Re: The Future of PBEM & USENET RPGs

From: dkass@cco.caltech.edu (David Michael Kass)

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 02:30:26 +0000

In article <3bdge8$e6f@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Andrew Philip Fabbro <afabbro@umich.edu> wrote:

I've never played in a PBEM RPG, partly because I enjoy RPG for the
social interaction and partly because of the problems mentioned.

[long section on problmes with PBEM RPG--mostly variants on needs too
much time]

>Alternatively...
>----------------
>
>     Another idea is the old "I start a story and you continue it",
>     modified for RPG play.  I've seen this done on local BBSes and
>     on GEnie's games roundtable some years ago.  It's presently
>     being done on alt.starfleet.rpg, albeit with GMs and
>     administrators.
>
>     This is essentially GM-less storytelling (small S, no
>     trademark).  Every player is a story-writer with equal rights
>     to the narrative and characters.  Each player would create
>     a new character upon entering the PBEM, but that character
>     would be communal property (more on this later).
>
>     The GM would act as a storyline seeder of last resort, but
>     would mostly be just another story-writer.  "Updates" would be
>     in simple text form-- you write a sentence, a paragraph, and
>     page of fiction, just as if the reader had turned the page
>     from the last update to yours.

I have participated in story telling of this type.  It was via an
email list.  I've also heard of others like this as well.
I agree with all of the advantages.

[various advantages, solve all the various time problems with
traditional style RPG]

>Disadvantages
>-------------
>
>     (*) "I just read the last update and Bob wrote that Maggie
>     Meteormuncher shot the policeman-- now, as Maggie's creator,
>     I can tell you that she would *never* do that, owing to her
>     extreme deference to authority..."  Obviously, one possible
>     problem area would be a player becoming incensed when
>     someone else writes something about "his" character they
>     don't like.  This could be avoided by stating at the outset
>     that all characters are communal property.  Alternatively,
>     something from object-oriented programming could be borrowed--
>     most data on the character would be public, with the
>     character's innermost thoughts and ultimate reality held by
>     the creator.  But I think pure communality would be better.

I would prefer some intermediate ground.  If all the characters are
communal, I can't role play mine the way I want.  The group I was in
used two guidelines.  1) you could not kill another character without
the writer's consent (although you could leave them in bad
situations--dropped out of an airplane over an active volcano was ok,
but having them fall in the lava was not).  This was a space opera
style universe so you could recover from just about any situation.
2) You could not contadict an attitude or position that the original
author had used for the character.  It was also considered polite to
ask permission before using some one else's character in a major role
in an independent plot thread.

Another plot tactic that is often used to patch up these problems is
to use "clones" these are look alike characters that actually
performed the out of character action (evil twin...).  It wasn't
really the character doing this but some look alike (often starts some
of the best plot likes I've seen).

>     (*) bad role-players.  Bob the Barbaric Belorussian can't eat
>     a Magic Velomint and suddenly become Dark Lord Zharkon, Galaxy
>     Eater, for example.  Likewise, players must be able to tell
>     a story in which things don't always work out for their
>     characters-- Han Duo's hyperdrive can't work *every* time
>     (unless it's part of the story), Sherry Shotgun can't
>     hit *every* time with her pistol at extreme range while being
>     tackled, etc.

We dealt with this by having some of the more "stable" writers (ie
reasonable ones) have characters with bit more power that could more
directly affect the universe.  For example in one story one character
has a magic writing pad that anything written on occurs.  She (and her
author) rarely use it but it is there to solve problems like this.
Also, see my next comment.

>     (*) how to incorporate a sense of danger, fear, excitement,
>     etc?

This was done by the other authors.  There was somewhat of a tendency
to write message that ended in cliff hangers for other characters.
Joe and John are talking in a bar when suddenly Joe (my character)
jumps through the window as the local "gang" busts down the door.  I
leave it there and let John's author get him out of the bar before
getting killed...

>     (*) start-up.  Unless players used a pregenerated universe
>     (Star Trek/Wars, Tolkein, Greyhawk, Tulsa by Night, etc.) the
>     game's originator(s) would have to spend some time writing up
>     something about the universe so that the other GMs-- i.e., all
>     the other participants -- can coherently move the story
>     forward.  Otherwise someone would be stuck fielding a lot of
>     "We leap into our speeder and make the jump to hyperspace.
>     Say, do speeders have jump drives?  Are we using hyperspace or
>     warp drives in this game?"  I don't think this would be
>     impossible, but it would take a little time.  A Traveller
>     RPG would need to generate an initial sector or borrow one
>     from source material, a D&D RPG would need to outline an
>     initial campaign world or make sure that everyone had a copy
>     of Al-Qadim, etc.

For space opera sci-fi or extreme fantasy, this is not necessary.
Just invent it as you go along.  The idea is that the "universe" is
inherently mutateable and will do so.  It would be harder to do a
historical style one, but if all the authors cooperate it could work.
The way we started (I don't know the real beginnings, since I joined
in the middle) was that the new author would read the story for at
least 3 posts from each person (usually 1 to 2 weeks for our group).
Then they would set up their character, without interacting with
anyone in the story.  The new character would operate independently
for a bit (say 3 to 4 pages) during which time major attitudes would
be introduced, a background created and so forth.  Finally when the
author though that they'd described all the important parts of the
character and had a feel for the story as a whole, they'd introduce
them peripherally into a plot line.  Initially, other author's would
be "gentle" with the new character in that they wouldn't put them in
cliff hangers, but they might be put into the dialogue or asked to
join some project...

>Yeah, but that's been tried before on USENET...
>-----------------------------------------------

[long comments on a.s.r that I don't know anything about]

>Obviously, this sort of game would be more enjoyable the more
>people were involved.  But the flip side is that it would take only
>one pimply-faced munchkin to ruin things, which is why I'm
>uncertain if USENET would be an appropriate forum.
>
>Unless you had some sort of administrative mechanism, of course.
>Public play (i.e., USENET) does have the advantage of allowing many
>potential players to see what's going on and perhaps join in.  I
>suppose if the goal was simply to recruit new players, posting
>recent updates in digest format to relevant newsgroups would be
>sufficient.

The munchkin problem is not too bad and I've seen it dealt with in
several ways.  The first is simple ostracism.  No one writes that
person's characters and all of their posts are ignored (so easy with
kill files).  This is extreme and needs to be reached through a
consensus of most people.  The other solution is to have the more
"stable" writers (often the more creative ones) to take care of any
problems created.  (I remember a 3 week effort to get rid of a
munchkin wherein 3 of us would foil every action of the munchkin with
our characters.)

>The Vision Thing
>----------------
>
>Well, I've rambled from traditional PBEM play to story-writing to
>USENET rpgs.  I think there's a tremendous potential in the last
>two, assuming there are enough interested players.  With
>administrative supervision by a GM, something like this could
>blossum into listserver (newsgroup?) with multiple story threads.
>New players would simply check in, read the FAQ, create a
>character, and start writing.  Or, it could simply stay a friendly
>campaign among 3 or 4 people.
>
>What do you think?  I'd like to get some critiques, feedback, and
>suggestions before moving from the conceptual to the experimental
>stage...

One important component I've found is to have a second list (or group)
that is entirely for administrative purposes.  The major authors (you
often have some who write regularly and then a larger group who only
contribute at 1/3 to 1/4 of level of the regular writers) use this to
discuss problems (munchkins, someone stepping over the limit...) and
to set up events:  Let's have a major battle in three weeks.  I'll
start it off and then Lucy wants to write the next part, who after that?

Another major factor is that authors must be willing to accept
different levels in writing quality and that their character will not
do exactly what they wanted.  I suspect that lighter type stories and
settings work the best.  I don't think a super serious type RPG would
work well.  There will be inconstencies and non-sequiteurs...

I would be interested in a space opera type story line or a high
powered fantasy (where everyone has some magic and many have lots...)
Its probably best to start it out as a mailing list by invitation and
then once the universe has stabalized, go to a news group (probably
create an alt one).

David Kass
--
David Kass				Caltech Grad
E-Mail: dkass@portia.caltech.edu	Planetary Science
Research: dkass@venus1.gps.caltech.edu

References

The Future of PBEM & USENET RPGs
afabbro@umich.edu (Andrew Philip Fabbro)
Mon, 28 Nov 1994 21:00:55 +0000