Expectations – As suggested earlier, tabletop games, particularly online games, and even more particularly ambitious ones, have a high failure rate. That’s normal, so don’t be too surprised if things grind to a halt and stop. All I can advise, to avoid this common fate, is for players to be ready for long spaces between games, and to keep giving it a go even when the initial novelty of a new game has worn out – even if you’ve missed episodes. That’s part of the appeal of the format, that you can pick up a character after a hiatus.
Considering both the interest-killer a slow pace can represent, and the bounded nature of the adventure (after completing all Major plotlines), experience will likely be a little more abundant than normal.
Another comment regards multiple GM’s (or Storytellers, if you like). The scope of this format benefits from multiple GM’s, who may have particular styles, approaches and rulings. Where ‘global’ conventions aren’t explicit, it’s always helpful to treat each GM as an authority and go along with their rulings if they are not swayed by reasonable negotiation. Discussions over concerns about extreme style disparities or any issue will more than likely be possible in some sort of forum (this entry may be updated to reflect such a forum’s location).
Conventions – I’ve alluded to conventions several times; some ways of dealing with common problems simply need to be figured out, agreed upon to the satisfaction of the majority, then applied consistently (at least, on a per GM basis). At the moment, my primary concern is dealing with interaction between present and absent players eg if a group walks through another groups territory – particularly one they have gone to pains to set up with surveillance or similar preparation – the latter group will likely want a chance to react, causing an awkward halt in the progress of the session until the absent player/s respond. Since these sorts of interactions are part of the appeal of the format, I’d like to avoid negating their possibility entirely, so opinions regarding conventions for these situations would be appreciated.
Quality control – different groups have playstyles of varying permissiveness; some groups may totally ban inter-party conflict, and that works for them. I’m generally pretty permissive, and this gamestyle is a unique stage for player-player interactions which may well be less than friendly at times. The consensus-decided game, Hunter, is also a bit more street-level than other game lines seeing as it stars your standard flesh and blood humans. I’d encourage GM’s to be similarly hands off about player interactions and advise players to be aware that players may be freer than usual to commit obnoxious hostilities for no other reason than they want to, think it’s funny etc. and to accept negative outcomes with good sportsmanship, or consider that a different game may be preferable if it really does not seem fun. Saying that, I’m happy to discourage/prevent noxious behavior or systematic fun-vampirism. While this might vary based on application, it generally involves things like (persistent and uncompromising) awkward shoehorning of sexuality or sexual violence, extreme argumentativeness, out of game loutishness and the like. If a player’s bad news, they gotta go.