The Downside of PBEM

[nexus]

Yep, another PBEM thread. :)

This one is to discuss the downside of PBEMs, some of the common (or uncommon) problems that can surface. I'll list some of the problems I have run into.

1. Combat. Regardless of system combat can take FOREVER. Particularly since I have allot of players that expect me to handle everything, including tactical choices. The most I can get out of them is "I attack" No manuvers, no target, no anything.

2. PBEM Telepathy. This is when one players writes an internal monologue and another players acts as if they'd said it aloud or somehow their player knew what the other was thinking. This is tied into 3.

3. Taking IC things personally. I've seen entire PBEM collaspe because some players took the "thoughts" of another PC personally. Its happened to me a couple of times. Mixing OOC with IC can be a big problem in PBEMs.

4. Action Teleport:When PCs suddenly "appear" in interesting scenes, ususally to steal the thunder from the character's involved. This happens whether or not the PC had anyway to notice something was going on. Its ususally a symptom of boredom so is somewhat understandable.

5. Artistic temperment. Sort of a catch all for the moodiness you can get from PBEM players. Refusal to change a character, stick to the posting guidelines or "rating" for the game or what have you because it cramps their style.

[bblackmoor]

PBEM Telepathy. This is when one players writes an internal monologue and another players acts as if they'd said it aloud or somehow their player knew what the other was thinking. This is tied into 3. ... Taking IC things personally.

Like most things, an internal monolgue doesn't usually cause difficulty in moderation, but some players get carried away. I played in a PBEM game once where one character literally did and said nothing for weeks at a time, posting only internal monologues. That's the only time I have seen it carried to that extreme, thankfully.

As a PBEM player, I avoid internal monolgues. As a PBEM GM, I would not go so far as to forbid them, but I might try to discourage them if it seemed to be edging toward getting out of hand. Perhaps I am lucky that I have never felt the need to do so.

On the other hand, I have seen players take IC things personally more than once, and it's never pretty. On more than one occasion, it was my character's words or actions which were taken personally. What can you do about that? I'm not sure there is a silver bullet. Some friction between characters is inevitable, perhaps even desirable sometimes, but it can be carried too far. It really boils down to the players' responsibility to be good sports and cooperate with the GM and each other. I think it also helps to preemptively make sure the other players understand that this is the character's point of view, and not indicative of any personal animosity.

But there are some people who just take things personally, regardless of how it's intended or whether or not an attempt has been made to explain it within the context of the game. :(

(Good post, by the way.)

[Magmarock]

I think if the Player makes is clear that an internal monologue is just that, then the other Players shouldn't react to it at all. And if they do, the GM should intervene, because use of Player Knowledge is cheating, no matter what form the game takes. If Telepathy is actually used, it is the GM's job to determine what was discovered by the Telepath and then pass it along.

Lastly, if any Player can't see it's just a game and not personal, then the GM should say "good riddance".


Mags

[bblackmoor]

I think if the Player makes is clear that an internal monologue is just that, then the other Players shouldn't react to it at all. And if they do, the GM should intervene, because use of Player Knowledge is cheating, no matter what form the game takes.

This is true. Alas, knowing it and being able to depend on it being so are not the same. I do try to give GMs the benefit of the doubt (we're all human, and fallible), so if I were to guess, I would say that the GMs I have seen let such "telepathy" slide were hoping that the transgression was an isolated incident. Or perhaps they feared that making an issue of it would be worse than letting it blow over. I don't really know: I'm just guessing. But those are the best explanations I can think of.

[Warp9]

Before I go on, I should point out that I don't have much personal experience with PBEMs, so my opinions on the subject may not be worth much. This is my 2 cents, take it for what it may be worth.





Regardless of system combat can take FOREVER.

Do you think using a chat program (or a program like WebRPG or OpenRPG) in connection with a combat simulator (like HCS) would help speed up combat?




Particularly since I have allot of players that expect me to handle everything, including tactical choices. The most I can get out of them is "I attack" No manuvers, no target, no anything.

Was it clear to the players that you were looking for specifics? I'd make sure that they understood what you expected before taking further measures.

If so, have you tried screwing them over due to their own lack of specifics? If they don't specify a traget, pick a target for them (choose something which you know that they didn't want to attack).

For example:

Player: "my character attacks" (note: No manuvers, no target, no anything.)

GM: OK, you hit the steel wall with your "head butt" manuver, knocking yourself out.

Player: but that is NOT what I wanted to do!

GM: Well, you weren't specific enough. I assumed that you wanted to attack the wall. If you aren't specific about things, I will make my own assumptions, and you have nobody to fault but yourself.

I bet that if you start treating players in this fashion, things will change fast. The players will either quit the game, or start being specific very quickly.





2. PBEM Telepathy. This is when one players writes an internal monologue and another players acts as if they'd said it aloud or somehow their player knew what the other was thinking. This is tied into 3.

3. Taking IC things personally. I've seen entire PBEM collaspe because some players took the "thoughts" of another PC personally. Its happened to me a couple of times. Mixing OOC with IC can be a big problem in PBEMs.

Are there ways that you can punish PCs for bad role playing?

Using knowledge that your character should not have is bad role playing. It can also happen in a face to face game. IMO a GM needs to take a firm stand to put a stop to it in any sort of game.





4. Action Teleport:When PCs suddenly "appear" in interesting scenes, ususally to steal the thunder from the character's involved. This happens whether or not the PC had anyway to notice something was going on. Its ususally a symptom of boredom so is somewhat understandable.

Are there ways that you can keep track of specifically where characters are at given points in time?

If a given character's position is unknown, then he can pop up anywhere. But if you can track the current positions of each character, then it becomes a problem for a character to suddenly appear miles from his previous location (unless he has specific powers which will allow for this quantom leap).

Then it just becomes a matter of the GM enforcing the rules (the character can't teleport 7 miles without special powers).

Also, if you use a chat program to resolve specific scenes, only invite those players whose characters would actually be involved in the scenes. The other players will not have the option to jump into a scene that they should not be involved in.

Note: edited for clairity.

[ProfessorM@ss]

I think that, for me, the hardest part of PBEMs is picking the players. You can't see them, you don't know them, and so you end up with a lot of wankers. MU*s have the same problem.

Then again, I'm pretty picky as far as my RPG buddies go. I tend to prefer people who are employed, and have lives outside of gaming. So take that for what it's worth.

--->M@ss

[bblackmoor]

I think that, for me, the hardest part of PBEMs is picking the players. You can't see them, you don't know them, and so you end up with a lot of wankers. MU*s have the same problem.

Sturgeon's Law applies to everything. :(

I always ask for a writing sample, preferably a few posts from a previous PBEM. I typically also ask for a half-dozen paragraphs of character background, or perhaps a one-shot post depicting how the PC would respond in a particular situation. Ultimately, it's a judgement call. If you make the entry requirements too high, you will drive people away. No one likes to jump through inane hoops to play what should be for entertainment. If you don't have some kind of screening process in place, you'll inevitably get a few of wankers.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

[Bozimus]

Do you think using a chat program (or a program like WebRPG or OpenRPG) in connection with a combat simulator (like HCS) would help speed up combat?


Never tried HCS, but using mIRC helps in a PBeM Fantasy Hero which I play. Combat was brought almost to the speed of FTF. Typing still takes more time than speaking, as always, but you do not have to wait 2 days for someone to respond. Hero Central and Rondak's Portal are two places where I have seen the chat rooms used to speed up combat.

[keithcurtis]

I must be exceedingly lucky. In the two campaigns I run, I have virtually none of these problems. Either you're having phenominally bad luck in your selection of players, or (more likely), I have been very fortunate with the players I have gotten.
The first (~2 years) Savage Earth campaign, we have used much internal dialog and it has never been a real problem. In fact, it often leads to humorous insights and asides. Combat is run completely by me, with detailed input from the players. I ask for contingencies and strategies and generally get them. I use a home-brewed program that not only runs combat, but keeps a log of the fight. Then I edit the log into narrative form and post, asking for further actions. Usually I process one Hero Turn per post.
The second campaign I recently inherited, and has had a little turnover, but I don't anticipate combat problems. First year Hogwarts students don't have a lot of fighting to do. Again, the players are mature and go out of their way to make things run smoothly.
I don't even forbid lurking, (though I may discourae it at some points), since the players seem perfectly able to separate IC knowledge from OOC knowledge.

Keith "twice blessed" Curtis

[bblackmoor]

Again, the players are mature and go out of their way to make things run smoothly.

Good players are a godsend.

[BlackSword]

keith, where are you hosting the games? I am interested in lurking on the Hogwart's one. (like to see what its like, been a while since I've been an 11 yo wizarding student). If you are accepting lurkers you can PM. Thanks.

[Bozimus]

I must be exceedingly lucky. In the two campaigns I run, I have virtually none of these problems. Either you're having phenominally bad luck in your selection of players, or (more likely), I have been very fortunate with the players I have gotten.
The first (~2 years) Savage Earth campaign, we have used much internal dialog and it has never been a real problem. In fact, it often leads to humorous insights and asides. Combat is run completely by me, with detailed input from the players. I ask for contingencies and strategies and generally get them. I use a home-brewed program that not only runs combat, but keeps a log of the fight. Then I edit the log into narrative form and post, asking for further actions. Usually I process one Hero Turn per post.
The second campaign I recently inherited, and has had a little turnover, but I don't anticipate combat problems. First year Hogwarts students don't have a lot of fighting to do. Again, the players are mature and go out of their way to make things run smoothly.
I don't even forbid lurking, (though I may discourae it at some points), since the players seem perfectly able to separate IC knowledge from OOC knowledge.

Keith "twice blessed" Curtis

Being a player in Keith's Savage Earth game, I must say that he runs a smooth and extremely enjoyable game. I think, we, the players are the ones that are "blessed".

Thanks for the kind words, Kamlak!

[devlin1]

The downside?

Working up a really cool character concept, and then ending up in a game where the other players write like a bunch of lobotomized third-graders. That's probably my primary PBEM peeve. I like my PBEMs to be half game, half shared fiction, and I'd like to be able to sit down at the completion of a chapter/adventure/scenario and read it through, top to bottom, as if it were written for that purpose. Call me elitist if you will. Go on-- do it!

Keeping the pace, especially in a large group. No matter how kick-ass the game is, there will always be someone who holds up the game due to lack of time, lack of interest, or simply lack of ideas. I know this all too well, because I've been this guy many times, for any or all of these reasons.

Simply keeping the thing going. Face to face games don't have to deal with the sheer long-term time commitment of a PBEM. What gets done in one night of gaming will oftentimes take months to complete via email, and not everyone has that kind of patience.

BUT... if you have a creative group of good writers who are willing to see it through to the end (or a logical conclusion), then PBEM is great.

[Bozimus]

The downside?

Working up a really cool character concept, and then ending up in a game where the other players write like a bunch of lobotomized third-graders. That's probably my primary PBEM peeve. I like my PBEMs to be half game, half shared fiction, and I'd like to be able to sit down at the completion of a chapter/adventure/scenario and read it through, top to bottom, as if it were written for that purpose. Call me elitist if you will. Go on-- do it!


Elitist!

:)

[bblackmoor]

I like my PBEMs to be half game, half shared fiction, and I'd like to be able to sit down at the completion of a chapter/adventure/scenario and read it through, top to bottom, as if it were written for that purpose. Call me elitist if you will. Go on-- do it!

I would not call that elitist, simply misguided. Fundamentally, a role-playing game is different from any form of narrative fiction, and in many ways their goals and methods are mutually incompatible. If you try to make it both, either the game or the narrative (or both) will inevitably suffer.

On the other hand, I think it's admirable to want the impossible. Some of the best things in life are the result of people who tried what was thought to be impossible. We have people like you to thank for chocolate/vanilla swirl soft-serve ice cream. :thumbup:

[Ben Seeman]

BUT... if you have a creative group of good writers who are willing to see it through to the end (or a logical conclusion), then PBEM is great.
Our Star Trek PBEM evolved from a "game" (oh oh, I wanna be captain as soon as I possibly can so I can have my own ship and order people around and be cool and blah blah blah...) to an online collaborative writing group. For us, the story is the whole point.

There is no winning... hell we don't even have a GM... we just have writing platforms with an editor (usually the Captain of the ship or base or whatever) to format and distribute posts and make sure that everyone keeps with continuity. Continuity usually isn't a problem becasue we're constantly talking via IM or through our own discussion boards about plot ideas, character development and what not.

Of course, we do have periods of time where no one writes. Life gets too busy, lack of ideas, etc... but no one panics. If someone is chomping to move a story forward, then they do, and they're even allowed to write the actions of other characters (given the other writer's permission, of course), so even if some writers don't participate for a while, the story can keep moving forward. But still there are times when no one writes for weeks or months for a given platform. But that's fine... it's not like the "game" is going anywhere.

But, more on topic. The biggest pitfall I've found in our PBEM is when you get a player/writer who doesn't "get it". For example, a big conflict may have just been resolved and some guy writing an Ensign writes a post where all of a sudden 10 Birds of Prey appear and the ship goes to Red Alert and all hell breaks loose. The rest of the writers just stand around going WTF, but in those cases we've been able to justify it... although when asked why he did it, the writer just said, "I dunno. I thought it would be cool. Keep everyone on their toes."

Bugs me to no end.

[devlin1]

I would not call that elitist, simply misguided. Fundamentally, a role-playing game is different from any form of narrative fiction, and in many ways their goals and methods are mutually incompatible. If you try to make it both, either the game or the narrative (or both) will inevitably suffer.

On the other hand, I think it's admirable to want the impossible. Some of the best things in life are the result of people who tried what was thought to be impossible. We have people like you to thank for chocolate/vanilla swirl soft-serve ice cream. :thumbup:
It's hardly misguided or impossible. If you have the right group of people, it works fine. I've been in a PBEM group on and off for several years where we do just that. We've had great games which were also compelling reads, so when I expect that from PBEMs now, it's because I'm used to it, not because I'm chasing after some unattainable ideal.

[Ben Seeman]

I would not call that elitist, simply misguided.
I would not call it elitist and especially not misguided. A PBEM is what the creator of the game wants it to be. And if he wants it to be 50/50 game/fiction then he should do it. It's not impossible. It's just work... and you need to have everyone playing on the same page, so to speak.

[nexus]

To be fair, some of the things I listed aren't always on purpose. They're the result of misundersta nding and/or vague description.

"Telepathy" for example can result when a player writes down their character's thoughts and emotion and another player thinks these things are obvious from their manner, facial expression, tone of voice etc. The first player didn't mean it that way but its a simple misunderstanding. In some cases, the character actions -would- betray their feelings but since the first player wrote it down its hard to tell.

For example, in my Redwood Academy Teen supers game one character, John, is courting a girl named AJ that another boy (Harry) is interested in. Harry made a comment that John seems awfully possesive of her. That upset john's player becaue she'd been having John act somewhat "aloof" in public toward girls and only posted thoughts about how much he like AJ.

Harry's player pointed out that she'd noticed everytime her character had tried to talk to AJ privately, John had swooped in to drag her off somewhere and that was what she was basing her comment on. Simple misunderstnanding in that case.

[bblackmoor]

Harry's player pointed out that she'd noticed everytime her character had tried to talk to AJ privately, John had swooped in to drag her off somewhere and that was what she was basing her comment on. Simple misunderstnanding in that case.

The importance of communication can't be overstated, can it?

As an aside, I didn't realize that you were the same Nexus who runs the Redwood Academy game (among others). Very cool. I find myself wondering where you find the time and energy to GM as many games as you do. You must be extraordinarily disciplined.

[keithcurtis]

keith, where are you hosting the games? I am interested in lurking on the Hogwart's one. (like to see what its like, been a while since I've been an 11 yo wizarding student). If you are accepting lurkers you can PM. Thanks.

They are hosted on the excellent Herocentral.net site.

And technically, anyone can lurk, whether I want them to or not. If you register on the site (free), you have total lurker ability. It's only when you join a game that your visibility becomes limited.

Keith "Headmaster and Barbarian" Curtis

[Chuk]

One downside is the slowness and mortality rate. That is, you can lose players more easily than you might in a face to face game.

[nexus]

One downside is the slowness and mortality rate. That is, you can lose players more easily than you might in a face to face game.

yeah, I've learned to expect at least a 50 percent drop out rate. The worst case are the vanishers. They just stop posting without a word of explaination or so much as a "I quit."



As an aside, I didn't realize that you were the same Nexus who runs the Redwood Academy game (among others). Very cool. I find myself wondering where you find the time and energy to GM as many games as you do. You must be extraordinarily disciplined

Not much discplined as I have alot of free time thanks to a medical condition.

[bblackmoor]

One downside is the slowness and mortality rate. That is, you can lose players more easily than you might in a face to face game.

Player turnover is horrible. For all the talk (and I do it, too) about PBEM players being more plentiful than GMs, it's by no means easy to find a good, solid group of long-term players.

It's even harder if you want to run something out of the ordinary. For example, there seem to be plenty of people willing to play a bog-standard D&D game set in the Forgotten Realms, or a run-of-the-mill supers game set in the modern era with the standard set of comicbook trappings, but try to find players for a game of spies, guns, and sorcery set in an alternate 1960s France. The more alien the game setting, the more difficulty you will have finding players. This is not an insult to anyone who prefers to play in a bog-standard game, it's simply a statement of fact -- I am as likely to avoid a weirdo game as anyone else is. If the setting is unusual, fewer people will be interested. That's just the way it is.