Pixel's musings on Roleplaying
Ok, so... Here's the thing... I've been thinking a lot about how RPs work lately. Thanks to running FC and trying to figure out which way to go and understand how to make things better. So, at the same time, I've been thinking that if I have ideas, then I should share them and maybe someone will be interested?
Anyhow, this is not an RP idea or anything of the sort, but given that it's a discussion on Roleplaying in general, I think it fits here. If not, I'll ask a mod to move it.
Getting to what matters though, what I intend to do is go through my own thought process, outlining my reasoning and hopefully make sense by the end as to how I end up making certain choices.
Step one: Medium.
This one is the most straightforward of all. We're on a forum. The only truly viable choice is to use said forum. I could go on a tangent as to how the different media compare, but I think that's unnecessary at least at first. That said, a forum brings certain characteristics to the table, a set of constraints that we must work with in order to be able to play over it. These, to my mind are:
Firstly, there's no true real-time interaction. Even if two people are online at the same time and can put out posts in quick succession, there's no live intervention. Others can only interject only after the poster has fully typed the whole of their idea. This isn't inherently bad, but suppose a player makes the decision to Charge a Gelatinous Cube. That's clearly a bad idea, and exemplifies something that could be easily remedied in face-to-face gameplay, even if only to ask if the player is really going to carry it through. Given the turn format, both the GM and the other players can only interact after the action is taken and posted. Re-factoring is possible, but requires further steps.
Wait time is an obvious one. No one sees the progress until the post is fully finished and posted. Once an action is taken, reactions take time to appear. Again, not inherently bad, but it further cements the fact that forum games are strictly turn based.
Lack of GM tools is related to the Charge a Gelatinous Cube example. Given the format that only allows intervention in fully complete segments, it means less opportunities to intervene. I wouldn't defend GMing as steering the game, but interventions and guidance are necessary to make the game progress (more on this later). The forum medium makes it slightly slower, and requires additional steps. To avoid stalling the game on tweaks, some planning is necessary to avoid the need for such interventions.
Math is again an obvious one. By default, forum systems don't have an embedded Die or Random Number systems. Or proper support for dynamic spreadsheets. This means that mathematical impartiality is not truly possible without a third party system. Yes, it's perfectly fine to trust the GM with the random numbers, or even a commission of players, but again, that requires a third party in some manner and full disclosure is still impossible.
Of course, I'm not factoring the chat in this because given that only the forum posts count as canonical RP content, the chat serves as a tool to create the forum posts, instead of being a piece of the game itself.
Step two: Building within the constraints - PvP or PvE?
This was a major point for me in the process of creating FC. And it still is. In that sense, I feel that this deserves an in-depth observation.
PvP stands for Player versus Player, PvE stands for Player versus Environment. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but there are certain concerns. Any game has losing conditions, or even if not outright losses, there are favorable outcomes and unfavorable ones. And no one wants to end up with the bad end of the deal. This is what motivates PvP games into being extremely well written, and have a great depth in thought behind each action. However, given an PvP interaction, one of the sides must lose. It doesn't matter why, but a conclusion to the conflict needs to be reached, and one side will be better off than the other. Given that both are populated by players, someone will have, to put it simply, failed. That's not a nice feeling, and it can be worse if the conclusion isn't clear cut.
For that end, I personally believe that an impartial, mathematical system is required. Some manner of verifiable calculus that leaves no doubts about which side played the best. Sports have score marks and tie-break systems. And the acts of acquiring said score is based on physical performance. Electronic games work on mathematical logic, and are decided by proper strategy, personal skill with the controls or a combination of both... As far as playing in a forum goes, the only thing we can certainly have is narrative. And that is cloudy and subjective. Yes, it's possible that any given group will agree on the same books, but YMMV prevails. Short of grammar and spelling, whatever else is there is subjective.
Thus, that forces someone to admit to defeat, for whatever reason. Or it forces the GM to intervene and make a decision for the players, either himself or through a delegation.
With all those concerns, I'm really afraid of handling a PvP game. Thus, I look to PvE. Now, if I assume that the Environment is capable of defeating the player, all of the above remain a concern, on top of the GM being required to control the Environment actively and fairly. But if the Environment is not necessarily capable of it, then you have a system where the outcome, whatever it is, is favorable to the player.
Now, note that I don't mean character there. Ultimately, the goal is that the players have fun. If said fun is not tied to having a character being successful, there's nothing wrong with that. But PvP enforces that one side of the confrontation will have his character being defeated regardless. In which case, if both players are unhappy with losing, someone ends up sad. Giving the Environment to player control serves two purposes then.
First, it eliminates the need of arbitrary losses. Without a mathematical system to be impartial, the player is then the one with control over his character's success rate. And, as outlined above, it reduces the need for GM intervention, as the GM doesn't need to actively control the steps of the setting. In this way, everyone wins out.
Of course, the GM still has an active role here. Given that the players have control over their outcomes, it's necessary to watch over what they do so that they don't step over someone else's fun. Suppose someone enjoys writing a Mary Sue. That, by itself, doesn't have the slightest problem. Now, there's an important question that needs to be asked, is that Sue's presence hurting the others' game? If so, then as a GM you need to take measures to balance things out.
Speaking directly about FC, I choose a collaborative format, given that everyone is supposed to be helping each other, someone being at Sue tier, thus, able to solve the problems on their own would defeat the purpose of the game: Preemptively avoiding the problem, I have to make sure to keep an eye out on the power spread. Spikes and vales are what make the game interesting, but only if said spikes are dynamic. Thus, for FC in particular, someone getting to be too much more powerful than the others would be an issue I've foreseen, thus, something I work in order to balance out. Each game would have it's own set of such GM flags to keep track of.
Given that format, PvE means everyone wins. So, it's my particular brand of choice right there.
Step three: Okay, the game is built. How to run it?
This, again, taps into the GM's role. Back on the constraints, the game is turn based, yes? It's also limited in that each post is a fully contained action or set of actions, correct?
Then, from that point there's one question, how much should be expected of the players to write each post?
Too little and too much are entirely possible. But it mostly depends on the format of the game. Something that's heavily story based requires longer posts or there's not enough room for proper narration. Something that's battle heavy has to decide whether to make the battles self-contained, meaning bigger posts that deal with the entirety of a fight; or spread out, with different players taking a series of small scale actions that affect the battle over a set of posts. Or Dilly's wacky awesome idea which is fun fun fun and very short in terms of post length. :3
But too much can cause burn out. If you miss your estimate making the posts smaller, you can get people to play more or faster or slightly raise the average over time, if at all necessary. If the players burn out from writing too much, the game dies from lack of interest or player time.
Now, FC went with the friggin' massive text length. Honestly? That would really be bad if we didn't have as many players as we do. Because thanks to having just about everyone in the game we can have a rotation, people can take breaks and go back in and no one is expected to write one book per day. And of course, the text limits are maximums, which means if someone wants to make more concise posts, it's entirely possible to do so.
So, in that sense, what I'd advise is to take a measure of how long it takes to write a turn. How long is it? How long does it take to read it? Measure whether or not you, as a GM would be able to keep that up if you were playing it yourself. Because honestly? Being a GM in FC is essentially like being a player that has quests every turn. If it's not possible to keep up, then you need to tone it down.
And here lies the GM guidance part that is necessary to make the game exist. It's not to control what the players do or don't do. But rather, to play the eternal balancing game, trying to figure out how to best lay out your plots and scenes for your players, in a way that they can enjoy the game without burning out from going too fast, or losing interest from going to slowly. If anyone knows a formula, I'd love to hear it. Because I'm trying to figure this out as I go.
Step four: It runs... Oh god it's gonna crash!
Namely, miscellaneous things that I think are important in order to make sure the game is able to survive.
One of the major things that I believe are essentially vital: The game is in turns. There must be a post order! To elaborate, if there's no mandatory order to how the turns are supposed to flow, players are able to go two ways.
First, it's someone else's time to shine. That's one thing that tends to happen inside honor systems. Someone thinks they got their share of the spotlight and wants to let the big scene to someone else. There's no clear line of who is supposed to take the opening, turns out that no one takes the last piece of the cake, and the cake just sits there. Uneaten in an stalled game. This is bad. I don't even think I need to say it.
Second one is the classic someone else's problem. So long as it's not my turn, I don't need to worry about how the game is going. Someone will move it along. I'm not saying this to sound like an ass, so, sorry everyone. But, what I mean is, we might forget, we might assume someone else is already on it, and in the end, it turns out the same way as the last piece of cake, and the game stalls all the same.
The order might be set in stone for the whole game, it might change every turn, it might be defined by some in-game factor. It doesn't matter. But the player should know when it's his turn to move things around.
Now, looking again at what I did for FC, free-posting has room to be useful. Side Stories has more posts than the Main RP at the moment. But, that's something that's entirely optional. Same for the Special Events. While they offer interesting opportunities and are places for someone to play in case they want to and are not on any main thread quests, they're free to go into the free posting threads at anytime. But, assume these threads outright die. The game can continue on, because unless everyone is unavailable, there's a way to send people into the main thread with named quests and keep the game itself going. And in the main thread, with the quest prompts, everyone knows who is supposed to take each slice of cake, there's no reason to leave it sitting there in case someone else wants it, because each slice is given to the person supposed to have it.
This brings up the second factor: Deadlines.
These are not a clear-cut must have element. It mainly depends on the game, who are the people who play it and how many players there are. For FC the deadlines are necessary, if only because of the player rotation element. While someone is not playing, there are other players who are inactive and would like to play. Thus, some manner of rule to govern it is necessary. A smaller game, without a rotation, could probably survive fairly well without these as long as it has a turn order.
Worse comes to worst, whoever is supposed to take that post disappears and the other players along with the GM decide to skip him for the turn. But it's more likely that it'd be possible to just ask the person if he wants to skip because of whatever reason. Establishing a deadline is mostly not a bad thing, but I really think it shouldn't be seen as an easy solution to keep the posts coming. There might be real life factors involved. Or maybe it's the game itself that has a flaw of some manner, like player burn out or lack of interest. And simply establishing a countdown wouldn't fix these, so yeah, lastly, time limits are a good tool, but a potentially dangerous one.
Well, this is Pixel, typing yet another wall of text on stuffs. I'm a newbie at this, but hey, FC is working. So maybe some of that reasoning behind what choices I make are right after all. And if they can be useful to even one of you, that's a win for me.
I did mostly avoid mentioning the other RPs, I don't know if that kind of review is wanted or not. Specially in a public form like this, but if you guys want me to, I can do a review on each one individually. I also avoided mentioning merits or demerits of settings and plots and that kind of thing, because to be honest, I think that's tangential to the mechanics of running the game. And they're subjective, not everyone necessarily enjoys the same genres of media. Other than that, I really hope this makes sense.
Anyhow, this is not an RP idea or anything of the sort, but given that it's a discussion on Roleplaying in general, I think it fits here. If not, I'll ask a mod to move it.
Getting to what matters though, what I intend to do is go through my own thought process, outlining my reasoning and hopefully make sense by the end as to how I end up making certain choices.
Step one: Medium.
This one is the most straightforward of all. We're on a forum. The only truly viable choice is to use said forum. I could go on a tangent as to how the different media compare, but I think that's unnecessary at least at first. That said, a forum brings certain characteristics to the table, a set of constraints that we must work with in order to be able to play over it. These, to my mind are:
- Turns.
- Wait time.
- Lack of GM tools.
- Difficulty to implement a mathematical system.
Firstly, there's no true real-time interaction. Even if two people are online at the same time and can put out posts in quick succession, there's no live intervention. Others can only interject only after the poster has fully typed the whole of their idea. This isn't inherently bad, but suppose a player makes the decision to Charge a Gelatinous Cube. That's clearly a bad idea, and exemplifies something that could be easily remedied in face-to-face gameplay, even if only to ask if the player is really going to carry it through. Given the turn format, both the GM and the other players can only interact after the action is taken and posted. Re-factoring is possible, but requires further steps.
Wait time is an obvious one. No one sees the progress until the post is fully finished and posted. Once an action is taken, reactions take time to appear. Again, not inherently bad, but it further cements the fact that forum games are strictly turn based.
Lack of GM tools is related to the Charge a Gelatinous Cube example. Given the format that only allows intervention in fully complete segments, it means less opportunities to intervene. I wouldn't defend GMing as steering the game, but interventions and guidance are necessary to make the game progress (more on this later). The forum medium makes it slightly slower, and requires additional steps. To avoid stalling the game on tweaks, some planning is necessary to avoid the need for such interventions.
Math is again an obvious one. By default, forum systems don't have an embedded Die or Random Number systems. Or proper support for dynamic spreadsheets. This means that mathematical impartiality is not truly possible without a third party system. Yes, it's perfectly fine to trust the GM with the random numbers, or even a commission of players, but again, that requires a third party in some manner and full disclosure is still impossible.
Of course, I'm not factoring the chat in this because given that only the forum posts count as canonical RP content, the chat serves as a tool to create the forum posts, instead of being a piece of the game itself.
Step two: Building within the constraints - PvP or PvE?
This was a major point for me in the process of creating FC. And it still is. In that sense, I feel that this deserves an in-depth observation.
PvP stands for Player versus Player, PvE stands for Player versus Environment. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but there are certain concerns. Any game has losing conditions, or even if not outright losses, there are favorable outcomes and unfavorable ones. And no one wants to end up with the bad end of the deal. This is what motivates PvP games into being extremely well written, and have a great depth in thought behind each action. However, given an PvP interaction, one of the sides must lose. It doesn't matter why, but a conclusion to the conflict needs to be reached, and one side will be better off than the other. Given that both are populated by players, someone will have, to put it simply, failed. That's not a nice feeling, and it can be worse if the conclusion isn't clear cut.
For that end, I personally believe that an impartial, mathematical system is required. Some manner of verifiable calculus that leaves no doubts about which side played the best. Sports have score marks and tie-break systems. And the acts of acquiring said score is based on physical performance. Electronic games work on mathematical logic, and are decided by proper strategy, personal skill with the controls or a combination of both... As far as playing in a forum goes, the only thing we can certainly have is narrative. And that is cloudy and subjective. Yes, it's possible that any given group will agree on the same books, but YMMV prevails. Short of grammar and spelling, whatever else is there is subjective.
Thus, that forces someone to admit to defeat, for whatever reason. Or it forces the GM to intervene and make a decision for the players, either himself or through a delegation.
With all those concerns, I'm really afraid of handling a PvP game. Thus, I look to PvE. Now, if I assume that the Environment is capable of defeating the player, all of the above remain a concern, on top of the GM being required to control the Environment actively and fairly. But if the Environment is not necessarily capable of it, then you have a system where the outcome, whatever it is, is favorable to the player.
Now, note that I don't mean character there. Ultimately, the goal is that the players have fun. If said fun is not tied to having a character being successful, there's nothing wrong with that. But PvP enforces that one side of the confrontation will have his character being defeated regardless. In which case, if both players are unhappy with losing, someone ends up sad. Giving the Environment to player control serves two purposes then.
First, it eliminates the need of arbitrary losses. Without a mathematical system to be impartial, the player is then the one with control over his character's success rate. And, as outlined above, it reduces the need for GM intervention, as the GM doesn't need to actively control the steps of the setting. In this way, everyone wins out.
Of course, the GM still has an active role here. Given that the players have control over their outcomes, it's necessary to watch over what they do so that they don't step over someone else's fun. Suppose someone enjoys writing a Mary Sue. That, by itself, doesn't have the slightest problem. Now, there's an important question that needs to be asked, is that Sue's presence hurting the others' game? If so, then as a GM you need to take measures to balance things out.
Speaking directly about FC, I choose a collaborative format, given that everyone is supposed to be helping each other, someone being at Sue tier, thus, able to solve the problems on their own would defeat the purpose of the game: Preemptively avoiding the problem, I have to make sure to keep an eye out on the power spread. Spikes and vales are what make the game interesting, but only if said spikes are dynamic. Thus, for FC in particular, someone getting to be too much more powerful than the others would be an issue I've foreseen, thus, something I work in order to balance out. Each game would have it's own set of such GM flags to keep track of.
Given that format, PvE means everyone wins. So, it's my particular brand of choice right there.
Step three: Okay, the game is built. How to run it?
This, again, taps into the GM's role. Back on the constraints, the game is turn based, yes? It's also limited in that each post is a fully contained action or set of actions, correct?
Then, from that point there's one question, how much should be expected of the players to write each post?
Too little and too much are entirely possible. But it mostly depends on the format of the game. Something that's heavily story based requires longer posts or there's not enough room for proper narration. Something that's battle heavy has to decide whether to make the battles self-contained, meaning bigger posts that deal with the entirety of a fight; or spread out, with different players taking a series of small scale actions that affect the battle over a set of posts. Or Dilly's wacky awesome idea which is fun fun fun and very short in terms of post length. :3
But too much can cause burn out. If you miss your estimate making the posts smaller, you can get people to play more or faster or slightly raise the average over time, if at all necessary. If the players burn out from writing too much, the game dies from lack of interest or player time.
Now, FC went with the friggin' massive text length. Honestly? That would really be bad if we didn't have as many players as we do. Because thanks to having just about everyone in the game we can have a rotation, people can take breaks and go back in and no one is expected to write one book per day. And of course, the text limits are maximums, which means if someone wants to make more concise posts, it's entirely possible to do so.
So, in that sense, what I'd advise is to take a measure of how long it takes to write a turn. How long is it? How long does it take to read it? Measure whether or not you, as a GM would be able to keep that up if you were playing it yourself. Because honestly? Being a GM in FC is essentially like being a player that has quests every turn. If it's not possible to keep up, then you need to tone it down.
And here lies the GM guidance part that is necessary to make the game exist. It's not to control what the players do or don't do. But rather, to play the eternal balancing game, trying to figure out how to best lay out your plots and scenes for your players, in a way that they can enjoy the game without burning out from going too fast, or losing interest from going to slowly. If anyone knows a formula, I'd love to hear it. Because I'm trying to figure this out as I go.
Step four: It runs... Oh god it's gonna crash!
Namely, miscellaneous things that I think are important in order to make sure the game is able to survive.
One of the major things that I believe are essentially vital: The game is in turns. There must be a post order! To elaborate, if there's no mandatory order to how the turns are supposed to flow, players are able to go two ways.
First, it's someone else's time to shine. That's one thing that tends to happen inside honor systems. Someone thinks they got their share of the spotlight and wants to let the big scene to someone else. There's no clear line of who is supposed to take the opening, turns out that no one takes the last piece of the cake, and the cake just sits there. Uneaten in an stalled game. This is bad. I don't even think I need to say it.
Second one is the classic someone else's problem. So long as it's not my turn, I don't need to worry about how the game is going. Someone will move it along. I'm not saying this to sound like an ass, so, sorry everyone. But, what I mean is, we might forget, we might assume someone else is already on it, and in the end, it turns out the same way as the last piece of cake, and the game stalls all the same.
The order might be set in stone for the whole game, it might change every turn, it might be defined by some in-game factor. It doesn't matter. But the player should know when it's his turn to move things around.
Now, looking again at what I did for FC, free-posting has room to be useful. Side Stories has more posts than the Main RP at the moment. But, that's something that's entirely optional. Same for the Special Events. While they offer interesting opportunities and are places for someone to play in case they want to and are not on any main thread quests, they're free to go into the free posting threads at anytime. But, assume these threads outright die. The game can continue on, because unless everyone is unavailable, there's a way to send people into the main thread with named quests and keep the game itself going. And in the main thread, with the quest prompts, everyone knows who is supposed to take each slice of cake, there's no reason to leave it sitting there in case someone else wants it, because each slice is given to the person supposed to have it.
This brings up the second factor: Deadlines.
These are not a clear-cut must have element. It mainly depends on the game, who are the people who play it and how many players there are. For FC the deadlines are necessary, if only because of the player rotation element. While someone is not playing, there are other players who are inactive and would like to play. Thus, some manner of rule to govern it is necessary. A smaller game, without a rotation, could probably survive fairly well without these as long as it has a turn order.
Worse comes to worst, whoever is supposed to take that post disappears and the other players along with the GM decide to skip him for the turn. But it's more likely that it'd be possible to just ask the person if he wants to skip because of whatever reason. Establishing a deadline is mostly not a bad thing, but I really think it shouldn't be seen as an easy solution to keep the posts coming. There might be real life factors involved. Or maybe it's the game itself that has a flaw of some manner, like player burn out or lack of interest. And simply establishing a countdown wouldn't fix these, so yeah, lastly, time limits are a good tool, but a potentially dangerous one.
Well, this is Pixel, typing yet another wall of text on stuffs. I'm a newbie at this, but hey, FC is working. So maybe some of that reasoning behind what choices I make are right after all. And if they can be useful to even one of you, that's a win for me.
I did mostly avoid mentioning the other RPs, I don't know if that kind of review is wanted or not. Specially in a public form like this, but if you guys want me to, I can do a review on each one individually. I also avoided mentioning merits or demerits of settings and plots and that kind of thing, because to be honest, I think that's tangential to the mechanics of running the game. And they're subjective, not everyone necessarily enjoys the same genres of media. Other than that, I really hope this makes sense.