Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Surfacescapes D&D Demo

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the gentlemen-start-your-dice dept.

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.

162 comments

  1. Finally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Some proper Nerd News.

  2. oh that was a stretch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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 )

    1. Re:oh that was a stretch... by pamar · · Score: 4, 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.

       

    2. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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 :).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Abreu · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    4. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Estragib · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly. Thanks to this innovation you won't even have to talk to the other players or the game moderator any longer. Everyone can just take turns while the others watch TV, play FFXI on the PS or start a parallel pen and paper session. How avant-garde.

    5. Re:oh that was a stretch... by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Cheating of any kind immediately ruins the atmosphere. I guess if you're used to it as part of your normal game then whatever, but for me, any game whether all human or human/computer immediately loses its appeal once the rules are broken. The whole point of a game is to win within the rules. It's not quite as bad if human error leads to rules breaking, but this kind of computer-enhanced RPG would help keep that from happening.

      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.

    6. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      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.

      I both agree and disagree with you here. I think it is better to have clearly defined parts of the game where the players know the rules and can feel that they are on a level playing field with the GM, and let the light and fluffy rules apply to everything outside of that. If the game master spends too much time editing reality just to fit the predefined story then you might as well strap the players onto a flatcar and push them down the tracks.

      You can play fast and easy all you want with setting up the story, introducing the villains and leading up to a big showdown at the end, but once the miniatures are on the map and the fighting starts you need to play fair with the players. If that means letting somebody's character get an amazingly lucky shot which puts and arrow through your carefully prepared villain's eye from the other side of the castle in the opening round, then so be it. Grabbing the dice and saying "Uh... that didn't happen" is just cheating.

      As a game master you just need to deal with it. Do some quick rewrites and reveal that the late big bad guy was just a pawn and now there's a new guy in charge, or arrange to have him spirited away by his minions and show up a few sessions later with an eyepatch and an even bigger grudge than before, but don't cheat your players just because something that they did doesn't fit in with the narrative you had in mind. Remember that RPGs are a shared experience where all of the participants develop the story together. Railroading them into the storyline that you prepared for them is just boring for everybody.

    7. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      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 necessarily required. I suppose you could also use a Mac tablet, if they ever come out with a tabloid size one.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:oh that was a stretch... by pamar · · Score: 1

      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 general games where you can "win" and therefore strict adherence to rules is not the proper way to go for me. But, obviously, it's my own opinion. Apologies if I didn't stress this enough in my post.
      The recent editions of D&D are very "tactical", I understand, so among the various different RPGs it may be the most suited for this kind of treatment, but I (personally, IMHO etc.) wouldn't find this kind of technology appealing for playing RPGs.

    10. Re:oh that was a stretch... by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "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

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    11. Re:oh that was a stretch... by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      rfid tags and triangulation sensors? That is way more complex than it needs to be. I've seen table top displays with a cheap camera mounted beneath the table that tracks simple stickers on the bottom of figures which gives position and vector direction. More complex figures allowed you to tilt the head of the figure up and down which mechanically rolled a sticker wheel on the bottom from one color to another which provided that data to tell the angle the head was at, and derive your perspective. You can do a lot with a cheap camera, stickers and a some programming. Need more figures? Print more stickers. Heck of a lot easier than programming or paying for proprietary rfid tags.

    12. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Daswolfen · · Score: 1

      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.

      The direction Wizards of the Coast have been taking D&D in for several years now is one of intergration with the miniatures game (and to a lesser extent, the MMORPG) with traditional roleplaying falling increasingly by the wayside. The story no longer matters to a significant portion of the current generation of gamers.

      On a more personal note, when I first saw the Surface demoed, my initial instinct was that this would be perfect for Battletech or other miniature based games, but would need some work when it came to RPGs. As far as the DM 'fudging' rolls for the story, we didnt see enough of how the DM station works to assume that is not built in. I am sure there is an override roll button built into the rolling interface on that station.

      --
      Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
    13. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Dudeman_Jones · · Score: 1

      OR the DM could have a Narritive menu that allows them to alter results and specify effects to their choosing as such things happen...

      You know, like a DM does in real life with a pencil

    14. Re:oh that was a stretch... by slim · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    16. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Wolvenhaven · · Score: 1

      I agree with the parent here, games like warhammer and battletech will be great on a system like this because they are straight out fighting games and are designed to play on tables like this(without the electronic component) and would only increase the speed of play while leaving the game mechanics themselves alone. This is proven by games like MegaMek, Neveron, and Invasion3042 for battletech and Bloodbowl and ComSim for warhammer, which are played on the computer but retain the rules of the board game and only take over the distance calculations and dice rolls.

      --
      Orwell was an optimist.
    17. Re:oh that was a stretch... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      This is a proof of concept. They said the DM has a separate screen/computer to input the enemy movements etc... The actual program is software based so the DM can choose software that lets him have whatever control level he desires. Heck, even without built in rules, the potential variety of map environments and enemy types would be a great addition to any D&D game.

    18. Re:oh that was a stretch... by BobMcD · · 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.

    19. Re:oh that was a stretch... by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      The figurines are flush to the top with very bright and simple shapes on them. The recognition doesn't need to be very precise.

    20. Re:oh that was a stretch... by evilkasper · · Score: 1

      I'd have to argue that D&D is a rule set; and that the DM and the players depending on their preference will use the rule set as a vehicle for narrative or for combat simulation. It certainly gives you all the tools you need for both and you can certainly have one without the other. This would be perfect for D&D tournament style dungeon crawls. This use of a multitouch table is very neat but I agree that "cheating" is something you do not want to take away from the DM. With that in mind I think if there was an interface where you could input your results from your rolls that would take care of that. I personally prefer rolling real dice.

    21. Re:oh that was a stretch... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Dude GM games are worse than GM crops. You should seriously boycott that shit before you get cancer.

    22. Re:oh that was a stretch... by pamar · · Score: 1

      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 results and propagate the effects back would be a bit cumbersome.

      Example: an NPC Magic User casts some area effect spell (which I suppose would be shown to players, either with cool digital effects on the table, or at least with some text message).
      Now, if one of the PCs fails save and takes too much damage, do you ask the DM if he is ok with this before showing the results? How much of the "prerolled past" is the DM allowed to change?

      Would this be a "change the rolled damage till the Ranger is safe"? And if this is the case what about NPCs and even opponents caught in the blast? Would they get back to life, too? What if you showed them getting burn to a crisp with an animation?

      What if the only way to change the outcome requires the MU to fail the casting for some random motive?

      Basically I see the tension between "let the system take care of the rolls" and "what if I want a different outcome for this specific result?" as something difficult to properly implement (the MS table thing is not the problem here, it's a conundrum for any computerized combat simulator, I am afraid) because a detailed combat turn in a RPG has lots of things happening, and changing the result would clash with lots of things the simulator has updated in its internal state, and makes things hard to properly edit.

    23. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 is actually wrong. RPG's are derived from wargames. Wargames are RPG's roots.

    24. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your fun may not be the same fun as everyone else. Your way of playing RPGs is not the same way that everyone else plays RPGs.

      Also in my opinion PC and NPC death is part of the drama and if the game "story" can't survive that then the story needs more work.

    25. Re:oh that was a stretch... by Zerth · · Score: 1

      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.

    26. Re:oh that was a stretch... by MadJeff451 · · Score: 1

      Yeah it looked like the Dungeon Master had a seperate screen to control certain aspects of the game, so maybe they could also "override" the strict rules there without anyone being the wiser?

      Jeff

    27. Re:oh that was a stretch... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      I don't see how your example is any different than non-automated D&D. Plus, what's the big deal about dieing? If I recall correctly, you don't lose experience or levels anymore. I believe one of the epic level powers or feats is written as "once per day, when you die..." The whole "the party is screwed if one person bites it" meme is so previous editions.

    28. Re:oh that was a stretch... by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      I saw that too, it was pretty cool
      IIRC he used arrays of IR LEDs around the plexiglas table (mounted in the wood in which the table was inlaid), and a standard 640x480 webcam (mounted below the table, near to the projector assembly) with the IR filter removed to detect the FTIR "touches" to the plexiglas.

      The projector was a standard projector that you can buy in any shop today.

    29. Re:oh that was a stretch... by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1

      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.

      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 careful research, planning, and execution, with the acceptable risk that dumb luck could kill everyone five minutes in leading to a profoundly crappy story. Fans of more storytelling focused RPGs are happy to sacrifice a bit of plausibility if it's what the story calls for. And it's all good. As role-playing gamers we need to be more accepting of other valid play styles; we're too small of a community to get into pointless debate over which one is correct or better. The real rule zero isn't, "The GM is always right," it's "If you're all having fun, it's right."

      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".

      Assuming your goal is to end up with a "good" story for whatever your standard is, if the GM occasionally has to "cheat," perhaps you should be looking to a different RPG. If a bad roll will hurt your story, why are you making the roll in the first place? By and large the idea that a GM might need to fudge a result for the betterment of the story is a side effect of using the wrong rules. (Of course, the dominance of D&D and to a lesser extent other games makes it easy to end up using the wrong rules.)

      --
      Search 2010 Gen Con events
    30. Re:oh that was a stretch... by vikstar · · Score: 1

      +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 to reach over and count out squares all the time. Also, as you mentioned the hidden line-of-sight fog-of-war effects are a superb addition.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    31. Re:oh that was a stretch... by evilkasper · · Score: 1

      I'm actually proposing an option where you roll real dice and then input the results. I think that would allow the DM the option to "cheat" if they need it. I agree that if you kept all the rolls in the system then there would be a good chance it could become cumbersome for the DM to change them. I still prefer real dice.... personal preference.

    32. Re:oh that was a stretch... by GuerreroDelInterfaz · · Score: 1

            I agree with you that the narrative element is at least so impòrtant than the simulation (and just character simulation at that) in RPG.

            And that's precisely why I think that is an extremely good idea. Because it frees the DM from all the annoying and tedious mechanical elements of the game so he can concentrate on the narrative, ambience, NPC playing and so on. And of course the program should allow the DM to "tweak" thing a bit if it needs to. Or for other things that players like as tossing the physical dice themselves.

            I've been a DM for more than more than 30 years now but, as it is, mastering is too time consuming for me to do it often and well. But with this kind of help, I would probably go back to the job.

            I'll be the DM of my retirement home, yeah ;-)

      --
      El Guerrero del Interfaz

  3. Roll 1D20 by protodevilin · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...for security vulnerabilities?

    1. Re:Roll 1D20 by sgbett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which genius thought a 6 meg background image was a good idea?

      At that size I expect some pretty good embedded malware.

      --
      Invaders must die
    2. Re:Roll 1D20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you looked at the html/css that's used? It makes sense to have a 5.5MB background with that kind of idiotic writing. The obviously had absolutely no idea of what they're doing. A typical microsoft oriented developer, really.

  4. D&D?? by Follier · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wrong wrong wrong.

    If they want this technology to take off, they need to get the porn industry on board. Seriously, the possibilities are endless.

    1. Re:D&D?? by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, a porn game with targeted shots? That certainly isn't kosher in the D&D ruleset!

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:D&D?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If they want this technology to take off, they need to get the porn industry on board.

      Porn and a shared surface? Ewwww.

    3. Re:D&D?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What would it be called? Facial Fantasy XII?

    4. Re:D&D?? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      It's a lot more fun if you share some surface with the girl.
      (or so I hear).

    5. Re:D&D?? by Abreu · · Score: 1

      There are several porn/erotica focused games out there, complete with interesting rules for seduction and arousal....

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    6. Re:D&D?? by FuryOfTheGods · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is a rulebook for erotic fantasy role playing in dnd: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Erotic-Fantasy-Gwendolyn-Kestrel/dp/1588463990 There's just about a rulebook for everything! ($$$)

    7. Re:D&D?? by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I was referring to targeted shots, not erotic stuff.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    8. Re:D&D?? by FuryOfTheGods · · Score: 1

      within the context of porn "targeted shot" takes on a whole new meaning.

  5. Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 4, 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-

    --
    Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
    1. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, at the very least, have the ability to put in the values yourself.

    2. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      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?

    3. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by Fromage10x · · Score: 1

      My thought exactly. Either that or get rid of the dice altogether.

    4. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      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 :)

    5. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      All you would need to do is give the value of the opposite face in some machine readable form. Doesn't surface recognize barcodes? Or is that just Android?

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    6. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by thenextpresident · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Jason Lotito
    7. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      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).

    8. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Okay, but now you're talking about fist-sized dice, aren't you?

    9. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      As long as people don't read the dice, it should be able to. All it needs is to detect the die shape, "d20 just rolled" and then roll a pseudo-random and announce the "roll". Benefit: no weighted die-problems. Detriment: some people have d10's that are shaped like d20's, and some others do all their rolls with one d20 and one d12.

    10. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Surface, as I've recently looking into, uses a proprietary dot-based matrix marking call ByteTags to recognize objects. These dot markings aren't that big, so while the dice might have to be a little larger than normal, fist-sized is probably more than necessary.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    11. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Good news, everyone!"
    12. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      If you did it based on simple shapes (and not ByteTags, which would solve all these problems easily), you'd be up shit creek if anybody had dice that weren't a standard size as d4s, d8s, d10s, and d20s all have triangular faces.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    13. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DIE, already...

      (singular of dice?)

    14. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by Abreu · · Score: 2, 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?

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    15. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by IBBoard · · Score: 2, 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 from just the bottom face whether you've rolled a D8 or a D20.

    16. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      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 RFID inside all the units so the board knows what is what. Create rich animated tabletop surfaces. Animate ranged attacks and area effects. It would be the perfect bridge to bring video gamers into the tabletop market.

    17. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by yttrstein · · Score: 1

      Wait... if you're rolling your own dice, why not use your eyeballs and temporal lobes to read the value?

      The whole affair is just weird. Why would anyone plunk down thousands (tens of thousands?) for a "Microsoft Surface" to play D&D on, when they can get a used card table for ten bucks at a flea market?

      Now, combine AD&D combat rules with dice and a bona fide MMORPG, throw THAT on the table and I'm sold.

    18. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by sabernet · · Score: 1

      Would be amusing to integrate a D4 with that logic :P

    19. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by TriezGamer · · Score: 2, 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.

    20. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by Newander · · Score: 1

      Ugh! Diceless

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    21. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, 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?!

      --
      Comment of the year
    22. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      "Good news, everyone!"
    23. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      Granted, "pentagonal trapezohedron" is not the most easily remembered word!

      --
      "Good news, everyone!"
    24. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...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.

      All the d10s I've ever seen were dodecahedrons like the d12, although obviously not regular dodecahedrons. Imagine taking a d12, making two opposite faces really small (so it's nearly impossible to land on either of them), then stretching those faces apart (while keeping them parallel) to distort the remaining ten pentagonal faces.

      - T

    25. Re:Suggestion: Integrate Physical Dice by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't work for D4s and the "upper-side", that was just a phrase from further up the comments and how to handle D6s.

