Greetings All,

While reading the thread on Historical Wargaming I was suddenly struck by a very interesting thought and was wondering what your opinions of it might be. My thought is namely this:

Given that at some point (one assumes) we may develop holographic technology how do you perceive a actual dynamic table-top 3D environment might affect the evolution of role-playing and wargames?

Thus instead of heavy lead miniatures it would be a single heavy table that could have programmed into it just about any character profile needed. Yet there would be controls of some sort that allowed only the players to control their characters, sort of like the multiplayer coinops allow for now.

Just imagine if it was possible to have a table that gamers could sit at where everyone literally had some control over the environment yet, at the same time, could also be overseen by a GM (or AI) in real time face to face play?

Rather than sitting in dark rooms in front of a screen, anonymously connected to servers to play games with people, it seems to me that this might be like the 'good old days'; only much better. (If anyone remembers the BBS game Tradewars try to imagine what it would be like if you could have played that on a 3D holographic viewer with your friends. Be neat, eh?)

Or do you think the time will ever come where we have technology like that in our lifetimes?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Hmm. I've always found that predicting technology is fraught with pitfalls. For one, we assume that because we've theorized of the technology that it will be what comes to pass. This is true to an extent, actually; once people could send audio signals through the air (radio) the idea to send a picture seemed a logical conclusion and people began working on TV. But just as often technoloy we're sure will arive does not.

Where's my robot to do all my chores, damnit!

What happens often is that unexpected technologies come along and become economically viable replacements long before the expected technology is even feasible.

Even just looking at available technologies, what's more likely, holographic tables, or electronic images beamed to your optic nerve? Right now, people with some sorts of blindness are being enabled to see paritally by signals being radioed to thier optic nerves. Presumably, if this technology is refined, 3D images would be simple to project.

But that's still off in the future a bit. What about VR headsets? Given binocular operation 3D images are easy to create. This would just be an improvement of very currently available technology.

Hell, 3d glasses and a compter gives you 3d space. And that technology has been around since the fifties.

The question is not whether or not we can do something like what you describe Kester. Like all questions of technology just over the horizon, it's merely a question of what it takes to make the technology economically viable. The home robot is actually not too far fetched in some ways, but takes a back seat to much cheaper automation such as self-propelled vaccuums and dishwashers. If/when it becomes cheap to make appropriate robots, then we'll see the chore robot.

But more liklely we'll see living spaces designed to further promote automation. It's simpler to design.

So, will virtual spaces come to dominate gaming? Maybe. What prevents us from all being Everquest addicts? Whatever that missing element is, that's the only thing that'll stop us from all playing in the virtual environment all the time. If they fix that factor, then, yes, all virtual, all the time for RPGs. Why not? You can always just display yourself as you are if you don't want to effect a costume, and that's pretty close to being there.

Mike

Actually, holographic (as in, it looks like a fricken crystal ball that you can walk around and see the image in full 3D, full color, with a refresh rate high enough to seem choppy) already exists. I'll see if I can find the article I read on 'em again.

Now, when they'll replace my 19", that I don't know :) (I think the maximum viewing size was 8" diameter...)

Bionic eyes: http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1544

As for holographic displays, flat ones can be gotten that are pretty damn big, and for not much more than a plasma display of the same size. Yep, like 72" for less than $10,000.

Any day now...

Mike

I can't help but go COOL! Hmm, didn't Gibson predict Russian pop music too?

Man, if I had a holographic projector I'd use it do special effects rather than necessarily a fully VR walkabout game. Too much real time to script, far too much. The other alternative is of the Uber-LARP, which might be much more the kind of thing you meant, but this would probably require a fair sized building and hence be playing in the same ballpark as things like cinemas and theatres today.

Assuming we had "holographic technology", what we build a TOOL to do, might be a more productive question.

contracycle wrote: The other alternative is of the Uber-LARP, which might be much more the kind of thing you meant, but this would probably require a fair sized building and hence be playing in the same ballpark as things like cinemas and theatres today.

Greetings,

Don't know where to start, save to say everyone has come up with unique takes on the idea. Some (Mike) that just didn't occur to me at the time but, now that you mention it, yeah... wow. Technology can be funny that way. Some futurists projected personal flying cars by the 1990s and, here we are, 2003, and no flying cars.

Point taken.

That said I didn't really mean the immersive sort of VR ala a holodeck hologrid live action novel sort of thing so much as I meant holographic chess ala Star Wars (Episode 3, A New Hope, aboard the Falcon?) ... sort of like a holo display that allows for table top gaming with animated holograms, or something. Maybe even voice controlled and activated.

Of course Mike is right the technology may never manifest since other technologies may become reality far sooner than the sort of thing I was talking about.

So, given the idea mentioned thus far, which do you think (want) to be more likely to actually happen? And how do you foresee such technologies affected how we play wargames and RPGs?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

The holography is unnecessary. Just give me a plasma screen big enough to attach four legs to and use as a gaming table (image side up, of course).

Actually, I've been seriously considering for several years the more economical idea of using an LCD projector and a mirror or two to achieve a similar net effect.

No revolutionary effect on game play intended, just a crunchy gizmonic power boost for the old school stuff. Realistic dungeon lighting, anyone? Nice coincidence, just today on another thread I was talking about how areas of effect and miniatures play go hand in hand...

- Walt

Kester Pelagius wrote: Just imagine if it was possible to have a table that gamers could sit at where everyone literally had some control over the environment yet, at the same time, could also be overseen by a GM (or AI) in real time face to face play?

Kester

It seems to me that the main problem with these types of setups is not the graphics/iconics used, that is fairly trivial for which we have several options. What would really make this stuff go is some kind of expert system that could generate imagery and game entities given only archetypal or fragmentary constraint input, and do so in real time. And, insert those into the environment so they are scripted and such, to be able to react to other entities appropriately, based on their object type, or whatever. Then allow different people control over those elements as needed. Plus have databases and "information" path's associated with those entities, based on who is querying it and such.

You know, all the things that actual people can do in collaboration and cooperation. But then spit it back at you in awesome 3d graphics with resolution system support. Of course, constructing that expert system would be a truly awesome feat of engineering, or you could just jack a few creative gamer types for slave brains I guess:)

Now that would be truly cool to me. Kind of like the ultimate expression of my game vision for TMW:COTEC.

Oh well, at least I can finish the PPD version for use with the Mark 1 gamer brain:)

best

Greetings,

wfreitag wrote: The holography is unnecessary. Just give me a plasma screen big enough to attach four legs to and use as a gaming table (image side up, of course).

Actually, I've been seriously considering for several years the more economical idea of using an LCD projector and a mirror or two to achieve a similar net effect.

No revolutionary effect on game play intended, just a crunchy gizmonic power boost for the old school stuff. Realistic dungeon lighting, anyone? Nice coincidence, just today on another thread I was talking about how areas of effect and miniatures play go hand in hand...

Greetings Jack,

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: Just imagine if it was possible to have a table that gamers could sit at where everyone literally had some control over the environment yet, at the same time, could also be overseen by a GM (or AI) in real time face to face play?

There may be some kind of future in this, but I doubt if it'll be the future of RPGs at all. RPGs are an activity that require and take place mostly in the imagination. Whenever technology comes into play, it tends to take away at least a little of that imagintive content.

Greetings RobMuadid,

You really know how to rain on a parade. As I read your post I was reminded of my vain and hapless efforts, in the long long ago of BBSland, to work on my own door program. (Anyone remember Pascal?)

I had a heck of a time getting the dice game to work right in the casino. (Too many 'tweaks' to the base code. My own fault.) But I did, eventually, then the menu's weren't working right. (Again trying to get them to do something fancy when I should have known better.) Fixed them, then the game wouldn't work for some people but would work for others and I never could figure out why. Nor could I ever recreate the
exact same problems when I ran the game locally.

The long and the short of it being this: It would involve a LOT of work to get it done up right, that's for sure. Be nice if it could be done though.

We already have computer wargames. And they've come a long way from the ones I remember playing on my C=64! But I can't help but think it would be nice to get back to a gaming mode that actually put real life people in the same room to play against each other, rather than just over the internet, don't you?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

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.

In fact, if Neverwinter Nights doesn't meet your criteria, there are a number of computer-based role-playing software solutions that would, and groups use them with laptops and projectors and such around a gaming table. Though, point in fact, my wife and I play Neverwinter Nights together...same room, facing one another...and play various 2-player games on the play station all the time (some of which meet your full criteria: an envrionment you can interact with via an avatar).

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.

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

Greetings greyorm,

greyorm wrote: 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.

greyorm wrote: 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.

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

contracycle wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: 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.

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. :)

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.

Kester Pelagius wrote: 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*

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

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?

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.

Greetings Jack,

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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.

Greetings Kester,

greyorm wrote: 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.

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

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.

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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

Gareth,

contracycle wrote: 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...

contracycle wrote: ...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...

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

contracycle wrote: 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.

Le Joueur wrote: 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 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.

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

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
And this is where the art comes in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with independant visualizations of the player. It's when these visualizations come into conflict that there's a problem. The art is avoiding this without bogging down in describing every single detail. What Pixar refers to as sanding the underside of the drawers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hey Gareth,

You site many examples of really small, theoretically minor, misunderstandings. I'm not going to debate the particulars. But are these really that big of problem?

No really. You create this 'big bad thing.' Your players don't get every iota of information they wind up needing. So? Does it cause such a huge problem that you'd resort to the technologies being discussed?

contracycle wrote:

Fang wrote: 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.

Yes, it is to provide a sort of visual entertainment - look: IMAG[e]ination, VISUALisation.

People are talking about a lot of different things. What Kester Pelagius is talking about is something very specific. He likens it to the chess board in Star Wars IV (he got the number wrong, but we knew which one he meant), and someone gave another example. But perhaps it will work better if it's described this way:

Kester wants living miniatures. He wants to be able to look down and see the scene as it unfolds, to walk around it and view it from every angle, and to be able to see all the detail--how tall is the troll, relative to the elf? just how far is are the Centauri standing from the Space Marines? where is the cover, and how much cover is there for the characters?

Now he's not so foolish as to suggest we could have living miniatures, so he suggests holographic ones. A century ago, it would have been clockwork ones that were suggested, but it's the same idea. We can see the exactly where everyone is, how the move, what the terrain is like. We can see whether John can reach out and touch Joe without bending or stretching, whether Ralph has a clear shot at the villain, how far the tree will reach if it falls this direction. It gives us a clear image of what is happening.

He's not asking for a character's-eye view of things. That would be different--not bad, probably good, but different. He's asking for the ability to create sets on the fly, slice them open to see the action inside, put them away and bring them back with a couple of buttons. He thinks that this would enhance his role playing experience.

I think if you're the sort of player who finds miniatures and prepared images helpful, this will enhance role playing. If, like Jack and Fang (great post, by the way, Fang), and me, you see what's happening in your mind and think that's probably better than whatever would be drawn, such an "aid" would be a detriment.

On the other hand, Gareth (a.k.a. Contracycle) makes a very important point. It is often the case that detail is vital to the situation. It is also often the case that you need to know that certain details are there without being overly cognizant of the fact. For example, when I run The Dancing Princess, there's a portal under the throw rug in the middle of the bedroom. That means I have to make the players aware that there's a throw rug in the middle of the floor in the bedroom without calling undue attention to it. The way I do it in play is by describing tapestries on walls, canopy beds, fireplace with mantel, throw rug, dressers, chests of drawers, vanities, dry sink, night stands, chairs--overwhelm them with detail so they can't pick out the important bit. Can't do this all the time, though, because then the high level of detail says that there is an important bit. An alternative is to mention it casually--"the room is so luxuriously appointed, even the throw rug under your feet is soft and warm despite the cold stone floor". But any technique you overuse is going to be recognized by the players eventually. A gadget that actually allows you to show the room permits the players to get the detail right without having to describe it.

Over in the meaningless detail thread, I think it was, I mentioned the creation of detail by players during play in little things. If the referee says there's a dresser in the room, the player might say he's going to dig through the clothes in the drawers, even though the dresser might be empty. As I think of it now, if I mention a dresser, I see some sort of period-appropriate lamp on it, a mirror behind it, a bureau scarf, perhaps a jewelry box or other knick-knacks. Never mind that the only dressers I've known in reality for the last quarter century have been buried in folded clothes that need to be put in drawers--but maybe that's an image someone else at the table has. This is all fine, as long as the detail doesn't matter. But if I suddenly pick up the lamp to throw at the ghost, and no one else thought there was a lamp there, someone's suspenders get snapped. Whether they're mine or someone else's might depend on the social contract, but Gareth is right, detail can be important.

I've not used NeverWinter Nights, but it does sound like it's supposed to be a game aid for live play that gives players a character's eye view of the setting. In that sense it's neither what Kester wants nor what he thinks it is; nor is it what Gareth thinks it is. But I could be mistaken.

So, hands up, how many think that a set of fully-functional holographic "living miniatures" with full terrain presentation and building slice-away capabilities would be useful to their ability to accurately imagine what's happening?

I think I wouldn't find it useful enough to take it out of the box before the game.

--M. J. Young

I'm with Gareth on this one.

But I also see it as a preference thing. Fang doesn't like his games to be presented visually, Gareth does. I'd love to have a visual presentation.

This almost links to GNS. The Sim player wants to discover the world. The Nar player wants to create it for himself. Players like Gareth and me like to find a world that has an objective appearance to it. Fang and others like to have a world which they can alter in their minds to their taste.

So, yes, there will be some players for whom the VR thing will not be the be-all, and end-all of gaming. But for many it will be compelling. Note that I am as fond of playing CRPGs like Final Fantasy (and all manner of other sorts of gaming) as I am of TableTop RPGs. So that should be no surprise to anyone.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: This almost links to GNS. The Sim player wants to discover the world. The Nar player wants to create it for himself.

MJ Young wrote: I've not used NeverWinter Nights, but it does sound like it's supposed to be a game aid for live play that gives players a character's eye view of the setting. In that sense it's neither what Kester wants nor what he thinks it is; nor is it what Gareth thinks it is. But I could be mistaken.

