Tabletop to CRPG? Share your thoughts...

[Silmenume]

Hello Tye and welcome to the Forge!

I have been following this thread and it seems to me that there is very glaring lack of communication going on.  I am not saying that no effort has been made, rather neither side understands what the other is trying to communicate.  It is frustrating, but let's see if we can remedy some of the problems.

I don't know how much you have read here at the Forge, but for expediency's sake I'll assume you just jumped right in.  Right on!  The goal of the Forge is to aid role-play game designers design, test, get feedback on, find artists and share information about publishing.  So for RPG design aid you have certainly come to a very good site.

However, in order to facilitate the discussion of designs, hopes, goals, etc., a general theory about role-play was developed over many years, which is now parochially called The Big Model.  You see, the phenomenon of role-play is a substantially more complicated process than most people originally believed.  Verbal tools were slowly and with great difficulty created over time as more and more understanding of role-play was teased out of the examination and discussion of lots and lots of posted game events and experiences.  These discussions mostly took place in the two theory boards, RPG Theory and GNS Model Discussion.  Out of all the blood, sweat and tears that were spilled on those pages over the years a powerful model and an extremely useful vocabulary were born.  The Provisional Glossary can be found here in the Articles section and is a very useful place to start.  Among other things, you will come to find that there are some ideas that are more fundamental than you realize at work in role-playing games than an accurate physics engine or "story telling" and the like.

One of the largest stumbling blocks in this process, from what I can tell, was the discovery, identification and examination of basic assumptions about role-play that we didn't realize we had.  These unspoken assumptions were derailing many attempts to analyze and understand role-play...and this where I think where the head bumping lies.

Yes we do have a "duty" to reach out to new members to the Forge and help them get up to speed.  Conversely we encourage new comers to take the time to read some of articles and read some threads so that we can then engage is much more fruitful dialogue.

Your initial post indicated, to me, an interest in "making better role-playing games."  Well, good on ya mate!  Everyone here (at least I hope everyone here) shares a similar interest – especially if we follow the laudable goal to its logical end, "making better role-playing experiences."

Some of these suggested reading were offered earlier in this thread, it would be very helpful for everyone if you could take the time to do so.  You could ask more succinct questions and we in turn can provide more useful answers.  The key here is to ask questions.  How can we help you if we don't know what exactly it is that you are trying to accomplish?  Conversely you seem to be frustrated by the questions we are asking in return.  There are certain assumptions in your initial proposition that are fairly problematic and thus don't lend themselves to solutions without further clarification.  Does this mean that there is an implication that your ideas are bad?  Absolutely not!  But there are some logical conundrums that you aren't aware of yet.  I think we all understand that there are limitations to what can be done on a computer, however some of those limitations strike at the very heart of the strengths of RPG's.  Does this mean you are wasting your time?  Not at all.  I know at least two people in this thread have expressed interest in your efforts.  If you can solve some of those limitations then you be viewed as the alchemist who successfully turned lead into gold!  If you skip everything else the one thing I highly recommend you become knowledgeable with is Creative Agendas.  Having done so you will begin to see where some of these issues in this thread originate.

Answering some of these questions will help a lot –

Do you know what a Creative Agenda is?
Are you familiar with the Elements of Exploration?
Do you know what Exploration is?

(These very core ideas and many other are in the Provisional Glossary.  They are not just words but functional units of a paradigm.)

The reason I pose these questions is that they lie at the very heart of understanding what role-play is.  If you don't then you might be at a certain handicap.  What you have claimed is a logical paradox.  If not allowing player inventiveness is a necessary pre-condition to writing CRPG's, then one might properly ask, "Are CRPG's truly a role-playing game?"  Those ideas that you have indicated as "perfect" and "unrealistic expectations" lie at the very heart and soul of role-play.  It's akin to one saying, "Of course one does not need wings to fly!"

All the best!

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Clearly, Josh, Callan, and Fred - you are not helping Tye. Jay, despite your good effort, you aren't either.

