PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: Illysia on February 18, 2009, 06:00:33 pm
-
In dice games it is fun to be able to see what number the dice roll. But when a person is making a decision and using dice to decide the outcome, it is not so much fun, especially when it requires several rolls. Is it possible to have an emote like (/attack >Player X attacks player Y ) but have the emote dependent on a chance factor that isn't visible in the system messages? It just flips the coin as it were and shows the results (like /attack >Player X attacks Player Y or >Player X attempted to attack Player Y)
This might also help a little with that nasty little godmodding problem as the decision can be decided arbitrarily and can't be pinned on a particular person's action as the system would decide. Also if you want to leave it in player's hands you can just not use it so that way no one can say that they are being force to use it, it doesn't take stats into account, etc... It'll just be a 50/50 chance so you have equal chances of it going either way.
I think it would help as sometimes I'd rather just leave it to random chance. I don't necessarily want an action to happen to my character but I also don't want to be a poor sport about it. These kinds of emotes would be able to make a decision without having to be burdened by anything other than "it did happen" or "it didn't happen."
-
If you want to see such ingame please make a feature request on the bug tracker so the devs are made aware.
-
Generally, you should do both, a feature request and discuss the topic here. Otherwise you might not reach everyone with your proposal.
-
Generally, you should do both, a feature request and discuss the topic here. Otherwise you might not reach everyone with your proposal.
keep in mind some devs dont even read the forum so that is why i made my request.
-
The reason I haven't done that or placed this in the wishlist is because I am not outright asking for it yet. I was kinda feeling the waters to see if anybody else even cared. After all, why bother with a feature request if no one else thinks it's a reasonable idea. After all it's not like the game is made just for me. :D
-
After all it's not like the game is made just for me. :D
Sure it is Illysia because without you PS would not be as great!!
-
After all, why bother with a feature request if no one else thinks it's a reasonable idea.
If lots of players agree it is a good idea or not, in the end it is up to the devs if they want it in the game, so as i said before if you want it ingame please make a feature request for it. Yes the devs consider if the players want things but in the end it is up to them if is worth the time and effort to put it ingame.
-
Eh, okay, open season on me, I gave this a shot.
http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=34827.msg400547#msg400547
-
May I ask what the point is of this? There is already a combat system in place... it already takes into account factors like skill with weapons... armor... etc. I want to understand why you desire this... because to me, it seems like you want to re-invent the combat system to make people be on an even keel and RP what has already been made functional in the game engine.
I may be coming to the wrong conclusion because of the example you gave, but how would this be useful?
-
It could easily lead to that, I prefer to think of the command as a contest. There is probably a better description.
-
Carrie I understand that it is the devs's decision, but why bother them if it's a bad idea. This wasn't even meant to be seen by devs specifically. It's just posing an idea for discussion. That why I put it here instead of the wishlist.
Mythryndel, it's not a command to actually attack it is an emote. All, emotes may have animation in the future but this is just like "throwing" a singular punch, "throwing" something that is equipped in one of your hands, attempting to tickle someone... It doesn't have to be about attacking. Attack is just the most common problem in regards to deciding the who is victorious and stats don't always mean you connect. After all you may have a devastating right hook, but it means nothing if you miss all together. Think of it as an RPers attack if it help to think of it that way. it takes some godmodding out of the equation as it is an arbitrary system calculated event.
I think you get what I mean Verden, :thumbup:
-
A big advantage of rolling dice is that when the dice rolls are just raw data, the power of interpretation is left to the players involved. If the goal is to free yourself of any constraints built into the mechanics, then keeping the dice rolls as raw as possible does have an advantage. I think you can hide dice rolls from others by including them in a tell. I'm not sure there's a perfect solution though. The mechanics built into the game are essentially invisible dice rolls. It's also possible I don't entirely understand the OP.
-
I'm afraid I do not believe this idea will get anywhere, simply because it will widen the gap between RP and game mechanics. The eventual goal would be for RP and game mechanics to compliment one another, so that such "work around" methods will no longer be needed. I agree that the combat system, as it is, does not support RP fighting very well, but that will more than likely change in the future.
