Online Tabletop gaming

[Red_Rob]

This quote from Bill Bisco in the Black Marches thread caught my eye:

What the Black Marches experiment shows is that even if the game system is imperfect (and 3.5 D&D / PF is), people will still stay and play it a lot if a convenient system is set up for them. If an average intelligent gamer can set up a long-term shared campaign setting and get people to play D&D online, there's no reason that Wizards of the Coast couldn't. This really highlights their incompetence and lack of foresight. Far more games can be played online than offline and the number of online Tabletop games will sooner or later outnumber the pen and paper tabletop games. Wizards of the Coast could have really raked the market share right back to them. People would absolutely pay for a regular official gaming medium tied to the official rules, but they screwed it up and gave up. What that means is that there's great opportunity for someone to come in and do it well and snipe both Wizards of the Coast and Paizo.

[Bolding mine] So how would you go about designing a tabletop game that was intended to be played over IRC rather than face to face? Would it involve some different design decisions to a regular TTRPG? What would the resulting game look like?

[DragonChild]

Previous thread on the subject: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=211398

I think it's important to differentiate between making a game for the stuff we have (essentially, IRC + dice bots and little else) vs the stuff we want (good maping software and stuff like that).

[Juton]

If you where making a game for IRC specifically you'd want a game that doesn't need a map, probably. Getting all your games to use IRC is hard enough, coordinating map software would be harder. You would also want a lot of different types of actions that are simple to convey, since you have a lot of computational power (ie the players) but are bottlenecked by how much data you can push through IRC.

[hogarth]

So how would you go about designing a tabletop game that was intended to be played over IRC rather than face to face? Would it involve some different design decisions to a regular TTRPG? What would the resulting game look like?

I'm not sure why you quoted Bill Bisco's post, which is saying "people like D&D, so it would be a good thing for WotC to make a virtual tabletop that's good for playing D&D". That sounds like a good idea.

It sounds like you're suggesting writing a set of rules specifically to fit a not-very-popular method of communication (IRC). That sounds like a crummy idea.

[MfA]

So how would you go about designing a tabletop game that was intended to be played over IRC rather than face to face?

First off screw IRC. It needs to have a pretty 2D map with dynamic lighting, accurate visibility for players and 3D animated models (low poly ToEE style, this is not a ton of work).

DM gets access for free, players need to have a subscription for access to the client and need to have paid for the module (which included the pretty 2D map and models) and for model/map packs for when the DM wants to throw shit together on the fly. You could also just pop up a "do you want to pay for this model/map" if the DM uses one the player hasn't paid for yet (if not the client can just use a generic/ugly representation).

Needs to have a mode which you can use at home which just allows you to place the player window on a separate monitor with the window simply rotating through the active players.

Have support for webcams and voice for people who want a slightly more social online game of course.

etc etc.

Give me something I want to pay for instead of something slightly more user friendly but with less features than maptool ...

[virgil]

Instead of trying to fit the standards of IRC, what about Google+? The porn star DM has been using that for some time now, and seems to be getting a fair bit of success there.

[Red_Rob]

My comment about IRC is simply based on the fact that at its simplest, RPG's have always been about sitting down with other people to tell stories. All you actually need are some dice and a piece of paper. A lot of people aren't very tech-savvy, sp any system designed for playing over the internet has to, at it's most basic, be able to function when played this way.

Dynamic lightning maps and webcams are a nice idea, but it all adds either prep time for the GM (making a map) or more hassles when the tech doesn't work right.

Basically, Bill's comment was that because so much communication happens over the net now, games played over Chat are getting more common than games played face-to-face. Current rules sets are designed for tabletop play, however the conventions of internet chat are slightly different. It takes more effort to type than to talk, for example, and it takes longer to get your point across, so anything with multiple interrupts I can see being annoying. Anything with a map takes longer, as moving a mini is much quicker than updating an online map with multiple users.

It's things like this that games need to take into account when thinking how they will be played in the near future.

[MfA]

Dynamic lightning maps and webcams are a nice idea, but it all adds either prep time for the GM (making a map)

I'm pretty sure I mentioned paid modules and map packs ... picking a decent looking dungeon map from a map pack, throwing the monsters onto it and letting your players enter stage right is less work than using a dry erase board.

As for moving a mini on a map ... the computer can automatically calculate if you are in your movement budget, for a lot of players that right there is going to speed things up ...

[icyshadowlord]

Instead of trying to fit the standards of IRC, what about Google+? The porn star DM has been using that for some time now, and seems to be getting a fair bit of success there.

Google+ is fine and all, but I keep forgetting I had an account.

Also, what the hell are you talking about? What porn star DM?

[hogarth]

My comment about IRC is simply based on the fact that at its simplest, RPG's have always been about sitting down with other people to tell stories. All you actually need are some dice and a piece of paper. A lot of people aren't very tech-savvy, sp any system designed for playing over the internet has to, at it's most basic, be able to function when played this way.

Dynamic lightning maps and webcams are a nice idea, but it all adds either prep time for the GM (making a map) or more hassles when the tech doesn't work right.

Basically, Bill's comment was that because so much communication happens over the net now, games played over Chat are getting more common than games played face-to-face.

That's not how I understood him at all. He used OpenRPG and he was quite complimentary about its features, not just the chat window. And when I hear talk of a "gaming medium tied to the official rules", to me that means having the rules of the game embedded in the software (e.g. D&D map software would count squares according to the rules and would have burst/cone/line templates available).

[DragonChild]

It's pretty clear that the people who go on and on about dynamic lightning and awesome maps and 3d models and all that shit are people who are on the outside of games looking in, and have no experience with this kind of stuff. Here's what they're missing.


