I'm just thinking about this, and wanted to get a variety of ideas:

What parts of a PBP game slow down the start, for you? Sometimes, there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm right at the start, and then... not. If anything, what would you streamline?

When a game first starts (given how they die) that is likely the most energetic enthusiastic part of the game.

To me it feels like a world where the are infinite doors open. And then the first actual in-game post starts and no matter how amazing it is, those infinite doors become finite. And then the next post happens and a few more doors close. And so on and so forth.

Eventually, usually after a couple of weeks, you hopefully understand what this game is going to be like and where there were once hundreds or thousands or millions of doors open, now there's only a handful of routes forward.

And its at that point that some players feel that isn't what they were looking for and drop off which closes another door and so on.


I experienced this first hand as a GM. I had this idea of doing a cool World of Darkness version of Gangsters. Players would run booze in the 1920s and run afoul of a local vampire and things would go from there.

Well right off the bat some of the players dump a lot of their character points into resources and so they go from small time crooks to multi-millionaires.

Then as I adjust scenes and plotlines the way the players approached the story was an angle that I just didn't see coming. I really wanted to run Mafia + Vampire. You know, you rise up through the ranks, get too big, escape the death sentence and then come back swinging to take out those that betrayed you. A fun classic gangster plotline.

They seemed to want to play Empire where you already start on the top and while the game went on for a little bit as a GM I just got into a position where this was not the game I wanted to run and so I pulled the plug after a month or so.

For me sometimes the idea of a game is far more alluring and seductive then the actual nuts and bolts of running it which also plays into that slow-down death.

My opinion is that it has to do with how pbp works in the first place.

In the beginning, there's the various scrambling; players figuring out their roles (character generation), getting adjusted to the game background (which may or may not be the same as the system), and generally setting up the bowling pins.

The game then slows down because everyone goes from the figuring things out stage to the doing stage; and sometimes that leaves one or more players with nothing to do.

The initial enthusiasm does seem to fade rather "quickly" in most pbp games. After the initial charge of excitement and ideas swirling around people's heads, the thought of posting a few times a week over the next several years or decades grinds some people down. Players and GMs.

The more complicated character creation is, the slower it goes. Which pushes players to have characters waiting...which can be problematic when they inevitably try to shoehorn a character concept they really like into a game that's absolutely the wrong fit. Having non-standard restrictions and guidelines for characters helps nip this in the bud. But, to me, it's worth it as the characters will actually fit the game and are therefore less likely to cause it to fall apart. Because characters who don't fit the actual game you're playing do cause games to fall apart.

Which leads to being as upfront as you possibly can. Over communicate with players. Whatever expectations you have as a GM, clearly communicate those to the players. Don't assume much of anything at all. Having a thousand words on the kind of game you want to run, the kind of player you're looking for, the system you're using, the house rules, and the setting will help to filter out players who would just get frustrated and quit anyway. If there's something you want or don't want as a GM, explicitly tell the players.

System handling is a huge problem for pbp games, in my experience. Some people are really attached to systems and want to run them exactly rules as written...but that's just not going to work 99% of the time...unless the game was custom built for pbp. Things like making players roll initiative and making players post in initiative order is a devastating momentum killer. Far better to either ignore initiative or to handle the "order" on your end as the GM. Systems with lots of negotiating results or action interrupts also kill momentum. Front load as much of that as possible. House rules things so that players can spend resources ahead of time. Use Index Card RPG's scene DCs where you as the GM simply say what the DCs will be in this scene. If something will be higher or lower, you call it out ahead of time. That way if the player fails, they can run the negotiations themselves and spend any meta currency to get the result they want.

Erring on the side of player agency can slow things to a crawl. Things like running detailed overland travel. Unless it's a hexcrawl, make a batch of wandering monster checks and skip ahead. Unless there's something really important the PCs want to do during their travel time, just narrate the journey and have them arrive at the first point where their decisions actually matter. Let them RP if they want to, of course, but fast travel saves games.

Similarly, try to intentionally work in discrete scenes. The aimless meandering until you find something to do in the game kills momentum. Stay OOC until the PCs have a clear goal, once they're set on that...skip ahead to the scene where they're actively trying to achieve that goal. Play through the scene, give the PCs time to decompress and RP the aftermath, then find out what their next goal is...and skip ahead to that. A lot of people like to live in the RP of their characters, so as long as that's the game everyone's interested in, go for it. But if half your group wants a months long shopping trip while the other half wants to just kick in doors already, you're going to have a problem.

Sorry if that's long and rambling. It's late and I'm tired.

Short answer? Bad players. What do I mean by that? Off the top of my head, I can think of three types.

1. Slow players. Most games that I'm involved with set an expectation that players will post at least every other day. In my experience, a third of the party posts every day, a third observes the minimum requirement, and a third regularly falls short. Unfortunately, the last group dictates the pace of play.

2. Players who don't bother to read other people's posts. Kinda speaks for itself. Causes a multitude of problems.

3. Players who apparently never learned the first rule of improv. (For those who don't know, it's the concept of "Yes, and...", which facilitates collaboration, which is key to moving the ball forward, which is important in a group setting.)

Basically, each of these types can find a way to throw a monkey wrench into things, slow things down, and sometimes grind a game to a halt.

There are no hard and fast rules, every game is different.  Different rules, worlds, players and GM's.  Starting a game or joining an existing game is the biggest hurdle, everyone has to go through the 'getting to know you' phase, then there is the 'getting to know the game' phase.  These are probably the messiest parts of any game.  The other factor affecting the flow of a game is real life, something no GM or other player can have an impact on is what is happening in your life at any given time.

Pbp games are much like small businesses, 50% don't make it past the first 12 months, for pbp games it is probably more like 50% don't make it past 3-6 months but I am just guessing based on personal experience.  I have had a couple collapse early, a couple last a year or two and the rest are still going strong.

 there are always the people, who are 'character makers'. That seems to be their main focus, create a  character, then get bored and want another one, or flat out quit. Those  folks  jump in and help get started, but the stamina  isn't there.

 The second  thing, is table setting.  You need to set the table, for the  start of the game, that deals with alot of questions and  trying to get everyone on the same page. In Homebrew, folks have to learn your world/system... for Module people, they will wonder what you will use, especially if they already played it...for established   systems, peole want to know how you will run certain things.

...........

 BUT.... once you get started, the cream rises  to the top. and good RP folks  will help carry the  game along,  the rest will fall by the wayside.

The first part, you can't do much about  until they show themselves... the second part is on you. Explain parts  the 'should know" as common knowledge from your  world.

after saying all this. RL is a big thing, for the players and GM  to  have time..Combat can  be sped up, very quickly  with the DM/GM rolling dice  , especially off board, to  speed the game up and add  Mystery to the fights.

In reply to donsr (msg # 7):

Yes, well said.   I am very happy to have my dedicated players who have once again figured out my plot, and have taken steps to thwart my evil plans.  RPOL has been wonderful.

Speaking as a player, there have been a few things...

The first usually happens when you've got several players who aren't familiar with the system, and that's character creation.  Some GMs want every last detail nailed down before they put a character in the game...and I can understand why, to some degree.  If it's not set in stone in advance, it becomes a strong temptation for players to start tweaking details about their character, based on what they see happening in the game.  But some systems ask for an awful lot of esoteric choices to be made before a character is 'complete', and not every player has the burning interest it takes to blow through that checklist in a hurry.

Next is GMs so determined to get characters into the action that they plop those characters into a no-win scenario right off the bat, and that IMMEDIATELY kills player interest in pursuing the situation.  The moment the players start to feel like they are there as objects to gratify GM whims, they stop being motivated to invest anything into the game, because they no longer trust the GM.

The last thing, that's happened the least often for me, is players trying to rewrite the GMs vision of what the game is going to be.  If it's only one rogue player, it's usually not a problem, because everyone else can steer them back onto course.  If it's two or three players, the rest of the players get confused because what is happening isn't what they signed up for, and they're not sure they want to go there.

That's all outside the general tentative progress that's usual in a game, with people getting familiar with the setting, the system, the other players, the GM, etc.  When players are comfortable with all of that, they can take off running and do half the GMs job on their own, sometimes, but until then, it's the difference between a toddler stumbling around the house and a kid sprinting down a soccer field...

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 9):

Wow. I've never experienced any of the three situations you describe. Then again, you've been here a lot longer than I have. After further consideration, the main problem in the games I've played remains as I posted above.

1. Slow players.
2. Players who don't bother to read other people's posts.
3. Players who apparently never learned the first rule of improv.

In reply to 1492 (msg # 10):

For what it's worth, I've seem some of the stuff facemaker329 is talking about, though not all.

After a few times of trying to start before characters were done, I've had players "tweak" characters to mysteriously and perfectly fit whatever the first few scenes were in game. That gets old quick, so I tend to want finished characters before I let a PC into the game.

I'm not sure about the no-win scenario. It sounds like a situation of the GM presenting a tough choice with no obvious right answer. I mean, that's one thing that makes for interesting an engaging drama and storytelling. If the players just want to kill monsters and kick in doors, that's great, too. But everyone needs to be (at least roughly) on the same page for RPGs to work.

Players trying to GM is a bit more common in my experience than facemaker329's. It's usually in the form of players wanting every possible option available in games like D&D. "No, sorry, we're playing Dark Sun, XYZ race options are not available." And players pushing back. Players declaring actions, rolling dice unasked, then declaring the outcome of that action all in one post is in this camp, too. Calling for rolls and narrating outcomes is the GM's responsibility in most games. Let them do it.

As for the points you made, 1492...

1. Slow players.
2. Players who don't bother to read other people's posts.
3. Players who apparently never learned the first rule of improv.

Yeah. Those are way too common for my tastes.

Slow players. Life happens, sure. The single best way to convey to the GM that you're not interested in the game is to not post. That's why most GMs have posting rates and will skip or drop players who don't meet them.

Not reading others' posts. I gotta admit this is a newer one for me. A few years ago it wasn't a problem. It's more common lately. I don't really get it. The medium is text on a screen. The only way you can interact with the setting, game, and other PCs is text...so why wouldn't you read and react to others' posts? Kind of a big red flag.

Improv. Yeah, "yes, and..." goes a long way but so does making statements along with emphasizing dialog and action. I cannot count the number of times I've wanted to yell "Just do something!" through the screen. I get planning, that's a staple of RPGs and I wouldn't want players to just charge all the time, but analysis paralysis is real. The one that boggles my mind is "I just wait". So your action in the RPG is to plop your PC down wherever they are and wait for something to happen. Ugh.

It's only happened to me once.  My character was a passenger on a ship that the crew all abandoned, as authorities were closing in.  Since my character was on legitimate business and had no idea the crew wasn't, and since there was no way left for him to get off the ship, he didn't bother.

He was accused of piracy, locked up, every attempt at an explanation fell on deaf ears...and three days after I started the game, he was summarily executed.

Yeah...I'm still bitter about it.  But nothing slows down the start of the game like arbitrarily killing a character without giving any viable means of avoiding that fate.  I mean, for me, it pretty much immediately ended the game, and it doesn't get much slower than that, but had I been in a game where another character was handled in such fashion, I'd be turning in my walking papers and finding a new game pretty quickly.

 ::chuckles::  As  Facemaker  said, Dying  can end the game  , even if its  just that player  saying 'to hell with it"..some other players may bail as well.

 If you run any game that has  combat, there has to be  a way for the  characters  to die, no matter how slight, otherwise, they might 'get bored" and do stupid  stuff  that hurts the game.

two examples....

a Mian NPC  was    downed in enemy territory, he was making his  way  back   through hostiles and  animals,  one players   PC  was coming down to save, him..and? most likely would have. But the Player    turned his guns on the AA  battery...I rolled he got shot  down ( but would have lived)..I always give myb players  a chance  if  i roll badly,,BUT..that roll stands no matter  what..the poor  Guy rolled a natural 1, and was blown out of the air,,

 The player took it well ( he had  another character  anyway)..but it  stops  stupid  things from happening...it also extended  'the chase' my a  good RL week.

 The second Version is  the 'Bored guy"..  he was always trying to figure out  some new  weapons and such for his Mech..that's fine, the players   got to 'put in the work" to gain nes  stuff they think up..

 two different times he did  something Stupid that almost cost  NPC  and a few PCs  their lives.. the second  time, he was wounded badly, and died on a Med tech ship... he  quit  right after.

 both examples show , 'yeah , you can die"...and Both examples show that some players  are more  into the games then others.

  To kill PCs 'just because' doesn't work for anything  but arena  games. Character Building/story building games  should have  the chance to lose  players, but  not focus  on their  deaths...This way, players  are a bit more excited  by battels and such,  and will work a bit  harder  in the RP.

I'd feel differently about it had it been any of my choices that put my character in that situation.  I'd still be bitter, but it would be my own fault at that point.  The GM started my character in that situation and there was pretty much no way to get out of it (if the GM had one in mind, it was so incredibly obscure that it never dawned on me.)

One of my favorite GMs that I've ever played with would tell new players joining his games, "I don't kill player characters...but if you make really stupid choices, I also don't stop player characters from being killed by their own stupidity."

But that's getting into territory that isn't particularly related to the original question.

I guess a more general way of summing up my whole point, relative to the OP, would be, "Making players feel like they have absolutely no control over their own characters."  At that point, it stops feeling like you're playing a character, and more like you created some new plaything for the GM...and since you don't control it anymore, why even bother?  It's not what you signed up for, and it doesn't look to be getting better any time real soon, so what's the use of posting anything or continuing to invest effort in the game?

That's entirely different from the player making bad choices and creating situations where the only plausible outcome involves the player no longer having control (either because they got locked up, or they blew themselves up, or someone decided to use a dragon uvula as a punching bag, or...you get the idea.  Players may still slow down at that point, or even quit...but THEY created the situation, it wasn't imposed upon them.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 14):

Yes, Facemaker, you are right.  Been in a game similar to the one you mentioned, where there was no move I could have made with my PC to avoid death.  The game was slowly moderated, to the point where I'd check in twice a week to see if there had been a response to my latest post.

Except when the moderator decided that it was time to railroad my PC into death, when the turnaround for moderator posting was less than 24 hours.  On a day where I was pulling a double shift at my essential job and had no internet access, so the moderator posted twice, and that was it, PC dead.  It wasn't worth the effort to argue the point.

I set my own games to 'respond by X day'.  If the player has RL, they might not make the deadline for their PC's actions.  I NPC them gently if I must, and if enough posts are skipped, I might sideline the PC, or offer it to another player.  Getting reliable players is a big challenge.  I'm lucky I have mine.

<.<

I heavily agree with 1492 and liblarva’s response to it. I don’t know what it is with people posting exclusively introspective posts with minimal to no outward indicators that could be reacted to. The occasional post, sure, but if you’re constantly an island on your own, why bother? Just go write your own book or something.

Same for ignoring not just details from other player posts but even the GM. The occasional mistake can happen, but if it is a constant thing, that’s not something in understand or tolerate as a GM.

I also don’t tolerate players completely ignoring the setting/story and stubbornly trying to bend the game to what they want to play.

Both of these things grind games to a slow.

But if all that is managed well, I find that combat (waiting for initiative order) and wildly mismatched posting rates are the things that slows games down the most or even kill them over time.

Also, small side rant, unrelated: one-liner posters and people who never ever write more than a single paragraph in a heavily narrative game where other people deliver at least 3 paragraphs per post with lots of details. If you can’t be bothered to write in a game specifically running on play-by-post the why are you even here!?

Purpose is really important.  You can have the most evocative setting, the most interesting characters but unless you have a reason for your characters to be together and a reason to interact there is a risk that the game fizzles out.  This is equally important for tight linear games and open sandbox games.

I agree with the frustration of the 'one liners' but to counter that, I have rarely seen games advertised as 'narrative heavy', and likewise ten paragraphs describing what someone had for dinner isn't better than a quick paragraph that drives a story and gives someone something to respond to.

This made me laugh out loud. But yes, fully agree. What I meant is someone who never ever engages in the things happening, or not really. Basically a glorified Lurker. Been in a game of Dark Heresy where no matter what we did, how much we talked, how many horrors we witnessed, the player only ever posted a one-liner variation of “he was there, covering their six”. He might as well played a floating skull with a gun. Eventually he was kicked from the game and the rest of us was baffled when we found out he was actually a noble with a bunch of really cool gear and skills that he could’ve been using but didn’t.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:57, Mon 03 July 2023.

It's because many people (including myself, guilty) often view something like 'narrative heavy' as another way of saying 'literate'.   By that usually meaning multiple paragraphs (and often half a page) is required.

I've come to the conclusion over the years that while I like posts to include /description/ (what characters are wearing, where they're seated/standing/etc, what they're doing with their hands while they talk, and so forth), conversational flow and therefore character interaction is almost universally -BETTER- when the players post shorter posts more often.

The key there is 'more often'.

I find that when people don't post but once every few days, not only do they tend to make gigantic posts in order to respond to everything that's happened since they last posted, but it also interferes with the ability of the players/characters to generate a rapport with each other. Imagine standing around at a dinner party where everyone speaks for a minute and a half, and then everyone goes dead silent for five...then the next person speaks for a minute and a half, and everyone goes dead silent for five...

That'd be absurd.

Both categories could fall into "narrative heavy", I suppose, but I'd prefer posts that dot the Is and cross the Ts with regards to description while moving things forward over massive posts that try to cram five minutes' worth of action into one along with giving me a bunch of metagame knowledge (inner thoughts, or things that happened offscreen) that force me to have to filter through to find the bits that are relevant.

Oh yeah, if I see a fellow player post a bunch of stuff that's just internal to their character (thoughts, emotions not clear on their face, etc), I tend to skim over it because it's not stuff my character has any way of knowing, therefore I can't really respond to it. If they're reacting in an emotional way that is visible from the outside (they clench their fists or raise their eyebrows, for example), then I can decide if my character noticed that and have them choose to react accordingly.

I'm sure people like to narrate everything that's going on in their characters' heads, but it doesn't really give anything for anyone else to react to (unless their own charcters are telepathic or something). The exception is if I'm in a private/solo thread where it's just me and the GM - then I'll tend to be a bit more forthcoming about what's going on in my character's head and why I'm doing certain things or whatever. Because the GM may be able to make use of that description in some way.

Why would you need to be in a solo game for the GM to be able to make use of a bit of your character's internal monologue?  I mean, obviously a group thread among PCs isn't the best venue for an excessively huge amount of stuff that the other PCs can't realistically react to.  But even there, a few sentences of cluing in the GM on your character's state of mind isn't entirely out of place, I think?

I think the key there is 'a few sentences', versus a few paragraphs or pages.

Totally agreed, but what I mean to call into question is, I've known some players to get annoyed at having to read any greater-than-zero amount of someone else's internal monologue in public posts.  Not necessarily ascribing that attitude to Ameena, just describing attitudes I've encountered before.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:11, Mon 03 July 2023.

I think that is quite a large assumption.  Even a standard dictionary definition of 'literate' is different from how you've described it.  Not saying that's wrong or right or anything.

I have seen plenty of games where the GM may say 'no one-liners' but fewer where an expectation that a game requires multiple paragraphs per post is made explicit.

In a roundabout way I guess this is another reason why games may fizzle out.  The GM and players may have different assumptions about what a game is and when it starts the reality is different.

What makes this hard is the more one tries to be explicit about a game the more one runs the risk of over-specification.  There is a sweet spot but I suspect many GMs struggle to find it (because it is hard!)

This is an interesting point. I am sure many people are on here to write, but many others are on here to game. Most are content to do both. The question is, in what measure? Speaking personally, I came to PbP because it had become so difficult to organize and maintain table top campaigns IRL. I was (pleasantly) surprised to discover PbP also serves as a sort of collaborative writing room. How fun! I love gaming and writing and improv. At its best, PbP offers a nice balance of all three. As long as the GM makes his posting preferences clear, I'm happy to tailor my approach accordingly.

You aren't the only one who's encountered those folks, and often it's not just internal monologue they gripe about, it's anything non-speech that requires more than thirty seconds to read.

Everyone's mileage varies, and what they want out of a game is in many cases different. I don't actually -MIND- if someone skims other peoples' long posts - if anyone misses out, it's going to be them, after all. (As a GM, I -routinely- bury OOC comments in large posts rewarding XP, etc, if someone mentions that they noticed the comment. Without fail, not everyone does.)

What I -DO- mind, very VERY much, are the people who go into the OOC and publicly complain about other players writing long posts. All that serves to do is squash someone's desire to write. I've been on the receiving end of comments like that, from over a decade ago, and I find that they -STILL- make me self-conscious about writing too much...and I say that as someone who doesn't really write -THAT- much. Two paragraphs, sometimes three, depending on the post - because I like description. Description is important! It paints the scene! How can you know how to react to another character if all you've got to go on is what they said?

...but yet, many people don't care about reading anything other than the speech in a post. Even a GM post, that includes important information. It's sad.

I don't mind a post that includes some 'internal' what's going on in my head. It adds elements that we lack in most text-based formats, and that's the subtle cues and clues inherent in tone and body language. With that internal assistance, we can add that in. Because if you took the time to post it, it's not meta, it's something to be used and springboarded against.

If your internal is for the GM only, then hide it with the private so only the GM can read it.

While I agree the single line "I'm still here" is a little too minimalistic, I'd rather have something than nothing. As most players try to follow the 'wait for everyone to post' mentality, and that definitely grinds some games to a halt. Or worse, in some games they wait to post in some predefined order. I try to encourage everyone to post and not wait and let the GM sort it out.

The sad reality is if players aren't reading everything the GM posts, they'll quickly miss out on clues, lore, and enjoyment in the game. Though the worse aspect is when those same players sabotage the game by doing the wrong thing at the wrong time destroying the plans those that were paying attention had laid out.

As far as posts and length, that's a personal bias. GMs should be routinely writing lengthy posts to set a scene, a mood, or a tone. As a GM I've varied how much information to give. Some players want to gobble up details down to the smells and aromas, while others want the barest information to glean the important facts and omit the fluff. I think the happy medium for most is a single paragraph, maybe two that is usually sufficient to convey the meat for most. I don't require novel-length posts, just ones that clearly indicate what you are doing and saying. Ideally, the ones that allow others to react and springboard from are even better.

I think that is quite a large assumption.  Even a standard dictionary definition of 'literate' is different from how you've described it.  </quote>

It's common on some other sites for 'Literate' to also have an elitist meaning; i.e. if you don't write this way you aren't "good enough".   Granted, I understand that you're interested in other players who can write a novel with every post....but that's not everyone.   And to automatically assume someone is inferior because they don't do things the way you do smacks at elitist to me.



I feel that 2-3 paragraphs is about the right length myself.

I was an English major, and my professors always complimented me on my cogency and economy of words. I was also a lifelong fan of Ernest Hemingway's writing. Perhaps those two things go together. Ergo, I find that 2-3 lines is generally appropriate for most posts, and 2-3 paragraphs is generally overkill. Not saying I'm right. Just offering another perspective.

In reply to 1492 (msg # 30):

I've had players like you, and I've been a player that has been verbose. I can very much say I prefer the above post as a matter of priority, over someone "filling" up space. As a GM, I value substance and frequency over volume and exactness.

I, like you, don't assert I'm right, but I share your perspective. Convey more while saying or writing less is not to be undervalued.

Unlike you, I barely even passed high school, and only had one credit, acting, in college. So I struggle to capitalize on the skills you have.

That said, I have to pare down players' post these days. I think because patience I had when I was younger isn't there. I also think I realize, more and more, posts I made that were longer, that drew in GM attention, I realize was trying to prove myself. Since I'm GMing 90% of the time on RPoL, if not more, I value brevity.

Now, having said that, three paragraphs is acceptable in my games. Far more preferable than a page. Which is what I'll get about once a month. It's an eye bleeding pain to review. I do, however, appreciate when players can make a succinct post that still holds value. I'll even reward them. I reward players for many contributions.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:58, Tue 04 July 2023.

I will often bounce back and forth between short, terse posts and lengthy discourse.  It depends on the pace of the game in the moment, and how much I need my character to do to maintain that pace.  If it's the middle of combat, and I'm putting crosshairs on the Big Bad to drop him with a sniper rifle, it's going to be a short post...2-3 lines.  I could make it longer than that, but not every single post needs to focus on my character controlling his breathing, tightening his finger on the trigger to just before the point of firing, and then waiting to finish pulling the trigger until that space between exhaling and inhaling when your body is at its most still and thus least likely to cause some waver in the aiming point.  As shown, it doesn't take that long, but it would become heavily redundant since my character is a highly proficient sniper and that's his favored approach.  So I'll shorten things up, quite often.

On the other hand, he also tends to advise his commanding officer on many occasions about strategic objectives, as well as tactical ones, and there is no good way to concisely explain that this bad guy is more valuable alive, as bait to lure in other bad guys, no matter how warranted it would be to execute him publicly. (I mean, I just did, but that's not really presenting an argument, as you have to lay out the rationale behind those positions).

I try to post 'enough'...something that keeps the game moving forward, something that fits the pace and mood at the moment, and something that not only provides further development of my character, but gives others something to play off of to display further development of their character.  And changing up the length of those posts also creates a more interesting rhythm to read, and feels more realistic, as very few of us consistently use the same length of sentences to convey information and feelings when we speak.

And, no, shinanai, you were not the GM I was thinking of when I presented the quote about not stopping characters from dying of their players' stupidity, although I've seen you take very much the same approach...*grin*

Hunter, I'm not sure if we have misinterpreted each others post (hence the relevance of being aware of assumptions!)

For what it's worth, I think we probably agree on some of the underpinning values when one says 'literate' and how that can be elitist and a barrier for others.

Maybe I should clarify what I posted yesterday - I do try to "clue in" people as to what my character is thinking/feeling, but through physical descriptions of how they look/what they're doing, like "<Character> narrows her eyes slightly as she looks at <NPC> and her hand slowly moves toward her waist" as a means of saying "I'm suspicious about that guy and I'm ready for a fight if it comes up (because you guys all know I keep my weapon the belt at my waist)", but without just saying "<Character is suspicious of <NPC>" because how would anyone else know that for sure unless she said so? They can infer it from her expression/actions but they can't necessarily know for certain.

When I referred to playing solo with a GM I meant more like, if my character is off on their own temporarily, or communicating telepathically with some kind of non-player entity. But then the explanations will usually be more OOC, like "I'm saying/doing X because I think/intend Y", as a means to give the GM more info if they might want to ask for a roll or something. If I'm having plans for doing a Cool Thing, I dont mind the GM necessarily knowing about it if they need to, but I like it to be a surprise for the other players when I suddenly, well, do a Cool Thing and get to describe it in a cool way. Like the time I spent several private messages with the GM determining exactly how my turn would play out in a particular combat because it was kind of complicated so we sorted all the rolls "behind the scenes", and then my fellow player just got the last part, where I posted the narrative form of all that faffery and got to see my character explode through a first-floor window and knock a whole load of dudes off a nearby roof and stuff :D.

LOVE this statement. Wish more GM's would reward good play in any form, e.g., quality posting, strategizing, selfless acts, and most of all, good role playing. I've been a part of many games that only award XP for combat kills or casting spells, and it's less than ideal.

In reply to 1492 (msg # 35):

That focus was what kind of drove me away from D&D back in the late 80s/early 90s.  It felt like the only way to achieve character development was by killing monsters and hoarding treasure and it just felt incomplete or artificial in some way.  Combine that with level-based character advancement and it was a bad combination for me.  I didn't stop roleplaying...just found games whose advancement systems felt more natural to me.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 36):

That is understandable, and very interesting. It confirms a long-held belief of mine- i.e., that D&D is a great game... *ONLY IF* it's run by a great DM. Almost without fail, when someone tells me why they quit playing D&D, the reason has to do with how the game was run rather than a flaw inherent to the game itself. I wish more people understood EGG intended the DMG to be merely a "guide" (hence the title), rather than a rule book. That's the key.

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 20):

Yeah, absolutely. I have lost all patience for thousands of words per post about all the precise details of every button or sigh a character makes. The reverse is the minimalist response of “I do X” and that’s it. I fully recognize it’s a preference thing. But it would be so much easier if players just shot for a few dozen to 100 words or so.

In reply to 1492 (msg # 35):

I can't say much, because if I do I'd be breaking forum guidelines; bu t suffice to say I don't GM systems that don't have at least four metrics of value aka reward.

Combat lends itself to violence, so if a character is built to murder and slay than I reward that...with more destructive abilities.

Time lends itself to creation, so if a player is active, as in has post count above threshold, they have options to pursue social or artisan constructs. I Seldom allow both, but make exceptions.

Finally, practice of good table manners, being a friendly person, gets you the best Deck of Many Things a GM could offer. I won't get side tracked, but I value this above most other qualities these days. When I say Deck of Many Things, I don't mean that in some discrete sense, but that I will do you, the player, favors, allow fiat, give a stunt die or bonus, and most of all, give you scenes that feel like a home. The "Deck" is really just a fancy way of saying as luck comes my way IRL, I pass it on to you.

---

If this is off topic, I hope the spoiler will fix this.

---

Spoiler for more on that tangent: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Bear in mind, one doesn't replace another. It shouldn't either. I use KP (Kill Points) for my games that have high fatality rate of antagonists. Which is all I GM for years. Kill Points are spare ammunition. I use Time Units (which I never adjusted to abbreviate despite every prompt to) for stories, and sections of the game. Time Units vary by system, but generally if you can do more, and I (big emphasis on I, as GM) can remain abreast, I'll give you more free reign to handle what are essentially JPCs, joint player characters.

For me, however, if you want to talk your way out of combat, don;t bother getting high Diplomacy in D&D. It won't help the party, just your character. Blood makes the grass grow, and it's uncharacteristic of me to favor one approach over another.

So I let Godsmacking Juggernauts have their immunity. I let world killing spells exist. IF you're in competition with the other PCs, you will probably need to play competitive or find a niche. I need a character to have reason to stay in the story. If they don't have reason to be there, I ignore them. Not as in, don't read their posts, but have the "camera" (Players are the eyes, I am the sight) remain focused on what the scene is about. That's my job.

D&D has it's issues, but one thing I've found is Mulligan and Critical Role have it wrong on Milestone XP. XP is a VERY antiquated feature of D&D. Not just "it's not a number" but leveling without breadth. So I homebrew every game I GM, D&D or otherwise, to allow "...er" or "more" be distinct. Potency is something you can approach "...est" be it strongest, fastest, or whatever. More is something you gain in iterative of.

I lost everything in three years. That is, everything but the memories. So I GM how I was able to be GMed for. Some people don't synch well, and that's not bad news. As long as they're vocal, or answer me, I'm fine to part ways. I despise the practice of "commitment" to a game. I also don't resent it being a practice elsewhere. I also don't like playing literal physical miniatures; my hands shake. I'd rather cook food for the table than paint terrain and figures. I still appreciate these though. BBR has (or had, I haven't checked) a game that I would follow as archives were made. It was often incomplete, but I got a great deal of lessons by just reading his acumen to consistency. Other users are like that. I don't want to be like that, but I appreciate that others can, and I can learn from them. So that said, unless a player is rude, or checks in but doesn't post, I don't ban players. I've had the luck of being banned from GMs' games, only years later for them to join my games, and it was fun. I had a hayday. I never want to weigh the other luxuries I sacrificed for being a gaming addict, with other addicts that outgrew me...only after just shy of 20 years. I like to pass on the love.

---

I have time, my curse and blessing. I spend six hours a day ticing or suffering from OCD. It affords me the ability to have another six for leisure. So that's how I spend it, not in a rush, but on objective based projects. I add to the list, but I have many, many, many more X's out than crisp new ideas (that persist long enough to attempt). I think a objectives should be available for player and characters and for some just one or the other, and for others, both. Some players like the completionist cycle, others just want to do "the one thing". Like "avenge the goblins that killed my parents" I do that right out the gate. No need to waste time. If the character instead wants to kill a god, I pace the objective so they know what to expect. If they get bored in pursuit, I just contact players. Some players don't like that, and so they often leave my games. I also know some players just want a GM to let them do something outrageous. So I have places and stories to foster that.

I, or rather extensions of my physical brain (mental health is the apex of HEALTH. full stop.(, are my biggest hurdle or slog. So it's why I mostly GM.

In reply to V_V (msg # 39):

Good stuff. And I'm sorry about the OCD. I have just a touch of it. Not enough to affect my quality of life, but enough to imagine what it might be like for you. I'm glad you have gaming as an outlet, and thank you for giving your time as a GM. Even though I know what it takes to be a good one, I discovered over the years that I was not very good at it myself. It's very demanding and requires a range of talents, some of which I lack.

In reply to 1492 (msg # 37):

The "kill the monsters and steal the gold" focus of D&D was only one aspect of what I found troublesome about it.  I, in general, don't care for level-based character advancement, probably because my own educational and occupational experience was extremely non-standard once I got into college, and being a chronic jack-of-all-trades made the highly-focused nature of most level-based advancement systems feel somewhat galling to me.  And that was BEFORE I discovered there were RPGs on the market that utilized skills-based advancement or the option to 'buy up' attributes, talents, etc and let you take your character from a generalized archetype to being a truly unique creation.

The notion of HOW the game is run, versus how the rules are written, is applicable to pretty much every game I've played in.  For all that I have kind of developed a distaste for D&D and similar systems, I've found that the right GM can still make them enjoyable to play.  The right GM can even make Palladium fun to play, and that system is a nightmarish morass of rules and guidelines and exceptions and this and that and the other.  And as much as I love the old WEG D6 Star Wars rules, the wrong GM can kill my enthusiasm for it in a heartbeat.  Granted, they'll get more leeway with those rules, because I like those rules, but it can still be done.  I'm very much a believer in the importance of chemistry with any gaming group.  Good chemistry can make it a joy, no chemistry can make it a chore, bad chemistry can make it a unique form of torture, regardless of the system.

Well said!

Agree strongly about chemistry, that everyone quickly feels like friends ooc, characters IC sync well and that they are playing the same game.

Hard to do in this format but definitely possible

After a slew of failed games that have died in the second or third scene in the last few months I'd say it all comes down to feedback.

My players, even though I strongly encourage it, just flat out won't tell if they like pacing, theme or density. Like most GMs here I've been running PbP for a couple of decades and this odd reticence seems to be a frequent new atmosphere where people just don't seem to like sharing personal thoughts or observations.

Most GMs like to be flexible and to run a game their players will like but to do so they need to know what that is and me and other PbP GMs I've talked to just aren't getting any feedback.

A nice guy I talk to on Discord just went silent and when asked why he eventually said "I didn't like my character". I mean, come on, that's the first thing you let a GM know.

I’ve noticed that trend but from the side of GMs not communicating or simply not being present. And not just in rpol, seems to be a wider issue in the role play community at large. I had a rant about ghosting. People seem to be dead set on avoiding communication at all cost.

Absolutely.
Ghosting has always been the bane of PBPs and it seems to have become socially acceptable. I also run Roll20 games and some of my Roll20 players ghosted my RPOL games, and still have given no reason why. When I asked they seemed upset that I asked.

The flip side of that is to bear in mind that some people feel uncomfortable doing what, to them, seems like "complaining".

A player that isn't happy with their character might come from a background of being told 'Tough Strudel' when they complained about the same thing previously (especially if they built said character), and might expect the same again. Some people might have been vocal in the past but been told they 'complained too much', or something similar. (The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but if it squeaks too much even after being greased, it gets replaced.)

So, if someone seems like they're not participating and they're not having fun - the onus is on GMs at the first indication of them not having fun - to ask "Hey, are you still having fun? Is there something we can do to make it so you're having MORE fun?" and open that dialogue because the players might not be comfortable opening it on their own. When you're in the role of GM, think of yourself as being the adult in the room, taking care of the "kids".

That's a fascinating statement to read. I have only been on this site for a couple of years, and I've only played in a handful of games, but many of the GM's I've encountered strongly discourage feedback. The way it typically happens is one or two players will offer feedback early on, and the response they get is along the lines of, "This is my game and I run it the way I run it. If you don't like it, perhaps you should find another game." Naturally, no one offers much feedback after that.

Perhaps my experience is the exception rather than the rule. But I offer it up to you because you may need to clearly communicate to the players that you want their feedback, and remind them from time to time when you feel like it's gotten too quiet. Some players (like me), would need that encouragement to feel comfortable speaking up.

I've asked for feedback in games I have run and gotten little response.
I get the impression that the opinion was, "I'm not sure but I'll know it when I see it."
So, you end up trying to guess what others will like based on very little feedback.
Then, when people drop from the game, you never really know why.

 I think, for me... Failure to start 'with a bang'. That doesn't have to mean combat, bit a game should open kind of like a Bond Movie, with a high-stress situation that is well within the capacity of the characters to survive, this gives everyone a chance to get a handle on who their characters are under pressure, gives everyone something to talk about other than their backgrounds, and lets the GM see how they react to problems early.

 Plus, I'm not going to lie, in media res starts like 'You're all in a bar and it's on fire (you're not sure whose fault it is)' just seem to be more fun to me than 'you're all in a bar, what do you do?'

My kid started the very first D&D game they ran with 'You're all in jail, having been arrested for having a bar fight. What do you do?' just to avoid the standard 'Everyone walks into a bar'.

Off-topic, I know, but that one always made me giggle.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:25, Tue 11 July 2023.

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 51):

 The only way that prompt could have been better is if it had been 'What did you do?' ^_^

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 51):

That sounds like a GREAT way to start an adventure!  If nothing else, it gives you an immediate chance to decide (and demonstrate) whether your character's going to be a good, law-abiding citizen who trusts the system, a conscientious objector who doesn't want to be in trouble but also doesn't like being a victim of the system, or a straight-up bad boy.

You can always let the players decide if their characters were the ones who started the fight, or if they jumped in on it, or if they were just minding their own business and the local gendarmerie got a little overzealous in rounding up troublemakers and they're suffering guilt by association.

There's a lot to be said for an in media res start to a game.  One of my favorite tabletop gaming campaigns in college started with the GM having each individual player go through their own solo session, and mine was very much plunging right into the action immediately...I can't speak to the others, as I didn't sit in on their sessions, but the callbacks to those sessions that came up over the course of the campaign sure made it feel like they'd been through the gauntlet in their own turn, too.

 I ran a tabletop Shadowrun game where it starts with me saying "

I'll tell it to you straight. I don't know what successful run you just had.
I don't know what you had on you two minutes ago.
Where you   were.
Who you were with.
I don't know none of that.
I do know you are now waking up on stone slabs, in a place that it totally different from where you last remember...

Oh, and you are naked.

Good luck."

That is how I GMed a totally unplanned Shadowrun game that I didn't initially know I was going to be GMing, and didn't have time to deal with any of the anxiety that can come up with face-to-face games in real life round the table. Some players need to stop thinking of you as a blindguy, and rather as a guy that doesn't see. The difference is important, and is easier  online.

What can slow down a game.

Let me tell you something I do that is important. I make sure the DM knows that my handle is literal.  If said DM runs an image based map heavy game, then I should, or another blind person on RPOL should not join your game. We can do text  based maps just fine, well, pretty well with periodic questions, but we cannot do image based maps. Do not tell them that you use image based maps, but then say its not a big deal, if you use them heavily for the game, because it will become a big deal later.    The game will slow.  Someone's going to get frustrated.

I have to say I am loving the discussion on feedback and it possibly warrants a discussion of its own.  I'm someone who when GM'ing absolutely would welcome feedback but I think the history of roleplaying has led to a some factors that inhibit it.

Of course, the scenarios I share are the extremes and real people are in the spaces between.  On one hand we have the GM of the absolute master and arbiter of everything.  There are decades of books which tell GMs they are in charge of the story, they are the decision maker and they create the world and story.  And decades later we have GMs who are judge, jury and executioner of everything.  There are some games on here that no matter how interesting the premise I wouldn't touch due to the vibe the GM gives off.

....and I kind of get it, because most stories start of as a GM vision of what the world, players and story is and no matter what this largely exists in their head.  The single thing that ruins a GMs vision is the players encountering it!

On the other hand there are GMs who either see themselves as an active and equal collaborator in the story - this still runs into the player interpretation of the world, but players often expect or need direction because they can't see into the GM's brain.