There was a suggestion a couple of days ago that there be an RP /die command where you can die in an RP but not actually be sent to the death realm. If you can see why that is not plausible, you should be able to see why this isn't either.
Thanks for putting in the idea though Illysia, if anything it highlights the need for more RP-Game Mechanics compatibility.
-
I understand a little better, but I still ask "why". What emotes do you need to /roll for other than combat? /me asks you to dance (/roll to see if you accept)? /me tries to chug a 5th mug of Twisted Emerald (/roll to see if I pass out)? With respect to combat... while the current combat system doesn't really allow for your description of a "lucky" strike or whatever... how do you plan to resolve the conflict if you want to /roll an encounter... and someone else wants to /challenge you? I will admit that I am slightly biased against the concept of /roll... especially when mechanics exist for what you are trying to resolve by /rolling. I think that if you incorporate the /roll into emotes, then you are basically asking for an alternate system of mechanics.
Just my 2 trias...
-
I'm afraid I do not believe this idea will get anywhere, simply because it will widen the gap between RP and game mechanics. The eventual goal would be for RP and game mechanics to compliment one another, so that such "work around" methods will no longer be needed. I agree that the combat system, as it is, does not support RP fighting very well, but that will more than likely change in the future.
There was a suggestion a couple of days ago that there be an RP /die command where you can die in an RP but actually be sent to the death realm. If you can see why that is not plausible, you should be able to see why this isn't either.
Thanks for putting in the idea though Illysia, if anything it highlights the need for more RP-Game Mechanics compatibility.
I agree. The correct solution is to correct the mechanics, not to create a parallel system of mechanics. Until then, work-arounds should be as permissive as possible.
-
I disagree with the above and agree with most comments to the first posts roleplaying should be supported by game mechanics and viceversa. It's absurd that someone with skills of someone just come out from char creation is able to kill or block in anyway someone who has high stats (and sometimes even has lower stats - but did some training). If you have 0 in red way it's absurd talking of "trowing big fireballs" - imho this could be considered godmodding -, and there are people who train even if they are excellent roleplayers. Else we can just get an eggdrop setup an irc room and here you are: same result.
-
I disagree with the above and agree with most comments to the first posts roleplaying should be supported by game mechanics and viceversa. It's absurd that someone with skills of someone just come out from char creation is able to kill or block in anyway someone who has high stats (and sometimes even has lower stats - but did some training). If you have 0 in red way it's absurd talking of "trowing big fireballs" - imho this could be considered godmodding -, and there are people who train even if they are excellent roleplayers. Else we can just get an eggdrop setup an irc room and here you are: same result.
My post was above yours... did you disagree with my post?
Also, I didn't see anyone make a post about entering the game as master magicians... what's the number of the reply that you saw that in?
-
I disagree with the above and agree with most comments to the first posts roleplaying should be supported by game mechanics and viceversa. It's absurd that someone with skills of someone just come out from char creation is able to kill or block in anyway someone who has high stats (and sometimes even has lower stats - but did some training). If you have 0 in red way it's absurd talking of "trowing big fireballs" - imho this could be considered godmodding -, and there are people who train even if they are excellent roleplayers. Else we can just get an eggdrop setup an irc room and here you are: same result.
My post was above yours... did you disagree with my post?
Also, I didn't see anyone make a post about entering the game as master magicians... what's the number of the reply that you saw that in?
no about the original posts sorry for the misunderstanding.
That wasn't a gm it was a player in game - gm usually use correctly the game mechanics when possible and in this case they can set the skills correctly
-
Rolls allow certain impartiality when it comes to RP fights as they are fair to all parties. However, it isn't exactly fair to give all characters the same odds to succeed as some may be fresh out of character creation, while others may have some training or at least countless hours of consistent RP which could translate to certain acquired skills for their characters. It's all very relative so the best solution would be to base the success of the rolls on their current stats and skills so basically, we'd have the same issue as with PvP. The characters that train will have a better chance over those who don't.
In any case, I think it's better to just let players roll the dice as they please. They agree on the terms, negotiate their odds of success and then play accordingly.
