A little less Obtuse

> Imagine an RPG that is still a table-top RPG, with GM, and printed
> rules.  Only there is one *big* difference.  All of the nitty-gritty,
> penicl-pushing, details are handled by silicon, rather than dice and
> gray cells.   That is, the game comes with a program (and/or special-
> ized computer) that handles character generation, combat, travel
> times, world generation, trade and commerce, etc.

	I've seen this come up a few times. Once during the conference
with FASA, once during the conference with DGP. They have thought about
this as well. The problem with the idea is market. How much more are you
willing to pay for this software? In addtion, which computer should
this software be intended for? IBM? Mac? Apple? NeXT? How many RPGer are
willing to pay for this? Based on the various game companies, not enough
to justify the effort. And for a specialized computer, that would
push the R&D cost even higher, and market lower. From what I'm told.

hi again,

In article 2955, Richard Johnson says:

>The other day I waxed eloquent about using computers and integrating
>them with RPGs and really said very little.  I apologize for wasting
>your time.  Now I hope to try this again with a little more thought
>and some concrete proposals.

>Today we get idea number 1.  Further ideas will be in later posts,
>so we don't get overwhelmed with text.

Schucks!  I've got to wait...never, I'll say my bit anyway :-)


>#######Idea 1: The Composite Game (aka the CAT proposal)#############
>           This is immediately implementable (1992)

>I call this the CAT proposal, because it's simply a formalization
>of what the CAT sub-list members are doing individually, and in a
>somewhat more limited fashion.

>Imagine an RPG that is still a table-top RPG, with GM, and printed
>rules.  Only there is one *big* difference.  All of the nitty-gritty,
>penicl-pushing, details are handled by silicon, rather than dice and
>gray cells.   That is, the game comes with a program (and/or special-
>ized computer) that handles character generation, combat, travel
>times, world generation, trade and commerce, etc.

So long as the computer doesn't begin to dominate the game, this is a great
way to handle lots & lots of added realism (gee, you're about 13.7m from freddie
and you've got [big gun #24].  Splat goes freddie's left hand).  Computers
can handle lots of added detail and complexity without everything becoming
a table feast (has anybody heard of rolemaster?  tables, tables and more
tables).  Things like handling passage of time, is something that I am very
lax about (who isn't, how many people account for characters aging during play?)

My personal preference would be tending towards a small portable computer that
included all this kind of stuff.  Having to lug a (huge) PC around just so
you can play the game is kind of stupid.  Then there is the problem of what
happens when the thing breaks down (sorry guys, the session has to be cancelled
since the bloody database is broken :-)


>The GM still has control over what actually gets said and done, and
>can therefore modify the output of the game, and input new parameters,
>characters, data of any sort.  The computer can keep track where the
>party is, what their possesions are, and so forth, leaving the players
>to concentrate on *playing*, and the GM to concentrate on keeping the
>plot and game flow together.

The GM must be able to 'fudge' things at a moments notice (without the players
being able to see him do so???).  As GM I often fudge all kinds of die rolls
(doesn't everybody?), sometimes it even helps the players ;-}


>Addidtionally, with computations done by Si, you could do the evil
>things of making space three or four dimensional, making events
>transpire in two different milieus simultaneously, making fuel burn
>a function of speed and distance, making healing time more playable.

Yeah, and having stars go nova in real time!  More seriously, things like
having starships that actually travel between systems so you meet old 'friends'
intermittantly --- the current tables don't really account for this kind of
thing.  I'm sure people can come up with lots and lots of different
bookkeeping style things that machines would be really good at handling.
[ As an aside: can anybody give me an English word the included
   the pairs of double letter in a row?  No it isn't really related to this
   topic ]


>So let's talk about this.  I suspect it's a natural creative avenue
>for TML'ers, especially the ones interested in TDR.  No-one says
>whatever new sci-fi game it turns into has to be MT-compatible.
>Although it certainly could be...

What warts and all?  The system that is used underneath isn't really all that
important (well, there are some things that are :-)  Stuff like combat, trading
and so on are really quite mechanics independent.  Does it really matter if you
are using MT combat, CyberPunk combat or Morrow Project combat?  The basic
idea that being shot is usually fatal will come through.  Sure, something like
GammaWorld or D&D has a combat system that is really quite different (like
you cannot die very easily).  You wouldn't want to use that as your basis.

So long as trading is reasonably balanced and seems reasonable, it doesn't
matter too much what mechanics are used.  In fact there would be some very
stong reasons not to use a canned system (like lots of really nasty people
who are generally know as lawyers).

I'm quite sure that even the MT computer games take quite a few liberties
with the rules.  Nobody is really going to find out unless they reverse
engineer the program (which is a pretty stupid thing to be doing).  The
MT related programs that I have written have usually either taken some
easy ways out or suffered lots of nasty problems trying to stay totally
compatable.  [e.g. the ship design program doesn't support planetoid hulls
at all, and it would have been nice to make some simplifying assumptions
in the bridge/control sections.]


>Anyone wanna implement or suggest this (or some variant) to some
>gaming house?

