A D&D game optimised for online play

[VemuKhaham]

Hi all,

this thread will be about thinking of ways to optimally use the environment we play in (this online forum) for the game we play (D&D and such). Most of us know by experience that online playing is something very different then the usual pen-and-paper game. Though it is quite easy to conclude the negative parts of the online experience (especially the slow progress), this thread will focus on finding and using the pro's that online play can bring with it. I figured in the end we all might learn something out of this, so why not give it a go... (maybe this thread'll turn dead in an instant, but, according to a Dutch saying, "No shot given is always a miss". )

Furthermore, when I started thinking of this myself, I got an idea. Because here, on these boards, there are now over a hundred members and still growing, there is the opportunity to create something greater then anything ever achievable by any standard p&p-group. What my idea comes down to is basically summarised like this: All PC's will be NPC's, and all NPC's will be PC's.

That's right. We're used to a set of players playing the guys who sweep through the world, manipulate the guys played by the DM (NPC's) and go on and on. But what if all of the characters that are somehow of any importance to a campaign (that is still designed by the DM as it always has been) are played by people like PC's are? Wouldn't that create a feel far more immersive then normally? Wouldn't it just give the NPC's that edge that the DM could never possibly give them despite his vast experience? I think it would, and I think it's worth it.

The major rules would then be something like this:

- The DM creates the setting. After this, he creates a plot hook that will provide enough possibilities for all kinds of people to get involved in it.
- He then does exactly that which DM's normally do, but instead of playing his NPC's and detailing them himself, he puts up a player opening and asks for people who would like to take this role and play the "NPC" as they sees fit. The DM could make demands that come with a given role, but the player has the choice to take it or not, and perhaps with some cooperation he could even infuence the character he is to play.
- There is, as a result, probably no major PC party, and even more probably not a single main storyline. Different character would have their own storylines, which would at times cross each other, and perhaps even join up. Whatever happens, is up to the players basically.
- Whenever the story develops to a point that a new character is required, who could be temporary or permanent from then on, the DM puts up another vacancy. This means a large array of vacancies could pop up and members on this board that haven't had an opportunity to play could drop in. Sometimes, it'll be like a DM's short for the player, if the role is designed to be temporary, and sometimes it could end up like a great campaign for them too. Again, it's all up to the player.
- Players should be warned though, that death will become a VERY serious threath. Sometimes, players will come to a fight, as evil characters as well as good characters will have to be played by people. In fact, it is very likely that some day you will die by the hands of another player.
- Another thing players need to understand is that experience levels will not go up equally as a result of the game set-up. One player could be playing an extremely powerful sorcerer, while another could be a simple 1th-level commoner. At the same time, other power factors would also be greatly different: one player could be the Emperor of the Galaxy, while another could be a prisoner in the deepest layer of the dankest dungeon of that same Emperor. This means players will need to realise they are really a role in a story, not a character designed to be a great hero in the end (which is the meaning of original D&D). It is like acting; some get the role of the king, others are just a bystander. Of course, this doesn't limit the options of the player itself: if a player takes a role that reads: "senile old man lying in the gutter" and in the game he works his way up to founder of the Beggar's Association, then no game rule's gonna stop him.
- If the DM makes a role that isn't taken, then he could always choose to take the role himself, if he doesn't want to destroy the role. A player should only be able to take up one role at a time, I believe, for obvious reasons. Maybe an exception could, at times, be made.
- The remainder of the game is simple. The DM makes sure the story progresses, players act on it and play their part, and basically that's it. It seems like a nightmare for a DM to run (concerning time I mean), but in fact it is up to him on how large he wishes to expand the game; after all, he creates the roles, and as such, the size of the game.
- I think the players that begin the game should be entirely free to make their characters, like in any other D&D game. The characters that drop in at later stages of the game will be largely designed by the DM however.

Now that's the idea. By the way, even though I post this game idea here now, I have no intentions to run it, as I'm already busy with Fantasy Kingdoms online. I posted it to give an example on how to optimise the online play. However, if anyone feels he would like to use this idea and run a game like this, then be my guest and take anything you like. In fact, personally I would be rather interested to be a player in such a game.

