Status of D&D Game Table?

[guivre]

A Wikis unique feature is that other users can contribute to them and add material, typically in an easy way. (Easy compared to creating your own website, at least.)

Now, Wikipedia might not always qualify as the best source for a definition, but in case of Wikis, I think it is a very good authority.

I'm well aware of the definition of a wiki. If it stretches your imagination too much to understand the comparison, fine, ignore it.

A well configured wiki, or other piece of content management software could have been used to provide the same (and likely better) functionality for a lot less development time.

 

[Echohawk]

So far they've release (late) a glorified wiki [...]

A well configured wiki, or other piece of content management software could have been used to provide the same (and likely better) functionality for a lot less development time.

I agree that it may have been possible to implement the Compendium as a Wiki, but that's not what you said. You said "so far they've release[d] a glorified wiki".

It is not possible for users to edit or add content to the Compendium, thus it fails the most basic comparison to a Wiki. Whether or not the Compendium could have been implemented in the form of a Wiki, by no stretch of the imagination is the Compendium, as currently implemented, a Wiki, glorified or otherwise. I agree with Mustrum_Ridcully that your comparison is thus broken.

 

[Oldtimer]

It is not possible for users to edit or add content to the Compendium, thus it fails the most basic comparison to a Wiki. Whether or not the Compendium could have been implemented in the form of a Wiki, by no stretch of the imagination is the Compendium, as currently implemented, a Wiki, glorified or otherwise. I agree with Mustrum_Ridcully that your comparison is thus broken.

The central feature of a wiki is not that anyone can add or edit its content, but that the add/edit operation can be done quickly with a reduced set of mark-up (compared to HTML). Hence its name (from hawaiian).

The comparision is fair, but maybe unusual. I suggest we avoid derailing the thread with definitions of what a wiki is or isn't.

Regarding the Game Table, I think it will end up as a big nothing. The character builder is already in a bad state and it won't get any easier going forward with this digital initiative. My guess is it will fail on a technical level. Sooner or later, someone will pull the plug on this money sink.

 

[Derren]

I don't think WotC will even release the character visualizer.
Think about it, whenever they release new races and weapons they have to add them to the visualizer.
That would require a permanent staff of artists whos only job is to keep the visualizer up to date and I don't think WotC is willing to invest that much of effort/money.

And without the visualizer the game table looses a bit on appeal. Sure, they can use generic miniatures and not custom created ones, but that was a big feature of this whole setup.
(Also, the visualizer alone is also not very useful)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The central feature of a wiki is not that anyone can add or edit its content, but that the add/edit operation can be done quickly with a reduced set of mark-up (compared to HTML). Hence its name (from hawaiian).

Well, the Wikipedia definition includes the content edition. Wikis were created for purposes like this .

The comparision is fair, but maybe unusual. I suggest we avoid derailing the thread with definitions of what a wiki is or isn't.

You're no fun.

Regarding the Game Table, I think it will end up as a big nothing. The character builder is already in a bad state and it won't get any easier going forward with this digital initiative. My guess is it will fail on a technical level. Sooner or later, someone will pull the plug on this money sink.

The Character Builder is delayed, but its functional state looks good.

I hope the Game Table will make it through. But it is horribly delayed, so the chances are less good. It depends a lot on how much money the DDI and D&D 4 brings in - if that is still good, they will have a strong incentive, but it any of it weakens, well, it doesn't look so good. Unless they have reason to believe that this will turn things around in their favor...

 

[Oldtimer]

The Character Builder is delayed, but its functional state looks good.

No it doesn't. Not really. It only contains data for levels 1-3 and there are loads of data errors. Then there are lots of coding errors (crashes and unexpected behaviour). The installation package uses InstallShield, but it doesn't work very well. It doesn't even check for the presence of .NET framework 3.5 sp1, which is a requirement and should be handled by the installer. On my plain vanilla XP Pro system it won't even install. I had to take apart the MSI file and modify it before I got it onto that system. Good thing I have the tools and knowledge to do that.

With over 30 years of professional experience with software development, I don't think their development project is doing too well. Had I been asked my professional opinion about it, I would have given it a rather low grade.

The few developers they have on this are probably struggling heroically, but heroics rarely produce good software.

I hope the Game Table will make it through. But it is horribly delayed, so the chances are less good. It depends a lot on how much money the DDI and D&D 4 brings in - if that is still good, they will have a strong incentive, but it any of it weakens, well, it doesn't look so good. Unless they have reason to believe that this will turn things around in their favor...

I also hope, or rather hoped. When it was announced almost 17 months ago, I was excited. I had high hopes. I saw that they used an external source (Radiant Machine) for the development and considered that a very good idea. Then everything changed and my hopes waned.

Right now it has every indication of a software project in trouble.

 

[darjr]

What would you do? If, as you say, WotC's software development is in trouble, what would you do?

I get it about licensing an existing working VTT, but what then? The CB is in beta, the visualizer is not even in beta, the table wouldn't be integrated with any tiles or the CB, what then?

I'm not convinced they are in that much trouble anymore, or as bad as you say, the sign of heroics and programmers falling on their own sword, now, would be a big key piece of evidence tho...

However, I'm interested, as I hope WotC is, if they are in more trouble.

 

[JohnnyQuest]

Here's a comprehensive list of all the virtual tabletop programs for RPGs.

And here's a VT Feature Comparison Chart that compares a handful of the more popular VTs. Note, however, that some of the information on that chart is a bit out of date.

Thanks for the link to the list; that's very helpful. The second link doesn't work for me. So far, it looks like iTabletop is the only program that offers voice chat, which is a must for me. Is there another program that offers voice?

 

[malraux]

Thanks for the link to the list; that's very helpful. The second link doesn't work for me. So far, it looks like iTabletop is the only program that offers voice chat, which is a must for me. Is there another program that offers voice?

There's no reason you can't use another program for the VOIP.

 

[heruca]

The second link was working when I posted it. However, that entire site seems to be down right now. Hopefully it will be back up within a few days.

And malraux is correct in that any virtual tabletop program can be used with a VOIP program running in the background. I prefer to use Ventrilo, for its push-to-talk feature which cuts down on background noise and its ability to send a private voice message to an individual without addressing the whole group. But Skype is more user-friendly to set up.