PbP gaming & the player overspecialisation problem

Heya folks,

One problem I have had on occasion when gm (and playing) in RL is player overspecialisation. One system where that was a big problem was Shadowrun; due to the multiple concurrent spheres (astral, social, matrix, combat, etc...) there where relatively few things we could do with all player characters involved. It became a situation where you could easily wait an hour to do anything because you where useless in a task another player was expert in.

I observed similar problems in a Rogue Trader game I ran a couple of years ago. Each player had their "niche", and the moment I would focus on it the other players would become bored and listless. It was a real drag on the game.

So I've been wondering, is this any better in play-by-post? The periodic nature of participation nearly requires players to wait until the next response; in theory, I could see it allowing "group separation" more easily and without the time wasting of an RL game. However, I've only been playing for less than a month, so I was curious to know how more experience PbP-ers feel.

I believe that this is better in play by post due to the relatively longer time spans between actions and posts. More to the point, the longer times allow the GM, for example, to look over other players PC sheets and perhaps find a way to bring in the other players via tertiary challenges.

At the same time, I always put it on my players to make their own destiny. What I mean is that I encourage my players to ask me in any situation, "hey, can I roll X to accomplish Y?" As long as they are thinking and being creative, I usually submit to their wants. As a player, I am constantly throwing rolls at the GM while other people are doing things - and most of the GMs on here are cool about it.

I feel like PbP gives GMs much more room to negotiate and mold encounters as they progress. Prepping before hand is still huge, of course, but we have more wiggle room here to get everyone involved.

I think it's easier on PbP because most players involve themselves in a lot more roleplay than they do around the table. At least in my experience, its very rare for my players to stop and speak on their characters' behalf during a table game.

However, often times there's nothing going on directly, but PbP players will still write IC posts about their characters walking down a hallway, thinking about what's going on, making banter, or something similar. In that manner at least, most players aren't left without something to do.

That being said, there are still some systems that encourage specialized play, and I know SR5 was a huge perpetuator of that issue. If you're worried about players not making rolls, that's an issue with the system, but players will always find a way to be interactive in a PbP scene.

That is good to hear. I think one of the problems was hacking; we only had one, and as time flowed much faster in the Matrix than RL there wasnt anything the rest of us could do.

As for in character roleplay, I am very proud to have gotten most of my players (in RL) to do in-character voices.

Yeah, RP is one of the things I stresss in my games, and I'm really happy that all the wipes I've had have been a direct result of the players playing their characters rather than trying to beat a scenario.

Just for an update, how are you finding the PbP format regarding this so far, Wendigo?

Just seeing this. Some of my two cents.

Player overspecialization is pretty common in a lot of systems. How they mechanically handle them and how much spotlight time they need is what separates them. For instance we have the hacking systems of Cyberpunk 2020 and Shadowrun. Those essentially are a game within a game and need a lot of time devoted to them when used. The issue with these games within a game is everyone who can't participate in this game are left sitting on their hands. They are spotlight hogs and to be honest they suck from a game design/gameplay perspective for that exact reason. Why you see people say no to deckers/hackers for their games or only run decker/hacker games.

Does that mean stuff like hacking is bad? Nope. I GM the Infinity RPG that has hacking and the I enjoy the system, melds well with the game, and most importantly doesn't cause spotlight issues.

Then we come to the discussion of PbP and RL. PbP leans itself to a more true roleplay experience when it comes to embodying characters. It's like a book and visual entertainment. Visual entertainment (TV/Film) is about show don't tell. Books on the other hand is all about telling and letting the reader's imagination do some of the heavy lifting. Applied to roleplaying you get the show with real life and tell with PbP. Roleplaying at the table in real life is a lot like acting/improve and not everyone can pull it off or even wants to do this. Now you can say the same for PbP when it comes to telling or overall writing prose. Now even if you do lack at any of these or don't like to go full ham like others doesn't mean you won't get any less enjoyment out of the game nor will you cause others to not enjoy the game either.

I don't go all out for in character stuff when I'm playing or GMing in RL. I don't do voices at all but I'll communicate as my character/s. I'll do fun little quarks for characters but only in explanation only. I don't fully embody a character like an actor but as a storyteller I can tell you what they are doing. I haven't had any issues with anyone in RL because of this.

Also, best players in my opinion don't need to be the best actor or storyteller at the table. The best are those that actively pursue goals and create new ones to go after. Ones that as I GM I don't need to prod or, hopefully not, railroad them to get them to do something. Some people that come to roleplaying games can have choice paralysis. There are so many choices that they don't know what choice to make or are afraid to make that choice in fear of something bad happening. This goes for RL and PbP.

So that turned into more of rant on overall roleplaying so back to some scheduled programming.

So with overspecialization and PbP vs RL it usually comes down to the GM. With a PbP moving the spotlight around and molding things to better accommodate it is easier in my opinion. Prep will help in making the molding easier and a little more seamless but even then with PbP you don't need to make snap decisions like in RL. You can stew over stuff for a few days.

On the flip side in RL you get GMs who can pass around the spotlight for players and give them and their characters specializations to shine. I don't think its a godlike power to do so but one who gets it with experience (like everything in life). It is also points to the importance of a session zero. Where characters are built and making sure their specializations work within the story the GM wants to tell or to help the GM figure out ways to fit those specializations in. So sometimes there needs to be a GM veto on a character and sometimes they can make it work.

TL;DR: To bad, so sad, read it

That's great insight. I think as a GM right now I tend to be overly cool with allowing players to do whatever they want (within reason), and I think it is only because they haven't done some shit that totally breaks the encounter/game lol. I am sure it will happen soon.

I feel like the 40k systems are particularly bad at being underspecialized. Where everything is just combat heavy, direct action, rather than team buff/enemy nerf/crafting/support. Granted, those elements are present in the system, but they are under developed. So, that is the struggle I encounter most often - how to incorporate them.

Also, I am on that same in-person vibe as you. #Respect #GamerLivesMatter

WENDIGO! I STILL REQUIRE AN UPDATE FROM YOU REGARDING ALL OF THIS!