undefined | Better HN

0 pointstomgp5y ago0 comments

Yeah, it seems insane to me that the whole thing is predicated on the idea that simulated physics is the best way to play a board-game online. (i guess this is the nature of current game engines, when you have a hammer everything lookslike a nail)

If you're used to navigating 3d space in video games or whatever you can probably pick it up but my gaming group is almost exclusively non-videogamers and the idea of getting them to play games through this thing is just a total non-starter.

Also it feels like a bit of a slap in the face to game designers that every player needs their own copy of TTS (~$20 each) yet designers -- whose wokr and IP is the pretty much the whole selling point -- will see none of that.

0 comments

kruczek5y ago

> it seems insane to me that the whole thing is predicated on the idea that simulated physics is the best way to play a board-game online

I disagree that's the approach of Tabletop Simulator. I mean, yes, it is a physics playground, but it is also much more. It includes some common actions like flipping, shuffling or drawing from a deck of cards. It includes grids to easily align game pieces. And most of all, it includes scripts which actually put some constraints on the "simulated physics" part, automating "maintenance" parts of a game, while also potentially enforcing game rules.

tomgpOP5y ago

Yeah, I know that but it the physics and 3d first and the other stuff is optional -- the price of entry is being able to navigate a 3d world with pretty janky physics inside a computer. It's certainly a flexible toolset (though there are some real gotchas in there e.g. how bags work (they're decks so don't forget to shuffle them, you know, like you have to do with real bags)) but I find the approach of somethign like boardgamelab[1] more promising, particularly in terms of accessibility.

[1] https://boardgamelab.app