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

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

Possible thoughts:

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

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

Is this topic koshure? I'll assume.

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

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

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

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

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

So, keep it going.

Jake

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

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

That would make for a fantastic crpg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get it now. Thanks!

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

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

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

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

LONG LIVE VIDEO GAME JUNKIES!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody every played those old "Bushido Blade" games? Sort of a duel fighting game, but if you were struck by a sword, you tended to either die straight out or lose the use of a limb. Maybe something like that could be a place to start for a visual combat simulator, not turn based.

From a brainstorming end, there's a few "real time" combat games worth noting, in a addition to Blade of Darkness and Bushido Blade. There was "Die by the Sword" which had wonky controls, but they were on to something really, truly great. It just didn't work quite right. It took a lot of skill to fight in that game, though, and it's pretty close to what TROS combat might be like on the most base level. The second is Drakan:Order of the Flame, for PC, circa 1999. That was a much more intuitive sword-fighting game with lots of potential.

I think that a TROS real-time 3rd-person type game would need a few things to work as a sword-fighting game, and it's all about player control (suprise suprise).

First, the player needs to be able to control both the point of origin and the point of finishing for a strike. (Die by the sword had the right idea, but they didn't understand real martial swordplay to any degree). Next, there has to be a quick and inuitive way to enact counters and other non-basic maneuvers.

I can allready see a few ways for this to work, actually.

Jake

When I read TRoS, Bushido Blade was the first thing that came to mind. It's probably also the extra push I'll need to get some of my locals to play it.

They are all fans of Bushido Blade, but very scared to try anything non-D&D. One day, when I brought over a bunch of hardbacks to use as writing surfaces (yes I used TRoS as a writing surface, I'll be ready for my public lynching), one of the more closed minded players picked it up, looked at it for a half of a second, then drop it yelling "Ah, it burns!" Yeah, this is what I have to deal with. Suppose it's bad karma for using TRoS as a writing surface. :P

heh, I remember die by the sword.

Couldn't you use the mouse to control the sword directly? IIRC it usually just meant swinging the sword wildly cos you couldn't control it fast enough :P

Ah, memories :)

Okay, just my two-cents in on this topic...
When someone in the game would make an attack.. have options come up in a popup window prompting the player to choose the type of attack.
Then that goes into the next window where you either select a zone to hit, or a direction to swing. However, if the players just stands there and makes no input, should it default to 'make no attack'?? AAAAND for defence the same thing can be said with options popping up to be selected like parry, counter, duck n weave.. etc. These commands could be linked to the keypad maybe... or hotkeys or something.
Or you could just go about it linking these commands to hotkeys anyways and disregard the pop-up command window. That would be that much more quick. To expand even more on some more ideas on this, maybe the keypad can act like a zone.. with a cut it would act like 7 is a cut from upper left(from character's perspective, not the targets) 8 is down vert, 9 us the inverse of 7.. 4 is horizontal from left to right, 6 is the reverse of 4... 1 and 3 can be attacks against the lower legs 5 can be the upper legs... 2 can be an upward vertical swing. thrusts work the same way basically... being thrusts against these zones... 7 can be lower arms 9 can be upper 8 can be the head 5 can be the chest... 4 and 6 can be the hands(left and right respectively) 1 and 3 can be the legs... 2 can be the groin..
This of course is not to mention the other keys on the keypad should someone wish to switch from thrusting with a cut n thrust to cutting with aforementioned sword. also any other buttons can be used for any zones I may have disregarded. Same buttons can be linked to different defensive moves. Numlock can take you between defensive and offensive stances or commands.. and whatever.

*shrug*
-Ingenious

My ideas were similar to the way Ingenious thought of it.
I imagine it being played 3rd person, and when you get near a possible enemy, you can press a certain button that would start the battle. Gameplay would freeze, and a little menu would pop up, with all the options for battle .. . stance, attack/defend ,swing or thrust, followed by choosing which zone to attack, and then allocating dice, maneuvers, etc. then, once everything as been selected gameplay will resume, and the attack will take place. Reflex rolls would be figured out automatically, of course. man, this could be pretty cool.
As for SAs, I imagine them just popping up when they would, such as when a part in the story is heavily related to your SA's, or at some times they would be optional, like if one of your sa's is that you hate trollspawn, and you are fighting a gol. Sa's would be rewarded the same way, I imagine, some rewarded when you do something in the story line that would effect them, or just in battle when you do other ones.
With sorcery, I imagine it would have some preset spells, until you get used to the idea of making them. Once you get the hang of it, you could make your own, but it would be difficult, no doubt, especially with some of the non-combat based spells, (which is a lot of them). If any of you have played the RPG Maker games (if you could call it playing.) I imagine it would sort of be similar to making abilities in that. crap, that would be tedious, and hard. Okay, so sorcery would definitely be one of the more difficult factors of the game. Maybe preset spells would be the best, or at least preset guidelines to spells... I dont know, my brain is not functioning properly (I have not yet had a full sleep since watching a midnight premier of LOTR: Return of the King.... 3 hours of sleep in almost two days..... meh, it was worth it...schools not that important....) back to the point.....
So, uh, yeah, TROS video game would rock. I can see some awesome gaming here. .... (you have no idea how wonderful it is to think of my two favorite activities combined into one... well, maybe some of you do, but Im trying to enjoy the moment here....)

