it) is more feasible.

5: It is quite important that the party gels well. So some kind of "party balance" is nice (doesn't have to be perfect - heck in one game we have 2 fighters, a paladin, a ranger and a monk!), but what I'm talking about is more that the characters get along and aren't too disruptive. This mean that the "fun pirate who's actually kinda evil and a jerk" can be a problem, the "attack everything" barbarian could be a problem, the "ultra loner" is another problem... Heck I have to admit that I was a bit guilty of that in one game - Udit is a pessimist and he was a bit of a pain initially - I realized that was an issue and toned it down (sorry Fitz!). I have seen games where an arrogant, not willing to play along party member sapped the energy of a game and it fizzled out.

6: Games with intrigue and politics can be challenging to run. Games where the setting is very different than your "generic late-medieval vaguely European" default can make it more challenging for the players to get engage because there is now a "cultural" barrier - however if you can navigate that, it can be *very* interesting.

7: I'm really not sure what is the ideal number of players. Some have suggested over-recruiting to account for player loss/attrition, but at the same time with more people the odds of one player being a bit busy or slow increase, therefore slowing down the game.

Thanks for the thread, Ancalagon! I was just talking to one of our groups about hits and misses in our campaign, and this is a huge help!

Archon Basileus said:

Thanks for the thread, Ancalagon! I was just talking to one of our groups about hits and misses in our campaign, and this is a huge help!

Click to expand...

You're very welcomed!

But I have to emphasize that this is just "my observation" - I'm sure there are people here with a lot more experience in PbP games and I'm eager to hear about their experience too! In other words, I'm not claiming that this is absolute truth

Thanks for this!

I think a lot of this applies to regular table games as well.

This is relevant to me because I had a PbEM game that was going really well and then the problem came when I, the DM, had a bunch of life get in the way. I told everybody we were going to have to take a 2-month hiatus and because the issue took longer than I expect it's been almost 7 months.

I know the players were enjoying the game, but I feel weird at this point asking if they want to restart.

As to the level observation, people always seem to want to start games at 3-7 but I really enjoy low-level games because it gives you time to really define your character.

In my game, it was actually a straight 3d6 (min7), 0-level game where each person chose apprenticeships and activities in town in order to gain skills and increase their attributes. It has worked out really well and people were really excited to gain cantrips, like Mend. When we paused they had all become over-powered 1st level characters and they were flexing their powers and feeling pretty amazing.

(I say over-powered because in the 0-level time they were able to do multiple apprenticeships, so for example the Mage-kind of character manage to learn to use bows and swords before leveling up.)

This campaign sounds really sweet! Increasing the range of their professions through roleplay seems to give a more personal feel, at least as I hear it from an external point of view.

My main concern is with homebrew scenarios, though. Sure it's better for evryone to use widely known material, since it makes character conception a lot easier, but personally I need to invent worlds and I love to discover what others created as I play. The only way out of the predicament, as far as I can see, is to use a mass of things already done, while creating the one relevant thing for the campaign and keeping it the only novelty. That way there's no need for huge explanations. I have tried to create entire worlds for my games, and to some extent it worked, but it served to reduce player participation at creative aspects of the world (and to be honest the one thing I'd never relinquish is intense player participation in world creation; the game is, after all, made for the players; if not, what's the point?).

Mildly funny that I have opened up two threads to read and both of them are by you, Ancalagon.

I do not feel like I have that much PbP experience, though I wager no more than one thousand of my posts are from non-PbP threads. But as someone who played PbP mostly for lack of any real world games, I tend to think that the number one most important aspect of any PbP game is momentum. Once you lose it, it is hard to get it back, and I imagine only a small minority of players are not turned off by glacial post speeds.

I like your thoughts on adventure style and level, though in some ways they go against what I like most in a game. I tend to prefer low level games, and intuitively I like somewhat open ended stuff though choice is the enemy of momentum. Whether your players can use fireball at the start of the game or not seems like it will dictate the style of game in some respect, so I think personally I would still want to lowball with level 4.

In any case, even though PbP disagrees with me like a fool I have been waiting for months for someone to start a new Pathfinder PbP game. So if you were to start a new one tomorrow I would not say no, . 5E seems way more popular for PbP though (with good reason, I imagine). But the other thread I am reading is your one on Backgrounds in PF2, so I know it is inside the realm of possibility, .

Kaodi said:

In any case, even though PbP disagrees with me like a fool I have been waiting for months for someone to start a new Pathfinder PbP game. So if you were to start a new one tomorrow I would not say no, . 5E seems way more popular for PbP though (with good reason, I imagine). But the other thread I am reading is your one on Backgrounds in PF2, so I know it is inside the realm of possibility, .

Click to expand...

Thank you for the kind word but... I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. While I'm sure *someone* is going to run a PF2 game once the playtest rules come out... it won't be me. I'm strictly interested in PF as a player. I refuse to run 3.X systems as GM, too much work.

edit: If I do run something it will probably be either 5e in the Yoon-Suin setting, or it will be warhammer (either 2nd ed or 4rth ed)

We've started a high level pathfinder game if you're interested, [MENTION=1231]Kaodi[/MENTION]. Also, I want to cook something up in August. I'm a pathfinder fan, but on the DM sode of things, opposite to Ancalagon.

Archon Basileus said:

We've started a high level pathfinder game if you're interested, [MENTION=1231]Kaodi[/MENTION]. Also, I want to cook something up in August. I'm a pathfinder fan, but on the DM sode of things, opposite to Ancalagon.

Click to expand...

Different strokes for different folks!

... you're crazy man

Hehe, the players are awsome. That makes the task of knowing all those rules a lot easier.