|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 7:49AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
IF one were to make a fully compliant version of 4th ed in 3d, not necessarily super nice art or graphics, which aspect of the rule set do you think would be the most challenging to correctly implement?
My first thought would be AI if no DM were controlling the monsters. (even though that's not technically game rules.)
My second thought is that it would be the scripting necessary for robust readied actions.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 7:50AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
Skill challenges.
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 8:06AM
#3
|
|
|
Skill challenges.
Disagree. Think Skill challenges would be the easiest thing to computerize. You have stats, you have skills based on stats, and then you have modifiers via feats (which can be done as perks), powers, etc. It might get a little iffy towards the end, but it will still be the easiest.
IMO the most difficult part of making anything a computer version/game tends to be movement rules and sight.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."-Douglas Adams
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 8:20AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
I'm not so sure about that.
Any computerized version of SCs would be very linear, call for very specific skills, and have limited flexibility, not to mention an absence of the abstract thought needed for good SCs. Sure, you could have the system tell you "You will need to use Skill X and Skill Y, and achieve 3 successes...", but that takes away all of the intuitive use of SCs. As is well known, the best way to use SCs is to make it so the party has no idea they are even using them. They are presented with a situation, and they choose which skills to use, how to use them, and to what end. The DM will then set the DCs based on those choices. Based on the number of successes and failures, the SC itself might evolve and change. Computer games are not capable of that level of AI...at least none that I have ever played. About the best you could hope for from a computer-version of SCs are individual skill checks, and the skills used would be dictated by the writer to achieve the ends he hopes for.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 8:20AM
#5
|
|
|
IF one were to make a fully compliant version of 4th ed in 3d, not necessarily super nice art or graphics, which aspect of the rule set do you think would be the most challenging to correctly implement?
My first thought would be AI if no DM were controlling the monsters. (even though that's not technically game rules.)
My second thought is that it would be the scripting necessary for robust readied actions.
Possibly being forced to close some loops, or solve unknown interactions (like multiple interupts per trigger).
No idea how to correctly impliment something that isn't correct.
guides
Show
my builds
Show
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.
Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.
Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.
King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong.
Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.
Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.
Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.
Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.
Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.
Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.
Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.
Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.
Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.
Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.
Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.
Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.
Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.
Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.
The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.
Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power
Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken
Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.
Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.
Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.
Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken.
Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.
Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 8:25AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
I'm not so sure about that.
Any computerized version of SCs would be very linear, call for very specific skills, and have limited flexibility, not to mention an absence of the abstract thought needed for good SCs. Sure, you could have the system tell you "You will need to use Skill X and Skill Y, and achieve 3 successes...", but that takes away all of the intuitive use of SCs. As is well known, the best way to use SCs is to make it so the party has no idea they are even using them. They are presented with a situation, and they choose which skills to use, how to use them, and to what end. The DM will then set the DCs based on those choices. Based on the number of successes and failures, the SC itself might evolve and change. Computer games are not capable of that level of AI...at least none that I have ever played. About the best you could hope for from a computer-version of SCs are individual skill checks, and the skills used would be dictated by the writer to achieve the ends he hopes for.
My brother and I were talking about making a very basic rules interpreter. The SC thing could be handled behind the scenes where the players don't even know that the skill checks they are making are compared to a skill challenge goal. Multiple SC's could even be run in parrallel or nested with each other.
Hard part to do "naturally" would be anything dealing with dialog. I cannot see how to do that without branching dialogue trees like practically every other RPG.
If there were a live DM running a DM client then the DM could adjudicate and handle all the RPG aspects, but the CPU would be a very poor substitue.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 8:32AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
IF one were to make a fully compliant version of 4th ed in 3d, not necessarily super nice art or graphics, which aspect of the rule set do you think would be the most challenging to correctly implement?
My first thought would be AI if no DM were controlling the monsters. (even though that's not technically game rules.)
My second thought is that it would be the scripting necessary for robust readied actions.
Possibly being forced to close some loops, or solve unknown interactions (like multiple interupts per trigger).
No idea how to correctly impliment something that isn't correct.
Multiple interrupts per trigger IS tricky. How would that resolve in pnp? Lets say two interrupts triggering off an attack.
They both are valid for selection when the attack is made (after targetting lol)-- now what order do they go in (I would say first click first serve), can they invalidate the other (I would say no) hmm any other difficulties? I can see interrupts triggering interrupts or reactions as well. This reminds me a lot of MtG and I seem to recall that in MtG you put things on a stack, much like a CPU, resolve them in a predefined order, in this case LIFO, and as new options pop up allow them to hop on the stack as necessary.
I think this would be a fun open source project to work on actually and thinking about how this would be written you can see a ton of parallels to MtG. One thing that this version of DnD is sorely lacking imo is meta-magic and I wonder if that was left out due to early hints at electronic tools.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 8:46AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
My brother and I were talking about making a very basic rules interpreter. The SC thing could be handled behind the scenes where the players don't even know that the skill checks they are making are compared to a skill challenge goal. Multiple SC's could even be run in parrallel or nested with each other.
Hard part to do "naturally" would be anything dealing with dialog. I cannot see how to do that without branching dialogue trees like practically every other RPG.
If there were a live DM running a DM client then the DM could adjudicate and handle all the RPG aspects, but the CPU would be a very poor substitue.
Yes, all of the mechanics could be ran behind the scenes, but in the end there would still be a very linear path or series of paths that could not compensate for player interpretation of how they wish to use a skill or the improvisational use of other skills not directly logical to the SC. Sure, the CPU could be running in the background, keeping track of successes and failures, and alterations of the story could occur based on the overall success or failure of the SC...but...and this is the part that I can't figure a way around...the skills you could use to overcome the SCs would have to basically be stated outright. This means that only the game's writer would have a say in which skills would be useful for any given SC, and no amount of improvisation could take place.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 8:51AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
My brother and I were talking about making a very basic rules interpreter. The SC thing could be handled behind the scenes where the players don't even know that the skill checks they are making are compared to a skill challenge goal. Multiple SC's could even be run in parrallel or nested with each other.
Hard part to do "naturally" would be anything dealing with dialog. I cannot see how to do that without branching dialogue trees like practically every other RPG.
If there were a live DM running a DM client then the DM could adjudicate and handle all the RPG aspects, but the CPU would be a very poor substitue.
Yes, all of the mechanics could be ran behind the scenes, but in the end there would still be a very linear path or series of paths that could not compensate for player interpretation of how they wish to use a skill or the improvisational use of other skills not directly logical to the SC. Sure, the CPU could be running in the background, keeping track of successes and failures, and alterations of the story could occur based on the overall success or failure of the SC...but...and this is the part that I can't figure a way around...the skills you could use to overcome the SCs would have to basically be stated outright. This means that only the game's writer would have a say in which skills would be useful for any given SC, and no amount of improvisation could take place.
I see what you mean, the illusion of choice compared to real choice is terribly difficult problem to solve. Sandbox and emergent game play vs scripted is an interesting debate. You ever play any of the Oblivion/Morrowind games on the cpu?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2011 - 9:06AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
You ever play any of the Oblivion/Morrowind games on the cpu?
Love me some Oblivion.
No, the graphics weren't the very best, but the amount of options was quite large. Many of the "choices" you had were not really choices, though. The story progressed on a fairly limited path, but the illusion of choice was huge and very well done...so it made it tolerable. More tolerable, for me, than the vast majority of computer RPGs.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
