PbP Styles

[Longman]

I'm starting this thread so I don't fill up Metroknight's recruitment thread with off topic stuff.

Woe wrote:
LM: I draw my scimitar and castrate the orc chieftain, deftly sweeping the clan jewels up into the air. With a flourish, I decapitate the nearby witch doctor just in time for the falling nuts to lodge into the carotid artery, ending the fountain of blood. With a roar, I turn to the rest of the clan and yell "WHO'S NEXT!"
Metro: You miss.


Yep.

I had a similar conversation with Delver on his PbP game lately. It's hard to narrate action in combat when you don't know what's going to happen, or how you rolled.

Out of combat it's even more tricky, in a way. One person posts an action that lasts 10 seconds and the next person talks about what they do the following morning. Hellooo consistency.

But the payoff is that the scenes can be much grander.

The more mechanical style of "players declare intentions, DM describes all results" suits my personal game style as both a GM and a player. I like deep role-playing when I can get it, but that's usually when people are making plans (or, killing each other). In combat, if someone just says "I get my cutlass and attack the nearest critter," that's fine too. It keeps the game moving, for a start.

If I was going to do full text immersion stuff on PbP it would be a mystery / investigation game where players had to figure out a series of tricks or riddles or something. Almost no combat or dice rolls. It would be just players thinking and talking.

[Metroknight]

In my pbp game there are behind the scene converstaions going for combat and it is that behind the scene talk that speeds combat up. Shown below is the posted prior to combat as a lead in.

Gerred's name is called out and another person's name is called out. This person looks to be a simple farmer who is not familiar with the bunts. Jonas moves out towards the center with his shield held tightly against his chest and the padded bunt hanging loosely to his side. “Hi, I'm Jonas” the man calls out to Gerred while nervously, holding his spot, waiting on Gerred.

Then the behind the scene (pm's) talk about the combat. I use a 5 rounds of proposed action and rolls for each round for everyone (one on one combat right now) which makes it go rather quick so far.

(posted game text)
Gerred's name is called out and another person's name is called out. This person looks to be a simple farmer who is not familiar with the bunts. Jonas moves out towards the center with his shield held tightly against his chest and the padded bunt hanging loosely to his side. “Hi, I'm Jonas” the man calls out to Gerred while nervously, holding his spot, waiting on Gerred.

---mechanics and proposed actions broken down per round of combat. Try to break down your rolls and proposed actions in a similar manner then we can hammer out the post real easy.----

Jonas : hp 4, AB0, AC14 Damage 1

Metroknight rolls repeat 5 1d6; 1d20; 1d1 = 5; 19; 1; 6; 16; 1; 3; 4; 1; 3; 5; 1; 1; 18; 1 (5);(19);(1);(6);(16);(1);(3);(4);(1);(3);(5);(1);(1);(18);(1) #Jonas attacks for 5 rounds
----------
Round 1: Initiative 5, Hits AC19, Does 1 point of damage
Jonas holds his ground till Gerred appears to commit to the attack then steps in with a flurry of sloppy blows which one slips by Gerred's defense and clips his ribs.

Round 2: Initiative 6, Hits AC16, Does 1 point of damage
Jonas presses his attack and lands another blow on Gerred's shoulder.

Round 3: Initiative 3, Hits AC 4, Does no damage
Jonas's press of the attack caused him to be off balance and miss his swing.

Round 4: Initiative 3, Hits AC 5, Does no damage
Jonas backpedals while wildly swinging his bunt and misses

Round 5: Initiative 1, Hits AC 18, Does 1 point of damage
Getting himself under control, Jonas braces himself and picks his moment to attack and lands a solid thwack on Gerred

"Gerred." He responds to jonas gruffly sizing up his opponent and taking up a loose fighting stance, bunt raised.

Gerred: hp 3, AC 15, damage 4.

Round one, Initiative 3 hits AC 7 does no damage
Gerred sizes up his opponent and then oeaps at him slashing with his padded sword at jonas's chest but misses by a few inches.

Round two, Initiative 4, hits AC 21 does 4 damage
Following up on his fist attack, Gerred exchanges a few deliberate heavy blows with jonas before executing a novice parry-riposte, landing a heavy solid hit on jonas's side.

round three, initiative 7, hits AC 14 does 4 damage
Pressing his advantage upon seeing jonas loose balance Gerred aims a strike at his chest, stabbing forwards and connecting with a muffled thump, jolting jonas back slightly.

round four initiative 3 hits AC 5, does no damage
Gerred strikes at jonas but misjudges the distance and only scrapes across his opponents shield.

Round five, initiative 8, hits AC 13 does no damage
Gerred lunges again but misses.

As a GM I compare each rounds results and decide on the end of combat (round 2 in this case) and if the winner gets to write the story for that combat. Now group combat is going to be different but should not be to much.

Gerred wins in round 2 with a knock out blow (you did 4 points in that round) so you get to write up & post the fight scene (round 1 and 2). You have the basics of Jonas' actions so good luck.

Ignore everything after round 2 as they did not happen since Gerred won the fight in two rounds.

Then the posted result is seen

"Gerred." He responds to jonas gruffly sizing up his opponent and taking up a loose fighting stance, bunt raised. "We're not here to talk, have at you!"

Jonas waits fora second,then charges quickly at Gerred, the frequency of his blows making up for the inaccuracy, he slashes past Gerred's defences and lands a solid blow,clipping Gerred's ribs.

Gerred circles cautiously, watching, tensely, sizing up his opponent. He pretends to let his guard down fainting to the right and then leaps forwards suddenly, straight towards Jonas stabbing at his chest with the padded sword but Jonas twists to avoid it, narrowly missing by a few inches and going past his chest.

emboldened by his successful hit, Jonas then follows up on his attack, landing an overhead blow on Gerred's shoulder and pushing him back slightly.

Jonas jumps at Gerred wildly flailing his bunt and with a resounding Thwack! Gerred catches him in mid-air across the torso pushing him backwards onto the ground, winding Jonas and leaving him temporarily unable to stand. Jonas struggles for a brief few seconds to get back up on his feet but then gives up and concedes.

[Longman]

That's an interesting approach.

I can totally see it working in ring fighting with one on one combatants, or even with some group fights, and with limited magic.

In the game I am currently running I think that style would be really tough to organize. If the magic user decides to caste 'slow' or 'web' in round 2, and the victim failed their save, suddenly the whole nature of the encounter would change and everyone would want to change their stated actions accordingly. In those situations I feel like I have to play it round by round, so people can change their decided course of actions based on one event in the previous round.

Apart from the workability of combat resolution combat techniques, there's the issue of readability. In text immersion games, it seems like the narrative is supposed to be pretty clear and uncluttered. But I am not really aiming at play thread that can be read like a narrative. I think the narrative will exist in the player's minds, or maybe in recaps that I write up later, but not in the play thread itself. So, my play thread can be a real mess, and I don't mind that so much.

[Metroknight]

I agree and it is something I'm working on but for now the pm's work. I might just go back to an old way of pbp that I use to do. It is posting the mechanics at the end of the post if needed in it's own little field like the using the code function so it is separate and easy to see that it is just a mechanics roll. This method keeps the fluff text above while supplying the needed mechanics below.

[Woe]

You can combine both options by first stating the desired action, then having the literary types edit their posts with the outcomes. Something like this:

Longman: I attack with my scimitar.
Metro: Your rolls for the next three rounds are 20, 20, 18. Mine are 6, 3, 2. You also won initiative.

After Longman is done thanking the dice gods, he completely edits his post with the more descriptive passage.

Longman (edited post): I mightily attack with my scimitar. (add more text here)
Metro (edited post): Seeing you slaughter the chieftain and witch doctor is too much for the remaining tribespeople. They flee in terror, often falling over each other trying to get away from you.

[Delver]

I had a similar conversation with Delver on his PbP game lately. It's hard to narrate action in combat when you don't know what's going to happen, or how you rolled.

Out of combat it's even more tricky, in a way. One person posts an action that lasts 10 seconds and the next person talks about what they do the following morning. Hellooo consistency.

But the payoff is that the scenes can be much grander.

That's been a topic I've spent many brain cells trying to figure out. The problem, in many ways, boils down to getting all of the players to post consistently. Some posting lengthy third-person narratives and others posting first person one-liners makes for a tougher reconciliation by the GM.

I find that certain players get all bent out of shape when another player takes liberties with their characters, but they don't find anything wrong with stepping all over the GM's characters or how the story might unfold... Being a good PbP player means that - no matter your preferred writing style - you leave the intent hanging. The GM should return the favor by resolving that intent, based on dice and rules, and then allowing the player a chance to frame it or personalize it, or put it in his own words.

As a GM, I'm working on that last part. I've been trying to get the players to narrate how something looks after I resolve if they are successful or not. It's a deliberate dance, and once players get the hang of it, and get used to how the GM will return the spotlight back to them, they understand they'll have much more literary freedom if they don't try to resolve their own rolls/actions/etc.

Here's a good example of Longman's style and my more narrative style. Longman's character is Korak the half-orc barbarian in a tag team cage-match against Melissa the Mangler.

Korak rolled 6 using 1d6+1 with rolls of 5. Round 5 initiative.

Korak recovered quickly from his missed attack, but the mangler was fast and he knew she'd easily get in another attack before he did.

He remembered the words of his old battle teacher, Mengros.

Make Your Death Count.

Straight at the Mangler he went, again...

Korak rolled 23 using 1d20+7 ((16)).
Korak rolled 6 damage using 1d4+5 ((1)).
Why do I always roll 1 for damage?

When her brutish partner hit the deck in a stupor from Agelia's mace, a wild look came to the eyes of Melissa the Mangler. With a shriek of frustration that might have curled the scales of a dragon, she showed the wildly cheering crowd how she'd earned her name! The coiled whip shot out like a streak of fanged, black lightning. The snake-like cracker struck the mighty Korak in the shoulder, just missing his huge neck. The fangs bit deeply, injecting a foul venom before tearing out a large chunk of the meat!

Melissa the Mangler rolled 25,4 using d20+5,d3+1 ((20,3)). Critical Hit! Korak takes 8 damage!

Melissa raised her hand to activate her talisman once more, but never had the chance to complete the task. Korak, a slave to the red rage of the Morrig, fought on with a strength and intensity that was nearly inhuman! His horrific wound hardly bled, though it should have been pumping out plenty of his precious life-blood. A moment later the reason became clear as voracious, small, shiny black worms began to hungrily emerge! The Mangler's whip had taken its toll on the powerful half-orc, but it had not been enough to stop him nor to allow her to escape his raging wrath!

Melissa the Mangler, rolled 3 using 1d3+1 ((2)).Please Save vs Poison... So at 0hp, your Diehard class ability kicks in... Korak's still on his feet and raging! Feel free to narrate the violent conclusion to this match up! Victory!

Then Longman follows up with a narrative of Korak's finishing move:

Korak rolled 10 using 1d20 with rolls of 10. Save vs poison.
Korak rolled 20 using 1d20 ((20)). Korak save to end rage.

Korak leaped upon the mangler, the whip still attached to his body, and grabbed her firmly by the forearm. And then pulled. HARD.

There was an excruciating crunching sound as the woman's shoulder tore right from it's socket. She went down, shrieking in pain. He kicked her in the head for good measure.

Then, reeling in pain and confusion, the half-orc heard Bodric's voice call out, just in time. He'd been about to advance on Agelia, thinking to rip her stern, pretty eyes out. But the dwarf's voice brought him snapping back to reality.

'Gods of the Stony Fields, that dwarf is annoying,' growled the half-orc. 'Can you do something about this wound, Agelia? I really don't want the crowd to see me pass out...'

Hopefully that exchange can show how two different styles (This is actually fairly wordy for a Longman IC post, I must be rubbing off on him!) can mesh together very well, while still allowing the GM to adjudicate and the player to own it.

