Holographics: A Possible Future Evolution of Gaming?

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

You know, Kester, I read your post and I thought to myself: "He's never played Neverwinter Nights." Because that is exactly what you're talking about, except adding the detail of 3D holography to the package.

Ultimately, that's not much of a change of the package. Would it change RPGing if it came about? Undoubtedly -- and emphatically -- no. Because it hasn't yet and it already exists on the mass market. [/b]

So far as that goes we managed to play AD&D on the C=64, with the gold box games, with one or two player-characters being controlled by each of us.  Most of us here probably did something similar with other games, not at all the same thing as having a table, or even board game sized pad, that could be capable of 3D pop-up display.  (Think virtual chess board of the sort that looks like a chess boad, has pieces like a chess board, but is a holographic table-top projection.)

Think of it as a device designed as a game-aid, sort of like those flat maps and cardboard cutout minis of the early days, only the map is a dynamic device and the minis 3D holographs.  Now, remember playing those space opera games, the ones in which you always had to pick up the minis to demonstrage visually the sort of maneuver you wanted to attempt?  That would be possible in this sort of 3D game, on the table top, in full color real-time display.

I'm afraid the technology has already passed your idea by, and even holography (of the sort you're referring to) doesn't add much to it or change it notably.

Full-scale immersive holography would certainly change simulated role-playing experiences and MMORPGs considerably, but as you've indicated, that isn't what you're talking about.

Right, though I wouldn't discluded that technology as being yet to be created.  In fact it's probably more likely to be developed than the sort of thing I am talking about.  But which would you prefer, a VR world, or some sort of game aide that allows you to play a traditional game with your friends, in the same room, without having to fold and unfold maps or carry around umpteen tons of lead miniatures?

Ah, pipe dreams.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings contracycle,

Those are some interesting ideas (and nice link, BTW) that could probably be implemented in a LARP today.  Definitely worth thinking about.

Though I think greyorm is right about the idea being one that isn't likely to be implemented, leastwise not anytime soon.  (And probably not as holograms.)  Guess all we can do is wait and see what direction our technology takes us... unless anyone here would like to take the ideas presented in this thread and run with them.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Technology can be funny that way.  Some futurists projected personal flying cars by the 1990s and, here we are, 2003, and no flying cars.

http://www.moller.com/skycar/

I agree that immersive holography will probably not quite replace RPG as it is today, because unless we develope extremely intelleigent agents that can and will reliably create the holographic world on the fly as we move about, the sheer volume of detail to be processed will rapidly exceed the players ability to keep up the pace.  But I think there is a lot of room for then use of something holography-like, or multiple projectors, to raise the level of effects that the players can bring to bear to enhance their own experience.

heh heh heh Flying Car

I'm don't think that holography will replace RPGs but not because of processing speed or anything like that.

Over on RPGnet someone posted a quote from a kid about the first Harry Potter movie. Paraphrasing, the kid said something to the effect of she didn't like the movie as much as the book because because when reading the book, she built it in her head but watching the movie she couldn't do that. This is what I meant by the imaginative necessity of RPGs. When playing the locations, persons and events are built up completely in the imagination of the participants. When the GM says the characters go into a seedy bar, the players use their own imagination for what a seedy bar looks like. The result is actually better than if the GM described the surroundings in detail because the players work backwards from the description of a seedy bar.

That is, with pure description, the GM has to describe everything and as the details are laid out the players eventually come to the conclusion that this is a seedy bar. The other way is the GM just says "seedy bar" and the players use their own imagination to fill in the details of what a seedy bar is, whatever may constitute "seedy" to that player so that the Color of a seedy bar is definately in everyone's mind. The description method can sometimes fall short of the intended atmosphere (This place isn't so bad. I used to eat breakfast in worse places in real life) and takes more effort on all of the players' parts, GM included.

This is what I mean when I say that a hologram RPG game might be great, but it really isn't a substitute or replacement for RPGs. They'd be related but are not the same thing.

[Drew Stevens]

Heh.

That'd actually be amusing.  A Narrativist driven MMORPG- instead of the DM building each individual 'shady bar', the Player could build a stable of a half a dozen or so.  The DM would designate an area 'Shady bar', and each player would see a slightly different scene.  Or it'd grab one of the player's.  Or something.  :)

[Le Joueur]

Okay; it looks like this is going nowhere but quick.

