Note: I don't know if the term "Virtual Table Top" needs a definition or not. Hopefully it is pretty clear. But, in case it is not clear, I'd define a VTT as the attempt to keep the GM and Players as they exist in a paper and pencil RPG, but enhance the process of role-playing with technology, including using computer graphics for game-maps, and computer processing power to crunch numbers.
So, on the topic of Virtual Table Tops. . . .
What ones are out there?
What do people think of this concept?
And what do they want to see from a VTT?
There are a few of them around that I know about. One that I used most recently was Tabletop Forge ( https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joshuha/tabletop-forge-the-virtual-tabletop-for-google-han ). And, more recent developments which I happened to hear about include: Mote (which I learned about on this site https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/740970397/mote-guaranteed-to-be-the-best-virtual-tabletop-ev ) and Storyscape ( http://slabtowngames.com/ although the Slabtown team seem to be regrouping after the failure of their recent Kickstarter campaign) .
This topic is of special interest to me because, some years back, I put some work into a VTT of my own. I ended up mothballing that project, but was considering dusting it off. I was wondering if it was worth going back to, and what directions I should take the project if I did go back to it. That is actually one of the major motivations behind starting this thread (although I would like the thread to be about VTTs in general, rather than focusing entirely on any single application).
As I mentioned above, I've tried a few different VTT applications (although I'm sure there are many options I have yet to hear about), and also tried playing games by play-by-post and play-by-email. Unfortunately, although I had fun with these options, none of these methods have really matched my own vision of a 3D virtual world where the computer handles all the rules (tracks damage, ammo, fatigue, encumbrance, etc), while the GM and players control the various characters.
On the other hand, for the computer to track everything it has to know about everything, which would make it pretty hard to make stuff up on the fly, which is something I do a lot as a GM. So there can be some downsides to a project which is as encompassing as what I visualize.
Regrading my own project, I'm curious what people think about what I'm trying to do, and if it is worth moving forward with it again. . . .
So here is a bit more about that:
The project is written in C++, uses OpenGL for a 3D rendering API, and DirectX for sound. There is a clinet and server edition of the program. The players use the client program, whereas the GM uses the server version of the program.
Design Goals:
First, that the program should be a combat simulator and handle all the rule stuff automaticcally for the GM.
Second, I wanted a virtual 3D world, which would be fully interactive (meaning that the characters could blow holes in walls, dig tunnels in the ground, create their own walls, etc).
Third, I wanted to do more that what you could do with normal miniatures. I wanted 3D models which would automatically reflect the state of a given character. If you are looking at a large green orc, wearing black plate mail, who has a red mohawk, and is carrying a huge battle-axe, then the model should automatically reflect that fact. What you see should be what you get. And if the orc drops the axe, or takes off the armor, the model should reflect that fact too. Further, the models should animate based on what the character is doing, if the charater is taking aim with his gun, or crawling, or running, that is what the model should be doing.
This is a Screen Shot of Old Version (http://www.siliconstorm.net/vgt/VGT-FullShotDec8-2003.jpg) of my VTT. It consists of 3 windows: a data view over on the left (with character stats, dice controls, internet connection control, etc), and on the top right is the 3D virtual world window, and bottom right is a text window, for in-character discussion, and listing of things that occur in the game). The landscape, while crude, was fully interactive (the characters could blow holes in the ground or walls, swim in the water, etc). The models, while pretty crude, were dynamically created based on the character's stats, species, equipment, etc. The example shown has 3 characters loaded up (the characters were created with a CharGen program I made for that purpose).
Here are some screen shots of a newer version of the program, hopefully these will give kind of an idea of what the set-up looks like, although a video with the animations and sound might be better. . . .
A couple comments before getting to the shots: I wanted to do more complex models for this one, and that means more work in order to get my dynamic-model creation system working (that is one of the main reasons why the project got shelved, because I got side-tracked during the process of getting that up and running). So, for right now, I am limited in which characters I can use. However, the character I've got here (a blue alien entity) works pretty well, especially since this character can fly and throw energy-bolts that can blow holes in the landscape (two features which I wanted to demonstrate).
Shot of a character flying along a dry creek bed (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/FlyingAlongDryRiverBed.jpg). . . .
Hovering at the edge of where the dry creek meets a larger river (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/HoveringAtEdgeOfRiver.jpg). . .
.Hovering over a bridge that crosses another point in the river (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/HoveringOverBridge.jpg). . . .
Thus far the character has been flying and hovering, but my program covers more actions than that (here is a non-flying example) Character running on bridge (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/RunningAlongBridge.jpg)
Here the character is off to the side of the bridge, and near some buildings (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/ExampleOfCharViewFogOfWar.jpg), this shot is an example of the fog-of-war feature that automatically blocks out parts of the landscape that the character can't see. . . .
Here is the character blasting holes in the landscape (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/BlastingBridge.jpg) (with the targeting system activated, note the crosshairs), the character has already taken several shots here, and is now taking another one. . . .
Here the same character is at the entrance to a cave complex, this shot also is useful for demonstraiting the difference between GM view (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/CaveEntranceGMView.jpg) (which sees everything), and the Character's view (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/CaveEntranceCharacterView.jpg) (which is limited to what the Character can see)
As I mentioned above, there is a Character Generation Program which I use to make characters for the VTT, here are a couple of shots of the older version of that program :
(Example character's physical stats---note: this character has olympic level speed and agility)
Main Window with the focus set to physical stats (http://www.siliconstorm.net/VGTTools/CharGenMainPhysPNG-Dec7-2003.PNG)
Mental skills dialog example (http://www.siliconstorm.net/VGTTools/CharGenMentalSkillsPNG-Dec7-2003.PNG) (skills work in a way that is pretty similar to GURPS, where your net skill is basically stat+bonus. The focus in this shot is set to languages, these are skills specific to a given campaign I wanted to run, but the program can be customized to fit any type of setting.
