Maybe we should stop being like DnD and be DnD?
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Maybe we should stop being like DnD and be DnD?
This is a really radical suggestion, but one of the big reasons I came to sojourn was that it had a mem system instead of a mana system. It was like DnD. I wonder how many people we would pick up if we were a more strict implementation of current DnD?
Then in essence, Wizards of the Coast would be doing our advertising for us by creating a gaming system that people pay money for (in buying books) and enjoy... Then maybe we can implement some sort of DM god positions where people could run mini campaigns for their buddies (like dnd is played in real life) and figure out some way to keep "monty haul" from happening.
I'm not voting in this poll, because I don't know how I feel about this idea on principle even beyond the thousands of hours of time it would take to remake the game.
Then in essence, Wizards of the Coast would be doing our advertising for us by creating a gaming system that people pay money for (in buying books) and enjoy... Then maybe we can implement some sort of DM god positions where people could run mini campaigns for their buddies (like dnd is played in real life) and figure out some way to keep "monty haul" from happening.
I'm not voting in this poll, because I don't know how I feel about this idea on principle even beyond the thousands of hours of time it would take to remake the game.
Shevarash wrote:No, I don't think we should "become" D&D, although - there is alot that we can learn from 3.5E D&D, and alot that we can use in this game.
Apparently the correct spelling of "a lot" is not one of them :twisted:
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'
Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
We'll id agree with you on the merits of the game Shev, but I don't think we could find any better advertising than to be able to say that we 99-100% implement 3.5 DnD. There are a lot of people who play dnd and there aren't a lot of dnd muds out there, not one that I've seen that really tries to implement 3.5.
I wonder, would you and the forgers be willing to create a second mud that you own with the toril areas/codebase and "hire" a team to develop it based on the 3.5e rules? You can always shut it down, but it might be interesting to see how well 3.5 can translate to a mud and how popular it would be.
Maybe even start them with the toril areas, but set the direction that every "new" zone written specifically for this new mud must eliminate an existing "toril" zone, so there is divergence at some point, but you don't start off with a mud that has 0 content.
I wonder, would you and the forgers be willing to create a second mud that you own with the toril areas/codebase and "hire" a team to develop it based on the 3.5e rules? You can always shut it down, but it might be interesting to see how well 3.5 can translate to a mud and how popular it would be.
Maybe even start them with the toril areas, but set the direction that every "new" zone written specifically for this new mud must eliminate an existing "toril" zone, so there is divergence at some point, but you don't start off with a mud that has 0 content.
There is literally no possible way to successfully implement 3.5 D&D in a text-based environment.
I am a halfling rogue in a party fighting a huge size ogre. I would like to tumble through his threatened space, draw my weapon during movement using quick draw, flank with the dwarven paladin, and land a sneak attack.
How exactly would you express that sequence of events using the toril engine? And more to the point, how do you express a turn-based simulation game in a realtime text environment?
Even Neverwinter Nights, in all of its graphical splendor, only manage to incorporate some 75-80% of 3.5 D&D into the game engine.
I am a halfling rogue in a party fighting a huge size ogre. I would like to tumble through his threatened space, draw my weapon during movement using quick draw, flank with the dwarven paladin, and land a sneak attack.
How exactly would you express that sequence of events using the toril engine? And more to the point, how do you express a turn-based simulation game in a realtime text environment?
Even Neverwinter Nights, in all of its graphical splendor, only manage to incorporate some 75-80% of 3.5 D&D into the game engine.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
ragorn, you have a point, there are some things that are just not possible because of the creativity that is marshalled by the DM.
however, to address your scenario...
I might extend the combat round from 4 seconds to 30 seconds. Then allow actions to happen within the round or simply do away with rounds. So the fighter would initiate the fight, and the rogue would simply wait until the fighter flanked the mob, then initiated his tumble and sneak attack. Whether that took 10 seconds to flank or he opened with flank the rogue would wait until he saw the successful message before entering his command. It wouldn't be turned based per se, but you would have better opportunity to take a turn, and if you didnt make an action in the specified turn duration you simply wouldn't do anything.
