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

[FitzTheRuke]

That probably has to do with my "feel" for levelling is pretty ingrained at this point - How long you should live with a character between levels before you deserve a level-bump award.

 

[jmucchiello]

Well, leveling fast level ups has always been a problem. The 1e days of going 6-7 months, 3-6 hours a week face-to-face just to get to level 2 are long gone. People want advancement because they are use to CPRGs where you level up every 30 minutes of play. Of course, those games have 100 levels and generally work across all levels, lacking the sweetspot of 4-9 or 5-12 level.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Now that I've finished what was my first PBP game, I've been thinking more about how it all works. With it taking, on average, about a month for what would be one hour of game time IRL, it really is quite crazy to attempt to run one of the 5e hardcover adventures like, for example Storm King's Thunder. These new AP-style adventures usually take PCs from level 1 to 15. That's A LOT of adventure.

What makes more sense, and probably works best, is to break 'em up into smaller bits, with a goal of running a CHAPTER of one of those books. If all goes well, and everyone is still in, run the next chapter as a sequel.

I think we (PBP GMs) generally say, "I want to run X adventure" with the idea that we'll get as far as we get, whatever that is. It MIGHT be easier to get players to commit to a chunk of the adventure, followed by another chunk if they wish, and so on.

I've found that I actually wish that MORE players would admit when they just can't keep up and drop out of games. With no hard feelings, and they should always be able to jump back in when they can commit a little more time to it.

This goes for GMs, too. I've had a few games I'm playing fold, but I've also had a bunch that just start to meander after awhile, with a post here-and-there every couple of weeks. That's okay, I guess, but I'd rather play a game (at least somewhat) intently for awhile, and take breaks in between scenes.

 

[Ancalagon]

So we've talked about the kind of adventure/scenarios that work well or are more challenging. We also talked about types of role playing that are challenging.

But I am wondering: are there classes that don't work well in pbp play?

 

[jmucchiello]

But I am wondering: are there classes that don't work well in pbp play?

I doubt it. PbP actually encourages player agency moreso than f2f gaming, I think.

 

[EarlyBird]

Maybe not classes/races and such, they should all fit. Or can be made to fit in, such is the way of Roleplaying.

Now mechanics, that may be were the trouble starts for pbp. And INIT is the first thing you need to decide how you wish to run it.

 

[jmucchiello]

Yes, using strict initiative orders (especially in games with initiative changing each round) will bring the game to a screeching halt every combat. Side vs side initiative is much better as it allows people to act whenever they happen to return to the website.

Games where both attack and defense roll to see if damage happens would probably be better off if the players rolled both the attacks and the defense rolls. But not all GMs want to give out the monster stats that would be needed for this.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Reactions can be a little problematic. Attacks of Opportunity aren't a huge big deal, for the most part, but abilities with a lot of moving parts on a Reaction can cause big retconning, which is a pain.

 

[jmucchiello]

I can imagine the sentinel feat could be annoying.

 

[Ancalagon]

Yes, using strict initiative orders (especially in games with initiative changing each round) will bring the game to a screeching halt every combat. Side vs side initiative is much better as it allows people to act whenever they happen to return to the website.

Strict initiative order will make a round last a week, at best!

One thing that can help is have people pre-roll initiative for next fight - that can easily save a day.

Games where both attack and defense roll to see if damage happens would probably be better off if the players rolled both the attacks and the defense rolls. But not all GMs want to give out the monster stats that would be needed for this.

Oh god I never thought of that - that would be bad

Reactions can be a little problematic. Attacks of Opportunity aren't a huge big deal, for the most part, but abilities with a lot of moving parts on a Reaction can cause big retconning, which is a pain.

Yeah, I'm a bit concerned about that with Rodrigo - he gets a reaction if he's hit *or* missed when attacked... :/ I really wanted to make a dex-based melee battlemaster but perhaps it was a mistake...