PDA

View Full Version : Any thoughts as to creating a believable, self consistent world?



Habeed
2007-04-29, 11:20 PM
I don't know if I want a total rewrite or just a hack of an existing world, but I keep thinking about a "realistic" gaming system.

Here are the issues I see with D&D.

1. In a world where a fair number of people can perform powerful magic, the rest of society is trapped in medieval Europe. Wizards hoard their knowledge, and ordinary weapons are still melee, despite all the advances in armor and the presense of modern crossbows and longbows.

2. Resurrection : there needs to be a a plausible mechanism that applies hard limits on when resurrection can and cannot be performed.

3. Wounds : instead of hitpoints, there would be wound status effects. A specific injury would cause specific limitations on your character.

4. Manual gameplay : my game system would require a computer or palm PC to play at the table. The computer would have the game system inside it, fully implementing everything. It would do all the math, and be easy for the DM to quietly override. The software would be simple, but designed to save as much time as possible - automatic dice rolls, that sort of thing. The idea is to allow for a more complex game system, yet retain all the advantages of a face to face pnp rpg.

5. usefulness of characters : in modern war today, despite the presense of nuclear weapons in the arsenel, shotguns and bayonets still have a use. Magic doesn't have to be everything for every situation.

Demented
2007-04-29, 11:58 PM
Physics + DnD.
'Nuf said.

;)

"You've been stabbed in the gut. Roll pain and shock saves. Critical failure! Roll additional organ damage. Roll for consciousness. You will pass out in 58 nominal seconds."

Habeed
2007-04-30, 12:15 AM
Actually was thinking something like that. You'd take a "pain" penalty to dexterity and attack bonuses.

Remember, top grade warriors in both the modern real world and in medieval times could kill a LOT of people before the odds caught up to them. From what I read, the spartans really did have 50-100:1 kill ratios. In the modern day, SEALs and snipers may do about that well. Just because we don't have resurrection magic and ordinary tools and armor doesn't mean a trained warrior can't dominate his opponents if he has the right tools and tactics.

So while a "realistic" DnD would have all sorts of ways our heroes really could get killed instantly, even by lowly kobolds, in practice they could have skills and abilities that let them do pretty well.

All these complex rules would need a computer to keep track of. I'm thinking a simple, terminal based program or something written in JAVA. It would not have 3d graphics, just a simple 2d set of icons showing what the party is currently facing. Unlike current, limited CRPG versions of D&D, EVERYTHING would be supported in this computer version. If someone wrote an expansion book in my game system, they would have to include a disk that implements everything.

Dunno, just brain-storming. But the core ideas are :

1. A fantasy world that plausibly incorporates magic. Not medieval europe with a few weird races and demigods, but a world where people have adapted to magic. Some nations would use it just like technology, and have forms of it everyone could use. Other nations would be more primitive. Just like the modern world. I can't build or design an internal combustion engine alone, but I can easily use one.

A "wizard" today who knows how to make the best technological items our society has is not exactly uber. If I am a real life gunsmith and award winning marksman, I am not going to win every fight because other people can buy equivalent weapons to anything I might make.

(not to mention no single person can make anything as good as a modern fighting vehicle like a tank or helicopter. Soo...a D&D society would not have any lone wizards able to create the most unstoppable spells. A lone wizard might be able to USE the magic, but he would have to get "issued" or steal the real powerful stuff from a group that made them. For instance, something like Timestop would not be cast-able by a solo caster...he'd need to get a wand of it from an armory, or work with a large group)

On a similar thought : modern, powerful weapons that are virtually unstoppable are also often unwieldy. An Abrahms tank may be tough for a hundred men to stop, even if they have anti-tank rockets. (and an anti-missile system is being talked about that would make a modern tank even harder to take out). Yet you can't sneak up on anyone with one, and it's hard to see out and costs a ton of resources to deploy and run.

So a wizard packing timestop and Epic spells would be subject to similar limitations. Even a dime-store "magical threat" detection amulet would sound an alarm before he got within 500 meters. He would need some expensive help to be able to reload these mega-spells. He might not be able to step through a dimension door or teleport while packing so much magical energy in his head. (like trying to put a bag of holding in a bag of holding)

2. Wounds that incorporate basic, common sense medical limitations. Real life soldiers that are wounded can keep fighting, but within certain limitations.

3. A computer to do at least the basic bookeeping so this more sophisticated game system takes the same or less time than an equivalent D&D encounter.

Wehrkind
2007-04-30, 12:26 AM
I would implement opposed die rolls for attacks, damage reducing armor with possibilities for being bypassed (hitting where the armor isn't), as well as lower hp combined with wounds based on hit locations. Those would be fairly simple for a machine to crunch quickly, and would add some nice realism.

If you wanted to be really cool, put in a networking feature so multiple players can have their character sheet and battle map in front of them. Otherwise I suspect players are going to forget their character's left toe is missing etc. and not take that into account when thinking of actions.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-30, 12:28 AM
They have systems for this... up to and including hit points and AC assigned for each body part... and coupled with the vitality system!

Habeed
2007-04-30, 12:31 AM
They have systems for this... up to and including hit points and AC assigned for each body part... and coupled with the vitality system!

I figured as much. What systems are these? Are they realistic overall?

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-30, 12:32 AM
Well, they're more realistic. My roommate is the one who really knows about this stuff and he's just gone to bed. I'll see what I can find out tomorrow.

I do know, as I've said already, that each body part has it's own AC and hit points. When attacking, you attack a specific body part in a specific way, and this adds to or subtracts from your attack roll (i.e. it is much easier to aim for the "torso" than the "eye"). When a body part loses all it's hitpoints, it may be severed (like a limb), gouged out (eye?) or you may just die (decapitation.)

As to Resurrection, Heroes of Horror has this table for "Resurrection Screwups" (in order to make dying scarier) that includes such things as the wrong soul being put back in the body to some scary-bad condition occuring to the recently rezzed character.

The usual slap-on fix for balancing the casters vs. the warriors was gear: lots of gear. The more magic items, the better, because the warriors could get so much more use out of them. It worked in 2e. In 3.5e, not so much. I recommend making material components harder to get.

lumberofdabeast
2007-04-30, 12:41 AM
Sounds like you're going for an automated version of F.A.T.A.L. with the Eberron campaign setting. I'll pass, thanks.

Habeed
2007-04-30, 12:43 AM
Sounds like you're going for an automated version of F.A.T.A.L. with the Eberron campaign setting. I'll pass, thanks.

Sending my idea down in flames is fine...but WHY? What makes F.A.T.A.L. un-fun? why do we all just end up with manual, beer and pretzels D&D?

PinkysBrain
2007-04-30, 12:55 AM
I would implement opposed die rolls for attacksAny success/failure based opposed roll can be handled with a non opposed roll with the exact same odds on success. They are only useful when people roll the dice themselves for their increased illusion of control and the fun that adds to the game, with an automated system it's just extra work.

Inyssius Tor
2007-04-30, 12:57 AM
Sending my idea down in flames is fine...but WHY? What makes F.A.T.A.L. un-fun? why do we all just end up with manual, beer and pretzels D&D?

...hate hate hate... (http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/fatal.html)

I don't see that much of a connection, anyhow.

lumberofdabeast
2007-04-30, 12:57 AM
Sending my idea down in flames is fine...but WHY? What makes F.A.T.A.L. un-fun? why do we all just end up with manual, beer and pretzels D&D?

What makes F.A.T.A.L. unfun.

Wow.

To summarize, F.A.T.A.L. is unfun because it's too damn complicated. Well, and the system's creator was mysoginistic, racist, immature, et cetera. Wiki it, if you're prepared for the horrors that will inevitably follow.

"Roll for anal circumference." Enough said.

Anyway, overcomplication just isn't fun. What you're describing would effectively require everyone to bring their own computer, each with copies of your program. And I don't allow any computers or other electronic entertainment at my table, nor do I know of any other DMs that do.

We wind up with beer-and-pretzels DnD because it's a game. The point isn't to win, or do abusive things, or make love to slutty bisexual elves. It's to have fun. And damn it, having to refer to a computer program every time I want to attack isn't fun.

If you want a more realistic method, draw up a few tables for major damage caused on a critical hit. Be sure to have separate ones for each weapon type. Add a system of bleeding over time and a way to represent loss of ability, et cetera, and you have your fixes without the need to draw up an entirely new system.

EDIT: Oh, and do use Eberron. It's quite possibly the most logical campaign setting ever concieved.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-30, 01:13 AM
Any success/failure based opposed roll can be handled with a non opposed roll with the exact same odds on success. They are only useful when people roll the dice themselves for their increased illusion of control and the fun that adds to the game, with an automated system it's just extra work.

Explain.


12345

Habeed
2007-04-30, 01:18 AM
Err...I just looked at the link. I had read about FATAL before, but I forgot what it was.

That isn't constructive criticism, comparing my idea to fatal, it is a pure hateful flame!

FATAL is NOT automated, and is also NOT realistic. It has not only far too many rules that DON'T make the "common sense" check, but too many of them are concerning sex and rape. I think rape is a horrid crime, and should not be a major component of any game system, nor described in detail. (because it offends the sensibilities of most players in this day and age).

Since it is real threat, of course, maybe the game system I am proposing would have a quick paragraph that states that the same rules concerning unarmed 'grappling' combat will determine the outcome of a sexual assault. Not pruriently detailed, just realistic.

Also, the idea is that a VERY SIMPLE electronic device would join us at the table. It would NOT track everything, but would keep track of character status, how far apart everyone is located from another with 'terrain modifiers' as chosen by the DM, and so forth. Only a handful of computers would be at the table. Maybe just one, with software that can run on any old PC even in DOS. It might use 2 monitors or something, so the DM has a separate, secret terminal.

This way, detailed character statuses and effects that change every turn could be painlessly taken into account. As your character begins to go into shock from a wound, the computer would change your stats each turn accordingly to a fine level of detail. If you use an area of effect spell on a group of 100 monsters, the computer would do all the dice rolls instantly.

Java would be used so PCs, macs, pocket PCs, almost any computer device would be compatible.

To tell the DM something you might still need to use a message tube, when you are doing something the rest of the party is un-aware of.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-30, 01:20 AM
If you use an area of effect spell on a group of 100 monsters, the computer would do all the dice rolls instantly.

Don't you think simulating dice rolls is a bit... anachronistic?

Wehrkind
2007-04-30, 01:56 AM
I don't think he means "make pictures of rolling dice" but rather "generate the random numbers to determine results."

Also, opposed rolls to hit do not return the same results for hitting things. They create different difficulties based on the comparative skill of each combatant. So say a fighter would have a harder time hitting a high level fighter in full plate as compared to a low level goblin in the same armor. If you are going to have armor giving DR instead of AC and a high degree of risk in getting hit, that is the only way to do it since an unarmored combatant would become paste quickly, no matter how skilled they were. In reality one lives partially by armor, and in large part by avoiding blows in small scale combat.

PinkysBrain
2007-04-30, 02:06 AM
You can also just use the skill of the opponent to set a DC. X% chance of success is X% chance of success, how you get there is rather immaterial ... especially when it's automated.

Jothki
2007-04-30, 02:07 AM
Going back to believable worlds, there's also the issue of ecology. In a world where magic has existed for a very long time, regular animals and magical beasts will almost certainly not cooexist. Either magic really doesn't effect nature that much and magical creatures are rare or nonexistant, or the magical creatures outcompeted the nonmagical ones long ago. A high-magic world would probably end up looking more like Xanth than anything found in D&D.

Demented
2007-04-30, 02:11 AM
If you're getting the same mods, the opposed roll changes the playing field, but not the battle.

I.e.
A player rolls a d20 to attack. 4 str bonus, +1 masterwork weapon. (+5, 15.5 average)
Defense is a static DC, armor class. 3 dex bonus, +1 size. (DC 15)

Or

A player rolls a d20 to attack. 4 str bonus, +1 masterwork weapon. (+5, 15.5 average)
Defense rolls a d20 to defend. 3 dex bonus, +2 size. (+5, 15.5 average)

(We are assuming that a d20 isn't affected by the telepathic desires of the individual, since it's done on the computer. On the table, the outcome of a d20 can be altered by how good of a cheater the roller is. :smallwink: )

Wehrkind
2007-04-30, 02:14 AM
Yea, except every combatant is going to have thier own DC to hit based on skill. I see your point on only having one roll in that case, but each combatant should have a hit skill and a defense skill that opposes it. Not just D&D's "ok, he has armor for +10 to ac, and +1 from dex, so 21 AC" which completely ignores whether he is a level 1 fighter or a level 20. I suppose you could get around this by giving a version of Combat Expertise for free to everyone (Fighting defensively is too worthless to consider) if you wanted to.

Edit: Demented: That is sort of my point that armor does not give AC but rather damage reduction. See above point for how it doesn't make sense that a level 1 commoner in full plate is just as hard to hit as a level 20 fighter in the same plate, assuming similar stats.

JaronK
2007-04-30, 02:19 AM
Something to consider: Chess is a wargame. It's a battle simulation that is extreamly simple, yet it's been popular for hundreds of years, because realism isn't the most important thing. Balanced, simple, fun gameplay that's clear and concise, so that brainpower is spent on playing the game and not figuring out the rules, is far more important that realism.

Overrealism is the primary fault of newer RPGs. Don't fall into that trap.

JaronK

lumberofdabeast
2007-04-30, 02:28 AM
Err...I just looked at the link. I had read about FATAL before, but I forgot what it was.

That isn't constructive criticism, comparing my idea to fatal, it is a pure hateful flame!
I'm going to largely ignore the rest of what you said; after all, marketing to the lazy has long proven successful, and you'll doubtless make a tidy profit.

But as to this, if you're being serious, you missed my point entirely. I was referencing the complexity of the rules, no more. I fail to see the need for such complexity when I could simply make a few minor changes to the current system, which I have already recommended - and, by the way, I note you completely failed to address in any way, shape, or form.

Demented
2007-04-30, 02:45 AM
True. Which is why they made Combat Expertise. :smalltongue:

Then again, you could add BAB to AC, and such...

Wehrkind
2007-04-30, 02:52 AM
The point of using the pc is to hide all the rules, essentially creating a black box where players input their actions and get a result returned to them. He is trying to create a fusion between computer games and table top, by eliminating the former's closed system issue and the latter's issue of complexity rapidly bogging down a game.

I don't understand why people look at it as "more realism is too complicated for a table top game" when all of the new rules would be hidden from sight in the machine. If the computer is running the results, saying "I attack the orc" returns a result just as fast if there are 3 rolls as if there are 45.

I have considered putting together a similar system for table top miniature games, since games like old school Battletech sometimes had 3-4 rolls on a few different charts, bogging down combat, not to mention people forgetting to mark down something was destroyed, or miscounting damage dots filled in etc. Much better to go "I am shooting everything at this target. Range: 4 hexes." "Ok, his arm gets blown off, and his left leg gets a big hole burned in it."
Even a pretty stream-lined system like WH40K would benefit. As much fun as it is to throw 50 dice for one unit firing, then 50-X for wounds, then 50-X-Y for armor saves, much better to put in which unit is firing at what, any cover saves, range, then get a result.

Dhavaer
2007-04-30, 02:54 AM
Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=829104) is a hit point based system somewhat more realistic (it has status afflictions and similar in addition to hit point loss) than the current D&D one.

Wehrkind
2007-04-30, 02:56 AM
True. Which is why they made Combat Expertise. :smalltongue:

Then again, you could add BAB to AC, and such...

That's pretty much exactly what I said, though Combat Expertise requires a feat, and 13 Int. Not wanting to get hit in the head with a war hammer does not require above average intelligence to desire, nor does using your weapon to parry require above average intelligence to do effectively if you are a top tier fighter. Good fighters do not absorb more damage, but rather avoid getting hit all together. Even the fat and slow ones with less than average intellect I know parry well.

Swooper
2007-04-30, 05:48 AM
First off: I didn't read through all the replies. Sue me.

It seems to me that you should take a look at the Grim'n'Gritty variant D20 rules. Google it, should be pretty easy to find.

Basically: It really lowers your total hitpoints at all but the lowest level (your hp is your CON score + level * modifier(0.5 to 1.0 depending on class), meaning a level 20 fighter with a CON of 20 only has 40 hp). It changes armour mechanics so that armour bonus and natural armour are treated as DR vs. physical attacks, ACP goes to your armour class as a negative modifier (it's hard to move in full plate) and max DEX bonus is removed (since that would be two kinds of penalties for the same reason). Shields still work the same. Every character also gains a 'class defence bonus' that increases his AC by an amount comparable to base saves, so a level 20 fighter has a +12 modifier to AC from training. Sneak attacks are changed significantly, granting to-hit bonuses and increased crit multipliers instead of extra damage dice, which is kinda sucky. Locational damage is in, in a limited way, allowing 'called shots' to specific body parts at a penalty to the attack roll. Successful ones put a penalty on certain things depending on body part hit. There's no random hit location table for normal attacks though, although I guess you could make one yourself without trouble.

I've been using this system in a rather long campaign. It's fun in some ways, although it really forces a certain playstyle on fighters. Since everyone wearing armour has DR, dual wielding fighters as well as ranged ones become kind of useless, and twohanded weapons become the name of the game. Heavily armoured fighters also tend to fare better than light armoured ones. It's still quite possible, with the right gear, to make characters that simply tank off all damage (my character is an orc barbarian/fighter that manages a nice 18 DR with some feats from OGL books, heh. What? Don't look at me like that, I was checking if it was possible in these rules... He'd still die pretty fast to something that deals a lot of damage per hit, or a fireballing mage or something.). However, it tends to mean that people without much in the way of armour go down like flies.

Habzial
2007-04-30, 06:06 AM
I don't know if I want a total rewrite or just a hack of an existing world, but I keep thinking about a "realistic" gaming system.

Here are the issues I see with D&D.

1. In a world where a fair number of people can perform powerful magic, the rest of society is trapped in medieval Europe. Wizards hoard their knowledge, and ordinary weapons are still melee, despite all the advances in armor and the presense of modern crossbows and longbows.The problem with straying from this is you'll be tempted to go in a direction that damages the fantasy element of the game. When you start using magic as a source of power or manufacturing, as you've implied in your second post, things rapidly go in the direction of:


magic = electricity - need for knowledge of physics


Yes, you're right that it's somewhat inappropriate (if not clichéd as well) to have every fantasy setting look like Medieval Europe. However, use of industrial magic will make your setting feel like modern day Earth with a different skin. Magic doesn't produce pollution, after all. It may even be so extreme it starts resembling the Final Fantasy games' setting, at which point you can wave goodbye to realism. This happens because, if magic is capable of powering machines or is treated as if it were a machine, it becomes difficult to say what magic can't do. Along that same line of thought, it also becomes difficult to say what people wouldn't think to do with it.

The end result will be that you'll have to choose between nerfing magicians or arguing with your players ever session. Nerfing is necessary to prevent magic from resulting in a pristine, high tech world. Who wants to play a fantasy game where the only difference between it and reality is you call electricity something else? In addition to the difficulty in suspending one's disbelief, useful magic would result in your players constantly coming up with ideas that make things too easy for them. Of course, limiting the usefulness of magic also limits the usefulness of playing mages. Making mages an unplayable or undesirable class will make most of the world a backdrop the players don't interact with. Plus if you attempt to do anything big with magic you'll have to fight to explain how it's justified.

I'd suggest that any innovations you want to make using magic are limited in their usefulness. Avoid magic-powered machines. No complex magic-produced goods. Magic should be good for industry, but good in that it can do simple tasks better than working by hand. Such tasks could include reshaping metal (without the need to melt, mold, or hammer it), binding or repairing fabrics, creating the equivalent of prefabricated housing, spot-welding, and so forth. The world wouldn't seem like a modern world with a wink and a nod, but you also would be able to create unique, advanced goods.




2. Resurrection : there needs to be a a plausible mechanism that applies hard limits on when resurrection can and cannot be performed. This is always a tough call. I'd say that there should be 2 factors held above all others:
the amount of damage causing the death and dealt to the remains afterwards
the amount of time that has passedThe more damage to the body that resulted in death and the longer it takes to attempt the rezz, the harder should be. For example, if a character is eaten and digested, no, you can't resurrect him from his skeleton. Likewise, if it happened a month ago, you don't even get to try your luck with the RNG. On the other hand, if someone took an arrow to the heart just before the battle ends and one of the PCs is a cleric who can attempt the rezz a minute later, your odds should be as good as they get.

I guess this all depends on how hard you want the rezz to be.




3. Wounds : instead of hitpoints, there would be wound status effects. A specific injury would cause specific limitations on your character.

4. Manual gameplay : my game system would require a computer or palm PC to play at the table. The computer would have the game system inside it, fully implementing everything. It would do all the math, and be easy for the DM to quietly override. The software would be simple, but designed to save as much time as possible - automatic dice rolls, that sort of thing. The idea is to allow for a more complex game system, yet retain all the advantages of a face to face pnp rpg.3. This is a tricky idea. I've tried to implement it. I've seen other games do it to. You're designing a program, so some of the complication is taken out of playing it. If you were writing a MUD, I wouldn't even bother talking about this problem, but you've described your program as a calculation aid. The players still have to interact with this program while keeping track of their characters.

This is where it gets dicey. How realistic is realistic? Will limbs have their own HP? Will different parts of each limb have different values? These are the considerations you'll have to make before you even attempt it. The reason being: every status effect, every character attribute, and every piece of equipment's stats will have to be entered by the players individually. This is going to be tedious. This is also going to be unavoidable.

3. & 4. Here are some considerations you should make:
If you do not have a save system, your players will have to enter their stats over again for EVERY test.
If you do have a save system for stats, they will still need to maintain a separate character sheet to keep track of why they have the stats they do.
If you want the character sheet to be totally digital, you will have to put the entire catalog of gear, races, and so on into your program. This will make character creation tedious because the players will have to go through a series of menus for every individual piece of armor.
You will have to attempt to catalog anything that would effect the odds in any encounter. Otherwise your players will have to enter them for every task. In addition to the added work, you will not be able to conceal anything you might have wanted to keep secret about the encounter.
If you do not create a system that allows manual computation of stats, you will never be able to add things on the fly.
It will take much longer to shop for equipment. This is because all of your armor will have defense values only applies to certain parts of the body. For the same reason, armor will be more tedious to maintain on a character sheet.
Keeping track of armor will get even more complicated when you take into account that a single piece of armor may overlap several body locations.
User error. Enough said.I'd suggest you save yourself a world of complication by keeping the wound system simple. Limit the number of body areas to: head, left arm, right arm, left leg, and right leg. Limit the kind of damage to: pain, reduced function, greatly reduced function, and disabled. Perhaps you could use a table like this...

Damage locations
Roll | Location
1 - 10 | No limbs hit
11 - 12 | Left Arm
13 - 14 | Right Arm
15 - 16 | Left Leg
17 - 18 | Right Leg
19 - 20 | Head

Damage level
1 - 5: Pain
6 - 10: Reduced function
11 - 15: Greatly reduced
16+: Disabled


The idea being, you keep the nature of the wounds simple and the number of locations small. At least that's what I suggest.



5. usefulness of characters : in modern war today, despite the presense of nuclear weapons in the arsenel, shotguns and bayonets still have a use. Magic doesn't have to be everything for every situation.I touched on this earlier, with #1. You have to be careful about how magic-dependent you make your technology. The more high tech magic gets, the more useless you'll have to make it to individuals to keep your players from traveling via flying castle.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-30, 06:43 AM
System-wise, you want The Riddle of Steel or The Burning Wheel.

Setting-wise, you want Ptolus or Eberron.

Yahzi
2007-04-30, 12:49 PM
The problem with straying from this is you'll be tempted to go in a direction that damages the fantasy element of the game.
Good points all. The point of a game system isn't realism (I mean, it's a game with magic, so what does that mean?) but flavor. D&D has a particular flavor. The fact that a high-level fighter can fall out of an airplane at 20,000 feet and walk away from it - twice - is not a flaw, it's part of the flavor of the D&D world.

If you don't like that flavor, you need a different game system.

On the other hand, self-consistency is also supposed to be part of a game system, and D&D doesn't do a very good job of explaining why the world looks like Medieval Europe when it really shouldn't.

For the campaign setting I'm working on, I came up with an excellent reason, but I did have to make one rather significant change to the D&D mechanic (i.e. flavor) to make it all hang together. Ah, well.

EvilElitest
2007-04-30, 01:04 PM
Dear gods, do you know how many Catgirls you've killed

It is like the holacust of catgirls

you need a medal
(join the church of link's hat and we will give you one, for a limited time only)

50-100:1 kill ratios. In the modern day, SEALs and snipers may do about that well. Just because we don't have resurrection magic and ordinary tools and armor doesn't mean a trained warrior can't dominate his opponents if he has the right tools and tactics.
No, in those times, dispite what 300 said, killing three guys at ones is pretty big if they are all armed.

from,
EE

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-30, 01:36 PM
The point of using the pc is to hide all the rules, essentially creating a black box where players input their actions and get a result returned to them. He is trying to create a fusion between computer games and table top, by eliminating the former's closed system issue and the latter's issue of complexity rapidly bogging down a game.

Except that it doesn't eliminate either, and it compounds both.

The more complexity you add into the system, the more complex your code will be, and the more bugs will creep in. And because you don't get to see what the computer's doing when you make a roll you never know where the problems are coming from.


I don't understand why people look at it as "more realism is too complicated for a table top game" when all of the new rules would be hidden from sight in the machine. If the computer is running the results, saying "I attack the orc" returns a result just as fast if there are 3 rolls as if there are 45.

Because it won't. It won't be "I attack the orc", it will be "I attack the orc using [goes to pulldown menu] my longsword - hey, where's the longsword on this damed thing, oh right, it's there, and I'm aiming for - hey GM, which areas of his body is this guy protecting, his head, okay, then I duck - is there a duck manoeuvre on this - and try to stab him [goes to another pulldown menu, selects 'stab'] in the gut [goes to yet another pulldown menu]. Ah, there's no gut option, how about 'torso' then. Right. Hang on, now I have to enter my BAB and my Feats."


I have considered putting together a similar system for table top miniature games, since games like old school Battletech sometimes had 3-4 rolls on a few different charts, bogging down combat, not to mention people forgetting to mark down something was destroyed, or miscounting damage dots filled in etc. Much better to go "I am shooting everything at this target. Range: 4 hexes." "Ok, his arm gets blown off, and his left leg gets a big hole burned in it."
Even a pretty stream-lined system like WH40K would benefit. As much fun as it is to throw 50 dice for one unit firing, then 50-X for wounds, then 50-X-Y for armor saves, much better to put in which unit is firing at what, any cover saves, range, then get a result.

But why bother, when you can just play Dawn of War?

Saph
2007-04-30, 01:44 PM
Something to consider: Chess is a wargame. It's a battle simulation that is extreamly simple, yet it's been popular for hundreds of years, because realism isn't the most important thing. Balanced, simple, fun gameplay that's clear and concise, so that brainpower is spent on playing the game and not figuring out the rules, is far more important that realism.

This is worth repeating. More realistic != more fun.

The most popular RPGs tend to be the ones that make the best compromise between fun, ease of use, and simulation.

- Saph

blacksabre
2007-04-30, 05:34 PM
Here are the issues I see with D&D.

1. In a world where a fair number of people can perform powerful magic, the rest of society is trapped in medieval Europe..

To control Magic getting out of hand...you could do a couple things..
Magic items are rare..+1 weapons are just as rare, if not more so then +2 or 3..If someone is going to go through the hassle of making a magic blade, why waste the time on a +1

Pay close attention to components..enforce them..
Spells..When Casters gain new levels, they must find the scrolls or research,
Magic shops rarely would exist ..magic would be a gov't controlled, thus membership of a Caster guild..

Clerics..ties in with next..




2. Resurrection : there needs to be a a plausible mechanism that applies hard limits on when resurrection can and cannot be performed. .

Clerics have a personal relationship with their dieties, and speak to them through an Arch-angel when he prays...when the cleric is healing the party regularly, the godexpects the party to act in accordance to the his/hers dogma..Miracles, such as resurection, require sacrifices to the diety or even more..
In one instance, the fighter, (neutral with evil tendancies) died. the cleric was CG, and when he tried to resurrect the Fighter, this initiated a 15 min roleplay between the fighter and the arch-angel...Ala, repent your ways, follow in the teachings of the god etc, else , death awaits..The charcter agreeed and had Voluntary Align change...of course 3 sessions later he renigged and did a huge evil act...the god of course showed up and smite him into nothingness



3. Wounds : instead of hitpoints, there would be wound status effects. A specific injury would cause specific limitations on your character. .

I play every CRIT hit follows up with a fort save.
SAVE= no permenat damage..
To what extent a failure results determines the long term effects..

For instance a Critical Slash against a ranger during a AOO when he was using a bow, failed on a FORT save roll of 2...2 of his fingers were sliced off..no more bow for awhile..

Healing the wounds...see clerics above..






5. usefulness of characters : in modern war today, despite the presense of nuclear weapons in the arsenel, shotguns and bayonets still have a use. Magic doesn't have to be everything for every situation.

In my world, there are rifts allowing "some" travel between demensions, in which items from other times find them selves in a D&D campaign..not neccarily weapons..

Bic Lighters..
A modern day combat knife..equiv to a +2 blade because of the edge and material..not magical though..
DVDs...some goblins fouind a box of them , now they all wear them around there necks worshiping the disc god

Just have fun with it to add some spice..
Gunpowder can unbalance a campaign..ALso ammo isn't easy to make, if at all, using a "outsider"weapon without a exotic weapon feat is a -4..to get the feat you need to practice, to practice, you need ammo..which can be rare..

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-04-30, 08:24 PM
All of the suggestions present (well, most) will allow you to create a more 'realistic' system for your campaign.

However, I would urge you to consider the effect of those changes on play- particularly roll density and length of a round.
Of late, pre-made adventure modules (and the Delve, for instance) have begun including prefigured dice-roll arrays for actions that require large dice totals- such as a dragon's breath.

This decision was undertaken for a reason, namely that large numbers of dice rolled (20d6 etc.) slow down gameplay, and reduce fun for everyone.

Larger numbers of necessary ad-hoc modifiers have precisely the same effect; nobody wants to sit around while everyone else calculates their percent chance of wounding someone's spleen. So consider carefully!

Similarly, while resurrection dangers have their place (mostly in horror gaming) they also make players unwontedly cautious, also slowing gameplay. The idea that they can be returned to life allows characters to take exciting risks.

The D&D system as written isn't an exhaustive system, because most of the nitty-gritty portion of combat isn't part of the rules, but part of the total play experience- the players are expected to improvise the exact details of what a given attack and damage roll represents. By subsuming the details of wounds and vitality etc. into a unified damage mechanic, the system allows for speedy, usually exciting combat without hampering significantly the potential for detailed description- indeed, if anything, a more 'realistic' system hamstrings creative players, who, since they now have a percentile roll to tell them exactly what their dagger did, are robbed of an opportunity for role-playing in combat.

Consider the preceding, to paraphrase the science guy.

A computer-based system might remove the problem of time (if you can create one) but it doesn't remove the problem of limiting player description and choice.

Wehrkind
2007-04-30, 10:05 PM
Except that it doesn't eliminate either, and it compounds both.

The more complexity you add into the system, the more complex your code will be, and the more bugs will creep in. And because you don't get to see what the computer's doing when you make a roll you never know where the problems are coming from.
I was opperating under the assumption that the poster was a competent programmer. I have written programs simulating physical problems of heat transfer in a water chamber using fluid dynamics of over 2000 lines, and somehow managed to get it to work despite hating programing. It can be done, it just takes knowledge. The possibility of bugs does not negate the desirability of the result. I don't know why you would even bring that up.


Because it won't. It won't be "I attack the orc", it will be "I attack the orc using [goes to pulldown menu] my longsword - hey, where's the longsword on this damed thing, oh right, it's there, and I'm aiming for - hey GM, which areas of his body is this guy protecting, his head, okay, then I duck - is there a duck manoeuvre on this - and try to stab him [goes to another pulldown menu, selects 'stab'] in the gut [goes to yet another pulldown menu]. Ah, there's no gut option, how about 'torso' then. Right. Hang on, now I have to enter my BAB and my Feats."
Again, you are assuming you are playing with a pack of preschool drop outs with improperly performed lobotomies. Yes, it will be awkward to get into the flow of using it, but who hasn't played a game with someone new to RPG's and seen them go "So uhm... I guess I want to stab this orc... how do I do that?" There is no reason why one couldn't just say "I am attacking the orc with X" as opposed to "I am going to try and hit the orc in the head with X in particular" and have the computer go through all of it. Yes, you could make it require insane amounts of detail which would slow it down. Or you could not be a complete idiot and get more detailed results than D&D allows for, while still keeping streamlined input. Your points go straight past "constructive criticism" and right onto "ridiculous hyperbole."
Personally I would have the DM manipulate the program while the players describe their actions, just to allow them to be more immersed in saying what they are doing.