second, action
------
1, fighter enters command to flank giant
2, giant draws his weapon
3, rogue enters command to tumble
4, rogue enters command to draw weapon
4, fighter swings at giant
5, giant swings at fighter
7, cleric casts a heal on fighter
8, fighter makes his double attack and swings a second time
10, rogue finsihes tumbling and enters the sneak attack command
11, giant switches to rogue
15, fighter makes his triple attack and swings a third time
18, rogue tumbles again
19, giant loses target
20, giant selects new target fighter
I remember combat in DnD being very short # of rounds and a high amount of damage (relative to hps) per hit. Making combat last 5 or 10 minutes for 5 or 6 rounds would actually be more inline with a table top experience. You could even setup a round in a 30 second planning phase and a 30 second action phase allowing chars to plan their round together in a queue or target second manner, then give them additional opportunity to change mid round as the fight goes unexpected.
however, to address your scenario...
I might extend the combat round from 4 seconds to 30 seconds. Then allow actions to happen within the round or simply do away with rounds. So the fighter would initiate the fight, and the rogue would simply wait until the fighter flanked the mob, then initiated his tumble and sneak attack. Whether that took 10 seconds to flank or he opened with flank the rogue would wait until he saw the successful message before entering his command. It wouldn't be turned based per se, but you would have better opportunity to take a turn, and if you didnt make an action in the specified turn duration you simply wouldn't do anything.
second, action
------
1, fighter enters command to flank giant
2, giant draws his weapon
3, rogue enters command to tumble
4, rogue enters command to draw weapon
4, fighter swings at giant
5, giant swings at fighter
7, cleric casts a heal on fighter
8, fighter makes his double attack and swings a second time
10, rogue finsihes tumbling and enters the sneak attack command
11, giant switches to rogue
15, fighter makes his triple attack and swings a third time
18, rogue tumbles again
19, giant loses target
20, giant selects new target fighter
I remember combat in DnD being very short # of rounds and a high amount of damage (relative to hps) per hit. Making combat last 5 or 10 minutes for 5 or 6 rounds would actually be more inline with a table top experience. You could even setup a round in a 30 second planning phase and a 30 second action phase allowing chars to plan their round together in a queue or target second manner, then give them additional opportunity to change mid round as the fight goes unexpected.
I haven't been very impressed by what I've read and seen of D&D Online either. I don't think thats a symptom of the d20/3.5 system but rather of a poor implementation.
How Turbine managed to snag two of the hottest licenses imaginable (D&D, LotR) after AC2 is beyond me...
How Turbine managed to snag two of the hottest licenses imaginable (D&D, LotR) after AC2 is beyond me...
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
the dnd online beta looks like a graphical MMORPG. This suggestion is a text based RPG. Thats an apples to oranges comparison. There are inherent benefits to text games and different inherent benefits to graphical games.
And back to the point, before it was decided that dnd would be impossible to implement in text, we were actually talking about whether we would get more players if we more strictly implemented dnd than merely being based off dnd.
I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine there are a lot of players who would be interested in a more accurate dnd implementation than is available. Every mud seems to be dnd based, but how many can say they even have a spell circle system.. how many could say they even attempt to implement 3.5?
I think it would be worthy of some research and consideration, and if its impossible to alter toril to be more like 3.5 (which I'd probably agree that it is, why throw away what has taken years to refine) we could still attempt a new mud venture and derive any benefits for toril that are possible by controlling it. Whether thats code, areas or just marketing.
And back to the point, before it was decided that dnd would be impossible to implement in text, we were actually talking about whether we would get more players if we more strictly implemented dnd than merely being based off dnd.
I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine there are a lot of players who would be interested in a more accurate dnd implementation than is available. Every mud seems to be dnd based, but how many can say they even have a spell circle system.. how many could say they even attempt to implement 3.5?
I think it would be worthy of some research and consideration, and if its impossible to alter toril to be more like 3.5 (which I'd probably agree that it is, why throw away what has taken years to refine) we could still attempt a new mud venture and derive any benefits for toril that are possible by controlling it. Whether thats code, areas or just marketing.
Shevarash wrote:I haven't been very impressed by what I've read and seen of D&D Online either. I don't think thats a symptom of the d20/3.5 system but rather of a poor implementation.
How Turbine managed to snag two of the hottest licenses imaginable (D&D, LotR) after AC2 is beyond me...
Is Microsoft still backing them up?
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests