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!)