Equipment dialog example (http://www.siliconstorm.net/VGTTools/CharGenBuySellPistolsPNG-Dec7-2003.PNG), focused on allowing the character to buy different types of pistols (again relevant to the given setting)
And here are a few shots of different characters stated out in the newer version of the CharGen program:
Ralph (a marksman) (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/NewCharGenRalphSniper.jpg)
Brak (a big barbarian) (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/NewCharGenShotBrakBarbarian.jpg)
Tina (warrior princess) (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/NewCharGenTinaWarriorPrincess.jpg)
Hopefully that is enough to get a sense of what I'm doing. As I mentioned, I'm trying to decide if I should take this off the shelf and try to finish it or not (Other people have already built VTTs, and there are other projects I could be working on instead, if this is not something anybody cares that much about).
I'm currently running AD&D 2E on Roll20.net, which I don't see listed in your post.
I'm running my current 7th Sea campaign online out of necessity since my brother lives in England.
It's just... awful. An exercise in frustration. Because it's so convenient, normally good players are too relaxed and constantly arrive late. Everyone is tempted to browse the internet when it isn't "me time", slowing down the proceedings when they get caught unawares. Because we can't use body language, facial cues or presence techniques players are constantly interrupting each other. Online dice rollers are clunky, especially if you have unusual dice mechanics.
All that, and the experience just feels less warm. I want to see these people people smiling or gaping, I want to feel their energy.
I can't imagine what it would be like if I had less skilled players. I wish a virtual tabletop really could work because gaming keeps getting tougher to balance with adult life, but I don't think I'll ever do it again.
Quote from: warp9;731883I'd define a VTT as the attempt to keep the GM and Players as they exist in a paper and pencil RPG, but enhance the process of role-playing with technology, including using computer graphics for game-maps, and computer processing power to crunch numbers.
I consider a more accurate definition to be a software combination of whiteboard, voice/text chat, and utilities (like a dice roller) that allows tabletop roleplaying to be played by geographically separate gamers.
I also generally add the followig comments. Unlike MMORPGs, VTTs complements rather than supplants traditional tabletop roleplaying. The users of the VTTs uses the same books and procedures. Like all internet based communication VTTs lacks the human contact of face to face which is why gamer still prefer traditional fact to face session. But it does bring advantages in allowing gaming groups to stay together or form despite geographical separation. VTTs can also enhance the tabletop experience with fog of war and automating rules. For example detecting a critical hit or miss and immediately rolling on the correct critical table.
Quote from: warp9;731883So, on the topic of Virtual Table Tops. . . .
What ones are out there?
This a pretty comprehensive list (http://rpgvirtualtabletop.wikidot.com/vt-comparison-chart)
Quote from: warp9;731883What do people think of this concept?
This probably one of the most important developments in the hobby in the past decade and probably wind up saving it.
And what do they want to see from a VTT? (http://rpgvirtualtabletop.wikidot.com/vt-comparison-chart)
The publishers making a ruleset a first class product alongside their books. The real trick is to some up with a standard ruleset" format that VTTs can then import and support.
Quote from: warp9;731883There are a few of them around that I know about. One that I used most recently was Tabletop Forge ( https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joshuha/tabletop-forge-the-virtual-tabletop-for-google-han ).
It been folded into Roll20 when the developer realized the two shared 90% of the same goals. Plus Roll20 was way more polished in every area except for Google+ integration. The Tabletop Forge developer helped them with that so it all worked out in the end.
Quote from: warp9;731883And, more recent developments which I happened to hear about include: Mote (which I learned about on this site https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/740970397/mote-guaranteed-to-be-the-best-virtual-tabletop-ev ) and Storyscape ( http://slabtowngames.com/ although the Slabtown team seem to be regrouping after the failure of their recent Kickstarter campaign) .
I use Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds myself. Rightnow I think Roll20 is the one to beat. Fantasy Grounds remains the cadillac of VTTs and has pushed out a major new update that makes making new ruleset easier.
Quote from: warp9;731883This topic is of special interest to me because, some years back, I put some work into a VTT of my own. I ended up mothballing that project, but was considering dusting it off. I was wondering if it was worth going back to, and what directions I should take the project if I did go back to it. That is actually one of the major motivations behind starting this thread (although I would like the thread to be about VTTs in general, rather than focusing entirely on any single application).
I think the field is crowded and the leaders are far ahead of the pack. The killer being not the software side but the easy integration of an on-line store so you can get tokens, maps, and other stuff to use with the VTT. Roll20 has stormed ahead on the strength of being a server based VTT and the outstanding integration of their store.
But the history of software is littered with cases where a better widget won out against a competitor. Hell Roll20 came out of nowhere and not only became the leading web based VTT but also surged to equal or lead Fantasy Grounds, Battlegrounds, RPGTools line.
Quote from: warp9;731883And also tried playing games by play-by-post and play-by-email.
The above two don't replicate a traditional session of tabletop. Their only advantage is that you can update the campaign at leisure.
Quote from: warp9;731883my own vision of a 3D virtual world where the computer handles all the rules (tracks damage, ammo, fatigue, encumbrance, etc), while the GM and players control the various characters.
Neverwinter Nights did this. It a lot of work for little gain. Sorry to be so negative but 3D is always going to be an order of magnitude more difficult to create than just slapping a scanned image of a map in a VTT.
With that said, if somebody, like you, was to be make a go at 3D, then treat it like Dwarven Forge terrain. To wit,
Focus on "sets" whose elements can combine to create many common locales. Just like Dwarven Forge.
Make it a mode within a larger software. Don't make it the primary or only way of running the session. Let me use tokens and an image if that all I want to do. And example of this Roll20's dynamic lighting. To use Dynamic lighting you have to bring in your map as normal and redraw all the wall using a special invisible layer. Then you can assign lighting to character or object and the place will light up natural. But this is an option over and above just slapping an image up and turning on fog of war.
