Looking for PBEM
- Thread starter Tarondor
- Start date
Post and summary Format is when you post normally, then after anumber of post the ref will put all those post's up untill the last summary int one big post( deleting unneedy bits, Personally it hard to maintain so I'm not going to do it in my Upcoming PBEM(Just simple posting on a Group. Do not need lots of Adresses as so many find, You post what you do on the group instead of E-mailing. The only problem is that is on Yahoo groups so you need a yahoo Account of some sort.
nat
nat
That's right. Every Traveller PBEM I've seen has the various players posting independently, and then the Ref summarizes the posts. Tedious and somewhat solopsistic, in my opinion.
On the other hand, most PBEMs I've played in or GM'd (for D&D and Amber) take one of two styles. The traditional approach is simple e-mail, with players posting to the GM and to other players involved in the scene. Each player or the GM deletes a little old stuff off the top and then adds his actions or words onto the bottom. The Amber PBEM I've run for five years works that way. So do most of the D&D PBEMs I've been in (none now).
The second method, for which I am gaining an increasing respect, is actually PBMB (Play by Message Board). Each player has his own password-protected forum for placing his character sheet, notes to the GM and whatnot. The main forum is for the action in the game and other forums are for game information, house rules, maps, etc. This is the method I'd use for any online Traveller game I were to run.
So, I was asking whether anyone was running a game using one of these two methods. I don't think I'd enjoy a game using the post-and-summary method.
Tarondor
On the other hand, most PBEMs I've played in or GM'd (for D&D and Amber) take one of two styles. The traditional approach is simple e-mail, with players posting to the GM and to other players involved in the scene. Each player or the GM deletes a little old stuff off the top and then adds his actions or words onto the bottom. The Amber PBEM I've run for five years works that way. So do most of the D&D PBEMs I've been in (none now).
The second method, for which I am gaining an increasing respect, is actually PBMB (Play by Message Board). Each player has his own password-protected forum for placing his character sheet, notes to the GM and whatnot. The main forum is for the action in the game and other forums are for game information, house rules, maps, etc. This is the method I'd use for any online Traveller game I were to run.
So, I was asking whether anyone was running a game using one of these two methods. I don't think I'd enjoy a game using the post-and-summary method.
Tarondor
Seems like the Ref will need to do some summarization in order to make sure that things appear in the right order.
Using a message board doesn't preclude someone from using the post and summary method which you dislike. We use a Yahoo Group! which provides much of the functionality that you indicated, but as the Ref, I still end up doing some summarization of what the characters have done (and results).
Ron
Tarondor,
Going with a non-"post and summary" route sounds like it would tend to lead toward a freeform collaborative writing effort, instead of a moderated game.
I have a concern, probably unfounded, but one nonetheless. Without some form of collation of data and moderation of input, a particular insensitive player could simply write everyone else into a corner, perhaps driven by enthusiasm and too much free time. I assume, though, that my fears are ungrounded, since you've been running such a game successfully for 5 years.
So, how do you manage conflicting posts under your method? (Conflicting could either be between player actions or between a player's action and the GM's plan.) Please understand that I am asking this because I'm curious, and no insult or derogation is intended in my words. I am just having some problems visualizing your method, and seek understanding.
Thanks,
Flynn
Going with a non-"post and summary" route sounds like it would tend to lead toward a freeform collaborative writing effort, instead of a moderated game.
I have a concern, probably unfounded, but one nonetheless. Without some form of collation of data and moderation of input, a particular insensitive player could simply write everyone else into a corner, perhaps driven by enthusiasm and too much free time. I assume, though, that my fears are ungrounded, since you've been running such a game successfully for 5 years.
So, how do you manage conflicting posts under your method? (Conflicting could either be between player actions or between a player's action and the GM's plan.) Please understand that I am asking this because I'm curious, and no insult or derogation is intended in my words. I am just having some problems visualizing your method, and seek understanding.
Thanks,
Flynn
Ron:
I may not be making myself clear. Of course the Ref must occasionally summarize what has gone before, in cases where the action was confusing or complex. And naturally he must adjudicate results. When I GM a PBEM, I'm in there all the time, playing the NPCs and describing what happens as a result of player actions.
What I'm talking about is not stylistic but mechanical. The "post-and-summary" system that I'm talking about is the use of threaded e-mail archives as opposed to a more free-form e-mail system.
Whenever I look at the web site for a Traveller PBEM, I seem to find a sort of threaded e-mail archive that consists of posts from the player to the GM that respond to the previous e-mail but do not appear to incorporate the previous e-mail.
