D&Dvolution?

lukelightning said:

Despite wanting a more abstract armor system, I do think there should be some way to have "bad choice" armor in the game, to represent things like primitive orc hide armor or primitive bronze plate worn by ancient crypt guardians and stuff like that. But that could just be as easy as saying something like "the bronze armor is poor quality plate armor... -1 on AC and an extra point of armor check penalty."

Click to expand...

Mark CMG said:

As games become more computer-dependent, and crossovers between tabletop RPGs and CRPGs and online platforms for PnP and everything in between become more the need of the many, it may behoove some designers to ensure all things scale perfectly from bottom to top and to remove obvious clunkers from the mix but that flies in the face of more realistic simulations, IMO.

Click to expand...

wingsandsword said:

Of course, that implies that the future of D&D is as some computer-paper hybrid, not bloody likely.

Click to expand...

Or simply that character generation programs would function more smoothly with fewer exceptions within the rules.

I hope not and yet so at the same time. I hate to see computers at a gaming table, regardless of the obvious advantages, there is always the lure of other things to do, when you aren't engaged (Solataire anyone). But if programs are more common, they have to be a sight better than current iterations. Not customizeable, so customizeable that you can build blocks of racial stereotypes from different regions to include dress and eating habits.... :\

Frankly, simplicity is the best, but tying it to a single system is just asinine. Plug-ins are the obvious answer and allows for a marketing of several products instead of just one that becomes 'non-supported' after a few years. Likewise having everything available is just annoying for those us that do homebrew and couldn't give a dire-rat's hind quarters about Eberron, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and what-have-you.

A basic customizeable (and I mean VERY basic) system that allows for the specifc plug-ins would be great, beyond that, its all just bells and whistles.

Mark CMG said:

Or simply that character generation programs would function more smoothly with fewer exceptions within the rules.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that's the case but what about 2E's Core Rules and Core Rules 2.0? Both were effective, efficient, fully functional and customisable despite the plethora of strange rules that plagued both 1E and 2E.

Perhaps WotC simply should have engaged the same programming team again to create a decent chargen instead of the expensive drinks coaster that was eTools? Then again, I've always been of the opinion that we will only see a decent chargen once 4E is ready for release.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, Mark.

When it comes to programs, I have to say that D&D players get some really abominable leavings. The best programs I've seen are those distributed for free by fans, and the ones marketed for the industry at large are totally incomparable to the kind of professional programs reasonable people put down money for. In the world of programming we have military-grade programs that absolutely must work correctly, civilian-grade programs that work well enough to keep the customer happy, and gamer-grade programs that five guys hammer out in Javascript over a weekend and ten thousand people will buy because the alternative is just as bad.

Mark CMG said:

Or simply that character generation programs would function more smoothly with fewer exceptions within the rules.

Click to expand...

What?

Dude, computers are the masters of handling fiddly-bits of data - that's the whole point of having the beasts. Many thousands of operations and discrete lookups per second, remember? The computer can handle them a darn sight better than a human.The computer aid should enable the use of a more complicated (or even baroque) system, rather than discourage it.

The problem isn't that the computers cannot handle such complicated stuff, but that nobody has thrown seriously paid developers at the problem for a significant period of time, because there's not enough economic gain to be had.

JustKim said:

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, Mark.

Click to expand...

Some tabletop RPGs have a hodge podge of systems to handle different parts of the game that do not mesh well with one another. The point I am making, I suppose, is that companies are unlikely to continue to design games with such mash ups that do not lend themselves well to other formats when they can start from the ground up making it more easily portable from tabletop to CRPG to whatever.

Umbran said:

The problem isn't that the computers cannot handle such complicated stuff, but that nobody has thrown seriously paid developers at the problem for a significant period of time, because there's not enough economic gain to be had.

Click to expand...

We have wonderful, functional, attractive and most of all accurate and customizable chargen programs available for GURPS and HERO. Both contain far more fiddly-bits than D&D does, and yet these programs have been out for years.

These are from companies with significantly far fewer resources than WoTC. I'd think there would be a significant amount of economic gain to be made for a relatively small expenditure. It's a crying shame one has not been produced.

Mark CMG said:

Or simply that character generation programs would function more smoothly with fewer exceptions within the rules.

Click to expand...

Computers are all about exception-driven rules systems. If the rules system were simple and had no exceptions, you wouldn't need a computer -- you might need a calculator, but not a computer.

It's the exceptions that make D&D great: moving out of a threatened square provokes an AOO... unless it's a 5'-step or the first such square during the withdraw action; you need a move action to draw a weapon... unless you have BAB +1 and combine it with a move or you have Quick Draw; diagonals count as 1.5 squares... except for determining reach; etc.

(There's a good chance I forgot some exceptions to the above rules or mistakenly remembered the rules. Computers don't forget nor make mistakes, unless programmed improperly.)

Umbran hit the nail on the head!

Simplifying D&D, erasing exceptions and all that would not make it easier for computers to manage everything. It would only make it easier to design such software.

Right now, you need someone who knows the rules and understands something about software design and programming to sit down for some time and properly design it.

If you remove all the "fiddly bits", it may make it possible for anyone who isn't completely computer illiterate to cobble something together with VB Express.

I'm not sure wether that would be a good thing or not: Sure, you wouldn't need said IT professional, but it might also lead to a flood of shoddy software cobbled together by some greenhorns two weeks into their programming apprenticeship. The proper software would still have to be designed by someone who knows what he's doing, taking his time and not rushing things.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the system should not have unnecessary complications removed, I just say that simplifications should be made for the players' sake, not for computers who don't care whether they have to look up 1 piece of data or 1000.

Umbran said:

(. . .), but that nobody has thrown seriously paid developers at the problem for a significant period of time, because there's not enough economic gain to be had.

Click to expand...

I don't know that that is true. Speaking primarily in regard to character generation software, WotC made an early attempt that came with the early Players Handbook and was meant to prelude their next. They made their next attempt with Master Tools which never saw the light of day but wasmeant to include a more robust character generator among other things. Then WotC ended up giving the public eTools. I'll leave it to those who regularly utitlize eTools to discuss its merits and flaws but, sufficed to say, it isn't anywhere near as widely accepted as it might be. I'd have to say that these were "serious" and "significant" efforts despite the results.