I think the best thing would be some of kind weekly real time chat component. It can be used to resolve some of the longer battles, but also gives people a greater sense of comraderie. I'm curious if there is a chat specifically designed to simulate D&D - like a text version of NeverWinter Nights....
Success and failure in forum roleplaying
I have had a lot of mixed experiences with forum roleplaying, and have basically come to recognize a few consistent pitfalls and a few consistent benefits that seem to come with the format. The most obvious benefit is that, with the liberty of a temporally unrestricted enviroment, and a context that seems to attract more literary minded individuals, roleplaying seems to be vastly improved in an online foum. The GM can vet players for chemistry and character concept. Players have the time and the incentive to develop complex characters. Everyone has the ability to formulate their thoughts before engaging in an action. All of this improves roleplaying tremendously. This is why I have been attracted to forum roleplaying in the past. The quality of roleplaying can produce beautiful and unexpected narratives that can far surpass anything comparable in a live environment.
However, this benefit seems to come with a serious cost. Consistency. Every time I have ever run, or been a part of a forum campaign or adventure, someone fails to see it through, and the game inevitably falls apart. The conseuqence free nature of hte internet makes it remarkably easy for people to blow off gaming commitments in a way that would be akward in the real world. The sort of casual attitude most people have towards online gaming can really hamper both the flow of the game (particularly in combat situations), and ultimately can undue an otherwise brilliant campaign.
So, my question is this. What is it that differentiates a succesful online campaign from one that runs aground? Is it the power of the narrative? Is it the pace of the game? Is it Power Gaming? The quality of the group? Group chemistry? Something else entirely? Given what constitues a succesful online campaign, how does one manage an online campaign in such a way that they can maintain its benefits of high roleplaying quality while eliminating the downside of player inconsistency? Thoughts?
- 2456 reads
Sun, 2008-12-07 22:52
#3
I think the best thing would
Mon, 2008-12-08 19:08
#4
There are several systems
There are several systems that do that. NBOS' Screen Monkey is my program of choice, made specifically for RPGs. There's a free demo on their site. I've not had much occasion to try it, though, from what I have done it was great.
Mon, 2008-12-08 19:23
#5
I may be an old fuddy duddy
I may be an old fuddy duddy then - AIM's worked fine for me for years. 
Mon, 2008-12-08 20:21
#6
Screen Monkey has stuff like
Screen Monkey has stuff like updating interactive maps, and dice. If it's a conversation you're RPing, IM is easier (and rather cheaper) but it's simpler to run combat with all the aids.
Tue, 2008-12-09 01:27
#7
I am just now trying out
I am just now trying out forum roleplay... and of course am finding out the same things. Unfortunetely, I think the weakness of forum roleplay is the same as its strength. I'll not repeat what everyone else has said, but I will reinforce that the casual nature of forum gamnig is its largest pitfall. People often join too many games, to make up for the slow pace, and then get bored with one game as another is moving faster. As well, I doubt most people dedicate an actual time-slot to their internet game. Without that dedicated time, real-life inevitably gets in the way and the games suffer. And of course, its easier to dedicate one night (even for an all-nighter) to a tabletop game then it is to dedicate an hour -everyday- to an internet game just to move it along by what would take 5 minutes at tabletop.
So one suggestion would be for players, and the GMs, to set up specific dedicated time-slots for their updates. It doesn't have to be set in stone, and even simply encouraging this would likely increase the lifespan of the game. Another suggestion is to give the players more liberal control of the mechanics. Each player waiting on the results of a die roll works fine for tabletop, but draws an internet game out for longer then most people can stand. And hell, the point is the story itself, not the mechanics, right? In all it simply needs to be treated more like collaboratory story writing, then a traditional game... meaning the GM has far less specific control over things, and is mainly just the referee and storyguide. Players need more information that normally only the GM has, so they can do the mechanics themselves. The GM can go over everything later in five minutes, what would otherwise take a week round-by-round and roll-by-roll.
Of course, finding a group of players up for that might be diffecult.
The dedicated realtime chat seems like a good idea as well, but totally removes the benefits of the temporal-dislocation of forum gaming. As that is one of its strengths, and adds another restriction onyour available playerbase, I'm not sure it works out in the end.
So far, I've found the far best option is something like a MUD, or NWN... The ability to log in when/where-ever keeps the benefits of temporal- and spacial- dislocation, and even a small playerbase will filter itself into regularly available timezones. The computer handles all the crunchy mechanics stuff, moving things along quickly. And, with the addition of a forum, the same literary quality can shine. These games also have the benefit of not being in dager of dying off if one or two people drop out unexpectedly. And for some reason (that I have the sneaking suspicion is simply that -things happen-), people get very attached to these sorts of games. The drawback of course being that a computer is easier to cheat, and if people can take advantage of a system, someone will. A few badseeds I think is worth games that actually keep life to them.
Wow, didn't mean to write a novel there... Mostly just organizing my thoughts on the same subject out loud.
