Topic: Designing for a PBeM Format
Started by: Jonathan Walton
Started on: 9/24/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/24/2002 at 3:05am, Jonathan Walton wrote:
Designing for a PBeM Format
Hey all,
I'm new to these boards and new to the indy-rpg world in general. However, I somehow managed to get under contract to write a GM-less mystery campaign for Rogue Publishing, so I'm basically diving in head first. Still, though some of the actual theory of running a GM-less mystery is still up in the air (though I'm working on it), this post is not about that project.
What it is about... is this:
Recently I was struck by an interesting thought; why hasn't anyone written any RPG material specifically for the PBeM format? That's an untapped market if there ever was one. There are probably THOUSANDS of PBeM games out there, most with a very limited lifespan, but the requirements of such a roleplaying environment are surely different enough to warrent taking them into consideration during the theory/design stage. If that many people are playing PBeMs, shouldn't some designers start creating games specifically for them?
As with LARPs, PBeMs have certain limitations and advantages that make them -- not better or worse -- but different than traditional face-to-face games.
1. the plot of a PBeM generally moves much slower; a good PBeM often has to last months or years in order to really achieve a great deal
2. players have time to consider their actions, making things less spontaneous; they can take time to write gorgeous prose, check their facts, compare attributes before attacking, or anything of that nature
3. rolling dice over email sucks
4. archiving allows for a perfect record of everything that happens in the game (something that could be taken advantage of in instances of time travel, flashbacks, describing memories, returning to well-known places, etc.)
5. PBeMs take place in a text-based format, which is very different from the spoken word; prose, poetry, famous quotes or song lyrics, anything text-based could be included as part of a character's action, whether it's fluff or additional clarification
6. considering character more deeply, in a PBeM game, there are fewer reasons to restrict a player to a single character; seeing as how there's no real risk of confusion, except as far as which characters are played by whom, and that could be easily rectified
7. PBeMs are really good at suspending disbelief; most face-to-face games couldn't work with players taking on the roles of abstract concepts with no physical form (i.e. "I'm Materialism, you're Idealism, and we're going to fight!"); in a PBeM this could actually work (not that I'm suggesting it).
8. overall, PBeMs offer designers a great way to avoid some of the traditional restrictions of RPGs, while, at the same time, setting up some new restrictions that you'll have to take into account
In any case, I've already started working on a draft of a game based on concepts from Nietschian philosophy, but I wanted to know what thoughts other people had on this sort of thing. Have there been games written for the PBeM format that I just don't know about? What would be some good guidelines for writing a PBeM-specific roleplaying game? Am I the only one who thinks writing for PBeMs would be an amazing opportunity for imaginative designers and indy RPG companies? After all, a PBeM-specific game would almost have to be marketed as a PDF, and none of the Big Guys would touch it :)
Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there.
Later.
Jonathan
On 9/24/2002 at 3:37am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Hi Jonathan,
Welcome to the Forge! And thanks for starting with such a fascinating issue. Much to my surprise, both LARPs and free-form ("interactive storytelling") have been worked over in this forum with, in my opinion, tremendous results. Let's see if the same can be done with PBeM.
Of course, I am personally pig-ignorant about the whole thing so can only stand here and go, "Hmmm, uh-uh, really," and stuff like that. Lots of people here have lots more experience, though - Raven's recent awesome D&D post in Actual Play being a good example.
I do have one tiny question - given the common use of HTML format in eMail these days, do people use images much in their missives? If so, a kind of almost-comics level of words/pictures might be possible, which would add one more item to your list.
Best,
Ron
On 9/24/2002 at 3:57am, Demonspahn wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Hi Jonathan,
As far as I know there is no "standard" PBEM game format---some are freeform, others chat based and some rely on traditional die rolling by the GM in between emails. That poses a lot of problems when designing an adventure since adventures usually rely on a set rules system to refer to during complications. For instance, you can't design an adventure for AD&D 3E using homebrew rules---well, you can, but you won't be targetting 3E players for the most part.
I hate to keep using 3E as a guide but just think of running a typical 3E adventure via email---turn based combat would take forever, player input would be limited and the GM would be required to post _at least_ daily to answer questions (any secret doors? I'll use hear noise, I'll order a flask of ale, etc.).
Having tried and failed with several different methods to keep a PBEM running, I would say that rather than a PBEM adventure, you might try to find a workable PBEM mechanic instead. Specifically, some generic guidelines that could take an existing stat-based game system and makes it workable via 2-3 emails per week. What I'm saying is that I would like to see a workable way to take an existing game system (Shadowrun, UA, Little Fears and yes dammit, Dreamwalker) and make it playable via email---something that doesn't take a month to examine a few rooms or fight a bad guy.
For the player this would mean a system that allows him to create a character in an existing system he was comfortable and familiar with to see his character's strengths and weaknesses/limitations. For a GM these new rules would enable him to run a typical session with low handling time.
The only practical way I can see this being done is by incorporating a more freeform system that allows the players and GM to narrate actions, etc. I know it's being done but I still would like to see written and concise rules on how to do it---how much can the player narrate? What can the GM veto? What order do posts go in? How is combat handled? etc.
I personally think that a workable PBEM mechanic would be more valuable than a generic adventure would be, at least not without some sort of universal rules system to make it run, but that's just my opinion.
Hope this all makes some sense and good luck.
Pete
On 9/24/2002 at 4:00am, Valamir wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Hey Jonathan, glad to see you here. As you know I'm eagerly awaiting the results of his GM-less mystery efforts as I hope to shanghai you into also writing up an adaptation along those lines for Universalis (about which we've had a brief discussion in that forum).
For those who haven't been over to the Universalis site recently, Jonathan's contributed the second entry to our Art Contest.
On 9/24/2002 at 2:28pm, wyrdlyng wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Regarding a GM-less mystery, Electronic Arts (I think) did an interactive mystery game similar in premise but using everything from email to instant messaging to faxes. I think it was called Majestic. That might be a possible source for research.
As to PBEM formats, I've never seen a standard one. I've seen GMs impose some but these are mostly things related to the format of the email (tense, OOC comments, etc.). I would say that it's usually the stream-lined rpgs which make the best PBEM mechanics but I've been in two running the Hero system with no problems.
On 9/24/2002 at 2:39pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
Re: Designing for a PBeM Format
First, Pete, I think that if you look closely, Johnathan is tryng to make a system. But I think that he's going for something completely new rather than an adaptation of some other game system. And I think that he's right to do so. I completely understand his motive. Having played a it of PBEM, I understand his problems and I can see exactly why he'd want something that was specifically designed for the challenges and advantages of PBEM play.
That all said, I think that there are some existing ideas that can help you out, Johnathan.
Jonathan Walton wrote: 1. the plot of a PBeM generally moves much slower; a good PBeM often has to last months or years in order to really achieve a great dealI think this is a reflection of the system and style of play that's engendered. As Pete correctly points out, playing 3E straight would be a nightmare. That's why nobody does this. In fact, there are several systems out there that address the speed issue through a variety of methods. The one that strikes me right off the bat is De Profundiis. In that game, IIRC, play is comprised of players writing letters to each other in-character. This, of course, is very immersive in that the other players are reading the emails very much as though they were letters. And the format lends itself to players being able to narrate more than one would expect in most RPGs. A single post can cover the character's actions for an entire week. Which seems just right for a letter. I'd check out De Profundiis for sure.
The point is that your format or structure can lend itself to including more in a single dose of narration than one would normally see from table-top play. The De Profundiis idea does limit play to characters who aren't all together, however. So you'll probably want to try some different ideas. For example, you could perhaps have the log of the game be written as a journal, with the players alternating making entries. This would require sharing of PCs (see SOAP for an exmple of a game that does this). As such it would also be non-traditional. In any case, if one were to think about it, I think that some structural solutions could be found that would support the style of play that you want to see.
The idea is that to get play to progress more quickly, you have to allow for more player narration per post. Encourage it even. Otherwise, play is doomed to be slow.
Can anyone suggest a "Setting" or starting Situation that would encourage this sort of longer Narration?
2. players have time to consider their actions, making things less spontaneous; they can take time to write gorgeous prose, check their facts, compare attributes before attacking, or anything of that natureAgain, play to the strenght of the medium. Having layers post more per post allows for that time to think to be well used. Don't force them to make any short term tactical decisions. As such you may want to look at what sort of situations support this sort of play. For example, being high up in an organization means that decisions will be more strategic, and would take longer to take effect anyhow. So, perhaps generals, or kings, or CEOs as player roles. That sort of thing. Whatever makes decision making less moment to moment.
3. rolling dice over email sucksSo don't. That may be why Amber is such a favorite for this medium. Not to say that you have to take the Amber mechanics directly, but dice are definitely not necessary. In fact, given the medium, I think there are some really interesting alternatives, and not all Karma based.
Though I will say that, when dice are neccessary, there are some cool online servers that can help. I suggest investigating them. Anyone know some offhand?
4. archiving allows for a perfect record of everything that happens in the game (something that could be taken advantage of in instances of time travel, flashbacks, describing memories, returning to well-known places, etc.)Yes, this is a huge advantage. Again, make the system somehow able to leverage off the archived material. Such that perhaps people can cut and paste certain things to make their descriptions more quickly, for example. Or some other method to take advantage of this resource. Any ideas people?
5. PBeMs take place in a text-based format, which is very different from the spoken word; prose, poetry, famous quotes or song lyrics, anything text-based could be included as part of a character's action, whether it's fluff or additional clarificationAnd sounds, and pictures and video (as Ron points out). Yes, any way to get this stuff into play would be a huge advantage. (In the Yahoogroup play that I do, I always post a picture of my character and some of his equipment; this is just one example).
I keep thinking that a good "system" like this would be web based, and have links to such resources as might be appliacble. As well as advive on how to get waht you need, and how to manipulate the data successfully.
6. considering character more deeply, in a PBeM game, there are fewer reasons to restrict a player to a single character; seeing as how there's no real risk of confusion, except as far as which characters are played by whom, and that could be easily rectifiedAgain, no real reason to have characters wholy owned by a single player, either. Just a question of who controls whom and when. That would be an important part of such a system. Allowing players broader control only goes to empower them in the ways I described above. Yes, this is less Immersive. OTOH, PBEM is pretty non-immersive. So I'm not sure you lose much.
In addition, the more work that the players do with a wide variety of characters, the less the GM is heaped with work. IME, it's often the GM who is the bottleneck point slowing things down because he has too much to do. Alleviate that.
7. PBeMs are really good at suspending disbelief; most face-to-face games couldn't work with players taking on the roles of abstract concepts with no physical form (i.e. "I'm Materialism, you're Idealism, and we're going to fight!"); in a PBeM this could actually work (not that I'm suggesting it).I agree. Again, look to roles that exploit this. One could play "the will of the country of Cranobia", and again take that off the GM's hands.
Have there been games written for the PBeM format that I just don't know about?Check out the use of En Garde online (Max!), and Privateers and Gentlemen. These very external Sim type games seem to work well online for some sorts of play.
Mike
On 9/24/2002 at 4:56pm, Jonathan Walton wrote:
RE: Re: Designing for a PBeM Format
Mike Holmes wrote: But I think that he's going for something completely new rather than an adaptation of some other game system.
Exactly. People write some games that are specifically designed to be LARPs, but most existing LARPs are commercial adaptations of existing games. However, since I don't own the rights to any existing commercial game, I'm talking about designing a game where the setting, style, tone, and mechanics were all custom-built for the requirements of a PBeM.
In fact, there are several systems out there that address the speed issue through a variety of methods. The one that strikes me right off the bat is De Profundiis. In that game, IIRC, play is comprised of players writing letters to each other in-character. This, of course, is very immersive in that the other players are reading the emails very much as though they were letters.
This is actually an important point in two different areas:
1. The "letter format" of De Profundis makes it incredibly immersive, as you've noted. You can actually imagine that you're recieving a letter from a fictional persona. This is a counter to the assumption that all PBeMs are non-immersive.
2. This is a great example of taking advantage of a specific format in game design. You actually write letters! If that isn't custom-made for a PBeM or PBM game, I don't know what is.
3. rolling dice over email sucks
So don't.
That's what I was strongly implying :)
And Amber isn't the epitome of diceless gaming anymore. Now we have Nobilis and mostly-diceless systems like the coin-bidding of Universalis. And look at De Profundis, which doesn't even consider the possibility that dice might be used! It's heading in another direction entirely. I think it's been well-proven that roleplaying doesn't have to rely on polyhedrons.
Again, make the system somehow able to leverage off the archived material. Such that perhaps people can cut and paste certain things to make their descriptions more quickly, for example. Or some other method to take advantage of this resource.
I first made use of archives in a Continuum PBeM many months ago. When the time travelers experienced "Gemini Incidents" where they had conversations with their past or future selves, I just pulled up the previous posts so that the meetings would be exactly the same (remember that scene from "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"?).
Still, this is only a minor use. Real archive-diving could make for really interesting game mechanics, where players could re-write events that had already happened, changing the "history" of the game. Or they could insert new characters into events that had already taken place, having them do things between the lines of old posts.
Again, no real reason to have characters wholy owned by a single player, either... Allowing players broader control only goes to empower them in the ways I described above. Yes, this is less Immersive.
Universalis has certainly proved that group-controlled characters can work, as long as you take turns or agree on who is currently in charge of who. Still, Universalis only real limitation is that it isn't usually very immersive. However, resolving the Group-Control vs. Immersion paradox is not restricted to just PBeMs, so why don't we set that issue aside or explore it in its own topic?
I agree. One could play "the will of the country of Cranobia", and again take that off the GM's hands.
Actually, I was specifically thinking more of challanging the traditional ideology on what constitutes a character. This wouldn't be taking GM-controlled concepts and controlling them in addition to your PC. This would be:
"Who are you playing?"
"Oh, I'm The Will of Cranobia. Currently, I'm increasing the nationalism of my populace for the upcoming war with Zanzibar. Also, I'm exploring new trade avenues with the jungle-people to the south and working on general public works projects that should be completed in a few years."
Again, an example. Playing entire nations works for games like Civilization, but I don't think it would necessarily be optimal for a PBeM. Basically, I'm searching for a new PBeM-based paradigm of what a character can be.
I keep thinking that a good "system" like this would be web based, and have links to such resources as might be applicable. As well as advive on how to get what you need, and how to manipulate the data successfully.
PDFs can have hyperlinks too. Still, I totally see what you're saying. A website would almost be the perfect format. However, if we were to envision this as something publishable and not something just given away, making it html-based would be a little more difficult. We could ask people to pay for a zipped package of html files, but that seems almost asking for copyright problems.
But the final format of such a game doesn't really have much to do with basic design theory, so I don't think I'm ready to nitpick at that before I have a game concept that deserves publication.
Hmm... Maybe the first thing to do is figure out what materials we have that could be used in a PBeM. Ron's suggestion about using HTML formatting was a good one, but until I can see the big picture of the tools availiable, it's hard to develop a sense of how this could work.
Let's me start a list in another Reply message...
Back in a minute.
Jonathan
On 9/24/2002 at 5:28pm, Jonathan Walton wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
THE TOOLS AT HAND
Email Tools (those included in standard email access)
-- signing posts: claiming that they are notes from imaginary people
-- quoted replies: the use of ">" to denote quoted material not written by the author, which doesn't necessarily have to be material that is actually quoted
-- formatted text: though some people find it annoying, it's definitely an option
-- HTML: many people hate it, but HTML formatting can include pictures, tables, sound, etc. Can most mail programs run Flash or Javascript fuctions? I have to admit my ignorance on that point, though I would imagine they're not quite there yet.
-- hyperlinks: if someone can find/put stuff on the web, you can include links so people have a direct connection to it (sidenote: maybe a game that involves speculating stories based on real news articles?)
-- attachments: a standard email method of sending non-text stuff, though not as immediate as HTML or a hyperlink, should be considered
-- signatures: ah yes, a great method for labeling things
Mailing List Tools (those availiable on most mailing lists)
-- archives: since we've talked some about this before, I don't think I need to describe it again
-- replying to individuals or the group: making for ways of keeping secrets or having personal conversations (though these wouldn't normally make it into the archives)
-- message additions: most mailing lists have options for tacking info onto every post they distribute, such as "[name]" on the title or basic list info on the bottom
-- digests: most lists also have a digest function that will take a collection of posts and turn them into a single document; that has to be useful for something
Other Tools (which could be availiable on some lists or in other places)
-- surveys: some places like YahooGroups let you vote on specific issues as a list
-- storage space: some lists give you places to store files or information
-- dice servers: some lists (like those on The Phoeynx) actually run dice programs when they process posts
-- sublists: some mailing lists can set up "sublists" that only certain people are subscribed to, so that certain messages don't go to everyone
-----------------------------
That's all I can think of, off the top of my head. Did I miss anything?
Later.
Jonathan
On 9/24/2002 at 5:44pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
In the other tools category:
Some lists have the ability to grant different levels of authority to members. Who can view files, who can upload files. Presumeably who can respond to a mail list and who can just read it...I haven't seen it used myself, but I have to believe that as a forum standard its made its way to email lists somewhere.
Some lists also have the ability to automatically send mail and attachments at intervals. Often used to send initial welcome letters and periodic FAQ updates. SOme obvious utility there.
Question. Are you limiting the definition of PBeM to true email. Or are you includingl the possiblity of combining email and web forums
On 9/24/2002 at 6:28pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Hi there,
If it's been mentioned and I missed it, then I apologize, but it seems significant to me that a person engaged in a group emailing activity has full power to exclude some members of the group from a given email, with no "signifiers" to the excluded that he is doing so.
That would seem to be an important aspect of this sort of play, when it's exercised.
Best,
Ron
On 9/24/2002 at 6:35pm, quozl wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
If you haven't already, check out the PBEM games at http://www.reality.com.
On 9/24/2002 at 8:04pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
I think you miss my point when I talk about the game being web based. I would have it be available as a subscription service. Or you pay once and play. This is not necessarily MMORPG. It could be if you want to play in the general populace, but people could also be purchasing their own private forums, essentially.
Start with a basic world, and update it whenever it makes sense to do so.
Essentially, what I'm thinking of would look a bit like a Yahoo group already populated with files and tools that incorporated the setting and NPCs, and whatever other tools would help. Make the online tools associated with the site so useful (including help from live admins), that just copying the materials would not make for a decent replication of the experience. To keep em coming back. Solves some of the problems of PDF distribution. Sure people can start their own Yahoo group with the stuff, but they hav to set it all up, and then the might not have all the tools, and no help from the experienced admins...just might work.
Actually, the presence of the community playing there might be a draw in and of itself.
Mike
On 9/24/2002 at 8:54pm, Demonspahn wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Hi guys,
After thinking on this today, I was going to come back and post that from what I've read, games like Universalis and Nobilis would be a good fit for PBEM's if you limited posts to one paragraph or so but you beat me to it.
Re: licenses, I didn't mean to imply you (Jonathan) should write "3E the PBEM", what I meant was I would like to see a PBEM system that gave generic guidelines for adapting characters from stat-based systems to play in your PBEM system. I think this would be a huge draw to fans who already play a particular game.
Anyway I think you have a great idea. I've been really frustrated with PBEM's in the past due to the clunkiness of the "systems" that were used from game to game but maybe I just got involved in the wrong games.
Pete
On 9/24/2002 at 9:36pm, Colin the Riot wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
I actually ran a completely blind PBEM. The players would all send me their turns, and I would figure out what happened and reply back individually. No one knew which characters were players or which were just me. It was going really well, but it go to the point where I was writing about 10 pages a week, and I couldn't keep up with that and school.
I'd decided that if I could find a decent way to manage something like that, via a message board or some other web-based form, I'd pick it back up.
A game that was especially designed for PBEM play would be interesting. It would put all the players on the same page and I might not feel I have to keep the blinders on in order to keep everything organized.
In fact, I'm off to look for a free php bulleting board script I can use right now. I want to try it with Donjon. Ahh, veered a little off topic there at the end. Sorry...
On 9/24/2002 at 9:44pm, Maurice Forrester wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
I only have a little experience with PBEM games, but one thing I have noticed is that it is easy for players to lose track of what is happening due to the lag between between messages. Of course, this is exacerbated when there are delays and delays are inevitable (vacations, computer crashes, etc.). A message archive will help, but what's really important is that the players can easily get the information they need out of the archive. A good search tool is needed and enforcing some sort of standard subject line structure wouldn't hurt.
On 9/24/2002 at 10:05pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
crowquill wrote: I only have a little experience with PBEM games, but one thing I have noticed is that it is easy for players to lose track of what is happening due to the lag between between messages. Of course, this is exacerbated when there are delays and delays are inevitable (vacations, computer crashes, etc.). A message archive will help, but what's really important is that the players can easily get the information they need out of the archive. A good search tool is needed and enforcing some sort of standard subject line structure wouldn't hurt.
Wow. Excellent advice. So true. Happening in my PBeM right now. I have to workon the subject line thing. Doesn't help that Yahoo is only confusing in this manner.
Mike
On 9/24/2002 at 10:25pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Ron Edwards wrote: Hi there,
If it's been mentioned and I missed it, then I apologize, but it seems significant to me that a person engaged in a group emailing activity has full power to exclude some members of the group from a given email, with no "signifiers" to the excluded that he is doing so.
That would seem to be an important aspect of this sort of play, when it's exercised.
Best,
Ron
I found this power to be very useful when running my two PBeMs. It was useful for giving secret information to players that had special senses. For example in one my PBeMs, one player's character had the power to see spirits, so I sent separate emails to that player describing what the character sees, with instructions not to copy this information to the other players; they were free to relate it, in character. This lead to quite interesting and realistic behaviour, when one player keeps making posts about strange things and the other PCs don't see what's wrong, literally! :)
On 9/24/2002 at 10:33pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Jonathan Walton wrote: THE TOOLS AT HAND
Did I miss anything?
-- Wiki: A web "place" where anyone can read, write and edit text, and have it shown as HTML in their browser.
This allows players to have multiple independent timelines and locations, and not get confused. I found it a real pain when some PCs go to sleep or went to different areas, and other PCs are still active. In my earlier PBeM, one PC went to sleep early and had to wait months before being able to use their character again!
