Print

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

[ein]

I ran a sort of pbp rpg once.
It was more like mafia in that, everyone PMs the DM, and the DM posts all the actions for that turn.
It worked out much better than regular pbp, but still took forever.

[Akigagak]

I'm running a PbP on the GitP forum. They've finished the first encounter in just under a week, and this is with most of them being fairly new to both D&D and PbPs. Yes, it'll take a long time to get through, but there is no getting around it without making a timezone restriction or forcing Americans to get up at 2am and Auzzies to stay up all night.

[Solifuge]

A Lawful Evil manipulative Rogue bastard, with a needlessly complicated code of "honor" and "propriety" is one of my favorite character archetypes. A smooth-talking, backstabbing swashbuckler with the appearance of morality, due to a complicated code of pseudp-chivalry that gives him the appearance of being a good guy, when in fact he's just pandering to the public, and using them.

That, and epic feats of tumbling, acrobatics, and escape-artistry are just badassed.

[Leafsnail]

I'll in.  Dunno what character I'll use, but I'll make sure his alignment doesn't fuck everyone else up .

PbP is time consuming, but you can spread it out.  And I don't mind commiting time to something, just I have trouble finding time in big chunks (most of my big mafia posts are written in two or three parts).

[GlyphGryph]

...this isn't quite ridiculous enough to be a joke, is it? What could expert have that rogue didn't?

Lots of skill points, and all skills are considered in class.

It actually was kind of a joke - I tend to play illusionists with a heavy skill focus that suits my playstyle even better (and lets me create magical items), but I HAVE played experts and enjoyed them. I generally play situational manipulators, and it is rare for me to engage in combat (directly, anyways) so... yeah.
Technically, rogues might be better, but then, of course, I would have to play a rogue. Blegh.

[Akigagak]

...this isn't quite ridiculous enough to be a joke, is it? What could expert have that rogue didn't?

Lots of skill points, and all skills are considered in class.

Correction: Any ten skills of your choice are considered in-class.

[Cthulhu]

I guess I'm in, but I don't have high hopes for a PbP game lasting a long time.

[Huesoo]

Never played before, am I welcome?

[dragnar]

Well, whatever everyone else's alignment is, I'll probably be chaotic neutral(no, I won't just engage in random acts of destruction), so it won't matter too much to me.

[Leafsnail]

The main difference I picked up on between 3.5 and 4 was "Level one adventures are rather less likely to be killed by small mammals before they actually reach the dungeon".

[dragnar]

And mages lose all of their useful utility spells. Sure they may be a bit overpowered at high levels, but outside of combat being able to reshape reality to your whim is awesome. Granted, a lot of those spells are turned into rituals, but not anywhere near all of them. 4th edition is much better for combat, 3.5 is better for ropleplaying outside of it.

[IronyOwl]

Sure they may be a bit overpowered at high levels, but outside of combat being able to reshape reality to your whim is awesome.

The latter was a part of the former. Sure, it was awesome being able to construct a crude castle complete with moat and dungeon out of thin air with a few days' casting, but it didn't give the non-casters much to do while you shaped reality to your whim. Plus, a LOT of those spells were very questionably out of combat only- scrying was theoretically just some awesome thing you could do, for instance, but many people used it for combat purposes.

4th edition is much better for combat, 3.5 is better for ropleplaying outside of it.

I dunno man, unless you were playing a wizards' school I'm not sure "has awesome spells" is the same as "good for roleplaying."

[Grakelin]

3.5 was better for roleplaying. It had classes (notably the Bard) which were designed with roleplaying through encounters in mind.

[IronyOwl]

3.5 was better for roleplaying. It had classes (notably the Bard) which were designed with roleplaying through encounters in mind.

Again, I'm not sure the ability to cast Suggestion counts as better roleplaying potential. Aside from the explicitly stated ability to sing, that's the only thing I think the 3.5 bard had that the 4th one doesn't.

[Cerej]

The 3.X bard could also roll a d20 diplomacy check versus a static DC to make other people his fanatical minions.

See, the thing people tend to forget in these edition wars is that the actual rules (the only things you can meaningfully argue over) for role-playing are really shitty in ALL editions of D&D.  Think about the last time you did anything more interesting than roll a d20 or cast a spell to resolve a social situation.  That was your DM house-ruling and NOT following the published D&D rules.

I mean, seriously, trying to bring up the social interaction rules in a D&D edition war?  The answer is simple, they all fail.

Okay.  Now with the indignant vitriol out of my system.  Good luck!  I hope you get this up and running with minimal future derailment.  You seem to have some experience running a play-by-post, so I'll just leave you with a last bit of general tabletop advice.  If D&D isn't a good fit for the game you're playing, there are plenty of free tabletop systems that might handle (for example) court politics better than D&D.