PBEM

[Uncle Dark]

I was thinking of running Sorcerer as a PBEM game.  I'm happy to discuss premise and such, but right now what I'm most interested in is how to do it.  That is, how to design a PBEM format which best presents the game and best provides for the kind of GMing and playing the game calls for.

What I'm thinking of is this:
Set up a mailing list for players and GM.  Initially, for say two weeks, posting will be completely open.  This is the character creation session, where everybody gets input on premise, theme, characters, and such.

Once characters are finalized, the list is set to that all player posts must be approved by the GM.  I would post an initial set-up, with whatever kicker information and first-session background.

Players reply.  

Player posts would be third-person narratives of what their characters are doing, thinking, whatever.  OOC communications to the GM would be set in brackets, so it can be easily removed prior to sending it on to the list.

When it came to game-stuff, I'd roll all dice, handle all mechanics.  I would then send a post to the player, with a rough estimate of how well s/he succeded (or how badly s/he failed), and let the player write up the scene.  I'd have sent along a list of any points or text I felt it vital to include, but most of the narrative writing falls on the players.

Player replies (once edited and approved) would be posted to the list for all (players, GM, and lurkers) to read.  Each player would be able to read the others' narratives and take that (potentially) OOC info into account when writing their own.

Repeat as necesary.

It's rough, I'll grant.  But would it work?

Lon

P.S.
I'd like to start after I get a copy of the hardback rules and have a chance to read them.  Ron, are they available via http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com or sorcerer.story-game.com yet?  Anything special we need to do to get the "I bought the PDF" rebate?

[joshua neff]

You mean I could play Sorcerer & once again have Lon as a GM? Sweet! I've always been wary of running or playing in a PBEM game, but this might actually get me to try it, Lon willing.

& I'll chime in with a second "When's the hardcover going to be available?".

[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-07-14 09:52 ]

[greyorm]

For PBEMs, you cannot run games the same way you run a tabletop game.

Players cannot declare singular actions, but must declare instead long-term intents, placing a great deal of work onto the GM's shoulders (just think about a typical combat and how that would run via e-mail . . . sssssllllllloooooowwwww).

In fact, the GM has to be comfortable enough with the characters to write as the character for the player, writing the words they say during conversations and how they perform actions.  If they can't, the game takes forever, nothing happens, and interest slowly disappears.

The player's only real job in a good PBEM is to provide motivation and intention for the character.

[Uncle Dark]

On 2001-07-14 13:56, greyorm wrote:
Players cannot declare singular actions, but must declare instead long-term intents, placing a great deal of work onto the GM's shoulders (just think about a typical combat and how that would run via e-mail . . . sssssllllllloooooowwwww).

Understood.  I've been lurking on a PBEM, reading both the raw posts the players send in and the stuff the GM sends out.

What I'm thinking of is a sort of "tactical goal" process, where the player states a mid-range goal (I'll search the bars until I find someone who saw Sam get shot), I'll do whatever game mechanics seem appropriate, and then send back what they accomplised as a bullet list of things to include when writing their next turn.

The idea is to get the players to write chunks of fiction about their characters, covering stretches of time much longer than combat rounds, with the GM providing the minimum of text.  Sort of a radical director stance.

In fact, the GM has to be comfortable enough with the characters to write as the character for the player, writing the words they say during conversations and how they perform actions.  If they can't, the game takes forever, nothing happens, and interest slowly disappears.

This is precisely what I'm trying to avoid by putting most of the writing back on the players.  Do you see a flaw in what I've outlined which will make this not work?

Lon

[Uncle Dark]

On 2001-07-14 13:56, greyorm wrote:
Players cannot declare singular actions, but must declare instead long-term intents, placing a great deal of work onto the GM's shoulders (just think about a typical combat and how that would run via e-mail . . . sssssllllllloooooowwwww).

Understood.  I've been lurking on a PBEM, reading both the raw posts the players send in and the stuff the GM sends out.

What I'm thinking of is a sort of "tactical goal" process, where the player states a mid-range goal (I'll search the bars until I find someone who saw Sam get shot), I'll do whatever game mechanics seem appropriate, and then send back what they accomplised as a bullet list of things to include when writing their next turn.

The idea is to get the players to write chunks of fiction about their characters, covering stretches of time much longer than combat rounds, with the GM providing the minimum of text.  Sort of a radical director stance.

In fact, the GM has to be comfortable enough with the characters to write as the character for the player, writing the words they say during conversations and how they perform actions.  If they can't, the game takes forever, nothing happens, and interest slowly disappears.

This is precisely what I'm trying to avoid by putting most of the writing back on the players.  Do you see a flaw in what I've outlined which will make this not work?

Lon