Good Roleplayers Considered Harmful?

[Enmuro]

I'm always amazed at how short the average lifetime of small group plots are. Before I started the current thread I'm in I tried to come up with solutions for how to make sure we weren't packing things up by the end of the first week. I looked back at how other plots I was in ended and tried to come up with a pattern. Below is (with apologies to more capable game theorists) my view on the matter of how plots tend to work out.

Summary:
1. Interactions with other characters are expensive (require attention, thought and time).
2. Each player tries to interact in character with whoever they view to be the 'best' roleplayer (whoever is the most rewarding to rp with. This could be a really talented player or whoever controls the plot).
3. The perceived best roleplayer will then be flooded with in character interactions directed toward them
4. If competition is too fierce, or expected to be that strong, some players might act alone to just effect plot. They might also try to establish themselves below the best player in order to appear as a higher availability alternative for other players. In that last case they anticipate losing in the competition for their ideal character interaction and so are maximizing their minimum gain by going for Silver.
6. Stress of competition and an abundance of new plots that offer fresh chances to compete for good roleplayers mean most 'losing' players drop.
7. The 'Winners' of the competition feel burned out so they take the decreased activity in the plot as a chance to leave it as well (this can happen before and after previous step). Besides, they'll be welcome in most other plots as they are skilled.
8. The cycle repeats.

I skimmed over things like differing availability and post frequencies but consider those to be factored into the rankings each player gives the others. It wouldn't seem rewarding to interact with someone having a much different post frequency than you for example.

For those who saw Beautiful Mind, the problem and accompanying solution might seem familiar. Where each person acts in their own best interests we get the non ideal result of a game dropped early on. One solution is to collaborate instead of compete but most people I find are averse to this. This behavior makes sense because there are so many available plots that it is low risk to go for broke in a competition for good character interactions.

The best solution I found, in retrospect, is to make sure you don't have what is perceived as one or two 'best' players - unless they have a ton of time on their hands and interest in rp'ing with everyone. Baring such people you need players that view each other as being on even footing. If that isn't the case, then expect everyone to eventually slip off. (Enforcing a rigid social hierarchy in character might also work to provide equitable character interactions but, beyond being hard to set up, I'm not quite that evil)

[Caeli]

Hmm... that's actually an interesting theory, Enmuro. I haven't participated in enough group games to say whether this is true or not, but I think this hypothesis, while it does have some merits, would probably fall apart under a few situations:

• All of the players were friends with each other.
• Some of the characters in the roleplay were predetermined to play with each other (i.e., the plot made it necessary to pair up players or group them together, such that all of them had to interact with each other)
• Instead of gravitating towards the "best" roleplayers, participants gravitated towards the characters who would interact best with their own

Of course, #3 is less of a situation than the first two, and probably simply shows the hallmarks of the more experienced group roleplayers.

Thank you for the thoughtful blog post, Enmuro. :-) It was curious to ponder about, the theory.

[Enmuro]

I agree that #2 would break down the scenario I've drawn out. It probably relies on a GM to break up the players accordingly though. That or in character team division where 'team captains' divvy up the characters into different scenes.

Haha, all the players being friends is cheating. It makes rp too easy.

For #3 I admit the term Best is relative and apt to change often. If rp'ing with a certain character interests a player they will change who they see as the 'best roleplayer' I don't know, I guess I just tend to think of people wanting to roleplay with good players over good characters (since a bad player wont play a good character well).

Glad to hear you enjoyed going over my thoughts on this matter. It is fun to talk theory, so long as it provides some results of course :)

[GothicFires]

You second theory is flawed. As a person that would be considered 'harmful' I can tell you that because of theory #1 players look for other players who will invest as much time in the responding post as they did in the original.

I do not avoid interacting with players who do not write as well as I do, but I can tell you from experience that it is frustrating when you fill your post with environment and the character's thoughts, reactions and speech that the person you are interacting with constantly replies with one or two sentences. In short, it is simply not fun.

So If I can manage I will try to keep my interactions with people who at least put as much effort as I do. I think its what I deserve.

[Enmuro]

You raise a good point I hadn't considered Gothic. I suppose one strategy for ensuring rewarding rp is to hold some degree of the elitism that most rp boards are famous for. I'm glad to hear that you, like most of elliquiy, are still willing to rp with a wider range of players (like me heh) despite that.

I like these sorts of responses because they give me insights into other peoples strategies for rp. Thanks to you two both for replying (and sorry if this post is choppy, typing from a broken blackberry)

[GothicFires]

It's not really holding elitism. Is it elitism to want people to put effort into their posts?