I'd love to implement this, my supervisor wouldn't like me taking another
couple of years out of thesis for me to do so.  I've done some work on
some areas, I'm intending to continue working on these and others in the
future.  [My current project is a rewrite of a common mud's (lp) database to
be more flexible, and I'm borrowing several ideas from MT to help --- tasks
really are wonderful things that promote consistency.  Skills are pretty nice
and MT has this wonderful skill list that I've got on-line somewhere.  The
actualy mud isn't going to be totally SciFi, but some bits of it may end up
that way.]  If I got really keen I could write some of the stuff for my pocket
calculator and let it do the work for me.

Would a gaming house show much interest in a combined RPG/computer game?
I suspect not, they would be able to produce the RPG and then flog the
computer assistance off to the public as a game-aid.  Unless the computer
was supplied with the game I cannot see it being very workable (what
computer to support?).  If the game included enough bookkeeping to warrant
computer assistance as standard, it would be very close to unplayable without
the machine aid.  Personally, I like to know what the system is using to
resolve things (lets you play the odds better :-)  A computer introduces
a 'black box' into the works that removes this knowledge.





        						Pauli

Paul Dale               | Internet/CSnet:            [email removed]
Dept of Computer Science| Bitnet:       [email removed]
Uni of Queensland       | JANET:           [email removed]
Australia, 4072         | EAN:                          [email removed]
                        | UUCP:           [email removed]
f4e6g4Qh4++             | JUNET:                     [email removed]

Subject: Re: (2958) (2959) A little less obtuse (re: 2955)
>
> MacGyver writes:
>               The problem with the idea is market. How much more are you
> willing to pay for this software? In addtion, which computer should
> this software be intended for? IBM? Mac? Apple? NeXT? How many RPGer are
> willing to pay for this? Based on the various game companies, not enough
> to justify the effort. And for a specialized computer, that would
> push the R&D cost even higher, and market lower. From what I'm told.

        As I see it, the increase in development cost of a simulator
on multiple systems is neglegible compared with the initial
development cost if the writers use almost any high level language,
although C is probably best for this (no flames please -- it's just
that almost anything will compile single-threading K&R).  What this
implies is that if you ignore GUIs and make a text-only application
it should look the same, feel the same and in fact be the same
program when ported to Unix, Mac OS, MS-DOS, Intuition, OS/2, the
Commodore 64 or whatever you please with a minimum of effort.
        If graphics get involved it is a different story because the
different capabilities and expectations of the underlying hardware
get mixed in.  However, I was thinking in terms of a program for
which graphics wouldn't matter; one that would handle bookkeeping
and not be SSI's on-line Monster Manual.
         I simply don't see number of platforms as a drawback -- for
what you have in mind it wouln't be.

> Paul Dale writes:
> Would a gaming house show much interest in a combined RPG/computer game?
> I suspect not, they would be able to produce the RPG and then flog the
> computer assistance off to the public as a game-aid.  Unless the computer
> was supplied with the game I cannot see it being very workable (what
> computer to support?).  If the game included enough bookkeeping to warrant
> computer assistance as standard, it would be very close to unplayable without
> the machine aid.  Personally, I like to know what the system is using to
> resolve things (lets you play the odds better :-)  A computer introduces
> a 'black box' into the works that removes this knowledge.

        Hm.  I think that it's possible to do this the way you
would prefer it.  First, it's possible to support multiple operating
systems for a program that is designed to be reuse as much code as
possible.  The programs that have problems with being ported are
those that are trying to do it all instantly -- programs written in
80x86 assembly and those for graphical interfaces.  (No wonder
they're having so much trouble with WordPerfect for Windows!)  To
reiterate, programs written in a high-level language and making few
or no assumptions about the underlying hardware would be the best.
After all, unless combat involves floating-point matrix manipulation
you shouldn't be able to tell the difference.
        Second is that certain combat systems are workable with two
people but simply unplayable with mass combat.  There is a thread on
newsgroup rec.games.design involving the benefits of simple combat
systems vs. the implausibility of them.  The more complex systems
(I'll call them duelling) seem to involve multiple related strikes
as a result of the 'real' combat initiative (where people 'press
their attack', etc.)  They may be fun to play but would really bog
down a standard game.  Enter a computer.  The computer can be
programmed to not only do the table lookups/calculations when told
to, but it could also be set up to make realistic decisions for NPCs
in such combat if the GM wishes to have it do so.
        I think that there are some small game companies out there
that would write something like that and sell it as a package.  With
RPGs currently the cost of simple computer games a game bundled with
bookkeeping software should be marketable in the high end.  If they
treat it as 'value added' instead of 'gimmick' it should do well in
the gamers' market.  And if size is a problem, the die-hard
roleplayer could pick up the HP 55LX pocket PC...
- --
Segal's Law:                                         | Jack Dietz
  A man with one watch always knows what time it is. | ([email removed])
  A man with two watches is never sure.              | Earthquake Drill

Summer's Over -- writes:
..........
> which graphics wouldn't matter; one that would handle bookkeeping
> and not be SSI's on-line Monster Manual.
>          I simply don't see number of platforms as a drawback -- for
> what you have in mind it wouln't be.

	Well, if the program is a text-only thing even when it's
ported to things like Mac. I for one, wouldn't buy it. GUI is what
attracts a lot of people to Mac. And if they are gamer and use Mac
as well, it's doubtful they would buy a text-only program.