On 9/25/2002 at 4:32am, M. J. Young wrote:
Lessons from a Forum Game
I've been running a forum game for probably over a year now, with a brief hiatus at one point while there were some player changes. I started with some set piece rules I'd learned from PbEM discussions over at Gaming Outpost.
The critical one lies in the way actions and reactions are described.
I had to encourage players to do long-string contingent moves. That is, entering combat a player might do this:
I am going to look for cover and draw my revolver. If I can't find cover, I'm going to attempt to retreat while using my gun for cover fire. If I've got cover, I'll target the leader first, moving to others only after he's finished. If I take serious injuries reaching half my damage value without taking out any of them, I'll cut and run. If they close on me, I'll toss a grenade and fall back.
As referee, I can work with this. I can still roll the dice and play it out attack by attack. The player hasn't really had to do anything he wouldn't have done in play, he just had to put his thinking up front, considering his options in the light of the possible outcomes. I now move the game forward based on his post. If something happens that is not anticipated, I stop following his plans at that point and give him the opportunity to respond to this.
The same thing works to some degree in the other direction, particularly if things are proceeding on several fronts at once. That is, the player can give me his plans for the day, or the week, as a sort of errands list. I can go through them in sequence, saying what happens in response to each. He can reply to any of those, extending what he did on Tuesday even if he's also already done something on Friday, provided he doesn't add unrelated events or actions. As referee, I can bump anything he says he wants to do to a later day, in essence saying he didn't get to it then but did come back to it later.
That's the biggest thing we did. Somewhere on the Multiverser forum over there is a post with some other stuff in it, but it's been so long since we started I don't really remember.
--M. J. Young
On 9/25/2002 at 2:09pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Interesting MJ.
My only experience with PBeM was participating in a Napoleonic Campaign game. Engagements large enough to matter were played out in person, but all of the operational level stuff (orders, logistics trains, scouting reports, etc.) were by email.
Point being that the above sort of "long-string contingent moves" (did you invent that, or is that actually what they're called) is how all orders in such a game are written.
eg. 1 battalion of light cavalry will advance ahead of the column towards Belton. If they encounter resistance at Belton they will not engage fully but seek to ascertain the strength of the enemy. If that strength is deemed to be light, than they will detach 3 riders to report back to the column. The column vanguard will advance. The vanguard commander will surmise the situation with orders to clear the town if possible and continue to our objective. If the resistance is too strong, the vanguard commander will reconoiter and establish positions while waiting for the full column to arrive an engage the enemy. If their is no resistance at Belton, 3 riders will detach and report such to the vanguard. The remaining cavalry will continue north and scout the region around our planned camp site for the night....etc.
I'd be interested in hearing in more detail how this sort of thing plays out in an RPG environment. In the wargame it is done in the context of the commander (me) giving orders to my subordinates, including various contingencies in my orders. In an RPG situation its the slightly odd effect of one giving contingent orders to oneself.
On 9/25/2002 at 3:12pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
A agree with concerns regarding turn time and sequencing, the tendency for a game to "zoom in" to a decision that takes a totally disproportionate amount of real time, and the worries with maintaining continuity.
I have some experience with an alternative to the contingent move style, which is the Matrix-style argument. This just proceeds fomr the principal that you pitch an action as argument, provide 3 supporting reasons, and roll against a probability of this being True arbitrarily assigned by the GM. The advantage of tihs is twofold: although there are multiple contenders for Truth, often, only one will be decalred True, and secondly that the reasons why given in the argument get woven into subsequent arguments.
On 9/25/2002 at 4:35pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
contracycle wrote: A agree with concerns regarding turn time and sequencing, the tendency for a game to "zoom in" to a decision that takes a totally disproportionate amount of real time, and the worries with maintaining continuity.
I have some experience with an alternative to the contingent move style, which is the Matrix-style argument.
This sounds cool (a bit like FitM in a way), but I'm not getting exactly how it works from your description, Gareth. Could you do an example?
Mike
On 9/25/2002 at 5:48pm, deadpanbob wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Slightly off the current thrust of the thread, but in the interest of answering the whol slew of questions about PBeM rpg, here goes.
One additional tool to consider is the WebServer - which with the appropriate software is capable of serving up dynamic content based, usually, on cookies.
A game designed for PBeM could have support for play on the publishers server, in a way that would allow GM's to create custom pop-ups and content based on their players cookies.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Jason
On 9/25/2002 at 7:44pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Mike Holmes wrote:
This sounds cool (a bit like FitM in a way), but I'm not getting exactly how it works from your description, Gareth. Could you do an example?
Sure. The best example comes from one of the few full games I played which was about the unification of Korea in the 600's I think, and showed some of both the strengths and weaknesses of this type of game. Matrix games are the idea of Chris Engle and can be found here http://www.io.com/~hamster/
The setup was the three kingdoms of korea - Kogyuro, Paekche and Silla, and their historical unification. Part of the interest in Matrix games is sim-oriented because the point is to make plausible arguments; Normally a game would be written, as a product, with a sort of historical text setting the scene, with a map. The map rules were that you could move anywhere with an argument, or one province for free. Each side had a number of indistinguishable armies which would so move.
In a basic matrix game, each player submits an argument to carry out whatever action they want, one argument per player per turn. The argument must eb supported by reasons; the GM applies their scrutiny and assigns a probability in a 1-6 range, whith 1 being Very Improbable and 6 being Inevitable; you had to roll less than that number on the d6 to have your argument happen.
eg:
The forces of Paekche under the Talented general Sang stage a light cavalry raid which captures the Paekche prince returning from a border inspecting. Simultaneously a division approaches the forward fortification at [wherever], establishing a strong beachhead.
- because Paekche has a relatively good espionage service
- because relaitves of the prince have betrayed him and revelaed his movements
- because the approval of the king has been granted based on auspicous omens observed by the priests of Temple X
The GM simply assesses this based on... whatever. Their reading of the text where that accompanied ther map, basically. The give a number from 1-5, or grants automatic success or failure. The player rolls, everything which they decribed in their action happens if the succeed. Nothing happens if they fail.
So the basic play level is that each army moves a province, as directed by the players, and the players roll dice for their arguments which may or may not actually involve the moving armies. When armies meet and a battle occurs, both side submits their version of events; they roll off until only one succeeds. That version becomes What Happened.
A good example of how this can ontroduce much more than just moving armies about occurred in this Korea game when I was invited to play the part of the Japanese who had been appealed to by one side. I agued a fleet into being and off it went, I landed armies in Korea and all we well. Then, one of the players had my boats beset by pirates, and burned on the docks, which lead to a loss of food supplies and equipment and a crisis of morale. The interesting thing here is that the fleet had no prior objective existance in the game - it had only been implied by a prior argument. It did not have a marker like an army, but the other player could still use its implied existance as a reason to justify the weakening of my army, which was represented, was a piece on the board.
There were other types of "pieces" in the game, notably cities and fortifications. A hostile fortification would require its own argument to overcome if defended and couldn't be moved through without an argument. Seas could not be crossed without an argument; esentially the only rules where those that called for arguments under certain circumstances. There were also personalities, of ehich more below.
Even so, arguments were very freeform, but what tended to happen is that they started to reinforce one another. Because there are very-few-to-no facts at the start of the game, previous arguments become just about the only source of hard data; they have established as True, while anything else you might call form memory or think up has less support in the game. So there is advantage to making arguments which build plausibly from previous arguments, and this tends to make the game rather synthetic. In the example above, of my fleets, the part of my argument which described the fleet and its anchorage added plausibility to the argument later used to weaken my army, because that had been established as True. All succesful arguments become de facto canon, and manipulating this can give the game a sort of judo-like quality, of using an opponents strengths, the things which their own arguments probable, against them.
Another observable feature was for a players to develop charismatic generals. This was often opportunist, becuase a charismatic general, for example, could be used as support for generating a new army out of thin air. Some generals were specified at the start of play, in the briefing - this by way of giving players something kick start arguments from. But also, as generals achived successes through play, their genius became more and more established and hence arguments from their genius became more plausible. This tendency to reinforce endlessly can be a bad thing, I suspect, there were times it felt a bit like it was getting out of hand. Ultimately, the final outcome of the game was to my mind unsatisfying; both China and Japan got called in, agreed a pact to dismember Korea, and did so. A game set out to portray the unification of Korea ended up portraying its total subjugation by foreign powers; the improvisation got out of hand and derailed it. I mean there would have been no particular reason that one of us could not have called in a landing ship of Space Ork Marines, it's just that we'd not likely have received an achiveable TN. The game had a weird sense of both spiralling in on itself and exploding outside of its implicit boundaries at the same time.
I think there was lot of interesting stuff going on there. It was also noticeable the players like the generals, and did quite of bit of almost-RP. The freeform actions had many interesting side effects but generally stayed on a sort of reasonable continuity, Sometimes though you would see several arguments at radically different scales, and this could be a bit confusing. One lucky roll for a dramatic claim could swing the game sudenly, but conversely the whiff factor was high, and significant. There might be periods of signifcant stasis if nobody rolled any successful arguments. I think a lot could be made of using more strongly established rules for time and scale, perhaps.
On 9/25/2002 at 10:06pm, C. Edwards wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
The game had a weird sense of both spiralling in on itself and exploding outside of its implicit boundaries at the same time.
That sounds delightful.
I found the whole description fairly impressive. Wow. I want to play something like this, now please.
-Chris
On 9/26/2002 at 2:14am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
C. Edwards wrote:The game had a weird sense of both spiralling in on itself and exploding outside of its implicit boundaries at the same time.
That sounds delightful.
I found the whole description fairly impressive. Wow. I want to play something like this, now please.
-Chris
There's fairly regular PBeMs on the Hamster list. The relevant URLs and email addresses on the site. Just join up! :)
On 9/26/2002 at 2:36am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Valamir wrote: Interesting MJ....
I'd be interested in hearing in more detail how this sort of thing plays out in an RPG environment. In the wargame it is done in the context of the commander (me) giving orders to my subordinates, including various contingencies in my orders. In an RPG situation its the slightly odd effect of one giving contingent orders to oneself.
Well, since you asked, I'll try to recount some recent events.
Yesterday (Monday) I arrived at the forum to find that David and Eric had posted. David and Eric are currently in the same world, working together with several NPC's, one of whom, Cynthia, is staying pretty close to David at the moment. David decided to do something which, frankly, had a very good chance of getting some people pretty angry if it succeeded; Eric tagged along to watch. There were some other things they said they were going to do, somewhat shuffled into the description of a day's activities, and each of them put these in somewhat different orders--that is, Eric, who posted first, said he wanted to go see a particular NPC, talk to another one, and then go with David to this place David had previously suggested; David began with what he was going to do at this place when Eric went with him, and ended with meeting that NPC Eric was going to go see. Recognizing that the NPC meeting wasn't going to be a problem, I put that first in the day, then placed some of the other discussions, and then finished with the field trip. Rolling the dice, I determined that David was successful in his bit of magic, and then rolling for the reaction achieved I got one of the worst possible rolls, and there was an angry mob charging them. Considering Cynthia's personality and current motivations, I reported that she interposed herself between David and the crowd, and threatened them--but that although the front ranks slowed a bit, the crowd was still pushing forward (again, reaction determined by mechanics, die roll). I ended my post here, waiting for their response.