Tue, 2008-12-09 02:18
#8
Quote:Players need more
Players need more information that normally only the GM has, so they
can do the mechanics themselves. The GM can go over everything later in
five minutes, what would otherwise take a week round-by-round and
roll-by-roll.
Of course, finding a group of players up for that might be diffecult.
Not too difficult in my experience, but I may be lucky - it's making it easy to keep *moving* that I've always had trouble with. I can't throw a stone inside my own house without hitting an eager forum-player. (Literally - my roomate... she's not too good with dodging things... )
And you know - this is a really good point! If I start with an alternative system to the complex tabletop version - that may make it easier to let the players work it out for themselves. Something very simplistic, almost as simple as rock-paper-scissors. Is there a game system out there already that's designed for the "remote non-synchronous game style" you find in a forum or pbem??
More importantly - would it be worthwhile to develop one if there isn't one?
Wed, 2008-12-10 05:16
#9
Clueless wrote:
And you
And you know - this is a really good point! If I start with an alternative system to the complex tabletop version - that may make it easier to let the players work it out for themselves. Something very simplistic, almost as simple as rock-paper-scissors. Is there a game system out there already that's designed for the "remote non-synchronous game style" you find in a forum or pbem??
More importantly - would it be worthwhile to develop one if there isn't one?
That old WotC game that used the tarot cards would be a good system. You could just pick a card for a battle, or for each player in a battle, and tell them to narrate according to their fortune. That game would be almost perfectly suited to online roleplaying. I need to see if I can't find me a copy (or even remember what it was called for that matter).
Wed, 2008-12-10 13:10
#10
Wasnt that the
Wasnt that the 'Storyteller' system WotC (or maybe it was TSR?)? I think it was for Dragonlance. I had the same thought, that it sounded like a perfect fit, but I never actually played the game myself.
Edit: it was the 'Saga' system, by TSR. Have to look into it more, but it seems there are a bunch of sites out there with the rules for it written out.
On the other hand I was developing a system myself for internet gaming, based of the SIMPLE ruleset (a simplified ruleset of the one used for the Fallout games). It also doesnt actually have to be simple, as long as it is focused on the player being able to figure out his success/failure on his own, in a thematic way.
ex: Instead of just rolling attack, and letting the DM figure everything out from there, a successful attack could be governed by a players 'attack skill', with pre-set modifiers (like called shots). The DM could then figures out the results of the attack (damage taken, bounces off armor, etc.)
If anyone were to work on their own system I would recommend looking at old 1 player RPG games (like NES games), for simple rulesets that would work out just fine.
Fri, 2008-12-12 18:37
#11
I'm not sure in the example
I'm not sure in the example how that really works: Is that not exactly what current DMs do? Player says 'I hit X and deal Y damage' and DM says 'That hits / doesn't hit / does damage of Y amount/ etc ' ? I'm not sure how the example shaves any of that work off the DM.
Sat, 2008-12-13 23:46
#12
I'm not sure I see the
I'm not sure I see the diffence either. D&D is a skill based system with preset rules for success, failure and degree of success, which could in theory be handled all by a player. The fallout rules system really just uses slightly different mechanics, but works the same fundamental way. I prefer the idea of narrative cards, since the "fortune" allows freeform interpretation from a player. Thus if I draw, say, a Misfortune card for the battle, but a Beacon of Hope for a player, the overall tone of the battle from the GM perspective is that of bad luck for the group, but that player can have his own battle narrative that reflects him being the bright point for trhe battle. Perhaps he may ward off the attacking undead with a turn undead, or rally them together through an act of courage. Inb either case, it sets a general tone or theme for the battle for me as a GM and for the players, while still giving them individual "stories" for their character, and the flexibility to write it as they like. As long as it sticks thematically, and they are judicious in their use of narrative, it helps take some pressure off the DM and keep things flowing at a brisk pace. I don't need to tell them if they hit or miss some inconsquential Kobold. They can determine those things for themselves. And hey, if they need to drop out of the game for a while, that gives them the flexibility to say "surprised by a sudden blow from behind, Narrathan collapsed to the ground in pain and watched as the world faded into darkness". Hmm, maybe I will write up a set of rules around that idea, a modified version of storyteller or whatever it was called.
In my experience in PBeM's it's always always always a matter of timing. Regular posts daily or weekly regardless of the length of them - keeps the momentum up. It's getting a group of players all operating on the same momentum thats important.
It's important to realize that a player who runs too fast is just as much a detrement as one that runs too slow. He chews up the GMs time, moves a scene faaster than anyone else can reasonably keep up with in a week, etc. The GM's momentum is the most important compontent as without that steady metronome to keep people on topic things fall apart in a hurry.
It's also fairly important that all players have an understanding of what Is a reasonable pace. I've seen a combat in a PBeM take two months to resolve - it was a large complex battle with multiple rounds and a once a week posting for all involved. Of *course* it was going to take 2 months. But *remembering* that, for players used to going through multiple battles in a single night at a tabletop - can be hard.