Re: The Future of PBEM & USENET RPGs

From: Frontiersman@pagani.demon.co.uk (Ste Kemp - GM)

Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 23:05:09 +0000

David Conner (dconner@clark.net) wrote:
: Personally, I think a strict "You don't know who the PC's are" rule can
: be fun, but is often unnecessary or cumbersome.  Except in cases where
: the players are basically expected to be adversaries, such as maybe
: PARANOIA (I haven't played it, but from what I've read, it'd seem to be
: perfectly suited to this method).  But always doing it would slow things
: down, and might not be necessary.  I would, of course, never let the
: players know what's going on with the other characters when the party is
: split up.  I suppose that if you have an "open" campaign, you have to
: trust the players not to speak with each other behind the GM's back, but
: players who would do that probably aren't much worth having anyhow....

Yes, but you are assuming I am running a party-based game. I am not. So far
all my players' characters are scattered across the entire galaxy and have
not met. They may or may not do so in future. In such a charcater-based game,
can you tell me exactly WHAT is gained by the players knowing who other
players are? Oh, some other facts to consider. I tend to download mail twice
per day and if I need to forward something on, I will do so at once. I answer
player queries etc the same day (or the next day if necessary) and have been
known to stop up to 1:20-2:00 am doing so on days when I have to go to work,
let alone weekends. I am also willing to talk non-game things with players if
desired (one of my players is currently discussing religion/philosophy with
me). I treat my players with the same respect I treat friends. My aim is to
get a new turn written for each player within one week of receiving their
turn - not too bad for a freebie game where I write a story-style turn - and
so far I have almost always beaten this (barring cases of writers block).

In a group-based game where the PCs are working together regularly, I can
see why you would say that stopping the players knowing who they each are can
be problematic. If I ran such a game then I guaruntee that the players would
know who they each are. However, I have seen several cases where players,
knowing that a character is a PC, have treated them differently to an NPC. No
matter what you say, acting like that is NOT role-playing. Ooh, suddenly I see
all those wargamers/powergamers etc getting upset by that term, but games I
run involve ROLE-PLAY! This means I expect a character to only use character-
knowledge, not player-knowledge. This is not always so easy to do if you know
that the person who has just got you are talking to is a PC, as I mention
above.

Anyhow, I can feel the Vodka hitting the ol' typing fingers, so I'll stop
there.

Hope you all have a very joyous non/any-denominational socio-religious
midwinter festivel,

Frontiersman.

Oh, BTW, if you wonder about my commitment to roleplaying let me explain my
position as a player. More than once turns to my GMs have included statements
like...

"I know that this action is stupid and may well get my character killed, but
in THIS situation what THEY would do is..."

And yes, in such a situation, if my character dies then at least I have been

References

The Future of PBEM & USENET RPGs
afabbro@umich.edu (Andrew Philip Fabbro)
Mon, 28 Nov 1994 21:00:55 +0000
Re: The Future of PBEM & USENET RPGs
Frontiersman@pagani.demon.co.uk (Ste Kemp - GM)
Thu, 08 Dec 1994 19:36:55 +0000
Re: The Future of PBEM & USENET RPGs
dconner@clark.net (David Conner)
Sat, 10 Dec 1994 18:00:35 +0000

Referenced By

The Future of PBEM & USENET RPGs
afabbro@umich.edu (Andrew Philip Fabbro)
Mon, 28 Nov 1994 21:00:55 +0000
Re: The Future of PBEM & USENET RPGs
Frontiersman@pagani.demon.co.uk (Ste Kemp - GM)
Thu, 08 Dec 1994 19:36:55 +0000
Re: The Future of PBEM & USENET RPGs
dconner@clark.net (David Conner)
Sat, 10 Dec 1994 18:00:35 +0000