  6. Virtual D20 by slim · · Score: 4, 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?

    1. Re:Virtual D20 by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Virtual D20 by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      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?

    3. Re:Virtual D20 by cjfs · · Score: 1

      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 from a while back comes to mind. Integrating that in with a miniatures game of some sort would be interesting.

    4. Re:Virtual D20 by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

      This was exactly my reaction. There's so much opportunity to have a computer replace the stuff that physical objects aren't good at. Why have it simulate (poorly) what real dice do so well? I've long wanted to try my hand at writing a program like this, but one that makes the un-fun parts of D&D faster, not one that makes the fun parts lame.

      How about tracking initiative? How about showing the area of effect for a blast or burst when cover or concealment is in effect? How about Wizards of the Coast finally releases that awesome game table application they promised three years ago. Just kidding, I'm not that divorced from reality.

    5. Re:Virtual D20 by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Oops, wrong post.

    6. Re:Virtual D20 by jggimi · · Score: 1

      I play an RPI MUD that does this. I -like- not knowing my character's stats, except in the most general terms, or even how the combat system makes its determinations, or, how it even works. One can, out-of-character, roll virtual dice against a stat to determine the outcome of some event, and then roleplay it as desired, but but that's about it for stats/systems.

    7. Re:Virtual D20 by fredjh · · 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 you to keep the complexity, but make it work a lot more smoothly.

      If you like rolling dice so much, perhaps a computerized version of the game is pointless.

      --
      Stupid, sexy Flanders.
    8. Re:Virtual D20 by kalirion · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:Virtual D20 by slim · · Score: 1

      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 feel vaguely fitter and stronger.

      In real life, if I practice guitar for a week, I am not aware of the improvement as a "+1 guitar playing bonus".

      I was put off D&D at school when lunchtime sessions would degenerate into endless dice rolling, rather than, you know, roleplaying fantasy adventures. (no giggling at the back - Family Guy already did that joke)

    10. Re:Virtual D20 by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      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". You say, "How much does that help me?" The computer replies, "You'll have to go find out..." Is it enough to take on the boss you've been circling, picking off his minions? Who knows.
       
      That would make RPGs a ton more interesting, without the issues of a GM dictating everything.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    11. Re:Virtual D20 by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but in never winter nights since you could see the dice rolls /etc if you walked by someone who was a thief and pick pocketed you, you'd suddenly see that our money was reduced by 3 coins...

      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.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    12. Re:Virtual D20 by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The computer can hide the dice rolls, in fact it can hide the whole "combat system" from you, and just allow you to roleplay.

      Eh, sometimes you need to know that you missed the monster after rolling a 17 (i.e., that you're pretty badly outclassed in the combat), something a "MISS!" sign doesn't convey until too late.

      I've toyed around with actually writing a program very close to this, with a direct implementation of the 4th edition rules and a shared gametable so my friends and I can all play remotely. The trouble is, 4e sucks, and 3e isn't easy to directly implement within a game engine (though D&D Online does a reasonable enough job).

    13. Re:Virtual D20 by slim · · Score: 1

      Eh, sometimes you need to know that you missed the monster after rolling a 17

      Would that happen in real life combat? Does it happen in the fantasy novels D&D tries to simulate?

    14. Re:Virtual D20 by slim · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but in never winter nights since you could see the dice rolls /etc if you walked by someone who was a thief and pick pocketed you, you'd suddenly see that our money was reduced by 3 coins...

      Again, the computer repeats the lack of realism brought about by a system that's hamstrung by the need to be simple enough for dice rolls.

      In real life, you wouldn't discover you'd been pickpocketed until some time later -- if at all. I have only an approximate idea of how much cash is in my jeans pocket right now.

    15. Re:Virtual D20 by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Would that happen in real life combat? Does it happen in the fantasy novels D&D tries to simulate?

      In both real life and in fantasy combats, there's usually a way of telling when you're severely outmatched. Rolling a 17 and still missing is the D&D equivalent of it. In 4e, you don't have the time to swing 10 times at a monster to try to get a feel for his defenses.

      Even in D&D Online, there's a die that rolls every time you swing that you can kind of keep an eye on to see how relatively easy or hard the monsters you're fighting are.

    16. Re:Virtual D20 by slim · · Score: 1

      You seem to want a computer analogue of a game of dice.

      I would prefer something that hides the numbers and gets closer to how things would be in real life.

      Not "The enemy attempts an attack. You have 5/20 chance of blocking him... you fail to block... he will cause up to 4 points of damage... it's 3."

      But "The enemy attacks you confidently. You can tell that it will take a lot of luck to block him. He hits you and it hurts badly. You can tell he's a much stronger fighter than you."

      Now, a good GM might well narrate the dice rolling in such a way. A computer adjudicator needn't show you the dice or the stats.

      In both real life and in fantasy combats, there's usually a way of telling when you're severely outmatched.

      Such as: "The enemy has muscles on his muscles". "The enemy is waving a huge sharp sword around as if he was born with it". "His first attack is confident and painful". "Your enemy has a fearsome reputation".

      *Not* "your enemy's STR and HP are both higher than your own"

    17. Re:Virtual D20 by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>*Not* "your enemy's STR and HP are both higher than your own"

      I'd rather just have a digital gametable that handled all the minutia for us.