I'll just add that a GM must figure out how to mesh with each of his players in a PbP, and that's not always easy. I have one player in this game who could care very little about rules or mechanics and is there mostly for the story. I give that player much more latitude with narrative when he steps over in my territory than I do with other players who are either more experienced or have a better understanding of the rules. It's a give and take.

Finally, the time for training a new player to the game is at the very beginning. Expectations must be laid out early on, and limits discussed as soon as they come up. Otherwise it's much harder to change later on.

Gaming is for entertainment, and PbP games - by nature - are a very mixed bag. A GM should try to make the game personally entertaining to each of the players, and other players should try to make things entertaining for each other. Good group dynamics are tough to come by sometimes, difficult to develop, but extremely rewarding when it accomplished successfully.

[Delver]

One more thing I meant to touch on...

I shy from editing posts as much as possible. Many players either forget, or simply just don't go back and re-read modified posts. Instead, I like to see things resolved and narrated from previous posts while keeping the story inching forward with each new post. PbP can be so slow that constant progress is a must.

[Longman]

I agree with much of that, Delver, but I will point out that when I picked up Korak, we were in combat, so I grew to know him through playing him at what he does best. I think combat - especially group combat - melds a party way quicker than talking about backgrounds or objectives.

Many of my initial posts in your game were pretty short. Many still are. I suppose I am prepared to do some narrative stuff if everyone else is doing it...but as a PbP DM, I wouldn't want to force it. (Also, Korak is taking up pretty much all the energy I have for that style and I could not run another character that way, in someone else's PbP.)

I've struggled in a few PbPs here and elsewhere, in which every post is expected to contain full narrative, and to expand on my character and his or her past, somehow. Sometimes, I just want to be a guy swinging a sword or holding a torch or opening a door, or whatever. If I do that for a while, then I can start to develop a real agenda. And that means making significant choices about what I decide to do.

Also, I don't mind at all if characters in my game are developed in lots of small ways rather than through constant character exposition.

We have a monk in my current game whose posts are usually pretty short and mechanical, but every now and again they contain the odd tidbit like: "This would have been easier with cups of tea and the weapons sheathed", or "Only fools do not know when to run away."

I like that kind of stuff. It does build up character, slowly but effectively.

[Woe]

I've struggled in a few PbPs here and elsewhere, in which every post is expected to contain full narrative, and to expand on my character and his or her past, somehow. Sometimes, I just want to be a guy swinging a sword or holding a torch or opening a door, or whatever. If I do that for a while, then I can start to develop a real agenda. And that means making significant choices about what I decide to do.

I'm the same way about character exposition. I can't cough up a character background that I like on the spot, and I prefer to play the character for a few weeks to decide the personality. A little bit here and there, and I start realizing what the background will be.

I do like to get to the full narrative, eventually. If the posts are predominantly the longwinded narratives, I feel that the game has a richer background, multiple story arcs, and an epic atmosphere. If it's primarily mechanical (your term), it eventually feels to me that I'm in a dungeon crawl, focused primarily on survival/loot, and a bit more min/maxy than changing the world.

It's fantasy role-playing, so I prefer the opportunity to change the world -- usually to a better place, but occasionally I play evil.

[Delver]

I spent some time last night reading through Longman's game here, and I got the feeling after a while like I was a silent watcher at their table. The way he and his players describe, in basically real time, what they're doing, what's happening, etc. is much different than the "story" style I prefer, but it was a lot of fun to read nonetheless. I can see how that style could be much more laid back. For the casual gamer, it seems like it would move along more quickly.

Communication is the key. I've had some misunderstandings in my games from time to time, because I thought what I wrote to describe a scene was sufficient, only to find out the characters got something completely different. So then I needed to go back and do some "table-talk" style of explanation anyway.

So I suppose those of us who enjoy writing will gravitate toward the narrative style and those who enjoy less of that will tend toward the descriptive style.

This is an interesting conversation (at least for me) because it adds a whole other layer to a player's preferences. I've had a few players wander away from my game in the past, and maybe it's because the game style was just not working for them. Story good, character good, everything good, but sitting down to actually hammer out a post wasn't working... hmmm... I learn a lot from reading through other games. Hopefully it will make my games better!