If you have any other such ideas to make online play even better, I'd like to hear it. If you have anything to say about my above example, I also would like to hear it.

-VK

[Toptomcat]

That would be a very interesting game- the problem lies in managing it. There are plenty of logistics problems- when an NPC is needed and a player can't be found, does the game grind to a halt? Are the 'heroic' classes, traditionally geared to a standard-type PC-centric game, enough to represent that kind of divirsity? What happens when you can't find enough players to do the 'grunt work' of playing the weak, the stupid, and/or the royally screwed? How do you prevent railroading when the DM writes everyone's 'parts?' Is one DM enough to keep track of that many players?
In short, it would take a group of uniformly excellent and devoted players and a DM who's a bloody genius, but if it's pulled off correctly it'll be something all participants remember for years and will probably never happen again.

[VemuKhaham]

good questions, TTC. I realise it has a huge set-up, but I think it could be realised. I'll answer your questions from my point of view:

when an NPC is needed and a player can't be found, does the game grind to a halt?

This would be the DM's call. If he doesn't find a player to do the part, he can decide to delete the role, or if that's just not an option, he could decide to play it himself like a casual NPC, and, if it is really an insurmountable problem, the game could be paused, but I wouldn't be in favour of that most of the times.

Are the 'heroic' classes, traditionally geared to a standard-type PC-centric game, enough to represent that kind of divirsity?

Very good question. The core classes do represent most adventurous people, and prc's deal with typical members of certain organisations and such. The NPC-classes (aristocrat, commoner, expert etc) would, in my opinion, be enough to cover entire society, and it will be possible for a player to play an expert-character, for example.

What happens when you can't find enough players to do the 'grunt work' of playing the weak, the stupid, and/or the royally screwed?

Sort of like question 1, it depends on the DM's call. But, it is important to note that the little roles, or the roles of characters with less power, can be as powerful a character when it comes down to a memorable rp-experience as the greatest hero's of the game. Frankly, I find it one of the most admirable rp-aspects if someone manages to maximize the potential of a small character and make it as memorable as those who are designed to be more or less the 'heroes'.

How do you prevent railroading when the DM writes everyone's 'parts?'

Another very good one. I've thought of this though. Because I realised this too, I mentioned that it would be better that the initial players (at the start of the game) will be allowed to freely design their characters, and the DM needs to make his story based on them. This ensures that the DM takes the motives of the player characters as his guiding line. The other roles will however be created by the DM, but the player will have full freedom once he gets into the game world (though he must be reasonable of course). These characters can change, they can decide to do things as they wish, and nobody's going to stop them. Important to remember is that the DM will only be creating the character and create the point where it drops into the story, everything from there on will be up to the player. The DM has more control, I must 'confess' that, but at the same time the players will have more control, as the DM lacks the influence he can bring to the story while handling the NPC's himself. I think it will balance itself.

Is one DM enough to keep track of that many players?

This is up to the DM. If he thinks he can handle it alone, that's fine. Basically, the amount of players is still up to him though; he makes the player calls. Therefore, he can say to what point he wishes to expand the game. If however, he can find a buddy DM, that would be great too, as it will allow the game to grow further I think. Multiple DM's could divide the different storylines, but they should be cooperating very efficiently, as these storylines will be effecting each other greatly.

In short, it would take a group of uniformly excellent and devoted players and a DM who's a bloody genius, but if it's pulled off correctly it'll be something all participants remember for years and will probably never happen again.

I agree. But the reason that I like these particular boards so much is because the members are devoted and make up a community much more then in many other such places on the internet. I think it can be pulled off, but it'd be a huge experiment.

[Fangor the Fierce]

That sounds like a great idea Vemu. I was willing to try something like this, in my campaign, with allowing another group of Forumites the ability to take control of a few NPC's from a certain town. It has an academy, with plenty of students. I have about 18 NPC students already created, with backgrounds and such. They will have their own storyline, as far as what they can do, and how they go about doing it.

With the increased number of new members, I was thinking along the same lines as you were. There should be room to expand. I wouldn't mind opening my campaign up for maybe 5 players to test this out, to see how they affect the campaign. There are already 6 players in it right now, but they are the main characters, with their own storyline. But I can guarantee that the storylines will cross from time to time.

I guess it's up to the members here. I would give it a shot, as DM, if others would like to test it out. After all, we can only test it out and learn from our mistakes, if we are truly ever going to make this work. Might as well start now....

[VemuKhaham]

that sounds great, fangor, and its exactly what I mend in the spirit of this thread: to gain advantage from the online environment. If you ever need help on that, just ask. I might be willing to test it out (but I must confess I haven't been following the story of 'the hands of fate', if that is at all necessary). Just keep us informed!

However, you should consider the problems it might bring too. I said before that multiple storylines could bring with it character conflict and even killing, if the situation would be made as such, and levels could become very unequal. However, that doesn't have to be the case always - a good example for this is BOYD, in which experience still is distributed equally and conflicts have been solved really well. It all depends on how you do it, and how far you wish to go.

[Kauyon]

I don't know if my word counts for much but I think it's bloody brilliant for an idea. As for the "railroading-preventing" - if the DM is intent on writing the characters himself, why don't he put up one or two prime ambitions of the character (and things he really don't want to happen), one or two things the character is really good at and vice versa, perhaps major events in the character's life - all fitting into whatever scheme the DM has got in mind while leaving the rest up to the characters?

Just my two cents on that issue.

[Wizard]

...don't mean to rain on everyone's parade, but I don't think it would work.

I see no reason for it to fail theoretically, but the logistical demands are incredible. You have to find DM's that are willing to act as referees only, and players willing to a) play in NPC classes and b) have characters that are "underpowered" compared to everyone else.

If you can find enough of all those to make a town, more power to you. But I'm skeptical.

[Fangor the Fierce]

Wizard said:

...don't mean to rain on everyone's parade, but I don't think it would work.

I see no reason for it to fail theoretically, but the logistical demands are incredible. You have to find DM's that are willing to act as referees only, and players willing to a) play in NPC classes and b) have characters that are "underpowered" compared to everyone else.

If you can find enough of all those to make a town, more power to you. But I'm skeptical.

What limits the players to having to play NPC classes? What makes you think the NPC's that they will take over are underpowered? Yes, they can be, but that is not always the occassion. To me, it is up to each DM as to what characters are allowed to be taken over and played. From beggar to student to trainers. Anything goes...

[Wizard]

Well, it was sort of things like this that tipped me off:

Originally posted by VemuKhamam:
- Another thing players need to understand is that experience levels will not go up equally as a result of the game set-up. One player could be playing an extremely powerful sorcerer, while another could be a simple 1th-level commoner.

and

Originally posted by VemuKhamam:
Very good question. The core classes do represent most adventurous people, and prc's deal with typical members of certain organisations and such. The NPC-classes (aristocrat, commoner, expert etc) would, in my opinion, be enough to cover entire society, and it will be possible for a player to play an expert-character, for example.

and

Originally posted by VemuKhamam:
But, it is important to note that the little roles, or the roles of characters with less power, can be as powerful a character when it comes down to a memorable rp-experience as the greatest hero's of the game. Frankly, I find it one of the most admirable rp-aspects if someone manages to maximize the potential of a small character and make it as memorable as those who are designed to be more or less the 'heroes'.

I'm not bashing the idea's goal---I just don't think it has much of a chance of succeeding.

Would it be cool? Sure! But then, it would be cool if I won the lottery, too.

Feel free to prove me wrong and start it up, though.

[VemuKhaham]

Kauyon; yes, that is a good way to balance that issue. Just give the DM the ability to put into the character the line that sums his involvement up as he sees it in the campaign, and let the players take it from there. I'm sure that would work.

Wizard; believe me or not, but I share some of your skepticism. But my idea is more or less an ideal, and I hope to reach for it as far as possible. Of course, we may not be able to populize an entire campaign world with PC's. But we will try to get as many of its inhabitants to be PC's. If the market salesman isn't played by a player, then that's no problem; the DM could always drop in. The important thing is that at least the main people involved are accounted for, and even if that's not achieved, then as many as possible. The purpose of this is to maximise this forum's potential, not to create dreams of something grand that will never fully happen. If the forum's maximum potential is reached, then I'm content.

You have to find DM's that are willing to act as referees only

That's just a point that's not exactly true however. It's true that much of the DM's ability to play NPC's is gone, but he will still be the one implementing them, and starting the major plot-design. He will still be the one designing the dungeons (unless of course some PC build it, but that'll be more like an exception then a rule), he will still be the one designing the game world, he will still be the one thinking of the major events. Besides this, he will also still be the one doing the refereeing. And, as I said above, since it's unlikely all people of the world will ever be played by players, he will also still be able to play NPC's. I think that the DM, in this type of game, can do everything he did before, but now he is somewhat more dependant on the actions of the different players, which is always good for the game itself I think.

and players willing to a) play in NPC classes and b) have characters that are "underpowered" compared to everyone else.

True enough. Not everyone would find these conditions to be fun. But for them there will be roles that will keep up with the power-levels of the average player, or even above it. I think that because of the fact that all different types of characters in the world (bad guys, good guys, kings, rogues, heroes and fools) would be available for players to choose, this'll be all the better: to each his own, and everyone's wishes are provided for. Nobody will be forced to be the commoner, but it still counts that I'd rather see a well-played commoner then a powergaming epic cleric, and I think these boards are generally very mature, so I don't think this'll be a problem.

Nevertheless, it won't be easy, that's right.

[GeneralMHB]

A few things on this if I may comment:

First of all, the idea is brilliant. The concept is more of a story base and heavily gets players involved in what happens. The roles are quite nice, ranging from really powerful, to well... just plain ol' ordinary. I like it

However, like Toptomcat said, the task will be a huge one and will take up ALOT of time, requiring really devoted individuals (which I don't think we'll find much of an issue here as stated before). Also, it will be a major stress on the DM. He'll have to find roles for everyone to do, plan on what happens to characters if they do something, and work on more levels than you can shake a stick at. There is one way to help out in this: Assistant DMs. I played a game once where we had 15 people at one table (can we say War Party?). The DM broke us up into 2 groups, with two assistance getting each person's actions. You could use that here with certain plots, like one DM would help with the lower party members and the other with the powerful ones.

Just some ideas I had when I read this. Overall, the idea is great. In practice, it will be very hard to do, but will be worth it. Will be even more worth it on tabletop, but it will be even more of a hassel to plan than online.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Kauyon]

I'm no veteran D&D player and most of you probably know more than me about this, but all that talk of character balance and such made me think: what if an evil necromancer gets it into his head that he would want to spread a plague on the city, or if a high-level fighter suddenly realizes that the weak are there to be taken advantage of - what then? Will the commoners form a militia/rebellion to combat this? Not really an option, as they're all easily slaughtered by higher-level characters. Does some of these commoners rise out of the masses, suddenly receiving visions of grandeur/aspirations of greatness, and mysteriously gain class levels of some sort at an abhorrent speed? But that isn't really a viable option, is it?

The higher level characters will need to be dependent on these commoners, minor traders, craftsmen, and such - does the mighty swordsman harvest the fields? Rarely. Does the skillful rogue eat the gold he steals? Hardly. Does the knowledgeable wizard find his own material components? That's work for apprentices. What I'm trying to get to (and wondering if I'm being clear about), is that the balance between characters doesn't have to be in levels, per se, and it cannot only be so.

While player skills and spells can be abused and such characters such as Jochem the stablesman/aspiring squire, Bok the fisherman, Darr'l the knowledgeable beggar, or any other like them can hold an enormous amount of power outside of hack 'n slash campaigns, all being crucial parts of the storyline as much as any hero, if only for a short amount of time. Or am I just rambling again? I must admit that I feel a bit like a child among elders here with my incoherency and strange idioms.

[VemuKhaham]

GenMHB: it could work, but again it doesn't necessarily have to be necessary. It would al be up to the DM and his plans on how far to expand the number of PC's involved etc. It could therefore still be run by one, but if two or even more DM's were to join up, then it only increases the maximum potential of the game.

Kauyon: no need to feel that way: I'm not very experienced at D&D-things either, and therefore any help is appreciated.

On balance between PC's: I think it'll handle itself like in any other world of D&D. Whenever a character becomes overly oppressive against society as a whole, someone will always rise to try and bring down the threat. It's a rule of thumb that there's always something bigger. When you think you are a mighty wizard you can easily begin to hurl fireballs at the city, but then again, not everybody will sit tight and hope for you to run out of spells. There'll be city guards, but if they can't handle it, the law itself will probably be perfectly capable of sending its more powerful servants, like paladins, or even hire an even more powerful adventurer. Nothing really needs to change in this aspect from the standard D&D game, because actually, nothing changes. The fact that players will be the ones playing most major characters doesn't mean that therefore anything is different from when the DM would run most of them.

The higher level characters will need to be dependent on these commoners,

This line actually brought up a good example on how to express my opinion in that a low-level ordinary commoner could be just as fun as a highlevel sorcerer, and in this case, even hold 'power' against the sorcerer, not in simple levels, but in other ways, like Kauyon said.
Imagine a commoner that is the only guy who knows something, a secret that the party would need to know. The party learns of this commoner, the DM quickly puts up a call for a player ahead of time (he'll probably know that sooner or later the commoner will have to be played) who would be in for the task of playing the commoner (and if none are found, he could still do it himself). Anyway, then the DM gives the background of the char and his secret info as far as the player would need, et voila, you will have yourselves a memorable encounter between two players on these boards. The potential for the commoner character is nearly endless, as he could demand things from the party to do, he could say he would rather give the info to the other rival party for they reward greater, etc. It could end up to be an adventure for the commoner at the same time.
Hope you agree that such things can be just as interesting to play as the big heroes.


I just thought that this type of game would work excelently with gangster-type stories: everybody on his own, conspiracies and such, and some could be cops, and others mob bosses, and others simple goons. The DM makes sure there are things to war over, and it'll probably become a bloody massacre soon enough. It would be kinda neat, but it's just one type of game that would be cool with this game style I think.

Or you could have the same but shed it into a more fantasy-style feel: make a city, create a lot of guilds, like evil temples, paladin orders, rogue guilds and the city authorities. Everybody would start as being part of one of those organisations, and again the DM provides some plots to war over.

It's actually quite different though from the idea above. It's more of a war-type game, and it has less of an advancing storyline as a centre, and therefore I don't think it'll be as interesting as the idea above. But I'm just giving my thoughts.

[Fangor the Fierce]

VemuKhaham said:

that sounds great, fangor, and its exactly what I mend in the spirit of this thread: to gain advantage from the online environment. If you ever need help on that, just ask. I might be willing to test it out (but I must confess I haven't been following the story of 'the hands of fate', if that is at all necessary). Just keep us informed!

Well, having no knowledge in the storyline thus far would actually prove useful, for the most part. The characters have just returned, and will be interacting with the townsfolk shortly. If you want to run an NPC, let me know and you can test out the idea. I have all the NPC characters created, along with info that only the NPC would know. No knowledge of the campaign background is needed.

[Toptomcat]

I would be more than willing to co-DM or play in such a campaign if any of you decides to set one up.

[Fangor the Fierce]

Trying it out with Kauyon, it seems to work well. He play tested one of the NPC's in my campaign, and it seems to bring out a different flavor of actions and reactions from the players. I liked it, and will continue to use this sort of NPC role playing if anyone else doesn't object. Anyone else wanting to try it out, let me know, as I have plenty more NPC's to deal with...

[Kauyon]

My name was mentioned in the previous post! ;D

Also, the whole experience... metaphorically speaking it's a little bit like babysitting one three-year old instead of raising a murder of crows by yourself. Err, babies. Yeah.

[VemuKhaham]

Hi, I've been rather busy the last few days so I completely forgot to join the testing. But, now that I've read the part of HoF in which Kauyon played the beggar, it's good to see that the first test turned out rather good. Fangor, if you want to continue this then consider me in for it. Just PM me whenever you wish if you want.

[Fangor the Fierce]

VemuKhaham said:

Hi, I've been rather busy the last few days so I completely forgot to join the testing. But, now that I've read the part of HoF in which Kauyon played the beggar, it's good to see that the first test turned out rather good. Fangor, if you want to continue this then consider me in for it. Just PM me whenever you wish if you want.

Vemu, you have mail... your opportunity just arrived...