  7. Cool tech, but... by dr00g911 · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Cool tech, but... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Funny

      This... is why I'm an FPS gamer. It doesn't usually get more complicated than "loud end points at the other guy".

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:Cool tech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "enormous amount of prep time" you mean "0.5 - 1.0 hrs," then yes using Maptools and a combat tracker such as inCombat 4e does require some DM prep time.

    3. Re:Cool tech, but... by slim · · Score: 1

      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

    4. Re:Cool tech, but... by fredjh · · 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 molasses. He's only ten, and he and his friend were completely bored, even doing the fun part of creating a character... which used to take maybe 30 minutes, at MOST, and was a lot of fun as you had your gold pieces and just equipped your guy.

      I'm thinking we're going to just slug through it from now on with graph paper, like we used to... the great thing about graph paper and actually writing on it is that it gives the players perspective of where they are in relation to other things (like the exit), but I'm not so sure yet. I do know I'd like to see a lot more automation in creating characters, and was thinking of just rolling my own... but who's got the time?

      --
      Stupid, sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:Cool tech, but... by zx75 · · Score: 1

      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 prepared when their turn came.

      I would love to have the surface to facilitate the kind of game I already run, so that I don't have to:
      - Remember my 'stone' miniatures
      - Remember to bring paper-towel and a spray bottle
      - Remember to bring markers
      - Easily create creatures that are bigger than a single space (its a pain moving a 3x3 grid size monster across the board that uses 9 stones).

      --
      This is not a sig.
    6. Re:Cool tech, but... by kieran · · Score: 1

      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 still keep the combat rich enough to satisfy those hungry for a little skirmish strategy.

    7. Re:Cool tech, but... by Abreu · · Score: 2, 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...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    8. Re:Cool tech, but... by Kagato · · Score: 1

      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 like to be more strategic to play with people that want to roll-n-go. I think the table also takes care of some of the distractions that are created by the "Rule Nazi" in a group.

    9. Re:Cool tech, but... by kionel · · Score: 1

      I couldn't have said it better myself.

      I ended up writing a series on my (now sadly become rather stale) blog called "Why I Hate D20" wherein I discussed being an old-school (think 1979 for my first experience) RPG player grappling with the then new-ish "OMG Isn't It Cool!" D20 rule set. In the end, I just concluded that I was just getting a little too old to be able to waste a weekend around a kitchen table with nothing more than my dice, some friends, and my imagination.

      This, of course, is total bunk.

      What I ended up doing is re-writing some rules I'd put together when I was -- I shit you not, now -- 13 years old. I cleaned up the design a bit, of course, but the spirit remained the same.

      The name? QUIDPERG: The Quick and Dirty Role Playing Game.

      Character creation takes no longer than ten minutes.

      Scenarios take no longer than ten minutes to create.

      Combat? Quick, dirty, and brutal.

      Result? It's a blast.

      Is it as feature-rich as most of the commercial packages? Of course not. But it's playable, and my group finds it fun.

      (Heck, I should just release the damned thing on my Blog.)

      I wrote QUIDPERG because I genuinely think that the RPG as a pass time has lost its way. While it's neat to be able to buy pre-painted minis and battle mats for our games, the fact of the matter is that the core mechanic -- the fun -- was lost in the mix. So I'm going back to it.

      QUIDPERG is right for my group. Would it work right for others? Who knows? Really, though, that's beside the point. If we GMs find ourselves fighting with ridiculous mechanics (D20), then we have this neat option to just say "No!" Exercise that right, folks. You'll feel better that you did.

      --
      "'My Country Right or Wrong'is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober,'" -- Chesterton
    10. Re:Cool tech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would wager your games are horrible to play. The game was originally a tactical simulation of combat - which 4e has done more to move back to the tactical, from the horrible systems that had no tactics involved.

      I highly doubt you know what you're talking about.

    11. Re:Cool tech, but... by dr00g911 · · Score: 1

      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 a reason I've been holding onto my huge collection of 1st edition books for all these years -- they work, the rules are flexible, and most people at my table have them more or less memorized. I can put a few figures on a mat, not sweat the finer strategery of combat, and kill a few orcs in 10 minutes with almost zero bookkeeping apart from initiative and hit points.

      This keeps the story moving and keeps combat fun.

      Might come as a shock to you, but I encourage my players to act. Tunnels & Trolls had it right way back when with their grievous injury chart. Roleplaying is about far more than magical hit point numbers.

      I've likely been DMing longer than you've been alive, so I'm just gonna laugh at the rest.

    12. Re:Cool tech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The character creation software is a free download.

      Try it.

    13. Re:Cool tech, but... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      If you don't like tactics then 4e is not the game for you and the automated game table is irrelevant.

    14. Re:Cool tech, but... by Cabriel · · Score: 1

      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 confusion and a lot more time than just 10 seconds per person.

      Long story short: when you're playing with tactical minds, the combat map and minis save a lot more time.

    15. Re:Cool tech, but... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      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.
       