You do not have to be a good writer to put forth effort. You can start with a one or two sentence idea and then flesh it out. I don't care if it is not book quality or matches my writing talents just don't be lazy. perhaps it is elitism on my part but I consider one or two sentence posts to be lazy. I know not everyone has a desire to make long posts and there are people who would prefer to play with people of that style, but I don't think it is that hard to manage at least 100 words or unreasonable to have an expectation of such a post. It is so much easier to respond to.

I also think that you are missing a few other considerations.

• a better writer may drop out if no one is putting for the effort to make their effort rewarding
• But as an experienced GM, most group games die because it is harder to deal with schedules of multiple people. When you are playing a one on one game all you have to wait on is 1 partner. When you play a group game you have to wait on everyone else. 'Life priorities get in the way of someone replying' times 'x number of players' equals 'game death'. It has been the end of every game I have been in.

[GothicFires]

since i can't edit the post

'It has been the end of every game I have been in'

should be

It has been the end of every group game I have been in. Both as a GM or just a participant.

[Enmuro]

Sorry about that, elitism is an overly harsh term in this case I agree. Maybe its more fair to say that as roleplayers we have differing expectations for our partners, in many cases these are written in our O/Os, and we evaluate the value of a roleplay based on those standards.

And yeah, I was trying to hide the fact that scheduling and uncertain availability forms a logistical nightmare. Its very impolite of you, if I might say, to even bring up such a gaping hole in this theory Gothic ;). 

I've been playing around with a few ideas to get around bottlenecks imposed by unresponsive players. Unresponsive players aren't really a problem until their interaction becomes key to the scene or they interact with another person who is then left hanging. Maybe I could run several scenes simultaneously with different combination's of players in each. That way if deadlock happens in one or two scenes the roleplay can continue. This solution feels kinda weird though.

In real life I too have never found a good solution to dealing with different player schedules. I've tried to GM smaller sub groups when not everyone could make it but that always turned out poorly. Then again I'm a horrible GM so that's a given. Also did the Fantasy Grounds remote campaign thing but somehow, even with my melodic sing song voice, it just didn't work. The solution, again, is probably to just remove bottlenecks by making the roleplay scenes more orthogonal without impacting the ability of players to influence the plot.

[HairyHeretic]

Unfortunately thats a problem with an online group game. Having 1 or 2 players disappear can put an awful crimp in the game for everyone else, and there's not a lot can be done, except to try and work around them.

[GothicFires]

When I did GM if a player went with out posting for a week I posted for them. This was listed in the write up for the game. Many times I continued their characters after they fell by the wayside.

I may change my mind in the future, but I won't run group games anymore. I don't mind assisting or developing the direction for a game. But out right being responsible for it myself. NO. It more headache than joy for me, even though I'm good at it.

I think the only way to keep the game from being stuck is for the GM to post for another player's character when they stretch out too long and even play the character until it can be written out of the game if it comes to that. But unless you as a GM are willing to fill in all the gaps so that no player ends up with out interaction the game is assuredly doomed.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I have very little experience with group role play - only two game, in fact.  One was a bad experience where gamers stepped over each other, played against each other and tried to control the plot and direction of the story.

The second experience was much better.  I ended up with a group that made the plot and direction of the story of paramount importance and wrote to support that.  Everyone tried to either "write up" or "write down" so our styles blended better.

I ended up in the middle and got pulled up by the better writers and was able to help the ones behind me.  We all had a good time and only lost one player.

I think what kept us under control was the original poster using the PM system to send out 'alerts' during the game.  He gave us our heads and would only nudge if we needed it.

I'd try group writing again if I felt the group could work together.

[Enmuro]

Hi beguiling,

It's sounds like your second group was really amazing. I always worry about messaging people to give them a heads up. It's requires that balance you mentioned between wanting a player to know people are looking forward to their next post without making them feel pressured.

I'll have to look into adding that sort of nudge system into my next group roleplay. I'm also thinking of having an achievement or trophy thread to call out great rp. Like a picture of a gold book for a great post:)

It sounds like your second group had all the players committed to the plot which is really cool. The fact that they could all contribute to the plot probably helped the rp. There's nothing I hate more than the feeling of being on rails and just there as a prop for the story.   

[Beguile's Mistress]

The OP and I had played before so we knew each other.  He posted a request for other players and explained the 'rules' going in.  The first was that the story came first because if we did a good story we all looked good.  He actually posted the comment "Egos need not apply." 