David posted next. He said that he was going to attempt to use psionics to create a barrier (which he has done before) in front of the charging mob, but if he couldn't do it quickly enough he would have Cynthia get them out of there (she and Eric both know how to do a sort of magical hyperspace travel, and she's better at it). As a fixed contingency, Cynthia was to get them to safety by moving them to a nearby rooftop if they couldn't stop the mob. He would then attempt to create a magical protection as well, and call for spirit powers to defend them against the attack. If that worked, he outlined several other actions he would take; if they were forced to retreat to the roof, he would take different actions.
Eric's post followed. He would use his pyrokinesis to try to create a line of fire in the grass, with a gap where Cynthia was standing, and then draw his sword and step beside her. He wrote a brief speech attempting partly to placate and partly to warn off the attackers, and indicated that he muttered something to his companions about who would die first. Otherwise, he would follow David's lead, and flee with them if they chose to go.
I came back to find these posts, and sorted them out, and started rolling. David (whose dice luck tends to run hot and cold) failed the psi shield and the magic shield. Eric did raise a bit of flame, but it was a weak success so didn't get too much. His efforts to persuade them (also rolled) had no impact. Given the contingency, Cynthia successfully opened the gate, pushed Eric through, and followed David.
While in this hyperspace realm, Cynthia explained to David that she could not move them to the roof, because she could only open an exit to a place she could clearly visualize in her own mind--and never having seen the roof, she could end up on any of a million roofs anywhere in the world. Thus I left our heroes standing in this gray mist while I awaited some decision from them as to what they would do next. Actions which were predicated on early successes were not run because of the failures, and actions which were contingent on reaching the roof were not run because they didn't reach the roof. In their next posts, they'll make decisions about what to do next; if they exit near the mob, they may choose to continue with the actions already mentioned, or replace these with other actions. Had the early rolls been successful, I'd have continued running actions until I needed another statement of intentions or the situation had changed in a manner I thought required an update (e.g., if the mob forced down the psionic shield such that physical combat again became imminent, I would alert the players to the change in situation so they could make new statements of their plans).
Clear as mud? You're welcome to browse the threads on the forum. It doesn't always work smoothly, particularly in very tense situations--these two spent about a week in a lawyer's office trying to get information from him that he didn't actually have, and then trying to escape when their security responded, but that was largely because everything they tried either didn't work or was wasted effort (they wouldn't accept that he neither knew what they wanted to know nor had records thereof in the office, so they kept trying other ways to get it). But generally it lets play move forward at a good pace for the current situation, whether that means a week's worth of posts for an hour of intense combat or a three-line post to slide through the winter when nothing is happening.
--M. J. Young
On 9/26/2002 at 11:50am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
C. Edwards wrote:
I found the whole description fairly impressive. Wow. I want to play something like this, now please.
Well, the rules are availabe on the site I referenced, and there are links there to the Matrix gaming yahoo group, which runs live experimental games. Things seem to have solidified a bit since I was last directly involved - a recent game seems to have run with 4 arguments per side. Matrix gaming is very much a Work In Progress.
On 9/26/2002 at 2:52pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Gareth: In reading the description of the Korea game, I'm amazed by how much it sounds like a play example from a game of Universalis.
From starting with just a rough outline of a conflict between 3 historical kingdoms the world was built up through a series of facts which served as precident for later facts; to summoning a Japenese fleet into existance where previously there had been none, to gaining advantages from having charismatic leaders, to the system of arguements which are very much akin to the sort of things you spend a Coin to be able to say in Uni; the similarities are striking. Even the map and the moving of armies would be an easy rules gimmick to add.
I'm going to add that link to the list of things I want to read over and see what I might be able to do along those lines with Universalis. If "Matrix Gaming" is currently a work in progress, I'd love to have you look at Uni and see if there is something there you can use.
MJ: Thats interesting. Thats very much the way my experience worked, only with military units rather than characters. Do you find that instead of reacting to events as they happen, that the pre planning of contigencies makes the game feel more like a board game...makes the characters more pawn stance like?
On 9/26/2002 at 10:23pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Designing for a PBeM Format
Valamir wrote: Gareth: In reading the description of the Korea game, I'm amazed by how much it sounds like a play example from a game of Universalis.
From starting with just a rough outline of a conflict between 3 historical kingdoms the world was built up through a series of facts which served as precident for later facts; to summoning a Japenese fleet into existance where previously there had been none, to gaining advantages from having charismatic leaders, to the system of arguements which are very much akin to the sort of things you spend a Coin to be able to say in Uni; the similarities are striking. Even the map and the moving of armies would be an easy rules gimmick to add.
I'm going to add that link to the list of things I want to read over and see what I might be able to do along those lines with Universalis. If "Matrix Gaming" is currently a work in progress, I'd love to have you look at Uni and see if there is something there you can use.
MJ: Thats interesting. Thats very much the way my experience worked, only with military units rather than characters. Do you find that instead of reacting to events as they happen, that the pre planning of contigencies makes the game feel more like a board game...makes the characters more pawn stance like?
Just a couple of comments from playing several Matrix PBeM games and reading the Universalis playtest rules. Matrix games are simpler than the Universalis. There's no need for the accountancy. :)
A Matrix easily incorporates existing information, for example: maps, military units and generals; historical information and so on. The existing historical information is just like any fact established by arguments in the game play.
In the Matrix game, there's a great deal of subtle play in building one's own forces as opposed to destroying an opponent's forces; one can do either but it's difficult to do both in the one "argument" (or action). A Matrix game is easily played in "immersive" style, particular when one's side consists of a leader and their followers; yet it can also be played pawn style as well. The best play (for me at least) comes from immersive play (freaking the other players!) and having a strong vision of the desirable outcome for one's side. With a wishywashy vision, one is easily defeated.