      Initiative gets put down on one corner, spells with a duration get drawn in, we've had mini-maps in one corner, with a box showing what part was being shown in the main board. Combat is too slow? A 30 sec egg timer fixes that. Strategy is fantastic, as long as you don't spend all game talking about what you *could* do. Trust me - after a few "...with combat fierce and heavy around him, John stands petrified, unsure of what to do. As an arrow flies past his head, Felicia leaps to action." "Sorry John, you took to long. Felicia - it's your turn." your PCs will start getting through combat more quickly.
       
      And really, if you can give up micromanaging, it's even better. I've taken to describing the setup in words, then handing markers to my PCs. Let their imagination shape the bolder strewn valley with the stream running through it. Sometimes they come up with that I'd visualized sometimes not. Either way, I run with it.
       
      I like the strategy of 4th ed. And that's coming from two decades of RPGs, with no major MMO games under my belt. Like anything, it can be done poorly and it can be done well. We play about 50/50 RP and strategy combat in my games. Some nights it's just about all RP, some nights it's just about all combat, and some it's an even mix. I'd recommend giving 4E a few more runs. Specifically, the skill challenges are pretty damn well done, and allow you to mix skills and RP EXTREMELY well, and very efficiently. Basically, you go around the table, and the PCs tell you what they're doing to help overcome the obstacle. There are a couple of main skills, but if they're creative, they can roll for others should they be able to work them in. You set a number of X successes before Y failures, and see if they make it. I've found that group failure is far more epic than single-player, single-roll failure. It's one thing when your fighter tries to climb a cliff and falls down and splats. It's another thing entirely when the dwarf using dungeoneering to look for loose rocks, the fighter is climbing, the rogue is tying knots in the rope, the elf is using acrobatics to balance on a 1" ledge, and they ALL fail! Who do you blame then? "Us."

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    16. Re:Cool tech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      de_dust

    17. Re:Cool tech, but... by fredjh · · Score: 1

      Free demo... and free if you subscribe.

      --
      Stupid, sexy Flanders.
  8. Gold, silver, electrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    provided you make your saving throws

    You do have to throw your savings at them to afford to go.

  9. I spent 15 seconds watching the background load by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    then I just closed the window. I hope their D&D table isn't as horridly optimised.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  10. My own project is similar by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:My own project is similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, you have enough disposable cash for something like this and can't afford to hire a junior programmer? Durrr... Must be nice to be rich and stupid.

    2. Re:My own project is similar by cyberbrian · · Score: 1

      Your project sounds great. I'm looking forward to your release.

    3. Re:My own project is similar by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Shit, you have enough disposable cash for something like this and can't afford to hire a junior programmer? Durrr... Must be nice to be rich and stupid.

      First, allow me to introduce you to the term, 'hobby'.

      Besides, this isn't a small undertaking. I'm not going to hire a programmer until I know exactly what I want that programmer to do.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  11. Bandwidth Stress Test - How To by Knx · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Set up a website with a 5.45 MB background image
    2. Submit it on Slashdot
    3. You're done

    --
    The problem with Slashdot memes is that YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!
    1. Re:Bandwidth Stress Test - How To by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      That wasn't just slow loading, it slowed down FF scrolling. It uncompresses to 89 MB...

    2. Re:Bandwidth Stress Test - How To by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      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

  12. All that went through my mind... by Sabalon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let the wookie win.

  13. thanks reddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for giving slashdot a reason to seem relevant!

  14. Old idea with new hardware... by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

    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. Your other choice is the developer unit, which is £10,000. Something tells me this is very much a "play with and figure out stuff we can do with it" project. It's not exactly going to be a practical solution for your average gaming group - maybe a gaming shop as a novelty.

    --

    Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    1. Re:Old idea with new hardware... by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      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.

      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" situations instead of the classic "map on table with blocks of wood and big sticks".

  15. Microsoft Surface + Cheetos and Pizza == Epic Fail by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

    On the other hand, it would let my D&D group get together create a rich and vivid shared history without all that awkward talking that we currently have to endure. Now if they could just find a way to remove the requirement to be physically present as well we could be on to a winner.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  16. Surface Finally has a reason for existing by cadeon · · Score: 1

    This is seriously the only reason I've ever seen to use a Surface. Cool technology, sure, but until today, entirely useless.

    And I don't think that having a D&D concept pushes Surface from 'entirely useless' to any form of relevance.

  17. MapTool by Lachryma · · Score: 1

    I don't really want the whole damn game embedded. I just want MapTool with multitouch.

    1. Re:MapTool by Abreu · · Score: 1

      This. This. A thousand times this!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  18. It's called "tangible interface" by S3D · · Score: 1

    I *would* like to see augmented reality applied to board gaming. Something that combines the tactile experience of playing with wooden pieces

    "Tangible interface" or "tangible space". I tried my hand in it with one of my AR demos. 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.

    1. Re:It's called "tangible interface" by slim · · Score: 1

      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 catches on, watching people play should provide plenty of ideas of how to make an "AR game" that keeps people playing with the on-board objects.

      A good way, of course, is to design the game so you can't win without touching with the pieces!

    2. Re:It's called "tangible interface" by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      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 players to more easily jump into the game and play.

  19. Speaking as a DM... by Ritorix · · 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.

    1. Re:Speaking as a DM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not talk to the community at www.nuigroup.com. All you need is the app itself to be written. All the touch stuff is avail and hardware relatively inexpensive (~$1000 though most of the cost is for a regular everyday PC projector). Everything you suggested is completely doable.

  20. OK, that's just mean. by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    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.

  21. Virtual Tabletop and other stuff by robertsconley · · Score: 1

    They should pay attention to how Virtual Tabletop software does things. A lot of the setup issues would be similar between the two. For example many Virtual Tabletop had to deal with the issue of animating virtual dice. What they showed in the video is a bit too sluggish. Another concept of virtual tabletop is rulesets and modules. A ruleset configures a virtual tabletop for a specific game or RPG. While a module is a prepackaged bundle of maps, images, tokens, notes, monsters, etc. It should be easy to do both. In the end surface computer and virtual tabletop are going to be two parallel lines of development that will impact the futures of RPGs. With e-books being used alongside both as well as normal tabletop play.

  22. Solo RPG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now as a solo RPG this concept has potential.

  23. Awesome Potential by AP31R0N · · Score: 2, 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

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. re: awesome potential by ed.han · · Score: 1

      don't you think that this would represent a pretty significant financial investment?

    2. Re: awesome potential by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      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 cheaper. Eventually, all screens will be touch screens, in the same way that almost all TVs for sale today are HD.

      Plus, the very act of making such a system will spawn a new sort of high end board game market. Monopoly w/o needing to count money or worrying about losing pieces, no stepping on hotels.... i can see families sitting around a touch screen table (where they just finished dinner), clearing off the plate and loading last week's unfinished game of Scrabble. They reload it and start playing again.

      Instead of using a touch screen this system could use a projector with RFID tagged minis. A device could continuously poll the tags to see where the minis are. Or each player could have a device that the sensor would track as a sort of cursor to move a virtual mini instead of an physical mini.

      Life's more fun when you look at possibilities instead of difficulties. Problems are obvious and boring... solutions, there's the fun. Getting to the Moon was way more interesting than "oh that would be difficult and expensive". Cars were expensive, now everyone has them.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    3. Re: awesome potential by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's rather insightful. Hasbro has a lot more games than just D&D that a touchscreen table can be used for.

  24. Stuff all of that... Microlite20 by evilandi · · Score: 1

    Fed up with complexity and commerce? Want brevity and simplicity?

    http://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.

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    1. Re:Stuff all of that... Microlite20 by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about Tunnels & Trolls where your character sheet is index card-sized? I haven't gamed for years, but I always found that all of the complex combat rules hindered the storytelling, the part I enjoyed the most. After a while, my group adopted a 'if you don't know the rule, don't look it up, just improvise' rule and it made the games a lot more fun.

      --
      http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
    2. Re:Stuff all of that... Microlite20 by dr00g911 · · Score: 1

      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 tree/spec style system that 4E introduced. I like the concept of the eberron-style "dramatic actions" to use. I like the concept of powers for everyone (poor fighters in 1E)... I even like the care that's been taken into balancing everything this time out.

      I just don't like a perfectly good story to be made tedious with an hour-long combat session and micromanagement for dots, bloody, focus, challenge, aoe, movement, opportunity... all that stuff. If I want that, I'll play Warhammer or Axis & Allies or any number of perfectly good wargames.

      But for D&D, roll initiative, say what your character does with feeling and get your THAC0 on. You're doing something wrong at my table if you aren't trying to chew scenery or crack everyone up when it's your turn.

    3. Re:Stuff all of that... Microlite20 by bughunter · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    4. Re:Stuff all of that... Microlite20 by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1

      If we take that the "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" 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" space. If you're looking for, say, compelling stories, games like Shock: Social Science Fiction, My Life With Master, and The Mountain Witch deliver with extremely light rules systems.)

      --
      Search 2010 Gen Con events
    5. Re:Stuff all of that... Microlite20 by The+Insane+One · · Score: 1

      And we're usually drunk.

      Without a doubt. hic!

  25. Posted to ENWorld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm interested in what the ENWorld community thinks.

    http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/266714-microsoft-surface-used-d-d.html

  26. Senior Project by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    I actually did something like this for my senior year project. We tried to make a Warhammer 40k game. We didn't use MS surface we used Reactivision, to do the tracking. And Reactivision was actually much better than most of the other implementations because it could also track an objects orientation. We never really got it to work that well but it was a fun project

    http://reactivision.sourceforge.net/

  27. Why make the player "roll" the dice? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Since the computer is deciding what dice to provide, why slow it down by having a stupid gesture to make get them to roll?

  28. 5.5mb background image by dameron · · Score: 1

    Right about now, I'm sure their loving the guy who decided they needed a 5.5mb background jpeg on their page.