Listen, from the get go - beyond the 'gee golly' gizmo idea - hasn't this thread been mostly about patent self-doubt?

Should you need a holographic projector if you're confident that you can present a colorful description of a 'seedy bar?'  I'd like to think that bordering on 'machine intuition' it would take far longer to program in what you would think of as a 'seedy bar' than it would to simply 'paint a picture with words.'

Honestly, last night the local CBS affiliate did a news story on a schizophrenic who got so lost in Neverwinter Nights that when someone online rebuffed the proposal of marriage he made with a character called 'I love you,' he shot himself.

I'd like to think by now it would be obvious where MUDDs, MUSHes, and online games (like The Sims Online, Phantasy Star Online, or Neverwinter Nights) differed drastically from role-playing games.  Ron spelled it out a few months back with a five part 'statement' about gaming.

It isn't the imaginary space, the descriptions, or neat toys; it's the socializing.  I think it's clear (because of the fact that movies didn't destroy theatre and television didn't destroy the movies, and CRPGs haven't destroyed tabletop gaming) that even if a German Scientist offered you the ultimate holographic gaming suite (even if it was only for your left foot), there would be things that it was better at than role-playing games and things that role-playing games are better at than it.  I just don't see people giving up the 'face to face' of gaming even for their left foot.

That's why I'm concerned with how much social contract I can write into my games without 'crossing the line' and making the consumer uncomfortable.  (Better yet, how much I can imply and get away with when they're not looking.)  I mean, I'm all for gadgets, but television hasn't destroyed movies (except the 'soap opera' kind), movies haven't destroyed theatre (except vaudeville), and so on.  If anything, I don't consider CRPGs the same thing as tabletop RPGs and all I would expect this holographic 'thingie' to do is make tabletop role-playing games focus on what they're really good at.

And that is...¹?

Fang Langford

¹ left to the reader as an exercise.

[M. J. Young]

I mean, way way back now, we're talking high school, I remember sitting in on a game of (well something Star Trek) that the astronomy teacher was playing projected onto the wall from a... liquid display thingy?  ANYhow the long and the short of it is, it was just a projection on a wall.

A chess board where the pieces move, in 3D, on my tabletop... that would be something.  Turn that into a tabletop environment where I get to watch my characters explore dungeonland... *smiles*

Kester, I think you're jaded. Please don't take offense. I think we're all jaded.

I remember when Pong was an exciting innovation. It was, I think, the first home game in which real-time on-screen graphic interaction with the computer model was possible. Prior to that, the computer games we played required line-by-line response/response in a move by turns format, often with periodic printouts on paper of the current position. This was new; it was different.

I'm not sure whether we've got a copy of Pong in the house today.

The Intellivoice unit for Intellivision was brilliant voice synthesis; it was not surpassed in console games until a few years ago when 64-bit systems started hitting the market. In fact, I remember thinking how wonderful the Intellivision was overall as an improvement over the Atari, and how much you could do with it. Today, my kids play a PS2, and sometimes it takes me a moment upon entering the room to be certain whether they are playing a game or watching a television show. The distance between the audio and video of the games and those of television is narrowing rapidly. Yet they regularly complain about the poor graphics of one game or another, all of which are way ahead of anything the Intellivision or Atari would even have attempted.

The only thing that really interests you about a holographic display of the game world, I suspect, is that you can't have it. A video display of the same thing doesn't interest you. Is that because it's not 3D, or is it because it's something we already have if we want it? I'd say it's the latter.

If you had holographic images, would you be complaining that they lacked olfactory and tactile sensory components?

Sometimes it's useful in running a game to have a picture of something the characters see, so the players can examine it. That's about as much as I'll admit for your holographic idea: sometimes it's useful, and if it's done as well as you dream, it works better than miniatures and drawings. In the end, though, your kids will think it's an old-fashioned piece of junk, right alongside the PS2, the Intellivision, and Pong.

Jaded people like us will never really be impressed, at least not for more than a brief moment.

Think about it.

--M. J. Young

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings All,

Jack, quite right.  There is much to be said for using our own innate imagination.  We all see things differently, it's what makes us individuals.  And perhaps is also something of a warning about technologies that might attempt to be wholly immersive on a virtual level.

Le Joueur, well said.  Of course that doesn't mean something like what I've outlined couldn't be used.  Heck even using our current technology, with a flat screen large enough, I could imagine a top-down view of a game being played out with multiple players sitting around.  Course, as you point out, such a thing wouldn't necessarily be the same sort of RPG as we remember from our youth.

M. J. Young, ah but being jaded is at least proof we're still alive and kicking (or rather b!tching).  And I understand what you mean about the graphics.  Emulators aside, there just isn't anything quite like the real thing.  Be it a Atari or Odyssey.  Almost hard to believe we actually used to sit around and try to beat our friends top scores considering the sorts of games that are produced today.

Plus, just imagine the complaints of the players when you have to shut the game down because of a storm or power outage?  Definitely worse than not being able to get your nightly Tradewars fix.  (Now there was a genre of games that went the way of the dodo!)



Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[greyorm]

Kester, I'm afraid you either did not read what I wrote very carefully, or are so unfamiliar with Neverwinter Nights, and some of the other programs to which I referred, as to be unable to properly guage my answer.

Neverwinter Nights is precisely what you are talking about, and used in the manner you are precisely talking about, by people in the same room with one another in a game being guided by a GM.

I am not talking about a CRPG ala the old SSI series, or a modern CRPG ala Baldur's Gate or even Everquest.

NWN is an environment creation program which allows the manufacture of a 3D RPG world (via 2D) which can be DM'd by a live human being on the fly; obviously quite unlike anything you are referring to in the manner of CRPGs.

NWN and simpler programs (moreso the latter, a list follows below) are one of those "flat maps and minis" programs which serve as a game aide, and certainly meet all criteria you have suggested, including the demonstration of "manuevers" you mention.

Perhaps you are not aware of these programs, their capabilities or their usage in actual games among groups who continue to meet locally and socially when utilizing them for actual otherwise pen-and-paper sessions.

And please note again, because you seem to be confused about this, that I am not speaking about groups playing a pre-existing scenario governed by a computer; nor am I speaking about players physically seperated from one another.

What you are talking about, I can already do, and what you are talking about, a number of groups already do -- minus the sole element of holography: an image you can pass your hand through. Rather, the maps and minis are bound inside a screen; and addition which would do little more than add some glitz to the existant technology.

If you would like, I can explain the exact network setup for such a game, including a main, projected image to which everyone can refer before moving the controls for their character on their local host...but I hope my point is clear enough without such detail.

But which would you prefer, a VR world, or some sort of game aide that allows you to play a traditional game with your friends, in the same room, without having to fold and unfold maps or carry around umpteen tons of lead miniatures?

Oh, you mean like Neverwinter Nights? Or Klooge? Or IGM? Or d20 Map? Or GRIP? Or WebRPG? Or...

Well, my point is made. I and my friends can each bring our own laptop to a group and do precisely what you are referring to...or even use a group of computers in an existing lab to accomplish the same.

As I said, the technology to do precisely what you are requesting already exists and is being utilized by the general gaming public, minus a 3D image which is vastly unimportant to your initial question regarding maps, minis and so forth. If you do not believe me, you can stop by the Kloogewerks booth next GenCon for an actual demonstration of such.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Kester, rereading a bit of this thread I have to ask, are you talking about a virtual reality thing or a hologram table like seen in the movie X-Men (albeit move colorful) so you can play Warhammer without having to purchase, paint, store, and carry figures and terrain. If it's the second, then I personally don't see much difference in how it plays compared to the first.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Jack,

Kester, rereading a bit of this thread I have to ask, are you talking about a virtual reality thing or a hologram table like seen in the movie X-Men (albeit move colorful) so you can play Warhammer without having to purchase, paint, store, and carry figures and terrain. If it's the second, then I personally don't see much difference in how it plays compared to the first.

Yeah, that kind of thing, only perhaps on somewhat larger scale (at least to be able to properly display a field of battle for a wargame).

Or like in Star Wars, the 3D chess game?

Though some of the other ideas being bandied about, I think, might have a bit more merit.

Then again for all I know we'll become like the Borg and be able to jack into a central terminal and literally have the game created out of our subconscious minds while we are in a semi-consciuos dream state.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Kester,

Kester, I'm afraid you either did not read what I wrote very carefully, or are so unfamiliar with Neverwinter Nights, and some of the other programs to which I referred, as to be unable to properly guage my answer.

Not meaning any offense here, greyorm, but I am not talking about gaming over LANs or by modem.