-Raising the system requirements on your RPG software with pretty 3d graphics and shit is retarded. A lot of people play RPGs on shitty computers. In my most recent game, we had a guy who had to go to the hospital for back surgery and was out for a few weeks - so he made weekly sessions by using his Kindle.

-Maps add a huge amount of prep time. They also make it extremely obvious when the DM is having to make stuff up. They're great, if you intend to fully railroad the players. But this isn't face to face, where you can very quickly array blocks on a mat of grid paper. And if you use fancy graphics or place tiles, there's the expectation that you KEEP doing that.

-People want to run their own stuff, not just modules. "My system works for modules, it doesn't need to work for anything else" is bullshit. If your online game only works for modules, it's useless to me and pretty much everyone I know.

-And seriously, 3d animated models? That shit will eat up game time with animation, involves graphics, etc. The more detailed your models are, the harder it's going to be to make them. If the DM designs a custom creature, where the heck is he getting a model for it? Instead, if you DO have a map, you just want to import simple 2d tokens from art you steal off of google images. Maptools does the right thing here, especially with its great token maker.


The fact of the matter is, IRC is GREAT for this stuff. Calling it old or ancient or whatever doesn't erase the fact that maptools and open rpg have lots of problems, and IRC does exactly what it needs to with minimum amount of fuss. Anyone who wants to make a game or program first needs to realize that, and also realize that more isn't always better.

[hogarth]

I agree that 3D stuff is pointless and lighting/fog of war in a on-line tabletop game is a mixed blessing at best. However...

-Maps add a huge amount of prep time. They also make it extremely obvious when the DM is having to make stuff up. They're great, if you intend to fully railroad the players. But this isn't face to face, where you can very quickly array blocks on a mat of grid paper.

There is absolutely no reason that drawing an accurate map on a piece of grid paper should be faster than drawing an accurate map in Maptools, say.

And if you use fancy graphics or place tiles, there's the expectation that you KEEP doing that.

"We can't have nice things because we'll get used to them" is a terrible argument. (My apologies if you're currently living in a mud hut eating uncooked turnips and using a hole in the ground for a toilet.)

[DragonChild]

There is absolutely no reason that drawing an accurate map on a piece of grid paper should be faster than drawing an accurate map in Maptools, say.

Not quite sure I agree here. I can draw faster in person than with a mouse. I can see more of the map at once in person on a scale in which I'm drawing, usually.

Mind you, I could see something be ideal, which is "Click a corner of one square, a corner of another square, a color, and it'll draw in a nice, bold line". Unfortunately I don't think any program does that, which is really what's needed?

"We can't have nice things because we'll get used to them" is a terrible argument. (My apologies if you're currently living in a mud hut eating uncooked turnips and using a hole in the ground for a toilet.)

What I mean is, you don't want it to be too obvious if you're improvising, sometimes. You don't want to move between super awesome detailed maps and really crude MS Paint ones back and forth at random. You don't want great 3d models and blank tokens in the same fight. Consistency is an important part of art style.

[MfA]

-Raising the system requirements on your RPG software with pretty 3d graphics and shit is retarded. A lot of people play RPGs on shitty computers. In my most recent game, we had a guy who had to go to the hospital for back surgery and was out for a few weeks - so he made weekly sessions by using his Kindle.

The Kindle Fire has an OMAP 4430 ... that is more than capable of lighting a 2D map and some low poly models ala ToEE (ToEE was a dog not because of rendering but because pathfinding was in the rendering loop, uninterruptable and redone every time you moved the cursor).

-Maps add a huge amount of prep time.

Which is why I said they should be offered as a service (at a price of course). Especially modules, which are railroads by definition, can come pre-delivered in such a way it actually removes a lot of work.

They also make it extremely obvious when the DM is having to make stuff up.

Rip a dungeon/city/forest/bridge/whatever map from the pack, bang in the monsters and you have something which will look great. Most surroundings are pretty cliche ...

If the DM designs a custom creature, where the heck is he getting a model for it?

Pallete swap whatever comes closest ... it's not like ToEE level models will give you that clear a view. A large 2D image if available or the DM's description will make more impact.

Although if with one or more MMs of models, pallete swapping and size alteration you really feel you don't have enough variety you're just being difficult IMO. Maybe it's not the best system for people who like being difficult ... but meh.

It is a good system for the people who already like playing with representative miniatures ... and I think more engaging graphics will attract new players as well.

Anyone who wants to make a game or program first needs to realize that, and also realize that more isn't always better.

You need something to sell it ...

[hogarth]

Mind you, I could see something be ideal, which is "Click a corner of one square, a corner of another square, a color, and it'll draw in a nice, bold line". Unfortunately I don't think any program does that, which is really what's needed?

In the two VTTs (virtual tabletop) that I'm familiar with (Maptools and TTopRPG), you'd have to click and drag the cursor, but otherwise that's basically how it works.

-Maps add a huge amount of prep time.

Which is why I said they should be offered as a service (at a price of course). Especially modules, which are railroads by definition, can come pre-delivered in such a way it actually removes a lot of work.

Paizo is going to be doing exactly this with their "Gamespace" VTT and their modules, so we shall see how successful the idea is.

[mlangsdorf]

If MapTools ever gets updated again and gets the Vision Blocking Layer (VBL) integrated with objects and drawing, it'll be nearly as easy and fast to create a low-prettiness map in MapTools as it is on the actual table.

Right now, I can draw a black and white map in MapTools faster than I can on the physical table. But going back and adding Fog, Light, and VBL takes time. If drawing walls and placing doors automatically included the VBL, MapTool would be perfect, instead of annoying, for on the fly encounters.