I am a professional software engineer that has also developed what I think to be a near-perfect model for table-top RPGs to be converted to CRPGs. My design, while it does mimmic the Infinite Engine, or the d20 rules set allows for RPGs from any genre to be re-created using percentage based stats.

Explorations features a 100% database design.. It allows for sharable objects with graphics, sounds, and special effects to be imported & exported from the engine. Explorations is designed to allow game "scenarios" to be recreated from PnP modules similar to those featured in Dungeon or Dragon Magazine.

I'm an old-scholl RPG lover so it has taken me 10 years to perfect this engine. The interface is drag & drop and has enough support tools to make game development more efficient the more its used. Enough of my babble.. Please take some time to read the links below and tell me what you think.

(A lot of information below..You can skip to the screenshots if u need more encouragement. :) )
Here are some links of interest..
- Make Better RPG's not just better Graphics..

- Explorations Summary

- Explorations ShowCase

- Scenario Scripting

Explorations is NOT freeware.. It is the core engine I'll be using to produce my 1st commercial game, and MMO game world. Every game created with Explorations supports up to 10players on line as a party, or can be played as a MMO game world.

Explorations (Official Home)
http://www.explore-rpg.com

Welcome to the Forge. Care to share a name by which we can address you? We tend to be a real-names place here, even among those who use screen names on their posts.

I don't want to minimize what you've done, as it's clear that you've accomplished a great deal. What I'm not seeing is how, or even whether, Explore RPG handles the more innovative concepts in current games, such as Legends of Alyria, Sorcerer, My Life With Master, Universalis. In particular, does it manage the transition between the task-based resolution of older games such as D&D to the outcome-based resolution of games such as Alyria, and how does it allow players to creatively narrate outcomes when they fall in their favor?

If you don't understand what I'm saying, probably you aren't as familiar with the world of PnP role playing, particularly in its current aspects. This is a good place to become familiar with these newer approaches. Many people would like to see role playing games that handle narrativist objectives and drama mechanics, but this quest is hampered by the tendency of CRPGs to be emulating older fortune/karma driven games with simulationist and gamist objectives. That is, around here people are struggling with the questions of how to make a computer game in which the player decides what happens in order to make a statement about a moral or personal issue expressed through the character, in which the "object of the game" has nothing to do really with what the character is trying to achieve or solve but with whether the player is able to make such a statement through the events of play.

I'd invite you to read some of the articles, particularly The Provisional Glossary which summarizes quite a lot of current thought, and my own Applied Theory which attempts to illustrate many of the ideas in application. I'd also mention a three part series at Places to Go, People to Be entitled Theory 101 which attempts to cover a lot of the basics. The first part, System and the Shared Imagined Space, which discusses how role playing games work in a fundamental way, and the second part, The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, which speaks of the relationship between the person running the game and those playing it, may help you considerably in understanding what a CRPG would have to do to truly handle what modern role playing games are doing. The third part, Creative Agenda, is not yet out, but when it appears it should provide significant help in connection with some of the terminology used here, as well as explaining why some players really like some games and others don't like those same games at all.

I hope this helps. Thanks for sharing your ideas. I can see an engine like that being very useful in developing a Multiverser CRPG, although I'm not sure whether that's a direction I really want to pursue at present.

--M. J. Young

And if you're interested in some of the other approaches being taken with computers, RPGs and storytelling, I can point you at Greg Costikyan's weblog (http://www.costik.com/weblog/), Chris Crawford's Erazmatron (http://www.erasmatazz.com/), and the actually-runable Facade at http://www.interactivestory.net/.  That last site also has an excellent links section for more exploration.

None of which, as M.J. Young says, should be seen as an attempt to minimize what you've done in Explorations, which looks cool!  Congratulations on getting something like that working - I understand how hard both software and game design can be.  I definitely like the idea of a growing "indie" computer game community as well as indie tabletop games, so - thanks!

One thing that would be interesting to hear more from you on is just exactly what about the tabletop RPG experience you are trying to capture in Explorations.  The links M.J has pointed out are great for learning how we talk about that kind of thing here, but an initial "in your own words" post might be cool as well.  And again, welcome to the Forge,

Gordon

Hi guys..

I'm sorry it took me so long to return to this forum. First, let me introduce myself.. I am Tyrone W. Lee.. I'm a Lead software developer who has spent the past 10+ years trying to develop game engine capable of table-top PnP rpgs. I also grew up in the days of AD&D and ShadowRun. Without turning this into a shameless self promotion I'll highlight the 3 aspects of Explorations that takes the "next-step" in rpg development.