  29. Great to keep your Risk armies in place by dspkable · · Score: 1

    I think it be great to have a platform to download board games and expand upon their functionality like this, but the price tag would be huge for such a tabletop. At least you wouldn't have to clean up the pieces or worry about the cat knocking over your armies in a game like Risk :)

  30. best idea ever by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    They should integrate google maps too! Well okay, it's Microsoft so they won't but I think they have their own satellite photo collection map thing. Anyway, you could go through real, actual locations and real mountains and woods and stuff. That'd be awesome!

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  31. Mod parent +1, Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. While this demo looks promising, 4E is horrible. For every improvement they made over 3.5 they screwed up two other things.

  32. well... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...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 so that it would give you movement options, and just tap the character figure and target, get a dropdown of attack options, and it resolves the mechanics with lots of sound effects. Pools of blood could spread from badly injured/dead toons. You could either use figures atop the displayed map, or have animated icons for the characters which would look cooler anyway (minifigs and dungeon tiles makers? Your long painful struggle keeping your business afloat is about to end, anyway...).

    Display animated spell effects OF COURSE, not to mention dynamic lighting and shadows, traps that happen when you move onto them (your character's animated response based on the internalized saving throw roll). NWN/DDO meet somewhere on a combination touchscreen/projector, basically.

    Yeah, I could see this being cool.

    I think they should also test long-range networked implementation, so I'd be happy to help if someone could donate a Surface.

    --
    -Styopa
  33. Combat? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I thought it would be something useful for roleplaying. Why not do Warhammer if it's just gonna be mini-combat.

  34. Re:Mod MY parent +1, Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    4E is a load of dog shit.

    I've been through three and a half versions of (A)D&D, three versions of Shadowrun, two and a half versions of GURPS (if you count 3+CI+CII as "3.5"), and loved them; edition specific warts and all.

    I bought the D&D 4E Core Set, expecting good things and was very disappointed. I have never, EVER seen a role-playing game get bent over and screwed in the ass like WOTC did with D&D 4E.

    I decided to go with Pathfinder RPG instead and now run a Pathfinder game every other Saturday. The PDF for the Core Rulebook (PHB + DMG) is only $10... check it out.

  35. The maps are not the biggest gain by grilled-cheese · · Score: 1

    While it is nice to be able to play with nice maps, the amount of extra effort to create/find/buy them is a deterrent. Our group does just fine with a laminated piece of posterboard and dry erase markers. It's extremely quick, reusable, and flexible in the amount of data it can hold. So until I see something actually marketed with that same set of features+, and I'm rich enough to afford it, it makes no difference. The only thing we can't do very well, and neither can a Surface interface is a 3 dimensional playing field.

    The area where automation comes in the most handy is in the combat accounting. A more beneficial piece of software would be a projectable or multiview system in which information such as damage, status effects, turn order, and turn progression was displayed to everyone. It would mean no more having to ask who needs healing, or who's turn it is because somebody delayed their actions. The players are still in control of their own characters and the specific character accounting such as what powers have been used, but basic information such as maximum hit points and initiative are all that is required.

  36. Oh man by kayfouroh · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much it'd cost to get a Microsoft Surface at home. Imagine the possibilities

  37. Sounds nice, too bad by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  38. Surface Computing = whole new mode of gaming... by BlueF · · Score: 1

    Cell phones may be bringing mobile gaming to a whole new level, but I envision surface computing will result in entirely new modes of social (face to face) gaming.

    Imagine your favorite board game -- Monopoly, Risk, Life, Scrabble, whatever -- enabled for surface computing;

    -No tiny plastic pieces to loose, to choke children/pets, gum up your fancy robot vacuum, or stab the unsuspecting bare foot;
    -No need for a banker (who never seems to have a cash flow problem);
    -No worries of spilling drinks (on your vintage, 1st edition Talisman board);
    -No worry of clumsy players/pet upsetting the board (right when you were poised to cement your bid for world domination);
    -No worry of loosing player position on the board;
    -Instructions will be available for all players at any time, even all players at the same time (especially useful for those contentious/strategic rules disagreements);
    -Games can be enjoyed for game-play and mechanic, rather than being an exercise in re-learning board setup, sorting/shuffling stacks cards and pieces (battlestar galactica anyone?);
    -Multimedia animations, themes/skins, and expansions will offer endless possibilities both as enhancements to the classic games we've been playing for years and for a myriad of yet-to-be-though-of modes of social gaming which surface computing will foster.

    Tabletop gaming demo was impressive. Tons of potential. I would absolutely love to see a surface computing setup for Magic the Gathering!

  39. MTG? by elventear · · Score: 1

    This is not the future of D&D. There are no Collectible Cards involved ...

  40. Samantha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have played lot of games and made lot of small games which can run in every computer either it is p-3 or p-2. Now a days i am learning and making high graphix game called killer hero which i hope will finish by December. http://www.dvds-online-rental-review.com

  41. Taking the dungeon master out of the D&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if I'm the only one but the whole point of D&D was to have a dungeon master do some old school Story Telling.

      Now, they're instead going to have to type in heaps of text so that users will spend 80% of their time interacting with the UI of the game and then squinting and reading the text as everyone just waits there awkwardly. And anyone who's ever rolled a dice knows full well that a "virtual dice" can never be as satisfying.

      What next, virtual pool on an extra large microsoft virtual surface? Why?