Asp Forum - ðÏÍÏÇÉÔÅ ÓÏ ÛÒÉÆÔÁÍÉ × éËÓÁÈ

mirex

4/21/2005 11:38:00 AM

ðÏÓÔÁ×ÉÌ Ó ÐÏÒÔÏ× éËÓÙ É ëÄÅ É ÓÔÏÌËÎÕÌÓÑ Ó ÔÁËÏÊ ÐÒÏÂÌÅÍÏÊ:
ó×ÏÊÓÔ×Á XMMS É Xchat ÏÔÏÂÒÁÖÁÀÔØÓÑ ÎÅ ÒÕÓÓËÉÍ Á ËÁËÉÍÉ-ÔÏ ËÁÒÁËÕÌÑÍÉ.
îÁ ÓËÒÉÎÛÏÔÅ ftp://pth.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua/incomi... ÐÏËÁÚÁÎÏ ËÁË ÍÏÑ
ÐÒÏÂÌÅÍÁ ×ÙÇÌÑÄÉÔ.

5 Answers

Moderator

4/24/2005 4:44:00 PM

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:38:25 +0000 (UTC)
"mirex" <mirex@pth.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua>

uAIA?AIEA [*] -- offtopic.

* On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:38:25 +0000 (UTC) you wrote:

> ?IOOA?EI O ?IOOI? eEOU E eAA E OOIIEIOION O OAEIE ?OIAIAIIE:
> o?IEOO?A XMMS E Xchat IOIAOAOAAOOON IA OOOOEEI A EAEEIE-OI EAOAEOINIE.
> iA OEOEIUIOA ftp://pth.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua/incomi... ?IEAUAII EAE IIN
> ?OIAIAIA ?UCINAEO.

--
With Respect, ICQ# 34006064 ftp://reali...
Yuriy [haze at reality.org.ua] [Ahraywah Ohmankogah Skeeda]

np: /* silence */

Billy Bissette

6/11/2008 4:17:00 AM

Antoine <antoine.from.rgrd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a30ba695-b41a-4727-96bf-164660ec3e3e@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 11, 11:50?am, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 5:47?pm, Antoine <antoine.from.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > 2. It is designed to be a computer game as much as a tabletop game
>> > - there is a focus on fully defining all situations so that a
>> > computer can adjudicate them
>> > 3. As a corollary, the GM becomes a referee whose role it is to
>> > apply the rules objectively, rather than a storyguide whose role it
>> > is to decide what happens
>>
>> I think these are good things for D&D. ?It is rare for someone to
>> become a good GM from scratch. ?A system must exist to hand hold poor
>> quality newbie GMs so they can run effective campaigns. ?If they
>> can't, where is new blood supposed to come from?
>
> I am not sure that complicated, fully specified rules are the best way
> to hand-hold the new GM. I would rather encourage them to make their
> own calls based on their best judgement.

Fully specified rules may actually discourage development of a GM.

Players want things nailed down because they see rules as
protection. They don't want to die due to what they see as the
whim of the GM. They want it reduced to a yes/no situation or a die
roll.

But the more that is nailed down in detail, the less desire there
is to alter those rules. Deviation is seen as rejecting the
game, or playing the game wrong, or an excuse to screw the players,
or whatever else someone might think of. Several RPGs have a line
or a paragraph that outright says to use what rules you want, and
ignore or change what you don't. But how many actually take
advantage of that statement?

And the more thing are nailed down, the less desire there is to
go outside those situations. When combat is stating an action and
making a die roll, people come up with other ideas. When combat
is a detailed list of action choices, people are more likely to
stick to those choices.

And unskilled GMs feel safety in sticking to those choices as
well. When everything is broken down and set up for them, they
feel particularly safe. Following rules can become a crutch to
avoid developing as either a player or a GM.

> I believe, rather, that these rules are intended to facilitate
> computerised play. Which is sensible in itself, but does it
> compromise the game as a tabletop experience?

Aren't they offering some kind of service for a monthly fee that
includes online play support (in addition to other things)?

I don't know that it was really intended to aid computerised
play though. It could as easily be from an attempt to create a
uniform experience for all groups.

>> Because the newbie player can't react to arbitrary choices. ?They
>> will go with "er... attack?" with no thought anyways. ?Given them a
>> finite list of actual choices lets them break the writer's block of
>> an infinite canvas and start playing. ?After some experience, I am
>> confident they will start to think out side the box.
>
> I hope so.

You need both a GM and a player to think outside the box at the
same time. If the GM is still in strict rules mode, then he will
likely discourage players from developing.

>> > 7. The monster descriptions seem to assume that monsters are
>> > primarily there to fight, and, when the fight commences, will
>> > behave in a tactically optimal way
>>
>> What else are monsters for? ?:>
>
> Agreed that fighting monsters is good. But I would also like to see
> players negotiating with monsters, or trying to intimidate them, or
> sneaking round them, or...
>
> Look at the in-dev Pit Fiend:
> http://dnd4.com/the...
>
> I am worried by this paragraph:
>
> "Pit Fiend Tactics
> "A pit fiend fights close to its enemies, catching them in its aura of
> fear and aura of fire. On the first round of combat, it spends an
> action point to use infernal summons. It then uses point of terror
> against a tough-looking foe and tactical teleport to place two allies
> in flanking positions around that foe. With its remaining minor
> action, the pit fiend uses irresistible command on an ally within
> range.
> "A pit fiend alternates between point of terror and irresistible
> command, sometimes using both if it has a spare move action it can
> replace with a minor action. Otherwise, the pit fiend uses pit fiend
> frenzy, teleporting as needed to gain a better position.
> "A pit fiend does not sacrifice its life needlessly and makes a
> tactical retreat if death is imminent."
>
> As a description of a monster, this seems too mechanical and too
> tactics-focused.

It is entirely tactics-focused. It is most likely done so in order
to make sure GMs run the monsters "right". When GMs are given
freedom, the less talented ones are less likely to run monsters
"right." This was seen repeatedly in previous incarnations, with
both the rule books themselves and articles in magazines trying to
describe how to intelligently run intelligent monsters, while
players were knocking off brain damaged dragons that just sat in
their lairs waiting to be executed.

Tactics descriptions like the above take all the thinking out of
the equation, and guarantees a minimum competence from any creature.
GMs are told exactly what to do to present the "right" challenge to
the players. Theoretically, maybe GMs are expected to branch away
with experience and as situations warrant, but like other rules many
will probably stick to the letter.

Ray

6/11/2008 7:48:00 AM

Jeff Lait wrote:

> My main complaint from my brief look is that it seems they got rid of
> magic entirely, instead making all "spells" and "skills" the same
> thing. Magic is supposed to be magic - ie, not simply reduced to a
> set of numbers or a orthogonal set of relationships.

Really? No spellcasting characters?

If that's the case I don't even know why they're continuing
to call it Dungeons & Dragons. That was absolutely core and
fundamental to the game I knew as "Advanced D&D."

If they don't have that, they're playing something else now.

But also, if that's the case I've no idea why any of you would
be considering implementing their rules. They've obviously
caved to the Christian Right instead of advancing game design.

Bear

Gerry Quinn

6/11/2008 3:20:00 PM

In article <a30ba695-b41a-4727-96bf-
164660ec3e3e@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, antoine.from.rgrd@gmail.com
says...

> I am worried by this paragraph:
>
> "Pit Fiend Tactics
> "A pit fiend fights close to its enemies, catching them in its aura of
> fear and aura of fire. On the first round of combat, it spends an
> action point to use infernal summons. It then uses point of terror
> against a tough-looking foe and tactical teleport to place two allies
> in flanking positions around that foe. With its remaining minor
> action, the pit fiend uses irresistible command on an ally within
> range.
> "A pit fiend alternates between point of terror and irresistible
> command, sometimes using both if it has a spare move action it can
> replace with a minor action. Otherwise, the pit fiend uses pit fiend
> frenzy, teleporting as needed to gain a better position.
> "A pit fiend does not sacrifice its life needlessly and makes a
> tactical retreat if death is imminent."
>
> As a description of a monster, this seems too mechanical and too
> tactics-focused.

Well, the paragraph is called "Pit Fiend Tactics" - I guess the key
question is whether there are other paragraphs describing the
appearance, personality and possible motivations of Pit Fiends.

It does seem a bit like a design for a monster in a computer game
though.

> > > 10. I think the problem of mages running out of spells was real, but
> > > the fix that has been implemented is not the right one.
> >
> > My main complaint from my brief look is that it seems they got rid of
> > magic entirely, instead making all "spells" and "skills" the same
> > thing. Magic is supposed to be magic - ie, not simply reduced to a
> > set of numbers or a orthogonal set of relationships.

> On this, I agree 100%. And I think that truly 'magical' magic is not
> very compatible with a heavily engineered, computer-adjudicable game.

Yes. But if you dispense with Gandalfian 'magical' magic, putting it on
a par with other skills (albeit with individual mechanisms) probably is
the most sensible solution.

You could still implement Gandalfian magic with the aid of special
artifacts or prayers that can typically only be used once.

- Gerry Quinn
--
Lair of the Demon Ape (a coffee-break roguelike)
<http://indigo.ie/~gerryq/lair/la...

Billy Bissette

6/12/2008 1:42:00 AM

zaimoni@zaimoni.com wrote in news:7a90d8da-d904-43bd-b709-
c99a44e3a8fb@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 11, 2:47 am, Ray Dillinger <b...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> But also, if that's the case I've no idea why any of you would
>> be considering implementing their rules. They've obviously
>> caved to the Christian Right instead of advancing game design.
>
> The Raving Religious Right is not an issue for D&D (and hasn't been
> since 1990), at least assuming a vaguely rational public relations
> department. You do need their demographic information to accurately
> model where your market isn't, but inadvertently advertising to them
> isn't going to get your corporate HQ targeted by guerilla warfare
> specialists.

The Religious Right isn't an issue for D&D anymore simply because
D&D isn't an issue anymore.

A few decades ago, D&D was gigantic. So it was the target. But
D&D faded, and other things arose. Pokemon, for example, was the
target for a while. Harry Potter. Etc.

D&D won't be an issue again unless there is a major dry spell in
other targets, it gains a new life online (such as a D&D MMORPG that
could rival WoW in popularity), or they court controversy by doing
something like throwing instructions for Satanic rituals into the
manual and then mail copies to various religious fanatics.

ntu-kpi.comp.programming

ðÏÍÏÇÉÔÅ ÓÏ ÛÒÉÆÔÁÍÉ × éËÓÁÈ

mirex

Moderator

Billy Bissette

Ray

Gerry Quinn

Billy Bissette

x Login to ForumsZone