Skype = Second Class Gamers?

[Greenfield]

I've had two of my players attending the game via Skype for over a year now, and we just recently added a third.

The first two share an apartment about an hour or so from my house, and neither one drives. (One is legally blind and the other has other issues of his own that aren't mine to discuss).

The recent member lives a little bit past the other two.

Because of the lack of physical presence the game lacks some immediacy for them. We have the camera set up at the end of the table, so they can see the board and most if not all of the players, and I have speakers hooked up to make sure we can hear them, but they're still getting less from the game than they should.

At the same time, we're getting less as well. Well, less of them anyway.

Does anyone have any ideas, technique or technology, than can help in this situation, or are remote participants just stuck in second class citizen roles?

 

[Nagol]

If some are physically present and some are not then there will always be some discrepancy.

A few things can work to even it out, but evening it out in this case means reducing the in-person experience somewhat. A decent speakerphone (like a Polycom) or putting all in-person participants on headsets can help with basic communication. Use of a virtual table so all participants have the same view of the game world would be a help and if coupled with a screen for each participant can help with other aspects such as intra-party chatting and secret messages if they are a thing.

It really changes the base experience though and it puts more pressure on the visual channels for conveying information which may not be useful if a participant is challenged with that sense.

 

[Greenfield]

Do you know of a decent virtual tabletop application? I've heard of them, but most of what I've heard wasn't very encouraging.

There's another aspect to consider: I'm not rich. I mean, ideally we'd be in a virtual game room, able to "see" each other via visors and hear each other via headsets. But the tech ain't there yet, and my budget isn't in the same time zone.

But seriously, got a good recommendation on a virtual tabletop? I have a projector I can hook to the laptop to paint the virtual board onto the physical table, for those actually there. Moving miniatures would be problematic, but workable.

 

[Nagol]

I don't use them myself so I can't offer any strong recommendation. I've heard good things about Roll20 and about Tabletop Simulator (available through Steam).

 

[Yaztromo]

How about going and play in their house, if everybody else can go there?

 

[BlackSeed_Vash]

I second Yaztromo's suggestion and see if the couple's place would be an acceptable location to play.

If not, both Maptools and Roll 20 are free. Personally I prefer the former, which is a decent program that allows for either bare-bones display up to super complex. The latter is run on the website itself, there extra tools and such you as the DM can purchase, but none are absolutely necessary.

 

[Lwaxy]

Roll 20 is perfect for showing just the table and rolls even if you manage everything else off the site.

Roll20 doesn't support blind players as such, at the moment, but neither does your table,so if you move the tokens etc for them anyway, it should be fine.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

For some time I had two Skype attendees in my campaign. While they always had fun, they definitely both agreed that it wasn’t the same as gaming in person. The one thing that came up was being able to hear everyone. Generally, they could either hear the DM, or the players, but not both. Not well, anyway. Investing in a good polycom/omnidirectional mic or mics, if you haven’t already, might help them feel more invested.

 

[Uncle_Muppet]

Unfortunately, the conclusion in the original post seems to be correct in my experience. I've been playing for a long time, and have had a few sessions where there have been Skype players. (I've been on both ends of that - as the remote player and the DM hosting remote players).

The only thing that's worked is to as other people have said - level the playing field. However, by that, I mean that either EVERYONE is on Skype or no one is. No matter how experienced a gamer you are, no matter how close you are friends, if there are remote players, they always end up with that layer of insulation and don't end up as fully involved as the physically present people.

So, if you really want the three remote people as players, everyone should just stay home and play remotely. You don't need fancy software as Skype let's you share files. Just Powerpoint and MS Paint (or the like) to quickly draw maps and send them out to everyone as needed. I've done this sort of game before it works very well, even if complex combats take a bit longer than they would in person.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I would agree with this. The big problems for me came from integrating virtual folks and physically-present folks.

The only thing that's worked is to as other people have said - level the playing field. However, by that, I mean that either EVERYONE is on Skype or no one is. No matter how experienced a gamer you are, no matter how close you are friends, if there are remote players, they always end up with that layer of insulation and don't end up as fully involved as the physically present people.