To rob a topic from another group, "Why isn't there a game system out there designed directly for online gaming?" I've considered this, and I know what my answer is, but I'm not happy with it. Thoughts? ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
nearly any system could be run online (Even deadlands, though the card bit is a pain). It's not the rules that are the problem, but the online part. For some reason, it's damn hard to get players to take an online appointment time seriously. And the face to face thing suffers, and that's a big part of it for me. On a side note, is anyone using the GRIP system? How about WebRPG? Anyone use both? Anyone compare them to to straight IRC? How about PBeM? See where I'm going? Darkechilde darkchil@rea-alp.com ICQ#12901136 MSMessenger Darkechilde13@hotmail.com AOLIM Darkechilde2001@aol.com www.bill-hein.com > -----Original Message----- > From: gmast-error@phoenyx.net [mailto:gmast-error@phoenyx.net]On Behalf > Of M. Jason Knight > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:51 PM > To: gmast@phoenyx.net > Subject: GM: Online game rules > > > To rob a topic from another group, "Why > isn't there a game system out there > designed directly for online gaming?" > > I've considered this, and I know what my > answer is, but I'm not happy with it. > Thoughts? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, M. Jason Knight wrote: > To rob a topic from another group, "Why isn't there a game system > out there designed directly for online gaming?" How about, "Because those of us who run games on-line tend to ignore the systems anyway?" > I've considered this, and I know what my answer is, but I'm not > happy with it. > Thoughts? The short summary of mine is above, I'm curious what yours are. -- Michael Feldhusen mike_f@io.com http://www.io.com/~mike_f/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
> To rob a topic from another group, "Why isn't there a >game system out there designed directly for online >gaming?" Okay...here's my shot at this... First off, there are four ways of going about online gaming, as follows: Software bundle (i.e. Everquest): These rules are specifically designed for online roleplay, but are integral to the software used for such roleplay. In other words, when such a game even requires a GM, they don't really have the capacity to muck with the rules. Advantage: Cool graphics to accompany your online roleplaying and high popularity. Disadvantage: Software, by necessity, forces constraints on what an individual GM is capable of doing. Play By E-Mail (PBEM): Once a very popular way of gaming, it's been on the a wane in recent years. You don't really need a specific rules-set for PBEM...you just use the rules you would in a normal, table-top game and go from there. The only real modifications you have to make are not game-rule related...how often people need to post, the method of posting, player interaction, etc. Advantages: Those with strict time limitations can still RP. Disadvantages: Play is very, very slow, particularly during an extensive combat. Play By Chat (PBC...I just made up an acronym, I think): Basically, this is like PBEM play, but real-time (or almost real-time). It's similar to tabletop gaming, except you don't get the face-to-face interaction. With some software, such as AOL, you can actually roll dice using special codes (which is sweet!). Again, you don't really need an system devised specifically for online play...just pick your favorite flavor, add a few guidelines for interaction online, and presto! Advantages: Real-time play with people all over the world. Disadvantages: Still no face-to-face contact, so the games often lack the luster of tabletop games. The fourth way is really a modification of the methods above...freeform. Rules are nonexistant or invisible to the player. This is a lot more like collective storytelling than role-playing and, admittedly, not something I'm keen on. But as you're talking about rules, this isn't really applicable. Okay...now that we've got that down, here's my opinion on why there aren't any rules specifically designed for online play: we don't need 'em. The difficulties in playing with published rules online are minimal as compared to the difficulties playing with published rules in a tabletop game (obviously, we're considering options 2 and 3 above). I mean, online play doesn't have an affect on stats or stat description, success determination, wound effects, or any other part of the core rules of a game system. Anyone who runs an online game must ponder some details like how he's going to regulate character interaction and individual actions, but that's something that's very much a person style decision, not something that needs to be codified in a book. When I ran Marvel-RPG a few years back, I had a two-page FAQ which pretty much summed this up...certainly not enough info for a sourcebook. Anyways, I'd love to hear others' opinions on this (particularly the original poster)...and the direction in which the original discussion went. Lucifer >:} ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
I'm going to talk about my experience with these options:
>
> Software bundle (i.e. Everquest): These rules are specifically designed
> for online roleplay, but are integral to the software used for such
> roleplay. In other words, when such a game even requires a GM, they
> don't really have the capacity to muck with the rules. Advantage: Cool
> graphics to accompany your online roleplaying and high popularity.
> Disadvantage: Software, by necessity, forces constraints on what an
> individual GM is capable of doing.