The second was that we all play off each other and give everyone a chance to show their 'stuff'.  Some writers don't like doing this but it taught me to remember that the story is important to both writers no matter what the skill levels are.  I improved by playing with stronger partners and found that I also improved when I 'helped' a 'weaker' writer with their post.  He also encouraged a few of the players with 'side games' within the main game to give some back-story to the characters.  That fleshed things out when the action began to drag.

Last he did group PMs and individual PMs to keep things on track.  He encouraged us to PM each other, too, as long as we copied him.  He was controlling but not dictatorial.  He also encouraged, praised and respected all of us.

The game lasted a couple months and by the end we were all wrecks.  Happy wrecks but wrecks.

I didn't know enough to save the game for myself then, and the site doesn't exist any more.  It was private and the owner took it down without notice.  Except for the few who had exchanged email addresses we were thrown to the winds.

I'm not the strongest writer and I'm still learning, but I'm better than I was because of the experience.  Also, it gave me the confidence to try to help others when I can by encouraging, supporting and suggesting rather than bullying.  If anything from my experience can help you or anyone else, I'll be a happy person.

[shadowspale]

I mainly rp in groups and can say you all have valid points. In my experience the games have fallen a part for five reasons.

1. Either there was no true plot or it was poorly thought out.
2. The rp strayed from the plot or the plot stalled to the point the game became boring.
3. Like Gothic said, there were poor, lazy players who didn't want to put out any effort.
4. The gm wasn't actively participation in the game or lacked the balls to actually run the game.
5. You get someone self centered who ruins it for everyone else.



All are vital to a successful game, the gm most of all. Good players aren't necessarily the ones with good writing skills; they are the ones that can give you two or three sentences loaded with plenty to work off and are into the game; pulling their own weight.

Yes it is nice to write with someone who gives you plenty of detail but what is the point if they aren't truly into the game? The gm can make or break a game if they aren't out there saying "Move it!"  A poorly thought out plot either stalls or gets played out to quickly which means people get bored. Players will then go their own path or move to greener pastures.

Sadly, there is no way of preventing any of this. I have sat for hours with mods planing out each stage of a plot only to have it die on me because of poor, lazy players. I have been in groups where if your writing didn't meet a certain standard you never made it through the front door but the group still died because the gm was so busy monitoring the group we never saw her but as a shadow in the back ground.

The one and only truly successful group I was in lasted three years. The gm was great, constantly coming in with a new twist to the plot, kicking out the lazy players. The group died when a player came in whose writing was phenomenal; each post read like poetry but his heart wasn't in the game as he wasn't allowed to be the center of attention and got pissy about it. He reported the group and it was closed (stupid yahoo).

My point is that there really isn't a sure fire way to keep a group active and successful; its all hit and miss as you can't avoid all of them always. 

[Enmuro]

hey shadowspale,

I agree with your observations on what tends to bury a game vs what holds it up. Its unfortunate that we don't have any one definite point of failure or success for a plot. Just as you said though, its hit or miss whether a plot succeeds and there is never going to be a formula for keeping things going.  Even so, it'd be interesting to come up with a way to apply lessons learned from our collective GM failures and successes. I'm still worried about introducing new constraints/rules like some of the others have mentioned because I'm afraid it'll make it harder to recruit players. A plot that's DOA is almost worse than one that goes on just 'OK' for a few weeks.

We've all talked a lot about the different failure scenarios that lead to early plot death but I am curious what the symptoms and cures are? For example, in my initial case I would say that plot failure is looming when you notice that most everyone is interacting with a single good player. At that point I break up the characters so I don't have a single point of failure. I also get a sense of plot health based on the velocity of posts. As posts slow down coming in I start to eye the group wanted thread.

[shadowspale]

I have never encountered a group where everyone centered around one person. In the groups I have been in or modded, people might pair off as couples but not really anything bad came of it.

As GM I have had a problem with getting spread too thin. People would join expecting someone play off as well as possibly pairing with. If there wasn't anyone one free I would make a character for them if possible. My last game broke up because I had lazy mods.

If I wouldn't have been trying to do all the work of running the game as well as dealing with RL issues. maybe I could have handled 15 very different characters

Actually, in a odd way, I guess it was centered around me but not for the same reason.

[rick957]

Hey Enmuro ... Sorry if I'm violating the statute of limitations on putting up comments to older blogs.  I just found this post today.  :) 

I've been assuming that the trick to making a group RP last is to find people who write at about the same level -- not necessarily the best writers, but similarly skilled ones.  That way there aren't certain players putting up grand, epic posts while others are doing one-liners.  You seem to be suggesting that the dynamics are even more complex than I had imagined. 

It makes me wonder very much about how often any group RP actually works for a significant length of time.  It sounds like the people who've commented here so far are citing extremely rare, out-of-the-ordinary circumstances that produced long-term successes.

And, if it's true that almost all group RPs fail almost immediately, why are there so many people on Elliquiy trying to start group RPs?  Do we all have a delusion about these things being far more workable than they really are?

I'm inexperienced enough to not have too many preconceived notions, but I'm already racking up a terrible ratio of failures to successes in group RPs -- like, 5 to 0.  (Here's hoping our new game together will end up as the latter!)

Fascinating post.  :)

[Xanatos]

Hey Enmuro ... Sorry if I'm violating the statute of limitations on putting up comments to older blogs.  I just found this post today.  :) 

I've been assuming that the trick to making a group RP last is to find people who write at about the same level -- not necessarily the best writers, but similarly skilled ones.  That way there aren't certain players putting up grand, epic posts while others are doing one-liners.  You seem to be suggesting that the dynamics are even more complex than I had imagined. 

It makes me wonder very much about how often any group RP actually works for a significant length of time.  It sounds like the people who've commented here so far are citing extremely rare, out-of-the-ordinary circumstances that produced long-term successes.

And, if it's true that almost all group RPs fail almost immediately, why are there so many people on Elliquiy trying to start group RPs?  Do we all have a delusion about these things being far more workable than they really are?

I'm inexperienced enough to not have too many preconceived notions, but I'm already racking up a terrible ratio of failures to successes in group RPs -- like, 5 to 0.  (Here's hoping our new game together will end up as the latter!)

Fascinating post.  :)

It is my experience even with players of the same mind/likes/writing ability, group games will still fail more often than not. The main culprit? Life. Also I don't mean to offend anyone, but I have noticed as well many people don't treat games online nor other people online as they would games/people in real life. I don't mean to imply everyone is a jerk, but its simply sooo easy to ignore online if ones mood is down, or they want to hang out with real life friends and such. The internet simply comes in at below sub-par for the majority of people. I sometimes find myself ignoring games for a time, but generally I try to keep this to a very low minimum and mainly only if I am lacking ideas for a time.

Now as to why people still like to play group games, its simple. The dynamics, the unexpectedness of not knowing what the others will do is a thrill so to speak. I find it quite fascinating waiting to see how others will reply to a post I make, and I am sure this holds true for others. Even though most people know the game will likely die, they hold out hope never the less and try to enjoy what others bring to the game.

[rick957]

It is my experience even with players of the same mind/likes/writing ability, group games will still fail more often than not. The main culprit? Life.  ...

Now as to why people still like to play group games, its simple. The dynamics, the unexpectedness of not knowing what the others will do is a thrill so to speak. ...

Even though most people know the game will likely die, they hold out hope never the less and try to enjoy what others bring to the game.

Aaargh!  ;D

Xanatos, your terrifically insightful and incisive comments only confirm my worst suspicions!  Are we really all such lemmings?  :-\

Say it ain't so ...!

[Cythieus]

This is a very interesting theory, I was the popular character in a game and I left because differences with the DM, more or less because he hated me and my concepts. But everyone else there begged me not to go (except one other player who had issues with me and got tired of me hogging the spotlight (which wasn't intentional)).

But when I left everyone else basically left with me and the game was great for a while but it just stopped basically after that and has been limping on forever. Most of the games I am in because of the lack of interest in the players.

Its funny though, I think that I love role players who are good but express themselves in short posts. I am just not a fan of the long rambling 1000 word RP post from a member every time they post.

[Enmuro]

Hehe, I dunno if I'd classify us as lemmings rick (pumas maybe?). Organizing roleplays with groups is definitely hard  but not impossible. In your case it sounds like you're having an even harder time because you've been trying it with pick up groups (PUGS). Organizing PUGs is an art and it pays to be choosy and know what you want. I admit I don't do it, but if you want a good PUG it probably wouldn't hurt to reject players using some criteria. For instance, look at prospective player's stats page to see when they are active and how active they are. If you want semi real time board rp dont pick guys who are on at very different times. 

Back when I played MMOs I remember a lot of friends avoided PUGs because they failed too often. Instead we all just stuck to teaming up with guilds or friends who were more stable. In mmorpg PUGs one good player would always try to solo everything and bone the group, or as Xanatos pointed out, real life would take priority over completing some virtual goal with complete strangers. When you roleplay or game with a group you trust, people are more willing to stretch and work together for longer though. Kind of a shame that we don't have the concept of clubs, groups, or guilds here. might be interestin.

