The Forge Archives

Watching my friend play the new CRPG Disgaea (for, like, 12 straight hours), I realized yet again that most CRPGs use a whole lot of D&D baggage - i.e. levels, jobs/classes, standardized six-stats, levelling up, etc. - but this is in part due to what the CRPG market wants.

Anyway; what do people (esp. Driftwood folks) think of the idea of using the TROS core as the fundamental engine of a CRPG? Is it suitable, and in what ways could it change? To some extent the question is just hand-waving and "what-ifs", which are mostly useless, but it's possible that some independent CPRG designer may try it out. (As may I, if I try to do an independent gaming startup in my future, as difficult as those are.)

Possible thoughts:

* "Dice" allocation done non-discretely, i.e. your pool is somehow a continuous bar that you allocate to your current task at ahnd.

* "Hard-code" SAs into the game, so that the AI can determine when they come into play.

Is this topic koshure? I'll assume.

it's an idea that I gave quite abit of thought, as a video game afficindo and ROS fan. Though speaking for the record, I think it would be more accurate to say that japanesse crpgs have alot of final fantasy baggage, the original borrowing heavily from D&D, but it's distinct in alot of different ways now.

On using SAs... During combat could be very simple, just giving bonuses to certain types of enemies, or things that are declared in oppisition to your SA's intereast. Alternatively you could have "Scenarios", sequences of time in which what you are doing is supposedly for the benefit of one of your SAs, and than apply the bonus.

Personally, I think that doesn't really do the concept of SAs justice. If we are to assume typical, GM-less, computer-written-scenario-driven CRPG play, than I'd say the best way to do TROS would be to have no actual bonuses to actions gained through SAs, but to keep the system, and have the SAs that you currently have effect which scenario's open up as an interpretation of what you want to take your character towards. Again, it wouldn't exactly be the extremnely protagonizing expiereince that SA is but it would be quite intereasting I think.

The problem I see is interface.  TROS makes no attempt to "hide the dice."  Each die has a worth, you know what your up against, and you have a pretty good idea what your chances are.  You would have to either create an interface that provides the same level of information, or just show the dice/numbers, and force the player to learn the system.

This is certainly a kosher topic. I've been struggling a bit with these exact same issues for RPG tot CRPG conversion for TROS for a long time, actually, since I, too, am a video game junkie.

So, keep it going.

Jake

I was thinking, for a computer version of tros's dice allocation in combat, you could have a bar on the hud representing your dice pool with a slider on it you could move freely.  One side of the slider is offence, one is defence.  A little icon or 3 could select your stances and initiative.  A small # next to the dice bar could tell you how many dice or in it, or you could just use brackets in the br and size.
   A little bar could appear over the enemies heads showing their "level" of offence/defence, with init by color.

I think the SA system would actually work really well in a game.  The only change I would make would be to make them fixed - since computer AI can't yet parse and interpret anything a player wants to enter.  The way I see it there would be a big pool of SAs programmed into the game.  You start off being able to choose five out of a bunch of starter SAs.  As you play the game, other SA options might open up allowing you (if you choose) to switch out one of your SAs for a new one.  NPCs and actions would have die modifiers for one or more of these SAs built in.

That would make for a fantastic crpg.

I see more difficulty in the way combat ebbs and flows as well as the archery rules.  It would be much easier to implement as a one character game rather than a party based game.

Sorcery would become an even bigger issue.  It is based around realizing plot and drive, but I heavily doubt that a CRPG can be designed flexible enough to handle this at this point in time.  I would actually advocate one of two things.  Sorcery could be reduced to a fixed list of spells with vagary pre-requisites or alternately (and a little more difficult to implement) it could be reduced to a fixed range of effects for each vagary that combine in explicitly defined ways with each other but are still left open to free combinations.  Either way, I think that damage levels more in line with melee power at equivalent experience just due to the nature of CRPGs.

Char-gen might also need to be reconsidered slightly.  Since you can improve all of your skills and abilities during play with the same limits no matter your priority choices, it would be pretty much a no-brainer to always take a gifted character, whether or not you plan on learning much magic early on.  All of the other priorities aside from race can be won in-game.  To address this, I would consider either letting people spend SAs to later become gifted (or follow some plotline in game to win it) or apply some kind of adjustment or cap on future advancement based on the priorities you choose.  I prefer the former idea.

I don't see any of these as problems in the real TROS game, but feel that they do show up due to the nature of the crpg medium.

Quote from: CazI was thinking, for a computer version of tros's dice allocation in combat, you could have a bar on the hud representing your dice pool with a slider on it you could move freely.  One side of the slider is offence, one is defence.  A little icon or 3 could select your stances and initiative.  A small # next to the dice bar could tell you how many dice or in it, or you could just use brackets in the br and size.
   A little bar could appear over the enemies heads showing their "level" of offence/defence, with init by color.

However, sometimes in TROS it's not offense/defense within one exchange but rather offense/offense or defense/defense.  I think the same principle could apply but with terminology other than offense/defense.  How did you see this working mechanically?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.  If both take offense for init, same as on paper.  If you're using all your pool on offence, just put the slider all the way to one side of the bar.

