Storytellers advice -- long-term viability

[WlfSamurai]

I know the info post SAYS we can use this forum for discussion, but it feels kinda wrong doing so... Somehow... But, I'm going to do it anyway!


Anyway, I'd like to ask some of the veteran and "successful" STs out there for some advice. Every ST on this board is good at least in some aspect. So let me pick your collective brains.


My RP career, like many, was born of table-top RPGs. And after years of playing them, I ran quite a few really awesome games. Being new to the PbP scene, I have not found the same success in the games I have run/am running. They seem to fall apart rather quickly, for many reasons.


I can pinpoint a few of my many flaws that help this along, but in short, they all line up to the fact that I treat these games as I would a table-top game. For example, I wait for input form all the players to continue. I constantly set the scene up where we're waiting for a single player to post for the story to continue. My scenes take forever because I'm always keeping the table-top-style "moment to moment" roleplaying going instead of zooming out for the unimportant.


In addition, I find my biggest shortfall in PbP was my greatest strength at the table and why I was able to sit down with nothing and run an awesome game: reading people. Seeing their expressions, hearing their tones, feeling that lull in the action and throwing a curve ball. Most of these don't exist in PbP and those that do I haven't picked up on yet.


So, do any of more experienced STs have any advice for how to combat the above issues and/or make my games last longer?

 

[The Dark Wizard]

I know the info post SAYS we can use this forum for discussion, but it feels kinda wrong doing so... Somehow... But, I'm going to do it anyway!

It's fine, we want STs to discuss stuff here !

Anyway, I'd like to ask some of the veteran and "successful" STs out there for some advice. Every ST on this board is good at least in some aspect. So let me pick your collective brains.
My RP career, like many, was born of table-top RPGs. And after years of playing them, I ran quite a few really awesome games. Being new to the PbP scene, I have not found the same success in the games I have run/am running. They seem to fall apart rather quickly, for many reasons.


I can pinpoint a few of my many flaws that help this along, but in short, they all line up to the fact that I treat these games as I would a table-top game. For example, I wait for input form all the players to continue. I constantly set the scene up where we're waiting for a single player to post for the story to continue. My scenes take forever because I'm always keeping the table-top-style "moment to moment" roleplaying going instead of zooming out for the unimportant.


In addition, I find my biggest shortfall in PbP was my greatest strength at the table and why I was able to sit down with nothing and run an awesome game: reading people. Seeing their expressions, hearing their tones, feeling that lull in the action and throwing a curve ball. Most of these don't exist in PbP and those that do I haven't picked up on yet.


So, do any of more experienced STs have any advice for how to combat the above issues and/or make my games last longer?

One of the biggest things I find about PbP games(my self coming from table top games just like you) is that one simple person not posting can derail/kill the entire game and possibly end motivation for everyone else and thus they don't post.


I find it though that it is the ST's fault at that point though more then the player who stopped posting because the ST tends to wait/give chances which is fair but it should not be as much as a table top. For example when you are getting your gaming group together for your chat rp/table top. One guy can't make it, no problem you guys get together next week and your game is far from over. A player stops posting for a game week causing it to derail and pause and it will most likely suffer some form of damage of activity from the others as well.


What you can do when you feel that the case is just to NPC that character or write around them as quickly as possible and keep the game going, assuming this is an ST driven game.


As for the part where you feel that your scenes are moving too slowly, well all I can say is that tabletop/chat games are more about the Story then the character and the pace. You should invert that for pbp and make it about the characters and form the story around them, so they always have something to post about and the players form their own pace. (This is why games with less ST interaction are typically more successful and live longer in the long run, though not always).

 

[RetroCity]

The way I see it, most of the time for the ST system, I play with my players expectations and actually let them feed me some stories. Essentially what players want to do is a nice way to keep their interest going for awhile. Also in pbp, people tends to think a lot and questions every actions, so sometime, I find it easier to just move the scene along. Someone can't post awhile? Just keep moving on, they will catch up and all your other players will be grateful for it.


If a combat for example is taking too long and has no big impact on the story...nothing wrong with making the last bits of it more cinematic and finish it.

 

[WlfSamurai]

[QUOTE="The Dark Wizard]One of the biggest things I find about PbP games(my self coming from table top games just like you) is that one simple person not posting can derail/kill the entire game and possibly end motivation for everyone else and thus they don't post.
I find it though that it is the ST's fault at that point though more then the player who stopped posting because the ST tends to wait/give chances which is fair but it should not be as much as a table top. For example when you are getting your gaming group together for your chat rp/table top. One guy can't make it, no problem you guys get together next week and your game is far from over. A player stops posting for a game week causing it to derail and pause and it will most likely suffer some form of damage of activity from the others as well.


What you can do when you feel that the case is just to NPC that character or write around them as quickly as possible and keep the game going, assuming this is an ST driven game.

[/QUOTE]
You're right. This is what I've been running into and have to get more comfortable either taking control of characters or leaving them in the dust. It's not like they can't just appear back in later scenes when they come back anyway.

[QUOTE="The Dark Wizard]As for the part where you feel that your scenes are moving too slowly, well all I can say is that tabletop/chat games are more about the Story then the character and the pace. You should invert that for pbp and make it about the characters and form the story around them, so they always have something to post about and the players form their own pace. (This is why games with less ST interaction are typically more successful and live longer in the long run, though not always).

[/QUOTE]
This was what I couldn't put my finger on. It's why the games here that are more abstract seem to do better. I want the Players/PCs to be proactive but that means something different in PbP than it does at the table. This is the key. I think if I—as the ST—become less present in a given scene and do as much at the beginning to set it up so they have options, my games will be far better. As an example, I could point out all the interesting parts of given town and describe factions and people that are influential at the front end, then let them go.


I just need to learn to pull myself out of it a bit and do a more top-down view. Do I have that right? If so, any tips on doing this?


Thanks to you both for awesome advice. I mostly just need to talk this through as I have some gut feelings about it already.

 

[The Dark Wizard]

This is the key. I think if I—as the ST—become less present in a given scene and do as much at the beginning to set it up so they have options, my games will be far better. As an example, I could point out all the interesting parts of given town and describe factions and people that are influential at the front end, then let them go.
I just need to learn to pull myself out of it a bit and do a more top-down view. Do I have that right? If so, any tips on doing this?

Of course you have that right, you can set up a game in any way you want and I believe what you described is the best way of doing it.


For example you create the setting and give points but let people go and not actually create any set railroading in the story. This also allows you to play as a player not knowing what will happen and only needing to post every so often if at all. Gives people more freedom and it just works, they go with the flow of things.


Example:


Town A) Has a local mine, 3 important influential people controlling it. A farm etc. Just details like that and if suddenly the players want to go murder one of the 3 important people then play it out but forcing any kind of direction past occasional nudges is pretty lethal to an RP. At least that is what I've learned.

 

[WlfSamurai]

[QUOTE="The Dark Wizard]For example you create the setting and give points but let people go and not actually create any set railroading in the story. This also allows you to play as a player not knowing what will happen and only needing to post every so often if at all. Gives people more freedom and it just works, they go with the flow of things.

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that is exactly what I want. What's strange is that my table-top games are free and open. Not railroading is of the upmost importance to me. When I come here, I find that's all I'm doing and it's been bothering the hell outta me.


It's that conversation at the table that I'm missing. The one where all the questions are asked and I make stuff up for them. I just realized that thanks to this thread. That's what it is. If I make the conversation a single beginning post of information and try to cover as many bases as possible, I can achieve similar results that I'm used to.


Thank you so much. That was it.


So, now, how meta do I get with that? How much do you hold back or point out with those beginning pieces of info? I realize this is a question of taste, but do you have any further advice?

 

[The Dark Wizard]

Yeah, that is exactly what I want. What's strange is that my table-top games are free and open. Not railroading is of the upmost importance to me. When I come here, I find that's all I'm doing and it's been bothering the hell outta me.
It's that conversation at the table that I'm missing. The one where all the questions are asked and I make stuff up for them. I just realized that thanks to this thread. That's what it is. If I make the conversation a single beginning post of information and try to cover as many bases as possible, I can achieve similar results that I'm used to.


Thank you so much. That was it.


So, now, how meta do I get with that? How much do you hold back or point out with those beginning pieces of info? I realize this is a question of taste, but do you have any further advice?

At that point it becomes personal taste. For example Miz and Pineapple are working on a game and typically tell you everything including how the game might possibly end because it's the player's responsiblity to seperate the knowledge that they know and their character knows.


I'm still experimenting accross different games and concepts, so you should give it a try in your own way.


Remember Shards? That couldn't possibly get any mroe rail roady from me then it was. I hate my self a bit for that.

 

[WlfSamurai]

[QUOTE="The Dark Wizard]Remember Shards? That couldn't possibly get any mroe rail roady from me then it was. I hate my self a bit for that.

[/QUOTE]
Oh boy. I didn't consider that rail-roady AT ALL. In the least.


Well, I guess I'll give it a shot and see what happens. Thanks again for all the help. This has given a good direction.

 

[Miz]

I do intend on giving a more focused post in the upcoming days. I have been reading this discussion and would love to give you my perspective as a person who was raised under the post by post method and is now only later coming to play table-top and chat games.


It really comes down to what kind of post by post you want to play really... I mean sometimes my roleplays become less about roleplaying and become more collaborating writing games than anything else. Where players are all Storytellers and all have to collaborate and discuss with one another. Though that is not everyone's cup of tea and these games are the most vulnerable to the whole "it only takes one player to kill the game". Which is totally a quote from Pineapple and me that Wizard doesn't give us credit for (actually a lot of his advice is what we've been telling him). Plagiarism!


Characters are also a extremely important when it comes to motivation and the sub-plots of the game.


Like I said I hope to expand in a future post, but I am posting to you now that I am just busy and trying to get it all in the works. Storytelling is less of a science, and anything Pine and I will tell you are just guidelines which time and time again can be disproven by some but further proven by others... Granted I have probably killed over 30-40 post by post roleplays over the course of my playing. Rarely have I completed one... but that seems to be something that ills roleplaying in general. Maybe too ambitious or just a requirement of more dedicated people or even DMs?

 

[WlfSamurai]

Interesting thoughts. I'm so glad to see you and Wiz posting about this stuff. You both seem very well-versed (you run the damn site for goodness-sakes) in PbP.


Like I mentioned above, I've run many tabletop games, a few of which I'm proud of. But, none of my methods transfer into this medium. My games are player-driven at the table in-so-far-as I read the players' moods, listen to what they banter about, and listen carefully to their reactions when I present something. As I run, I tailor the continued story and events on the fly based on this information and improv just about everything.


I can't do any of that in PbP. There really isn't a stream of feedback that I have access to. Sure, I have a thread for ST feedback and it's hit once-in-awhile, but it's not a consistent data flow for me to tailor games to.


It's definitely a shift in thought and it will take time to learn the art of it.


EDIT: Holy typos, Batman.

 

[Fayth]

(Sorry to necro-post, I didn't think it would be a big deal on a pinned thread)


I found this thread very interesting and helpful. I, too, come from a tabletop background, so anything that helps with the transition is awesome.

 

[Grey]

I'm finishing my second real-life campaign in February (assuming the game continues as it should).


I have yet to finish a PbP, that I can recall, as ST.


I did one finish one as a player, though. Cthulhu_Wakes has a pretty good record for finishing what he starts.


I personally think the more effort the players put into their characters, the more likely they are to stay. Similarly for the ST and their plot.


But real life is what kills the game, especially when people are waiting on other people to post.


Personally, when my current run of games is over, I'm going to experimentally drop the party-method. PCs are always alone, pursuing their personal but potentially overlapping plots, and they'll only share a thread in twos and threes as their choices might bring them together for a goal or event.

 

[WlfSamurai]

Agreed. I also think that if the game is collaborative, meaning both players and ST can make parts of the game, the players have more buy-in as well.


Grey, you mention not having a party. What's funny is that at the table, I usually ran Exalted with the players separated until it made sense for them to meet, if at all.


I don't know why I haven't done that with PBP. I'm pretty sure I'm going to try it now that you bring it up. Personally, I'm doing my best not to have a plot for them to follow. That's how I like to play. Not forcing a party could really help with that.

 

[Fayth]

I'm finishing my second real-life campaign in February (assuming the game continues as it should).
I have yet to finish a PbP, that I can recall, as ST.


I did one finish one as a player, though. Cthulhu_Wakes has a pretty good record for finishing what he starts.


I personally think the more effort the players put into their characters, the more likely they are to stay. Similarly for the ST and their plot.


But real life is what kills the game, especially when people are waiting on other people to post.


Personally, when my current run of games is over, I'm going to experimentally drop the party-method. PCs are always alone, pursuing their personal but potentially overlapping plots, and they'll only share a thread in twos and threes as their choices might bring them together for a goal or event.

Agreed. I also think that if the game is collaborative, meaning both players and ST can make parts of the game, the players have more buy-in as well.
Grey, you mention not having a party. What's funny is that at the table, I usually ran Exalted with the players separated until it made sense for them to meet, if at all.


I don't know why I haven't done that with PBP. I'm pretty sure I'm going to try it now that you bring it up. Personally, I'm doing my best not to have a plot for them to follow. That's how I like to play. Not forcing a party could really help with that.

That's how I'll be running Apocalypse Roulette; players will be solo or in small groups until and unless they feel like getting a group together.

 

[Grey]

Oh, man yeah, I all about the player-direct emergent storytelling in PbP. Plots are for fiction and tabletop.

 

[Cthulhu_Wakes]

Real life, I find, is the greatest killer of games. Apathy can creep up on you sometimes as well. It's a hard thing to parse. Without the in-the-moment feel of a tabletop, games become muddled sometimes. But I've not run a tabletop since 2008 (even then it was a wild change, I'd been running PBP more since '06 and the speed of real time was almost overwhelming again). It really depends on the notes you hit with the players, their stories and such.


I have learned several lessons, though, some of those echoed by Grey:

• Don't shoe-horn your plot into their threads of experience unless the players are really gouging themselves with your plot hooks. That's easily readable in posts. I've learned this the hard way with some of my failed games.
  
• Have only the framework ready for a plot. You'd be surprised how easy it is to get them from Point A to B while giving them free reign to follow their own interests.
  
• Knowing your players on here is especially hard, but I've found myself (and the players themselves) migrating toward each other. I've a known core of players that are always in my games because we know each other so well. May seem clannish, but man can it make a story sing all the brighter when you know one another.
  

 

[WlfSamurai]

I think the most difficult thing for me is to create an open scene framework. A scene where the players can choose what they want to do and don't need input from me to do it. I have such bad habits of trying to push the plot along, person by person, finding out what is each doing and adapting to that.


If I could find a way to paint a complete picture for everyone to take part in, that might be better.

 

[Cthulhu_Wakes]

Trust me, I used to have the exact same issues. It's hit and miss at first, but it comes to everyone after some time. I usually keep a sharp eye on what the character's stories are, then flex the scene to what they do. I had to do it a lot in Roads, much less so in my Vampire game (mainly because Lovecraftian horror knows no bounds). Ask Grey about that one.

 

[Ignitedstar]

I must be the odd one out. Again. >_>


I come from a background where I write narratives alone. I like that level of control. No-- rephrase that: I LOVE it. I've been writing as a hobby for about nine years. One thing I'm terribly bad at is being a control freak-- that's how I started. You see.... In more experiences than otherwise, I have had players who don't know what to do after being given the freedom. I get stuck in this dilemma:


1) Apparently I give too much freedom to other players and we can't get anywhere.


2) I give too little freedom and I'm carrying everyone along for a story they can't really change.


If I do the former, the roleplay will inevitably die or wander off, making it more difficult to get characters together when I need them to be. If I do the latter, people leave anyway because they understand that they're not really needed. It takes awhile to find that happy medium... one that I haven't found, yet.


I write my roleplays like I would a novel. Chapter by chapter, with characters that I want to grow and change. I don't think it works very well. I have had only one successful venture that lasted 3 years. It was a collaborative between me and two other people. We did great until one had to leave, then the other guy felt that I was better overall and gradually let me have full control of the roleplay-- which eventually started playing like a novel.

 

[Cthulhu_Wakes]

Unless it's really a novel, I can never find--in my experience--any appeal with that sort of paradigm. Railroading is too harsh a mistress, and I've run a railroaded game before.

 

[Grey]

I must be the odd one out. Again. >_>
I come from a background where I write narratives alone. I like that level of control. No-- rephrase that: I LOVE it. I've been writing as a hobby for about nine years. One thing I'm terribly bad at is being a control freak-- that's how I started. You see.... In more experiences than otherwise, I have had players who don't know what to do after being given the freedom. I get stuck in this dilemma:


1) Apparently I give too much freedom to other players and we can't get anywhere.


2) I give too little freedom and I'm carrying everyone along for a story they can't really change.


If I do the former, the roleplay will inevitably die or wander off, making it more difficult to get characters together when I need them to be. If I do the latter, people leave anyway because they understand that they're not really needed. It takes awhile to find that happy medium... one that I haven't found, yet.


I write my roleplays like I would a novel. Chapter by chapter, with characters that I want to grow and change. I don't think it works very well. I have had only one successful venture that lasted 3 years. It was a collaborative between me and two other people. We did great until one had to leave, then the other guy felt that I was better overall and gradually let me have full control of the roleplay-- which eventually started playing like a novel.

I treat fiction writing and game writing as fundamentally different things, from which I want different things. Seems to work out more or less, much of the time. Fallen is thriving, relatively.

 

[WlfSamurai]

Yeah. I avoid plot-writing like the Black Plague in my games. Unfortunately, this usually requires player pro-activity. But when it you have players like that, there is no sweeter nectar. If I wanted to write a story, I would do so. My favorite part is when players surprise me.

 

[Fayth]

In Apocalypse Roulette, I have events that I know to be going on in the background, but no real solid 'this is where the narrative is going'. If the players want to get on the city events, they can. If not, the consequences will still be felt, but either way I think it will feel like they had that choice to not deal with whatever it was. I'm aiming for a huge sandbox where anyone can get anywhere with enough ingenuity. Here's hoping it works out.

 

[WlfSamurai]

Neat idea.

 

[Fayth]

Thanks. I'd go into detail, but Grey is supposedly one of my players, so mum's the word.