Requesting input on Arena PBP format

[Entropi]

Greetings.

I've been wanting to run a 4E pbp game for a couple of months now, and have finally decided to run an arena campaign. I've already developed the arena system I'll be using, as I run it IRL. However, I would like some input on converting it to online play.

The basic concept is that each player will create a team of 3 PCs to fight battles against monster groups. Groups will be generated by me and will always be 'Hard' encounters of 2 levels above the team. The team fights multiple fights in a day, earning progressively more gold for each fight as the day goes on. A team may fight up to 5 fights in a day, but must quit for the day if they lose a battle (or choose not to continue).

In the online version, battles will be held at regular intervals (either weekly or every 2 weeks). I want the game to always be open for new players, and to be able to accommodate any number of players. I can envision 3 possible ways of setting things up to achieve this.

1. SOLO METHOD
Players fight the battles offline themselves. When I post the battle schedule for the week, I will include a description of tactics that the monsters use. The players must make a good faith effort to follow the monster tactics and to administer the rules as fairly as they can. They then post an after-action-report of their fight in a thread created for that purpose.

Advantages:
- Easy to set up, manage, and participate in. Doesn't require transferring character files/sheets from player to DM. Disputes cannot arise.

Disadvantages:
- Dependent wholly on the honor system.

2. EACH PLAYER IS ALSO A PITLORD
A player that signs up his team to fight that week must also Pitlord (DM) the fight of another player. When I post the battle schedule for the week, I will include pairings. It will then be up to the player to send his Pitlord his character sheets (or character builder files). Each player must also write up tactics for his team, and send these to his Pitlord as well. The Pitlord will use the player's written tactics as a guide when fighting the battle. At the end of the week (or two-week period) the Pitlord must post an AAR of the battle.

Advantages:
- Players are not Pitlording their own characters, so there is no temptation to cheat.

Disadvantages:
- More fiddly. Requires off-board communication between player and Pitlord. Disputes can and will arise. Pitlords can and will flake out and not run their fight.

3. VOLUNTEER PITLORDS
Same as #2, except a group of Pitlords are assembled before the arena opens. These Pitlords will be responsible for running all fights. This is how the Core Coliseum on the WotC boards works.

Advantages:
- Pitlords less likely to flake out. Over time, some posters will establish themselves as dependable Pitlords. Quality of Pitlords (in terms of rules knowledge and running battles) is likely to be consistently higher. Players who have no desire to run any battles will still be able to participate.

Disadvantages:
- Requires a stable of committed Pitlords. Burden on Pitlords may be too high. Depending on participation levels for both players and Pitlords, there may not be enough Pitlords to run the battles, which could slow down progress at the least, or bring the whole game to ruin at worst.


So... thoughts?

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

i think either 2 or 3 would be much better than 1. 1 might be kinda fun, but some players will likely cheat. Others will mostly try to be fair, but might fudge minor things and may simply be bad at playing the monsters. The incentives are just all wrong. Sure, some people might play it fair, but presumably much of the fun comes from the competitive aspect-- how did I do compared to others? When the others are a mix of fair, slightly skewed, and downright cheaters, the fun is undercut. But do you want to be booting players because they got crazy lucky when they might have actually gotten crazy lucky?

What about combining 2 and 3? My thought is: invite people to participate as either pitlords, players, or both. If there is a surplus of players (beyond the willingness, if any, of the pitlords to run multiple sessions), then some of the players have to sit out the week. Priority for playing goes: 1. People who also pitlord this round; 2. People with prior pitlord credit (in order of pitlord credit or something, possibly spending down as this gets used); 3. Players who don't have pitlord credit AND wanted to play in the last round but got bumped (if there are too many in this category, then break ties by people who wanted to play in the last two rounds and got bumped both times, etc.; unbreakable ties get broken by either first come first served or random); and 4. Players who don't have pitlord credit and played last time. (Where exactly first time players go is a little vague-- after 3 but before 4? In 4? After 4? Before 3? The more favorably they get treated, the easier it will be to join. The less favorably they get treated, the more the deal looks like "if you want to play, pitlord first or at the same time")

If you don't have enough pitlords, this collapses into the same as 2. To the extent you have extra pitlords, you get the benefit of 3. Some people will be interested in pitlording as a chance to try out new monsters, and some people who want to both play and pitlord may want to pitlord multiple times. The advantage of this approach is that to the extent that 3 is viable, this turns into 3. To the extent that 3 would lead to failure, it turns into 2, which isn't ideal, but better than nothing.

 

[Entropi]

i think either 2 or 3 would be much better than 1. 1 might be kinda fun, but some players will likely cheat. Others will mostly try to be fair, but might fudge minor things and may simply be bad at playing the monsters. The incentives are just all wrong. Sure, some people might play it fair, but presumably much of the fun comes from the competitive aspect-- how did I do compared to others? When the others are a mix of fair, slightly skewed, and downright cheaters, the fun is undercut. But do you want to be booting players because they got crazy lucky when they might have actually gotten crazy lucky?

Under this format, I wouldn't be booting anybody. There would not be a 'leaderboard' or any other impetus for competition - the competition would simply be to see how high your team can go (3 consecutive losses = mandatory retirement, which I didn't mention in the original post). So really, if you cheat you would only be cheating yourself.

This format (players Pitlording their own PCs) is similar to the Game of the Week on the CivFanatics forum for the computer game Civilization IV. Each week a game file is posted with a custom map and starting point, along with any special rules or restrictions for that week's challenge, and each player downloads and plays it, then posts his experiences. You can enter the editor, restart, or cheat in any number of ways, but you are only cheating yourself. The fun is to play the challenge as intended and see how you fare. It's not a competitive thing. It's a fun thing. 2 and 3 could be more competitive formats but with this format I would play down the competitive element as much as possible.

What about combining 2 and 3? My thought is: invite people to participate as either pitlords, players, or both. If there is a surplus of players (beyond the willingness, if any, of the pitlords to run multiple sessions), then some of the players have to sit out the week. Priority for playing goes: 1. People who also pitlord this round; 2. People with prior pitlord credit (in order of pitlord credit or something, possibly spending down as this gets used); 3. Players who don't have pitlord credit AND wanted to play in the last round but got bumped (if there are too many in this category, then break ties by people who wanted to play in the last two rounds and got bumped both times, etc.; unbreakable ties get broken by either first come first served or random); and 4. Players who don't have pitlord credit and played last time. (Where exactly first time players go is a little vague-- after 3 but before 4? In 4? After 4? Before 3? The more favorably they get treated, the easier it will be to join. The less favorably they get treated, the more the deal looks like "if you want to play, pitlord first or at the same time")

If you don't have enough pitlords, this collapses into the same as 2. To the extent you have extra pitlords, you get the benefit of 3. Some people will be interested in pitlording as a chance to try out new monsters, and some people who want to both play and pitlord may want to pitlord multiple times. The advantage of this approach is that to the extent that 3 is viable, this turns into 3. To the extent that 3 would lead to failure, it turns into 2, which isn't ideal, but better than nothing.

I like it! On first glance, I don't see any disadvantage to it compared to my 2 and 3. Unless I end up going with 1, I'll probably use your proposal.

 

[Entropi]

Anyone else have an opinion?