Information Bandwidth – WotC Virtual Table vs MapTools

So I got a Golden Ticket right before the American Thanksgiving.   (And if you’re wondering, yes, I got a golden chance to make my way.)

I was lucky enough to get an invite to the WotC Virtual Table beta, and try out an encounter as a player in the new software as well as spend some time prepping an encounter.

There’s a lot that’s been said about it (check out these two links for example) and the buzz seems to be mostly positive for a beta.  I tend to agree, it’s a solid piece of software that is easy to use and provides a great tool for most D&Ders who want to use online or digital play in their games.

That said, as someone who plays almost all of his games online via virtual table top tools, what WotC has in the VT and what they have coming down the pipeline for the VT is not enough for me, at least in the games that I DM.  I know this puts me in a unique place in the community, many folks have said the VT has made their DDI worth while again, made the digital tools coming out of WotC a bit more sunnier.  Like I said earlier, I was really surprised with the software when I played with it, and if invited into a VT only game I would play without issue or complaint.

But as I consumed the VT as a player and as a DM prepping an encounter, I realized there are different philosophies between WotC’s Viritual Table and my preferred virtual game table of choice, MapTools.  I’m going to detail the difference in these philosophies in the rest of this post, but the summary is, the VT is like Apple’s OSX.  It’s pretty, it works intuitively, and just seems to work right, as long as you stay within the predetermined bounds the designer set for you.  MapTools is like Linux.  It’s as powerful or weak as you want it to be, can do as much or as little as you want it to, and can do things you didn’t know could be done, but it doesn’t hold your hand and can require initial set up time and finding things out.

Information Bandwidth

The point I am going to make is that MapTools is better using its information bandwidth then VT is.  It’s going to take a bit to explain this and then argue this, you have been warned.

At your game table, it can be hard to notice how much communication is occurring at any given time, how many bits of information are being exchanged across the mat.

Example, the cleric ends his turn with “I’m going to roll my save for the poison.”  There’s a subtle pause as everyone but the fighter who’s next watches the die roll.  The fighter’s already moving  his figure across the mat, counting the “1, 2, 3, 4, 5” under his breath and tapping each square as he counts it off.  After the fighter steps in the 4th square, the DM says “Stop”, just as the cleric’s d20 turns up 14.  “Everyone give me an arcana except the fighter, give me a thievery check.”  More 20s hit the table, everyone waits for the DM to look in their direction before announcing the result of their check.

Things are different online.  Generally there are a lack of visual cues, requiring the other senses to pick up the slack or for visual cues to come in a different form.  In addition, VoIP (Voice over IP, things like Skype, Ventrillo, Teamspeak, and the voice client used in the VT) usually works only when one person is speaking.  These two information channels are limited, and in my opinion for an online game to work well, other channels for this information needs to open up.  Most commonly, this is the chat window.

In an online game, the chat window in the above example would look something like this:

Cleric rolls 1d20: 15
Fighter has received initiative.
Fighter moves 5 squares.
Cleric rolls 1d20 + 6: 8
Fighter rolls 1d20 + 2: 5
Rogue rolls 1d20 + 4: 18
Wizard rolls 1d20 + 11: 28

While the voice chat is going on a parallel track.  Because of the nature of online voice chat, it’s not happening all at once, but serially.  DM speaks.  Fighter speaks.  Rogue and wizard both try to speak, everyone stops and waits to let someone go first.  The same information that’s at the table needs to flow online, but there are regulars to the information flow.  Because of that, it’s imperative that the channel with the most bandwidth, the chat window, records and distributes the information correctly.

Let’s use that chat block with some basic labeling:

Cleric rolls a saving throw – 1d20: 15
Fighter has received initiative.
Fighter moves 5 squares.
Cleric rolls arcana skill – 1d20 + 6: 8
Fighter rolls thievery skill – 1d20 + 2: 5
Rogue rolls arcana skill – 1d20 + 4: 18
Wizard rolls arcana skill – 1d20 + 11: 28

As a DM, these labels help me remember context. When the fighter triggers the trip I start to give a description of the trap’s effects, then can look at the chat and see who’s effected. Yes, when rolling dice at a table there’s no need to have labels, it’s easy to know what’s going on. But there are social rules, learned table etiquette that makes things flow better.

Let’s take this idea of information bandwidth and the virtual table tops to three different areas.

Infrastructure

I’ve been toying with this blog post for a while, trying to figure out how to get what I want to say in words.  Then I got distracted by shiny things, as one is wont to do in this day and age.  The author in me was disgusted when I threw in the towel and decided to record 3 quick Youtube videos covering the three areas in which I want to compare these programs.

First up is the infrastructure of each program. [Link]

The VT is website a that is a collection of links based on campaign.  You find the game you’re playing in that day, or you browse the listing of open games, you click a button, and you log in.  All your token and resources are saved on the WotC server, there’s no needing to go through your hard drive trying to find which version of your token you need for this week’s game, it’s all just there.

With MapTools, as shown, you often need to change settings in your router so the program can communication correctly.  The DM has to start up a server, with a lot of weird and cluttered options.  The players need to connect to a server, worrying if they’re using the right version number.  It’s true that a lot of these are one time problems, fix them once and you’re golden from there on out.  But I will admit that they can be a headache, an ache the VT takes care of very well.

The other big thing is VoIP, or Voice over IP support.  The VT has a built in client, and it’s extremely solid.  There aren’t any drops, the quality is high (I can tell who has a good mic and who does not, usually poor chat quality makes it seem like everyone has horrible mics.)  The voice fonts can get old if used too often, but I think they’re powerful tools if used sparingly.

MapTools has no VoIP client at all, and users must use a separate program for voice.  Skype, Teamspeak, and Ventrillo are all ones I’ve personally used, and the quality is variable, as well as is.

In this way, I think the VT is actually a better use of the bandwidth.  Everything is located in one area, everything is centralized.  VT ensures the secondary voice channel, while MapTools leaves that optional and spotty.  Starting a VT session is clean, starting MapTools can be frustrating and sometimes impossible.

Characters (PCs and NPCs)

Link to the video – [Link]

Both programs use ‘tokens’ to represent characters, both player and non-player.  Each token is a collection of stats, powers, skills, basically a character sheet or a MM entry that lives in the software.  Just as a departure from table top gaming, this can be hand, having all the information in each mini rather then tables and charts, remembering which one is skeleton 4 and which two are marked.

The main difference here is that the VT doesn’t do anything with this data.  Tokens know they have a certain amount of hitpoints, have the text saying that their attack dazes on a hit, in the VT world they can’t do anything with this info.  Most of the time they can’t even export this info to the chat window, there’s no way to say, “On a hit, I mark you” in the VT other then actually saying it.  This most closely mimics table top play.  Power cards tell the player all the stats of an attack, but they can’t do anything to remind the player to mark every turn.  And for a lot of of people, that is perfectly fine.

But I want more out of my viritual table, I want to use this bandwidth smarter.  I’m used to computers automating process or tasks.  These tokens have knowledge of various aspects of the game, why not let them do some of the lifting to speed up combat and keep it flowing well.  The DeviantNull framework for Maptools does just that.  Once it’s set up, you can assign statuses, heal or harm characters, and target multiple creatures with a single attack power, all of which is easily tracked in the chat window, and most of which is a just a simple click or two.  This is a bit more heavy lifting then a lot want to do, but if you invest in it it can produce blindingly fast combats.

Maps

Link to the video – [Link]

The video is pretty self explaintatory on this one.  VT’s use of dungeon tiles and dungeon tiles only continues to make it quick and easy to make something compariable to what you’d see on a table top.  MapTools has nothing built in, but does have tools that once you harness them can create some pretty amazing maps.

This goes back to the bandwidth issue.  If I don’t have to explain what the airship the PCs are on looks like and how it’s laid out, if they can just simply look at the map and grok it instantly, it’s a much better use of the information bandwidth.  Dungeon tiles are good, but more often then not they represent abstract things that need defining.  Some might say having too many pretty images detracts from the game, makes it more video gamey then it should be.  And maybe they’re right.

I argue though that if I can communicate a scene without having to say anything, that the players can discover things along with their characters rather than reaction only to the explicit things I, as the DM, tell them that’s there, they have having a better time role playing and an easier time as well.  Playing online is similar to playing at a table top, but there need to be some accounting for the differences in the mediums.

Conclusion

In the end, both programs offer distinct advantages.  The VT looks like it’s going to offer a well featured attempt to mimic the table top experience.  Maptools offers a bevy of options that is most often like saidin, if you can control and harness the power you can do amazing things, but if you let it wash over you you will be destroyed.  What you’re looking to get out of a game depends on what you want as a GM, and the time you are willing to invest.

Each tool can learn from the other, and still stay within their individual areas of expertise.  I’m excited to see what will be out there in 6 months, we as players can only benefit going forward.

Mike Hasko .-._. PsychoPez

What are your thoughts on the VT?  What’s your preferred virtual table top?