I talked in my last post about playtesting online and, in those instances, playing "roll & write" style games, which can be done over a videoconference system if everyone has the wherewithal to make whatever sort of record/play sheet that is required for the game.
Since then, I have played prototype games (both mine and other people's) using the two most commonly talked about 3D simulators for board games: Tabletop Simulator and Tabletopia. I don't have enough experience with either system to compare their pro's and con's in any detail, so I'll just discuss my first(ish) impressions. Lots of other people are talking about this stuff in great depth, so I'll just generally hand-wave.
Both systems have a physics engine that allows components to interact with some semblance of reality, but rely on supplying the components and the players knowing what to do with them. This is fine for prototyping: I don't particularly want to code in all the logic for a tabletop game that is still in development.
My implementation of The Castle War in Tabletopia. This is just a mock-up, but it does work for real, and I've had a couple of very useful test plays. |
The cost model of both systems is important here. You need to pay to install Tabletop Simulator, as do any people you want to play with, but from then on, you're free as a bird. Tabletopia, on the other hand, allows you to dip your toes in for free, and as a player that may be all you need, but if you want to play in a load of simultaneous games, or create more than one, you need to pay a monthly subscription, but your playtesters can join you for free.
My first experiment in Tabletop Simulator, part of an idea I have just started toying with. |
Playing on either system tends to result in games taking a lot longer than the physical version would and, especially at first, everything can feel really fiddly. That improves as you get experience, but I don't think it will ever go away. I also massively miss being able to actually watch how people play and engage with the game, as that usually provides some of the best feedback, but this is so much better than not being able to playtest at all, and maybe it will lead to a faster testing rate than I have managed in the past. Plus it's a good incentive for me to get better at discussing games with testers afterwards.
I think I'm going to tinker with both systems for the time being, partly because people I am collaborating with and otherwise talking to are split between the systems, and partly because I'm not yet sure which is best for me.
It is also worth noting that these two systems are not the only games in town. For instance, if you don't want all the 3D whistles and bells, there is Vassal, a pretty old project that was, I believe, originally set up to run hex-and-counter style wargames, but allows just about anything to be configured if you can put the effort in. I've taken a bit of a look at this, but not got a game running yet. Similarly, but newer, I have recently heard of Screentop, which I have not yet taken a proper look at, but may be useful.
I'll just finish off with a few links to things I have recently seen other people have been saying on the subject...
- An interesting comparison video of TT and TTS from a player's point of view.
- Gil Hova on Twitter about why he likes TTS for prototyping.
- Ian Brocklebank blogging about his growing appreciation of online playtesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment