GMing: Voice, text or mixed approach, any recommendation ?

I apologize in advance if this topic is in the wrong section of the forum. As it didn't really concern the roll20 application in itself, I put it here. Feel free to move it anywhere you like if it is not its right place. Thanks! Hello roll20 users! Well the question I have is basically the one in the title. I'm planning to start a Technoir RPG (not that it is relevant) using roll20. I'm fairly new at both roll20 and GMing, but I want to put all the chances on my side, by doing it right. I'm wondering about the full-voiced approach as, being French, I might have some trouble doing accents (I've got an almost English accent but that's it, I would be rubbish at trying to do anything else) and I find that it could put a damper on the player's immersion, meaning you need to refocus the players sometimes (depending on players). Plus if you miss a detail, you have to ask the GM again. Concerning the text-based approach, the biggest factor is speed. It takes a loooong time to describe things sometimes (I'm typing roughly at 50 wpm with 95% accuracy when typing something that I read on-screen at the same time), and you need patient players, also capable on focusing on the game even if it unfolds slowly. Plus it removes some of the fun that voice-based interaction allows. So I was wondering if a mixed approach would be possible. I was thinking on having non-RP stuff on voice, for example when asking to roll dices and arguing about different possibilities for an action, for jokes (we all sometimes want to put a funny word now and then) or even to explain a rule or a character's aspect. And then when players and GM are ready to act in character and now what they want to do/say, have them type it in the chat, and doing the same for descriptions. All that leads to my question, do you think such a system would be viable? Did any GM using roll20 (or something else but I consider everyone here mostly use roll20 ^^) try that approach or one of the two other with any success? Are my fear about voice-based interactions justified? If anyone can bring me some details and ideas (preferably with some experience backing it up), it would be of tremendous help. Thank you all for your time, Camille.

Hey man, I can understand your trouble here. I always find it easier to use a full-voiced approach, even if you do have trouble with accents its still a lot easier then the text approach. I struggle to come up with good accents for NPCs and sometimes just end up doing it with my own voice but of course the players feel it doesn't really carry well when trying to distinguish between the "Narrator" and "NPCS". My first solution to this was to use a voice changer app on my phone, which isn't to bad, but limited to the amount of changes you can have, however I did find a good one online which was free and works a treat for most situations. This is particularly good especially like me when you have a hard time coming up with accents or even doing voices of the opposite sex. I have attempted text-based in the past and its just long and annoying. Even if I have the script ready to copy paste, I was still needing to do conversation on the fly because of player interactions and trying to explain a rule via text is just horrifying. It also clutters up the dice rolls and makes it harder to read. Now I am using a mixed approach. I used voice for RP, as its easier for conversations and narration and I use text for all non-RP. Of course with this set up I find that alot of the text gets lost in dice rolls. My solution to this was to use a program like TeamSpeak, Ventrilo or mumble. This allowed for "push to talk" with voice and also allowed easy to access PMs. So using TeamSpeak I can have players PM me with questions about rules and so on and leave voice for the RP and narration. If I need to distinguish a NPC I can use voice changer programs to help me out with little effort. My groups love this as it really allows them to interact with eachother and NPCs in an engaging manner. Some of my players are even using the voice changer for their own character. Pro Tip: Turn off all the voice and video chat in Roll20 and reduce it to just name plates and select different colours for each player to distinguish between dice rolls easier.

Well thanks Anthony for the quick-reply. Would you mind sharing a link to that free on-line voice changer? And so basically you're using the opposite of what I was thinking of using. :D I'll probably use Skype as well, as it's common enough for almost everybody to have it, and allows for push-to-talk (which is in my own humble opinion invaluable, as hearing every crisp that someone is eating or the very loud breathing of some people is quite annoying to me). And don't you think that people try a bit harder to get in character when not using a microphone? I might be wrong of course, but if you tried both I would love to know what you think about that issue. PS: Explaining a rule or all that time-wasting stuff would actually happen on voice, so I don't think I would lose that much time when explaining a rule, but I could be dead-wrong. ^^ Anyone else using another approach (or the same) and having feedback to offer? Thanks for taking the time, everyone! Camille.

I use nearly full-voice in my campaign, typing everything out would take much longer. The only time when I do not talk to convey information is when I am sending a "Whisper" message to a specific player. I use Ventrilo because of its ease of use and PTT capability.

Yeh its basically the opposite. The program I am using isn't free, however you could probably find it in most torrent sites. Here is their site with a free trial. I try to stay away from skype as I just don't like it but that personal choice, its still a good program. I live in Australia so bandwidth is an issue when it comes to these programs. When it comes down to it I think getting into character depends on your group. I run with a pretty tight knit group of friends who have been playing together for a long time, so we don't really have problems like that as such. However with my newer groups that haven't played before that are a bit shy to get into character with voice. Honestly I think it is easier to get into a character with text but that may just be old habbits from RPing in MMOs. I only play D&D4e, so when it comes to explaining a rule I generally just link a compendium page or copy paste the rule into the PM. Honestly and I know its pretty harsh, but I expect my players to have a degree of knowledge when it comes to the game. I don't expect them to know everything but at least the basics and to have done at least some research to their characters. Other DMs think I am to harsh on this, but it all helps when it comes to deep engaging role play.

Hello Camille. I've done full text games, full voice games, and ran mixed games. I've played in all three types also and you are correct about the speed of the text games but you also can get a deeper and richer description in text. My live game right now is a mixed game which goes along rather well. The players send whispers and general out of character chat in text while the game itself is voice. I've also ran a game where all the game talk was in text and the out of character talk was voice. It went slower but it flowed just as smoothly so my suggestion is use which version you are most comfortable with.

Brett E. said: I use nearly full-voice in my campaign, typing everything out would take much longer. Do you mean descriptions, character interactions? That's what I'm afraid so. Maybe it could be made so that I type only descriptions and actions and voice the dialogues ? It would take less time, but still offer the possibility for detailed backgrounds and character actions ( I'm afraid of losing impact when using voice to describe the world. I could be wrong, feel free to intervene. ). If anyone ( including players ) has feedback on text or hybrid approach, I'd welcome a few more arguments (if you liked it, why, is it too slow, do yo feel it helps with the immersion, etc.). If you have a constructive opinion on why you like one or the other (meaning voice or text), please share. :p (I know I'm asking a lot, but I'd love to make my mind with as much information as I can get :) )

Metroknight said: Hello Camille. The players send whispers and general out of character chat in text while the game itself is voice. Thanks for your feedback Metroknight. So the consensus for a mixed game is to play the game in voice and OOC in text. Thanks for that insight guys! Still interested to know if anyone had the idea to try the other way around though. ^^ There won't be too much simulation mechanisms (as opposed to GURPS, D&D or other systems) as TechNoir is mostly using light mechanisms that tend towards narrativism if it changes anything. (Well maybe not exactly that, but you get the meaning. Story is more important to me than knowing if going from the back while grabbing his ankle and smashing his head with a hammer gets you a +2 or +1,75 to the attack roll. I respect people who like that but it is not my thing, and I thought it could be relevant in getting advice on which system to use for chat.)

I agree with Metroknight, I am a new GM here with my first game set to run soon. I use Raidcall but I plan to use privy information ot OOC, or stuff meant to be between certain people for text in whispers.

I think using text and talk is good cause it can actually make a game flow a bit faster so for instance when a player is speaking other players can just type in simple actions there character might be doing or preparing them to do. Also say one character is conversing with an NPC alone other characters can use chat to have there own conversation in character so they in a sense are still immersed in the game but not taking spotlight from the character who is shining at the moment.

Thanks for bringing that into light, Rick, that's a good point. Thanks as well, Richard. Could you bring your impressions when you will have run your game? I'd like that, if you find the time.

Camille B. said: Still interested to know if anyone had the idea to try the other way around though. ^^ There won't be too much simulation mechanisms (as opposed to GURPS, D&D or other systems) as TechNoir is mostly using light mechanisms that tend towards narrativism if it changes anything. (Well maybe not exactly that, but you get the meaning. Story is more important to me than knowing if going from the back while grabbing his ankle and smashing his head with a hammer gets you a +2 or +1,75 to the attack roll. I respect people who like that but it is not my thing, and I thought it could be relevant in getting advice on which system to use for chat.) I think I mentioned earlier that I ran a game that used text for game talk and voice for ooc. The game went very well but it was slower than voice. I prefer game text and ooc voice for a few reasons. Text generally is deeper in detail than a voice game, you have reference material to remind you of any clue or action that happened or was revealed in the game, you can take a brief pause and pick up the game with almost no error in the game, and more.

Metroknight said: I think I mentioned earlier that I ran a game that used text for game talk and voice for ooc. The game went very well but it was slower than voice. I prefer game text and ooc voice for a few reasons. Text generally is deeper in detail than a voice game, you have reference material to remind you of any clue or action that happened or was revealed in the game, you can take a brief pause and pick up the game with almost no error in the game, and more. Oh thanks, and sorry Metroknight! I completely blanked on that. Blame it on the fatigue, it's getting quite late (or early as it 07:44 am where I live). Well thanks for the feedback. I will probably try that, if I can get a detailed world before starting the game, and switch if I find the pace too slow and my players losing focus. Well! Feel free to add on whichever way you think works the best, or the pros and cons of each one, as I think it can benefit everybody to know the weaknesses and strengths of such narrative modes. Thanks everyone!

Camille B. said: Brett E. said: I use nearly full-voice in my campaign, typing everything out would take much longer. Do you mean descriptions, character interactions? That's what I'm afraid so. Yes, so far in my game, I verbally describe everything. I use 'Whisper' if I need to share secret information with just 1 player, but otherwise I just say it out loud. Using text for descriptions might work for me, if it was typed out ahead of time and I could just cut-and-paste, as someone else on here mentioned doing. I would probably need to get a second monitor though, I wouldn't want to try to run a game that way with just one screen.

If it was a static scene that is what I did. I pretyped it out in a character sheet as an ability so when you hit the dice it posted in the chat are and then i went from there. That gave me a versitility and speed. If I needed to change the scene prior to posting I could just type it in inside or using the character sheet.

I'm currently in a 100% voice in a campaign as a player and another 100% text. My main issue with voice is that sentences are usually less...structured. People start speaking then start thinking about the proper wording as they speak, which leads to many pauses. There's also accents problems and whatnot of course. For text however, since it's delayed communication, people can properly phrase what they want to say or do in one go. Of course, text gives a slower pace, but I don't mind much. Since I type quite fast, I notice that I'd quite often have typed my action description before someone actually described it vocally. Overall, I like text more personally, but I can understand the lure for voice chat, and not everyone types fast. While both of the campaigns I'm in currently are fun, I somehow feel WAY more involved, more "there" through 100% pure text than through voice. Plus, I can listen to music while I play, re-read what was said or described very easily, etc. The main issue with text however is that Roll20 interface is really NOT optimized for text based communication with 4+ players. If players are not careful, the chat panel will very easily get flooded under die rolls, emotes, descriptions, etc. Hopefully this is something they'll work on in the future and we'll have access to different configurable chat panels (ie: one for GM, one for rolls, etc) that we can move around the board freely. Meanwhile, players need to be careful, only use inline rolls, and keep their sentence structured. Once I start running my own campaign, I believe I might try 100% text and stick to it unless people really don't like it. Recommendation? - Apart from "party banter" while GM and a player or two are doing something else, I don't see the "splitting" between voice and text as viable. You will end up with people spilling over, maybe yourself too and in the end, everything will be voiced because it's easier. - If you prepare small description blocks, even if you voice them, copy/paste them in the chat, at least what's relevant. This will allow players to check them back again if needed and avoid tons of saying the same thing over and over again. - If you use chat, ONE RULE: Everyone uses INLINE rolls only. Without this, you'll end up spammed beyond belief very fast :/ - If some people can't type decently, don't use chat. - If you use chat, make sure people describe ONE action at a time, give a bit of time for others to do the same and react, and yourself to treat the information. - Other than that, voice or text, try to keep some order :)

(My first comment in the comment in the Roll20 community board!) Me, as a GM, and my players are pretty lazy and, we're all on a bunch of different platforms (Linux, Apple, Microsoft, tablets, phones and desktops.), nor are we as immersive and formal as some so, we try to keep it pragmatic and low effort. We mostly use the chat utility in Roll20 for dice and the scripting API and then use Skype or Mumble for voice. (Recording our sessions for later formal transcription which then gets digested to a website.) Mostly I don't like text chat because it's too confusing for me. Unlike e-mail, you can get interrupted when you're still trying to compose a reply. If everyone starts typing at once, a bunch of text from multiple sources just spews onto the screen at once. This jumbles timing and who said what, when and questions start as to who should you reply to. If you're a slow typist and a slow thinker, text chat really isn't that great for communication. This is rather ironic for me to say. In VoIP we're all very talkative, joke-prone and interrupt each other constantly, sliding in and out of character right in the same sentence. This verbal dialog is a utter mess, but millions of years of human language use have mostly honed our brains to cope and sort something vaguely intelligible out of it. And before Roll20 and VoIP, we were a ancient tabletop roleplayers. We like that spontaneity that text chat doesn't give us. So for the time being, we're voice.

Well, thank you everyone for the replies! From all of the advice I get here, I get the feeling that everyone does what is the most comfortable to them. Well, I'll probably do that. Brett E. , I don't have a second screen but I will have a tablet on the side, which I think I can use to go on Evernote and consult my notes. I hope it will be enough. I will try what I thought about, meaning the voice OOC and text RP and come back on the forum to give my feeling about how it went. Things that I think I should do after reading all of what you said : have no more than 3 players (I didn't want to have to many people anyway, and it will help get less text and actions overlapping, while at the same time be enough people to interact in various ways) try to set clearly whose turn it is to act before everyone starts typing (even if it's just to say "I don't really now,I pass, anyone's got an idea?" on the chat) have people write down what they do , even if they said it on the voice chat before (while reaching for a consensus maybe), so that everyone get the feeling the text-based chat is where the real action happens. try to get a maximum of the descriptions (NPCs, places, scripted events) written down before starting the session, while leaving all the banter and reaction unwritten as to be able to react in a natural way to the PCs actions and banter. be sure that I warn the players in the game's description beforehand, to avoid dragging players who hate text-based interactions in the group, and try to set clear boundaries on what should go in the chat, and what can be voiced. and lastly if none of that works, or if it gets too confusing for the players, be ready to switch to another mode (voice or text only) to continue the game! If you think of anything I should really be careful of, or something else I should tell my players about, feel free to intervene! Again, I cannot thank you all enough for the input! Camille. PS: G. said: Meanwhile, players need to be careful, only use inline rolls, and keep their sentence structured. What do you mean by inline rolls? Sorry I'm not that familiar with roll20 mechanics, it might be something very basic that I don't know of. :)

Camille B. said: What do you mean by inline rolls? Sorry I'm not that familiar with roll20 mechanics, it might be something very basic that I don't know of. :) The standard roller puts the icon of a die with a number overlaid on it in the chat area. It also takes up multiple lines creating a wasted area of 3 or 4 lines for one die roll. The inline roll format was developed to remove that problem. If you use [[your dice here]] you will receive your total in the text line that it was placed in. For example: you see the two rollers in acton in the above picture. The one with the icon is the standard /r 1d20 roller while the one below is my text with the inline roller purposely put on another line. I could have put the inline rolls in with my text but I chose not to (personal reasons). That visual difference is one of the things that separates the rollers. There are more than that but visually that is of the main thing.

Re: Inline Rolls: When a player needs to roll dice, the easy method is to type "/r 2d6 + 4", for example. This give the following output: Rolling 2d6 + 4 &lt;graphic of a d6&gt; + &lt;graphic of a d6&gt; + 4 = &lt;result&gt; A complicated die roll can easily cause the chat window to scroll half or even the entire way up the screen. The alternative is to use what are known as "in-line" rolls. Instead of typing "/r . . . ", place the die roll inside of double square brackets "[[ . . . ]]" For example, if you typed: "sword damage: [[2d6+4]]" the output would be a single line in the chat window: "sword damage: &lt;result&gt;" The different parts of the die roll are still accessible by hovering over the &lt;result&gt;, so you can check for crits on attack rolls, for example. Inline rolls are great for reducing chat clutter, and also for allowing the label indicating what they are to be right next to the result. Check the wiki for more information: <a href="https://wiki.roll20.net/Dice_Reference#Inline_Dice_Rolls" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.roll20.net/Dice_Reference#Inline_Dice_Rolls</a> &lt;EDIT&gt; ninja'd!

Thanks for the explanation Kristin C. ! I don't think it will be compatible with the game system I have in mind though. Technoir works with d6 only, but there are three kind of those (a pool for you skill dice, a pool for the "push dices" and a pool for the "hurt dices"). I'm trying to figure out how to use those on roll20 but I don't know if it will be compatible with those inline rolls, as it is not the total result that matters, but each dice result. Anyway that is another question entirely. ... &lt;Edit&gt; Haha! Everybody answered at the same time. If it present itself like on Metroknight's picture, I might be able to use this indeed. A lot less wasted space on the chat! While we're on the dice subject, do you think it is possible to attribute a text colour to each roll? As to differentiate the three pools? Thanks and sorry that the thread's going a bit sideways. :)

Camille B. said: PS: G. said: Meanwhile, players need to be careful, only use inline rolls, and keep their sentence structured. What do you mean by inline rolls? Sorry I'm not that familiar with roll20 mechanics, it might be something very basic that I don't know of. :) (with an haughty voice) "I do believe my minions answered your query..." :) Joke aside, proper macroing and inlining is really key for a clean and interesting session if you use chat a lot I think. If you have a bit of time playing with these, I'd take the time and encourage players to do the same. Here are three, pretty generic, that I always use when I need to chat and roll. They all work the same overall. When you run them, this will happen: 1) you will have an input box for the description of the action or what you say. by default, it'll do the action after the |. Press ENTER to continue. 2) you'll get another input, for the number of die to be rolled. By default, it'll be 1. Again, ENTER to continue. 3) Die type you'll want to roll, by default, 20. 4) This is a D&amp;D Next macro mainly. This input will be for DROP ONE, KEEP ONE commands, used for advantages or disadvantages roll. If you put something such as "dl1", it'll drop one of the lowest die roll. More info on this in the wiki. You can ignore it completely usually by pressing ENTER. 4) The bonus that'll be applied, by default 0. if you input something such as 1d4+5, it'll roll d4 then add 5. CUSTOM_ROLL_EMOTE /em ?{action description|appears to be doing something...} (ROLL: [[?{dice number|1}d?{dice type|20}?{drop or keep} + ?{bonus|0}]]) CUSTOM_ROLL_SAY {action description|I am saying something!} (ROLL: [[?{dice number|1}d?{dice type|20}?{drop or keep} + ?{bonus|0}]]) CUSTOM_ROLL_GMWISP /w gm ?{action description|appears to be doing something...} (ROLL: [[?{dice number|1}d?{dice type|20}?{drop or keep} + ?{bonus|0}]])? Just practical examples but this will keep your chat clean.

Thanks ^^ I think I will tinker with those tonight on the roll20 app considering that, right now, it looks like chinese to me. :D Thanks for taking the time though, I really need to get into the wiki and see how I can do stuff in the application That was interesting!

Thanks Kristin :) With all that help, I just had the opportunity to create a roll that should correspond with the needs of Technoir RPG It goes something like that : Generic Roll: /em ?{action description|appears to be doing something...} (Skill= [[?{dice number|1}d6sd}]] Push= [[?{dice number|1}d6sd}]] Hurt= [[?{dice number|1}d6sd}]]) GM Roll: /w gm ?{action description|appears to be doing something...} (Skill= [[?{dice number|1}d6sd}]] Push= [[?{dice number|1}d6sd}]] Hurt= [[?{dice number|1}d6sd}]])?) Just a question though. Is it possible to get a separate box for each roll (I mean I get Skill= 17 Push = 22 Hurt = 11 for example, but could I get those like this: Skill= 6+6+5 Push= 6+5+5+4+2 Hurt= 5+4+2), whithout having to hover over each one? I know it's a detail, it is already great like this, but if you know how to achieve that, that would be cool! :) Thanks again!

I have done live games that are 100% text and live games that are pretty much 100% voice and honestly both are decent. I do want to add one thing that I haven't seen mentioned on this forum and if by some fluke of nature I missed it I apologize. If you do a live game as a player or as a DM you are not obligated to do accents. At no point should anyone expect others to use different voices or accents. This is a game in which we use our imaginations so we can easily just pretend that a person is speaking with a british or scottish or new york accent...etc. If people can pull them off, then that is cool, but the game is not hurt if they are not present. So if one of the big things you are worried about with a voice game is not being able to do them then you should cast said doubts aside. That being said I do find that while you can get into more detail via text based games it tends to not be worth it to play it live. Even if you structure it so that people only post during their turns to type it really becomes rigid which causes people to want to blend in with people can type at their own pacing which then leads to people having to revise parts of their post or the whole thing. I feel that you are better off using text only games in Play by Post games on a forum. Once again though this is just my opinion and everyone has their own views. End of the day, do what you feel works best for you.

I agree partial with your statement about voice only, Phisto. I've used both along with a mixture of them both and it settle into which ever method the group and I felt the most comfortable with. I've noticed that most text based games slowly shift to a mixture text/voice then continue to a voice/text. Even though it looks like text/voice and voice/text are the same, there is a emphasize on the first part which starts out as text then transitions to voice. Did I confuse you yet? If so then sorry. The only pure voice game I've seen has been a totally diceless game and I never understood how it worked. As what was said about at the end of the day, do what you feel work best for you and ignore anyone that tells you otherwise. As long as you and your players are having fun and enjoying the game, you are doing it right.

Metroknight said: I agree partial with your statement about voice only, Phisto. I've used both along with a mixture of them both and it settle into which ever method the group and I felt the most comfortable with. I've noticed that most text based games slowly shift to a mixture text/voice then continue to a voice/text. Even though it looks like text/voice and voice/text are the same, there is a emphasize on the first part which starts out as text then transitions to voice. Did I confuse you yet? If so then sorry. The only pure voice game I've seen has been a totally diceless game and I never understood how it worked. As what was said about at the end of the day, do what you feel work best for you and ignore anyone that tells you otherwise. As long as you and your players are having fun and enjoying the game, you are doing it right. I think that it is next to impossible to have a strictly voice only or text only game these days. While it is easier to have the text only games as people don't have to use mics, it is next to impossible for a "voice game" to use only voice. I also do not consider rolling dice to be a breach of the fact that it is a voice only. In all my games people will still type stuff in the chat in order not to interrupt a person that is talking. In a face to face game it is much easier for people to talk at the same time without it getting cluttered but over the interweb it often gets confuddled. So yeah you definitely did not lose me and I agree that most games tend to mix together. Hell even in face to face games people still write notes to each other thus breaking the "voice only" rule.

That is why I specified the only pure voice game was a totally diceless game. I agree that even with voice games there is still text.

Kristin C. said: From a little bit of experimenting, I think to get them to display, you'd have to use [[1d6]] each time a die is rolled. So "Skill= [[1d6]][[1d6]][[1d6]], Push= [[1d6]][[1d6]][[1d6]][[1d6]][[1d6]], Hurt= [[1d6]][[1d6]][[1d6]]" Which would look like this in the chat log: "Skill= 3 6 5, Push=4 1 4 6 3, Hurt= 2 1 1" Well it still would be impossible to modulate the number of dices being thrown for each category, as it will always be different. Anyway, the previous posts that you and others wrote made it possible to have something that is almost what I wanted. Which is already great. Concerning the voice/text issue, I tend to agree with both of you, as I find it will probably drift to mostly voice with some help from the text, but I will still try to have it my way at first. I think that pulling off descriptions and actions on text will get harder and harder as the players and the game drift away from any script I could have written. But who knows? Maybe I'll be able to pull it off ^^ And I think most groups drift to voice because it gets easier to interact with each other once you know your fellow players better. Which I think is the reason why I will try to have RP happening in text-mode at the beginning, and people who want to use the voice medium can do so if they want to add non-RP stuff (well it could be RP-related, but no definitive actions or such). I think it will be easier to start with, but I might change my mind in the future of the game! Thanks you both Phisto Roboto and Metroknight for the last input.

Phisto Roboto said: If you do a live game as a player or as a DM you are not obligated to do accents. At no point should anyone expect others to use different voices or accents. This is a game in which we use our imaginations so we can easily just pretend that a person is speaking with a british or scottish or new york accent...etc. If people can pull them off, then that is cool, but the game is not hurt if they are not present. So if one of the big things you are worried about with a voice game is not being able to do them then you should cast said doubts aside. I meant accents because for example you have a French, a Dutch, an Irishman, a Spanish and an American playing, not PCs/monster accents, which are, as you mentioned and I agree, another can of worm entirely :) Also, in my 100% text game, it's 100 text game simple because mics are all turned off. If you leave any way for people to use voice, then yes, it'll drift to voice very quickly. Once again, it's "easier" with voice, by far. As for the actions overlapping, I feel this can be solved by the right players and the right tempo. While it can happen, it can be sometimes good, such as in a surprise situation where everyone reacts with instinct and don't really have time to see what others are doing. For more calm times, the best thing is usually to have dedicated people to specific tasks. X will do the interrogation, Y will do the sneaky part, etc. As long as players respect the "one action, pause, GM reaction", at worst you'll get a slight retrofit here and there, but nothing too bad. That said, it is clearly NOT for everyone and voice, is by far, easier (which doesn't mean "less worthy" in any way, shape or form!)

I certainly do not worry about accents in my game. In the player's home base village alone there are something like 25 NPCs that they could interract with on a regular basis. Trying to come up with and then remember accents for all those NPCs would be impossible for me. Now, I do try to convey appropriate emotion when speaking on behalf of my NPCs. For example, if an NPC is excited or frightened about something, then I will attempt to simulate that emotion when the party is speaking to them.

Kristin C. said: Right now in my FATE Accelerated game, I've got a couple players using Skype. All the RP and rolling happens in text form and the mic is there purely for OOC banter and mechanics help. I have trouble getting into character over voice for some bizarre reason. It is amusing how silent VOIP can get when a scene in our games gets very dramatic as everyone tunes out of voice and into the text chat. Hmm, interesting and since OOC banter is indeed easier overall, I can easily see everyone inherently more respectful of this than the other way around. How do you manage these "semi psychic" and "frozen in time" discussions players tend to have among themselves regarding what to do next, what something means or during combat, etc? Free flow in voice chat without limit or do you guys limit yourself naturally to the constrains of the PCs? Also, do you describe situations via voice or text?

You are welcomed Camille. I also agree with the accents. Don't do it if you can help it. Very few people that are not trained actors can do accents good. People have been communicating far longer by vocal means than written language so it is by far the more natural way to convey what a person wishes to describe. As for text games there are several methods to help control any type of chaos that happens in text. One method is not to control it unless it actually requires a GM's interaction. That means let the players text back and forth between themselves all they want and only become involved when it is with a persona (npc or environment) that they interact with. Another method is what G mentioned and yet even another way is to assign a rotational schedule. What that is just choosing who starts off the talk and go through an order (think of something similar to a marching order) of who speaks first, second, or third, etc. I used the method of let everyone make their post and then post all mine. This would be combined with the limited GM interaction. This allows for flexibility and combined that with some (not all) pre-written scripts it goes fairly easy. It is also a decent way to simulate an npc's pattern of speech. There are more methods than those but they are just off the top of my head that I've seen done or did my self. There are a few threads on the forums that explore some aspects of GMing that is interesting to read. Take a look at Context is king thread and losing your players trust thread. There are others that I would recommend reading but those two are the newest threads and have remained very civil. Whether you agree or disagree with them, they are interesting to read.

Hmmm, I fear that it works this well because you have one not on Skype though. Might be wrong but it indeed "forces" people to respect this. What I meant by semi psychic was for example when a combat starts or during a round of combat, players discussing for couple minutes on what they'll all do and the like. Or when players are split up, they discuss things each PC has done, without them actually be together, etc.

I ran a group that was all on voice skype and we still gamed in text. We were able to keep all separated game in text and ooc in voice. It almost felt like sitting around the table with a group of friends with all the bantering while the text kept the game flowing.

In answer to the original post, I as a GM generally do things that would take a long time to type out on voice, as well as interaction with a specific player. While me as a player, has side conversations and things that are not story relevant in text.

Kristin C. said: I found with my games, even with VOIP, people don't coordinate their actions ahead of time. But then I think that might be a player-type sort of thing. My players are very much the "off the cuff" or "in the moment" sort who play things really loose and wait until the chips land. Thanks. Definitely something I might try though, I like this turn around way for voice and chat. As usual though as you said, comes down to players, GMs and how they want to play, as long as everyone's ok with whatever goes :)