>>21298

It is interesting idea of course, but we'll miss the talking non-combat part and other non-calculable interactions - it requires live dialogue, i.e. when player or team talks with DM and discuss what happens. At imageboard it couldn't be done because it may end in very long and slow discussion, especially when player and DM don't agree on results. So, role-playing part will suffer, although there are plenty of ways to organize the combat, so it will be more like hack-n-slash I guess. I don't see any real problems with combat/exploration part though.

There are plenty of online helper tools, like https://roll20.net/ (although I've only seen this, never used, but it looks promising).

>My problem is that how could we play it smoothly. Ofc it would be slow, but any one of us could potentially ruin the pace if he can't post for a while.

This may be solved by team or DM playing this character when owner is offline for tome time (need to discuss time limit though). It needs to be balanced enough to prevent player to lose interest, yes.

>>21300
>>21301

Wargame is interesting idea too, it has no big role-playing part with talking, so it is easy to implement online in our situation. But I'm too have concerns about competitiveness, when some player have much time and other isn't, first one will have advantage, and second may became disinterested.

I've played some game with Bernds from kc some time ago (2017 or 2018 I guess) called Conflict of Nations - it is shitty browser wargame, very slow (it has real time but units move for days), it was fun at start but in the end it became tiresome. Although being real-time it was less demanding on time than turn-based, where everyone wait for one player.