What I'm used to is something like this:
GM sends out a message with three paragraphs (let's call 'em A, B and C). Then a player (Player 1) replies to the GM and Player 2. His e-mail has clipped paragraphs A and B, but includes C and has added D and E. Player 2 responds by clipping C and D; his response includes E, and adds F and G. Etc.
What I have seen of Traveller PBEMs seems to go like this:
GM sends out message with paragraphs A,B and C.
Player 1 sends out message with paragraphs D and E.
Player 2 sends out message with paragraphs F and G.
GM summarizes A-G in a post.
Repeat.
Or am I misreading what I've seen?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Flynn:
Hey, good point. Let me make it as clear as I can that I am NOT trying to say one method is better or worse or that someone's game isn't good enough. Far from it. My only point was to find one I was comfortable with. I'm itching to play!
Okay, now to answer your question. Sure, insensitive or (more commonly) enthusiastic players can occasionally create a problem. But the same is true of a face-to-face game, isn't it? I handle these fairly rare occurences in the same manner I would in a face-to-face game, by asking for player's cooperation in an aside.
I want to make clear that the GM is still the GM. And the story is only freeform collaborative effort to the exact same extent that a face-to-face game would be (less so, if you consider that the GM is doing all the dice rolling).
Allow me to give you two examples of play, one from my own Amber game (http://users.erols.com/nolan/amber/serpent/) and one from a PBMB D&D game I'm in:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From "Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth":
Later, Rick and Sariah are back aboard the yacht. Sariah is seated in the captain's chair, and is moving through the undocking procedures, despite the Highport's orders for her to stand by.
"We don't have any more time," she tells Rick. She warms up the tiny ship's thrusters, and cuts off the loud warning coming from the port authority.
"No doubt Delarose reported to the Institute before he was shot. They'll come for you now and there's only one place I can protect you." She looks up. "I said not to trust anyone. Well, I was wrong. You've got to trust me now, Rick. When we get to Atlas Complex, I'll tell you the truth. About who you are, who they are...and who I think is stalking you."
Just then, Rick notices the Jasmine perfume.
Rick slams up his psionic hood and looks around wildly, saying "She's here."
Sariah, busy with the controls, can spare only a glance. "Where? On the ship?"
The word "Murderer!" flashes across the viewscreen image of the highport docking bay. Sariah doesn't seem to notice it.
"Yes, I think so. These could be illusions sent from a distance, but my psionic hood should be blocking them then. I just saw 'Murderer!' flash across the viewscreen."
If he can't see anyone, Rick will do his best to maintain the hood while helping Sariah cast off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We can see Rick's player interacting with Sariah's player, interspersed by comments and setting from me (the GM).
And from the "Moagara PBMB" D&D game -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Draxim throws his flask of holy water on the creature. He then slips in behind the monstrosity.
[move N NW to be a threat for those who want to try a flank]
After moving, he shouts "I will represent the War God! Back to the slag pit, you fiery monstrosity!"
Khelzhad will put his life in front of Theony's. Maintaining his Countersong, he moves 2 SW, 1 S and raises his shield against Irigaal with the grim hope of being able to gain just a little more time.
Draxim's holy water splashes against the back of the towering monster without much effect. It does, however, attract the flaming statue's momentary attention. Draxim advances quickly to stand eye to shin with Irigaal, but makes himself a juicy target for the Shadow's considerable reach. The dwarf tumbles, dodges, summons the knowledge gained during his people's long history of doing battle with creatures much bigger than they, and uses every trick he knows to avoid the crushing fist of the monster.
Yet, it is all to no avail. One massive stone foot goes up then swiftly down onto Draxim's shoulder. The dwarf is pitched to the ground then utters a guttural "aaaarg!" before rolling over to lay flat on his back. The panorama of the Illuminating Orb and the pitiless eyes of the basalt beast towering high above him is the last thing he sees before passing out.
Draxim's manuever does, however, give Khelzhad a chance to get between the monster and Theony, though the bard has little hope that his shield will provide him much protection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here we see posts from two players (their characters are Khelzad and Draxim) and a response from the GM (the last three paragraphs).
Aaaand...that's how it's done, in my experience. Did I answer your question?
Tarondor
I may not be making myself clear. Of course the Ref must occasionally summarize what has gone before, in cases where the action was confusing or complex. And naturally he must adjudicate results. When I GM a PBEM, I'm in there all the time, playing the NPCs and describing what happens as a result of player actions.
What I'm talking about is not stylistic but mechanical. The "post-and-summary" system that I'm talking about is the use of threaded e-mail archives as opposed to a more free-form e-mail system.
Whenever I look at the web site for a Traveller PBEM, I seem to find a sort of threaded e-mail archive that consists of posts from the player to the GM that respond to the previous e-mail but do not appear to incorporate the previous e-mail.