Quote from: warp9;731883On the other hand, for the computer to track everything it has to know about everything, which would make it pretty hard to make stuff up on the fly, which is something I do a lot as a GM. So there can be some downsides to a project which is as encompassing as what I visualize.
Again think Dwarven Forge. What I would do in your shoes is try to figure out how Roll20 works and then build your stuff to be as similar as possible but focusing on the 3D. Then offer it to them to intregrate as a mode.
In turn, aside from paying you, they can use their marketplace to offer dwarven forge style sets to use with the 3D Mode.
Quote from: warp9;731884[URL="http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/FlyingAlongDryRiverBed.jpg"Shot of a character flying along a dry creek bed[/URL]. . . .
Hovering at the edge of where the dry creek meets a larger river (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/HoveringAtEdgeOfRiver.jpg). . .
.Hovering over a bridge that crosses another point in the river (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/HoveringOverBridge.jpg). . . .
Sorry that setup looks to be too much work. What would be nice is a set of 3D "tiles" that I can throw down an snap in. Designed like Dwarven Forge to look good in a variety of configurations.
Roll20 is the top dog right now. I loved MapTool for its functionality so I hope that Mote is a true heir to it.
I apologize if I missed it in one of the walls o' text above, but what happened to MapTool?
Quote from: Bobloblah;731939I apologize if I missed it in one of the walls o' text above, but what happened to MapTool?
It still have people using it. It has the downside of people needing to fiddle with their routers and not as flashy as Fantasy Grounds. But it free and well made with a line of associated tools to support it.
I thought I remembered something from during the development of Realm Works that they were going to integrate with MapTool...I'll see if I can dig it up...
EDIT: I must be mis-remembering, as all I can find are conversations about potential future integration requests, with nothing, really, from Lone Wolf.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;731907I'm running my current 7th Sea campaign online out of necessity since my brother lives in England.
It's just... awful. An exercise in frustration. Because it's so convenient, normally good players are too relaxed and constantly arrive late. Everyone is tempted to browse the internet when it isn't "me time", slowing down the proceedings when they get caught unawares. Because we can't use body language, facial cues or presence techniques players are constantly interrupting each other. Online dice rollers are clunky, especially if you have unusual dice mechanics.
All that, and the experience just feels less warm. I want to see these people people smiling or gaping, I want to feel their energy.
I can't imagine what it would be like if I had less skilled players. I wish a virtual tabletop really could work because gaming keeps getting tougher to balance with adult life, but I don't think I'll ever do it again.
I'm sorry to hear that your experience was an exercise in frustration.
Most of my own experience in on-line gaming has been by play-by-post, which, as has been pointed out, is not the same as a VTT. And I actually had a very good time with that, although it could go a bit slowly at times.
Quote from: estar;731926I consider a more accurate definition to be a software combination of whiteboard, voice/text chat, and utilities (like a dice roller) that allows tabletop roleplaying to be played by geographically separate gamers.
I also generally add the followig comments. Unlike MMORPGs, VTTs complements rather than supplants traditional tabletop roleplaying. The users of the VTTs uses the same books and procedures. Like all internet based communication VTTs lacks the human contact of face to face which is why gamer still prefer traditional fact to face session. But it does bring advantages in allowing gaming groups to stay together or form despite geographical separation. VTTs can also enhance the tabletop experience with fog of war and automating rules. For example detecting a critical hit or miss and immediately rolling on the correct critical table.
Thanks! :) That is a better definition than what I had.
Quote from: estar;731926This a pretty comprehensive list (http://rpgvirtualtabletop.wikidot.com/vt-comparison-chart)
Again thanks---I will check that out.
Quote from: estar;731926And what do they want to see from a VTT? (http://rpgvirtualtabletop.wikidot.com/vt-comparison-chart)
That is a cool chart of all the features of the different VTTs!
Quote from: estar;731926The above two don't replicate a traditional session of tabletop. Their only advantage is that you can update the campaign at leisure.
Agreed. But I really liked being able to take the extra time to react to what the PCs were doing. Although things could go a bit slowly in some cases.
Quote from: estar;731926Quotemy own vision of a 3D virtual world where the computer handles all the rules (tracks damage, ammo, fatigue, encumbrance, etc), while the GM and players control the various characters.
Neverwinter Nights did this. It a lot of work for little gain. Sorry to be so negative but 3D is always going to be an order of magnitude more difficult to create than just slapping a scanned image of a map in a VTT.
Yeah, that is a valid point about the 3D stuff. No matter how cool a 3D environment is, it will be irrelevant if it is too much of a pain for the GM to make use of. And Don't worry about being negative. I'm looking for what ever feedback I can get, so your comments are very much appreciated.
Quote from: estar;731926With that said, if somebody, like you, was to be make a go at 3D, then treat it like Dwarven Forge terrain. To wit,
Focus on "sets" whose elements can combine to create many common locales. Just like Dwarven Forge.
Hmm. Interesting suggestion.
Quote from: estar;731926Make it a mode within a larger software. Don't make it the primary or only way of running the session. Let me use tokens and an image if that all I want to do. And example of this Roll20's dynamic lighting. To use Dynamic lighting you have to bring in your map as normal and redraw all the wall using a special invisible layer. Then you can assign lighting to character or object and the place will light up natural. But this is an option over and above just slapping an image up and turning on fog of war.
If I were going to use my set-up for running a game. I think I'd probably combine it with something like what I had in my play-by-post experiences. I'd make use of the 3D combat simulator part only when I had a specific scene I wanted to play out with it, otherwise I'd stick to more of a free-form environment. So, if I go forward with this project, I'd probably be integrating it with some other environment.
Quote from: estar;731926Again think Dwarven Forge. What I would do in your shoes is try to figure out how Roll20 works and then build your stuff to be as similar as possible but focusing on the 3D. Then offer it to them to intregrate as a mode.
In turn, aside from paying you, they can use their marketplace to offer dwarven forge style sets to use with the 3D Mode.
I will look into Roll20, and see what I think.
And thanks for all the useful suggestions. :)
Quote from: Bobloblah;731939I apologize if I missed it in one of the walls o' text above, but what happened to MapTool?
I'd like to hear more about MapTool---it sounds like it has some cool features.
And it is my understanding that Mote (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/740970397/mote-guaranteed-to-be-the-best-virtual-tabletop-ev) is trying to extend MapTool functionality.
I believe my security tech uses Maptool extensively for online RPG sessions and has used it for tracking movement for local group meeting once.
Seems to work well. But he said converting and prepping a map was a nuisance. Otherwise seems to work fairly well.
Quote from: warp9;731990Hmm. Interesting suggestion.
The more I think about it the Dwarven Forge style approach would probably "solve" the issues with 3D and online tabletop roleplaying. We already have people dealing with the issues of managing 3D terrain during face to face. Just like the virtual Whiteboard is a good translation of the real whiteboard that many use. Perhaps looking at how 3D terrain are used in actual play would give insight on how to make a VTT to incorporate them.
If it was a Roll20 Add-on, you approach of using them for specific encounter would be easy. Just make a 3D "map" instead of a 2D map with the sets you own or uploaded. Then switch over when it is time. Or just throw in tile pieces as the party moves through the map which is another way of using Dwarven Forge.
Quote from: warp9;731990I will look into Roll20, and see what I think.
And thanks for all the useful suggestions. :)
No problem, I prefer face to face (and still running sessions at the local game store) but been using VTT for five years now to keep my original group together.
Quote from: Bobloblah;731939I apologize if I missed it in one of the walls o' text above, but what happened to MapTool?
No patches/updates in a year to the "stable" 1.3 version, and development on 1.4 is looking increasingly like vapourware.
Annoyingly, 1.3 requires Java 6 and doesn't work on Java 7, and Java 6 is now out of support by Sun even for security fixes I believe.
So basically, it's currently an abandon ware product that requires you to install in insecure SDK to run it. There's a kickstarter currently running for "Mote", which as far as I can tell is some new developer's fork of 1.3. Quite why I should pledge money to an unknown developer to produce a fork of an abandoned product that was previously free escapes me, but I admit I've not looked in to it too much as I gave up on MT about 9 months ago in favour of Fantasy Grounds.
Quote from: Grymbok;732115No patches/updates in a year to the "stable" 1.3 version, and development on 1.4 is looking increasingly like vapourware.
Annoyingly, 1.3 requires Java 6 and doesn't work on Java 7, and Java 6 is now out of support by Sun even for security fixes I believe.
So basically, it's currently an abandon ware product that requires you to install in insecure SDK to run it. There's a kickstarter currently running for "Mote", which as far as I can tell is some new developer's fork of 1.3. Quite why I should pledge money to an unknown developer to produce a fork of an abandoned product that was previously free escapes me, but I admit I've not looked in to it too much as I gave up on MT about 9 months ago in favour of Fantasy Grounds.
Great summation of the state of things with MapTool. My group left MapTool as well, but we switched to Roll20. Roll20 is heavily supported and constantly adding features. Also, it is very user friendly and easy to ease out of the box.
Quote from: estar;732097The more I think about it the Dwarven Forge style approach would probably "solve" the issues with 3D and online tabletop roleplaying. We already have people dealing with the issues of managing 3D terrain during face to face. Just like the virtual Whiteboard is a good translation of the real whiteboard that many use. Perhaps looking at how 3D terrain are used in actual play would give insight on how to make a VTT to incorporate them.
The tiles seem like a good way to go; and I will look into adding something like that in.
Although I think I should add that I'm not sure that my current method is as difficult to work with as you might think.
The current landscape is built out of blocks, which are basically like 3D pixels. And really, the 3D part of built up of a series of flat layers. So it is like a bunch of stacked 2D images.
You previously mentioned that it was an
"order of magnitude more difficult to create than just slapping a scanned image of a map in a VTT", but doesn't have to be much more difficult in my set-up. It would be pretty easy to just read in a scanned image (say maybe of a bunch of lines representing walls) and then convert those pixels over to the blocks (walls) in my set up.
Working form within the program, drawing in walls and such is pretty easy. It is just like a paint program, only instead of choosing a color to draw with, you choose a material type to draw in (a palette with lots and lots of material options is presented, and you just chose what you want to draw with). You can freehand paint with a given material, or fill in rectangular areas, or draw lines, and/or circles. You can also just as easily erase blocks.
And, if a designer wanted to stay on a single plane (single-layer), it wouldn't be any more complicated than that. But if a user can understand that my landscapes are built up like layers on a cake (each layer is basically 2D), and understand about selecting layers (which is easy), then that is all one needs to know about building up a full 3D landscape in my set up.
To deal with a specific comment:
Quote from: estar;731929Quote from: warp9;731884Shot of a character flying along a dry creek bed (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/FlyingAlongDryRiverBed.jpg). . . .
Hovering at the edge of where the dry creek meets a larger river (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/HoveringAtEdgeOfRiver.jpg). . .
.Hovering over a bridge that crosses another point in the river (http://siliconstorm.net/warphex/HoveringOverBridge.jpg). . . .
Sorry that setup looks to be too much work. What would be nice is a set of 3D "tiles" that I can throw down an snap in. Designed like Dwarven Forge to look good in a variety of configurations.
As far as being too much work, the landscape and bridge only took a few minutes to build.
First, I started out in my favorite paint program (GIMP), and created a gray-scale image (nothing fancy) for the landscape I wanted. I used white for cliff tops, gray for average height, slightly darker gray for the dry river bottoms, and the darkest colors for pits and the main river bottom. My program read in the image (as an elevation map), and converted it over to the 3D landscape you saw.
For stuff like the bridge, I had to tweak that a bit.
I selected a gray-stone-block for my drawing material. And went to rectangle draw mode (so I could window an area, and fill it with my material). I selected the layer that I wanted my bridge to be on. And windowed the area where I wanted my bridge to be. That rectangular area was filled with the stone I'd selected. And, as simple as that, I had a stone slab running across the river for my bridge. And I could have ended the whole process there if I wanted to.
However, since I wanted my bridge to look fancy, I did a bit more than that. But I still used the exact same process of drawing in materials, by selecting various draw rectangles.
Again, the landscape and bridge took just a few minutes to create.
I will admit that working in 3D is probably always going to be slightly harder than working in 2D, but I don't think my set up is too much harder than that.
I'd argue that it would probably be harder to select and manipulate a whole bunch of tiles than it was to do things my way. However, the tiles have merit because they look better. What I'm doing for a land scape, unfortunately, has a sort of block-like look to it.
Dwarven Forge tiles would look really cool if implemented, and I will try to do something similar. My only concern there is poly-count (which is something the DF folks don't have to worry about). A really cool looking piece could have a lot of polys. And, if you put enough of those cool pieces next to each other, you'll end up with a real strain on your system.
Quote from: Drohem;732130Great summation of the state of things with MapTool. My group left MapTool as well, but we switched to Roll20. Roll20 is heavily supported and constantly adding features. Also, it is very user friendly and easy to ease out of the box.
I've not tried Roll20. We've always used - and valued - the ruleset integration in MapTool and Fantasy Grounds, so with Roll20 pitching itself as "just" a die roller and map sharer it didn't look of interest.
We're also finding that we prefer the way that FG downplays the map a bit. MapTool (as you'd expect from the name) makes the map very much the focus of the experience, and so pushes you towards thinking in terms of minis based combat all the time. FG feels a bit more like a real game table with a pile of stuff on it.
Quote from: warp9;732234The current landscape is built out of blocks, which are basically like 3D pixels. And really, the 3D part of built up of a series of flat layers. So it is like a bunch of stacked 2D images.
Your screenshots look like terrain made out of heroscape. No matter how well made or painted a heroscape setup is not going to look as good as the Dwarven Forge style equivalent.
With the Dwarven Forge approach each tile is a fully rendered (and of course optimized for performance) piece of 3d Terrain. The trick to design a small number of very good looking pieces that interlock to form a variety of setups. Just like Dwarven Forae and similar products.
Quote from: warp9;732234You previously mentioned that it was an "order of magnitude more difficult to create than just slapping a scanned image of a map in a VTT", but doesn't have to be much more difficult in my set-up. It would be pretty easy to just read in a scanned image (say maybe of a bunch of lines representing walls) and then convert those pixels over to the blocks (walls) in my set up.
Converting pixels to vector (which is the first step in a 3D conversion) is a tough task. And with straight line dungeon it would be worse because the scan will rarely be perfectly aligned. Resulting in bad looking errors.
At the average consumer level it works well as first pass tool but then you are back to a process that is more time consuming than just slapping a 2d image up and using tokens. I run into this issue all the time while writing and maintaining CAD-CAM software for metal cutting machines.
Quote from: warp9;732234It is just like a paint program,
Right there is the problem. Even with VTTs, most referees are not using paint programs. They rely on bought or downloaded images for the most part. You could make your 3D editor as easy to use as the best paint programs out there but it still would be an order of magnitude more time consuming than just taking an image, download/scan, and slapping it up there.
For a VTT to successfully compete the 3D has to be addition too not instead of the whiteboard.
Then to add on using the most easy to use paint program is still more time consuming then using a tile based program like Hexographer.
I will admit that working in 3D is probably always going to be slightly harder than working in 2D, but I don't think my set up is too much harder than that.
I'd argue that it would probably be harder to select and manipulate a whole bunch of tiles than it was to do things my way. However, the tiles have merit because they look better. What I'm doing for a land scape, unfortunately, has a sort of block-like look to it.
Quote from: warp9;732234Dwarven Forge tiles would look really cool if implemented, and I will try to do something similar. My only concern there is poly-count (which is something the DF folks don't have to worry about). A really cool looking piece could have a lot of polys. And, if you put enough of those cool pieces next to each other, you'll end up with a real strain on your system.
Go here
Dwarven Forge Map Maker (http://www.dwarvenforge.com/mapmaker/)
Look at the 2d Tiles put by Wizards.
You will see that there only a limited number of shapes. Because of that you can create highly optimized models. Because they are laid on a grid you have options for optimizing culling.
Just look at Neverwinter Night I and the aurora engine.
Quote from: Grymbok;732251I've not tried Roll20. We've always used - and valued - the ruleset integration in MapTool and Fantasy Grounds, so with Roll20 pitching itself as "just" a die roller and map sharer it didn't look of interest.
We're also finding that we prefer the way that FG downplays the map a bit. MapTool (as you'd expect from the name) makes the map very much the focus of the experience, and so pushes you towards thinking in terms of minis based combat all the time. FG feels a bit more like a real game table with a pile of stuff on it.
I like Roll20 because it is system neutral which allows you to play any game system.
Quote from: Drohem;732309I like Roll20 because it is system neutral which allows you to play any game system.
Yeah. It's good to have both options out there, IMO.
It's certainly possible I'll swap over to Roll20 (or similar) for my next campaign, as the rules I'm considering using are not supported in FG, and I'm not sure I will have the time to develop a ruleset module for it myself.
Quote from: Warthur;731906I'm currently running AD&D 2E on Roll20.net, which I don't see listed in your post.
I am running on Roll20 as well, and I love it. I highly recommend Roll20.
Quote from: Grymbok;732115No patches/updates in a year to the "stable" 1.3 version, and development on 1.4 is looking increasingly like vapourware.