Mike Holmes wrote: But I also see it as a preference thing. Fang doesn't like his games to be presented visually, Gareth does. I'd love to have a visual presentation.

Le Joueur wrote:
What (the hell) is wrong with words?!?

Anyone who has a problem with them either a) lacks confidence or b) needs practice.

This is missing the point anyway. I don't really care what senses are replaced by the technological innovations, it is whether you are the one providing the stimuli. If your gaming is such a 'one way street' (out of your head, images only go playerward), then I can't help you; you missing a good three-quarters of the fun.

Now how long do you think it will take to describe all the details your example suggest are necessary? Okay, the gamemaster gets to cheat, preparing much in advance, but what about the players? For example, I'd say that spellcasting, like throwing an illusion, is going to be just about as labor intensive (or else the gamemaster will misunderstand just as badly).

A good description does exactly the above. Specific words (the "proprietary...tags"), held in common, yield subtly modified imagery in the imaginations of the players. Those same imaginations are exactly what "knows enough about plausibility to 'fill in the rest;'" best of all they're free.

Let's improve on that, let's allow the 'end of the system' the players are connected to subtly influence how it is presented to them, much like browser controls on the world wide web

I'm saying I just don't get how going all 'techy' is going to solve the problem without making a huge number of complications or concessions. If the 'tiny details' like stairs and such are not being conveyed, resorting to computer imagery won't improve on that much, you're just as likely to forget to create an image as to say part of the description (more so, I'm afraid).

That's why I say 'bunk' to all this techy talk. I like dreaming about gadgets as much as the next guy, but when it comes to gaming, I'm like a neo-Luddite; I don't think it's necessary or useful. Furthermore, I make the case that, if we did conjure up all this technological role-playing aids, we'd find ourselves creating yet another form of expression. One that ultimately wouldn't be role-playing games anyway.

Hi there,

Fang, Gareth, it's pretty clear where each of your sets of social and aesthetic concerns are coming from. Both of you have stated the respective personal case in full.

So, can I ask that you do the "H'm, you do it differently" dance and be happy?

Best,
Ron

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: What (the hell) is wrong with words?!?

I've told you - the transmission rate is too low.

contracycle wrote: If there is nothing wrong with words, why did TV replace radio as the dominant mass medium? Why is advertising so strongly image based?

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: This is missing the point anyway. I don't really care what senses are replaced by the technological innovations, it is whether you are the one providing the stimuli. If your gaming is such a 'one way street' (out of your head, images only go playerward), then I can't help you; you missing a good three-quarters of the fun.

No, I am most certainly not missing three quarters of the fun. And lets not get carried away with the one-way street thing either;

contracycle wrote: ...My Explorative desires demand that the world be a) apparently objective and b) complex. This means that the volume of data is large – [it] has to be so.

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Now how long do you think it will take to describe all the details your example suggest are necessary? Okay, the gamemaster gets to cheat, preparing much in advance, but what about the players? For example, I'd say that spellcasting, like throwing an illusion, is going to be just about as labor intensive (or else the gamemaster will misunderstand just as badly).

You know, I have already addressed this - and as I said, it will depend on how smart the tools are, because of exactly this limit - which is nothing more than the comms-rate limit restated. But I have every confidence that not only will we have tools that smart, but smarter. Maybe not yet, but we will.

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: ...yield subtly modified imagery in the imaginations of the players

...subtly influence how it is presented to them

And for the n'th time, I regard that as a Bad Thing.

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I'm saying I just don't get how going all 'techy' is going to solve the problem without making a huge number of complications or concessions. If the 'tiny details' like stairs and such are not being conveyed, resorting to computer imagery won't improve on that much, you're just as likely to forget to create an image as to say part of the description (more so, I'm afraid).

I thought MJ gave an excellent description of the problem. No, I am not likely to "forget" the stairs when creating an image, because that is when I will be free to concentrate on the creation. I am much more likely to do so in the heat of the moment. This also obviates the player forgetting, which I cannot control.

contracycle wrote: It may well be a different form of expression - bring it on, say I.

I've said repeatedly that I don' want to cut off existing channels of body language and voice, and it is for that reason I do not use NWN. That does not mean that there is no role for technology to play. I regard such a claim as frankly shortsighted.

Whoops, cross-posted.

See, that's exactly what I didn't want to happen.

For anyone who's interested, the above exchange between Fang and Gareth is now being moderated.

You play differently with different social aesthetic priorities. Neither of you has "what role-playing is" in your pocket. Both of you have explained your positions.

I can see no further benefit to dialogue, as you're now engaged in picking apart one another's posts, and I smell the stink of ego.

The thread is now closed. If anyone wants to follow up on its contents, please start a new thread.

Best,
Ron