What I'm used to is something like this:
GM sends out a message with three paragraphs (let's call 'em A, B and C). Then a player (Player 1) replies to the GM and Player 2. His e-mail has clipped paragraphs A and B, but includes C and has added D and E. Player 2 responds by clipping C and D; his response includes E, and adds F and G. Etc.
What I have seen of Traveller PBEMs seems to go like this:
GM sends out message with paragraphs A,B and C.
Player 1 sends out message with paragraphs D and E.
Player 2 sends out message with paragraphs F and G.
GM summarizes A-G in a post.
Repeat.
Or am I misreading what I've seen?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Flynn:
Hey, good point. Let me make it as clear as I can that I am NOT trying to say one method is better or worse or that someone's game isn't good enough. Far from it. My only point was to find one I was comfortable with. I'm itching to play!
Okay, now to answer your question. Sure, insensitive or (more commonly) enthusiastic players can occasionally create a problem. But the same is true of a face-to-face game, isn't it? I handle these fairly rare occurences in the same manner I would in a face-to-face game, by asking for player's cooperation in an aside.
I want to make clear that the GM is still the GM. And the story is only freeform collaborative effort to the exact same extent that a face-to-face game would be (less so, if you consider that the GM is doing all the dice rolling).
Allow me to give you two examples of play, one from my own Amber game (http://users.erols.com/nolan/amber/serpent/) and one from a PBMB D&D game I'm in:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From "Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth":
Later, Rick and Sariah are back aboard the yacht. Sariah is seated in the captain's chair, and is moving through the undocking procedures, despite the Highport's orders for her to stand by.
"We don't have any more time," she tells Rick. She warms up the tiny ship's thrusters, and cuts off the loud warning coming from the port authority.
"No doubt Delarose reported to the Institute before he was shot. They'll come for you now and there's only one place I can protect you." She looks up. "I said not to trust anyone. Well, I was wrong. You've got to trust me now, Rick. When we get to Atlas Complex, I'll tell you the truth. About who you are, who they are...and who I think is stalking you."
Just then, Rick notices the Jasmine perfume.
Rick slams up his psionic hood and looks around wildly, saying "She's here."
Sariah, busy with the controls, can spare only a glance. "Where? On the ship?"
The word "Murderer!" flashes across the viewscreen image of the highport docking bay. Sariah doesn't seem to notice it.
"Yes, I think so. These could be illusions sent from a distance, but my psionic hood should be blocking them then. I just saw 'Murderer!' flash across the viewscreen."
If he can't see anyone, Rick will do his best to maintain the hood while helping Sariah cast off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We can see Rick's player interacting with Sariah's player, interspersed by comments and setting from me (the GM).
And from the "Moagara PBMB" D&D game -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Draxim throws his flask of holy water on the creature. He then slips in behind the monstrosity.
[move N NW to be a threat for those who want to try a flank]
After moving, he shouts "I will represent the War God! Back to the slag pit, you fiery monstrosity!"
Khelzhad will put his life in front of Theony's. Maintaining his Countersong, he moves 2 SW, 1 S and raises his shield against Irigaal with the grim hope of being able to gain just a little more time.
Draxim's holy water splashes against the back of the towering monster without much effect. It does, however, attract the flaming statue's momentary attention. Draxim advances quickly to stand eye to shin with Irigaal, but makes himself a juicy target for the Shadow's considerable reach. The dwarf tumbles, dodges, summons the knowledge gained during his people's long history of doing battle with creatures much bigger than they, and uses every trick he knows to avoid the crushing fist of the monster.
Yet, it is all to no avail. One massive stone foot goes up then swiftly down onto Draxim's shoulder. The dwarf is pitched to the ground then utters a guttural "aaaarg!" before rolling over to lay flat on his back. The panorama of the Illuminating Orb and the pitiless eyes of the basalt beast towering high above him is the last thing he sees before passing out.
Draxim's manuever does, however, give Khelzhad a chance to get between the monster and Theony, though the bard has little hope that his shield will provide him much protection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here we see posts from two players (their characters are Khelzad and Draxim) and a response from the GM (the last three paragraphs).
Aaaand...that's how it's done, in my experience. Did I answer your question?
Tarondor
A lot of the games running out of http://lists.travellercentral.com seem to run something like what you're asking for, Tarondor. I don't know if any of them are looking for players, though.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Well for what it'll help I'll share my experience, limited to two PBEM type games. One D&D and one Traveller.
The D&D game was a while ago and my first experience. First for the lot of us I think, including the DM. We were playing ftf but time and distance was reducing the game frequency so we tried PBEM to fill in. It was a post and reply by round format and went something like this iirc...
