Proposals re: PBP

It looks like there’s enough interest on both ends to make a G+ Community-based PBP viable in theory.  The unfortunate thing is that there are way more people interested than I can possibly manage without setting up multiple groups, and I don’t want to do that – firstly, I’d like to make sure one group is doable before scaling up, as even one successful PBP group is a bit of a unicorn; secondly, it’s hard as hell to keep one’s dungeon design ahead of multiple groups even in a PBP, as players are bastards and do unexpected things.  But I’m terrible at making cuts, and many of the people who want to play are people with whom I’ve gamed before and with whom I’d like to game again right now.

I feel like the first baby step should be a group of four to six players, which is manageable even with a reasonable number of hirelings along for the delves.

The default mode would be for me to either deliberately or randomly select six players from the interested folks, which allows for the usual rate of player attrition in PBP.

Last night, Aaron Funk (who’s been sagacious as fuck lately) told me that some other referees have tried something different, as follows:

  1. Everyone who’s interested gets on the list and goes through the chargen process.
  2. At the start of play, and prior to every discrete delve, six players are randomly selected.  Their characters get to go on that delve.
  3. After that group either returns to the surface or is slaughtered to a man, GOTO 2.

Pros and cons have occurred to me, and I’m sure the hivemind will detect some I’ve overlooked.

The first and most obvious con is that while one group is (hopefully) having fun in the subterranean hellscape, the majority of interested players are durdling on the sidelines.  I don’t think this is particularly tragic for them, as most people on G+ have other gaming outlets, but stagnation is death in PBP and if players aren’t continuously engaged, they tend to wander off.  It may also be an unexpected pro, as maybe players will be more active when they’re tagged in – the initial posting period of any PBP is always the most active, and this is built-in crop rotation.

The second con is inherent to the kind of game I want to run – long dungeon delves can be hard to sustain in PBP.  Since dungeon delving is what I want to do, there’s no real kludge for this.

The third con is that if players are enjoying themselves, they may tend to prolong dungeon delves longer than they normally would, especially as their access to resources increases.  This keeps other players on the bench longer, and raises the probability of the active group overstepping their capabilities and being wiped out.  Again, not much I can really do about this.

The fourth con is that because of the (relatively) small pool and sample size, and the vagaries of variance, the dice will land on some people quite often and on others more rarely, which leads to both power disparity (not too worried about that) and some people not getting to play (fairly worried about that).  There’s probably some gimcrack system to resolve this, perhaps giving people who didn’t participate in the last delve a significantly higher probability of being selected for the next – doubling their straws, so to speak.

The big pro is that everyone gets to play at some point.  Another is that one isn’t roped into the damned thing in perpetuity, and can easily bow in and out as one’s schedule and level of interest fluctuates.

Like I said, I’m sure there are unintended consequences of this system that I’m missing.

So, if you’re interested in the game, feel free to weigh in on what you think about this.  I’ll end up doing whatever I’m going to do, but I’d definitely like input.

About these ads

10 Responses to Proposals re: PBP

  1. Mike D. says:

    I don’t mind sitting on the sidelines if there is a chance I will get to play in a few sessions. I like that better than a flat “No, sorry we are at capacity”.

    But I’m easy like a sunday morning. :)

  2. Aaron Funk says:

    So one thing I may not have made clear was that once someone is selected they’re left out of the next random pool until it has had a chance to go full circle.

    In other words, everyone gets 1 “turn” before anyone gets 2.

    P.S. I think I have my DJ/MC name now: Sagacious Funk!
    Not that I deserve the title I am just recycling other peoples wisdom…

    • Scott says:

      That makes sense. It also raises the possibility of sharing information between groups, which raises the additional possibility of malicious groups trolling the other groups with blatantly incorrect information. That appeals to me.

  3. Stephan says:

    None of this is any of my damn business, but there is a chance for me to offer advice and I just can’t help myself… if there are more interested players than seats, couldn’t one of the interested players also DM another dungeon and players (and characters) can migrate back and forth between the two dungeons? I know everyone wants to delve Scott Driver’s dungeon because of his celebrity anti-celebrity status, but rather than twiddling their thumbs on the sidelines, they could play. Of course, the other DM would need to have a ‘sympatico’ approach to the game so you don’t have players with lycanthrope gelatinous cube barbarian dragonborne characters wanting to enter the dungeon where ‘elf’ is a class, but you get my drift. Then Scott might also get a chance to play on nights when he doesn’t want to DM and vice versa.

    • Scott says:

      “everyone wants to delve Scott Driver’s dungeon because of his celebrity anti-celebrity status”

      Oh my stars and garters, is that my thing now? O_o

      Seriously, I should clarify that what I’m proposing is an ongoing play-by-post in a forum-ish community, not real-time gaming on a scheduled night. That might make migration between dungeons a bit more difficult. But if someone can figure out the logistics of such an arrangement, I have no problem with it. My illusions of control are shakily anchored … about the only things I’m a weirdo about are rolling the dice (including for chargen) myself, and (for AD&D 1e) making sure everyone qualifies for both race and class per those annoying minima/maxima on the page in the PHB with the Trampier dwarves.

      (And it’s difficult [probably not impossible ] for someone to generate a character that offends my thematic sensibilities, I’m a long-time proponent of Arnesonian-Hargravian Bugfuckism.)

  4. oddysey says:

    Seems fine to me. I’m mostly interested because I share your anxiety about voice chat gaming and G+ is a platform I’m on already so this would be a convenient and accessible way for me to get involved in the online gaming all the kids are talking about these days. I check G+ once or twice a day anyway, so as long as I get notified when being tagged in it shouldn’t be an issue. And the idea of multiple groups and information sharing appeals to me– that’s something I saw people have lots of fun with in Jeff’s games.

    One nice thing is that if a particular delve peters out into PBP oblivion you can just wrap it up via fiat and start a new one. Maybe with a random table similar to the one Jeff Rients used to determine the fate of PCs who are still in the dungeon when the clock strikes 10pm and the session has to end because the DM gets cranky if he stays up too late?

  5. Reynaldo says:

    I think its actually a pretty solid idea – The cons are all valid, but I think its potentially awesome enougj to make up for them.

    One thing to consider is that if you set up a community for this, people could also talk about goings on in the actual delves and other things in the game in place thats (theoretically) viewable by everyone playing. Passing around theories and discussing plans can be interesting enough that I think it could keep people active and involved even when they are not in the dungeon.

    • I’d like to second this.

      • Scott says:

        This does sound like a fine idea, and we can assume some sort of “local dive tavern” construct where the few dungeon delvers in the city – and there are few, it’s an inherently insane occupation – gather and discuss things. And maybe the evil dungeon things send their secret agents up, and they go back down and discuss things as well. :B

  6. trey says:

    The existence of anti-celebrity is contraversial. Much like the ether theory, it may soon be relegated to the bust bin of history.

    Anyway, I think this sounds like a good idea and G+ communities seem a good place for it. I don’t think having a “waiting list” of some sort would drive people away.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers

%d bloggers like this: