Tabletop to CRPG? Share your thoughts...

[exploreRPG]

Yes.. but you have also wasted alot of time and accomplished NOTHING. I understand the position you represent, but I'm here to tell you that in order to achieve it you must first comprise that position and work toward it. To make a CRPG you first have to accept limits.. Not limits applied by a design you don't understand, but simply limits applied be the media of expression. (a computer)

If you can't work within these limits, you will NEVER achieve your goal.. (Which I assume was to make a more realistic, dynamic CRPG.) Tabletop RPGs are realistic and dynamic because it is controlled by a human. How do you capture the essence of a humans ability to ad-lib within a PC?

You first must "give-up" the notion that computers are human.. And work from the other direction. Saying that, Explorations like the RPGs that currently exists are a step from Pacman, to more dynamic games.. Explorations takes the design a little further.

I'm asking you to contribute ideas that inspire more scripts, better logic, and more intuitive human ability. NOT to criticize my methods.. Unless you are a seasoned software developer, you really don't have a leg to stand on. I respect your knowledge of "what table top RPGs" offer, so you should respect the concepts of software development.

Working together is the only way this human-like PC controlled RPG can be achieved. You possess the theory, I posses the know to simulate the theory on a PC. Agree to disagree is a cop-out for lack of fundamental information to back your claim, or expectations.

Instead give me a clear example of an time that you played an table-top RPG and had to ad-lib as situation. Explain the scenario, and the key factors that you feel are logically important. Through examples, a framework can be established. You've complained and criticized but haven't offered 1 example.

Tye

[Vaxalon]

Okay... here's an easy example.

I was running a Dungeons and Dragons game, years back, in a scenario called "Dragon Mountain".  The dungeons were guarded by a big tribe of kobolds that used tiny tunnels to ambush the PC's and avoid pursuit.  Where they could go crouched over a bit, humans would have to belly-crawl.

The players used a "mass reduce person" spell to make the PC's as small as the kobolds, and run down the tunnels.  Since the spell is normally used to put enemies at a disadvantage, I hadn't thought of it as a problem-solver, and neither had the scenario designer.  For me, this was a "Hey that's nifty!" moment.

Another event (in the same game) involved a set of murder holes and arrow slits that allowed the kobolds to fire poisoned arrows at the PC's from all directions.  A "wall of stone" spell was used to create a corridor-within-a-corridor, which blocked the holes and slits and allowed the PC's to proceed down the corridor unmolested.  I hadn't foreseen this.

At another point, the PC's were confronted by a trap involving a floor made out of pitch-soaked granules of coal that would be set alight.  The players disarmed the trap before it was set off, and then pried up the flooring and shoved it into their portable hole to use as fuel when they wanted to set fires elsewhere in the complex.  I hadn't foreseen this.

[exploreRPG]

Excellent!

And honestly, Explorations could handle 2 out of 3 of the examples you described.. I explain each scenarios and the rules involved to make this work..

The players used a "mass reduce person" spell to make the PC's as small as the kobolds, and run down the tunnels.  Since the spell is normally used to put enemies at a disadvantage, I hadn't thought of it as a problem-solver, and neither had the scenario designer.  For me, this was a "Hey that's nifty!" moment.

This example has to do with the physical size of players.. You can use factiods that are attached to players when a spell is cast.. You can make the kobold tunnels not allow "med - large" sprites pass. The spell makes the PCs small.  Now, you can also make the graphic appearance for the tunnel small and even tell the graphics engine to reduce the sprite in size when the spell is casts.. But the end result still works..

Its a matter of creating real-life factoids to describe the world and condition of a PC. The engine handles the basics but once you apply large, small and other factoids your game can adopt these criteria in any situation. Creating the spell will work anywhere, as the GM u just have to be accurate as to how you create your world. Most GM's would create a small tunnel and say it is "unpassable".. This is being lazy... Instead if the GM was honest in hist design he would describe it accurately.

Another event (in the same game) involved a set of murder holes and arrow slits that allowed the kobolds to fire poisoned arrows at the PC's from all directions.  A "wall of stone" spell was used to create a corridor-within-a-corridor, which blocked the holes and slits and allowed the PC's to proceed down the corridor unmolested.  I hadn't foreseen this.

I love this one the best.. Explorations spells can create physical objects on the map. So you can make a spell that triggers the AddMapGroup{} script command.  A map group can be any graphics item u create, a tree or in this case a wall of stone. The object will physically block movement like a wall you made as the GM. If the players cast several walls they can block off a corridor just as you described.

