[shagie]

I don't use TTS because it is physics based... which makes it awkward.

That said... having it be "physics based" means that you don't need as much game rules implemented in computer logic compared to human logic.

Consider the code for writing tic tac toe without a physics model. You've got valid position checks, win condition checks and so on. It's not bad (its tic tac toe), but its something that needs to be written by someone.

In a physics based tic tac toe, you've got X and O and a # board. If someone plays a wrong move you say "dude, you can't do that." When you win, you say "tic tac toe, three in a row, I win."

This allows a physics based model to implement a lot of game logic in meat space rather than in game code which in turn means that it can be made available more rapidly and doesn't need a programmer to convert game rules into business logic into code.

---

I'd also suggest checking out https://www.yucata.de/en (and other similar online systems). No, its not open source - its server hosted... but its really well done.

[joemi]

I'm pretty sure you could do a 2D one without all the checks you mentioned. All you need really is the ability to move things and change the z-index.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

As a matter of fact, I am struggling to think of any boardgames which have a 3d component. I am sure they exist, but a robust 2d representation feels easier and would still be applicable to 99% of existing games.

[shagie]

Checkers traditionally does... but that's not a good example.

The entire Icehouse set of games. https://www.looneylabs.com/rules/icehouse (see especially Zendo - https://www.icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Zendo )

There's a genera of games that I'm quite fond of. Pueblo https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3228/pueblo and Aztec https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1071/aztec are two of the ones that I'm most fond of in that because of the abstractness. I've also got a first edition Santorini somewhere ( https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/194655/santorini ). Cityscape is another one that I'm quite fond of ( https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4980/cityscape ).

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/5607/components-3-...

These aren't necessarily games that "everyone knows" - but it is a very rich subset of games with a lot of interesting entries.

And if you really want a head scratcher... https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/820/axiom

[0cf8612b2e1e]

Ha, Axiom is certainly the perfect rebuttal.

[wbl]

Stacking mechanics happen a lot.

[22c]

Stacking mechanics are typically where you want the engine to defy physics, though. For example picking up a stack of cards, the stack is typically treated as a single object rather than 52 individual objects that can fall apart.

Playing virtual poker, you probably don't want to have to manually manipulate individual poker chips or move around wobbly stacks of chips (yes that can be fun in itself, but there will be someone who struggles to move their chips around intuitively and inevitably delay the actual game at hand).

Having said that for games like virtual Jenga, you absolutely DO want to keep those wobbly blocks of wood.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

I was hoping to slide by with 2d + zordering, but by any other name, that is 3d.

[remram]

Are you confusing "physics-based" with "non-turn-based"?

I don't really understand how the physics factors in anything you've described.

[shagie]

In implementing a physics based board game system, I don't need to program the rules of the board game, "just" the rules of physics. Fortunately, the rules of physics are fairly consistent.

The same physics based system to play horse world, tic tac toe, or chess would work - its just about managing different models of objects in the world.

This implementation of chess ( https://youtu.be/XwHOH-C-4vA ) doesn't understand chess - its up to the human players to play it.

That it is a 3d physics simulator it allows humans to interact with it in the same way we would interact with the real world pieces.

There is no rules management / engine in the physics model preventing an invalid game move or determining when someone has won the game.

This is why its "easy" in that you just implement the physics engine, introduce the models into it and let the humans play the game.

If, however, you wanted to implement a game without the physics model, you would need a more complete model of the game state because you aren't using the 3d placement of the pieces and the humans to model it for you.

If you were to implement Ponte del Diavolo ( https://www.yucata.de/en/Rules/PonteDelDiavolo ) without physical pieces to place, how would you do that in a non physics system? Using that same game system could you implement Tally Ho! ( https://www.yucata.de/en/GameInfo/Halali ) or Sudoku Moyo ( https://www.yucata.de/en/GameInfo/SudokuMoyo )?

With table top simulator working off a physics model, ponte del diavolo is a board and two different types of pieces in two different colors. Tally Ho! is seven tiles (of various counts of each) and Sudoku Moyo is a board with nine sets of pieces with the numbers 1 through 9 on them (one in one color, and four sets in two different colors each).

The physics version of the game doesn't require a model of the game state, just the game pieces for two humans to play the game against each other.

[remram]

Are you confusing free-form 3D with physics? Why does tic-tac-toe require physic simulation? I am so confused by what you are trying to say.

Putting objects in a location in 3D space is not physics.

The only physics I see in your video is to make pieces bounce off of each other once taken off the board. Is that really required to play the game?

[shagie]

By having a physics simulation and models of the pieces for a game, two humans can play the game. The physics simulation requires no understanding of the game rules itself.

In order to implement a game without a physics simulation, it requires that the game state (rather than the physical state) be modeled. It is that modeling of the game state and the permissible moves that requires much more work.

An implementation of Blood Bowl in Vassal ( http://www.garykrockover.com/BB/ ) requires more modeling of the game and its rules than the corresponding physics simulation in TTS ( https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=23365... ).

[remram]

> In order to implement a game without a physics simulation, it requires that the game state (rather than the physical state) be modeled.

This is obviously wrong, unless you mean "sandbox" every time you say "physics".

For example, playingcards.io is a sandbox. It allows everyone to move cards around at any time, and players can use whatever rules they want. It has no physics simulation. Is this what you mean?

[shagie]

My apologies for any misunderstandings - I was using a the physics to mean a physics sandbox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabletop_Simulator

> Tabletop Simulator is an independent video game that allows players to play and create tabletop games in a multiplayer physics sandbox.

> ...

> Tabletop Simulator is a player-driven physics sandbox, without set victory or failure conditions. After selecting a table to play on, players interact with the game by spawning and moving virtual pieces, which are subject to a physics simulation. Online multiplayer is supported with a maximum of ten players. Aside from spawning and moving pieces, the game includes mechanics to assist with common styles of board game play, such as automatic dice rolling and hiding players' pieces from one another; other mechanics aid in administrating a game, for example saving the state of the board or undoing moves.

[ED_Radish]

If you think getting used to TTS is a pain imagine playing by moving stuff around in GMod or Blender.

Physics is helpful because it limits possible positions to those you would actually be able to produce in real life.

[2muchcoffeeman]

Go to Board Game Arena or https://www.boiteajeux.net

These are 2D web based implementations with some remote server to sync moves between players. All the rules are written as code that gets validated. So you don’t know how to play a game before hand. You can skim the rules and use the game to learn.

TTS sometimes requires you to sometimes know how to play. So you can move some 3D widget to the right place. They get around having to coffee the roles by forcing the players to know how to play.

[remram]

What does any of this have to do with physics?

[0cf8612b2e1e]

Imagine you + friends are wearing a VR headset/matrix/meta verse/whatever. You are in a simulated room with stack of board game pieces. The physics stimulates how the pieces interact with proscribing any particular rules.

[2muchcoffeeman]

I don’t think you need to worry about VR. I’m no game developer, but I wager to some degree, it’s probably easier to create your pieces in an existing 3D engine. And allow yourself to move them. Bit of code to randomise cards and you don’t need to worry about rules.

[remram]

Is physics simulation required for you to enjoy the game? That is what auveair was asking 6 posts up.