1) A full database design.. Explorations uses standard stats design to relate objects, characters, and maps. This database design allows for interoperability. Create a spell include the effects, sound effects, and animations and simply package the entire spell as an .EOBJ object for anyone to use. Explorations seperates yet binds the functionality data, graphics, and sound.  You can bind object, sprites, and scenarios to form unique re-usable game objects. (The Weaponshop scenario is an object I created.)

2) To accomplish the dynamics of PnP rpgs means scripting or some form of programming. Explorations has a very nice A.I. based script design. Apply scripts to objects, sprites, or maps to simulate the moral or personal issues within your game. Basically, you are acting as if you are playing the table top game as you are designing it. You can add/save factoids as you script the game to simulate this effect..

Lets be realistic.. When you play a PnP rpg, the DM will jot notes on the players behavior and based on his notes he ad-libs his story. Explorations attempts to remove the work from graphics, animation, and programming to allow you to have more time to consider this "ad-lib" game development style during your scripting. You will never script every possibility, but you'll have more free time to encorporate this because of all the support tools Explorations provides.

By designing tables you can use a simple variable for <overall happiness>. And as the game is being scripted you are adjusting this variable based on the players decisions during the game. +/- here and there to determine his overall happiness. As you script your game u make the decision just as if you were playing a PnP game and taking notes.

You use this variable at any time during the game and construct your game around it. The AI scripting is designed by you.. its a high-level programming language design for rpg development.

The example I posted regarding "Better RPG's not just better Graphics" was taken from a passage from Dungeon Magazine. Explorations design was centered around taking a PnP story organized as text in this form and scripting a CRPG. You'll notice this PnP stories always have a series of If/Then statements for the DM to consider. This is where your scripting comes in. The script engine is scriptable, so new commands are added when discovered and based on the knowledge I see here, you guys could really enhance the command base of Explorations scripting.

From my opinion AI is achieved by gathering information and collecting relative data to make logical decisions. This is best achieved with databases. Explorations is an open ended data-management system, so RPGs from any genre can be created. This means you control the game ruleset. The fixed stats were intended to be generic and acceptable in any rpg genre.

Some of the key feature of AI are pathfinding and programming NPCs to use some form of intelligence. Explorations scripting has functions such as FindCover{}, FindPerpendicularLocation{} and relative movement and position functions that are derived to allow NPCs to analyze the position of other sprites in relation to its own position for a given purpose.

How you use these functions are up to you.. But they are available.

I will download facade.. I've seen it but was unsure of if it was a safe download. :)

I hope many of you can add some of your ideas to my forum.. I'm really interested in hearing these concepts.

here's a piece of eye candy..
[img]http://www.explore-rpg.com/forumImages/editorScreen7.png[/img]

Tyrone W. Lee
Explorations RPG System
http://www.explore-rpg.com

I think I'm getting a glimmer of what you're saying here. If I've got you right, this is not so much a solo CRPG as a role playing game platform through which a referee can run games enhanced by graphics and self-operating elements--something like NeverWinter Nights, if I understand that correctly. You would still have a human being ultimately behind everything, but the computer would facilitate expression of the shared imagined space and streamline a lot of the aspects at which computers are better than people (e.g., rapid number crunching for combat situations).

Am I on the right track here?

--M. J. Young

No..

Explorations doesn't offer "Live" DM support.. It's a computer rpg engine. The "live" DM, was an idea that I cosindered but never spent time to develop. The theory behind the design is to all you to script the AI that you would normally do if you were sitting at the table playing a PnP game. PnP modules such as the one I mentioned (above) explain all the "What If" scenarios and give you ideas on how to ad-lib the game accordingly.

Explorations allows this to be scripted. Based on how you design your game world, you can allow morality, or other parameters to be a factor in how NPCs react to players. It's simply a matter of quantifying the parameter into a value the computer can manage. That coupled with databases offers the dynamics to do what you like.

I guess, Explorations is best viewed as a standard framework for any RPG to be created. I've tried to take the "common" fixed areas of rpgs (character stats) and build hundreds of game features, tools, and database algorithms to support the more complicated game features. (AI, pathfinding etc..) There is no such thing as a"one-size fits all."  But I'm proud to say, Explorations is as close as you can get without falling into the arena of "cookie-cutter" game engines. The database design allows every object to cross-reference to allow virtually infinite possibilities..

Explorations games don't "help you along." You are dropped into a free-form world where the story is taking place whether you participate or not. (Time based scripting etc..)

The overall goal of Explorations was to possibly package a CD rpg game of every PnP module that was submitted and published to Dungeon Magazine. Buy the book, read the stories.. play the game.. ;)

Hope I clarified everything.. BTW, why can't I edit posts I make? I always have spelling mistakes..

Tye

exploreRPG wrote:
The theory behind the design is to all you to script the AI that you would normally do if you were sitting at the table playing a PnP game.

Here's a scenario..

[code]
The party enters the house of a wizard that they need to determine the location of a magical gem. When they enter the wizards home, there are 2 assassins already there. They are attempting to put an end to the wizard, once and for all.
[/code]

Based on what the PC's do, you have to make the NPCs respond with intelligence. Sure combat is pretty fixed. But you can allow the wizard to begin telling the important clues to the quest while fighting, especially if the wizard is getting his butt kicked.

If the wizard doesn't get to tell the players anything the game engine just sits there. The players must search the house and figure out what the wizard was going to tell them by other means..

If the part members defeat the assassins.. The wizard sits down with them and the story continues as normal.

These are all what if outcomes that can be scripted..

Games like Metal Gear Solid made some great steps in AI with the use of stealth based gameplay. But remember, when you walk on water puddles, it makes a noise, and the guards goes to investigate. This is AI. furthermore, if the noise persists, the guard could call some friends to do a thorough search of the compound. Thus, causing the chance of being detected to increase dramatically.

Basically, Explorations allows you to create a scenario.. And ask yourself.. What whould I do in this situation. Then you script for each out-come. Always trying to keep in mind there is a "default" fall through that reveals the key points of the game/story of the players are a little "slow".. (he he) Once the scenario is scripted it can be exported and packages as a re-usable game object. Its saved in a .EMAP file format so you can script/create other scenarios.

Does this help?

Tye

To me, your scripting utility is a TREMENDOUS weakness in the design.

When the players do something unexpected in a FTF tabletop game, that's a golden moment.  If I'm there in person, I get to participate in it, experience it, enhance it and react to it.  Their creativity is rewarded.

This is a good thing.

If the players try to do something unexpected in a scripted CRPG... one of two things happens.  Either they are completely unable to try, or it fails utterly.  Their creativity has been stomped flat.

This is a bad thing.

I would MUCH rather see a game where I can control the settings of the game AS THE PLAYERS EXPERIENCE IT.  I'd like to be able to point-and-click on creatures to make them talk, move, etc. if the players depart from what I've prepared.  I'd like to have a tool like in Dungeon Keeper 2, where I can "posess" a creature and direct it in first-person.  I'd like to have a library of creatures that I can pull in if the situation warrants.

I should be able to communicate with the players "out of character".  If a scene needs to end, I should be able to initiate a fade to black.

And scripting should be as UNlike computer programming as possible.

Vaxalon,

You are missing a very critical point.. What you want is a "live" DM game.  Which is very simple to do, its just a matter of putting the controls over any current game engine to make the effects trigger/run live. (no brainer)

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.)

You consider the scripting utility a "TREMENDOUS" weakness.. But you fail to realize that scripting of some sort is required for AI of any type. PC's don't respond to a humans voice,so there would obviously be some form of coding or scripting whether u see it or not. ;)

Saying that.. my script language is in fact scriptable.. Allowing users to build premade macros from the core script commands and syntax parameters.. Allowing multiple command groups to be run in sequence. If this was applied to your "live" DM expectations, it would make controlling sprites a 1 step process rather than 2.

I would MUCH rather see a game where I can control the settings of the game AS THE PLAYERS EXPERIENCE IT.  I'd like to be able to point-and-click on creatures to make them talk, move, etc. if the players depart from what I've prepared.  I'd like to have a tool like in Dungeon Keeper 2, where I can "posess" a creature and direct it in first-person.  I'd like to have a library of creatures that I can pull in if the situation warrants.

Hello Tye,

What Vax is refering to, I think, is basically a role reversal of GM and player. In a game, a GM might challenge a player with a particular situation. HOWEVER, the player might then come up with such a good responce it then goes on to challenge the GM. In this way, the player has sort of becomes GM for a moment, and the GM becomes player.