There wouldn't be game scripting for this.. This is simply how you create the "Wall of Stone spell".. It really makes an in game wall of stone.. There would be some additional GUI control needed for position and direction of the wall but very do able. This wall of stone spell is portable to any RPG, so the information graphics is packaged based on its how it was created.  (The limits & standard design makes this possible.)

At another point, the PC's were confronted by a trap involving a floor made out of pitch-soaked granules of coal that would be set alight.  The players disarmed the trap before it was set off, and then pried up the flooring and shoved it into their portable hole to use as fuel when they wanted to set fires elsewhere in the complex.  I hadn't foreseen this.

This one would require more work as a developer.. Fire is a property of an object that is transferable. As well as the luminance, and burning ability.. I'm sure as I continue to enhance the design I could reach this point. But this would take some work..

I hope you understood what I meant in the 1st 2 examples.. My data relationship allows for real-life adjustments from spell to map. (ie A Wall of Stone Spell can really make a physical wall on the game map.) This was the point of the design. Where the wall is used is at the players discretion. Explorations doesn't help you through your adventure, so people confronted with the example you gave can use the solution u proposed as well as many other solutions.

Such as Invisibility.  Each sprite has a visible property. NPCs can't shoot what they can't see.. The combat and targeting checks for Visible PCs.. If they are not visible they are "ignored."

The Invisibility Spell can be created to toggle T/F this sprite value. The properties included for NPCs and OBJECT design take the first steps for all of these types of rpg development techniques.

Before you assume the script design is a setback, please take some time to check out my website. I think you think the script language is only meant to  "control the game".. But in fact the script language is designed to make OBJECTs really behave like real-life objects within the game. At this point of the design its simple "physical" adjustments, later it could be qualities of fire, burning, & luminence etc..

Tye

[Vaxalon]

You're still not getting it. 

The system could only handle it IF I HAD THOUGHT OF IT AHEAD OF TIME.  I didn't.  I reacted to it on the spot, and through MY modifications of the game-space, permitted their good ideas to become part of the game experience.  If a human being hadn't been there to adapt on the fly, it wouldn't hae worked.

I understand EXACTLY what you mean in your answer to the first two examples, and your response is a non-sequitur.

[Vaxalon]

To be more specific:

The properties and purposes you describe would have to have been set up ahead of time for ALL of the possible objects in the game, in such a way that EVERY possible use for all of them, and all possible combinations of them, could be incorporated in the computer game.

I'm not convinced it's possible.

[Callan S.]

We need a calm down. Weve got the 'I'm being ever so tensely polite' thing going on.


Vax; The upper limit isn't your imagination, it's what ever has been agreed at the table. If the agreement is that things are alot more restrictive, then that's the agreement.

Tye:

Yes... And I agree 150%.. But I didn't consider this a "role reversal".. I still consider the GM being the GM.. And for a reason.. It keeps logical order in the software world.. :)

Then all your going to code is a fight for supremacy. Where the player fights so he can sometimes become GM and you fight with all your scripts to 'stop him doing stupid things'. The reason players do stupid things, is because that's often the only way left for them to take control...all the reasonable ways of controlling the game have been taken from them by programmers afraid that they'd do something stupid.

Think about how much you love to write up the world and all the fiddly bits and then let it run, to see how it all comes together. See how it's really fun? If you keep this 'The GM is always the GM' then your just saying 'All this fun is for me only, none for you! Even if that's actually what you like about RPG's'.

I know you've got a feeling in your spine that says "If I give the players this, one of them will take it and crap all over the game, then call ME a bad programmer for the crap THEY made! I can't let that happen!". Trust me, apart from the pathetic gamers who crap over everything they come across, this is an easily surmounted issue.

[exploreRPG]

Vaxium..

You constantly say "I don't get it" but you don't read very well.. I specifically said I wouldn't have to script for the use of the "Stone Wall Spell" I would just have to make the spell. (period) Where you use it is up to you.

In the sample you gave.. There could be a hidden switch that makes the port holes shut. If the players look for the switch the find it. If the Wizard happens to have the ability to cast a stone wall spell, he could use that as well.. I didn't script the scenario to use the spell.. The spell was just created accurately by design..

If you create a spell in a game engine called "Stone Wall".. It should do what it implies.. It should make a stone wall appear. An script-language to allow objects to be made accurately isn't a burden.. Its an asset.  The Stone Wall spell doesn't *stop working* just because its not in the example scenario.. It does what its suppose to.. THUS.. Allowing the PCs to use any method they can think up to solve the problem.

This is what you said you expected, yet you don't seem to comprehend *reality* in software development.

A better example on reality..

Programs that calculate speed, accelleration and gravity. If don't accurately can reproduce it in a game with a great deal of realism. You'd argue that scripting is a "burden".. but scripting can allow the presets for earth gravity to be altered to the Moon, so the game to appear to take place on the moon.. (A burden? No... an accurate implementation of real software.)

I think you have too much THEORY in your head, and too little practical application..

Explorations allows you to build objects.. Just as the writers of AD&D 3rd ed. created the spells. If the players realize a practical application for a spell that I didn't think of.. *Good for them* - I didn't script for it, it simply worked because THE OBJECT WAS CREATED ACCURATELY USING SCRIPT - I hope you get it now..

Then all your going to code is a fight for supremacy. Where the player fights so he can sometimes become GM and you fight with all your scripts to 'stop him doing stupid things'. The reason players do stupid things, is because that's often the only way left for them to take control...all the reasonable ways of controlling the game have been taken from them by programmers afraid that they'd do something stupid.

Code doesn't fight for supremacy.. They work within the framework a developer creates.. (period) If a player sits at a table and does stupid things as his only attempt to play a game, you have to ask yourself if the guy really wants to play the game.. Same with someone playing a PC game.. Sure, its nice to test the limits.. but there is a level of reason one should expect. (Else... why did you just pay $40 for this game?) - Again, its their money, but don't whine about the fact that the game didn't allow you to ignore the point of the game.

Think about how much you love to write up the world and all the fiddly bits and then let it run, to see how it all comes together. See how it's really fun? If you keep this 'The GM is always the GM' then your just saying 'All this fun is for me only, none for you! Even if that's actually what you like about RPG's'.

I know you've got a feeling in your spine that says "If I give the players this, one of them will take it and crap all over the game, then call ME a bad programmer for the crap THEY made! I can't let that happen!". Trust me, apart from the pathetic gamers who crap over everything they come across, this is an easily surmounted issue.

Not true..

The example given had to do with problem solving.. I would create a map with a corridor and murder holes. I would script the secret switch that closes the holes and allows the players to pass.

Within the Spells database I could have tons of spells that could be used to block vision from the murde-holes.. Just as within the spells manual of AD&D the "Stone Wall" spell existed.. The spell is created and explained in text.. The spell is duplicated ACCURATELY to yield the effects as explain in text.. It creates a reall wall in the game.

Thus.. if the players have the spell they could do exactly what Vax. stated.. I didn't "script for it" I simply presented the situation.. How they solve it, is identical to solving the problem in table-top RPGs..

How do you know they should be rewarded for solving the problem?

If they make it to the destination without triggering the pre-scripted solution, they should be rewarded.(period) Its very simple..


The Mass Reduction Example

Again.. The reason why other games can't reproduce this scenario and Explorations can is because the reliance on reality and accuracy.. Other games will create the map with small corridors and say they are blocked from players traversing. Yet the story dialog explains kobolds use these passages..

To make the game accurately, you have to establish a qualifier for why one character can traverse and the other can not. There can be infinite ways to trigger the qualifier, and you don't have to script for them.. You just have to acknowledge the qualifier exists...

You can "assume" I don't get it.. but I do, thats why I created Explorations.. I'm just telling you, you don't have a firm understanding of software design. Before you assume you know everything, accept you know nothing and build from that.

Tye

Lemme try a different approach..

Imagine a game engine that allows you to create maps, scenarios and problems to solve. The same engine allows you to create totally independent objects with functionality to them. These objects are INDEPENDENT. The players don't see or know all of them exists.. 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..

Hope that adds some light..

[Callan S.]

Tye, your becoming rude with "You don't comprehend" and "I hope you get it now" comments. And please don't lump me in with Vaxalon, as if I've adopted his arguement and am just backing him up. I'm coming from a different angle, I assure you.

Imagine a game engine that allows you to create maps, scenarios and problems to solve. The same engine allows you to create totally independent objects with functionality to them. These objects are INDEPENDENT. The players don't see or know all of them exists.. 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..

Tye, that's what I was talking about. What I was saying about players doing stupid things, usually they do stupid things because that's the only way to over-ride the intent of the GM. That was the battle of supremacy I was talking about, that just leads to stupid crap.

One way to let them over-ride the GM without stupid crap, is to model objects on reality. This is the hard way. There is an easier way. But you'll have to shift some personal paradigms about the GM/player divide to do it. Do you want to talk about that or tell us we know nothing again?

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I can't believe I'm getting drawn into this.

First, let me say: I understand how databases and software work.

Then, let me say this: there's no reason not to let the players have the tools too. Certainly no technical reason. Anyone can write to a database if you let them. Figuring out what they can do with that database interface is a matter of game design. I'll be very interested to see that game, I assure you.

As it stands, it's a game that's designed to prevent me from doing the unexpected, and that doesn't sound like a fun game.

Oo! I know! Nine Worlds! You should read Nine Worlds, a game by Matt Snyder. It has provisions for players creating props of varying efficacy on the fly.

[Vaxalon]

Exactly!  The way the game is designed, the players are handed a list of allowed actions by the GM, and they have to pick from those.

In a FTF game, the list of allowed actions is MUCH longer.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

If I don't see some basic courtesy and expression of shared understanding in this thread, immediately, then I'll close it.

Best,
Ron

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Thanks for reminding us what we're doing here, Ron.

Explorations wasn't designed for "live" DMs. It was designed to capture what is expressed in written DnD modules as explained above. Making a PC fully intelligent is not the scope of a game engine. Expecting it is ridiculous. At best, you can free up the game developers time so that he can incorporate better game scripts.. (moving in the direction of AI.)

Vaxalon, what's happening here is a simple ol' case of incompatible Creative Agendas. Tye is making a Gamist scenario builder for a Task Resolution-based system, assuming that the players will take a Pawn stance. It seems like he's pretty clear on that desire.

Tye, what you've got here is focused game design. I got no beef with that. You want a scenario builder where players can be challenged by the scenario from a strategic perspective, right? And you want an absolute absence of roll fudging? I'm also assuming that the story is inherently between a party and an external threat, not between party members, right? It seems like you've recognized these assumptions and have built the system to work therein, and it sounds like it works.

I recommend, though, that you dig some of the more recent games that have come out of this forum. Notable ones are Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Donjon, and Polaris. Not only would Explorations be unable to so much as represent the character sheets of at least two of these; but it would be unable to represent the core of the games. Nonetheless, I recommend these games specifically because they represent a handful of literally dozens of games that do other things than AD&D and Shadowrun can do. And I bring them up because I want to have an online game that can do those types of things.

I hope the best for Explorations. I really want to see computer games with the indie mentality that has grown up here. Nintendo recently announced a certain level of openness in its new system, allowing independent development where before it's been prohibitive. I hope to see you there, too.

[exploreRPG]

Ron,

I wasn't "mad" or intending to upset anyone.. Part of my conversation got merged with Callan S. & Vaxium. So please don't take my use of bold facing as anger, just simply emphasis to get my point across.

Callan S. - trying to respond to 2 people made my text read as if I were adressing you. (Sorry)

But to expand on my point..

Before any of you can debate this topic, you have to be realistic. You MUST accept a few limits else, you are simply in this thread to argue for no reason.. The first things you MUST accept is this is about a COMPUTER RPG. Saying that, there are limits.

The limits are confined to a map area, values that can be stored in primative variable or even hard drive space. If you are saying that my design fails because it DOES NOT allow a player to flood your harddrive.. You are right.. I would never expose your machine just to prove a point, but Explorations has the potential to do so..

If you can agree that the RPG experience will take place within the limits of "the game world".. Now you have to ask your self, "What can you do in the game world.."  Another false statement was made..

Vaxalon, what's happening here is a simple ol' case of incompatible Creative Agendas. Tye is making a Gamist scenario builder for a Task Resolution-based system, assuming that the players will take a Pawn stance. It seems like he's pretty clear on that desire.

Totally false.. The scenario is just the start.. the basic layout of the game.. You create a map and add the buildings etc for the basic world.. You create your factions and the underlying communities.. Can the PCs create & destroy in an Exploration world.. Hell yes!

In fact.. They can use the "Stone Wall Spell" and cast it hundreds of times to totally fill the map. They can make the map totally unpassable and thus un-usable and destroy the point of the game.. (Playing in a MMORPG this could be interesting..) - Its a spell, and thus must follow the rules of spells within AD&D. A Dispell Magic can undo such an action. Explorations allows this type of action.

The players can make permanent changes to the game while they play. When they drop a weapon on the map, its there forever. The reason for using databases (Libraries), is to keep a safe copy of the game because players can destroy it.

For the sake of game quality.. The GM can disable all spells on a specific map, but the design allows free will.. Explorations has give almost all the tools the GM has and allowed the players to have it. The GM has the final say by design, but the engine at is core is a free-will engine.

If there is a river within your game that is unpassable.. Can the players build bridges. Yup.. They can build a bridge all the way to the edge of the map that goes to "no where land".. The point? I don't know.. But I don't stop players from having the ability.