Sorcery is something I completely forgot about actually, though my idea is as follows. Maybe instead of having the ability to create your own spells from scratch(as no doubt coding every single possible spell you could ever come up with would take FOREVER and the game would never be released possibly in our life-spans...) just have it be that you might be able to select one or two spell effects at first, then as you get more powerful, upgrade the character, etc... you could move up to 3.. then 4.. etc. Or you might not want that... instead you could choose how you casted the spell... how you moved you hands, arms, body language.. etc. what words you spoke... in which ancient language.. and whatnot. Then the spell effects could be randomized a bit. Of course randomized to the point that you intended to have an offensive spell, so it would choose random offensive effects. It would seriously suck to create a spell that makes a 10000 ton block of stone above someone and have it crash on them but heal them rather than flatten them into a pool of ooze. I think everyone gets my point with that. But there can be many creative ways to handle sorcery and how to make spells. Aside from the standpoint of creating spells, i think sorcery is a mute point.(or is that a moot point??)
Heck, if you even made an area of effect spell, maybe not just have it appear as a cone, or a circle... or a box.. have the player be able to draw a figure of any shape but have the area of that shape equal the area of effect. THAT would be innovative.

-Ingenious
to quote a friend:
'Think outside the box, think inside the box, and think along the line that makes the box.'

A side question: I suppose if we realistically wanted to put out the TROS-core CRPG, it would come out for the computer; but I am keeping a lot of console consideration in mind, in terms of interface simplicity.

There are great thoughts - I am a big fan of Bushido Blade! - but I shall nonetheless interrupt here: there are a few standard tenets or CRPGs as they are commonly known:
* tactical turn-based combat
* "levelling up" your stats
* you have your angstful main character (usu. bishy)

While I am greatly in favor of trashing old-school tenets like these, I also conceived of using a TROS core to subvert these: level up your SAs, have greater control than ever of your protagonist fighter, and take turn-based fighting to new levels of not sucking. <g>

I realize a new alternative to the problem of Sorcery; give the player tactically deep control over his own character, and have him be a customizable fighter. Sorcerers and missile-fighters may join the party, but will work autonomously (led by strategic orders rather than tactical commands), so this provides another avenue for controlling Sorcery. (We worry that player will not care about a supporting PC sorcerer pruning up on spells, but aging side-effects can easily increase the probability that a Sorcerer will just walk off on his own volition)

To reimagine the interface, I'm suddenly afraid of lots of popups and menus - even though those are standard with CRPGs and not out of place. I would rather favor default actions in timed limits:
* you have 2 sec to throw your initiative die or default to white
* you have 3 sec to pick your attack/target or it defaults to chest cut or such

At each of these prompts the action slows down, but for the most part you've entered your choices and you see them acted out in front of you.

Here's another question: what tactical elements of TROS would we choose to make more complex, given the computer's processing speed? For example, would we make all of combat a continuous exchange of blows with partial regeneration of the CP each turn (except for when a player breaks off)?

Dev wrote: I realize a new alternative to the problem of Sorcery; give the player tactically deep control over his own character, and have him be a customizable fighter. Sorcerers and missile-fighters may join the party, but will work autonomously (led by strategic orders rather than tactical commands), so this provides another avenue for controlling Sorcery. (We worry that player will not care about a supporting PC sorcerer pruning up on spells, but aging side-effects can easily increase the probability that a Sorcerer will just walk off on his own volition)

Dev wrote: Here's another question: what tactical elements of TROS would we choose to make more complex, given the computer's processing speed? For example, would we make all of combat a continuous exchange of blows with partial regeneration of the CP each turn (except for when a player breaks off)?

A computer could also handle more a complicated damage system that makes calculations based on weight, edge quality, and all those kinds of physics used in forensics and such, no?

