Is it generally expected that people use Skype?

Just wondering, as it seems like maybe most groups use Skype or some other form of video chat with Roll20. It is expected that this is the norm? I do not have a webcam, nor am I really that keen on the idea of being visible. I can type about as fast as I can talk, so I'd really rather communicate entirely by text. Is this seen as strange amongst other Roll20 players? Just trying to get an idea of the community, before I jump in headfirst.

Skype or equivalent is the norm I'd say. I use google Hangouts. I play in campaigns with Skype. I've never used my webcam. Some games here do. Roll20 voice is actually not bad at all. Some have issues but it works great on Mac, Linux, windows for me.

For my experiance most people dont use a webcam. I think that sometimes developes if the desire is there for it and if the group knowes its people. But there are also some groups that want a cam to be in place but they are rather few. Skype, Google Hangout, Teamspeak or even the chat in roll20 is just used without the webcam. And there are groups who dont use that at all and entirely play by writing in the chatbox. You dont really have to be shy about what kind of preferance you have, as in the way you want to experiance the sessions. When you are browsing through the different "looking for group" threats you will see that most people already decide up front how they want to play and how often. Try to check out if its " text only session", voice / text mix, voice only, or voice + cam group since that is actually important since you are going to maybe play days or even months with these people. How people are going to play is very imporant and you should always check out first what they are expecting before requesting to join or offer people to join your games. I never had a group that demendet anyone to turn their cam on or anything since that also may be something you want to keep privat. I for myself have only a few people i play with webcam on simply because i know these people in realife and sometimes it can help to show gestures or interaction through a moving picture rather than describing it. Some people can also only play by text simply because their internet may not support actual voice chat fluidly. I would say that text-play is a bit in the minority but that doesnt really make you a lesser here in any regard, it may just be your way how you enjoy playing.(The casual dont worry about it speech) My guess in regards of who is the minority, that would be the cam-on players, in second text only and in a great lead the voice players but i dont think anyone really has a lot of care about any of that ;D But overall just look for what you feel yourself more interested in. Usually there are for all the ways to play a couple of open games that are looking for people with similar interests.

Okay. That's great. Thanks for the guidance. I suppose I'd better change my settings to "text only" to clarify things for everyone. I don't really mind if everyone else wants to play with cam or voice. I'm just a bit too shy to do it myself.

good luck out there and good hunting ;)

I'm in one campaign that uses Skype, one campaign that uses Google Hangouts, and I'm running a campaign that's text only. There' all varieties around, you just have to look. =)

However if the GM says that skype is required, it usually means "voice chat is required" and text only won't be accepted in the game. I'd advice you against applying there. That might seem unfair, but if three or four people are on voice chat, watching text chat can be tedious, or always waiting for someone to type something, or you suddenly get a written comment about something that was happening half a minute ago and the conversation already moved past it.

I found that the voice from tok box fails half the time.

Skype overall is a lot more stable and less susceptible to drops in connection quality than the roll20 app's own voice/video plugin, which is why it is widely used. However, I wouldn't worry about the video aspect of it: Skype only allows group video conversations for paying users , which makes that option very unlikely in games using Skype. I have yet to see a game that uses video at all (including my own campaigns, which can be reasonably described as "Skype required" campaigns).

Courtney C. said: Just wondering, as it seems like maybe most groups use Skype or some other form of video chat with Roll20. It is expected that this is the norm? I do not have a webcam, nor am I really that keen on the idea of being visible. I can type about as fast as I can talk, so I'd really rather communicate entirely by text. Is this seen as strange amongst other Roll20 players? Just trying to get an idea of the community, before I jump in headfirst. Hello Courtney and welcome to the community. Tokbox is what Roll20 uses for their voice/video chat and it is getting better. It works for some people but for others there are glitches and problems. Alot of games require voice, some require the use of a webcam but not as much as most people think. I know for a fact there are text based games due to the fact I run them so that people that are hearing or speech impaired can have fun gaming also. I've spent a month or so trying to figure out how to help a blind person game but I couldn't get the needed software to work with roll20 but he was able to get in a game that was voice and the GM was nice enough to roll for him. So to answer your main question, voice/video required - depends on the GM. To use roll20 site - no they are not required. Skype is the most common due to it being in use prior to roll20 existence. There is google hangouts, various gaming voice programs such as teamspeak, raid, and other various programs. I head one group using steam for their voice since they all play video games together also. Does this help any?

I really don't want to use anything else except text on roll20, i just hate the idea of people going afk while playing, then you have to go the same things over and over again...in text they can just scroll up and read what they missed.

I always recommend a mic. The pace of the game changes significantly when everybody talks. Remember that for a lot of players, Roll20 is just another casual game. That means they can be on youtube or facebook in between their turns. It's unfortunate, but true. Talking on a mic keeps more people enganged most of the time. It's a good thing. If your past experience is play-by-post, then texting is a huge step up. Well, voice is kind of like that compared to text. Everything just moves a bit faster, and feels closer to how regular, in-person games play. Again, it's more engaging for everyone, and leaves less room for distractions. I consider it a good thing. I actually don't want video on at all. I would rather have the bandwidth for everyone to have good audio. So, if you think your games feel slow, or players are getting distracted on their turn (and constantly having to be reminded what is going on), I think you'll start to weigh the advantages of voice more seriously. I know I have. P.S. I've never required voice for any of my games, but I always recommend it.

There's no wrong method here; text-only, our in-application WebRTC via TokBox, Roll20 in a Google Hangout, or an external service. It's about what you and your group finds most effective and comfortable.

Text is i'd say rare to play text only , but not unheard of. Text was more common years ago, when there was essentially WebRPG, and OpenRPG. The in game chat voice seems to work for smaller groups. Groups of 6 + I use skype or teamspeak. I was in a game last night, 4 players plus GM, onboard voice chat inside roll20 no problem for a full four hours. If one of the players is a skype to pay, they can initiate a video call for the rest of the group that hangs up after i think 2 hours, and you just re-call. I've never seen a game that was set up for "Voice" go to "Demand Video" but I have seen some games that demand voice + video up front.. Those are about as rare as text only. Some groups are actively using Twitch, to broadcast or whatever it is called, their games. I won't do that, but enough do to say it's common.

I like using Skype for my group. The noise cancellation and overall call quality are superior with Skype to my experiences with TokBox. There is also the added benefit of having an extra way to contact my group members outside of Roll20, which not everyone checks often during the time between sessions. There has also been at least two cases where Roll20 was having issues and Skype allowed the game to continue where it otherwise would have been unable. I still use the built in WebRTC for video as not everyone can keep both Roll20 and Skype windows open at once and video is useless if it can't be seen. I was surprised how many people actually have webcams and don't mind turning them on when asked. It's not a huge addition to the game, but I do like being able to see people's reactions to things or make the occsional hand gesture.

Lot of people run text only games, you can join one of those

Courtney C. said: Just wondering, as it seems like maybe most groups use Skype or some other form of video chat with Roll20. It is expected that this is the norm? I do not have a webcam, nor am I really that keen on the idea of being visible. I can type about as fast as I can talk, so I'd really rather communicate entirely by text. Is this seen as strange amongst other Roll20 players? Just trying to get an idea of the community, before I jump in headfirst. As you can see, there is a wide variety of opinions on the matter but it boils down to this Nolan T. J. said: There's no wrong method here; text-only, our in-application WebRTC via TokBox, Roll20 in a Google Hangout, or an external service. It's about what you and your group finds most effective and comfortable.

I'm going ahead and closing this thread, as everyone is coming from their own experiences without the full view. As I'm able to go off of overall survey results and internal reporting, I can honestly say that every method (text only, and audio and/or video in-app, via-Hangout, or using outside service) has a healthy population.