The Old Table Top Games with Friends Feel

Amathe

With some modern graphics, sure. But even more than games like Everquest, I would love to experience a little of this (and yes I know the pic is full of mistakes):

Sovrath

"the picture is full of mistakes" why?

immodium

Nyctelios said:

Divnitiy 2 is the closest thing to it. But making all friends come together in the same time window seems the actual challenge and not finding the actual game.

Lotro RP people are really devoted, you should consider chack it out.

Even then the social experience between online and table top gaming aren't even comparable.

LAN parties are the social equivalent to table top gaming.

immodium

Nyctelios said:

immodium said:

Nyctelios said:

Divnitiy 2 is the closest thing to it. But making all friends come together in the same time window seems the actual challenge and not finding the actual game.

Lotro RP people are really devoted, you should consider chack it out.

Even then the social experience between online and table top gaming aren't even comparable.

LAN parties are the social equivalent to table top gaming.

How so?

Playing a digital game like Divnity via discord in dungeon master mode is pretty much what it is...

and nobody will spill coke on my god damn books!!!

In regard to feel.

Personally I need to be in the same room as my friends to get that table-top game feel.

It's just a totally different experience being on my own using voice/video chat.

Wizardry

Well a couple things.
1 Table top was the best there was,so it was cool,fun and well the best option we had.
2 Most of my friends from that era liked playing a table top but never really grew into video games,so that option is nearly impossible.Sure a few here and there do play video games but not all have the same love of the same game.Perhaps TOO many options makes it tougher than when we only had a few table top games to choose from so odds were we all liked the same games,be it Monopoly or Risk or DnD.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

MadFrenchie

blueturtle13 said:

Why is this posted in a Pantheon forum? No MMORPG ever made has the same social impact as tabletop gaming. 

But wouldn't it be cool if players could hire DMs to create adventures for them in games like Divinity?

Contract a DM for a X hour long story, the DM uses the game tools to write up/plan out the adventure, you and your friends schedule play sessions with said DM until the adventure has concluded...  Pipe dreams!

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

PottedPlant22

check out Fantasy Grounds on Steam.  It's a fantastic virtual table top.  I love the 5th edition D&D ruleset they have on there.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Kyleran

Hmm, last time I played a table top game with friends was Conquest of the Empire back in the early 90s.

(Last time I had any real life friends, probably a factor)

Never did the TT RPG thing, before my time or considered the province of nerds and suicidal "satanists."

I did play SSI gold box games however, and my wife still questions my love of fantasy and magic based RPG games.

Don't tell her about the secret rituals on Discord, OK?

Scot

Sovrath said:

"the picture is full of mistakes" why?

I never used to hold my axe in my left hand as I am right handed.

Scot

We were doing cosplay before there was cosplay, but I must say that was LARP no one I have gamed with wore an outfit to sit down for table top.

Also with the risk of sounding a heretic D&D is rather passé, so old school it seems like it exists in its own era. But glorious days had by one and all none the less.

Sinist

blueturtle13 said:

PottedPlant22 said:

check out Fantasy Grounds on Steam.  It's a fantastic virtual table top.  I love the 5th edition D&D ruleset they have on there.

Huge money sink though. 

Only if you buy the official rule sets. You can spend around a 100 bucks for the license and then use community rule sets (or the free one that comes with it). Also, there are cheaper rule sets, AD&D is just massively over priced. Not to mention, if you have the license, all clients can connect and play with the free demos. 

Once Fantasy Grounds Unity is finished (no idea and they are taking forever), there will be 3D maping environments, dynamic lighting and line of sight features (for the 2D map version as well). 

Amathe

Sovrath said:

"the picture is full of mistakes" why?

I could be mistaken. Or maybe the game changed after I played it. But my friends and I had graph paper where we mapped out the dungeon as we went. Not all of that stuff they have on the table. 

Amathe

blueturtle13 said:

Why is this posted in a Pantheon forum? No MMORPG ever made has the same social impact as tabletop gaming. 

I am kind of surprised Blueturtle. I think we both know I never said otherwise. To the contrary, what I said was 'to experience a little of this ..." Note the italicized word "little." 

Sovrath

Amathe said:

Sovrath said:

"the picture is full of mistakes" why?

I could be mistaken. Or maybe the game changed after I played it. But my friends and I had graph paper where we mapped out the dungeon as we went. Not all of that stuff they have on the table. 

Nah, the stuff they are using is actual, real stuff. Heck, I know a guy whose company makes some of this stuff.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Scot

Sovrath said:

Amathe said:

Sovrath said:

"the picture is full of mistakes" why?

I could be mistaken. Or maybe the game changed after I played it. But my friends and I had graph paper where we mapped out the dungeon as we went. Not all of that stuff they have on the table. 

Nah, the stuff they are using is actual, real stuff. Heck, I know a guy whose company makes some of this stuff.

All that gear is the real McCoy, just not used by all groups, even those that do would not use it all the time. 

Amathe

blueturtle13 said:

This game is no different than any other MMORPG, it will offer no experience like a tabletop game. Not even a little bit. 

Then we can agree to disagree. I think the emphasis on social interaction, greater group dependency, the need to learn one's way around, the less obvious nature of questing, the return to tactics over min/max spam, the more measured pace of travel and combat, and many other factors pay greater homage to tabletop gaming than many mmorpgs do. 

Sovrath

Scot said:

Sovrath said:

Amathe said:

Sovrath said:

"the picture is full of mistakes" why?

I could be mistaken. Or maybe the game changed after I played it. But my friends and I had graph paper where we mapped out the dungeon as we went. Not all of that stuff they have on the table. 

Nah, the stuff they are using is actual, real stuff. Heck, I know a guy whose company makes some of this stuff.

All that gear is the real McCoy, just not used by all groups, even those that do would not use it all the time. 

If that stuff was available when I was young and played pen and paper games I'd have all of it. All the stuffs!

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Sovrath

blueturtle13 said:

Amathe said:

blueturtle13 said:

This game is no different than any other MMORPG, it will offer no experience like a tabletop game. Not even a little bit. 

Then we can agree to disagree. I think the emphasis on social interaction, greater group dependency, the need to learn one's way around, the less obvious nature of questing, the return to tactics over min/max spam, the more measured pace of travel and combat, and many other factors pay greater homage to tabletop gaming than many mmorpgs do. 

I agree Pantheon (may) offer a better group based experience than most other modern MMORPGs I just do not agree that an MMORPG (or any other video game) can offer any kind of similar experience that table top gaming does. Two completely different experiences.  

I would add this is how players become very disappointed.

Players need to start learning how to take these games for what they are WHEN they are released and absolutely, under no circumstances, attribute anything else to them. No expectations, no I hope it has x, y and z, no nothing.

Because otherwise we are going to start getting the posts of "this game should have been/this game said it would/this game had so much potential ... "

This game is going to be EXACTLY what they showed us. No more/no less.

Sinist

blueturtle13 said:

Amathe said:

blueturtle13 said:

Why is this posted in a Pantheon forum? No MMORPG ever made has the same social impact as tabletop gaming. 

I am kind of surprised Blueturtle. I think we both know I never said otherwise. To the contrary, what I said was 'to experience a little of this ..." Note the italicized word "little." 

I understand that but I still do not understand why it is posted in a Pantheon forum. This game is no different than any other MMORPG, it will offer no experience like a tabletop game. Not even a little bit. Two completely different experiences that, in my opinion, offer no overlap at all. 

Agreed, and in fact I think attempting to converge the two will only end up detracting from what makes each important in its experience. 

I think those seeking such are better focused on TT systems like Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, etc... An MMO that attempts to achieve the inclusion of such will likely only upset "both" sides of the position. In a way, it is similar to that of trying to make a game appeal to "everyone". It just doesn't work, the result will always be of everyone being disappointed. 

Sinist

Amathe said:

blueturtle13 said:

This game is no different than any other MMORPG, it will offer no experience like a tabletop game. Not even a little bit. 

Then we can agree to disagree. I think the emphasis on social interaction, greater group dependency, the need to learn one's way around, the less obvious nature of questing, the return to tactics over min/max spam, the more measured pace of travel and combat, and many other factors pay greater homage to tabletop gaming than many mmorpgs do. 

That is subjective though Amathe. Table Top doesn't necessarily achieve that condition of play. In fact, among the progression of D&D, there is a strong division, much like that of games today where there are a subset who wish the game to be open and forgiving, with less focus on rules, constrictions and the like. 

Look at the progression of D&D since its inception. D&D was created from the desire to give more story depth and interaction to the TT game "Chainmail". In the inception and progression of D&D, attitudes split on the attention to game play. Gygax believed structured rules and systems balanced with creative play were key to the progression of the game while Arneson believed only creative play was important, with rules and systems being subject to conditional need of attending to such.

This split off the creation of AD&D (Gygax) and that of D&D (Arneson). One with a more strict set of rules and structure (paying attention to things like physics of the world and interaction of the environment and its systems) while the other was more about story, and simply promoting an open play without major attention or adherence to conditions or rules. 

Even after such, there was great divide between the TT/Pen & Paper community. Some games focused on core rules and detailed systems, while others focused on less strict constructs. The White Wolf games (Vampire, Ghost, Werewolf, Frankenstein) were notably more focused to the concept of Arneson's goal by essentially streamlining the game systems, making it more about basic interaction of person to person role playing (ie LARPing) as opposed to that of statistical results of rules and structures. 


So, TT/Pen & Paper doesn't immediately promote a given concept or focus to a style of play. Like the games today where there are those who demand more structure and consequence/conditional play in objection to those who seek more loose and unrestricted play, it is the age old argument of taste.

I always like to place people into the Gygax or Arneson camp to more easily simplify arguments on game systems. Yes, any classification is confining and misses the nuances of a given persons position, but realistically and practically, it is a pretty fair segregation of positions. That is, if one is more interested in the freedom of the player to discern their play, to focus more on that of elements of story and progression without concern to a structure or conditional rule system, I see them as "Team Arneson". If they prefer more structure, rule systems, physics and conditions that dictate loss and consequence, I see them as more "Team Gygax". 

An important point is that neither sees each other as absolutes. Both respect the need for the other, but think adherence to their core philosophy is the foundation.

Based on your above argument, I would place you more into the Gygax crowd. While for instance, I would place more of the games out today to be that of the Arneson crowd. 

That is, Gygax was more focused on what a "game" is actually defined as (a set of rules, conditions, structures, to which a player/players compete against to overcome), while Arneson was more focused on the product of what a game may produce (ie entertainment, an engaging amusement or diversion). 

Note there is nothing wrong with either focus, as I said, it is a matter of taste, but it does become a MASSIVE problem when we have such crowds conversing to a game and the expectations they have on its system of play. 

I don't think you can use your basic example as a means to establish what goal or direction a game should be (in as how you desire it). I for instance was a very technical AD&D player, putting most of the focus on systems with only applying a bending of the systems to stave off devastating extreme results that harmed the over all campaign or ended it prematurely. Others I knew had open and what I considered "crazy wild disregard" for rule systems as they played a campaign of "anything goes!" and "the player always wins!", which should remind you of many games today.