Why is it nearly impossible to find an online RPG group that doesn't require using Skype? I loathe Skype and want to avoid it, but I'd still like to play games sometime. What's wrong with just using text on Roll20 or whatever?
People like to talk and Skype is the most well known and plebian of programs to facilitate that.
Because we want to know that you're actually paying attention instead of just shitposting on 4chan in another tab and every now and then jumping back to see what everyone has said.
>>43548431
Dunno. Roll20 has fucking voice. Why have an extra thing going?
I mostly game over IRC, no Skype involved. The Sup/tg/ IRC is pretty good for that, and I've been in a few okay games on Rizon.
>>43548431
Some people will use Google Hangouts?
>>43548481
I don't like to talk, and besides, it's too easy to miss important things with voice that wouldn't be missed with text.
>>43548504
IRC is good. If it wasn't for liking to have a visual map I'd want to just run the game on there.
>>43548593
For games that require it, I've used an IC/OOC IRC chat along with Roll20 tabletop, since the chat and logging functions of IRC are kinda nicer, especially when you don't need the tabletop.
I've also been in a campaign which had a weird system in the past, we had a skype chat but only for OOC and rules stuff. Dicerolls happened in the OOC channel, all IC stuff went in the IC channel, but figuring out what you're going to do or just chatting was all verbal, which actually did a really great job of speeding things up.
>>43548593
>it's too easy to miss important things
Yeah, I don't know how people managed to play roleplaying games for the past 40 fucking years simply TALKING TO EACH OTHER.
Stop being a fucking sperg and just interact with real fucking human beings. You'll be better off for it.
>>43548814
That anon isn't wrong though. When we talk, I miss details sometimes and there's no text to scroll up to look at.
>>43548814
>Stop being a fucking sperg and just interact with real fucking human beings. You'll be better off for it.
I live in the middle of fucking nowhere and so an in-person group around a real table isn't an option.
Skype for OOC chat and text for in-character speech is most useful.
>>43548891
ok, so, make do. You want this, right? Well, maybe you gotta work a little for it, seen?
>>43548814
Sitting around a table is different, since you can actually look at people and tell who's paying attention and who's trying to speak up. You miss out on body language, and with everyone in one call its common for people to speak over each-other or just have awkward pauses to avoid doing so.
Talking in person around a table is very different than a phone call with 6 people.
>>43548838
>That anon isn't wrong though. When we talk, I miss details sometimes and there's no text to scroll up to look at.
"I'm sorry, could you repeat that?"
>>43549678
And then you lose out on the one advantage of voice, which is potentially being faster. But that only works if everyone is on the ball 100% of the time.
>>43549714
>one advantage of voice
So we're ignoring the emotional qualities and subtle nuances of human speech?
Figures - this entire thread is about making online RPGs even less personal.
>>43549776
Unless you're an actor or are playing a character that's literally yourself, no, you're not going to convey emotion much better than a book.
>>43549805
Do you really believe the average person incapable of pretending to feel one emotion and communicating that through speech?I'm sure if you pay attention, you'll find many people pretending to be interested in what you have to say
>>43549879
Have you never seen bad acting before?
>>43549950
Yes, and it usually comes from people who think they can actually act, and are wrong. The better roleplay, in my experience, tends to come from players who aren't trained actors and do not pretend to be. They're just trying to roleplay and involve themselves in the story, and if you have a problem with an amateur not being competent, you might be That Guy.
>>43550116
It can also be much more entertaining making sound effects with your mouth instead of just typing them out.
>>43550116
>>43550188
It's not really a matter of competency. It's the idea that somehow just using voice immediately gives you a better mood than text, which isn't necessarily true.
>>43548838
yeah, only havinga voice is hard to relate to. it gets easier with camera, though, if you can get that to work.
>>43550232
Why do you think movies and TV are more popular than books? Why do you think screenshot LPs didn't take off into the mainstream and video LPs did?