This is where CRPG's (Computer RPG's) meet the internet. They play like
CRPG's, for the most part, but with lots of other people. Of course, these
have been around nigh-on-forever, we just called them "MU*"s {It's
interesting to note that MU*'s are split up into talkers and shooters,
depending on whether chat/roleplay or combat was the focus (I suspect most
of the time on the talkers it was *chat* and not roleplay,but that just IME)
Of course, I'm *very* interested in the scriptable modules coming with
Neverwinter nights, and have already been asked to run some modules for
that when it comes out. I'm waiting to see what this means, practically,
but I'm interested. Especially if we can have people acting seperately (ie
not as a "Party"). That was what turned me off multiplayer in the BG
series.
>
> Play By E-Mail (PBEM): Once a very popular way of gaming, it's been on
> the a wane in recent years. You don't really need a specific rules-set
> for PBEM...you just use the rules you would in a normal, table-top game
> and go from there. The only real modifications you have to make are
> not game-rule related...how often people need to post, the method of
> posting, player interaction, etc. Advantages: Those with strict time
> limitations can still RP. Disadvantages: Play is very, very slow,
> particularly during an extensive combat.
In fact, I think a well designed PBEM game will minimize combat as much as
possible, or drop into PBC (to borrow your acronym:) for the combat. In my
PBEM game, we've been playing since October, and we've dropped into chat
twice, mainly to do interaction between the players, or a complex
interaction. We've never had a combat. But then.. only four of my players
are even remotely close to each other (and they are in pairs).
This highlights an advantage of PBEM over tabletop play: you can abolish
the concept of "the party" as a cohesive group. There's no specific need
for the disparate players to be in the same place, on the same side, or
have the same agenda. Since the whole thing is email-based, it gives you
(as GM) an opportunity to ponder what could possibly happen, and respond
carefully.
The email list itself then becomes your documentation of "what happened."
But it is *really slow*. We've been playing since October, and we're on
the third day of game-time. A good portion of that goes to response time
(mostly from the players, but to some extent from me).
> Play By Chat (PBC...I just made up an acronym, I think): Basically,
> this is like PBEM play, but real-time (or almost real-time). It's
> similar to tabletop gaming, except you don't get the face-to-face
> interaction. With some software, such as AOL, you can actually roll
> dice using special codes (which is sweet!). Again, you don't really
> need an system devised specifically for online play...just pick your
> favorite flavor, add a few guidelines for interaction online, and
> presto! Advantages: Real-time play with people all over the world.
> Disadvantages: Still no face-to-face contact, so the games often lack
> the luster of tabletop games.
PBC, I've found, to be difficult. It has the advantage that players from
far away can play together, and that no one has to *go* anywhere to do it.
But otherwise it's got a lot of the issues that tabletop roleplaying has
with scheduling, getting people together, and what to do when someone
doesn't show up, etc. Add to that any kinds of serverproblems you might
have, and it just adds to the issue. Lag is the enemy of online PBC, in my
opinion.
With a good IRC client you can hack together random dice rolling options,
and there's a bot on undernet that used to do it as well. I'm not as fond
of this method, but I've used it when there wasn't an option for tabletop
roleplaying.
>
> The fourth way is really a modification of the methods
> above...freeform. Rules are nonexistant or invisible to the player.
> This is a lot more like collective storytelling than role-playing and,
> admittedly, not something I'm keen on. But as you're talking about
> rules, this isn't really applicable.
>
I'm not sure what this is. Maybe it's what I do with my PBEM game, since
we drop to chat when needed. Maybe it's more like the Blair Witch game my
wife played that basically didn't have GM's at all, just people posting
what their characters do. that can be kind of interesting, so long as
people play 'Nice'... but I've got no experience with it right now.
> Okay...now that we've got that down, here's my opinion on why there
> aren't any rules specifically designed for online play: we don't need
> 'em. The difficulties in playing with published rules online are
> minimal as compared to the difficulties playing with published rules in
> a tabletop game (obviously, we're considering options 2 and 3 above).
> I mean, online play doesn't have an affect on stats or stat
> description, success determination, wound effects, or any other part of
> the core rules of a game system. Anyone who runs an online game must
> ponder some details like how he's going to regulate character
> interaction and individual actions, but that's something that's very
> much a person style decision, not something that needs to be codified
> in a book. When I ran Marvel-RPG a few years back, I had a two-page
> FAQ which pretty much summed this up...certainly not enough info for a
> sourcebook.
>
My PBEM doesn't have hard and fast rules. I've written descriptions of the
races, talked to people directly about "The way things work" and we just go
from there. The character sheets are really just narratives, and I use
them mostly to determine whether a particular character will notice
something or not. Because of the need to get away from rolling dice (since
it slows down the PBEM), we're running a story-oriented game, so typically
what happens is what's good for the story.
The main reason I don't have *rules* is that I haven't needed them. I told
folks I'd write them up when i needed them, and ask questions of them about
their char as it came up, but otherwise, we'd just go with the flow. Since
I'm letting the story drive my actions, it's been fairly easy so far.
Of coruse, I haven't had a lot of player<->player interaction, and that may
change everything. Hopefully we'll find out soon. (IN PBEM terms, that a
few months away...:)
GenericJoe
GenericJoe
--
Bi Poly Pagan Switchy Writer Gamer Geek
Journal and Stories at
http://www.offthebeatenpath.org/genericjoe/
Butter vs. Margarine? I trust cows over Scientists.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On 6 Jun 2001, at 13:19, genericjoe@vnet.net wrote: [much of the snipping and the trimming herein] > > Play By E-Mail (PBEM): Once a very popular way of gaming, it's been on > > the a wane in recent years. You don't really need a specific rules-set > > for PBEM...you just use the rules you would in a normal, table-top game > > and go from there. The only real modifications you have to make are > > not game-rule related...how often people need to post, the method of > > posting, player interaction, etc. Advantages: Those with strict time > > limitations can still RP. Disadvantages: Play is very, very slow, > > particularly during an extensive combat. > > In fact, I think a well designed PBEM game will minimize combat as much as > possible, or drop into PBC (to borrow your acronym:) for the combat. In my PB EM > game, we've been playing since October, and we've dropped into chat twice, > mainly to do interaction between the players, or a complex interaction. We've > never had a combat. But then.. only four of my players are even remotely clos e > to each other (and they are in pairs). > > This highlights an advantage of PBEM over tabletop play: you can abolish > the concept of "the party" as a cohesive group. There's no specific need > for the disparate players to be in the same place, on the same side, or > have the same agenda. Since the whole thing is email-based, it gives you > (as GM) an opportunity to ponder what could possibly happen, and respond > carefully. > > The email list itself then becomes your documentation of "what happened." > > But it is *really slow*. We've been playing since October, and we're on > the third day of game-time. A good portion of that goes to response time > (mostly from the players, but to some extent from me). Well, Mike's Excalibur PBEM had so much traffic it became a monster. Never made it out of spacedock, but it was fun while it lasted. PBEM allows two things that I've experienced: the slowness allows the player to determine what the character would do based on everything the player knows about the character, rather than playing a "slightly in-character" pantomime of the character you have time to rewrite and get it right. If a character uses an idiomatic expression, like - fershure, or has a particular habit (one of mine liked to perch on the backs of chairs), you have time to work that into the narrative and you can adlib things which should be there but are often missing from face2face gaming. > > Play By Chat (PBC...I just made up an acronym, I think): Basically, > > this is like PBEM play, but real-time (or almost real-time). It's > > similar to tabletop gaming, except you don't get the face-to-face > > interaction. With some software, such as AOL, you can actually roll > > dice using special codes (which is sweet!). Again, you don't really > > need an system devised specifically for online play...just pick your > > favorite flavor, add a few guidelines for interaction online, and > > presto! Advantages: Real-time play with people all over the world. > > Disadvantages: Still no face-to-face contact, so the games often lack > > the luster of tabletop games. > > PBC, I've found, to be difficult. It has the advantage that players from > far away can play together, and that no one has to *go* anywhere to do it. Bu t > otherwise it's got a lot of the issues that tabletop roleplaying has with > scheduling, getting people together, and what to do when someone doesn't show > up, etc. Add to that any kinds of serverproblems you might have, and it just > adds to the issue. Lag is the enemy of online PBC, in my opinion. > > With a good IRC client you can hack together random dice rolling options, > and there's a bot on undernet that used to do it as well. I'm not as fond of > this method, but I've used it when there wasn't an option for tabletop > roleplaying. There are some alternatives here: webRPG and GRiP are two that I can think of right off the bat. Both allow interactive mapping, both handle character record-keeping, both have dice-rollers integrated. WebRPG uses the WEBrpg servers, where GRiP operates independently, where the GM's machine becomes the server. webRPG is free, GRiP costs for the GM module, but the clients are free. GRiP specifically includes RogerWilco, which with a decent bandwidth connection allows voicechat between multiple players. RogerWilco is usable independently of GRiP, and some games (specifically BG) are mentioned on the RW website. I've been thinking about GRiP for an IronClaw game, I'm having problems finding enough players in my area to make it worthwhile, but I could run a game across my CableModem pretty easily. Video Cameras keep dropping in price - I picked up USB cameras for my nieces for under $10us each. Using software like CUSEEME PRO, you can have up to 12 videos going at once. I've not tried it on a 56k modem, but it would seem that that technology would be great for remote f2f gaming. Heck you could even roll your normal dice and aim the camera at them. Combining that with something like GRiP might be the way to go. -- -Coyt Watters "The internet, billions of electrons with nothing better to do." ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On 6 Jun 2001, at 10:39, Noctifer@aol.com wrote: > Play By Chat (PBC...I just made up an acronym, I think): Actually, I've been using PBIRC, PBWWW, PBICQ as terms for the newsgroup when people send those types of announcements, though just plain [online open] is becoming my favorite. Most of the announcements I get are industry, but the occasional online game turns up. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
At 01:39 6/6/01, you wrote: >On 6 Jun 2001, at 10:39, Noctifer@aol.com wrote: > > > Play By Chat (PBC...I just made up an acronym, I think): > >Actually, I've been using PBIRC, PBWWW, PBICQ as terms for the newsgroup when >people send those types of announcements, though just plain [online open] is >becoming my favorite. I know there are dice scripts for IRC, but does ICQ or any other forum have dice? We are using an experimental PHP based chat right now (with added dice), and it seems to work OK. I agree with previous posters on the "gametime" issue - why don't players take it as serious as a face-to-face date? ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On 6 Jun 01, at 9:59, Michael Feldhusen wrote: > How about, "Because those of us who run games on-line tend to ignore > the systems anyway?" That is the first step on the path to enlightenment: empty your mind of the conventional rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, M. Jason Knight wrote: > On 6 Jun 01, at 9:59, Michael Feldhusen wrote: > > How about, "Because those of us who run games on-line tend to ignore > > the systems anyway?" > > That is the first step on the path to enlightenment: empty your > mind of the conventional rules. Unfortunately, far too many people stop after the first clause and we end up with only empty minds. :-) -- Michael Feldhusen mike_f@io.com http://www.io.com/~mike_f/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
> To rob a topic from another group, "Why
> isn't there a game system out there
> designed directly for online gaming?"
Designing games systems is something I've been taking a whack at for
quite some time. What most of the other responses to this posting say is
true, online play doesn't really effect the way the rules of a game work.
That's probably why there isn't one out there that was designed specifically
for it (at least that I know of), lack of necessity.
That's not to say that designing a roleplaying system around the
benefits of online roleplaying isn't possible, or even a good idea.
Firstly, I'm assuming that we're talking about the more "real time"
forms of online play, as PBEM, etc. allow you enough time to work the rules
however you want to. Outside of someone's personal game system preferences
(how much detail in gameplay, the mechanics of sundry subjects), I would say
that the real quest for designing an online game system is to take advantage
of all the benefits of online gaming. Specifically, that it's easier to
store a massive amount of info about your character (just how many megabytes
do you expect you can take up with different skills, eh?), and the fact that
it's probably better to have either: A) all the players well versed enough
in the rules that not much needs to be explained online during gameplay
(don't forget modifier a, b, and c, and make sure to add your bonus from
factors x and y) or B) have a game system that does not have enough rules
(ie. complexity) for that to be a problem.
To me, this paints a picture of a game with the capability to make up
for a simplistic rules system with lots of character specifics. As in, why
bother with having a modifier when trying disarm an opponent (as opposed to
a standard attack) when you can have "Disarm" as an entirely seperate skill?
While I'm on the subject, anyone else play on WebRPG or other online
games frequently? (as I'm looking to start doing so myself, you see)
:) Zealot
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On 6 Jun 01, at 19:45, a & g wrote: > quite some time. What most of the other responses to this posting say > is true, online play doesn't really effect the way the rules of a game > work. That's probably why there isn't one out there that was designed > specifically for it (at least that I know of), lack of necessity. More, I think, a lack of looking at things from the right point of view. Experienced gamers are looking at the games from the viewpoint of translating a face-to-face game, with all of its wargaming baggage, to the online medium. And in some cases, that works. But there is a whole crowd of people, who may outnumber the conventional roleplayers online, who've come at it from the opposite direction. They aren't roleplayers. They're Buffy fans, or Trek fans, or (God help us) Days of Our Lives fans. And they've invented roleplaying more-or-less independently, and named it "simming." If you told them what they were doing was just like D&D, only in a different genre, they'd react approximately as if you'd suggested that their parents were siblings. The "rules" they need are completely different from what you find in conventional games, except for a few diceless, troupe-style, and/or artsy-fartsy games. You'll find some of them in improv theatre manuals, and some of them in fiction-writing manuals, but most of them are unwritten, unverbalized social-contract rules. Mostly it works, having them unwritten, but it very much depends on the personality of the person/people who drive the game/sim. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