I've been thinking about a game of this nature for quite some time. I am studying to be a programmer, and my eventual goal is game development, so unless someone beats me to it, this game WILL be made one day, though perhaps not particularly soon.

My own ideas:

Allocation of combat pool would be click-based, rather than slider based. Sliders are a bit too.. temperamental at times. It'd be simple enough.. A number representing the CP, then a couple switches (+/-) for allocating dice. I'd have two, because some maneuvers require more than 1 die allocation, after all.

My gumps (Graphical User Menu Popups) would be similar in style to those used by Diablo, stylized, and set to be able to be hotkeyed up, or brought up with a click on a graphical button. The POV would be scalable (via keys, or the scroll-wheel on the mouse) from isometric to 1st person, a la Star Wars Galaxies, to allow players to explore in whatever way they prefer. Combat, however, would always pull back to isometric, giving the player the ability to see the combat. When in combat, the character would be Engaged or Disengaged, the former being essentially stationary, except for the semi-conscious motions which accompany battle. The latter would have the character able to move around as normal, but it means that hostiles are in the area, and will attempt to engage the character, or attack with ranged weapons.

Combat would play out almost exactly like in the RPG. One of my biggest pet-peeves is CRPGs that take a great game, scrap the die-system, and just go for "mood".. (Vampire: Redemption, anyone?) When first engaged, a bar would appear somewhere on the screen and would begin to shrink. Before that bar disappears, the character had better have chosen attack or defense. Then the maneuver selection, either via pre-set hotkeys (F-keys, for example) or clicking gumps, location for attack (as applicable)and die allocation. There would be an optional time-limit for making these choices for those who like a little bit of pressure, but it would be able to be turned off for those who want to take time to consider their options. Also, hotkeys and/or gumps could be set to use various skills which can be applicable to combat. Terrain rolls could be used (you guessed it, more hotkeys or gumps) and the character will be prompted to use them when appropriate (such as multiple combatants, or difficult terrain). When it comes time to choose the attack location, a translucent overlay would appear in the middle of the screen with the body shape from the book, perhaps color-coded to give an idea of how much protection the enemy has in a given region. Now, all of these decisions can be made fairly quickly, and will add a certain amount of twitch-factor if the timer option is turned on, but the actual visuals combat will be mostly seamless, as the character act out what the results of the combat are using, of course, full motion-captured graphics.

General exploration and interaction would be similar in play to the Fallout games, with many people to interact with, and where the character's actions can effect different things in the game. Character creation would be necessarily limited by the metastory (you gotta have 'em in CRPGs, unless they're MMORPGs, and even then...) of the game, but fairly open-ended within those limits. There would be multiple paths to follow, and different endings for each path. There would not be multiple lives.. You save often, or you die.

Sorcery I've not thought about. I've some ideas from pondering it briefly while reading this thread, but I'll not worry 'bout 'em for the now. However, my goal would be minimal divergence from the rules as possible so as to keep the same tactical feel, while still maintaining a fluid and attractive game, with customizeability for different styles of play.

Wolfen, you seem pretty on the ball with what you speak of, however I would argue that people such as myself hated the Fallout style of target zone selection. I'm lazy.. and like things with minimal fuss, I don't want to be prompted everytime I swing a sword and such... because from the way I see it, each exchange is like 1 or two seconds right? In a fight then using your system would you not get prompted once every two seconds then? That doesn't sound fun, even if afterwards you would be watching possibly an FMV sequence for the attack... I however, do agree with you that the storylines should be modeled after what Black Isle has done with most of their RPG's, i.e. the many different ways the story can play out..
The fallout series had that, the forgotten realms series, etc.(At least I think Baldur's Gate 2 was quasi-produced by Black Isle, too lazy to check my start menu and make sure.)
I beleive that as we get into the more nitpicky kind of stuff, that we're straying away from what makes the TROS system surpass others; complexity with speed.
Even though the combat is turn based it is still the fastest RPG system I have seen... while having all of the complexity that it does. So just don't over-load the game by raising the complexity too much, or it will get bogged down and take away from the fun factor. Though I know that 'eye candy' is good for a game, if there's nothing to support it.. the gameplay suffers tremendously.

-Ingenious

I'd recommend a mouse gestures menu to simplify target zone selection. That way a fast click and flick of the wrist will select your target almost reflexively once you get acclimated.

Hey Lance,

Count me in.

Brian.

Ingenious,

I can see your point. However, I wasn't really expecting to have the combat selections be real-time in that they only take 1-2 seconds per exchange. My god, that would require unreal mouse and keyboard reflexes to keep up with. Select a maneuver (fairly quick once you get your F-keys set up the way you want them) select target (even with the mouse movement suggestion by kenjib, which I can see as being problematic, esp. with thrusting zones.) then die allocation.

Either way, I can't think of a quicker way. I am definitely open to suggestions, and it's going to be quite some time before I can even get out of conceptualization phase, and someone still might beat me to it.

The programmable hotkeys can include target as well as maneuver selection to really speed things up.

That is possible.. But rather that'd require the player to either look at hotkey gumps, or simply try to remember which hotkey matches up with which target area. I don't see this being a factor with maneuvers because generally people are going to have certain tactics they like, so they'll assign those to their primary hotkeys, and the other, less often used maneuvers, they'll be able to look at the gumps before the need comes up. I do see issues for a graphical popup for targeting, but so far graphical has the best intuitive feel to it.. I usually hear, when running games, things like "I'm gonna stab him in the throat!" or "I'm going to chop off his leg below the knee!" or suchlike. I never hear them give me a numerical zone for where they're trying to strike, because generally they don't think in numbers, which is effectively what they'd have to do if target zones were assigned to hotkeys.

The way I'm seeing the targetting menu is something along the lines of a translucent man-figure that appears in the middle of the screen, laid over the view of the combatants, with perhaps a reddish tinge used to designate unarmored areas, and colors ranging toward the violet to designate more heavily armored areas. you'd simply click on the body or around it to designate your zone (over the shoulder on the left side, if the attack was a cut, would mean a zone IV, right around the abdomen for a thrust would be zone XI, etc.) No numbers to designate chances of hitting, and no requirements to hit a specific button, a la the Fallout targetting system.

In this manner, it would be very similar to your "flick of the wrist", only there'd be a quick click worked into the mix. It could be very quick once you'd gotten used to it.

Further on Ingenious' comments about story design: I love the Fallout games in the way the story is extremely flexible, but the fact is that replay value drops dramatically, because there's really only so many things you can do. Playing different types of characters give you different options on how to do certain things, but the main things all have to be done; The storyline is very linear, once you clear away all the side quests.

Sidequests are definitely great, and I'd think they'd be something worth working into the game, but I think I'd go more for Final Fantasy sort of side-quests, where they're mostly character driven, rather than location driven. More, however, than sidequests, I'd want entirely independent storylines.. I mean, I'd probably have to have some sort of flow-chart sort of thing, where you have to hit certain checkpoints on the way, but those checkpoints don't all eventually converge on the same ending for every character.

Now sorta free-associating:

I'd also want to incorporate something from the Resident Evil series of games: where you can play as one character until the end, save, then play another character, and the events of your first game can effect how the second game plays out.

For character creation, I think I'd have a set list of characters, but each would be customizeable to an extent; You might have a Stahlnish knight, but you'd choose certain aspects of his prioritization, and set his attributes, Gifts/Flaws, and additional skills, as well as choosing from a variety of SAs available to him. The SAs you choose would be applicable in certain situations, and would have certain triggers that would cause them to raise, plus they would also effect the story-line followed by that character.

Whew.. This'll be a complex game to conceptualize, let alone code.

If ye're going after full 3d-graphics, then you might as well let the player click on the opponent, rather than on a picture from the book. Hold the mouse over head-zone, left-click for cut, right-click for thrust. With a smart enough camera, it would be quite possible.

That's something I did consider, but it could be quite difficult given the angle of the camera. Hit locations available to the character may not be click-able to the player because of other portions of the body in the way, the player's character in the way, or even bits of terrain which block the player's visibility.

::taps chin:: Hm. Perhaps a "glowing outline" of sorts for target location could work. The targeted player would be outlined, and any click within that outline would be defined as a hit to the specified location, regardless of intervisibility issues. That could definitely work.

IMO if you get too ambitious it will never get done. Games nowadays are built by very large teams of people all working 60 hour weeks.

Just a thought here... Maybe instead of building the whole game, it might be better to create just an engine and a scenario-building kit... I'm not sure quite how much faster it would enable the program be completed, but then the TRoS community could swap scenario files with each other. (Or maybe even upload them to the TRoS website.)

Hi Thaneon - even if you were to build the entire game, you would pretty much want to do that first anyway, so I think it's a good idea.

There are also a few cheap or free programs with built-in graphics engines, so that all you have to do is model the world and its characters in a pre-written engine. They look pretty nice. If I looked around I could find the name of one.

Jake

Can I just point out a very handy and well made program that helps to make neat little games.

http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/markov/gmaker/

I'm giving the link so anyone who's in the 'I'd like to but I don't know a good langauge/don't know any language/don't want to code too much' have an opportunity.