It's easier to provoke an emotional response in your audience when they can actually see people and hear dialogue, and people want to be provoked into an emotional response when they consume media. That's the whole point of entertainment: "I'm bored, make me feel something other than boredom".
If you're trying to set a mood (which is just provoking an emotional response by a different name), actually hearing someone talk with an angry tone of voice is always a better bet than just reading " 'Fuck you', he said angrily". The difference between an RPG and movies and books is that with movies and books, you don't have an option. In the movie, the actor will say the line angrily, and in the book, the author will write that the character spoke angrily. But with RPGs you have that option, so why not choose the more visceral response when the whole point of conveying emotion is to provoke an emotional response?
For the vast majority of people seeing (or sensing is general) really is believing, and so our emotional responses are tied to our senses. "I was there, I saw it" is a way better story and is far more emotionally engaging than "I read about it in a book". Getting a text reading "I love you" is not the same as being told "I love you" in person, hearing the words as they're said and seeing the face of the speaker and inferring whatever's coming next from body language, tone of voice and speech patterns. There's a world of difference between reading "I love you, but we can't be together" and getting only the feeling of sadness because you're seeing the whole thing as one chunk, and hearing:
"I love you..."
>ELATION
WAIT WHY DID SHE PAUSE LIKE THAT
IS SHE NOT DONE
"...but"
>PANIC
"we can't be together"
>SADNESS
>>43550770
>Why do you think movies and TV are more popular than books?
Because there's a visual element? Unless you want to try arguing that audiobooks are more popular than normal books. Video lets plays got more popular because people want to see the game in action.
>getting only the feeling of sadness because you're seeing the whole thing as one chunk
So don't just post it as a chunk?
>"I love you," she said, turning to him, a smile on her face and tears streaming from her eyes, "But...we can't be together."
Dramatic timing doesn't disappear just because you're not using voice. It just actually requires you to put some extra thought into what you're saying.
>>43550930
>Because there's a visual element? Unless you want to try arguing that audiobooks are more popular than normal books.
No, but I would argue that movies based on books are in many cases far more popular than the books themselves.
> It just actually requires you to put some extra thought into what you're saying.
And what if you aren't a writer? Don't you just run into the same problem as a non-actor trying to act?
>>43551034
>No, but I would argue that movies based on books are in many cases far more popular than the books themselves.
Because they get to see all those cool action scenes on a big screen. It's the visuals. That's why people go out to see a movie, or watch TV. You don't ask someone, "Hey, you wanna go out an listen to that new movie with me?"
>And what if you aren't a writer?
Then you won't get the emotion across as well, but the extra time to think would certainly make it easier than trying to convey emotion on the spot if you weren't an actor.
>>43548593
>I don't like to talk
Why are you doing social activities with other people then?
>>43552359
Because it's possible to enjoy social interaction while also finding it draining. I enjoy going out with other people, but I do find voicechat draining. I actually find digital voicechat even more draining, because there's no body language cues or other such things to let me read the conversation. Text is a lot easier in that respect.
>>43548481
>Skype is the most well known and plebian of programs to facilitate that.
Mumble will never get the recognition it deserves.
>>43550770
>Why do you think movies and TV are more popular than books?
Why does this even matter? Most people who actually read the rulebook to play the game are probably highly into reading. Heck, most of the people I've played with have barely watched TV in years and only watch movies on special occasions.
>>43548431
>Why is it nearly impossible to find an online RPG group that doesn't require using Skype? I loathe Skype and want to avoid it, but I'd still like to play games sometime. What's wrong with just using text on Roll20 or whatever?
Because basic bitches cannot into TeamSpeak, >>43552561, Mumble or basically anything else that's not pure garbage. Google Hangouts is SLIGHTLY better but kinda quirky in how it, say, shuffles windows etc.
>>43548492
>Dunno. Roll20 has fucking voice. Why have an extra thing going?
So I'm not the only one who never got that. Good.
>>43548814
>voice is the same as talking IRL
No.
Because everyone has Skype. If you want to use a different system then just ask your group or just GM yourself.
>>43556520
>system
Program I mean
