D&D 4E Will 4e kill PbP D&D?

It does seem that 4E combat is much less suited for PbP than 3E combat was. Let's look at three big differences:
1) Number of rounds per combat is much larger (although each round is faster).
2) Less decisions to make / dice to roll during a round, to speed things up.
3) All classes have access to immediate-type abilties, not just a few.

Now in PbP, #2 is not really an advantage. The amount of time to roll 4-6 iterative attacks or look through a long spell-list is miniscule compared to the amount of time spent waiting for everybody to post. At the same time, #3 is a distinct disadvantage - the more out-of-turn actions possible, the less can be posted in advance. And point #1 is the killer - a combat that takes 4x as many rounds is going to take 4x as long to resolve in PbP, even if it would be faster in person.


But basically, it's a conflict between what's good for in-person and what's good for PbP. With an in-person combat, you want people to be involved all the time, having input as frequently as possible. With a PbP combat, you want it to be possible for people to post large chunks of their actions at once, without having to go back-and-forth with other people, so that a combat doesn't take a week to resolve. They're basically opposite, and 4E leans more to the in-person side.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Do people play pre-3e editions of the game using PbP? If so, why would 3e or earlier games stop just because 4e's been released?

Or does WotC have a shiny new squad of game police all set and ready to raid our clooections of pre-4e material once the new edition ships or something?
 

I've mentioned this before as one of the reasons why I'm currently on the fence about 4e. I only play via PbP, and all these immediate actions are problematic. It's not insurmountable, but it's a headache for the DM to have to consider this, or keep revising posts because the halfling took his immediate action, or to change everything because some creature gets to act immediatly if bloodied. It's difficult, yes, and I'm definitely leaning to stay with 3.5e simply for this reason. It's additional logistics that makes PbP more halting than it already is. Couple this to added lengthy combats, and it's just a nightmare. It's not one I'm looking forward to - I had enough problems with Initiates of the Sevevnfold Veil and their immediate action Ward ability. You kept having to ask if the ward needed to be raised. Just plain annoying.

Pinotage
 


hennebeck said:
But some people that play-by-post will now be able to play D&D using the DDI with people from Norway and New Zealand at 3am.

LOL! Yeah, I suppose it you're really diehard. :) Our group has players from USA, UK, and Singapore, so the extremes are something like 16 hours apart.

Pinotage
 

hennebeck said:
But some people that play-by-post will now be able to play D&D using the DDI with people from Norway and New Zealand at 3am.

The people who want to do this are already doing it via OpenRPG or its many kissing cousins. Why would people suddenly switch with the new edition? Makes no sense.

Check out the Wizards recruitment boards: Mostly real-time players, they might switch to DDI, but I doubt if most will, adding 15 bucks a month to their gaming budget is a lot for most people. Plus the obvious fact it is not even remotely ready yet.
 

phil500 said:
I think DnD insider will kill play by post.
No, I don't think so.

The virtual table top from DnD Insider requires that the DM and all of the players be online and "at the gametable" at the same time. With PBP, whether forum or email based, the players and DM can be online at different times of the day to leave posts. I run a PBEM game based on 3.x D&D rules (actually d20 SRD, and a bit loosely at that). The players are *never* all online and available to play at the same time, but they can all post an email every day or two. VTT's like Insider (or Maptools for that matter) wouldn't work for this group, emails do.

In addition...and IMO...unless the VTT at Insider gets a lot better than it appears to be at this point, it is going to have a hard time competing with other less expensive (like free) VTT's already available. Paying $10 to $15 a month for DM and players better buy you an experience that is a LOT better than a group making a one time purchase of $20 to $50....or $0.
 

D&D can't possibly kill play by post, because there are other games in the world. I'd be shocked if even half of the moderately long-running PBP games out there were based on 3.x. Even if every one of those people switched to playing 4E through D&DI or whatever, there'd still be a big, active community of PBP games. They just might be playing other systems/genres/etc.
 

I, too, am running PbP warm ups right now, learning how 4e will play differently from 3e by post. Thing is, none of the systems typically used for PbP games are built for PbP games, but we always find a way to make 'em fit. 4e will be the same. It will require adjustments, to be sure, but so do they all. The advantages of PbP are that the games tend to be roleplay heavy (at least the ones I play in) and you can play with people from all over the world without having to manage the nightmare of scheduling across timezones for IM gaming (or DDI, soon).
 

I wonder how many people will play D&D Insider synchronously (WoW-style) or asynchronously (PbP-style). If D&D Insider is turn-based, players could wait patiently between moves. Or D&D Insider's servers could even "ping" players via email, IM, or SMS to let a player know when it's their turn.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top