Annoyingly, 1.3 requires Java 6 and doesn't work on Java 7, and Java 6 is now out of support by Sun even for security fixes I believe.
So basically, it's currently an abandon ware product that requires you to install in insecure SDK to run it. There's a kickstarter currently running for "Mote", which as far as I can tell is some new developer's fork of 1.3. Quite why I should pledge money to an unknown developer to produce a fork of an abandoned product that was previously free escapes me, but I admit I've not looked in to it too much as I gave up on MT about 9 months ago in favour of Fantasy Grounds.
I'm happy this thread touched on our Kickstarter project, but I didn't want to take away from the original topic. I do realize my thread about it isn't where most people in these forums go to, so here's a link (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=28989).
Anyway, I felt compelled to correct several misconceptions made on the qoute above.
First, the latest official Maptool 1.3 build (90) is Java 7 compliant. It's been out there for months, though the devs understand that people are averse to the word "beta", which is odd, since even roll20 is in constant beta with regard to new features.
It is by no stretch or means abandonware, as the community actively adds to the content, whereas there have been numerous patches submitted over the past months. Also, since Mote is being developed, it stands to reason that MapTool's code base is very much alive and looks to be on par with any VTT offering, given enough support. Our Kickstarter page (http://kck.st/NNpxep)clearly shows how far we've taken it, if people take the time to peruse the video proof and their annotations. (Most don't, understandably). Aside from Mote, there are 2 hobby-based forks that seek to add plug-in support, and replace MT script with Groovy.
Which brings me to myself, I've submitted most of those patches, and anyone can review my contributions by visiting the RPTools' forum (http://forums.rptools.net). I'm also the lead developer for Mote, and being "unknown" would easily be mitigated if one puts MapTool beside Mote and makes a comparison, since I did most of the interface improvements, code refactoring, library upgrade, and architectural drafts for the development roadmap. I'd understand the comment if we came around and said "Hey, we've forked MapTool!" and had no evidence to show for our work.
And while it escapes some people as to why support should be given to our Kickstarter project, the reasons are simple, as they are profound:
- People back the project to support development time, and not the final product, which is meant to be free for everyone to own and use.
- Frameworks, which is MapTools' version of rulesets, were always a good idea. This is where commuity driven development trumps relying on an application's developers to make stuff for everyone.
- With that being said, Mote provides world building tools to people who can leverage them, with the contract being, they should make their work available to the tabletop community.
- Specifics of such tools are SQL databases (for large, public compendiums on any game set), headless service (for people who want to make their own, and in our opinion, more reliable, Roll20 service), HTML5 and Javascript, a full animation API, a market of its own, and so much more.
- All of these, and more left unsaid, for FREE, and the code will be open sourced to boot. This is good attribution to the original topic of this thread, though your (OP) idea seems akin to Storyscape.
- Lastly, like a select few VTTs, people will own Mote. No subscriptions; no reliance on a central service that may or may not live forever; people will have freedom to host their game related content anywhere they choose; and no internet requirement.
People will knock the difficulties in setting MapTool up, and try to attribute the same to the Mote Project, but we wouldn't be calling it a "heavily enhanced fork" of MapTool, without first dealing with user experience issues. I understand people will be skeptical, so I'll just say this: Keep an eye out for Mote. It
will be good for the tabletop community.
Please refer any questions regarding Mote to the thread shared above :)
Thanks.
Quote from: estar;732286Your screenshots look like terrain made out of heroscape. No matter how well made or painted a heroscape setup is not going to look as good as the Dwarven Forge style equivalent.
That is probably true. Although I do think the Heroscape stuff like this (http://0.tqn.com/d/boardgames/1/0/k/l/gencon07_heroscape_19.jpg) looks pretty cool.
And, I'll add that while heroscape seems limited to hexes, my set-up also incorporates rectangular shapes too (as you can see with the creation of the bridge).
Quote from: estar;732286Converting pixels to vector (which is the first step in a 3D conversion)
Not in my case.
What you are probably talking about is going from pixels, which are just a bunch of little squares, and trying to figure out what kind of larger mathematical objects they make (lines, arcs, etc).
However, in the case of my system, everything is built up of little 3D blocks. There are no larger-mathematical-entities. So all I'm really talking about is converting 1 pixel to 1 block. Which is simple.
Quote from: estar;732286Then to add on using the most easy to use paint program is still more time consuming then using a tile based program like Hexographer.
Actually looking over at Hexographer's site, it looks like they are talking about the exact same thing as I am. It seems to me like what they are talking about is basically "painting" in hexes. . . .
http://www.hexographer.com/instructions/quick-start/
5. Customize it by clicking a terrain button on the right side of the map then clicking hexes on the map where you desire that terrain type. (You can also drag over terrain to change a bunch of terrain to the selected type or you can right click a hex on the map to pop up a menu.)So, it is "chose a hex-type, then click on the hexes on the grid you want to change" ---sounds basically like "painting in hexes" to me. That is just like how you change pixels on the screen grid to a given color. Although rather than drawing a single pixel, we are talking about drawing a terrain element.
They even have the same type of ability to window a large area and convert the whole area over to a given terrain type. Again, that sounds exactly the same as what I'm doing.
The only real difference is that my set-up incorporates both hexes and squares (having squares allows for you to build up stuff like the bridge---which would be hard to build out of hexes).
Quote from: estar;732286Go here
Dwarven Forge Map Maker (http://www.dwarvenforge.com/mapmaker/)
Look at the 2d Tiles put by Wizards.
You will see that there only a limited number of shapes. Because of that you can create highly optimized models. Because they are laid on a grid you have options for optimizing culling.
Just look at Neverwinter Night I and the aurora engine.
