This is a good point. But on the other hand 4e doesn't have rules for directional facing so maybe it wouldn't have meshed together as well as we'd have hoped.
What happened to a 3d VTT?
- Thread starter Stormonu
- Start date
fuzzlewump
Explorer
@El Mahdi
I really don't see that improving play experience. As dynamic as it sounds, it would really just come to the player's turn, he'd do full 360's looking around at static character and monster models standing around a essentially a chessboard. He'd then just have to ask the DM tons of questions about what his character can see versus what he can see. A static human standing infront of the halfling could completely block the hobgoblin from the player's view. In 'reality,' the human and the hobgoblin would be shifting around in their square, ducking, etc. The DM could just say 'go with what you can see' but that would, at least for me, create a ton of player frustration.
Trying to make a turn-based tactical combat system dynamic would involve spending a lot of resources making it appear a fight was going on constantly no matter how much time you spent on a turn, and what the player and character could see (what you see with your eyes versus what the rules say your character can see) would have to be the same. Even then, I doubt it.
I really don't see that improving play experience. As dynamic as it sounds, it would really just come to the player's turn, he'd do full 360's looking around at static character and monster models standing around a essentially a chessboard. He'd then just have to ask the DM tons of questions about what his character can see versus what he can see. A static human standing infront of the halfling could completely block the hobgoblin from the player's view. In 'reality,' the human and the hobgoblin would be shifting around in their square, ducking, etc. The DM could just say 'go with what you can see' but that would, at least for me, create a ton of player frustration.
Trying to make a turn-based tactical combat system dynamic would involve spending a lot of resources making it appear a fight was going on constantly no matter how much time you spent on a turn, and what the player and character could see (what you see with your eyes versus what the rules say your character can see) would have to be the same. Even then, I doubt it.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
This is a good point, and for the most part, there's a good reason for a lack of facing moves. But I think that in a real first person environment, most of the reasons that would make facing rules a drawback would be negated. I think a 1st person environment would allow groups to get away from more ambiguous mechanics for an exact and realistic representation of the environment. I'm not saying that ambiguous mechanics are bad. I think that even if there was such a VTT, I'd still want to game the old fashioned way...at least occasionally. But I'd still love to have this type of environment.
But yeah, with such a VTT, some rules and mechanics may have needed to be altered.
Yeah, I can see your point. It would definitely take some work, and some reworking of the rules/mechanics. I'd still like to see it though.
The upcoming 4e CRGP from Atari, Neverwinter, just might fill the 3d niche. Especially if it's moddable.
Canor Morum
First Post
I wouldn't put too much faith in Cryptic Studios.
Now, how will an unmoderated game possibly handle immediate actions?
It's real time so you just do it. The trick is to give interruptable actions a duration between the start and the effect. For instance, in World of Warcraft you can interrupt spell casting with a well timed kick and in Warhammer online you can knock people prone as they try to run past you (or at least some class powers can), so it has been done before.
Argyle King
Legend
I have very minimal (if any) knowledge of programming or anything like that. However -from an admitedly uneducated viewpoint- I don't understand why it's not possible to take some of the programs which are already out there and modify them to work with D&D.
On the complex side of things, you have programs such as AutoCAD which already exist; is it not possibly to take the framework of a system like that? What about the character creation abilities of some video games such as Oblivion, Smackdown vs Raw; etc? I guess I'm a little confused as to why there was a need to start from scratch instead of being able to look at how other programs work and modifying some of the concepts which already exist. I'd be perfectly fine with even PS1 Final Fantasy Tactics graphics.
I understand they would be more complicated than the basic 2D table. That only makes sense. However, if there's nothing the 2D tool can offer me over what I can already do with programs which are free, I still find myself unsure of why I would pay for DDi. ...not trying to be pessimistic; just being realistic - Free program vs Essentially same program, but with a fee? When I take into account economic considerations as well as consdering that D&D now also has to compete over my gaming budget with other rpgs, the free program seems to win out.
On the complex side of things, you have programs such as AutoCAD which already exist; is it not possibly to take the framework of a system like that? What about the character creation abilities of some video games such as Oblivion, Smackdown vs Raw; etc? I guess I'm a little confused as to why there was a need to start from scratch instead of being able to look at how other programs work and modifying some of the concepts which already exist. I'd be perfectly fine with even PS1 Final Fantasy Tactics graphics.
I understand they would be more complicated than the basic 2D table. That only makes sense. However, if there's nothing the 2D tool can offer me over what I can already do with programs which are free, I still find myself unsure of why I would pay for DDi. ...not trying to be pessimistic; just being realistic - Free program vs Essentially same program, but with a fee? When I take into account economic considerations as well as consdering that D&D now also has to compete over my gaming budget with other rpgs, the free program seems to win out.
fuzzlewump
Explorer
Johnny,
I think code is IP and couldn't just be 'taken.' Used as a sort of inspiration, or model certainly but it's only a 6-7 man team as I recall. No matter what inspiration you have, it takes time to write code, and it takes time to work all the bugs out.
As far as free vs. paid, well, I imagine the DDI gametable will be seamlessly integrated with the CB and Monster Builder at some point. The table will be built around 4E rules and so won't require much engineering from downloading the program to playing the game.
And, maybe it'll be prettier.
I think code is IP and couldn't just be 'taken.' Used as a sort of inspiration, or model certainly but it's only a 6-7 man team as I recall. No matter what inspiration you have, it takes time to write code, and it takes time to work all the bugs out.
As far as free vs. paid, well, I imagine the DDI gametable will be seamlessly integrated with the CB and Monster Builder at some point. The table will be built around 4E rules and so won't require much engineering from downloading the program to playing the game.
And, maybe it'll be prettier.
Everyone's already made some strong points (manpower required for support, strain on user resources)
However, I think the videos didn't necessarily present a 'close to complete' piece of software. Tech demos are completely different things from fully working software, as any one with experience as a software developer or software journalist can tell you.
Also, I don't think I'll ever use it, but I do think going for less visual splendor is better than more. Trying to go for hyper-real 3D graphics would only mean that it would age horribly in a handful of years, eventually making it look like a poor man's videogame. An application that goes for representational convenience rather than verisimilitude is a much better idea, IMHO.
