Well I guess I'll start out by giving my opinion on some of the things that you mentioned Haibane,<br/><br/><br/><br/><strong>Different speeds/availability of players posting</strong>: I'm currently learning how best to deal with this situation. For instance the primary group game I'm running right now is having to deal with a number of the players not being currently available. I'd say that this can really kill a game fast unless the players are genuinely interested especially if the plot hinges on all characters interacting.<br/><br/><strong>Story progression pace (moves too slow/jumps on ahead too fast)</strong>: From a GM perspective this can be VERY difficult, you don't want to move things ahead too quickly and not give everyone a chance to post, but at the same time you don't want to have the thread hanging there waiting on that one slow person. I'd say the best thing is balance, though if balance is unachievable I'd lean towards moving a bit too fast rather than too slow, especially with group games stagnation=death<br/><br/><br/><br/><strong>GMs controlling pace (don't lead the plot enough/lead it too much and are too pushy) (puts her hand up in guilty admission)</strong>As a GM you should have a good idea of where you want the plot to go, and what you want to see happen, that doesn't mean that you need to know EVERY little detail about what you want to happen, but you shouldn't be pulling things out of your ass every time a plot decision needs to be made. At the same time I think that GM's should be willing and able to adapt their narrative to the desires/play styles of their players. No one wants to have someone else tell them everything that's going to happen with their character.<br/><br/><strong>Drama queens</strong>: In my experience it's best to deal with them with a firm hand, I don't allow rudeness OOC in any of my group games and make that quite clear in the interest checks, as well as the OOC thread should it become a problem. Thankfully I haven't had to deal with it too much on E<br/><br/><strong>The game that dies because player X leaves.</strong>Some characters are integral to a game, but I try to limit the number of such characters in one of my games, as well as make it so that those characters are played by players I know won't cut and run.<br/><br/><br/><strong>Players leaving and refusing to allow a new player to take over their character. Is this a good or bad thing?</strong>Honestly I think it depends. If your character isn't key to the story I don't see it as a bad thing. For instance I had one group game where the subject was a group of people on an Island trying to survive, and characters would come and go, if a player decided to drop the game I'd simply ask them to make a final post about their character going off into the woods. That having been said I think if your character is key to the plot you should understand that he/she will need to be played to further the story and that anything less is a bit selfish due to the fact that you're basically screwing everyone else over. But once again given the way that I structure my games I haven't run into this problem too much.<br/><br/><br/><br/>One other thing that I'd like to bring up is the fact that one difficulty a game can hit is becoming too repetitive, if the GM doesn't keep things 'fresh' and keep the players on their toes ect, or if new situations aren't experienced most games will die simply because players get tired of doing the same thing over and over and over.