Quote from: CazI'm not sure exactly what you mean.  If both take offense for init, same as on paper.  If you're using all your pool on offence, just put the slider all the way to one side of the bar.

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand.  Let's say you start out with character A attacking and character B defending.  A puts 2/3 into the attack (is this offense on your slider?).  Let's say that the character A hits but fails to do damage.  By normal TROS rules, he would keep initiative and then have 1/3 of his pool left for the second attack but from your description where does this come from?  Does he get to use "offense" again and attack once again at 2/3?  Does he use the defense 1/3 portion even though it's an offensive attack?

What does "offense" and "defense" mean on the slider and what is the slider used for?  I don't see anything in the TROS rules where you directly allocate dice pool between offense and defense explicitly.  You allocate between two halves of the exchange - either of which could be offense or defense.

I c what you're getting at.  If you attack and retain initiative, the program should recognise that and just put your remaining dice into offence or something.    Let me try to illustrate my slider idea.  
   Say each - represents one of the dice in your pool.  To the right of the slider, the V, they're white, to the left, red.  You slide the V to allocate your dice to offence/defence.  If you attack with 1/2 your cp, and retain init, on the second half of the exchange, your bar will change to represent this

8--------V-----5
  (red)    (white)  The #s on either side also indicate the # of dice allocated.

Perhaps another bit of the "hud" could show your shock, pain, BL, etc.

I get it now.  Thanks!

I think the only thing from tRoS a computer can manage with style is the combat system. I thought about trying to make a computer version of the tRoS combat system. A combat-sim á la Brian plus graphics, at first. The problems that got me was the obscene amount of graphics required for all the attacks against different zones, with different weapons plus the parries for all these attacks and the blocks and evasions... And that's only in a one-on-one duel! When there are more people involved it get's really tricky!

Still, it would be really cool if it could be done. I would sooo like to record the "turn-based" duels and replay them in real time...

QuoteThe way I see it there would be a big pool of SAs programmed into the game. You start off being able to choose five out of a bunch of starter SAs. As you play the game, other SA options might open up allowing you (if you choose) to switch out one of your SAs for a new one. NPCs and actions would have die modifiers for one or more of these SAs built in.

This is precisely how I conceive of SA's working - bunch of canned options that can be arbited - to a limit - within the game engine; perhaps allow improvement/strengthening of passions, or unlocking newer SAs through gameplay.

As for Sorcery: likely, a spell list is a reasonable course; designing your own cantrips from canned effects might be complexity that takes away from the rest of gameplay, but it could also be a really fun game aspect if it didn't overload gameplay (CRPGers typically like crunchiness, but not too muc).done right; in any case, cantrips should be largely constructed beforehand, even if freely so. Perhpas the SAs and aging effects can be rigged to focus on the growing lifepath of a character, so that aging effects are a nontrivial consequence. (Magical damage effects will probably need to be nerfed slightly, but ideally not.)

Going back to the interface question, although the slider seems like an easy way to allocate "dice", I'm not sure the offense/defence split is the best way. Rather, each side first makes their offensive/defensive declaration, and once an attacker is decided each side allocates their pool to their first attack. (By the way, by slider imagine just holding down a button while your meter "boosts" up, and letting go when it's high enough; it's a pretty painless inteface.)

As I see it: (1) you select the button for offensive/defensive, and instantly see who's attacking, (2) select your maneuver and (3) target/angle, and finally (4) split dice pool on your first attack. That is four different steps, plus (I realize as I was playing through the combat sim) there are lots of different options that pop up in the middle of combat (like stealing initiative); more and more, the interface is becoming like that of an "action-rpg", where some finger reflex is necessary to properly execute attacks; I think this is okay if it simplifies the interface.

Wow.... This is possibly the coolest thread I've ever seen. A TRoS CRPG... Wow. Being the extreme video game junkie that I am, especially in the area of CRPGs, I think this is the coolest thread ever. I will post  more on it later, I have to go. (Im at school and the bell just rang for my lunch to end. gotta go)

LONG LIVE VIDEO GAME JUNKIES!!!!

I find it interesting that everyone assumes a turnbased or similar game for TRoS.  I think its a shame that most people don't do justice to what computers can do - Maths equations at speed.

Personally I'd like to see more RPGs with single character focus and direct control.  I may be alone in that, but I doubt it :)

I imagine instead of bars and sliders, some form of action/combo based combat with a distinct TRoS feel rather than a direct copy of tros.  Think of it like when you make a film of a book.  You change things cos films are better at some things and worse at others.  I think it shold be the same with the game.  Its more important to get the SA effects and quick-flowing combat into the game intact than it is to move the exact die-pool mechanic.

If anyone here has played Severance: Blade of Darkness (a fairly old hack'n'slasher with as much depth as a paddling pool) then you will know what I mean about Players who control the combat.  Sure its twitch gameplay - but thats what computer games are for!

But then again, why should you listen to me :P