There is little that a player can do about a GM that accepts no feedback and goes 'my game, my rules, my vision'.  But I do think good GM's actively seek feedback.

This is especially important where challenging subject matter is involved, but regular check ins early on about whether people feel the story is what they expected and that their character is involved doing what they expect are pretty important.  It doesn't mean the GM needs to change everything depending on what players say but there may be things they haven't seen or spotted.

It's sad but the first time a GM knows there is a problem is when someone ghosts or leaves so it's important to build feedback loops early.

None of this is a dig at GMs either.  It's often a thankless task trying to create a fun game and managing the dynamics of players and expectations early on.

In my admittedly limited experience, that attitude is based more on the personality of the GM than on any advice they've received from any books.  All of the gaming books that I've seen have encouraged GMs to adopt a flexible style and collaborate with the players...yes, they have to be in charge of the story, but they can still allow for some give and take.

I say that because the GMs I've played with who have probably read the most books and guidelines on how to be a GM are often the most collaborative and least dictatorial in their approach to running the game.  But most of them are also pretty easy-going outside of the gaming environment, as well, while those whose iron-fisted take on GMing seem to have a narrower focus on what gaming material they've read and also tend to be a lot more uptight in life as a whole.

That said, I've had extremely good luck in choosing GMs, overall (and the bad choices were blessedly short experiences, either through their choices or mine leading to my rapid departure from the game), so my perceptions on the matter are definitely colored by those good experiences.

In reply to bazhsw (msg # 55):

There's a reason that I've always adopted the moniker of Storyteller rather than Game Master.   Too many GMs (and players) treat a game as competitive or (even worse) confrontational.   It's no "us vs him" but rather "us and him".

I've had just one bad GM when it comes to feedback/being in charge - they had asked for players for a new game and a bunch of us joined and made characters and were looking forward to starting. A week passed, then another, and I'm not sure how much more time. I remember some of us were chatting in the OOC thread to sort of keep things going (not that the game had started yet), meanwhile the GM was insistent on finishing doing their worldbuilding/preparation in the background rather than starting the game.

I remember making a post to the effect of "It's okay, you don't need to feel like you have to create the entire world in one go - just do the bit that's near wherever we are, so we can start, and then you can be doing the rest in the background as we go. It's not like we'll notice, and it saves us waiting around even longer - otherwise why have us join this early?". Logged in the next day to find I'd been removed from the game entirely(!?) and there was a post from the GM in a/the OOC thread (which at least was Group Zero so I could see it :P) saying how they would do this in their own time, everything had to be perfect by their own standards, and that I was wrong to have brought it up. Felt like they were "making an example" of me for daring to even ask. Anyway, unsurprisingly the game fell apart pretty much straight away. This was several years ago now but I still have no intention of every playing under that GM if they ever come up again.

When I'm GMing a game myself, I like getting feedback - I want to know if the players are having fun, what specifically they enjoy (or not), so what kind of content I can come up with that will continue the fun bits and improve on anything that people might not be enjoying. The last campaign I was running at tabletop, I'd ask at the end of each session what the players thought and the answer was pretty much always a generic sort of "Yeah, it was good". Would've liked things more detailed than that, but it did always kind of feel like I was more enthusiastic about the game than they were. At the end of each session they'd pack up to go home as though we'd been playing any other random board game. Just felt a bit sort of discouraging, though I did also ask them stuff between sessions. One player did give some more information, at least. Game ended up on forced hiatus thanks to the pandemic/lockdown and though we tried, it basically fizzled out and died :(.

I am not surprised that game fizzled out Ameena and that does sound quite an unpleasant experience.  It feels like a bullet dodged and perhaps in hindsight the GM shouldn't have opened up to players yet if they wanted things 'just so'.  Even if they weren't comfortable starting a message to you along the lines of asking you to be patient is infinitely better than 'making an example' of you.  It did make an example - of how they would treat any player who didn't fit their rigid way of thinking.

The unfortunate flip side of that is that players prepare for a game at wildly varying speeds.

So, a GM that's used to having a slew of players that take weeks to finalize every nitty-gritty detail of their characters might factor in that time for themselves, only to find that this time they have a handful of players that blaze through creation and have a character ready to play inside of 24 hours. I've found that what helps curtail some of that is to have a set 'The game will start on X day' deadline, so that the fast people aren't expecting anything quicker, and the slow people know when they have to be done by.

That said, I -abhor- when players try to rush the GM. I've certainly never removed a player for or advocated for them to be removed for that (nor have I ever encountered players trying to rush a game start), but (using a recent example), if the GM says "We're going to move to X phase on Y day", and players start making IC "hurry up" posts (inner thoughts wondering what's taking so long, etc, etc, AFTER being told when things would happen), well...Y day starts moving further back on the calendar.

That's just rude and inconsiderate isn't it?  If a GM has said, 'this will happen on this day', others trying to hurry things along from the sidelines is quite disrespectful.

A lot of problems could be managed easier with a little respect, give and take and generally being cool with people.  Sadly in a text format that's easy to be misses.

For perspective.

In reply to Ameena (msg # 58):

Was going to edit, don't want to delete, but don't want to rehash, nor certainly open up another can. I'll make this germane and cover the two points. Three points, I was that GM. Then two points.

So to sum this up. 4e has players that like knowing classes. I know military veterans out of uniform in my county. I know users by system. If RL people have classes, I know most of those without needing ever be one of one, I know the fighters, the rogues, the monks, and wishful but impotent clerics. In D&D, way more than what what a (good) book would explain, or descriptuion would fit, avails most ambiguity. Yeah, maybe not a fighter, but paladins and barbarians, and all the other muscular characters have another mien. Maybe not a rogue, but then they must not be a well equipped fighter. Players felt this "class" was ostensible to character. All but one.

Most players want 4e to be about good group synergy. For 4e being most hated edition, I only rejected three RTJs. All but one, total, wanted to have group balance, and I should have done that as GM. Three of the five pushed for open group sharing, one outright expected it, and wanted to start having been a team.

I had a lot of PMs from two players that took my time away. Which is expected. Reading mostly, but also typing replies. However, these PMs grew to forty posts long. One lamenting OOC spillover, from another with more and more new ideas. It got old to say no, so I found new ways. Eventually I needed to divide and focus on two baskets. I didn't. Instead all but one egg broke in the basket. Being a Kenku, this hit you hardest. You were unique, but the cost was being outcast. Survival is about fitting in, not being in healthy fitness.

I moved platforms, since "Immediate" and "[No" Actions were easuier. Finally, after questions were player to player and not to me, I let the PCs start their own planning while I eavesdropped every once in a while, but finished my planning inn days, not weeks, being able to paint what I saw and not explain what I was painting.. We played in slow real time, but seconds not hours latency. Usually at least. ISP sometimes made that hard, but it would for RPoL ten times more.

The game did go on. Sacrifices were made. Lessons learned. Prime objective complete though.

As for playing with you Ameena, when I did (It's been two years since I played ANY game on RPoL) I enjoyed it. You posted in a IC thread, and when you were introduced, I knew it was you because you were a Kenku...and posted in the IC thread. You also were posting paraphrasing of expressions. You didn't read .every post, as you admitted, and just skimmed over what you deamed your character would know. That's all. I connected four degrees of qualities. The Bacon number is 1. Four degrees isn't that hard though. That's 2^3 or 8. With the turn out though, it might as well be 1 in a million. So if you avoid me, sorry to say, we've played well together. If you avoid me as a GM, yeah. I get that. That's a good thing. For you, but also for me. I don't avoid you though. I avoid some users, you're not one.

I hope that covers the germane mostly, but also the boastful attitude is toned, and exclusion shown to be selective, deductive and pragmatic, not creepy, dogmatic, nor obsessive.

If not, WE can refer to the lack of "necessity" citations following but predated. If so, however, I'm glad I had the chance correct my error. Even if not for all, then for some.
This message was last edited by the user at 11:10, Fri 21 July 2023.

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 60):

I have a chronic tendency to start a game without any real planning; which I suspect is the real reason that most of my games fail.   Realistic expectations (usually stated up front) and communication (between players as well as player/GM) tend to be the key to a successful game.

None of this was necessary. Nobody knew what the game was or which GM was running it. Rather, this comes off as petty under the pretense of "giving another perspective." Also, a bit creepy on the side of "I know who you were in another game as well."

In general, I am never going to start a game and advertise for players if I am not ready yet. People have different styles, sure... but maybe not advertise for a game if you're still in the middle of building a module from scratch?

Agree, there were a lot of very public receipts being delivered which feels unecessary when we are discussing what stops / slows games down

In reply to shinanai (msg # 64):

A lot of players and GMs want the game to be tailored to the specific PCs who will be in the game. That makes it really hard, if not impossible, to have the game done and ready to go before knowing what PCs will actually be in the game.

In reply to liblarva (msg # 66):

That is not an issue. I would argue it is much easier to prepare a little bit for the beginning of the campaign and work on the major bulk via PBP than actual sessions in real life. And yet I have managed to do that for both PBP and live games. Mind you, I do understand that some GMs need longer than others. Still, there is preparation... and then there is writing a railroad. Let's be honest... how many of you had plans for the player characters in their game and then have the characters go completely off the rails and do something entirely else, forcing you to improvise the story anyway?

Either way, it's besides the point. There was no need to provide public receipts about whatever happened between these two, because ultimately we don't know. We weren't there. And there is no reason to believe one over the other. At least Ameena kept it vague.
This message was last edited by the user at 14:39, Thu 13 July 2023.

Oh I knew it was you, V. I haven't forgotten. Just didn't want to mention names because it didn't seem fair and I didn't want to acciedntally break some rule about being too specific. But unceremoniously removing me from a game, with no warning and no opportunity to explain myself/say goodbye to the other players, just because I politely suggested that maybe we get started because it had been weeks of waiting?
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was in need of a minor tweak, at 17:59, Thu 13 July 2023.

Literally never. I don’t run games like that. I run open-world sandboxes. I don’t make plans for what the PCs do. It’s not up to me. I run the world, the players run their PCs. If there is any story it will be purely emergent from game play. I prep NPCs, situations, locations, etc. The players are free to engage with any of it, in any order, for however long, in whatever way they choose. I come up with problems and obstacles for the PCs to face, the players come up with the solutions. It’s slightly more work but it’s wildly less stressful.

*gives the topic a LIKE*

LMAO, I think we went way off-topic by now...

In reply to shinanai (msg # 67):

I have to say, having joined a few of shinanai's games, that she's really good about adapting what she's already got on paper for the players who turn up to actually play.  One game I joined, there was pretty much no way for her to prepare in advance for the characters, as it was a game where she was encouraging players to basically 'port in' characters from other games to a world she had created, so she was faced with a literal grab-bag of miscellaneous characters and had to figure out how to incorporate them into her world.

In one of her games, she actually had her world-building done months before I had my character ready (it was a bad time for me to join a game, because of work commitments).

I'm not going to weigh in on a wrong vs right, in that regard...I'm a firm believer that every GM should run their game the way they want to run it.  I'm also a firm believer that if the GM's style is a bad fit for the player, the player should feel free to bail out.

And there's a big difference between generalized complaining about the way an anonymous GM handled conflicting styles with their players, and specifically calling someone to the carpet in a public forum.  That's all I'm going to say on that subject.

Aside from returning it back to the OP.  Bad chemistry with a GM or other players can really slow a game down in a hurry.  The moment that composing a post starts to feel like a chore, instead of something fun, I'm automatically not going to be as eager to keep updating the game.  That stuff cools my enthusiasm WAY down.  It's one thing to be hesitant because you don't know the other players or GM and you're not sure how your stuff is going to come across...I'm talking about bad chemistry, as opposed to no chemistry.  When you feel like there's hostility at the other end of the connection, it's really easy to just stay away from that connection.

In reply to bazhsw (msg # 61):

This is a very appreciated post. I did want to say that succinctly. Aggregate, my players in current games cooperate and help in time frames. I didn't want a good word to go unpraised.

In reply to liblarva (msg # 66):

This is also better said than I tried in the pre-edit.

---

I make the "who" and "where". Players individually tell me the "Why" and together the "How". All of us, GM and players get the big topic, the "What". I start my submissions with a "what" but that's loose., and the big meaty question everyone gets some of.



This quote I 99% agree with. Unfortunately four games, out of about 400 were this way. So I can't truly say never. Not far off though. Railroads are stories. I have events and characters. Even when I wrote for Living Greyhawk: I gave opportunity and events, you could live, and cap out with minimal loss, but minimal gain. I also co-wrote them. So I was not the only pen in hand on the page.

I will edit my my previous post, as I did this one, in a couple days. Simply because most of it's not germane it can be pared down. Most of it wasn't necessary, I concede some was. Some really was. So I'll keep the necessary, and forfeit the unnecessary. I'll leave the post that's up now, unchanged for a couple days. Then I'll pare it to clean up a mess. Made or mixed. Sole or partial.
This message was last edited by the user at 08:12, Fri 14 July 2023.

I'm almost right there with you. The only time it's ever happened for me is because my players, those pastry-making muffin-fiends, specifically requested something, then changed their minds.

Open-world sandbox like always, a few months into the campaign, the party decides "Hey, that player-driven quest to find the artifact weapon was really fun, lets go collect some more artifacts!" So I spend the next couple weeks putting together a list of artifacts, where they are, and some dungeon prep to go with them. Next time we get together, "Hey! You know what we should do? We should go to [wasteland technohell] and try to rebuild a spaceship!"

Fruiters.