6487245
story
Comments: 162 +- Games: Surfacescapes D&D Demo on Monday October 19, @08:27AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgames.gif); width:68px; height:77px;
games
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.
leverage, n.:
Even if someone doesn't care what the world thinks
about them, they always hope their mother doesn't find out.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
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.
Parent
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!
Parent
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....
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.
Parent
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)
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: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: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.
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".
Parent
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: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...
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)
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
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: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.
Parent
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
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent