Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyDaze

Did I read that right? Redone to be BC/OW compatible?

Recommended Posts

Online = MMO is a really ridiculous comparison to make. Augmenting your experience with technology doesn't magically turn the game into Everquest.

 

Howdy,

 

No, but requiring a tabletop pen-and-paper RPG to have online-only content or requiring connectivity to play is changing the paradigm of the game.  A change that is unneeded and restrictive.  Actually, by definition your game WOULD be an MMO, albeit one with non-existant graphics, no AI,  and requiring human interface and some off-line records and storage.  Ugh.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And facilitating things for people who do want to play online is hardly a bad thing, it's a pretty big market. Roll20 recently hit 275,000 users, and I think that says a lot. 

 

Roll20 is a virtual tabletop interface that allows people who are geographically separated to play together.  There are a number of alternatives out there and people have been doing things like this for a number of years.  You are essentially playing a pen-and-paper tabletop RPG, with assistance from a dice roller, chat system, and customizable maps.  It is really a bundle of game aids.

 

It is NOT a game that REQUIRES connectivity to play in a tabletop setting or contains unique online-only content, proprietary formats, or restrictive licenses.

 

THAT said, at some point one *could* call something like this an MMO, although one where the mechanics and record keeping or done off-line and the AI is human.  A really pong MMO, but maybe a really advanced MUD? ;)

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how a game which typically consists of five players can ever be considered massively multiplayer.

 

Also, believe it or not, you can print books AND provide electronic options for those who want them. You can have your cake and eat it in this scenario. We're already on the way there as is.

 

My point about Roll20 was simply that there's clearly a market for people who DON'T play in person. The majority of players using Roll20 are likely using PDFs, too (I have no statistics to substantiate this, but it seems like a readonable claim). Is giving them the option of a searchable rules database and automatic character sheet generator a bad thing? All the content can be printed in books too, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that one can safely ignore anyone who uses 'MMO' to deride tabletop (or online tabletop) game mechanics.  People who do so often have very little idea what they're talking about.

 

Yet we see people who go out and chastise people like me be proven wrong.  Like the game won't play at all because the connection went out, servers were too low, or some thing that makes sure that people can't play.  So who is really the fool?  Is it the guy that points out your ******* up, or you who chastise that guy who warned you and that guy was proven to be right?

 

Lets not forget about the people who have no internet, or the connection is so horrible that stable connection is laughed at.  I might also add that there are many game makers that are poor and can't afford those nice features.  This isn't touching on people who are also poor and can't afford to pay monthly costs for a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet we see people who go out and chastise people like me be proven wrong.  Like the game won't play at all because the connection went out, servers were too low, or some thing that makes sure that people can't play.  So who is really the fool?  Is it the guy that points out your ******* up, or you who chastise that guy who warned you and that guy was proven to be right?

This is a spotlight fallacy. You're choosing to point out the few instances when online-only content hasn't worked, while ignoring the vast majority that does work. Also, just because those few examples didn't work out, there's no reason to assume a future product would. I'd say you're the fool for getting hung up on a relatively minor subset of all online content ever.

 

Lets not forget about the people who have no internet, or the connection is so horrible that stable connection is laughed at. I might also add that there are many game makers that are poor and can't afford those nice features. This isn't touching on people who are also poor and can't afford to pay monthly costs for a game.

So because some people can't enjoy something, that means that nobody should? This is an even worse argument than your previous one. Nobody is saying that there should be an instant and global switch to online-only content; nor are they saying that there should be a monthly fee. I see no reason why some developers cannot continue to offer books and pdfs, or provide this hypothetical online ruleset for a one-off price just like current games do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how a game which typically consists of five players can ever be considered massively multiplayer.

 

Also, believe it or not, you can print books AND provide electronic options for those who want them. You can have your cake and eat it in this scenario. We're already on the way there as is.

 

My point about Roll20 was simply that there's clearly a market for people who DON'T play in person. The majority of players using Roll20 are likely using PDFs, too (I have no statistics to substantiate this, but it seems like a readonable claim). Is giving them the option of a searchable rules database and automatic character sheet generator a bad thing? All the content can be printed in books too, after all.