Never mind "computer games which can do Narrativism." That's what you want, Josh. It's not what Tye's talking about, not what he's saying, not what he wants. Never mind "understand the Big Model." That's not anything he wants either.

Tye, it's going to take a little while for you to get used to this forum. One of the first things is that I'm the content moderator and will dictate, very straightforwardly, what has to happen socially and intellectually for a thread to continue. What has to happen here is not on you, so much, though. When you stop using phrases like "you don't understand" and "totally false," all will be well. It's the others I need to speak to rather sharply.

Again, you guys - I am stunned. Why are you not helping Tye? Never mind his grandiose claims. You have the vocabulary and the ability to translate it for newcomers. Why are you babbling about Narrativism and so on? If Tye is after Gamist play with Task Resolution and Pawn Stance, don't fuckin' say that, and do not dispute it or try to change it. You're supposed to be helping with it.

Do that now or stop participating in Tye's thread. You've poisoned it so far and some of you have let your li'l egos get involved. Any more of that crap and this thread is closed.

Tye, look forward to some decent discussion, and if you would, don't use phrases like "you just don't understand" and so on.

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

I apologize for my line of responses.  When I saw this thread and had a personal, negative response, I should have just passed on.  There was no need to communicate my dissatisfaction with the style of play that you were bringing to the table, Tye.

[Selene Tan]

Hi, Tye!

I remember reading about Explorations on RPGMaker.net, but lost track of the various game engines being created when the site died. I'm glad to find out that Explorations has progressed so far in the intervening years.

One thing you should about this site is that it has a strong focus on examining and dealing with the human interactions around the gaming table. This means that a lot of the lessons learned here are difficult to apply in CRPGs.

One of the topics I've been interested in recently is making the GM's role easier in D&D-style (Gamist, challenge-oriented) RPGs. Specifically, a problem that crops in D&D is that the GM is responsible for 1) providing interesting challenges for the players and 2) making sure the players are all having fun by making sure the challenges are neither too easy nor too hard. Keeping a balance of challenge and fun is really hard, and usually it requires a lot of experience GMing to learn how to do it well. Obviously, game balance is an issue in Explorations games. Do you have any tools in place to make it easier for Explorations GMs to balance their games? Playtesting will, of course, be necessary, but revision will be much easier when you start close to the desired balance.
A challenge-balancing mechanic I've seen is to limit the GM resources based on the number of players and/or their resources. This doesn't translate directly to Explorations, since an Explorations GM has carte blanche in scenario creation. Perhaps some sort of formula describing how hard monsters can be given a party's current power? I don't know, really. FF8 tried to do something like this, but I don't think it was done very well.
I *do* think it would be neat if you could include some sort of script module with formulas and mechanics that do this kind of thing. It would be more flexible and generic than including a database of monsters with difficulties matched up to the default player characters.

-Selene

P.S. You may or may not remember me as Ashera from RPGMaker.net.

[Callan S.]

I'm lumped in again, with someone else's nar posts?

Ron, I'm not the greatest programer, but I've gone to try and code similar stuff to that which Tye talks about. IT MAKES YOUR EYES BLEED! It's completely freakin' hard! It's just like my recent thread where I wanted a complete game (which takes a freak load of work if it's even slightly comprehensive). But then I figured out what I really wanted (a challenge mechanic to manage all other resources). Right now, I see Tye scripting, scripting, scripting like someone might write, write, write up a combat system, without basic questions being asked (like, "do you actually want a combat system?").

Tye, sorry to throw more questions at you, but can you give some examples of what you've really enjoyed as a player, when playing an RPG? I'm trying to sort of guage you like a cook might guage if someone likes spicy food...I don't want to give spicy ideas if that doesn't suit. :)

But in any given "problem" or "scenario" you create, the players could think of new ways to apply the objects to solving the problem at hand.. (period) - The scenario is partially scripted based on the intent of the GM. The objects are scripted based on reality. And accurately scripted object can over-ride the intent of the GM.. Thus.. bonus..

I took this as an example of what you like, when I said it was what I was talking about (and something I like alot). Could you give some quick actual play accounts where you yourself got to do stuff like this and enjoyed it?

[exploreRPG]

Whoa...

More responses than I wanted and not one helps me.. I'll address the moderator here first because he is one of the most off base..

Never mind "computer games which can do Narrativism." That's what you  want, Josh. It's not what Tye's talking about, not what he's saying, not what he  wants. Never mind "understand the Big Model." That's not anything he wants either.

How can you say what I want?

Tye, it's going to take a little while for you to get used to this forum. One of the first things is that I'm the content moderator and will dictate, very straightforwardly, what has to happen socially and intellectually for a thread to continue. What has to happen here is not on you, so much, though. When you stop using phrases like "you don't understand" and "totally false," all will be well. It's the others I need to speak to rather sharply.

I use the phrase.. totally false.. To correct people claiming things about my design. How can ANYONE here speak on my design? - Need proof? Read below..

I think what's happening is sort of like us being presented with a program list that repeats a bunch of comands multiple times, rather than using a loop. Were presented with it because were supposed to provide new ideas, but instead we get into how you could use a loop instead of untidy program design..

How can someone insult my design? What I posted was merely words that describes some of the features, it does NOT in anyway give you a picture, understanding, even the smallest ability to make an assumption of the design. Where is this coming from? arrogance?!? - Too much theory?!?! - I don't know..

Could it be the use of the word SCRIPT? - Possibly.. But I guess nobody here has never used a dynamic function call.. A function that adjusts based on criteria passed into it? Using dynamics allows script functions to return values that change and adjust as the playing field and information adjusts..

Pathfinding is a great example.. A sprite can navigate paths that change based on fixed information. Dynamics & AI, is possible within computers.. Once you have it figured out, you can "expose" this function via a seemly fixed script command.. The information & tasks behind the scenes could be extensive database lookups etc.. but who cares? as long as it works..

Right now, I see Tye scripting, scripting, scripting like someone might write, write, write up a combat system, without basic questions being asked (like, "do you actually want a combat system?").

How about this question.. Do you want a combat system, OR do you want to teach your sprites to fight strategically? Do you want to teach your sprites to co-operate when they fight? - combat system are fixed.. Strategic fighting follows planning and constant evaluation of the terrain as it changes & modifies itself in-game..  (somehow, I think this paragraph will never be comprehended.) -

IMPORTANT
This thread contains three pages of posts from people who have the unbelievable ability to read my mind. People who can see my source code, and understand my design and not one clear example of a failure in my design. I see alot of people claiming what it can/can't do, but not one example, or proof..(Honestly, my design wasn't the TOPIC.)

What do I want?
1) I don't want to talk about my design.. (period) - seriously..
2) I want to know the type/style of RPGs you play and how they differ from tradition AD&D.
3) What elements in the game play interests YOU? How could it be incorporated into a CRPG?

Vaxalian,

I apologize for my line of responses.  When I saw this thread and had a personal, negative response, I should have just passed on.  There was no need to communicate my dissatisfaction with the style of play that you were bringing to the table, Tye.

What style of play did I bring to the table? - Where are these assumptions coming from? This is by far the weirdest community of "know it alls" I've ever seen. I made no claim to a "style of play", or anything regarding  my design except that it was database driven.

Back to Ron..

Again, you guys - I am stunned. Why are you not helping Tye? Never mind his grandiose claims. You have the vocabulary and the ability to translate it for newcomers. Why are you babbling about Narrativism and so on? If Tye is after Gamist play with Task Resolution and Pawn Stance, don't fuckin' say  that, and do not dispute it or try to change it. You're supposed to be helping  with it.

Where did I say this? I'm asking for your opinion and help. I asked you to describe how "these mysterious", "undescript", role playing games are different from traditional AD&D. My opinion was open to new ideas.. I wanted to hear the new ideas rather than have to justify any of my current ideas.

Selene

I *do* think it would be neat if you could include some sort of script module with formulas and mechanics that do this kind of thing. It would be more flexible and generic than including a database of monsters with difficulties matched up to the default player characters.

Well there seems to be a contradiction amongst the group.. According to Vax, my scripting (which I have yet to explain) is a TREMENDOUS flaw in the design. Where does this come from?

Honestly.. there are more quotes, but I'm too tired to waste my time posting them.. I'm so so so so sorry.. There is absolutely too many assumption being made and absolutely no help/information on this site. Its like walking into a room filled with self-proclaim geniuses and asking for information. - You guys are soo busy trying to diagnose WHY I'm asking my questions that you never actually answered any questions, or made any suggestions.

More specifically.. All of you spent 3 pages of threads:

1) telling me what I want
2) telling what Explorations can't do
3) telling me Explorations design flaws
4) telling me *I'm* being rude
5) basically forcing me to defend everything about my project

to the point that I've even forgot my original post. Maybe it's my fault for posting.. But I only wanted some clear examples of how other rpgs play differently than traditional RPGs.. Some concrete examples..

Geez... What a welcoming party?!?! - You can close the thread.. I'm outta here..

Again.. I am sorry..

[exploreRPG]

Final Thoughts..

As a lead software developers I often express to my programmers that software is molded and guide by the end user. Software that is designed one way today can be molded and can evolve in the future. If this community is unable to communicate their opinion of a good RPG design, because their "ego" your hope/dream of a better CRPG is lost.

Stop trying to analyze what YOU THINK a person is doing and provide the raw, unfilter, (clear of your ego) information.. And maybe a software developer can give you what you want. It may not be in the 1st version, but software always evolves through multiple revisions.

Best wishes..

[LordSmerf]

Tye,

I think Josh may have been poking around something useful to you in his earlier post, let me highlight what I think you might want to look at.

Let me give you an example of what I want:

I am playing a game in this online system. You are the GM.

You: The Weaponsmith knows you guys are up to no good. He won't sell to you.
Me: OK, I'll seduce the Weaponsmith's daughter so she'll show me how to get into the shop in the middle of the night.

Here's the important bit: there was no Weaponsmith's Daughter before I said it. It's a good solution to the problem, so if we're sittin' down at a table, you'd say, "Oy, OK, let's roll for it." That is, we'd resolve the issue mechanically, by rolling dice or whatever.

I want, as a player, to be able to make up the Weaponsmith's Daughter as a solution. Obviously, the character didn't create her. I did, the real guy. I have some sort of resource that I can use to develop solutions in the world. Let's call them Makin' Shit Up Points.

I think one of the reasons so many people are coming accross negatively is that they don't seem to think that this is something you can do in a CRPG.  Further, this is a fundamental tenet for much of table top roleplaying.  So, people seem to be saying "Here's this thing I think is cool/important, and I don't see how you could incorporate this into a CRPG."

Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?  Things like Josh's statement of "This is what I want to be able to do in roleplaying"?

Thomas

[Callan S.]

How can someone insult my design? What I posted was merely words that describes some of the features, it does NOT in anyway give you a picture, understanding, even the smallest ability to make an assumption of the design. Where is this coming from? arrogance?!? - Too much theory?!?! - I don't know..

For anyone else reading this now or in future, it's really hard to convey that someone may have made choices in thier design philiosophy without thinking about or even realising there are alternatives. My programming analogy was supposed to help isolate a programing problem, then show it can occur at the design philosophy level as well and how that needs focus. It didn't, it was just read as an insult. I think that if I'm to help newer forge members, I need some help myself in this respect.

[Tobaselly]

Tye,

[Tobaselly]

ack, I think i just double posted.oops

Tye,
     How does Explorations handle non-scriptable story options. I know that all of the objects within a session can have certain attribute and properties set for them, including explicit actions and reactions, but how does it handle non-scriptable actions. The big draw about table top rpgs is the ability to perform non-predeterminable actions.