Yes, those sorts of possibilities have existed since the days of the Trash 80, and they continue to evolve.  Mostly in graphics, interface, and number of users able to interact in real time at the same time.

This is what exists in the here and now, I was meanign more of a "what might be one day in the future many many years from now" based upon what we know, would like to see, and the sorts of technology we have available to us.

Wasn't trying to sound like I was ignoring what you were saying, and I apologize if it seemed that way.


Kind Regards,

Kester 'pipe dreamer' Pelagius



P.S.  Just for the record, back in the days of BBS, I used to play such games online.  They had ASCii graphics, of course, but man was it fun to be able to interact with other players online.  My favorite was a post-apocalyptic little game called Chaos something or the other.  Anyone else remember those door games of years gone by?

[greyorm]

Not meaning any offense here, greyorm, but I am not talking about gaming over LANs or by modem.

Damnit, Kester, third and last time: neither am I.
Please carefully reread the two posts previous to this.

I'm specifically talking about utilizing current technology to achieve precisely the effect you are talking about: it is not "gaming via X" it is "gaming, with X as tool." There is a vast difference between these two items.

Sorry to sound so annoyed in response, perhaps that will clarify my meaning for you.

This is what exists in the here and now, I was meanign more of a "what might be one day in the future many many years from now" based upon what we know, would like to see, and the sorts of technology we have available to us.

For this? Fully-interactive VR -- Exploration of Setting big-time, which would be really fun, and for me, the only really fun way to do Exploration of Setting.

[contracycle]

Well, I think theres a huge amount of ground between NWN and a fully immersive environment.  We could potentially radically enhance our smoke-and-mirrors bag of tricks, I feel, without going to the fully immersive form.  But I don't see much of this being very similar to NWN.

Jack raised the prospect that  a large part of the fun arises from the internal visualisation, citing the oft-experienced let down when someone elses realised vision of a work does not match your own.  But, I contend, thats exactly the problem that increased special effects tends to solve, becuase it materialises the image directly to all participants simultaneously.  If there is no oppurtunity to apprehend and imagine a described image prior to seeing its realisation, no contradictory visualisations are created.  To demonstrate by illogical extension, nobody imagines the Mona Lisa, they observe it.  As an already extant image, it is data to be processed not a field for creative expression.  It is untrue to assert that we would all have a different image of the Mona Lisa due to our individuality, because we have not recieved descriptions of the ML independant of the image (as a general rule).  This is IMO strictly a problem with sequencing.

Secondly, I don't use NWN (I've not even seen it) or any of the other mapping programmes for one major reason - IMO, these take me back to top-down mapping, OOC mindsest approaches to play.  Thats not what I want - what I want is tools that get the "gosh wow" response by producing media.  Most of my concern revolves around the mechanical data transfere rate between people; many of the descriptions I would like to do are far too long to be practicable in play, as in effect I-the-GM would be grossly hogging the spotlight.  I really don;t think that a verbal description of Geiger's Alien, and attendant imagination by a hearer,  would in any sense match up to the rather visceral and discomforting level of threat the beastie, as visualised and imaged by Geiger, generates of its own accord.

To me, the independant visualisations of players is not a Feature to be treasured, but a Bug to be ruthlessly hunted down and eliminated.  And I say this as a player too; it is extremely annoying to me to find that my own visualsation has produced a detail that the GM may well tacitly, and unkowningly, over-rule.  Clarity above all; for such a subjective and multiply-authored form of entertainment, being sure that we are all on the same page is IMO vitally important; it is ONLY that shared vision, IMO, which for practical ourposes constitutes the game space.

I recall an anecdote about the English rugby team going out to play Wales; one remarked that walking onto the pitch was very intimidating, because the whole stadium was singing.  He said it felt like "going out to fight 15 of gods greatest angels".  I can TELL you that, but I cannot really make you FEEL it.  But if I had a full blown audio suite and could reproduce a 5,000 strong voice male choir... THEN I might be able to make you feel it. (aside: IMO we pay too little attention to sound).

I do not want to lose direct verbal and body language communication; I do not want my GMing to mediated through an interface; I want it be empowered to produce Bigger, Better, More.  Managing the MECHANACS of play is IMO uninteresting (make better mechanics), producing and enhancing the EXPERIENCE of play is a much more worthy goal IMO.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Jack raised the prospect that  a large part of the fun arises from the internal visualisation, citing the oft-experienced let down when someone elses realised vision of a work does not match your own.  But, I contend, thats exactly the problem that increased special effects tends to solve, becuase it materialises the image directly to all participants simultaneously.  If there is no oppurtunity to apprehend and imagine a described image prior to seeing its realisation, no contradictory visualisations are created.

