Zhaleskra
Adventurer
Because I have to repost it every time I reuse these NPCs. Yeah, they named NPCs that you're going to kill, and then if that random encounter comes up again, it's the same NPCs. Saves time, but did they really need names?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Why is Online Gaming considered Second Class?
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
Because I have to repost it every time I reuse these NPCs. Yeah, they named NPCs that you're going to kill, and then if that random encounter comes up again, it's the same NPCs. Saves time, but did they really need names?
Merkuri
Explorer
I think you are thinking of something different than we are.
You can play online using a virtual tabletop that is nothing other than a virtual representation of a tabletop - basically just a shared image of a map that everyone is looking at in real time. The NPCs you use here are no different than an NPC you would use at a real table. It's a set of numbers you have written down on a piece of paper, or maybe there aren't any stats at all, if you don't think you need them. The virtual tabletop doesn't care whether your NPC has stats, or if you have any NPCs at all.
There may be some virtual mediums that require you to name and give stats to NPCs, but you don't have to use those. These problems you're describing definitely do not affect all online games. (They're not in my game, at least.)
catastrophic
First Post
Again, it is completly absurd to suggest that this is a valid criteria for a term like "can't".
It's like asking somebody to go to the movies, and they say they can't because they have a shift at work that day, and you saying "actually you could quit your job so you shouldn't say you can't do it, it's just that you aren't willing to quit your job over it." No, they can't do it.
You're not being clear, you're adopting an absurdly exagerated set of criteria for a common-use term of broadly understood meaning simply for the sake of argument.
You don't get to blame people for not doing the functionally impossible to find the almighty IRL game or gaming club or, for that matter, FLGS. It's not their fault that they actually have pratical realities they have to deal with, and it's not evne remotely constructive or helpful to pretend that those limitations on their time are mostly a matter of preference when ANYONE who has EVER played and rpg should be understanding and sympathetic about the fact that people often just can't play.
Last edited:
tenkar
Old School Blogger
This whole CAN / CAN'T argument is ridiculous. If gaming is the priority in your life and you are willing to put everything else second (as I did in High School) and your group is of like mind, you CAN game nearly all the time. Congrats.
If responsibilities (work / school / family) limit the times you can actually play significantly, finding a group that fits your available free time can make finding a local group nigh impossible. That is reality. It sneaks up on you sometimes.
For me, it is much easier to find a group online that fits my extremely limited free time. If I worked nites, I could find a group across the world that games in my (local time) free afternoon (their nite).
Do I miss the days when my life revolved around gaming? No, but I cherish the memories. My life revolves around my responsibilities these days. Gaming is not a priority, but a treat.
Maybe when I retire and have one less responsibility...
If responsibilities (work / school / family) limit the times you can actually play significantly, finding a group that fits your available free time can make finding a local group nigh impossible. That is reality. It sneaks up on you sometimes.
For me, it is much easier to find a group online that fits my extremely limited free time. If I worked nites, I could find a group across the world that games in my (local time) free afternoon (their nite).
Do I miss the days when my life revolved around gaming? No, but I cherish the memories. My life revolves around my responsibilities these days. Gaming is not a priority, but a treat.
Maybe when I retire and have one less responsibility...
Ralls
First Post
I'll give an account of a tabletop experience:
I was playing a outlawed water dragonblood in an Exalted campaign that was also a mute. We were doing a particular sequence of roleplay where the stakes where high, and my character had to calm down a lunar-type exalted (a class basically perceived as anathema to normal folk and most of the dragonbloods). This sequence was so tense I actually found myself not roleplaying, but more of improvisational, on-the-spot acting based on my temperance and valor rolls. Feeling my character's emotions as opposed to just portraying them.
I've been in theater for four years, and acting is a hard thing to get into, as you don't have a stat sheet to look at or a chat window to hide behind.
I just thought I'd give my two cents. I'm not opposed to one or the other, but I prefer a tabletop game for the experience mentioned above.
I was playing a outlawed water dragonblood in an Exalted campaign that was also a mute. We were doing a particular sequence of roleplay where the stakes where high, and my character had to calm down a lunar-type exalted (a class basically perceived as anathema to normal folk and most of the dragonbloods). This sequence was so tense I actually found myself not roleplaying, but more of improvisational, on-the-spot acting based on my temperance and valor rolls. Feeling my character's emotions as opposed to just portraying them.
I've been in theater for four years, and acting is a hard thing to get into, as you don't have a stat sheet to look at or a chat window to hide behind.
I just thought I'd give my two cents. I'm not opposed to one or the other, but I prefer a tabletop game for the experience mentioned above.
mattcolville
Adventurer
Forgive me if someone else has already said this.
I think the best play is between 15 and 22. That's First Class.
Because that's when players find it easiest to *believe* in the reality of the game world. They believe in the reality of their characters. This is an illusion that becomes harder as we get older.
We also have ridiculous levels of free time and few commitments or distractions. So people can play as and when they want.
This is not my point. My point is what kind of play those realities lead to. They lead to the *possibility* of a lot of personal attention from the GM. Players with characters who have ambition, who want to achieve things in the setting beyond leveling up.
That leads to a highly dynamic and reasonably plausible game world, with lots of different players, all playing together but also alone, talking to the GM about the game after school, solo adventures, adventures for smaller parts of the group. Completely Ad Hoc, driven by player motivation rather than a schedule.
That's ideal. I think the stereotype of 1 GM and 5 or 6 player meeting regularly is one we inherited from the mid 1980s once D&D had become a phenomenon, but I don't think that kind of rigid play was the norm back then. It BECAME the norm because the Network of players aged and collapsed. When you're 30, you have to schedule the game and can't play in so many different groups in so many different combinations that you don't even think of them AS different groups.
So if that's ideal, and I propose it is, Online Play is nearly as ideal. Second class, perhaps, but better than the "6 people sitting around a table every week" model. Because Online Play lets you do exactly this. It lets players from all over the world play when they want, based on their own motivation.
Between all the different ways of communicating online, Email, Chat, Facebook, Skype, and then actual VTT solutions for encounters, you can roleplay when ever you want. At work, At home. Ad hoc. Based, not on a schedule, but on motivation.
I think the best play is between 15 and 22. That's First Class.
Because that's when players find it easiest to *believe* in the reality of the game world. They believe in the reality of their characters. This is an illusion that becomes harder as we get older.
We also have ridiculous levels of free time and few commitments or distractions. So people can play as and when they want.
This is not my point. My point is what kind of play those realities lead to. They lead to the *possibility* of a lot of personal attention from the GM. Players with characters who have ambition, who want to achieve things in the setting beyond leveling up.
That leads to a highly dynamic and reasonably plausible game world, with lots of different players, all playing together but also alone, talking to the GM about the game after school, solo adventures, adventures for smaller parts of the group. Completely Ad Hoc, driven by player motivation rather than a schedule.
That's ideal. I think the stereotype of 1 GM and 5 or 6 player meeting regularly is one we inherited from the mid 1980s once D&D had become a phenomenon, but I don't think that kind of rigid play was the norm back then. It BECAME the norm because the Network of players aged and collapsed. When you're 30, you have to schedule the game and can't play in so many different groups in so many different combinations that you don't even think of them AS different groups.
So if that's ideal, and I propose it is, Online Play is nearly as ideal. Second class, perhaps, but better than the "6 people sitting around a table every week" model. Because Online Play lets you do exactly this. It lets players from all over the world play when they want, based on their own motivation.
Between all the different ways of communicating online, Email, Chat, Facebook, Skype, and then actual VTT solutions for encounters, you can roleplay when ever you want. At work, At home. Ad hoc. Based, not on a schedule, but on motivation.
Similar Threads