When I said the GM ultimately has control it was from a quality assurance aspect, NOT a game design aspect. Quite Frankly, you've never seen my source-code and probably never downloaded the demo. Your assumptions are based on your "opinion" not any actual fact.

The points I've listed within these thread work because they are based on real-life. The only limits placed on Exploration is PC memory, and the amount of work YOU as the GM put into your game. AD&D 1st addition didn't have all the spells of 3rd edition. (period) When you design your 1st game, of course there will be limitted spells and things the player can do. (BUT - if you create every AD&D spell, and script the spell to do the "in-game" equivalent to what it would do in table-top RPGs.. you have duplicated the essence of table top RPGs.)

Again, this works for fireballs, walls, Weather spells, and simple physical and visual effects.. Fire, burning simulations would require more support.. but once the rules are in place I could achieve the desired effect.

I recommend, though, that you dig some of the more recent games that have come out of this forum. Notable ones are Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Donjon, and Polaris. Not only would Explorations be unable to so much as represent the character sheets of at least two of these; but it would be unable to represent the core of the games. Nonetheless, I recommend these games specifically because they represent a handful of literally dozens of games that do other things than AD&D and Shadowrun can do. And I bring them up because I want to have an online game that can do those types of things.

And someone posted that I'm being rude?!? You haven't seen nor do you know anything about Explorations. Explorations wasn't designed to repoduce those games.. It was designed as a generic FREE-WILL rpg editor. It can create games from any rpg genre.

Now.. if you, Vax, just don't "believe" what I'm saying fine.. I thought this community was more open-minded. But I've explained what it can do.. I asked for *new* ideas.. It seems instead of being mature, I'm getting alot of pessimistic, negative energy.. I don't need that.

Tye, what you've got here is focused game design. I got no beef with that. You want a scenario builder where players can be challenged by the scenario from a strategic perspective, right? And you want an absolute absence of roll fudging? I'm also assuming that the story is inherently between a party and an external threat, not between party members, right? It seems like you've recognized these assumptions and have built the system to work therein, and it sounds like it works.

It seems as though, that you guys make *ALOT* of assumptions about areas I've yet to discuss.. The story can be anything you design. There is no party to external representation. You can backstab and attack your own part members. You can split the party and go ANYWHERE in the game world created and they may never find you. NPCs fight each other, there is loyalty between NPCs that can be destroyed.

There is teleportation.. Crafted exactly from AD&Ds intended teleport spell.. The PC must select the location to memorize. And at any time (and anywhere) he wishes he can teleport to that location. He can try to memorize a location he can't "see" for and teleport through walls.

The engine is a free will engine... Players can destroy the game world if no quality assurance controls are established by the GM.

I came for inspiration and new ideas... Not to justify my already successful design.. If you don't believe my design fine, I could care less.. I'm not here to sell it to you, I'm here to learn and gather new ideas for the next revision.

If I have offended anyone, I'm sorry. Again.. I hope this clarifies things..

Tye

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I just don't know what to say here.

Tye, your software doesn't run on my computer. All I know is what I read from the links you posted.

Something weird is happening here: you're saying that this system can perfectly model AD&D spells. I assume there's a facility for doing so with GURPS spells, HERO spells, and the like. How would it deal with Sorcerer spells or Dogs in the Vineyard ceremony? You're making the assumption that those work the same way as those other systems.

Please understand: I'm still in this thread because I very badly want an online RPG system that would support a Narrativist agenda.

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.

This is why I recommended Nine Worlds to you: the resource you gain can be put into props you own, stuff you control.

Without the players having some serious control over the world you're creating, I'm not sure how much drama would really be available.

Also, I don't understand this:

Vaxalon, what's happening here is a simple ol' case of incompatible Creative Agendas. Tye is making a Gamist scenario builder for a Task Resolution-based system, assuming that the players will take a Pawn stance. It seems like he's pretty clear on that desire.

Totally false.. The scenario is just the start.. the basic layout of the game.. You create a map and add the buildings etc for the basic world.. You create your factions and the underlying communities.. Can the PCs create & destroy in an Exploration world.. Hell yes!

How does your statement invalidate mine?

[Callan S.]

I came for inspiration and new ideas... Not to justify my already successful design.. If you don't believe my design fine, I could care less.. I'm not here to sell it to you, I'm here to learn and gather new ideas for the next revision.

Hi again, Tye,

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.

Were not meeting your new idea needs at all right now. But imagine if someone presented you with code which could be far more optimised...you'd want to talk about that, wouldn't you? Well, at the forge we don't look at code but ideas and motivations...and see if we can optimise them.