[freeroleplay] Re: The Ideal Mechanic && Computer RPGs

  • From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: FRPGC <freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:50:13 +0000 (GMT)

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> If I didn't do so before, I welcome you to the list. :)

Thanks.

> Actually, I thought one of the main advantages of computer RPGs is that
> the underlying RPG system doesn't actually need to be simple at all.

If you want to make it extensible (easy to add new stuff), then simplicity
of core design is vital. Also remember that for computer games, internal
coherence and completeness of the rules is _much_ more important, since a
computer cannot make the fuzzy adjustments and subjective judgements that
GMs do all the time. Making rules internally coherent is of course much
more work when they are more complex than when they are simple.

> On the contrary, you don't have to worry about simplicity,
> human-understandable ranges, etc... you can simply and easily conceal
> all the complex numerics.

Yet computer RPG players tend to like having their skills and attributes,
damage and experience, represented by numbers. Of course, you can conceal
the dice rolls etc.

> You can also do lots of nice things, using
> complex mathematical calculations to determine outcome.

Frankly, I don't see the point, and must admit to not seeing the point to
the previous discussion about probabilities. Just how does 'more probable
skill check results' translate into 'a more fun game'?

Anyway, a more or less uniquely computer RPG issue with skill checks is
repeatability. Any GM worth his rules book will cope with players who want
to retry skill checks - but a computer has to fall back on definite rules
that say exactly what should happen. Very few rules sets I've read specify
this.

My own favourite solution is an automatic 'take 10' (D20 terminology for
no dice roll, use median value of dice) for onopposed, non-risky checks.
There is no state change due to failure of such checks. If there is a risk
and cost involved in the check, which makes sure that endless
repeatability is not possible, it is called a risky check, and a normal
dice roll is made. Experience might be awared for such checks. Finally,
opposed checks are also rolled with dice (and may be awared experience).

> I can see :) Actually, you maybe able to use d20, or at least the SRD,
> in a computer game. There is nothing in the OGL that prevents your from
> putting the content and rules into a computer-readable format.

WotC is spreading a lot of FUD about their own license. I suspect this is
due to them having sold an exclusive license for making computer products
for all their 'intellectual property' to Atari, and they might be afraid
of violating this agreement if they allow anyone to make D20/SRD computer
games. So here you have two very big companies (Hasbro and Atari) with
lots of lawyers and lots of vested interests, and a very murky legal
situation. You don't just jump into the middle of that and hope for the
best.

So WotC says binary files are not 'human readable', which is an OGL
condition, and thus a violation of the license. Even source code may not
be good enough. PCGen had to move absolutely everything under OGL license
into separate text files to be on the safe side. You can do this for a
character generator like PCGen, but for a game you need to implement the
rules in source code or it will never be fast enough.

> On the other hand, I'm designing FRINGE partly as a replacement for d20
> and other generic roleplaying systems. It may not do entirely what you
> want, but have a look and let me know what you think.

I hope to post my thoughts on FRINGE later.

> I intend to publish FRINGE under the GPL precisely to allow people to
> write computer games using the rules here. I intend to write my own free
> software computer programs (char gen, games, etc) Once we've created the
> basic system. The only problem is deciding whether to dual license under
> the GNU FDL and the GPL, or just the GPL.

Have you considered using the Creative Commons Attribution License instead
of FDL? The FDL does not have the best reputation around. You would still
need to dual license it for GPL, though.

Also, you have the same problem in regards to the LGPL, too! So maybe you
should dual license it with LGPL instead of GPL. (You can use LGPL in GPL
but not GPL in LGPL.) This is useful if someone wants to write, for
example, a rules-resolving library for FRINGE one day.

  - Per


Other related posts: