From: inb@creare.creare.com (Ian Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Email role playing advice and opinions
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:49:14 GMT
Reply-To: inb@creare.UUCP (Ian Brown)
Organization: Creare Inc., Hanover, NH

In article <1992Aug31.152527.17489@cs.tulane.edu> eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.194312.5088@samba.oit.unc.edu>, rhunt@med.unc.edu (Rick Hunt) writes...
>> 
>>I have been email GMing for a few years now, so I feel qualified to 
>>give some advice.  
>
>I have yet to GM a pbem game but I'd like to add a few comments from
>the player's point of view.

I'll add some comments from another GMs point of view (four years of PBeM
GMing.)

>>Have the players be in a group and have the same basic goal. 
>
>	Yes.  Email can improve a game by allowing private interactions
>But if everyone is off doing their own things, without any interaction
>with other players, it can bog things down just as fast as in a face to face
>game.

So long as no direct interaction is necessary and you aren't looking for
immediate response, it is alright to have the group break apart for short
periods.  If you do so, however, I suggest that you keep track of the time
lines for each player.  One way to do this is to put a time stamp on all of
your messages - this works, so long as you remember to do so.

>>One idea that I have not completely decided on is whether to let the 
>>players know the other player's addresses.  If I do, then they can do 
>>a lot of the communication without GM interaction.  Unfortunately, 
>>they sometimes slip up and tell the whole group something they 
>>shouldn't have.  If I don't tell them, I can parcel out the 
>>information to the correct players, but I have a lot more work to do.  
>>I have even tried to avoid letting the players know who are PCs, but 
>>that is very difficult.  Some of my players are professional writers 
>>and do dialog better than I do, which the other players can spot.
>
>	I like knowing the other player's email addresses.  Without this
>knowledge the game slows down (since everything has to go through the GM)
>and I lose the feel of conversation due to having to constantly mail things
>to the GM with a note about forwarding.

I have run all of my games with the players knowing who the others are.  While
there have been some misposted messages, these tend to be rare and are as
likely to be completely meaningless to the people who get them out of context
(kind of like hearing one person speaking on the phone having just entered the
room.)

With the right people, the players can keep themselves occupied for weeks at a
stretch with minimal GM interaction.  This is good - it provides a lot of
character development and doesn't place a lot of burden on the GM.

>>Expect the game to go much slower than a ftf game.  If the GM or the 
>>players get busy, it may be a couple of days before the moves can get 
>>resolved.  Learn to work around this and use it to your advantage.  
>>You have a lot more time to think up descriptions and names.  You can 
>>take a few hours to mull over an idea instead of having the time 
>>pressure of a ftf game when a player does something unexpected.
>
>	Everything is definitely slower then face to face.  As Rick says, this
>has its advantages.  However, as a player I've seen a major disadvantage.
>I can't count the number of interesting pbem games I've responded too only
>to find out (normally after I'm done all the work of creating a character)
>that the moves are going to be very widely separated.  Once a week is fine if
>the turns are meaty or prompt a lot of character interaction between them.
>But when the time between turns gets longer then a week it becomes hard to
>keep a character and a situation in mind.
>	This applies double if all interaction is through the GM.  


This is by far and away the thing that is most likely to kill a good game (I've
had two die at least partly due to this and my current two are suffering from
it.)  I try to send something out at least once a week, if only to prod people
into action.  If the current situation is one where the characters are expected
to do something, but they don't, it can leave the GM in a sticky spot.

Try to avoid situations where the actions (or lack thereof) of a single
character are necessary to keep the game moving (I'm in the middle of such a
situation with a busy player:  his character was supposed to introduce the
group to his superior, but he hasn't had the time to respond at all.  Being
busy myself, it took a while for me to recognize what was happening.
Fortunately, having the players introduce themselves is a workable
alternative.)
-- 
Ian Brown
inb@creare.com