What do you NOT want to use tech for in you TTRPG?

[aramis erak]

I love my Kindle Oasis, but a game tool it is not. Great for reading a novel, but way to slow and clunky to be alternating among several books, searching, and jumping around a book.

Lenovo has a fairly powerful eink tablet coming out soon - it's being shown at CES.
Likewise, their Twist laptop (WIn 11) has both an eInk and an OLED screen - rotate the screen to pick which is in use, or set tablet mode and use the screen facing out of the closed laptop. It seems that it may be a kaleido3 eInk screen, at that... color!
They also have the ThinkBook Plus - IPS display in laptop mode, eInk when closed for use in tablet mode. Also a windows laptop.

 

[Lanefan]

In a number of areas in my life I've given up technological conveniences, either because I've found them too intrusive, because of enjoyment of older analog ways of doing things, or because I felt certain mental abilities were atrophying. For example for the most important telephone numbers I generally "dial them" rather than using speed-dial or voice shortcuts to ensure they remain committed to memory in case I lose access to my devices. I started trying to rely on my GPS a bit less when when I found I wasn't remembering directions to places I've been to multiple times. Things like that.

Since starting a new job and then COVID, I've found myself running all my games online and it just isn't practical to lug bunch of books around, so my TTRPGs have become VTTRPGs. This has me thinking about where I think I'm using tech too much and where I would draw a line or dial things back.

1. Physical Books. I don't mind reading novels, etc. on a good e-reader. I love my Kindle Oasis. For running games, I like D&D Beyond and I've accepted PDFs. But still buy physical copies of many of the books. I enjoy browsing through physical books for inspiration or to get an overall sense of the content in a way that digital version can't capture. I also prefer looking at the artwork in print much more than on a screen. For quickly searching for something; for sorting monsters, magic items, spells, etc. digital is superior. For reading linearly, it is mostly a draw. But for browsing I much prefer physical books. I don't see myself going back to 100% analog when it comes to books, but physical books still have place in how I enjoy the hobby.

2. Dice. This is what I miss most when running VTTs. Yeah, we could roll and call our rolls, but when playing virtually, it is nice for everyone to see the roll, and without getting complicated with web cams, rolling the VTTs is the best way to do it. When I'm able to run games in person again, the dice will come out. The one thing, however, that I really like about playing on a VTT is that it is much easier to tract status effects and resolve area of effect damage. I could see using a VTT for in person play for larger and more complex combat.

3. Paper character sheets. Here again, I think I prefer a mixed approach. Manage your character sheet digitally, but print it out your character sheet before each session. I feel having a digital device in front of players at the table detracts from player engagement. Tablets with notifications and alerts shut off okay but I feel that there is something distracting about using a physical device. As a GM, I feel this is a bit hypocritical as I'll generally use a laptop at the table. But as a GM I have no choice but to be constantly engaged during the game. I don't know that I would be 100% comfortable asking players to only use paper character sheets for a 5e game, but I would at least suggest it and discuss it.

4. In person play. This is what I miss the most. Having everyone physically in the same room, sharing food, and hanging out together. Remote play is out of necessity, not preference.

Hear hear! Preach it, brother!

Where would I not go back? Even for in-person play I would stay digital for:

• All prep work. Writing session notes, writing adventures, planning campaigns, creating maps.
• Battlemaps. I generally don't find physical tiles and battlemaps worth the hassle and expense. For in person play, I would continue using a horizontal display with digital maps. But I would use it with physical miniatures and/or tokens.
• Occasionally for complex combats with many actors. I really don't like manually rolling saves and damage for large numbers of enemies when the wizard drops a fireball on them. Tracking all of that on paper feels like a chore.

For me, what I'd continue to use tech for would be:
--- online game logs that everyone can access from home
--- online rules, spell lists, pantheons, etc. that everyone can access at one during the games without having to pass books around
--- art and images
--- adventure writing in cases where I want to get it to a more vaguely-publishable form rather than just scratch-notes runnable.

For "battlemaps" I'd use what I've always used: a physical chalkboard and minis.

 

[Ben from Periapt Games]

There's something nice about the tactile nature of paper that makes me never want to give up printed media, but the flipside is that as a disorganised person I really need to focus on keeping things stapled, bound, bookmarked, alphabetised, and otherwise arranged in a way that I can actually find them when I need them at the table!

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I still use physical books most of the time. When I have multiple monsters in play, I will open up DNDBeyond to reduce the page-flipping I have to do.

1. Physical Books. I don't mind reading novels, etc. on a good e-reader. I love my Kindle Oasis. For running games, I like D&D Beyond and I've accepted PDFs. But still buy physical copies of many of the books. I enjoy browsing through physical books for inspiration or to get an overall sense of the content in a way that digital version can't capture. I also prefer looking at the artwork in print much more than on a screen. For quickly searching for something; for sorting monsters, magic items, spells, etc. digital is superior. For reading linearly, it is mostly a draw. But for browsing I much prefer physical books. I don't see myself going back to 100% analog when it comes to books, but physical books still have place in how I enjoy the hobby.

I miss the klickety klack of rolling dice, but when I have a lot of dice to roll, well, it's hard to argue with the ease of typing a few numbers and having at it.

2. Dice. This is what I miss most when running VTTs. Yeah, we could roll and call our rolls, but when playing virtually, it is nice for everyone to see the roll, and without getting complicated with web cams, rolling the VTTs is the best way to do it. When I'm able to run games in person again, the dice will come out. The one thing, however, that I really like about playing on a VTT is that it is much easier to tract status effects and resolve area of effect damage. I could see using a VTT for in person play for larger and more complex combat.

I will never go away from printed, hand-tracked character sheets. I love being able to go back and look at old character sheets and be reminded of all those adventures from long ago.

3. Paper character sheets. Here again, I think I prefer a mixed approach. Manage your character sheet digitally, but print it out your character sheet before each session. I feel having a digital device in front of players at the table detracts from player engagement. Tablets with notifications and alerts shut off okay but I feel that there is something distracting about using a physical device. As a GM, I feel this is a bit hypocritical as I'll generally use a laptop at the table. But as a GM I have no choice but to be constantly engaged during the game. I don't know that I would be 100% comfortable asking players to only use paper character sheets for a 5e game, but I would at least suggest it and discuss it.

No disagreement here. I miss seeing people in person.

4. In person play. This is what I miss the most. Having everyone physically in the same room, sharing food, and hanging out together. Remote play is out of necessity, not preference.

 

[Lanefan]

Really? Roll20's self-calculating PC/NPC sheet are extremely useful in my games. I just click on a button, and the page does all the math.

Which is fine if you're using the rules/system as written and-or as roll20 recognizes it.

If you're using a homebrewed or significantly modified system, though, yeah - have fun with that.

 

[aramis erak]

Which is fine if you're using the rules/system as written and-or as roll20 recognizes it.

If you're using a homebrewed or significantly modified system, though, yeah - have fun with that.

Or even just some of the options in core rules... using other attributes than the standard is in the D&D DMG and Talisman Adventures corebook.

The few games with linked atts that don't include the option generally don't have links in the resolution.

EG: In Twilight 2000 2.0e (not 2.2), skill rolls are made on 1d10 for skill×DiffMod or less. The hard links only matter for experience - if the skill equals or exceeds the attribute, the cost per level is doubled. (2.2 uses 1d20 <= (att+skill)×DiffMod for success)
EG: In Chaosium's ElfQuest, initial skill levels are multiples of various attributes; the attributes have no effect on skill use in play; only one has effect on advancement.
EG: RuneQuest 3 initial skills are adjusted for attributes, and each skill category's advancement is affected by current attributes, but the attributes themselves do not adjust the action rolls.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Which is fine if you're using the rules/system as written and-or as roll20 recognizes it.

If you're using a homebrewed or significantly modified system, though, yeah - have fun with that.

Not really. When my Zweihander campaign ended and we started Flames of Freedom, we had a problem because FoF had no Roll20 support (too new) despite both being from the same company. So one of my players simply re-did the Zwei PC sheet.

That's the thing: All the PC sheets for Roll20 are open to being edited by people who understand HTML/coding/computer stuff.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Or even just some of the options in core rules... using other attributes than the standard is in the D&D DMG and Talisman Adventures corebook.

The few games with linked atts that don't include the option generally don't have links in the resolution.

