Play-by-Mail RPGs--development issues

[DP]

I'm planning to develop a play-by-mail role-playing game that I intend to hand-moderate for a small player base. I'm in the very beginning stages right now, and would like input based on people's experience or speculation about what considerations have to go into designing such a game.

"PBM RPGs aren't like tabletop RPGs." That is a given.

I intend to run the kind of game the PBM industry calls "narrative" (meaning the turns are written as if they were snatches of a story). Obviously that's not the same as "Narrativist," and I'm even wondering how well G/N/S theory fits over top of them, or what it insights it might allow into PBM RPG design.

What would help me greatly is accounts of people's direct experience designing or playing in such a game. I'd also like anyone's general input, such as what rules might be indispensible and how to manage the expectations of players with whom you (likely) cannot directly communicate.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I don't know what sort of game you're planning to run but you should definately check out De Profundis if you haven't already. This is probably the best PBM game I have ever come into contact with if not ever made period. Why? Because it actually uses the method of communication, mail, as part of the game's Color. The players write letters to each other. WHo are the characters? They are people who are...writing letters to each other. This also meshes very well with Lovecraft's writing style which the game is based on. Most other PBM games I've come into contact with saw the playing-by-mail aspect as something to overcome. As if the players were playing a typical face to face game with turns taking forever because it's happening through the mail. De Profundis makes use of the fact that this will all be happening in mail form and made it a part of the game itself.

This may not help you with your current project, but it is food for thought.

[Andrew Martin]

Here's some condensed experience from the several years of PBeM I've done as GM (2 years, 2 PBeMs) and player (4 years, 3 PBeMs):

Don't allow some PCs to continue "adventuring" at night when the other PCs are asleep! I made this mistake and one valuable player spent around six months real time roleplaying "sleeping" for a night. Incredibly boring for the player! Best solution is to allow multiple time-line threads.

Non-linear time is very important. Allow multiple time-lines (because you'll almost certainly get them anyway!). Once a time-line "thread" goes into the past (compared to other more recent threads), disallow "communication" from that thread to other more recent threads.

Conventional RPG dice rolling, card drawing and so on, is a very big waste of time in a PBeM. With cards, players swiftly loose track of them. With dice there's the problem of cheating from players, and if the GM does this for all players, there's the problem of lack of trust of GM by the players. (Come on, I really did roll a fumble for your character!) Plus, synchronising combat, with NPCs and players can be murderous, particularly if a player is late to respond or doesn't bother to reply any more.

Allow for 1 - 3 real time years for the one PBeM "adventure".

Don't bother with conventional RPG "advancement". Play doesn't proceed as fast as face to face play. Instead, start with powerful characters, characters that behave as the player desires.

[DP]

Jack: many thanks for the recommendation of De Profundis and sparking notions of the game itself becoming part of the Color as much as possible.

Andrew: thank you for the valuable insights. I get the feeling that what you ran and played were tabletop RPGs that were being run via e-mail or message board threads. Is this the case, or was there a specific system in place for the action, rules resolution, and character advancement?

[Andrew Martin]

Jack: many thanks for the recommendation of De Profundis and sparking notions of the game itself becoming part of the Color as much as possible.

Andrew: thank you for the valuable insights. I get the feeling that what you ran and played were tabletop RPGs that were being run via e-mail or message board threads. Is this the case, or was there a specific system in place for the action, rules resolution, and character advancement?

De Profundis sounds like a great PBeM system that I should have ordered. :(

Dave: Yes, all the PBeMs used conventional RPG systems. Marvel Super Heroes (1D100 system), Marvel SAGA (card system), Usagi Yojimbo (Fuzion), White Wolf World of Darkness (Storyteller then Fudge), plus another "transparent" system which I don't have the details of (I was a player).

In all the PBeMs, there was only about one "advancement" in each (one game had two advancements). In the PBeMs I ran, events grew too complicated (good thing) for the PCs to have a chance to relax and advance skills or attributes (bad thing). So I ended up writing my S combat (S has two origins: table-top/board wargame and PBeM combat system), to better get cinematic samurai combat. S is a failure at PBeM combat system -- at the time I thought it would be OK, but the dice rolling still grew too much. I ended up going with letting players have pretty much any character they wanted and letting them be successful in their chosen skills, and using strong GM control to forbid characters that would tread upon others. This didn't help much for combat scenes, which I just basically ended up winging to keep the speed up -- taking a month or two to do a very short combat scene grew impossible.

Also, I found helpful was a email list for all players and GM, then sending secret information directly by email to players with character with special powers. For example, a PC with powers to see into the spirit world would would see ghosts and spirits overlaying a scene (I'd send a special email directly to the player, describing this), which the the player then relates in character back to the other characters/players in their own words. Another example was a character with heat-sensitive vision, seeing heat trails; or a character knowing old languages or being able to read automatically knowing an inscription (I'd describe it as a meaningless scribble, and knowledge PC players would get separate email with the translation. It was very effective in making characters seem otherworldly or even a little strange, which helped boost roleplaying.

[M. J. Young]

It seems to me I answered a very similar question not so long ago; but I have no idea where I was answering it, so I'm trying to remember what I said.

Broad Strokes and Branching Contingencies

That is, you can't play PbEM (or even forum play, in which I've been very active for the past couple years) on a move by move basis. The player has to be allowed to say what he's going to do in long steps, and to hedge his bets with options, something like this:

I'm going to draw my gun and start shooting. I'll reload if necessary, but I'm going to keep shooting for now. If it's obvious that the bullets aren't doing any good, I'll stop. I'll also stop if the target surrenders (or dies), or if I've spent half my ammo without significant effect. In any of those cases, I'll try to get out the door through which I entered. If the target gets too close for me to reload, I'll use my knife.

Similarly, the referee has to be able to take such longer runs, and has to lay out the options pretty well and ask good questions with a longer view.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

Ask for a comittment up front to play the game out. IME, the drop out rate on PBeMs is really high. Often of the worst sort where a player simply fades away never to be heard from again.

Even with committments this may happen. If your framework is such that this won't stop play form continuing to be interesing, then so much the better.

Mike