When the player does something "unexpected" you said they should be rewarded. This is obsurd. What if the players did something totally stupid.. for which they should be penalized. In anycase their action has to be analyzed and evaluated on the situation. At best, if you can equate actions to a computer comparable value, with databases you can attempt to determine if the action should be rewarded or penalized.

Is computer GM to player/player to GM possible in a computer RPG? I think it is, and you've already been talking about it. I've done this in the PS2 game mercenaries, where I've toyed with enemy soldiers, spooking them, sneaking up on them, lobbing multiple flashbangs at 'em, pushing them in various ways to see what behaviours I can get out of them. You've already talked about scripting such things, but you probably just thought it was to challenge the player, right?

The fun thing is when in game resources flip the GM/player rolls back and forth. Say I'm toying with a soldier and really making him sweat...then a buddy of his runs out with an RPG and shoots me! Now I'm at 1 HP and running from the dude I was toying with. This basically would happen alot in mercenaries and I liked it.

exploreRPG wrote:

Now.. Explorations doesn't support live GM but thats how I would achieve it.. The game can have tons of premade AI scripts.. You can make the sprites as smart as you like.. ...

Well.. I'm telling you that your expectation is not practical. Expecting to make a "perfect" game is not realistic. Especting to make a game with full GM interaction that is real-time is also not very practical.

1) How many people are u saying can play in this world?
2) The split party issue I discussed will cause major problems if you expect to live GM the game.

I'm saying that you script as much as possible ahead of time, and your overlay live enhancements. You say my response is "inadequate" but your expectation is unrealistic. If you expect to 100% live GM a video game, you'll have ALOT of dead-space in your game.Points where the player waits while you make up the game.

Of course there are limitations when comparing a CRPG to a table top RPG. The moment a variable is declared you have established a limit. If you say, I'm make a character for a CRPG and his gold is going to be stored in a Long data-type, you've instantly established a limit on the money any character can posses. Establishing limits is a necessary evil of software development.. (period)

Humans can write stats for a player stating his gold is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and that value will not fit into a Long data-type.. There are software developers who write entire applications for BANKS to manipulate REAL monetary transaction that have exceeded normal primatives of a PC.

You are saying... when a player thinks of something you didn't its a "good thing".. And I'm merely pointing out, thats *your opinion*. You must personally like surprises. But that doesn't mean that your idea is a proper aproach to designing a CRPG. You sound as if you expect a CRPG to act "human." - It will never do this.

At best, you can simply make a better quality CRPG with better twists, endings, and more detailed scenarios.

My response is true.. "Just keep making scripts!" - Because this topic is regarding CRPGs, and making them more dynamic. How do you expect to get an idea from your head into a PC? osmosis? Whether is code or scripting, there is going to be a language to help you along..

For example: While you are in your "hypothetical" live GM interface. You (as the GM) would want to be able to broadcast a message to all players.. Or send private messages to specific players.. You see two different button, but you do realize there is software that makes it happen? A script, a function, something...

As soon as you expect to have this GM framework running on a PC, you *MUST* work within the framework and limitations of the PC.. Its like you are saying.. "Design me a software application that runs on a PC and takes up absolutely 0 ram."

From a software design approach, your theory while explains an IDEAL condition is unrealistic. You should always work from a standard an move toward an ideal condition.. NOT assume you can hit the bullseye on the first attempt.

Adding more scripts, more and databases means more information by which to make the PC more human. Giving the PC more data means u have to control/manage the data with more scripts.. These scripts add logic to the application and eventually you establish a balance where general gameplay can be handled by the PC. .And the live GM is needed for overlayed enhancements..

Trying to run an entire PC game live is impossible.. unless u have 8 arms or something...

Start with *realistic* expectations and improve to your ideal condition. That is the attempt of Explorations... If you don't humble your expectations, you spend you entire life complaining and writing endless text on RPG theory without actually *doing* anything.

Tye

exploreRPG wrote:
You are saying... when a player thinks of something you didn't its a "good thing".. And I'm merely pointing out, thats *your opinion*. You must personally like surprises. But that doesn't mean that your idea is a proper aproach to designing a CRPG.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.. :)

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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

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

Ex wrote: 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.)

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.

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.

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 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!

exploreRPG wrote:
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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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..

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.

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 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..

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?").

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

glyphmonkey wrote:
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.

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..

Tye,

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.