1 - The DM would email the scene to all the players, sometimes with a map, to initiate the first round.
2 - Then each player would reply with their anticipated actions for the round and dice rolls generated by some online dice-bot. Color text was optional but most of us did embellish, it is ROLE playing after all.
3 - Once everyone had replied, or missed the chance and were ruled to be distracted or panicked or indecisive or whatever, the DM would summarize the actions of that round, providing the NPC/Monster actions.
4 - That would set off the next round, repeat steps 2 and 3 until the encounter is over.
This worked not too badly sometimes, but tended to drag on. Typically getting in one round of action a day, and not every day. I think one encounter, the climax and conclusion, took a few months to complete, and the game time was something like 10 minutes of frenzied melee and running. It was fun but when you think we could have done it in a half hour or so ftf, well we kinda lost interest in the format and the PBEM game died.
The other game was a little more recent, a year or two ago, and was actually born right here on CotI. It was set up as a post to group format and started off with much introductions of characters and setting by the players and Referee. It was the very best of a collaborative writing effort I've ever read, and it was great to be a part of it. At one point we had something like about 500 posts in one month iirc. Unfortunately after a great start, perhaps overwhelmed by the group size and or enthusiasm, some 10 odd players making 500 posts in a month can be kinda scary, the Referee disappeared leaving the players wondering.
We managed to salvage the game from the sudden loss with one of the players taking the helm as Referee. It struggled on, with great hope and more good contributions by all but somehow the spirit seemed to have been diminished a little and it eventually ran out of steam, again a little too much for the Referee I think.
In that game we pretty much all just played our characters reacting and interacting to what the others posted. There would often be several different scenes playing out at once and we seldom rolled any dice.
It was very much a storytelling game, or like a movie where the actors all improvise in character and the director just calls the shots for where to go and what's happening in the big picture. I liked it a lot but some structure seemed needed to keep the plot moving along and that fell to the Referee.
I was involved in an interplayer problem in that game, probably just a misunderstanding of what was purely "in character" and what seemed "personal". We tried to work it out but not to anyone's full satisfaction. That kinda put a damper on the game too for some.
That's about it, not sure how much help it is to anyone. I'm still trying to come up with how I'd run one so I'm interested in other experiences too, thanks for sharing.
The D&D game was a while ago and my first experience. First for the lot of us I think, including the DM. We were playing ftf but time and distance was reducing the game frequency so we tried PBEM to fill in. It was a post and reply by round format and went something like this iirc...
1 - The DM would email the scene to all the players, sometimes with a map, to initiate the first round.
2 - Then each player would reply with their anticipated actions for the round and dice rolls generated by some online dice-bot. Color text was optional but most of us did embellish, it is ROLE playing after all.
3 - Once everyone had replied, or missed the chance and were ruled to be distracted or panicked or indecisive or whatever, the DM would summarize the actions of that round, providing the NPC/Monster actions.
4 - That would set off the next round, repeat steps 2 and 3 until the encounter is over.
This worked not too badly sometimes, but tended to drag on. Typically getting in one round of action a day, and not every day. I think one encounter, the climax and conclusion, took a few months to complete, and the game time was something like 10 minutes of frenzied melee and running. It was fun but when you think we could have done it in a half hour or so ftf, well we kinda lost interest in the format and the PBEM game died.
The other game was a little more recent, a year or two ago, and was actually born right here on CotI. It was set up as a post to group format and started off with much introductions of characters and setting by the players and Referee. It was the very best of a collaborative writing effort I've ever read, and it was great to be a part of it. At one point we had something like about 500 posts in one month iirc. Unfortunately after a great start, perhaps overwhelmed by the group size and or enthusiasm, some 10 odd players making 500 posts in a month can be kinda scary, the Referee disappeared leaving the players wondering.
We managed to salvage the game from the sudden loss with one of the players taking the helm as Referee. It struggled on, with great hope and more good contributions by all but somehow the spirit seemed to have been diminished a little and it eventually ran out of steam, again a little too much for the Referee I think.
In that game we pretty much all just played our characters reacting and interacting to what the others posted. There would often be several different scenes playing out at once and we seldom rolled any dice.
It was very much a storytelling game, or like a movie where the actors all improvise in character and the director just calls the shots for where to go and what's happening in the big picture. I liked it a lot but some structure seemed needed to keep the plot moving along and that fell to the Referee.
I was involved in an interplayer problem in that game, probably just a misunderstanding of what was purely "in character" and what seemed "personal". We tried to work it out but not to anyone's full satisfaction. That kinda put a damper on the game too for some.
That's about it, not sure how much help it is to anyone. I'm still trying to come up with how I'd run one so I'm interested in other experiences too, thanks for sharing.
Similar threads
