City of the Spider Queen (mini-campaign)

[perrinmiller]

First is posting time during combat. I have seen where DM's have stated that they will wait a few days for a post before saying a character is delaying. It looks like a good way to keep combat flowing, so I will implement it in most of my games starting with this one.

Since this is a medium speed game (I think) I will say everyone has 4 days after I post up a recap to get their actions posted. It should be enough time and if you think you can't for an upcoming round go ahead and post some upcoming alternate actions I could use. If you post nothing then you will be delaying till you re-post.

HM, I tried that method and I still shutdown my game here at EnWorld after being dissatisfied with player participation.

I think we should try using group initiatives. Something that I actually prefer in PbP games to accommodate everyone's time schedules and time zones. Then we don't need to wait for others to post in order if everyone has the same Initiative among the heroes and the DM just resolves in posted order unless stated otherwise in the player's post.

Then if a player is silent for 3-4 days, NPC them and update the round. Personally, if there is no communication from a player for an absence longer than 3 days, they have no right to complain if you moved on without them.

I actually converted all my games to that method and for the most part my players are happier with it. We are getting 2-3 rounds of combat done in a week compared to taking a week or longer for 1 round.

Funny, Aldern Foxglove and I discussed it, and he is the only person I have played with that was against it. But then he updates multiple times per day and expects his players to post in 24 hours or less so combats are moving along pretty well for him.

The business of delaying after 4 days is actually not going to speed things along and those of us still playing are penalized for that character's inactivity.

I would hope people could agree to post in an established timely manner (3 days for medium pace?) or at least communicate that they are going to be absent, so this game doesn't stall out waiting on people.

 

[Malachei]

i think we should try using group initiatives.

yes !

 

[HolyMan]

It's just something to try. You know not sure till you try. And was keep vague enough to be used in other games and systems. Until we use it I'm not sure how it will work out, so if it doesn't we could go group init and try it also.

Different ways will work with different games/gamers and until I get things worked out we might end up trying a few different ways for this I am sure.

HM

 

[perrinmiller]

I still think you should NPC someone instead of delay. It penalizes everyone when they have their turn delayed past a bad guy, and that isn't fair to the rest of us. Why must we be punished for their inconsideration? It's not like we can do anything about it.

And yes, I do mean inconsideration. Anyone who leaves a game hanging for 3-4 days is either uncaring enough to drop a quick message or has a RL issue preventing them from playing so move on without them.

 

[Malachei]

I also don't like the idea too much. In many fights, it won't matter (as our dinosaurs will stampede everything, anyway, so we might as well delay all of us ), but when the party faces a serious challenge, one or two characters delaying might mean winning or losing a fight. NPCing the character is a better choice, IMO -- and group initiative would be good, so it does not matter if who is first can actually post first (otherwise, there will be some editing).

 

[HolyMan]

I think that the main reason I wish to use the delay action is if I NPC'ed a character I might go and use spells or limited items that that player was saving for something else.

If this were a lower lvl game than I probably won't have to much trouble or worry over this. Also if we had been playing for a while and I knew the characters and their tactics a little better, that would also play in.

So agian we will give this optional rule a go. And it may be best if everyone just post up a if A happens I will do B next time if they feel they won't make the next deadline.

HM

 

[Vertexx69]

So who has disappeared already, that this discussion is going on for so long?

 

[HolyMan]

Does that mean you have no preference Vertexx69? I don't see your take on it.

Was still waiting on you, jkason, and ghostcat to give me an "ok got it" post.

HM

 

[jkason]

And yes, I do mean inconsideration. Anyone who leaves a game hanging for 3-4 days is either uncaring enough to drop a quick message or has a RL issue preventing them from playing so move on without them.

I certainly feel bad for being trapped offline for longer than I anticipated, but by the time I knew I wouldn't be able to get back on the boards, I didn't actually have an option of posting a message.

I think that the main reason I wish to use the delay action is if I NPC'ed a character I might go and use spells or limited items that that player was saving for something else.

You can always rule that if you have to NPC someone, you'll just make a basic attack (ranged or melee depending on where the character was when the player last checked in). Seems like a decent compromise between delaying (taking no action) and burning valuable resources if you're afraid the player may be saving them. Or, I suppose part of our SOP could be to give you a standard attack for NPC'd scenarios.

Okay. Going to catch up on the IC thread now...

 

[ghostcat]

I'm not too bothered one way or the other. Although I would prefer NPC'ing the character if possible. That said, jkason's idea about having a SOP for a character's "absent" actions seems to be a good idea.