But why bother, when you can just play Dawn of War?
If you honestly think Dawn of War accurately translates a table top experience to a computer, well, I don't even know where to begin explaining. I mean, you realize that table top WH40K does not have any resource gathering, micromanagement of abilities or even time based decision making, right? Not to mention not "tech tree" to climb, units to produce, or really anything that marks it as an RTS. Medieval: Total War might be a better comparison, but is not close for obvious reasons.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-05-01, 04:22 AM
I was opperating under the assumption that the poster was a competent programmer. I have written programs simulating physical problems of heat transfer in a water chamber using fluid dynamics of over 2000 lines, and somehow managed to get it to work despite hating programing. It can be done, it just takes knowledge. The possibility of bugs does not negate the desirability of the result. I don't know why you would even bring that up.

There's a big difference between fluid dynamics and game mechanics. Fluid dynamics does not involve choice at any stage. A D&D game is *actually* a lot more complicated. RPG systems have bugs. Computer programs have bugs. Computer programs designed to simulate RPG systems will have bugs out the wazoo.


Again, you are assuming you are playing with a pack of preschool drop outs with improperly performed lobotomies. Yes, it will be awkward to get into the flow of using it, but who hasn't played a game with someone new to RPG's and seen them go "So uhm... I guess I want to stab this orc... how do I do that?" There is no reason why one couldn't just say "I am attacking the orc with X" as opposed to "I am going to try and hit the orc in the head with X in particular" and have the computer go through all of it. Yes, you could make it require insane amounts of detail which would slow it down. Or you could not be a complete idiot and get more detailed results than D&D allows for, while still keeping streamlined input. Your points go straight past "constructive criticism" and right onto "ridiculous hyperbole."

The thing is "I", "the Orc" and "X" are three distinct values you need to input into the program, and that leaves out any possibility of using special combat manoeuvres.


Personally I would have the DM manipulate the program while the players describe their actions, just to allow them to be more immersed in saying what they are doing.

More immersed, but less invested. What you're proposing now is a system in which the results of in-character actions are described entirely by the GM. If the players aren't allowed to interact with the game mechanics except through the GM, what's the point in even having them. You might as well just go diceless and have done with it.


If you honestly think Dawn of War accurately translates a table top experience to a computer, well, I don't even know where to begin explaining. I mean, you realize that table top WH40K does not have any resource gathering, micromanagement of abilities or even time based decision making, right? Not to mention not "tech tree" to climb, units to produce, or really anything that marks it as an RTS. Medieval: Total War might be a better comparison, but is not close for obvious reasons.

Actually, that's sort of my point. There's no point whatsoever in trying to transfer the tabletop experience to a computer, the tabletop experience is designed for a world of dice and paper and little lead miniatures. If you're going to use a computer, you might as well play a computer game.

Thoughtbot360
2007-05-01, 03:58 PM
There's a big difference between fluid dynamics and game mechanics. Fluid dynamics does not involve choice at any stage. A D&D game is *actually* a lot more complicated. RPG systems have bugs. Computer programs have bugs. Computer programs designed to simulate RPG systems will have bugs out the wazoo.



The thing is "I", "the Orc" and "X" are three distinct values you need to input into the program, and that leaves out any possibility of using special combat manoeuvres.



More immersed, but less invested. What you're proposing now is a system in which the results of in-character actions are described entirely by the GM. If the players aren't allowed to interact with the game mechanics except through the GM, what's the point in even having them. You might as well just go diceless and have done with it.



Actually, that's sort of my point. There's no point whatsoever in trying to transfer the tabletop experience to a computer, the tabletop experience is designed for a world of dice and paper and little lead miniatures. If you're going to use a computer, you might as well play a computer game.


On that last note, might I suggest the use of a computer for simulating complex conditions (weather, presence of highground, where the sun is likely to shine in the archer's eyes, perhaps morale of NPC groups, etc.) could perhaps give extra immersion without too much interference?

Matthew
2007-05-01, 09:55 PM
I have spent a lot of time (too much time) over the years turning D&D into 'the game that I want' and that has involved a fair bit of toning things down to maintain suspension of disbelief. plenty of compromises have been made, but I (and my players) am happy with the overall effect. One thing stands out to me from reading Forums like these, though - not everyone wants to play D&D like I do, but there are plenty who do.

If you want to build believeable and self consistant world, you first have to decide what you think is 'believable'. Then you have to be prepared to alter your view (and you will have to alter it) and put in a great deal of work to make the mechanics that underly that world consistant, believable, simple and fun. It's a lot of work and you may get out of it a lot less than you put into it.

Your other option is to play Conan D20.

Wehrkind
2007-05-02, 01:09 AM
There's a big difference between fluid dynamics and game mechanics. Fluid dynamics does not involve choice at any stage. A D&D game is *actually* a lot more complicated. RPG systems have bugs. Computer programs have bugs. Computer programs designed to simulate RPG systems will have bugs out the wazoo.
Uhm... cry? RPG systems have bugs... which is what is trying to be sorted. Programs have bugs... which are tested and found and removed. No one said it would be easy. Considering though that there are MANY computer based RPG systems (Never Winter Nights, Baldur's Gate... anyone?) that work quite well, it does not seem out of the question that one could adjust rules to fit the medium.
Further, RPGs have a lot less "choice" than you think. How many ways can you attack in D&D? How many feats can your character choose from? How many skills? The answer is: A finite number. Typically very few, few enough that a player and DM are not overwhelmed. Sure, you can say " I am using two weapon attack pattern Omega Prime one the orc in front of me, whirling about in a dizzying display of skill!" What that means in game terms is "I am full attacking the orc."



