Ok, this is sort-of implemented now. (attn: @Paul_T) On the Player menu, you can click Profile. That dialog will let you set your “profile_color”. All dice you add after that will be tinted the chosen color. It might require switching back and forth a bit to get all the colors you want.
I intend to eventually have a Properties button in the action menu for all dice where you could just click on a die, then set its color.
I admit that it’s weird right now. There are actual 4 lines, a border actually, that demark the boundaries of the “table” . I didn’t want to make it too big right now because I think its easy for users to get lost and the navigation is currently so clunky (that weird widget in the bottom left).
I think I’ll make the table bigger by default once there are mouse / touch controls to pan/scan/zoom the interface. I’m also planning on making each individual component scalable, so you could, for example, scale your dice smaller and fit more onto the table.
Definitely on my radar. For now, you can try holding down Shift to select multiple dice. Still doesn’t let you drag them together though…
Yes indeed. rollforyourparty aka roller is excellent, I’ve used it as a user and it’s a project I’ve contributed code to.
I’ve definitely stolen a lot of feature ideas from it already.
Its code though, is written in a way that doesn’t mesh with the vision of becoming a tool that can richly support the immense variety of tabletop gaming out there. I’m operating under the premise that I personally will never be able to keep up with the needs of all the games that exist and will emerge. So Togetherness Table needs to empower other developers to pick up the baton for their favourite game, and implement those specific features.
To empower those developers, Togetherness Table needs to honor the freedom of its users, be strongly Open Source, embrace and encourage web standards, be simple to modify, be quick to set up a dev environment, not rely on 3rd party (especially corporate) dependencies as much as possible, etc.
Amazing! This is the kind of feedback I live for!
Fantastic!
The roller is almost good enough for my group to switch to it permanently, as well. I’ll definitely let you know if we do so!
Wonderful work. Very inspiring. Much gratitude to you for your labours!
Experimenting with it a little bit today:
The sheets are working really well (except that the “Sum” can get lost under the edge of the “sheet”, if it’s large enough).
Making dice of different colours seems to work quite well now. Fantastic! (Of course, entering a colour by code isn’t exactly easy for most people, but it’s not impossible, either.)
The main objection I have is to the small “size” of the available screen. Zooming out doesn’t increase the size of the available field, so it just makes things smaller. It’s not even possible to fit more than 20 dice or so comfortably on the screen.
The other features seem to be working really well!
I like what you are doing. What I’m missing is in other a positional grouper so I can do a proper d100 with d10s EDIT: Don’t mind it, I found N faces dice in the expanded dice view. This is not needed.
One of my friends needs a simple container that groups at least 3 dice and throws them together, no operation needed other than throwing them together.
Would the “Sum” or “Sorter” Dynamic Paper satisfy that need? Or are you looking for something a little different?
There is an easy way to do that already:
However, the option to click-and-drag to select dice would create a nice easy alternative, as well, once that’s available.
Worked on it some this weekend. The table is now bigger by default. Also I got rid of the clunky panzoom widget. Panning is now just done by scrolling as you would normally. Zooming is done by holding Ctrl and rolling your mouse wheel.
This is lovely! A big improvement.
However, I have a question: why is the “field” limited? Something like rollforyourparty can give you a “table” of unlimited size (you can just keep zooming out - although it does get a bit weird if different users are looking at the same thing with different levels of zoom, unfortunately).
But here, if I zoom out, the field just shrinks - making it smaller doesn’t actually give me any more space. It never takes up anywhere near the full screen (at least on my laptop), which means there is a LOT of wasted space on the page which we can’t use.
Fixing the size of the screen/field and enabling some kind of click-and-drag feature would make this basically ready to go, for me - everything else is lovely. (It’s important to be able to “clear” or move multiple things at once, in other words - let’s say I have three dice and five tokens or an image and six dice, I’d like to be able to select them all and drag them over to the side of the screen, for instance. Right now, placing them all on a dynamic paper allows you to do so, but that’s not as flexible (especially when you first roll all the dice onto the screen!).
Also, dice (and other objects) added through the “quick dice” option all pile on top of each other in the corner. Not a huge problem, but it makes it feel like the widget isn’t doing what it’s supposed to be doing (especially since the “new” dice or objects appear underneath what is already there; it’s easy to think nothing is happening at all and to keep on clicking in frustration).
Incredible work here, and amazing to see some novel and interesting approaches to an online dice roller! Very promising, as it has been all along. Thank you for everything you’re doing here!
Two reasons motivate a finite play space: 1) Users could “get lost” in an infinte space, requiring building more navigation tools. 2) The design goal of executing a “tabletop” metaphor – in the real world, tabletops are finite.
doesn’t actually give me any more space
there is a LOT of wasted space on the page
some kind of click-and-drag feature
I’m trying to boil these down into “bug reports” or “feature requests”, here’s what I’m coming up with:
Yes, that’s fantastic!
I agree with all of that. In particular, an unlimited field is not useful or necessary, for the reasons you mention. But something that uses the available screen space more effectively would be wonderful. (As is, the dice roller isn’t “large” enough for many games that use a lot of dice or cards.)
Rollforyourparty does this well, for example, as you can zoom out and use your full screen area.
Fantastic! I’m sure other people will have other needs and wants (they are potentially endless), but, for my needs, the roller, with these additions, would be entirely sufficient (and significantly better than anything else out there).
Allright, I took advantage of the long weekend to make a few updates:
@Paul_T, I think this will be relevant to your interests.
Needed to roll up a bunch of pre-gens for an upcoming game. I used your table and the sorter-box again. This time for Knave-style stats - roll 3d6 and use only the lowest result - again it did very well.
I noticed a delay as the numbers sort of faded into view, I think you can make that animation a bit faster without losing the effect, perhaps it would even be more exciting if it slot-machine-style scrolled through a couple of possible options before landing on the final result (although, only if it is done very quickly).
Thanks again for the good feedback. Can I ask what browser you’re using? I think I may be using animations that aren’t universally compatible with all browsers.
Google Chrome on Linux, month old release.
Nice. The table “resize” feature changes the size of the dice, which is handy.
However, here’s what I don’t understand:
This is what I see when I use the page. I’ve placed dice at the extreme far left and right I can use. (That black line in the green field is the effective “edge” of the available field.)
If I make the field “bigger”, it disappears under the edges of the available window, or just zooms further out.
But, in any case, only a small portion of my screen is actually usable: all the white and green space outside of those black lines cannot be used. Is there a reason to do it this way? It would be nice if it expanded further to use the available screen space. But maybe there is a reason not to do that? I find it frustrating, however.
Everything else I can see seems to be working great!
(Although my wish list would have a more user-friendly way to select colours - not all of us know the HTML color codes by heart 
)