 

Howdy,

 

If you read my message, I said *at some point*.  Many MMOs that I play MOSTLY focus on raids and instances with 5-10 people.  Yeah, I can hang out with hundreds at the inn or spaceport, but almost all actual gameplay usually revolves less than a dozen of us.  Not so far off now, is it.....

 

I did point out that online content and aid has proven to be a great idea.  HOWEVER, when you offer online-only and connection-required content and/or platform specific, non-printable and restrictively-licensed material, that is a set-up for FAIL.

 

Roll20 looks *great*.  My friends and I have been playing on conferencing and virtual tabletops for several years - there are a number of neat options out there (and more coming).  Before that, we did MUDs, message gaming (on CServe in the late 80s) and even THE PHONE.  Whatever works.

 

As I said before, the problem is NOT WITH PDFs OR ONLINE CONTENT, it is with with online-only, internet-required, non-printable, platform specific, yadda yadda materials.  DTRPG is the way of the future and PDFs are *wonderful*.  But trying to force tabletop pen-and-paper gaming to be solely playable or only supportable online is simply a BUST.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that one can safely ignore anyone who uses 'MMO' to deride tabletop (or online tabletop) game mechanics.  People who do so often have very little idea what they're talking about.

 

Howdy,

 

It depends on your taste of system and flavour of roleplay.

 

MMOs have to rely on programs to run the NPCs and the world.  Since programs can only handle so much, interactions are often simplistic.  With tabletop pen-and-paper RPGs, the human GM moderates human and enviroment interaction, and in FAR more complex ways.

 

Some recent games (i.e. D&D 4e) have tried to model MMO-based mechanics to tabletop give a simplified, (and to the MMO crowd) familiar gaming experience.  Things like drops, aggro, etc.  This was easily handled by GM-Player interaction.  Now you have mechanics to handle this, where some would view this as artificial, unneeded, and non-immersive.

 

THAT is where you get MMO-to-tabletop system comparison and critiques -  their concerns or tastes may be different from yours.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before, the problem is NOT WITH PDFs OR ONLINE CONTENT, it is with with online-only, internet-required, non-printable, platform specific, yadda yadda materials.  DTRPG is the way of the future and PDFs are *wonderful*.  But trying to force tabletop pen-and-paper gaming to be solely playable or only supportable online is simply a BUST.

The problem is that you're assuming that your opinion (that an online-only ruleset is bad) is universally held, when that is not the case. I can't comprehend how you can state that every single possible iteration of always-online content could not work, when there's so much precedence. There are myriad ways of implementing an online ruleset, many of which would work perfectly well and even improve the game, but you seem to automatically assume the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I said before, the problem is NOT WITH PDFs OR ONLINE CONTENT, it is with with online-only, internet-required, non-printable, platform specific, yadda yadda materials.  DTRPG is the way of the future and PDFs are *wonderful*.  But trying to force tabletop pen-and-paper gaming to be solely playable or only supportable online is simply a BUST.

The problem is that you're assuming that your opinion (that an online-only ruleset is bad) is universally held, when that is not the case. I can't comprehend how you can state that every single possible iteration of always-online content could not work, when there's so much precedence. There are myriad ways of implementing an online ruleset, many of which would work perfectly well and even improve the game, but you seem to automatically assume the worst.

 

 

Howdy,

 

What precedence are you referring to concerning the success of an online-only and online-required tabletop pen-and-paper RPG game?  Please share with us.

 

By all means, fell free to illustrate how online-only/internet-required, proprietary, platform-specific, non-printable material would improve the tabletop pen-and-paper roleplaying experience (as opposed to traditional pdfs and software) and how you would encourage the target audience to buy it.

 

You are correct - it is my opinion.  However, several tabletop lines that have relied on online-only/online-required, proprietary format, non-printable material have suffered.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions here. Non printable? It'd be easy to work in printer support for things like character sheets. Hell, you could even set up a program which lets you make up sheets of all the relevant rules you need and print them.

 

Platform specific? No one said that. I imagine HTML5 would be the best way to do this sort of thing. So, any browser would work. 

Online only? That's hardly a requirement. Offline versions of things could EASILY be offered.

 

You seem to be constructing a worst case scenario to base your arguments off, it's a poor way to do things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatives =/= replacements. There's no reason that you couldn't, say, print books, but also offer all their content in the form of an online database that you pay to access.

 

Making digital content fundamentally different from the print equivalents is a good thing. Computers can do things books can't, so that should be taken advantage of, instead of just getting direct copies of the print media in PDF form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions here. Non printable? It'd be easy to work in printer support for things like character sheets. Hell, you could even set up a program which lets you make up sheets of all the relevant rules you need and print them.

 

Platform specific? No one said that. I imagine HTML5 would be the best way to do this sort of thing. So, any browser would work. 

Online only? That's hardly a requirement. Offline versions of things could EASILY be offered.

 

You seem to be constructing a worst case scenario to base your arguments off, it's a poor way to do things.

 

Howdy,

 

PLEASE read the previous dozen-plus posts in this thread.  The variables that I cite (non-printable, platform-specific, online-required, yadda yadda) are examples of CURRENT or PAST limitations on some of the online or software support of some companies.  They are all BAD ideas.

 

Non-printable is often a DELIBERATE choice by the company to make pirating difficult and to ensure online-loyalty/business.  It *really* pisses off the customer base (Field of Glory, anyone?) and is too restrictive.  Yes, you can HACK the software/file to print it, but why she the customer HAVE to do that?

 

Platform-specific?  Some companies want to sell on iTunes and also enter restrictive licensing, making their apps and support ONLY available on iPads/iPhones.  Sucks to be you, Android users.

 

Online-only required support for tabletop pen-and-paper games?  Some companies have required it, and their games have paid the price.

 

I think that you are getting your wires crossed in this.  I (and others) are NOT criticizing online support or publications - I though at least I made that clear.  Companies have been posting play aids, pdfs and publishing on the web for YEARS, and that is one of the BEST things to happen to the tabletop pen-and-paper gaming hobby EVER!

 

The problem is when companies restrict support (or even restrict the game itself).  Requiring a face-to-face pen-and-paper RPG to be played only when online is BAD design and market choice.  Not being able to print or port your games or support to the platforms that you do use is a FAIL.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is going nowhere. You're either deliberately being obtuse, or simply cannot understand my argument.

 

Howdy,

 

....Or you are simply failing to elucidate your position properly.  Or that it is simply your opinion.

 

My opionion is that online support is GREAT.  Online support (or an online-unique game) that has a limitation such as platform specificity, online-only requirements, non-printability, etc is BAD.  We have already seen these limitations with some tabletop games (in various combinations), and the fans and market have spoken.

 

How *would* you argue that these limitations are a GOOD thing?  I am all ears.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a proponent of platform specific (specifically Linux) formats, always-online requirements, non-printable proprietary formats, and weekly subscription fees, I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a proponent of platform specific (specifically Linux) formats, always-online requirements, non-printable proprietary formats, and weekly subscription fees, I disagree.

 

So you would rather get rip off every single week, lose out on game nights when the power goes out, and ultimately lose your game forever once the company is done with the product.  Some one needs to teach you about consumer rights because your clearly going at it from the wrong angle.

 

Meanwhile I will stick with my hard copies, pdfs, dices, dice apps that are a one time purchase, skype, and if I am feeling like it a chat game.  Which none of the games I have require the internet even though the internet supplements it well enough.  That means I don't have to pay a weekly fee.  It also means if the power goes out I am fine because I have dice and paper sheets to continue on with my game.  Last I own my own copy of the book so if the company goes bankrupt, or flat ditches the product I can still play the game as many times as I want.