EG: In Twilight 2000 2.0e (not 2.2), skill rolls are made on 1d10 for skill×DiffMod or less. The hard links only matter for experience - if the skill equals or exceeds the attribute, the cost per level is doubled. (2.2 uses 1d20 <= (att+skill)×DiffMod for success)
EG: In Chaosium's ElfQuest, initial skill levels are multiples of various attributes; the attributes have no effect on skill use in play; only one has effect on advancement.
EG: RuneQuest 3 initial skills are adjusted for attributes, and each skill category's advancement is affected by current attributes, but the attributes themselves do not adjust the action rolls.

When my Zweihander campaign ended and we started Flames of Freedom, we had a problem because FoF had no Roll20 support (too new) despite both being from the same company. So one of my players simply re-did the Zwei PC sheet.

That's the thing: All the PC sheets for Roll20 are open to being edited by people who understand HTML/coding.

 

[Randomthoughts]

In a number of areas in my life I've given up technological conveniences, either because I've found them too intrusive, because of enjoyment of older analog ways of doing things, or because I felt certain mental abilities were atrophying. For example for the most important telephone numbers I generally "dial them" rather than using speed-dial or voice shortcuts to ensure they remain committed to memory in case I lose access to my devices. I started trying to rely on my GPS a bit less when when I found I wasn't remembering directions to places I've been to multiple times. Things like that.

Since starting a new job and then COVID, I've found myself running all my games online and it just isn't practical to lug bunch of books around, so my TTRPGs have become VTTRPGs. This has me thinking about where I think I'm using tech too much and where I would draw a line or dial things back.

1. Physical Books.

2. Dice.

3. Paper character sheets.

4. In person play.

Where would I not go back? Even for in-person play I would stay digital for:

• All prep work. Writing session notes, writing adventures, planning campaigns, creating maps.
• Battlemaps. I generally don't find physical tiles and battlemaps worth the hassle and expense. For in person play, I would continue using a horizontal display with digital maps. But I would use it with physical miniatures and/or tokens.
• Occasionally for complex combats with many actors. I really don't like manually rolling saves and damage for large numbers of enemies when the wizard drops a fireball on them. Tracking all of that on paper feels like a chore.

I pretty much play TTRPG online exclusively now (on Fantasy Grounds). The only exception is during special occasions with family. But all my regular gaming is online, which is the main reason in fact gaming has become regular.

As for what I would keep electronic versus analog? Of the four you mention, I don't miss physical Dice and Character Sheets at all. I "grew up" with physical books and I'm in the 50/50 bucket where I read dead tree versions (which spares me the eye strain) but also enjoy the search capabilities of pdf. Unfortunately, I buy two versions of the rules that I use the most.

Finally, I don't miss in person play except with family/close friends (obviously for other reasons). I certainly don't miss the inconvenience of the commute or set up/tear down, however short that may be. The convenience of simply shutting off the computer and going about my day is something I would definitely miss (and feel it when I do play with family/friends).

Something I'm split on is battlemaps. I enjoy making my own battlemaps. And there are A TON of them out there free (but find it much faster to make my own than finding "the perfect one" for an adventure). But I do miss the simplicity (and quickness) of using an erasable battle map. FG has built in map features, and they're fine even on the fly. But in person, it would literally take seconds (but look that way lol).

I agree with you on the other stuff. Prep is so much easier online and FG is pretty darn good for it. I'm done with miniatures; I have enough laying around I still have to paint. And complex combats? FG's Combat Tracker and automation (for SWADE for example) is so good, I would prefer running a hybrid session if I ran Savage Worlds in person. Interestingly enough, my FLGS has rooms with hook ups to a TV.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Something I'm split on is battlemaps. I enjoy making my own battlemaps. And there are A TON of them out there free (but find it much faster to make my own than finding "the perfect one" for an adventure). But I do miss the simplicity (and quickness) of using an erasable battle map. FG has built in map features, and they're fine even on the fly. But in person, it would literally take seconds (but look that way lol).

I relentlessly hunt free maps on Reddit and Pinterist, and have for the last decade, as well as buy most of Oones product line.

What i find myself doing is coming up with a basic concept for a scenario, and then sorting through my 9 gigs of maps for the right map (I have them sorted into folders.

When starting a campaign, I examine maps and note which hold particular potential in my GM notes. Since I like tactical games such as the Zweihander/FoF series, maps are very important to me.

Also, I have the artistis ability of a dead sloth.