Yeah, that is all true, but some of the coolest DF stuff is like this :
here (http://www.dwarvenforge.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.pbv.v1.tpl&product_id=16441&category_id=2&redirected=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=23),
or here (http://www.dwarvenforge.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.pbv.v1.tpl&product_id=16405&category_id=2&redirected=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=23),
or here (http://www.dwarvenforge.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.pbv.v1.tpl&product_id=16352&category_id=2&redirected=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=23).
A lot of that stuff is not exactly going to be low poly.
Of course, you can do simpler pieces, and you can make a low-poly object look pretty good, if you do things correctly.
Quote from: lcalbas;732463I'm happy this thread touched on our Kickstarter project, but I didn't want to take away from the original topic.
That *IS* part of the original topic, so I hope we do get to discuss your project here. :)
I'll be happy to answer questions regarding it when it comes up then :)
I forgot to mention, aside from Storyscape, did you see Tabletop Connect (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/840448191/tabletop-connect-3d-virtual-tabletop)? This, hands down, is the most top shelf 3D VTT, successfully funded to boot.
Hopefully the creator releases tools to import 3D models into his applications, though I do understand it may be more lucrative to be the sole provider of 3D minis for the time being. It does allow for paper dolls, so I guess there'll still be some diversity with regard to image assets. All in all, impressive work, though not surprising given his industry experience.
Quote from: lcalbas;732467I'll be happy to answer questions regarding it when it comes up then :)
Awesome!
I do have a few questions, but I may need to know more about MapTool to really understand what you are trying to do. I watched your videos over on your kickstarter site. I liked the one with the Map-system, but I found some of them hard to follow. That was especially true with the ones about the macro-editor and the data-base stuff. Maybe I just need to watch them again, but I think a voice-over describing what was going on might have helped me a bit.
Quote from: lcalbas;732467I forgot to mention, aside from Storyscape, did you see Tabletop Connect (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/840448191/tabletop-connect-3d-virtual-tabletop)? This, hands down, is the most top shelf 3D VTT, successfully funded to boot.
No, I hadn't heard about that, I will check it out now.
Cool np. All our videos have annotations, you just have to turn them on (unless you did already of course). We had a deal for voice-overs but something happened with the coordination and it didn't make it on launch day.
I hope you enjoyed seeing TTC. I know I did :))
Quote from: lcalbas;732463I'm happy this thread touched on our Kickstarter project, but I didn't want to take away from the original topic. I do realize my thread about it isn't where most people in these forums go to, so here's a link (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=28989).
Anyway, I felt compelled to correct several misconceptions made on the qoute above.
First, the latest official Maptool 1.3 build (90) is Java 7 compliant. It's been out there for months, though the devs understand that people are averse to the word "beta", which is odd, since even roll20 is in constant beta with regard to new features.
OK... Except the MapTooks homepage still links only to b89, and has the Java 7 is unsupported warning. B89 isn't linked on the downloads page, and there's no thread for it that I can see in the announcements forum.
So it's not exactly easy to find for casual MT users. I'm assuming the download link is somewhere in the b89 thread?
Oh, on the "beta" question - MT releases other than public releases have been notoriously buggy over the years, so it's a flag that means more to that community than sum I'd expect.
QuoteIt is by no stretch or means abandonware, as the community actively adds to the content, whereas there have been numerous patches submitted over the past months. Also, since Mote is being developed, it stands to reason that MapTool's code base is very much alive and looks to be on par with any VTT offering, given enough support.
Is anyone active on MT outside of Mote now? To me it looks like MT is dead and your Mote fork is all that is being actively developed.
Don't get me wrong - I think MT is a good product that deserves to live on, and I'm happy that someone is still supporting it. At this point given the lack if interest from the original developers, a fork is probably the best option.
On the kickstarter - if it was for core MapTool and being run by Trevor or dorpond (or even RPTroll), then I'd understand it. Getting some funding in would allow them to drop the day job for a while and work on the tool, I get it. But for you as a new developer (who has not, unless I've misunderstood you, shipped any useable builds yet) there is that question of "why should I trust you?". Hopefully your videos will help build that trust with your potential backers. As I've moved on from MT to other tools myself I've not taken the time to watch them through.
Just chipping in after a Google Hangouts game of Runequest last night.
We had a standard hangout, a dice roller for those who wanted it. Some used real dice and pointed the camera at what they rolled. Character sheets were PDfs, and maps (for reference) were jpgs. Things went swimmingly. Nice atmosphere, no major problems.
One thing that did help was using multiple desktops in OSX (Linux users also have access to this, I am not sure about Windows users). A quick swipe left and right took me across to my data. Simples. No need for overly complicated mapping, tracking or bean counting tools.
A bit like a normal tabletop.
Quote from: lcalbas;732463First, the latest official Maptool 1.3 build (90) is Java 7 compliant. It's been out there for months, though the devs understand that people are averse to the word "beta", which is odd, since even roll20 is in constant beta with regard to new features.
Do you happen to have a link to build 90? I looked on RPTools.net and cannot see one readily available.
Quote from: Grymbok;732494OK... Except the MapTooks homepage still links only to b89, and has the Java 7 is unsupported warning. B89 isn't linked on the downloads page, and there's no thread for it that I can see in the announcements forum.
So it's not exactly easy to find for casual MT users. I'm assuming the download link is somewhere in the b89 thread?
Oh, on the "beta" question - MT releases other than public releases have been notoriously buggy over the years, so it's a flag that means more to that community than sum I'd expect.
Is anyone active on MT outside of Mote now? To me it looks like MT is dead and your Mote fork is all that is being actively developed.
Don't get me wrong - I think MT is a good product that deserves to live on, and I'm happy that someone is still supporting it. At this point given the lack if interest from the original developers, a fork is probably the best option.
On the kickstarter - if it was for core MapTool and being run by Trevor or dorpond (or even RPTroll), then I'd understand it. Getting some funding in would allow them to drop the day job for a while and work on the tool, I get it. But for you as a new developer (who has not, unless I've misunderstood you, shipped any useable builds yet) there is that question of "why should I trust you?". Hopefully your videos will help build that trust with your potential backers. As I've moved on from MT to other tools myself I've not taken the time to watch them through.
