Your Experience: Is Online Gaming Worth It?

[DizzySaxophone]

Play in a few games online, also run a couple face-to-face, but I'll stick to the online. Currently Pathfinder, 1e ADnD, and 2e ADnD. Its not as nice as playing face-to-face, but it still works really well. My 1e game uses skype, and will use maptools for combat, whereas my pathfinder game just uses maptools. My 2e game is just Play by post, and is the least ideal way for me to play, but it is great if you don't have enough time for a game session. You can just go and write a post occassionaly. It definitely works better with voice-chat added into the mix, but it is still fun either way. If you can't find players for a local game, this is a great substitute.

 

[Stoat]

The big drawback to remote gaming of any sort -- email, play-by-post, VTT/Skype -- seems to be maintaining group cohesion and play-session momentum. That's also an issue in face-to-face games, of course, but (IME, at least) not nearly to the same extent. I think it's more difficult for folks to flake in a face-to-face game without feeling significant guilt about it.

I agree with this. I suggest two tactics to avoid the "flake factor."

First, establish a regular day and time to play. It's easier for folks to get in the habit of playing that way. It also makes it easier for folks to keep their calendars open and avoid conflicts.

Second, consider using a message board, list serve, blog or whatever to keep in touch with the players between sessions. I think this is a good practice for FtF games too, but it's definitely a helpful way to coordinate an online game and to keep the players interested.

 

[Dedekind]

I swear I think we are more focused playing on MapTools compared to playing in person. Maybe nobody wants to be caught AFK?

I'm enjoying it. Would I rather play with the same group face-to-face? Yes. But they are two-four states away and I can't. The experience is still fun. I also like that when I finish, I'm already home and I don't have to pack anything up. So, I think we get more playtime in.

My computing experience has been that the MapTools/Skype combo is stable, albeit a resource hog for older machines. I don't know about playing over slower connections, but our group ranges from 1MB to 35MB download speeds and everything seems to go smoothly.

 

[Dedekind]

Oh, and as fellow (albeit now misplaced) Kentuckian, did you try looking for a group over at Murray, SIU, or U of E?

 

[Retreater]

Oh, and as fellow (albeit now misplaced) Kentuckian, did you try looking for a group over at Murray, SIU, or U of E?

I've tried ENWorld under "Gamers Seeking Gamers." I haven't tried just walking onto college campuses looking for gamers. (I thought that would be creepy... I'm not exactly that age anymore.)

I am just not having luck here locally. I'd hate to drive over an hour to game.

Retreater

 

[Beginning of the End]

I'll spare you all of the details, but it looks like my two gaming groups are limping along and about ready to collapse. Every acquaintance, coworker, family member, lapsed gamer, etc., that I can think about has repeatedly turned down the offer to join the group. Playing at the LGS has not allowed us to recruit anyone who can commit to a regular game.

Opening Your Gaming Table might be worth reading. It's done marvels for our ability to game regularly and profitably.

As far as online games go: Yes. They can work. They can be very rewarding.

But, as a GM, I find they generally require about two or three times as much prep. Stuff I can get away with chicken-scrawling or throwing together on-the-fly in a face-to-face game suddenly look like complete crap when thrown up on a computer monitor. Or take too long.

I can quickly sketch out a battlemap on the tabletop using a marker while describing the scenery. Doing the same with a mouse usually consumes way too much time and looks like crap when I'm done. (The tabletop scrawl looks like crap, too, but we all seem to be better at looking past that when it's not on a computer screen.)

If you can get past that aesthetic barrier and find a way to quickly execute sketch maps (or play with systems where you don't have to sketch maps), then things can probably go smoother.

 

[ibldedibble]

I've tried DMing twice over Skype (two different campaigns).

The first one died after three (or so) sessions due to us not being used to playing like that and due to the fact that we didn't see the game in front of us.

The second one died after six sessions due to RL messing with people.

The second one would probably have lasted if it wasn't for RL though.
In the second one we used Skype, an online whiteboard at www.scriblink.com and a website with all the campaign information updated regularly.



I have tried Maptools and one other VTT, didn't really do it for me.
I intend to try http://tabletopquest.com/index.php as soon as it gets running (forgot where I found the link to that one, might have been on this forum), it looks like a VTT done right to me.

 

[samursus]

I am currently beta-testing the Wizards VT and I have to say, as a player, its pretty easy and intuitive to have a good game.

The VT is still in beta, so some things need to be worked out, but Wizards has confirmed that you will be able to import characters from the CB and monsters from the MB.

Importing maps and images hasn't been implemented (and may never be) so right now its not as robust as Maptools. But the learning curve is small.

My only other experience playing online was 2-3 times playing with my brother and his gf over Messenger using cams and voice. I pointed the cam at the battlemat. It actually worked OK.

The problem is, unless you are a hardcore gamer and need your fix, it will not be the same as a RL session, even IF everyone tries to make it work. For me, the VT Beta provides me my "fix", as my RL group is having the same problems as the OP. We haven't played in like 2 months---schedules, etc.

Good luck!