The thing is "I", "the Orc" and "X" are three distinct values you need to input into the program, and that leaves out any possibility of using special combat manoeuvres.
How do you figure? I am going to assume you have programed something once, even though that sentance does not support the assumption. In C++ say, you would have object "I" with it's statistics, attacking object "Orc1". Does, object "I" have feat "Pimp Slap?" If there is a 1 in that option, then "Pimp Slap" becomes an option for attack other than "partial" or "full" etc. Computer runs the process (BAB vs Defense vs Armor, roll damage, whatever) and presents results. The DM then says "You slice open the orc with two blows, his lifeless body crumbling to the ground."
How is that different from "Ok, I am going to full attack the orc." "Ok... roll your dice... let's see, hit, miss, hit hit. Ok roll damage. 34... ok. The orc crumbles beneath your onslaught."
Essentially the computer cuts out everything between "I do X." and "This is what happens." Perfectly clean? Of course not. Better than rolling dice and consulting tables? Yes.



More immersed, but less invested. What you're proposing now is a system in which the results of in-character actions are described entirely by the GM. If the players aren't allowed to interact with the game mechanics except through the GM, what's the point in even having them. You might as well just go diceless and have done with it.
You do only interact with game mechanics through the DM. Since when do players get to say "I totally rolled a 10. I hit."? If the DM says "No you don't, you only have a BAB of 5, and the AC of this beastie is 45" you don't get to describe the results of your actions at all, do you? That's what the DM is for, determining the results of actions. You tell him what you are doing, he tells you how it works out for you. You have played the game, right?




Actually, that's sort of my point. There's no point whatsoever in trying to transfer the tabletop experience to a computer, the tabletop experience is designed for a world of dice and paper and little lead miniatures. If you're going to use a computer, you might as well play a computer game.
And you are missing the point entirely. It isn't the paper or the pens that make the game. It would work with PDAs with digital character sheets and stylus' if you wanted to. The minatures being digital pictures instead of pewter (you must be nearly as old as I am to still think them lead) makes no difference. Some people don't even use them. The player's imagination is what makes the difference. All the computer does in this case is remove the accounting necessary, and not even all of it at that.

As to translating table top experiences, some games do it very well. Risk translates well. Chess as well. There was a company (might still be) called Talon Soft back in the opening days of Windows 95 that made excellent turn based strategy games for Gettysburg and Waterloo (I am told the East Front game is also good.) They used hexes for movement, not inches, but I have played table top games that do the same. They put all the options of a table top game in computer form, determining morale effects, shooting effects, melee, etc. Basically they took all the annoying parts of gaming out, and brought it a little closer to pure fun.
The Total War series does a similarly excellent job, making a table top game real time, but leaving many other things intact. Dawn of War is not a WH40K port simply because it changes the game in translation, basically making a C&C or Warcraft clone with Warhammer 40K unit images. Now, if they made players select armies ahead of time, using a force organization chart, an agreed upon amount of points, and then let you fight it out (real time or turn based) in the manner of the Total Wars, then I probably would never buy another Sister of Battle again. Till that time, I am carrying around books and piles of dice, throwing and counting 150+ dice a turn to see who I kill, and hoping my opponant and I didn't screw up some math, or build a unit incorrectly.

Habeed
2007-05-02, 06:41 AM
Thankyou for the vote of confidence.

Here are some of the steps I would take to make the program reliable.

1. The usual. Compartmentalized functions, as general purpose a code as possible so I don't have to hack in new features when I need them.

2. Program would save a series of snapshots of the current state of all the data. It would also record mouse and keybaord presses and I/O made by the user after each snapshot. There would be a record bug/report crash button that would then let me, the programmer, see that record. I would be able to put the software in the EXACT state it was in 30-60 seconds before the bug was encountered, and give it every piece of input that led up to the problem.

Every bug would be reproducible in this manner.

3. Code would be open source, so if anyone wants to hack in a new feature or fix something they don't like, they can do so.

Matthew
2007-05-02, 07:34 AM
The minatures being digital pictures instead of pewter (you must be nearly as old as I am to still think them lead) makes no difference.
Hahah, I didn't even bat an eyelid when I read that. Many of my Miniatures are lead, being as I bought them long ago...


The Total War series does a similarly excellent job, making a table top game real time, but leaving many other things intact.
Yes indeed, great game that. X-Com would be the other example.

So, what kind of modifications are you talking about, because none of the stuff discussed so far makes me want to reach for a calculator / computer?

Oh yeah, one amusing thing is that under (A)D&D Player Characters were encouraged to attempt difficult manoeuvres and the DM was supposed to adlib the result. D&D 3.x, by codifying so many rules, has created an illusion of limitation ("You can't move, attack and move without X Feat." "What? Why not? Just slap me with an Attack Penalty or have me make a roll of some kind to do it with appropriate penalties for failure..."

Fri
2007-05-02, 09:04 AM
For the hit point problem, I always like Star Wars D20's solution. When you're hit, the attack isn't actually hitting you, you actually 'barely dodge' the attack and lose your stamina. When you're out of stamina, then you'll actually get hit and feel the actual pain.