New Game Model

[nclarke]

Having been playing on-line games for the last few months as well as my regular FTF games I'm wondering if there is likely to be a new/revised game model covering the difference in style of on-line play.

For example things move slower in on-line games as often players are waiting for others to speak rather than talking over them. Combat (in particular grid or miniatures based combat) seems to run more slowly.

So in order to account for these on-line differences are there any particular game systems/subsystem you see as being better suited to on-line play?

[Atgxtg]

Yes, I think there already is a different game model. When I did gaming by forum and/or email, I noticed that the style of play changes. It became more narrative, with fewer decision points that with a live game. A sacrifice made in order to alloy place to proceed at an acceptable pace. However, in the long run, I think that technology will (and to some extent already has) improve so that we can change the model to something faster and more like live play. Ultimately, I suspect on line play will evoke into something resembling live play but with better graphics, and multimedia Probably a bit less transparent with the game mechanics but more accessible.

[tedopon]

I think it's just a matter of the technology getting better.

Over the last year, my online group's games have gotten to the point where we probably run at 70-80% the speed of a face to face game. I am more than happy with that, because for the first few years were slow going.

I don't think games should adapt at all, it's the technology that needs to catch up with how we've been doing things forever.

[nclarke]

We've had apps like Maptool for years but the pace of on-line grid-based combat is certainly not improved to anywhere close to FTF grid-based combat games. Does the advent of apps like Roll20 and the features of G+ Hangouts make it better to go for a Theatre of the Mind style game using maps as props to assist in giving the participants a better idea of their situation. Are VTTs anywhere near being able to make gaming on-line as accessible and easy as FTF gaming.

Are we going to see a development of on-line games crossing time-zones like the computer 'RPG' FPS games where people go on organised expeditions/raids?

We already have the possibility of using material taken by Google's Street View for modern games. It's easy to set a game in Rio while sitting in your mother's basement in Rochdale England and have imagery of the Rio streets and buildings available to your players.

Will someone develop an engine that allows rooms to be built quickly and displayed in a semi-virtual environment for players to see/move through. It seems to me that some sort of architectural program with a library of objects with an option to output to screen and inject into a webcam feed would be a great way to utilise technology to the max.

[Atgxtg]

That's the problem with programs like maptools- they have been around for years, and they haven't changed much. BAsically they are a "live" HTML page with die roller functions. Pretty much a crude attempt to replicate the tabletop RPG experience. They have a limited impact becuase they just try to replicate the tapetop experience and come up short.

I think future CRPGing will need to take advatage of the computer's strengths in order to allow gamers to do things that they can't do with tabeltop gaming. I think that will mean letting the computer handle most of the game mechanics, die rolls and number crunching, while using the PC to add graphics, sound, and video to the gaming experience. That would enrich the experience and lets gamers do things that they can't do with just the tabletop. THe whole experience will become more impressive that tabletop RPGING and more interactive that computer RPGong.

I suspect that things like combat would become fully automated by the PC as with CRPGs, with the GM spending more time storytelling, designing, and planning, that actual running. He won;t need to handle die rolls and game mechanics because the computer can automate that for him. But he might add or remove a pack or wolves or goblins from an adventure during play based upon how things are going for the group. He might even be reduce to a pre-game programming or even replaced entirely with better algorithms that could design automated adventures.

[RosenMcStern]

In the game I am currently running online, we are actually going faster than we would do face to face. We can run a simple adventure in a 2 hour session, and a complex one in three sessions lasting 2-3 hours each. Combat is faster than on tabletop. Maptools does not hinder you once you are used to it, it is just a matter of mastering the tool.

Better technology should clearly help, when avaliable. I have yet to try Google Hangouts for gaming, but I am not so impressed about this technology.

[Skunkape]

I'm going to start running an online game using Roll20. It was suggested by one of the players.

One thing that I think would be an advantage with computer RPGs is an easier way to change the sound of your voice, if you're using voice over net. That way a player or GM could use a 'game' voice for what their character(s) was(were) saying!

[frogspawner]

I'm attempting to start-up a PBeM using a variant of EnGarde. That has a duelling system where players give a sequence of combat moves (Slash, Cut, Jump, Parry...), which cross-reference with the opponents moves to determine results. I've done a prog that blends BRP % combat with that, and generates descriptions. I'm hoping that will be enough player-input for combat, so it can be handled without bogging-down the narrative.

[wbcreighton]

Having been playing on-line games for the last few months as well as my regular FTF games I'm wondering if there is likely to be a new/revised game model covering the difference in style of on-line play.

For example things move slower in on-line games as often players are waiting for others to speak rather than talking over them. Combat (in particular grid or miniatures based combat) seems to run more slowly.

So in order to account for these on-line differences are there any particular game systems/subsystem you see as being better suited to on-line play?

I would agree that grid based/complex combat might take longer ( but to be honest I haven't played FTF for so long I'm not really sure )

That doesn't even take into account that the online games can be a range of all voice only to text only games. Text only games are slower for sure.

From a GM's standpoint I find the record keeping for online games ( if you are using a tool like Fantasy Grounds) is much easier. All of the text chat and die rolls are saved. Tokens and maps are exactly the way they were at the end of the previous session. The players can't mess with the character sheets or lose them.

[wbcreighton]

I'm going to start running an online game using Roll20. It was suggested by one of the players.

One thing that I think would be an advantage with computer RPGs is an easier way to change the sound of your voice, if you're using voice over net. That way a player or GM could use a 'game' voice for what their character(s) was(were) saying!

I have been using Fantasy Grounds to run a weekly campaign online since March 2011. I supported a KS for Tabletop Forge which just recently merged with Roll20 so I am now a KS supporter of Roll20 as a result. It doesn't have anywhere near the functions of FG, but you can have a free account and it is fairly simple to use from what I can tell. I have been thinking about running a rules lite game sometime to test it out, and seeing what the pace of the game might be like. I have a strong feeling that Roll20 will work best with rules lite games ( and short campaigns or pick up games) and FG will be better for rules intensive and long campaign style games.

I like the voice altering software idea. I know one of the players in our campaign listens in but won't talk because he doesn't like the sound of his own voice.

[wbcreighton]

In the game I am currently running online, we are actually going faster than we would do face to face. We can run a simple adventure in a 2 hour session, and a complex one in three sessions lasting 2-3 hours each. Combat is faster than on tabletop. Maptools does not hinder you once you are used to it, it is just a matter of mastering the tool.

Better technology should clearly help, when avaliable. I have yet to try Google Hangouts for gaming, but I am not so impressed about this technology.

What type of game our you running ? Is it a complex ruleset or is it a more rules lite game ?

[wbcreighton]

Having been playing on-line games for the last few months as well as my regular FTF games I'm wondering if there is likely to be a new/revised game model covering the difference in style of on-line play.

I'm curious what software you are using ? and what rules you are playing. I think the tools and the rules have a big impact on how well the game will run.

[nclarke]

I've played CoC on G+ hangouts, Hot War on G+ Hangouts, RQ/Legend on G+ Hangouts with TTF, and with Roll20. In the past I've used Maptool but even as a Network Admin I found the setup too much trouble and the scripting too much like a day job. The original pre hangouts version of Roll20 and Infrno I found problematic due to lag. US based server side applications usiually get a thumbs down for me as they never seem to have enough horsepower for the things they are trying to do resulting in slow response times and laggy behaviour.

TBH FG is too tied to an obselete model of requiring expensive specialised software and a lack of data portability. A wiki or cloud storage for keeping campaign material and a video & voice chat facility and optional whiteboard works best for me and my gaming style.

[RosenMcStern]

What type of game our you running ? Is it a complex ruleset or is it a more rules lite game ?

BRP mainly. I have run rules lite games, but once you have a grasp of how to use the tools the rules no longer get in the way. But the learning curve is steep.

[RosenMcStern]

II have a strong feeling that Roll20 will work best with rules lite games ( and short campaigns or pick up games) and FG will be better for rules intensive and long campaign style games.

I should be trying hangouts and TTF in two weeks' time, as soon as I start playing RuneQuest which is not fully supported by Fantasy Grounds.

[wbcreighton]

TTF is no longer, it merged with Roll20. If you backed the TTF KS then you get a KS supporter account with Roll20.

[wbcreighton]

FG is too tied to an obselete model of requiring expensive specialised software and a lack of data portability. A wiki or cloud storage for keeping campaign material and a video & voice chat facility and optional whiteboard works best for me and my gaming style.

I think Smiteworks understand their dilemma, but their revenue stream is tied to the license model. To be fair I have made a $40 investment ( cost of an average rpg hardcover ) in a license and have been using it for more than 2 years. All of the upgrades they have done and there have been many have have not cost extra. As long as I have my laptop I have access to my campaign whether I have internet access or not.

I definitely see benefits to the portability of Roll20, a wiki, and cloud storage. I have been playing Pathfinder *shudder* this whole time and I can't imagine not using FG. The ruleset comes built in, and it automates so much of the mechanics and record keeping it really is great.

With Roll20 having access to the internet and being able to search quickly for maps, music tokens etc. I can see it as a great way to create games on the fly, and meet up with players that you don't know quite easily.

[tedopon]

I started with Fantasy Grounds six or seven years ago. It was the best thing out there for quite a while, but that is not saying I like it.

I have a GM license and three or four of the BRP based rule sets and a Star Wars set that I paid for.

We moved to maptool about two years ago. Not as pretty as FG, but far more features. Maptool is nice because it isn't patched with dozens of megabytes worth of bug fixes every couple weeks. Also runs a lot smoother overall and establishing connections aren't an annoying pain in the ass.

A couple months ago we switched to roll20. Unless you are a control freak and need access to all the player's stats 100% of the time as a GM (but, to be fair, you could set that up as well with a little work), or you're too lazy to use pen and paper instead of having everything automated, it's got enough of the features of the other two to work just fine. It also runs a lot faster and smoother than the other two being browser based. We don't use the hangout end of it because one guy has a corporate Skype account, so I can't comment on that. We have never used the built in chat functions of any of the suites, save for a brief experiment on G+, so I can't comment on their recent functionality. FG's chat system was pretty lousy in 2007, which was probably the last time I used it.

[wbcreighton]

Trying to get back to the focus of the thread:

Just the fact that you are using a computer for rpging has to change the gaming model. I want to use the computer to do the tasks that it is best suited for: enabling voice communication and chat, presenting useful visual data (such as maps and pics), keeping records, doing calculations, setting mood with music, etc. The more of those functions that the cpu can handle the more time I can spend playing the game. I think sitting in front of a computer, flipping through pages in a rulebook, while making lots of written notes is going to slow the game down.

With rules agnostic tools you can speed up a game by using rules lite games or games that you know well. As I get older I have less interest in learning new complex rp games. I would rather play a less complex game or a game that I know inside and out. A tool like Mythic: GM Emulator could be used to literally make up the story as you go.

There are plenty of games where the rules are available on line and therefore at your fingertips when playing with a VTT.

A possible drawback could be the expectation of gamers coming into rping thinking that the games will be as visual as Mass Effect, or Oblivion, etc.

[RosenMcStern]

Actually, Smiteworks has just announced it will incorporate 3d technology (lite 3d, coming from mobile platforms, not CPU-grinding 3d), so we will see some flashbang in VTTs after all. With mobile machines becoming more and more popular as gaming platform, the expectations about what is "a good game from the visual POV" will change, and players who have never played TT might find VTT play palatable.

I play both MapTools and Fantasy Grounds with extreme pleasure, they are both great in the points where they shine and provide a good gaming experience. FG wins with rule-behemoths like D&D and Pathfinder, while RPTools is super with rules lite games. But the point is more akin to what the OP said: a new paradigm, a new gaming experience is what will draw people who have never play a RPG to the hobby. The point is identifying exactly what this new paradigm should be like.

[wbcreighton]

The announcement and the rather interesting 3d VTT are:

Kickstarter Project Idea Thread - Page 15 - Fantasy Grounds Message Boards

3D Virtual Tabletop - role playing table online & on iPad, iPhone, Mac, Android, Kindle Fire & Chrome

Given time, advancements in tech applications are being made. I wonder if the 3d VTT could be implemented with Roll20 ?

[Atgxtg]

The announcement and the rather interesting 3d VTT are:

Kickstarter Project Idea Thread - Page 15 - Fantasy Grounds Message Boards

3D Virtual Tabletop - role playing table online & on iPad, iPhone, Mac, Android, Kindle Fire & Chrome

Given time, advancements in tech applications are being made. I wonder if the 3d VTT could be implemented with Roll20 ?

Probably. It's not really a big leap technologically, more a matter of getting 3D tokens to use.

IMO the technology is already here for better online gaming, it just hasn't been assembled and set up for that specific purpose. Generally, various bits of tech have been added piecemeal, or when assembled tend to be a bit behind the tech/money curve. The main reason why on-line table top style gaming doesn't have tons of great graphics, sound, and animated effects the way more commercial online RPGs do is mostly a matter of time and money. Commercial?professional; RPGs can spend the time and money to hire artists who can create all that stuff. Table-top style RPGs are mostly tools for GMs, who are just normal people without the resources to assemble teams of artists to jazz up their games.

As companies figure out more ways to make a profit off of on-line tabletop RPGs, the artistic qualities will improve.

[tedopon]

I get the push for incorporating graphics into the game as a way to drag video gamers over (theoretically), but I guess my question is "why?"

I haven't needed Space Chess from Star Wars to determine where stuff is in a combat thus far, why will I need it in the future? Will my imagination and grasp of semantics regarding spatial relation be taken from me sometime in the very near future? Is there some sort of hypnotic/analgesic affect drawn from watching 3D sprites move on a plane that I haven't experienced yet?

I don't want anything else from online gaming suites. Voice chat and at times a crudely drawn map are all I ever use as a GM.

[RosenMcStern]

I don't want anything else from online gaming suites. Voice chat and at times a crudely drawn map are all I ever use as a GM.

And knowing that you are so keen to continue with this gaming model that has been happily around since the 80s, Alephtar Games is very happy to provide you with brand new overpriced 800-page books, possibly including reprints of RuneQuest materials from the past (Kyger Litor rulez) which you will use without any tech-heavy game props. As you certainly have more money than the kiddos who want to see 3d sprites moving on a plane, this will make my wallet really really...

Hmmmm, no, wait, this is not exactly our business plan at the moment. Maybe we are planning something that may make BRP, and RPGs in general, more appealing to fresh new blood.

[frogspawner]

The VTT sort of sub-WoW gaming still has the problem that you need everyone to get online at the same time. I think a mainly text-based play-by-posting style via a forum or email is much more convenient.