Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bloop_bleep]

A question for the GMs out there, if you have a forum game where each player controls an individual character in a group setting, in particular where each turn is some non-trivial amount of in-game time like a week long, how do you mechanistically handle the situation where character A posts their turn, then character B does something on their turn which character A objects to? Do you just let B run out their turn and A can respond later? Should A edit their own turn post?

[Quarque]

Although I'm not running any games here, I think I can answer this question.

It depends on the reason why A is objecting. I think you mean a situation where player A says "if I had known player B would play as he does, I would have played my turn differently"? In such a case, in a turn-based game, player A would normally just be too late. A should have negotiated with B before playing his turn.

There are also forum games where players can change their course of action during a turn, so it does depend on the type of game / rules.

[bloop_bleep]

What if B is like "I use all of the group's cloth and leather to make a really sick set of armor for my pet cow." The problem here is that within an in-game week, it makes sense for players to be able to respond to what other players are doing if there are disagreements, but how would it be accounted for mechanistically?

[Quarque]

Games where resources are shared like that need some rule to prevent one player from wasting or hogging it all. The most common mechanism I see to handle that is voting.

[Maximum Spin]

each player controls an individual character in a group setting [..] where each turn is [...] like a week long

I just wouldn't do this unless the players are in completely noninteracting silos.

Should A edit their own turn post?

This seems fine to me.

If the players are in a group setting and time blocks are within the... "player mean free time", don't run individual turns without interaction opportunities - either shorten the time blocks or, more simply, just make everyone decide what to do first and write up what happens at once.

Games where resources are shared like that need some rule to prevent one player from wasting or hogging it all. The most common mechanism I see to handle that is voting.

I think this is actively counterproductive compared to just letting people fight over the resources IC.

[Quarque]

Games where resources are shared like that need some rule to prevent one player from wasting or hogging it all. The most common mechanism I see to handle that is voting.

I think this is actively counterproductive compared to just letting people fight over the resources IC.

What I mean is that there needs to be some mechanism or rules to specify how they can fight over it. If one player can just grab it all and no one else can contest it in any way, that's a gap in the rules.

[Maximum Spin]

A simple option is to just take all resource claims in ascending order of size until the supply runs out, since it's easy for anyone to grab a handful of stuff.

[NUKE9.13]

PTW

This post has confused me so much I just have to ask: what are you hoping to watch?

[Egan_BW]

If resources and goals are truly shared, that part of the game is prolly better treated with SG mechanics.

Otherwise, let em go to war for it

[Roboson]

Games where resources are shared like that need some rule to prevent one player from wasting or hogging it all. The most common mechanism I see to handle that is voting.

+1

In cooperative games, I generally set up a loose parliamentary procedure. 99% of the time, this is just a standard vote box. In more complex games, I ask players to submit plans that are then voted on.

 But also, I do particularly like this approach in games with combat mechanics:

Otherwise, let em go to war for it

[bloop_bleep]

Well, of course a consequence of a disagreement can be a physical altercation to decide it. But the question is more how do you fit preempting someone else's attempted action in the mechanics.

My idea is there could be a short review period where no one is submitting new actions but people can object to other people's actions, and talk it out or fight over it.

[NJW2000]

From an RP-driven perspective:

Person A changing their turn in response to person B's post is usually considered a sign of meta-gaming, which players are asked not to do, unless A's character would be informed of B's character's decision, or immediately be aware of B's character's decision some other way.

This is basically a special case of the below:

If it is possible that A's character would learn about B's character's actions at some point before the end of the next turn, A is entitled to post conditional actions.

e.g. "If Alice sees that Bob is secretly trying to eat the FTL drive, she attempts to remove it from his grasp. Otherwise, she keeps searching through the wreckage."

Not sure if I'm answering the right question here...