Surfacescapes D&D Demo 162
Jamie found a video showing an unpolished idea demonstrating the use of Microsoft
Surface for D&D. Looks like they are using 4th ed as the basis for the system.
This comes from the Surfacescapes team at Carnegie Mellon, which strikes me as a very good place to be a nerd right about now... provided you make your saving throws.
Roll 1D20 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Roll 1D20 (Score:4, Insightful)
Which genius thought a 6 meg background image was a good idea?
At that size I expect some pretty good embedded malware.
D&D?? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they want this technology to take off, they need to get the porn industry on board. Seriously, the possibilities are endless.
Re:D&D?? (Score:4, Funny)
So, a porn game with targeted shots? That certainly isn't kosher in the D&D ruleset!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What would it be called? Facial Fantasy XII?
Re: (Score:2)
There are several porn/erotica focused games out there, complete with interesting rules for seduction and arousal....
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to targeted shots, not erotic stuff.
Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can roll physical dice onto the Surface and have it read the values, that would be perfect! At least offer the choice. There is just something about rolling your own set of dice that makes D&D special. -HEX-
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what the surface does, I'm not sure how this would work. If all the sides are symmetrical, can the surface distinguish them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but now you're talking about fist-sized dice, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be possible in theory, you just need special dice. The Surface can already read objects that are placed on it using special tags (I think they were a bit like 3D barcodes on some things - the demo I saw used brochures and poker chip sized counters). As long as your barcode shows the opposite side to the one it is on (e.g. the "1" side of a D6 shows the barcode for 6) then it might work :)
Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice (Score:5, Informative)
Dice are already marked. They have pips or numbers on them. Opposite sides add up to the number of sides on a dice plus 1. So if the number 1 was on the bottom, number 6 would be on top.
Granted, this works for some dice, like d6, d8, d12 and d20. d10 are odd/even, and equal out to one less then the total number of sides. So 2 and 7 are opposites.
d4s are usually easy enough, but depend on the type you get. The one I have has the number on the top, and the number doesn't appear on the bottom.
Basically, the point is, most die follow a set of rules for number placement. If you can read the bottom of the dice, you can easily tell what number is opposite of it.
Re: (Score:2)
d4's are no problem, regardless of type. The #3 surface, for instance, will list "1", "2", and "4" in *some* (basically unimportant) configuration, finding the missing number, which yields the roll, is then just a matter of deduction.
The main issue is whether or not the system can read the numbers/pips, or if you need specially marked/equipped dice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The tokens I saw were very much "black and white", so while pips are "already a system" they're not necessarily one it'll be able to read. It'd also only work with most D6s, since all of my D4s/8s/10s/20s had numbers on, which will probably be more difficult to read and interpret from any direction.
Besides, if all it can see is the number "1" then how does it know what type of dice you have to calculate what is on the upper-side? Most dice (except D6, I think) have triangular sides, so you couldn't tell fro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
d20s, d8s, and d4s are triangular, d12s are pentagonal, d6s are square, and d10s are 4-sided and wedge shaped, though I'll be damned if I can think of the name for the shape without the caffeine kicking in this morning. I would think that using special dice encoded with a pattern of some kind on each face, indicating the value on the opposite face, would be the best solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, "pentagonal trapezohedron" is not the most easily remembered word!
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your point. Although, I've never seen a d4 where there's only one number per side. If "1" points downward (and isn't shown to a viewer), then what's your roll?
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely (having looked at the video and full-screened it) it looks like their character selection does actually use a dice, or at least a dice-like object, so it can interact with them to some degree. I can imagine that rolling the dice off the table would cause problems, but that's just an obvious case for a re-roll (or pick it up and put it down however it landed).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, as I posted above, I see nothing wrong with using the Surface (or a simpler overhead projection system on a blank table) to show the characters positions and keep the rest of the map obscured (maybe with a light radius focused on the character that carries the torch).
Use regular dice and the regular rules for the rest... After all, if we wanted to play a videogame instead of a Tabletop RPG, we would already be playing one, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I know it's possible because Microsoft always pitches that as a feature that it can recognize what's put on it. Maybe it's not that accurate but an HD camera installed above could solve that problem. Or just let the user type in on an on screen keyboard the roll outcomes.
I've been saying D&D, Warhammer and a host of other tabletop games should be investing in this ever since I saw surface. It's a perfect fit. Let the game handle all the rules just tell the player when to roll dice. Put
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought the point of Warhammer was painting dozens of little statues. How would a Surface table help that?
Oh... there's an actual GAME?!
Virtual D20 (Score:5, Interesting)
A "virtual 20 sided dice"? No, no, no. This is *not* the way to apply computing to roleplaying. The computer can hide the dice rolls, in fact it can hide the whole "combat system" from you, and just allow you to roleplay.
Now, I *would* like to see augmented reality applied to board gaming. Something that combines the tactile experience of playing with wooden pieces, with the convenience of computer gaming. For example, what if you could play Acquire, and see the current stock value hovering over the company tiles, rather than having to stop to count?
Re: (Score:2)
Some people actually -like- the dice now.
Anyhow, they said that this was 'unpolished' anyhow. It's just showing how it -could- work, not necessarily how it will.
I'm sure someone will step up and write one your way as well... Or even give the option of doing it either way, for those that want the option.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what the surface does, I'm not sure how this would work. If all the sides are symmetrical, can the surface distinguish them?
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, wrong post.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I *would* like to see augmented reality applied to board gaming. Something that combines the tactile experience of playing with wooden pieces, with the convenience of computer gaming.
The Tegra demo [gizmodo.com.au] from a while back comes to mind. Integrating that in with a miniatures game of some sort would be interesting.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, no, no. This is *not* the way to apply computing to roleplaying.
Laughing... my first thought on looking at the demo was "all the boredom of the real thing."
Ok, on a serious note, I'm an old timer, and I really dislike the new D I think around the first AD&D they hit a the mark between complexity (simulating reality) and playability... that's just my tastes, I know others like the newer systems, and I have no problem with that, but it seems to me that slim is right... a system like this should allow
It's called "tangible interface" (Score:2)
"Tangible interface" or "tangible space". I tried my hand in it with one of my AR demos [cellagames.com]. Mostly users ignore it and go for the path of least resistance - play with phone and markers, not bothering with on-board objects. AR novelty by itself seems enough. Probably require a lot of design fine-tuning to entice users actually use non-trivial game interactions.
Re: (Score:2)
The video is pretty neat.
I think baby steps might be the way forward. Take an established board game, in which some piece of game state is somewhat inconvenient for a human to work out on the fly -- and use AR to provide that info.
Frivolous example: in Carcassonne, scoring for farmers is slightly fiddly. AR could highlight each farm and automate the scoring.
I think there's a lot of value in trying *not* to overstep the mark at first; enhance a board game with AR, rather than turn it into an AR game.
If this
Re: (Score:2)
We were discussing this at the last board game party I went to. We were playing Descent: Journeys in the Dark. We decided that a Surface app would really help that game has it had an insane number of pieces to build dungeons and a very large number of tokens which totaled well over 500 pieces to deal with.
With an application you would need to make sure every piece is divided up into its correct bag for storage at the end of the night an pre-built levels could be loaded instantly. This would allow the pla
Re: (Score:2)
I love seeing the virtual dice rolls in Neverwinter Nights, because then I know just what an impact raising my AC by 1 point has, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I love seeing the virtual dice rolls in Neverwinter Nights, because then I know just what an impact raising my AC by 1 point has, etc.
It just goes to show; tastes vary.
Myself, I'd prefer the "system" to be as hidden as possible, in order to be more lifelike. So you don't "raise your AC by one point". Rather, you'd get some better armour. Internally, the model of "better armour" could be as crude as incementing a single variable, or as sophisticated as modeling the physics every time the armour collides with a sword.
If I were a barbarian in a fantasy world, I wouldn't be rejoicing because my HP had increased. I would be reflecting on how I
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought it was awesome that they stayed so true to D&D, even if it made the graphical game play clunky at times.
Re: (Score:2)
it can hide the whole "combat system" from you, and just allow you to roleplay.
That would be awesomely terrifying! You'd have no idea if you were just unlucky, or if you couldn't actually hit something. If you succeed the first few times with no problem, it could be your skill, or it could be your luck. That would destroy the powergamers.
The more I think about it, the more awesome that sounds. Your ability levels would quickly transform into "awesome", "ok", "bad", and "sucks". You level up, and say, "I want to be a better fighter." Computer says, "Your fighting has improved"
Cool tech, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a pretty cool proof of concept, but I absolutely shudder at the amount of additional setup time something like this would require for campaigns.
I've run a couple of 4E campaigns after finally letting go of my 1E rules, and not to put too fine a point on things... combat takes way the hell too long when you're forced to deal with miniatures and it just bogs everything down -- don't get me started on the amount of stickers and markers that are required for bookkeeping now.
A couple people at my table like the more strategic combat options that minis offer, but the majority prefer that the story advances more than a paragraph per play session. As the DM, I'm one of them. I'd rather roll initiative and talk through fast-paced combat.
WOTC wants to sell their absolutely hideous plastic minis, and lots of them, so it's in their best interest to make the game mini focused. There are so many rules that depend on movement and proximity that you've basically got to remove the entire combat system and house-rule over it if you forego the minis.
I've seen some folks that use an LCD projector and Photoshop in lieu of a battlemat, but that's still an enormous amount of prep time for a campaign.
Re:Cool tech, but... (Score:5, Funny)
This... is why I'm an FPS gamer. It doesn't usually get more complicated than "loud end points at the other guy".
Re: (Score:2)
However, there's a lot of scope for re-use of that setup. Not great for the creative DM who writes his own campaigns, but if you treat it as a way to ship commercially designed campaigns it could well work.
In that scenario (in a hypothetical world where something Surface-like is affordable for the home), you'd buy the scenario, click a couple of buttons, and everything would be set up and ready to go.
How about if all the players had e-ink character sheets, updated wirelessly, too? :D
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with you 100%. I haven't played since before my college days (my HS friends and I all went to different colleges... and the college kids where I ended up were "too cool" to play... or, maybe I just could find the right ones). Now we're talking almost 25 years.
So I started getting interested again, hoping that my son would become interested. When 4E was released last year, I bought all the main books and some extras, the first level adventure, and then... and then it was like trying to run through
Re: (Score:2)
I use a (homemade) grid mat, erasable markers, and little colored stone gems that I got at the dollar store that I wrote numbers and symbols on with a paint pen.
The only reason I started using this setup was that my players preferred it because it gave them a better ability to visualize a combat area and *gasp* speed up combat! They no longer had to ask me about positioning, if they could do one thing or another, they could see it and decide for themselves. Made combat quicker because everyone was now prepa
Stuff all of that... Microlite20 (Score:2)
Fed up with complexity and commerce? Want brevity and simplicity?
http://microlite20.net/ [microlite20.net]
Core rules fit on 8 sides of A6 paper.
Alternatively, dig around in the second hand bookshops for Fighting Fantasy Role Playing Game. The rule system from the "choose your own adventure" d6-based novels, but adapted for multiplayer RPGs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we were the same way. No rules lawyering at the table, 30 sec max for lookups then best judgement. Keep everything rolling so the laughs and momentum didn't start to lag.
Funny you mentioned Tunnels & Trolls. I'm still using the old grievous injury chart from that set just to spice stuff up and give the folks a little acting fodder for their characters.
I'm still considering going back to 1E right now... the interesting bit is that the wives/kids that get pulled into my games now "get" the talent tr
Re: (Score:2)
If we take that the "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming [lulu.com]" is reasonably representative of a sizable number of OD&D fans, it is surprising how little coverage Tunnels & Trolls gets. By the standards of the "Quick Primer," T&T stomps OD&D all over, but it doesn't get the love. It makes me suspect that the old-school movement is more dominated by nostalgia than they care to admit.