Thanks for the honest opinions. They're invaluable to us because these are things we definitely have to overcome in order to get more support.
Frank (Azhrei), Craig, JFJ, and username (I don't know his real name lol), can still be considered active. My guess as to their silence over the past 2 months is due to Mote. It's not that they're hostile or anything, it's more like their way of staying on their side of the line.
Which brings the discussion on why the Mote project began: Philosophical differences on how to get to the next version MapTool. The MapTool ideal is admirable, and I certainly adhere to most of it in Mote, but the problems you point out about beta releases being buggy, release schedules being arbitrary, etc. all stem from this great app being run on a context that is volunteer-based, and freezing new feature submissions. This basically dried up willing testers and developers, because new features will always be more appealing than doing regression tests on each build. If not for the hardcore followers, no one would be reporting bugs, and tracking fixes.
In light of the surge of other VTTs (i.e. roll20) I (we) proposed getting to 2.0 in a different way, else we lose even more of the user base to these. This KS is the result of our planning. The plan is to have something now as a viable alternative for VTT enthusiasts. As Mote's feature set grows larger, and the goals of user-friendliness and reliability are met, we believe it will turn (at least some of) the tide in the conversation of free and fully featured VTTs vs. exclusive and "freemium" VTT business models.
With supported development, as what Mote is asking for, things will be markedly different. In the big picture, this is the implementation of most, if not all, of the Agile type of software development. Devs will be sustained full time while writing the project, and there will be more involvement from the community since they've made an actual investment, financially or through active "evangelizing".
There will be a schedule to follow, and if some aspect doesn't get noticed, it is because the community did not bring it up to be attended to. But there will always be correspondence, and community driven feature request is balanced by sane bounds set by software engineering rules.
(Sorry to ramble like that. It's for the other readers)
Trevor, gilliath, and dorpond support any kind of project that pushes MapTool forward. The code is open-sourced after all, and Mote will be no different. It will always attribute back to its parent project, and a lot of parts in Mote will be contributed toward 2.0. We've gone so far as to have informal discussions with RPTools for Mote to become 1.4. Without seeing how Mote will end up like (maturity wise), we've put this aside as a bridge to cross when we get there.
I'm glad you've chimed in, Grymbok. Personally, it is my hope to see you making your way back to the MapTool/Mote community if and when you get to try out Mote :)
Edit:
Sorry, Drohem, we posted almost at the same time. Here's Azhrei's Dropbox link for b90 (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qu72911q6fzo60z/lklyr5pptW). It includes a link to our new launcher which we remade from the old one so it can be cross-platform. Here's the forums link (http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=24076) for the testing discussions. There are several reported bugs because some of the latest patches have not been applied yet, but these mostly concern advanced users who do a lot of script. Check this link (http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=23835) for the list, and see if these affect you in any way.
Quote from: lcalbas;732476Cool np. All our videos have annotations, you just have to turn them on (unless you did already of course). We had a deal for voice-overs but something happened with the coordination and it didn't make it on launch day.
I watched your videos again.
For some reason I wasn't able to get the annotations working on the SQL one. But, as long as I kept my mouse over the pause button, I was able to stop things where I needed, and look carefully at what was going on---so it was much easier to understand this time around.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;732499One thing that did help was using multiple desktops in OSX (Linux users also have access to this, I am not sure about Windows users). A quick swipe left and right took me across to my data. Simples. No need for overly complicated mapping, tracking or bean counting tools.
A bit like a normal tabletop.
". . . like a normal tabletop."
This seems to be a common theme---the idea of replicating the experience of a normal tabletop. I guess where I differ is that, rather than replicating the tabletop, I'd like to do things you can't do on a normal table top.
That was one of the points that really stood out for me with Storyscape. In an interview about Storyscape, Robin Laws
(who designed the game system that Storyscape is based on) makes it pretty clear that his intent was not just to replicate the table-top experience, but to go beyond it:
QuoteTags are new for Storyscape. It's something you could never implement in a straight-up tabletop environment, and that's why I really wanted to be involved with this. I think that the person who succeeds in making this happen will not just be replicating tabletop rules, which are designed for ease of handling, but instead take advantage of the innate properties of this new medium. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131748-Robin-Laws-Divulges-Storyscape-Tablet-RPG-System-Details)
While I'm not sure I agree with all the methodology they use, for example I have some questions about how they intend to implement their tag concept, in general terms, the idea of going in new directions
(that you couldn't manage with the old game systems), is pretty close to what I was thinking.
Is this concept controversial?
Quote from: lcalbas;732638I'm glad you've chimed in, Grymbok. Personally, it is my hope to see you making your way back to the MapTool/Mote community if and when you get to try out Mote :)
Thanks for the detailed response. I see that a GUI revamp is on your roadmap - will this include support for skinning?
@warp9 Good to hear. I'll re-check the annotations on the SQL vid, thanks.
And no, I don't think it's controversial. As long as the end result is positive toward a more immersive experiences, people will always support that.
@Grymbok Ideally, we'd want to reach our HTML5 goal so we can redo the interface in JavaFX, where skinning is ridiculously easy (for those who know lol).
Barring that, there are still some tricks available to provide CSS skinning on top of Swing components, but it's really better to have HTML5 support since we can involve a larger community of creators savvy with web design, for in-game stuff.
Quote from: lcalbas;732834And no, I don't think it's controversial. As long as the end result is positive toward a more immersive experiences, people will always support that.
Regarding the "people will always support that" sentiment---I hope so.
Although I still sense that (at least with some gamers) there is a tension between giving people the experience that they are used to having with a normal table top (playing the same systems, using dice the same way, etc) VS going off in new directions.