I fully agree with your reason's for way players cant stay away from often ill fated plots Xanatos. I myself also enjoy the chance to meet new roleplayers. By seeing their styles and habits up close I know in the future what to expect if I team up with them again. I wonder if its common for stable long term roleplaying groups to emerge as group roleplayers meet people whose style meshes well with theirs. Or does the need for novelty drive stable groups apart? I don't knowz but I'd really like to.

I kind of hear you on the long posts Odin. The longer the posts become the more roleplay becomes like collaborative fiction. The improv like flow of making offerings and spring boarding off others posts gets lost or becomes harder to achieve.  I'm curious also about that game you mentioned. Were you actively advancing the plot and the GM just didn't like it drifting from his vision or what?

[Cythieus]

I wanted to say something else I forgot to mentioned but was reminded about by Emmuro...

When you RP with Pick Up Groups, get to know one another. I tend to try and talk to my players, ask them their expectations and share jokes and other things with them, my group is pretty tight nit and we get each other and work at our own speed because of this.

I kind of hear you on the long posts Odin. The longer the posts become the more roleplay becomes like collaborative fiction. The improv like flow of making offerings and spring boarding off others posts gets lost or becomes harder to achieve.  I'm curious also about that game you mentioned. Were you actively advancing the plot and the GM just didn't like it drifting from his vision or what?

Exactly, I came from a forum where the Roleplays were basically that, collaborative fiction, better to leave them wanting more than to leave them wishing you'd stopped earlier.

Basically the DM in my case didn't like how I played my characters, I had one at first and she was disruptive and brash and had the best dumb luck ever. She rolled three unanswered criticals and was constantly managing to dodge things that would have been called nearly impossible. I also ended up picking up a second and third character. Everything came to a head when we were engaged in this war and I voiced how I was tired of it, he told me that he would speed it along and that he wanted to give me a hand at DMing, well in the course of the War, three characters died and I blamed him for rushing us to an end fight we weren't ready for. I survived through dumb luck. When I got to DM the game, he hated all my ideas although everyone else seemed to have fun with it. I went out of my way to make it more of an interaction thing than anything else. Then he made a character and was disruptive with it, causing trouble, not letting me see his sheet and not even telling me his class and level.

Well when my part was over he went out his way to keep his character around being disruptive (I hadn't been allowed to have mine there for the portion I DMed) and when we voiced how we didn't like this, he actively tried to kill us with a monster that was too strong but we kind of slipped out of it. he just dropped it out of nowhere on us and we were lucky the other players were smart. He only attacked those who had voiced opinions before and actively targeted them. So I said something about it, he made some lame excuse. Then he proceeded to take away the items my quest had granted. When I asked if I could restart, trade two of my level 8 characters for a level 5, he refused on the grounds that it was stupid and I was being childish.

Then he said I could do it if he killed them. So I told him no and like a week later I wrote myself out of the game. After that another girl who had been there forever did the same thing and he even took steps to kill all the animals we'd left behind for the party, take all the Gold from them and other nasty stuff. The dude still picks fights with me and its been about 7 months since I left.

[shadowspale]

And, if it's true that almost all group RPs fail almost immediately, why are there so many people on Elliquiy trying to start group RPs?  Do we all have a delusion about these things being far more workable than they really are?

I think for most its the hope that this idea, this game mist be the one that works. I have played in games that lasted over a year and joined ones that never truly got of the ground. I, myself, keeping starting or joining games in the hopes that I can find something both fulfilling and lasting.

It is my experience even with players of the same mind/likes/writing ability, group games will still fail more often than not. The main culprit? Life.

This is true to a point; it is hard to focus on a game while life is kicking you in the teeth or sending your way things much more interesting than a monitor and keyboard. However, if you get a group of dedicated, imaginative players who think along the same lines; the possibilities for threads become endless.

What I am seeing here on this forum as well as other groups I am currently in isn't the lack dedication or imagination; its impatience. People want their gratification NOW. They don't want to wait and let the story flow or to even work out kinks so everyone knows exactly how a game is played.

They want that gratification to happen quickly and if it doesn't, they move on. Another problem I am seeing is people spreading their selves to thin. You have one player that is juggling 12,15 other rps and can't post but maybe one a week, that player holds a group up; the other players get bored and seek more active threads.

Some will leave the game completely; others compound the problem by adding more games to their list of games. Soon a game dies that might have otherwise flourished because of lack of posting.

I am in three games where my character has been sitting for days; I can't do anything until another character replies. Am I getting bored? You bet your sweet booty I am.

Life happens, we can't avoid it but waiting five or more days for a reply and its like that all the time.... I don't mind slow; waiting two or maybe three days is not that bad but when a snail is moving faster then a thread; I get bored and start looking else where.

Boredom with a game will kill it faster than anything else.