(There is also really interesting work done on rules light systems since then, much of it in the "indie games"
Re: (Score:2)
You guys would HATE our Spacemaster campaign... a 15-second firefight takes two hours to resolve.
But then, we insist on using grenades.
And we're usually drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have thought that the real promise of this Surfacescapes concept is that it could speed things up a lot and remove most of the minis into the bargain.
Lose the stupid virtual dice and either use an RNG or read in real dice rolls. Have the system handle all the status effects and crap for you automatically, and display them as little icons. The D&M would just need to enter any custom creatures and create (or download and customise) the maps.
All in all, it should mean more time to focus on story and st
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't need to buy the "hideous plastic minis".
In fact, I use cheap colored glass beads and I find that it helps my players focus on the game itself and not on the minis.
In regards to the more complicated combat rules, I find it a lot more interesting to allow positional options, tactical movement and making use of terrain to gain advantages than the old "I hit it with my sword"
And if you feel that 4th edition requires too much prep time and is too slow, then I imagine you never played third edition...
Re: (Score:2)
I think you could use some of the game engine ideas from Never Winter Nights as a starting point. It would show you the die rolls in a scrolling window as you proceeded through the game. In combat it would determine dozens of rolls and saves almost instantly. I think you could expand that metaphor to the surface to create fairly quick combat rounds.
As far as housekeeping, wouldn't the whole point of the surface be to automate all that crap? I would think if anything the automation would allow people who
Re: (Score:2)
I have to completely disagree. In the game I'm playing with my brothers and friends (five players +a DM), we each plan our turn during the other players' (or NPCs') turns. When it gets to us, we move our mini to our desired spot, announce our attack and roll dice. Overall, it adds about 5 to 10 seconds per person. This is in contrast with the GURPS game I'm playing where the GM abhores combat maps and grids and yet every player has to ask where the other enemies are in relation to them which adds a lot more
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say you're doing it wrong. The best investment I ever made was when I liberated a disused 2'x4' dry-erase board from a previous employer. It's got a 1" grid on it, and is fantastic for simplifying what you're talking about. Draw in the terrain, even ahead of the time if you want to. Steal props from any nearby kids, and you can have castles and trees to slap on it. You can write statuses next to anything on the board, and as long as you can remember to move them with any mobile things, it's all good.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor attempt at a troll, but I'll bite, Mr. AC.
Chainmail (D&D's spiritual daddy) was a tactical wargame, as is Warhammer.
D&D is a Role Playing Game. You know: tell stories, have adventures.
Tactics are all well and good if that's the kind of game you want to play. It's not the kind of game I want to play, and it's not the kind of game most folks at my table want to play, either.
I want to get through an "episode" per 4ish hour session, not a paragraph of story progress and maybe two encounters.
There's
Re: (Score:2)
I spent 15 seconds watching the background load (Score:2)
My own project is similar (Score:5, Interesting)
When I started, I didn't have much spare cash, and it was hard to justify investing in Microsoft Surface for a pet project. (Not when I was already in process for a do-it-yourself kitchen, bathroom, and stone patio set of projects)
For my gaming group, I designed a do-it-yourself surface structure. It's a simple design, but robust enough that you can easily customize it for your own needs.
Once I finish up and polish the plans, I'm going to publish them on my site, along with a components list of what I found worked (and didn't work), for putting together a pretty nice table that could seat about 6 comfortably.
The main goals I had in mind when developing the surface was (in no particular order or completeness:
1. Portability (We didn't always play at the same location)
2. Universality (I didn't want it to matter if you played warhammer or dnd or battletech, etc)
3. Unobtrusiveness (Don't let the tool get in the way of the game)
4. The surface had to improve the gameplay experience (sister requirement of number 3)
The part that I wish I had some assistance with was specialized coding for the modules. I'd love for you to be able to select a game, and have the engine running the display account for differing needs of each game. As of right now, it simply provides the basic components that someone would want in a surface system.
It was mostly a hobby of mine, I'm a systems engineer and enjoy my work, so I treated the whole thing like a full scale project to keep my skills sharp. It needs cleaned up for public release, but given the interest there seems to be in the subject, I'll try to make it entertaining enough for a writeup here on Slashdot.
Bandwidth Stress Test - How To (Score:5, Funny)
2. Submit it on Slashdot
3. You're done
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have they changed it? My FF claims its size is "684.77 kB (701,202 bytes)", and that it is a gif image.
O.o
All that went through my mind... (Score:5, Funny)
Let the wookie win.
Old idea with new hardware... (Score:2)
As ideas go it's really in the same tradition as various others than have been created over the years, including OHP, as someone else mentioned.
I think the only thing I really don't like about it is the clunky dice rolling. I'd far rather it just showed the result of a dice roll, rather than doing a laborious animation of the rolling dice. In fact I'd rather it just showed the damage over the monster.
I would also point out that Surface units cost something like £8,500 ea. for a commercial unit. You
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the "touch to interact" and "can be made aware of physical objects" bit. They didn't make particularly good use of it in the demo (they did the touch gestures and they used an object at the start for player selection) but it could be much better. According to a MS rep I talked to, the US DoD has had a look at some units for the "battlefield planning" situ
Microsoft Surface + Cheetos and Pizza == Epic Fail (Score:3, Funny)
Speaking as a DM... (Score:5, Interesting)
For D&D I would like a Surface that can:
-bring up maps as needed, to be played on with Surface-aware miniatures that track positions
-display a combat state tracker, like a game scoreboard, with initative, hit points, state tracking (dazed, on fire, etc) in clear view for all players
-combat-aware board that determines flanking, cover and similar bonuses based on mini locations
-dice that auto-sense the roll and calculates your bonuses, displaying the results
-full web integration with the D&D sites if you need to reference a quick rule (there are already Iphone apps that do this)
Actually that sounds like more trouble than its worth. These days we use a clear piece of acrylic and dry-erase markers over a grid map. Simple and effective.
Computers already have a place at our gaming table, for some it substitutes for a paper character sheet and its nice having a full rules library within reach. It may have gone a bit far when the other week three players were screwing around on their Blackberries at the same time. Turned out they were plotting something they didnt want the DM to listen in on.
OK, that's just mean. (Score:2)
Nice wolfie walks right around them, and past them and is on his way into the forest, and they blow his ass off unprovoked.
Bad Magic User! Bad Paladin! Bad whatever the heck your character was.
Awesome Potential (Score:3, Insightful)
4E is built for this sort of application. This might be better than what WotC had planned (at least for a meatspace game). If WotC is smart, they will build this on their own and then build modules for it. The potential is astounding. /4E is my favorite edition. //OWoD is my favorite RPG
re: awesome potential (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i don't know how to not think something, or how i'd know i was not thinking it.
Would it be a significant financial investment?
Do you mean to develop it or to own it? For the former, yes, but WotC could recover that cost by making it part of DDI. In the later, yes, but there are always people with more money than sense... or just willing to cough up the dough. Like any toy, the early adopters will pay through the nose to have the newest gadget, but will fund the infrastructure to make the next version che
Re: (Score:2)
Senior Project (Score:2)
http://reactivision.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Why make the player "roll" the dice? (Score:2)
Since the computer is deciding what dice to provide, why slow it down by having a stupid gesture to make get them to roll?
5.5mb background image (Score:2)
Right about now, I'm sure their loving the guy who decided they needed a 5.5mb background jpeg [cmu.edu] on their page.
well... (Score:2)
...I hope they code the Surface better than they code the website. Wow, is that pokey and pointless.
That said, if I could get the faintest whiff of a donation of a Surface system and a grant to write D&D software for it (including extensive real-world testing) I'd be pretty damn eager too.
D&D 4.0, being more of a skirmish adventure game than a RPG, is really perfect for it.
I can see it work tho, you could have the maps dynamic, and fog-of-war'd. You could have the surface character- and stat-aware
Sounds nice, too bad (Score:2)
they are using a fundamentally flawed game system. I've played Pen-n-Paper rpg's since the mid 70's and the current D&D system is really really REALLY Bad. Try GURPS for a far better game playing experience.
Re:oh that was a stretch... (Score:5, Insightful)
My god! Amazing! Who would have thought multitouch/surface technologies couuld be used for something like this! What's next, chess?
( joking, for the sarcasm impaired )
Actually, I don't find the technology very suitable for D&D and other role playing games (while it would be perfect for chess).
I have discussed this for ages with friends and strangers in forums. What people seem to miss is that a Role Playing Game is not a Wargame. It may have simulation elements, but it's - at its roots - a narrative game.
This means that at some point the Referee (or DM or whatever you call him/her) will want to "cheat", hopefully in favour of the players, or more specifically "in favour of a good story". Automated systems - especially combat automators - will therefore either have to be sidestepped or manually updated on the fly - especially to edit out irreversible results like a deadly wound for someone in the party, or killing a valuable NPC and so on.
A table automator makes things even worse: this kind of "cheating" would be even more blatant, and damage the game atmosphere.
So, to sum it up: if you want to automate tabletop games with rigid rules and heavy bookeeping, like wargames, it's probably great (apart from the fact it does not alleviate some specific problems like being able to see the other's player pieces, how to simulate fog-of-war and so on, unless you force players to take turns at the table).
If you want to participate in a shared narrative game (like I would say any RPG is, even those heavily influenced by wargames, like D&D) it's probably better to have a lighter set of rules, and allow the referee to edit things on the fly without having the players to necessarily spot any inconsistencies.
Re:oh that was a stretch... (Score:5, Insightful)
FWIW, I've played D&D as both a narrative and as a pure strategy tabletop game.
Both ways of playing have their merits.
I've seen D&D GM'd as a creative problem-solving game. I've seen it GM'd as a "storytelling" game. I've seen it GM'd as a Monty Haul game. I've seen it DM'd as a wargame.
And yet, in my opinion, those are the things that make rpgs interesting. What does the party do when someone is killed off? How does the GM adjust on the fly to keep the plot moving? How can the eliminated player still participate (adding a new party member, assisting the GM, etc). A GM who fudges die rolls in order to keep the party intact makes for a poor game, IMO... then you have players taking risks they wouldn't otherwise take. Why shouldn't an enemy NPC get lucky sometimes? Why shouldn't a friendly (or key-to-the-plot) NPC get unlucky?
:).
My point is, there are a ton of ways to play rpgs, and your particular favorite doesn't necessarily match everyone else's. And sure, you've talked to other people about it... but remember that there is a selection bias in your sample
Re: (Score:2)
Re:oh that was a stretch... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there are several overhead projection systems currently used for D&D that only use the computer to show the maps and the movement as described by the DM. This allows for interesting line of sight and "fog of war" effects.
IMHO, 4th edition is a lot simpler when it comes to combat and theres no need to automate the rolls, damage, or effects (unlike 3rd edition where you sometimes needed spreadsheets to recalculate your entire character sheet if someone altered your ability scores with a spell)
In short, as a DM, my opinion is that anything that makes the combat part of a Tabletop Roleplaying Game easier and faster, while retaining narrative complexity is welcome since it allows the players to focus on the story and less on the mechanics.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
They've overdone it with this surface prototype. Feeling the dice in your hands and rolling something real is a great part of D&D.
One of the best parts of something like the surface is so that the DM doesn't have to whip out tons of poorly cropped A4 pages and waste time aligning them on the table. The surface could also do things such as answer questions about cover, range, blast/burst etc, without actually going about and performing any further combat calculations, ie, so that the players don't have
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I get that you may be trying to create a more interesting/epic story than "o
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, sorry, I was a bit in a hurry and didn't add enough disclaimers to my post. I am answering to you but this goes for at least another couple of people who replied to my message.
Please understand that - of course - what I think is the "proper" way to play a RPG is just a matter of opinion and personal preference.
And when I say I "discussed it with people" I don't mean that everybody agreed, or that I managed to convince them of "the error of their ways", either.
I do take exception at considering RPGs in
Re:oh that was a stretch... (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole point of a game is to win within the rules.
That's too strong of a position. I think we can agree that the whole point of a game is to enjoy the time spent doing it. And that you enjoy 'winning' more than 'story'.
I get that you may be trying to create a more interesting/epic story than "oops you got killed by the first troll you met" so maybe that's just the way YOU play the game. That's your choice. Definitely means I would agree that a computer-based board would do you no good at all.
The way I play the game goes a lot deeper than that. I also have been blessed with game sessions where a character did something completely impossible by the rules, and it was allowed anyway, and great fun was had by all.
Anecdote incoming:
I once had a dwarven Animist who followed a god of war. The GM for this game was particularly brutal on mistakes, and over a short time I got kicked out of my church. They told me that when I returned I would be put to death. Later that same day I challenged a bar patron to a duel in an effort to impress the party I was hoping to join. The patron turned out to be the captain of the guard, and almost killed me on his first turn. Being the sturdy warrior I was, I ran. The entire guard chased me. I led them into my old church. Upon seeing my return, weapon drawn and bleeding, they leaped to action, swords drawn. The guards chasing me into the building, I yelled "Get them!" and promptly ducked under the nearest table. I snuck away, and the party agreed to let me go with them.
Later when we returned to sell our booty, we found that the town was deserted. I had accidentally touched off a civil war withing the church-vs-government power struggle in that city.
Now, that being said, were there no 'cheating' allowed:
1) The captain killed my character. I rolled a new one, preferably a different thing altogether, so death has some meaning.
2) I had no bluff training and horrible people skills. The parties in the church would have succeeded any check they were allowed to make and would not have been fooled. They would probably have ganged up and enjoyed killing my nearly-dead self. See #1...
My personal view is that RPGs are best with a balance of story and rules. The rules mostly matter during contests between players, while the story matters most in all other cases.
That's what is fun to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For war gaming, a large projection setup would be great for maps and terrain. I figured a 4' x 8' translucent surface (giant light table setup) with a projector below it (how far down to fill 4'x8' surface?) would work. Not sure how to support the surface without casting some kind of shadow, though.
As for computer input, figures with rfid tags and some kind of triangulation sensors?
For D&D, yeah, a touch screen in the middle of the table, to display various scenario elements would be cool but not necess
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but with a translucent table top, optical recognition would be a pain. Maybe some kind of low level microwave field or scanning laser system...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the url handy, but somebody already made a knock-off using plexiglas with a paper & rubber coating so he could both project visible light and detect touches using frustrated internal reflection in IR.
I forget if he used lenses or just a sharp angle and the distortion controls to keep the depth of the box down.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a good point; the system shouldn't be so strict as to bind the DM's hands and limit their freedom. On the other hand, done well, a system like this could enhance the story-telling aspect by handling all the little calculations and details that can slow down miniatures-based combat, freeing players and DM to focus on role-playing.
Re: (Score:2)
"This means that at some point the Referee (or DM or whatever you call him/her) will want to 'cheat', hopefully in favour of the players, or more specifically 'in favour of a good story'."
Yuck!!
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/05/coddling-players.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't find the technology very suitable for D&D and other role playing games (while it would be perfect for chess).
Surely, though, there's no better medium for face-to-face chess than a real chess board with wooden pieces. For distance playing, or for playing against an AI, there's nothing much wrong with a traditional computer implementation.
You could use Surface with special pieces to record the moves - but it would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with all you posted. I suspect (but not having really tried, it's pure speculation on my part) that having a complete combat simulator in software and then adding an "editorial console" on top to allow the DM to cheat would be very complex in terms of usability and would disrupt the game flow (even if the actual touching up of the results would be relatively rare).
What I think is that sometimes fudging rolls and changing things on the fly is almost automatic for a good DM, while having to change the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RPGs are a continuum from strongly wargame (e.g. Twilight 2000, Shadowrun) to pure storytelling (e.g. The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Prime Time Adventures). For extra complexity most RPGs span a wide range of that continuum, most spanning a much wider range than the rules really support (e.g. D&D). Players of more tactical RPGs revel in c
Re: (Score:2)
This. This. A thousand times this!