[Information] ACM’s DM Guide to a Successful PbP Game

[Aosaw]

On the subject of folders:

If you have to split the party up, don't make the mistake of distinguishing threads geographically. Each thread should contain a sequence of events, so that placing the threads end-to-end chronologically yields a coherent read. A lot of DMs think it's a neat idea to have a thread for each location, and when the players go to that location they post in the appropriate thread. Unfortunately, this has the unexpected effect of confusing the action. In a game that's designed to tell a story, it's important to keep the story formatted properly.

I have to go to work soon, but I'll come back and elaborate when I get home.

This guide is incredibly helpful, ACM. Brings me one step closer to trying my hand.

[AlwaysCivilMike]

Aosaw,

So, you are saying to keep everything in the main thread? I know I have seen games where the DM has Chapter 2, but when the group splits they will have a Chapter 2a. Would it not be more confusing to have everyone post in one thread though they are in different places? I guess you could have everyone write at the top of their post [Location X] or whatever to tell the difference in the two. However, if the DM does not what one group knowing what the other group is doing....

[Aosaw]

I'm suggesting that threads shouldn't be used more than once. It's very similar to the Chapter 2a suggestion you gave - in fact, more or less, that's what it is. Here's an example:

Example - Angels in Armorica Thread 1: "Chapter 1: Millennium Approaches" - The party is on a quest to the mountains of Bethesda to find the secret scrolls of Prior. Along the way, they are forced to separate into three groups. At that point, Thread 1 is closed. Thread 2: "Chapter 1a: A Warrior's Rebuke" - The fighter, Louis, and the ranger, Joe, find themselves separated from the rest of the party, and are left to find their way. In this, they also are forced to settle their differences, and Joe admits to being a Mormon. Lewis accuses him, instead, of being homosexual. Thread 3: "Chapter 1b: The Problem of Clout" - The rogue, Roy, and the cleric, Henry, join the group's ghost, Ethel Rosenberg, in what appears to be a routine trip to the Temple of Pelor, where they hope to have Ethel resurrected (again). Instead, Henry discovers that Roy has a terrible, incurable disease. Roy maintains that the illness is nothing more than "liver cancer". Thread 4: "Chapter 1c: Threshold of Revelation" - Harper, the party's sorcerer, becomes lost in the woods and must find her way, alone, back to the party. She is accompanied for part of this journey by a mysterious apparition calling himself "Mr. Lies", but eventually he is replaced by the Man of the Mountain - an NPC named Prior Walter. Prior tells Harper that Joe is a Mormon, and Harper realizes that it's true.

Eventually, the three groups reconvene, at which point threads 2 through 4 are closed and, along with thread 1, moved to the Archive folder. Then a new thread is created, "Chapter 2: Perestroika", and the party continues as before. When you read them in the archives, you can go straight from the end of Chapter 1 to the beginning of any of Chapters 1a, b, or c, and then read those subchapters separately, and you'll feel at least partially oriented in the right direction. At the end of those subchapters, you just move to Chapter 2, and lo, everything still makes sense.



Whenever the groups become separated, it's of course important to put them in separate threads, to avoid clutter. But a lot of people think that a good way to streamline that is to just have a thread called "The Forest", and then whenever any part of the group (including the group as a whole) goes to a forest, they move their posting to "The Forest" as well. This creates an unnecessary maze of Who Posts Where When, when in fact the threads shouldn't be divided based on location, but based on plot.

I know a few DMs, at least, who are afraid of having a lot of threads, and so they utilize the location-oriented style of formatting. But I think most people, players and DMs alike, will find that it's easier to keep track of a whole lot of smaller threads that can be placed chronologically, rather than a few that have to be sifted through to find a relevant detail.

[Jkaen]

I agree with this, part of the reason I quit the drow house game was that I found it impossible to keep track of what was happening across over a dozen location threads, and in the name despite the potential I just had to give up.

[AlwaysCivilMike]

Ah, now I see where you are coming from. So, if someone is looking at the archives, they should just be able to follow the chapter threads to read the story, not the bouncing around stuff. Personally I have never been in a game like that...and I am VERY happy for it.

[AlwaysCivilMike]

Everyone,

Combat can be fun and exciting...or dull and boring. We have all been in combats that took months. Games that are going along super RP wise all of a sudden come to a halt because combat started. This issue of combat is a tough one to resolve. I have been in just about every kind of combat on this site.

Types of Combat -Some were the traditional combat where you do every round IN ORDER (lots of waiting for others to post). -There were the ones where you could post at anytime and then the DM would summarize the round in one post. -One I was in a few where you gave a few actions if needed in case the situations changed...though the DM would always allow you to change if something major happened. -Finally, I was in one where the DM used a program to burn thru combat. You just gave parameters of what you do and in one push of the button, the outcome was done.

To me, each of these have their pluses and minuses. Every round played can drag ESPECIALLY if one or more players are slow in posting. The last one took the fun out of the game. While I am much more of a writer then a min/max combat guy, I love CHANCE. That is why I roll. You could plan everything perfectly and because of bad rolls..it all goes wrong. You could be outnumbered, outgunned and trapped but you roll great and pull victory out of the hat. Chance is a good thing. So, though there is no 'perfect' combat path, a mix seems to be the best of the bunch.

-Let the players post in any order if possible (the dm will arrange things in his post)
-DM summaries round in one post
-Do your main action but give an alternative just in case...if needed that is.
-Group initiatives: No more then 3 groups (2 for bad guys and one for group or visa versa)
-NPC missing player after a day
-Fast forward to end of combat when things are no longer in doubt (DM's discretion). The DM can also say "free play" to let the players end the bad guys in any sort of fashion they wish. The first to post gets to do them in. We did this in a game recently and it was rather fun since the combat was pretty much over.

Doing it this way lets the DM move things along when he/she feels they need to or if it is appropriate.

Thoughts?

[Juniper]

I think that, at the DM's discretion, a 48 hour window is probably not too much of a stretch, as well as willingness to be flexible with weekends. There's just too much going on in most people's lives, and as much as it's important to keep the game moving, you also don't want to alienate players who can't keep up or whose availability varies from day to day, or who are simply on a different time zone from other players.

[Embrodak]

I think expectations of peoples posting schedules need to be set. If player A can't post much on the weekend, then it needs to be made clear, and the DM should adjust for that.

[Jkaen]

The proposed combat system is what I would use, with maybe the exception that players have their own init order, but may post whenever and the DM sorts it out.

As for posting schedule I agree that it just needs to be set before hand, but I think 48 hours would be too long, as players will always push the limit, and combat is slow enough at 24 hours / turn

[AlwaysCivilMike]

I don't mean to sound like the Nazi DM with the 24 hr rule in combat. Things happen in RL of course. I just would want to keep the game moving. As the DM I would post an action I think the player would do. I mean, if it is a fighter, you KNOW he is going to attack. Pretty quickly you can get the personality of the players down to know what they would go in a general situation. Again, it is just to keep things going.

I agree Em, you would have to have things spelled out when people can post. Most do the weekdays easy enough but not weekends. Others, it is the other way around.

[Thanatus Mors]

ACM...great stuff here. I was in a *long* running game that our DM basically gave up on because he "lost the love" I had never (and I do mean *never*) DM'd a game (live or PbP), but I kinda inherited it nonetheless b/c the characters were interacting great and none of us wanted it to die. Long and short...your tips are helpful enough for a total DM noob to read, understand and implement rather easily. Actually makes the DMing process fun. BTW...took your advice on the "cool" items vice the "power" items and it seems my players like them more than other that are clearly more powerful/useful (e.g. a dress that changes its appearance to match the character's mood and the occasion) Again, keep it up and I will certainly pop in regularly to read installments/thoughts. Cheers!

[Birched]

re. initiative and having all the PCs lumped together:

I'd suggest letting them roll individually. Lump the adversaries, by all means, unless it's some kind of super special situation.

All this ends up meaning is that there is a sub-group of PCs that gets to act before the baddies. Then the baddies act, then all the PCs, etc.. and you are back to your preferred (according to your first post) situation. Essentially, good init modifiers end up giving _some_ PCs an extra round.

[Cleokatrah]

Combat

An alternative way I have used before, which has worked:

Either don't have the PCs roll initiative, or roll initiative for them. When you post the intro for combat, include the highest initiative ONLY (eg: combat setup, blah blah blah, Johny goes first).

After the first player, have the players post in any order they want, but have their actions run continuously, as if they are posting in true combat order. Ex: After Johny, Ed posts, and his character counts as acting second in combat. Stacy posts next, her character reacting in "real time" to what Ed and Johny had posted. Everything posted occurs in the order posted and the DMs only job is to oversee the action, clarify any mud, and post his baddies, which he can now insert whenever he wants in the combat round because it's no longer time inefficient to post baddies separately.

I've done this a couple times, and both were pretty successful. I asked players to write a little ooc at the end of each post that had their char stats plus any current magic effects/etc that were active, and how long they were active for. Ex: Ed's character casts [x] spell for 3 rounds. He puts this at the end of his post. Stacy carries that info over in her post. When the round concludes, the DM posts an update of effects/etc and that info is carried over by the next poster.

I, personally, did not roll initiative for my players. I either let them call firsties in the ooc if they wanted, or picked a fitting character in the game thread to go first. If you have players who prefer rolling initiative, then of course this won't work. It did save me an awful lot of DM time, however. It slimmed down my summaries to the scant details (hp updates, enemy count, etc) and there was no more going through every post, writing down sentences - in order - for each action.

Characters

PbP is excruciatingly slow, as far as technical character growth goes. You will be in a game for two years, and you will level up maybe 3-4 times. Because of this, and because players often take abilities that they never get to use, you have to give them some creative leniency. Have a rule that if a player wants to swap out abilities or feats, or maybe classes on rare occasion, that they can do so as long as it is roleplayed, and as long as it makes sense for their character. Bored players don't post, and if they are bored or frustrated with their mechanical character sheet, then you are losing a poster for no real good reason.

Communication

Absolute communication is a must. Games get stalemated, players come and go, for dozens of reasons. Everyone's lifestyles and mojos are different, and if one of them is out of whack, well then it's out of whack. Nothin' no one can do about it. Accept it and move on. The fact is that players and DM alike go through lags, whether it be real life, or mental, or whatever. The point of communication is pulling the game through these lags. If a player goes off the radar and it's been his/her turn for a couple days, go after them. Lapses are sometimes contagious, and since you can't avoid them, you need to catch them early. Encouraging open communication ("I'm stuck." or "I'm waiting for so-n-so to post.") helps game participants stay informed and working together.

Also, be understanding of All absences. If the reason is serious, then of course it is easier, but if it's something as simple as a case of the blahs, then don't push. Everyone goes through periods of feeling creatively lackluster, and your players need to know that it's okay. Part of the reason absences go extended is because players/GMs feel guilty for having flaked in the first place and thus feel all that much more pressure to return. So accept absences for what they are, encourage players to communicate if they are stuck, having problems, etc, and try to keep absence guilt to a minimum.

Good luck with your guide, Mikey!
And you can take this advice or leave it; makes no matter to me.

[Birched]

Originally Posted by Birched

I'd suggest letting them roll individually.

After reading the excellent post just before this one, I realised that my own may have not been totally clear. I meant 'have a roll for each PC'. I am actually an advocate of the DM making all rolls that do not require role play (e.g. initiative, most saves, caster level checks) if the player would not normally be making a role play post at the same time (i.e. if they are just going to make a post with a roll in it, that post is wasted time -- the DM should just roll to let the game move forward, so that everyone can get back to the story). In the case where there *is* a role play opportunity, I try to at least give the player a target (DC, caster level, whatever) so that they can evaluate for themselves whether the roll succeeded and act/write accordingly.

At least, that's what I do when I remember to do it. If that makes sense.

[Cleokatrah]

Awwwz, he said excellent.

*feels all purry*

By the way, I was just wondering if you're going to create something like "the ultimate guide to pbp DMing", with some variations (such as combat, stat generation, etc) but not enough to be overwhelming, or are you creating your own guide, from your own P.O.V and sticking mainly to that.

Either/Or, I had a couple ideas: 1) include links to helpful debates/threads on this site; 2) turn it into a wiki page

Map Ideas: 1) Google Docs. If all game participants have google accounts, you can host the game on google docs, make it editable to all, and therefore everyone can edit as they post. 2) have someone who knows html make a tutorial for using dollmaker code to create an online, interactive map. The DM would have to find a place to host it, but that's not really a problem, and he would have to upload the pictures and whatnot, but it's really simple, and when you consider the amount of time the Dm doesn't have to spend revising the map, it's a worthy investment. A tutorial like this has been on my list for some time, but it's just not going to happen, so I'm passing the idea down to you.