I think we're talking past each other a bit here. I was pointing out that a computer game, holographic or otherwise, is not going to be the same as an RPG because, well, it isn't the same and that's all there is to it. I'm talking about how such a technilogical monstrosity should never be confused with or thought of as a replacement for or the next development of RPGs. Such talk has been around since the popularity of the Colossal Cave Adventure (advent) but it just isn't true. I'm also talking about a feature of the human imagination.

In Danse Macabre, King notes how movies can spoil it a little. Paraphrasing here, he describes the big reveal when we finally see the 6-foot monster. The audience goes "whew, I thought it was going to be 7-feet tall." Or the monster is revealed to be 9-feet tall. The audience goes "whew, I thought it was going to be ten feet tall."

The point here is that the audience did not have any size in mind for the size of the monster. The monster was as big as their imagination, the size of fear, as it were, and bringing it into a solid reality is naturally a let down from this. But this is the arena in which RPGs function but a holographic game does not.

Some people seem to understand the power of leaving it up to the imagination, others found it out by accident, like old movie makers who could not actually show a love scene because the censors of the time wouldn't allow it, thus the love scene was as steamy as the viewer decided it would be.

But there is a huge group who seems to want to see things concretely. The obvious thing to assume is that this is a Simulationist mindset, but I disagree. I think this reflect something that is found in all three modes. It may reflect a tool for exploring setting in Simulationism, reflect a tool for challenge or strategy in Gamism, or be a facillitator of plausability in Narrativism.

In all cases, it could reflect a simple preference but it could also, and this is my theory here, reflect an uncertainty on the part of the players. They lack confidence in what they're doing in some way so being able to see the physical environment provides a form of comfort that they are "doing it right" whatever that means. Or such is my theory for some.

[Le Joueur]

Gareth,

Jack raised the prospect that a large part of the fun arises from the internal visualization, citing the oft-experienced let down when someone else's realized vision of a work does not match your own.  But, I contend, that's exactly the problem that increased special effects tends to solve...

I can't see how increased special effects curb 'let down' in the least.  I mean what we're really talking about here is the 'snapped my suspenders of disbelief' aren't we?  How is the poorly chosen snide remark during a movie any less of a 'let down' than finding out you've 'got it wrong' from the gamemaster.

I'll tell you how.

The player is more forgiving than the moviegoer.  That's right; the 'social contracting' of your typical role-playing game is much more forgiving than any video or cinema presentation.  Moviemakers hate that.  Cinematography literature is chock full of all kinds of advice on how to draw out your audience, how to entrance them, how to engage them, how to 'touch' them; I think it was there that the concept of 'suspension of disbelief' was minted.

Why?

Because they can't get the kind of 'forgiving atmosphere' even the worst role-playing game scenario provides.  Once the film goes in the truck to the theatre, there's nothing more they can do.  With gaming, you can 'repair' it as you go, you can reestablish it when it breaks down, you can 'start over' if necessary.  They can't; it sucks.

But then why are you so concerned with this?  Like I said before, I can't help but hear a lack of confidence.  I'm all for cool graphics and neat images, I'd love to see my thoughts instantly transformed to epic panoramas, It'd be really great to just snap my fingers and have it all, but that's totally unrealistic.

Giger's alien is the product of the genius of not just one man, but a team.  His vision was chosen by the production, made real by the special effects crew, and brought to life by filming.  I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure my imagination can't produce that much impact, especially on a regular basis.  Not only that, but to achieve the 'clarity of vision' you are preaching about would take hours!

Unless you borrow.

Unless you use someone else's work, unless you take advantage of someone else's designs, crafting, and programming.  And if you're gonna do that, why not choose the person your player most likes the works of?

Their own imagination.

See, I just don't understand why so many gamemasters put down their own effect on the imaginations of the players.  I mean, what's the deal?  Don't you realize how much more work it would take to achieve the quality, engrossing nature, the consistency, and community using a technological crutch rather than working with what you already have?

And about the Mona Lisa.  How often do you actually see it?  I haven't seen it, except in passing, in years; yet the moment you mention it - the reason you mention it - is because of the obvious persistence of the memory.  I could mention the 'one red shoe' Tom Hanks wore in the movie of the same name and I'll bet you can't remember it.  That is what you can do in role-playing games that you can't with any amount of technology.  Taking advantage of communal cultural literacy is the strength of role-playing games.

...What I want is tools that get the "gosh wow" response by producing media.

Many of the descriptions I would like to do are far too long to be practicable in play...

I think you underestimate how much scarier Giger's alien is in the dark.  Why?  Because you can't see it all.  How is that important?  'Fragmentary descriptions' are actually worse than seeing (or not seeing, actually) something in the dark.  However, there is an art to it.

It isn't so much that 'a picture is worth a thousand words,' but a that a 'glance speaks volumes.'  With scaring, you want them 'in the dark.'  Using words and forcing them to 'wait for it' is a far better tool than some freakin' cool visual presentation.  Why?  Because you engage their minds in creating the horror, when you get their brains 'working' with yours, they are more engaged, more connected, more 'in' the action, than any immersive technology will be able to provide for at least decades.

When they 'help you do it' (by filling in the blanks of your 'fragmentary description'), they almost can't avoid 'getting caught up in the action.'  Novel writers know this, movie houses know this (why else watch the show 'in the dark,' but to reduce distractions?), my question is why don't you?

The independent visualizations of players [are] not a Feature to be treasured, but a Bug to be ruthlessly hunted down and eliminated.

I'm sorry, is the goal of role-playing games to provide some kind of visual entertainment for the players?  No?  Then how much can it matter if they have the exact, clear image that the gamemaster has?  You worry that you might unknowingly over-rule some detail that the player has imagined that the gamemaster didn't?  Big deal, you're as human as the next guy; they know it and you know it.

Expect mistakes and allow for them; introducing advance visualization technology will only breed more errors due to the massive time requirements.  Don't fool yourself, gee-whiz technology is always more work than just describing it; consider how much work and how long of preparation Alien took.  They had to scrap the whole 'victim morphing into an egg' sequence because of their limitations and that was one of the best parts.

I really doubt you could convey something like 'walking onto the rugby field' with any amount of technology.  Why?  Because your players aren't a rugby team.  No matter how 'realistically' your whiz-bang technology renders the situation, they'll still be 'ordinary people.'  That's part of the point.  You keep putting all the emphasis upon what the gamemaster does.  That's a big mistake in my opinion.

Y'see, role-playing games aren't about a gamemaster entertaining the players.  It isn't about some amazing scope or incredible images.  A role-playing game is first, and foremost, about getting together and sharing play.  If the gamemaster is 'doing all the work' it can't impact the players the same way as if they partake of it too.  That's what I'm talking about.

The first thing they teach you about scary stories is what not to say, about how silence is scarier than description, about how half-seen shapes in the dark are far more horrible than any sculpture.  Why do you suppose that is?  Because it engages the viewer.

Scott McCloud has a really good point about how 'the gutters' separating comics panels don't just invite, but force the reader to become a part of the action.  His classic example is a two panel masterpiece; panel one shows a man chasing a woman with an axe, panel two shows a cityscape blanketed with a scream.  What did the guy do?  Where did the axe land?  How much blood was there?  It's all up to the reader.  He insists that in that tiny white gap between panels the reader become his accomplice and that's the basis of the medium!

I do not want to lose direct verbal and body language communication; I do not want my GMing to mediated through an interface; I want it be empowered to produce Bigger, Better, More.  Managing the MECHANACS of play is IMO uninteresting (make better mechanics), producing and enhancing the EXPERIENCE of play is a much more worthy goal IMO.

I just cannot see how this isn't exactly what will happen if you attempt to 'enhance role-playing gaming with technology.'  Short of an intuitive, mind-reading computer, the technology will require your attention; you may be able to produce "Bigger, Better, [and] More," but at the expense of everything else listed.

How could learning to communicate better not deliver all this in spades?  I mean that's all you've really complained about, not being able to deliver your imaginings to your players.  Role-playing games are about community, the kind of a community that works together.  Technology may facilitate contact, but it cannot improve upon community, only people can do that.

That's why I'm less than thrilled with any of the technological gimmicks so far presented in this thread.  I still see them as doing nothing more than creating another medium that people will complain is 'taking players away from role-playing games.'

Fang Langford