One currently disappointing part of Matrix games (as of about a year ago) is that if the dice roll for an argument (or action) results in a failure, nothing happens for one's side. This can be a crippling problem. After reading about Fortune in the Middle in Forge RPGs and for playing a face to face Matrix game, I'd allow arguments (actions) to be modified negatively in order to succeed. (perhaps +1 to the D6 result for each negative modifier to the argument's (action's) supporting reasons. I'm uncertain how well this would play in a PBeM.
On 9/27/2002 at 6:41am, M. J. Young wrote:
Immersive or Pawn in the Long String Contingent Moves?
I neglected to answer this last time; my oversight, and sometime in the middle of the night I woke in a cold sweat realizing that I'd failed to include it in my response--although the "woke" and "cold sweat" are probably from this infirmity that I suspect is now a respiratory infection on top of my allergies:
Valamir wrote: "long-string contingent moves" (did you invent that, or is that actually what they're called)Well, I guess I invented that; but I only just invented it. I was trying to think of how I described them a year or so ago when I laid down the ground rules of the forum game, and that was as close as I could get. But you're right--I should remember to call them that in the future, as it is pretty descriptive of what they are and do.
Valamir wrote: Do you find that instead of reacting to events as they happen, that the pre planning of contigencies makes the game feel more like a board game...makes the characters more pawn stance like?Um--is "no" a sufficient answer?
This may be way off topic, but a long time ago I realized that part of being a good referee involved learning to do a lot of things almost subconsciously that you never ever really recognized you were doing at all. I learned a lot about this when I ran a chatroom game. An example I give is that in a live game I will look at a player and use a voice, and everyone knows that a particular non-player character is speaking directly to that player's character--but in the chatroom I was stripped of both the look and the voice, and had to resort to "the innkeeper says to Bob, in a threatening tone" or something like that. One of the things we learn to do that we never realize we're doing is manipulate the flow of time. When game events slow down, time accelerates; and when events start to focus, time slows.
I've got four guys in three worlds active on the forum at the moment, and it illustrates how this happens. Eric and David, moving from dramatic assault to dramatic assault in trying to bring down the entrenched evil powers of the world they're in, took about a month to move their world calendar forward three days. It took them a week to get out of the aforementioned lawyer's office, and another week to conduct a massive assault on a nightclub which served as one of their strongholds. Meanwhile, Graeme has finished repairing the keel of a wooden cargo ship, managed to design and create prototypes for a steam power system and a zepellin transport, and watched summer fade through fall into winter in the same number of game sessions--but now at a New Year's Eve party, a pretty girl is flirting with him, and he's already been talking with her for two game sessions going on the third. Shawn just joined us, some time after Eric and David entered the lawyer's office, and has been through fifty days of game time in his world. The first couple were slow, as he was found in the cargo hold of a space ship and had to get his bearings and convince the captain that he was not really a stowaway. A week sped past and then several days of play covered the outbreak of a contagious disease on the ship. A couple more weeks went by in two postings, and then there was another sick crewman that caused a brief pause, and the next thing you know, it's his forty-ninth day in that world and pirates have boarded the ship, forcing him to work with the crew to repel them--his current situation, which I anticipate will last another couple of days of postings (today was the third, including the announcement that they had been boarded and he was to get kitted up to aid in the effort to repel them).
The point is that even with "long string contingent moves" time expands and contracts to match the action. Sure, conversation gets distorted--"I'm going to ask this, and this, and tell her about that and the other thing"; "She answers this and this, and she's very interested in the other thing, not so much in that, and asks you what gave you the idea for the other thing, and whether in your travels you ran into this"; "I tell her that I was in that area, but not for long; I explain about the idea, and ask her more about the second thing." It's not very like conversation, but it can still be very immersive. I think David has found Cynthia very attractive (of course, I preyed on his weakness--I noticed him flirting with one of the girls in a previous adventure, so I probably set him up for this one). I don't think there's much you can't do to involve the players in the story; you just have to do it all a bit differently, and accept that it's moving more slowly.
As a daring experiment, perhaps, one of my players turned the tables on me, and started running a forum thread in which I am the player character. The pieces of the story are shorter, certainly; but I am as concerned for the adventures of this character as I usually am for my characters, and I put thought to the story between posts and become involved with the lives of those around me and think a lot about how my character feels and reacts.
But then, it is typical for me to think strategically in these games, even while I'm thinking relationally. I play games on several levels even when they aren't RPG's. My characters often have career plans for the future toward which they are working in the present. I often come to the table thinking that I've got a list of things my character needs to do during the game, which may include discussing travel plans with the other characters, making an alliance or business deal with an NPC organization, visiting a temple or shrine to pray or seek wisdom or make contributions, acquiring certain equipment, or talking to a girl in whom he has an interest. It's not unusual for one of my characters to be thinking of plans for three or four future adventures while involved in the current one. When I was twenty-something and working at the radio station, I thought about what I would do in the future. Now I'm approaching fifty, and I'm still thinking about what I'm going to do in the future. I don't find it at all unusual that my characters would have many levels of thought going on at once. So I am an immersive player, in one sense (and not so in another), and my experience may have more to do with me than anything else. Still, when I can hook my players into having seemingly meaningful relationships with the NPC's around them, that usually indicates that they've been drawn into the game. It's rather difficult to get a player character involved in a close friendship or romantic connection with a non-player character unless you can inspire some feeling in the player for that character, and that's a certain degree of immersion.
More than you wanted to know, I expect; but hopefully it answers the question.
--M. J. Young