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?'