So, let me turn that last post around, and instead of discussing what has been happening, let's talk about what we could be doing.<br/><br/>It's a truism (however you feel about it) that in PbP the campaigns with the most longevity move from immersive action to immersive action. We're sort of in a narrative scene-setting space at the moment. Going to the Republic briefing (?) will result in more react-to-narration. Going towards the Senate and the goings-on there will result in confrontation.<br/><br/>Philosophically, while there's much to be said for inter-character discussion of philosophy/outlook as a part of character growth (especially when the characters are starting out by nearly-betraying or weasel-wording the principles of their appointed office), it might be best if this were the sort of thing that happened on-the-fly during/after times of stress rather than in the initial lead-up.<br/><br/>The big gamemastering guidelines which have been the most help for me, especially in PbP, came out of Ron Edwards'<em>Sorceror</em>and D. Vincent Baker's<em>Apocalypse World</em>.<br/><br/>1. Move from Bang to Bang. The temptation is to start by setting up what's going on and having the characters drawn slowly towards the first big event. Don't. Start<em>in media res,</em>then maybe back up a scene to find out how the characters got into that situation, then hit them with the next Bang. Whenever the conversation lulls, bring on the Bang.<br/><br/>2. Be a fan of the player characters -- but leave your bloody fingerprints over everything they do or try to do. Don't personally<em>oppose </em>the players, just make their characters' accomplishments feel<em>as if</em>they are triumphing over opposition.<br/><br/>Those are the two rules which most changed my outlook on GMing. The former seems to be more relevant to what's going on here. In one of my other games, the latter is an issue, with the GM changing rules because he doesn't want the players to 'run off the rails' or 'upset his plans.'<br/><br/>