 

This is called being a smart consumer.  I have full control over the products that I had bought with my money while you would rather go for products that strip away your rights and do what ever the company tells you to do.  It is called controlling the things you purchase and not letting the things you purchase control you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatives =/= replacements. There's no reason that you couldn't, say, print books, but also offer all their content in the form of an online database that you pay to access.

 

Making digital content fundamentally different from the print equivalents is a good thing. Computers can do things books can't, so that should be taken advantage of, instead of just getting direct copies of the print media in PDF form.

 

Howdy,

 

ABSOLUTELY!  Getting the best you can out of the digital medium is KEY.  I have game files that I can instantly search chain together reference links, which are simply impossible with the published form.

 

I agree with you *completely* - the problem lies with implementation.  Having the option of a printed game (either PoD, home-printing, or traditionally published) is great, and that is slowly giving ground to software (pdfs and the like).  The fans, market and the companies LOVE this and it *is* the way of the future.  Having subscription-based online support is fine (it has both worked and failed in the past, depending on implementation).  I would argue that having subscription-based online support *only* is a horrible idea.

 

In theory, this model means that the company can update the rules anytime with no fuss to you, can manipulate the files or data in useful ways (in theory), add new content continuously (paid by the subscription revenue stream).  The problem lies in the fact that you do not OWN the game or support, and have little voice in its direction beyond the power of the wallet/purse.

 

The game company goes out of business or changes direction?  Say goodbye to your game.  You don't like the game updates (DH 2.0, anyone)?  Hopefully, the nice company lets you have access to old versions.  You don't like the way the content is refrenced or the data is presented?  Suck it up.  Don't like the new content or the game becomes content-starved?  Too bad.  Don't have internet access at home or at the con?  No game night for you.*

 

With a dead-tree edition of the book and/or a pdf, YOU own the game.  It is a face-to-face tabletop RPG - these require the rules, dice (usually, but not always), and some form of record keeping.  That's IT.  You can try to impose additional requirements (online-required gameplay, online-only books etc), but how much do these add value to the experience or how do these limit the experience?

 

Hardware and software are getting better all of the time.  Having material that YOU can own and manipulate is what the market will support.  Companies would LOVE to restrict access and maximize money and control, but would the market support this?

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

 

*  I am sure that in the future, connectivity will be universal (along with my flying car and jet-pack).  Right now, only about 6 out of 10 in my gaming group have WiFi.  At GenCon (the largest RPG convention in The West), several of the RPG halls have NO connectivity.  At one of the largest NE gaming cons (TempleCon), much of the the RPG crowd is in the basement with NO internet access (which sucks because the con programs and support are ONLINE ONLY.  Organizers fail to see the irony in this).

 

In the future everything will be online, and print will be a niche.  Restrictions and limitations of support imposed by companies will dictate the success and failure of tabletop pen-and-paper RPGs, which as a medium of entertainment really doesn't REQUIRE *any* of those hurdles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy a good argument as much as the next guy, but- what does this Online-Only stuff have to do with the topic of this thread (BC/OW compatibility)?

Couldn't agree more. WotC's ordeal with D&D 4e may be of tangential relevance to this beta in the face of the possibility of "edition war" erupting, but this tangent has gone way too far to remain relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like the original conversation was very productive.

....Or you are simply failing to elucidate your position properly.  Or that it is simply your opinion.

 

My opionion is that online support is GREAT.  Online support (or an online-unique game) that has a limitation such as platform specificity, online-only requirements, non-printability, etc is BAD.  We have already seen these limitations with some tabletop games (in various combinations), and the fans and market have spoken.

 

How *would* you argue that these limitations are a GOOD thing?  I am all ears.

Please point out where I suggest that those limitations are a good thing.

Edited by MaliciousOnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like the original conversation was very productive.

 

 

Adeptus-B is still right though.  This topic had been off the rails enough.

 

As much as I dislike the going back to OW system after all that beta testing I do feel they are doing the wisest move they can do.  OW is a proven system that works and works well.  It is what most people wanted in the first place and those people are what Fantasy Flight want to cater too since they are the majority.  If they were not the majority, then Fantasy Flight would not scrap the whole thing and to go back to OW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...