And regarding emotes, I personally hate automated messages. Certain actions that are plain and universal like taking a seat or falling asleep are ok, but when the messages define your character's personality, I simply prefer to enter them myself. But that's just me :P
-
not entirely sure, but I think they might of meant something more like this: http://www.yliakum.com/index.php?topic=13 (http://www.yliakum.com/index.php?topic=13)
of course can be used for anything not implemented or any kind of event/happenings. Note the title, part where it says "for other non-implemented things"
I think the original pst maybe wanted to do stuff like this, but have the die rolls hidden. I think it is better to have them seen by all, even if at the time only 2 people understand what the roll is deciding.
does this help?
Hopefully does not hurt, eh?
-
I'm afraid I do not believe this idea will get anywhere, simply because it will widen the gap between RP and game mechanics. The eventual goal would be for RP and game mechanics to compliment one another, so that such "work around" methods will no longer be needed. I agree that the combat system, as it is, does not support RP fighting very well, but that will more than likely change in the future.
Yep, and there are different ways in which this could be implemented. I could see adding a couple of fun commands that support roleplay, but it could easily get very complex with people calling for a completely different combat system, which I think would be a mistake. It would be better if any commands such as this were tied into the existing character mechanics. But, anyway, I blocked out two ideas and a supporting third to start a discussion on how/if/why this should be implemented. I gave it a shot, Illysia, but I think there are already ideas about how these concepts could mesh in the future.
-
A rolling system sounds great all and all but in terms of fighting you might as well stick to the game mechanics. Sure, people get to type out their 'elaborate' attacks and explain there mystic magic but really it's the same as dueling only without the need to train. Allow me to explain.
The dueling system gives you a winner determined by a characters specific stats, weapons and etc. Basically it's all math but it's math that has a logical outcome i.e. 2 is more than 4 so 4 beats 2. Of course you could have 4 as well if you trained enough.
A dice rolling system allows me and my enemy to describe our attacks as we are used to with text based fighting and then is also decided by numbers, however these numbers are random. This favors complete fairness, in other words I could have 4 this attack but then have 2 the next attack.
Obviously neither system comes close to a real fight. In a real fight skill gives the obvious beginning advantage, the reason people train in a game. Our dueling system is missing the aspect of 'randomness' where a person with no sword skill at all somehow is able to slice of the head of an adept swordsman. This randomness kills 'fairness' for realism and I don't personally care so much for fair play. To counter-act randomness of course you'd have a one out of a million chances of being the lucky one to kill the adept swordsman.
What the current system lacks the most, and where the most unfair yet at the same time totally fair play comes into the game, is limits. Limitations kill all chances of godmodding as no one person can be better at everything than someone else. In other words I can be the fastest but I might have really low strength. I can be the fastest and the strongest but I can't learn how to use a weapon or read a book.
With limits there wouldn't be a reason why a separation between mechanics and roleplay would exist, at least from a fighting standpoint (ignoring bugs etc that come along with the game still being uncompleted). The games with the greatest grind all force players to make a choice in how they develop a character, strengthening one aspect of a character by losing ability in another field. Some games don't allow you to do certain things at all depending on how you picked in the beginning. On the 'grinder' side of the game I would see no conflict.
On the 'rper' side of the game there should be no conflict as well. Realism is what you ask for, limits is what you get. Simple as that, no real need for explanation.
Now on the 'whiner' side of it (which I bet are bother 'grinders' and 'rpers') I'm sure there will be some reason why I'm completely wrong and should just go back to the cave I've been hiding in.
-
That's all nice any good everybody... but this has nothing to do with what I am talking about. This is not meant for actual combat. "/Attack" in this case would be the equivalent to attempting to punch someone in the arm say or slapping someone. It's not even primarily about attacking or combat. Obviously there is a system for that, I'm not trying to suggest anything to conflict, replace or supplement that.
to give you an idea, say someone throws a pie at you. You or the person throwing could use the emote to decide whether or not you have been hit. Or you could not use it, you can simply decide yourself, you can type /me ducks.
It is just a way of deciding in fairness simple things(not fighting). If the action needs to take into account way too many things to be subject to a 50/50 chance(in other words duels are not good for this)... then don't use it, simple.
On the subject of widening the divide. It shouldn't unless people go out of their way to do that. PLers have no reason to use it, it is optional for RPers and can't be used in connection with complex actions. If I drop something and I want an arbitrary way of deciding if the object breaks then I could use the command, if it is unlikely that it would break if I dropped it then I wouldn't use the command at all. See?
-
Well, it could be done through the mechanics. Ideally, anything and everything can be used as a weapon. A chair leg, a stick you find on the ground, a book... most of those things won't be very good weapons though. A pie could be used as a projectile weapon, much like a throwing knife... only there would be negligible damage.
-
Zanzibar, this has NOTHING to do with dealing damage.
-
It has nothing to do with trying to kill eachother, but if an action could logically cause harm, then it might deal damage... I've probably misunderstood something. :(
-
Illysia ...
I swear it sounds just like the link I posted, except it is about picking pockets instead of tossing pies. Did you even look at it? people can decide the die rolls mean hit or miss <pie> or whatever.
Please read the link before you tell me I do not understand, and then tell me how your concept differes from that, or this conversation will continue to go in circles and I will just ignore it. Cheese and rice.....
at least pretend you are listening before you tell me "but this has nothing to do with what I am talking about." I am not even going to drop the link again, re-read my previous post if you actually want to pretend you are trying to comunicate.
and to be clear, if you do want to just talk to yourself, that is fine also, I will stop trying to understand you then. I still think the system I linked to would cover pie throwing, or anything else.
agree among group that if A throws a pie at B, and they do not react (say "jump"?) then a 3-10 (on a /roll 1 10 ) means it hits them, a 2 means it hits someone else, and a one means it hits no one, and if they DO jump, then 6-10 hits them... you get the idea)
eitehr way, there has to be some agrement on some rules of a sort, whether it is ever implemented ingame or not. for now, it has to be among each other. I like codewords. that is also discussed in the link I dropped.
Then, through use, you can modify how it works to be funner, and viole, done.
I look forward to seeing if you care enough to read a page discussing this. I would like to see more of this kind of stuff used.
-
to give you an idea, say someone throws a pie at you. You or the person throwing could use the emote to decide whether or not you have been hit. Or you could not use it, you can simply decide yourself, you can type /me ducks.
If you want some randomness to your own reaction, why not just toss a coin and then type either "/me ducks the pie" or "/me gets the pie in the face" ?
-
Bamko: First, no it is not what I am talking about, if you'll notice, you system is complicated the one I suggest is not. Second, next time you decide get an attitude and decide to criticize someone's response, please looks past your own ego before you do so. If what I said doesn't fit what you said then chances are I'm not talking to you.... Please, look through the thread and notice that you are not that the only posting here.
Khoridor, at this rate I'm thinking a coin toss would be easier as apparently my suggestion is not clear or is confused with other suggestions. But a coin toss is the closest thing to what I am asking for. No complex mechanic. Simply yes <minor event> happened or no <minor event> did not happen.
The whole reason for doing this is like this: say something is done to my character and I am drawn between being a good roleplayer (not instantly rejecting the event and going along with it) and avoiding (within reason) the effect of the event. After all, you can rationalize any reason for why you character can't or won't be affected. This way it would be a 50/50 chance and nobody would have an unfair advantage. The idea isn't just randomness, it a way of equalizing between what you want and what the other person wants to happen next.
-
/try _____________
--> Zanzibar tries to ____________ (, but fails).
?
-
Yes! \\o//
-
Ill.
first, everyone on all sides were unclear what you mean.
second, my "system" is not that complicated.
third, I did not get an attitude, though I am critical of yout response. it does not require one to have an attitude to be critical of you not even trying to make youself clear, but still telling us we do not understand what you mean. We have been guessing for 2 pages, and as of yet, I have not seen you either explain how what any of us have posted is not what you mean in what way, specifically. It would of been easier if you just made yourself clear. you say rolling a die (implemented) would be too complicated, but even now there is the question on rather you mean just for yourself to see, or some sort of group thing.
do you realize the game already had die rolls? want a coin flip, try "/roll 1 2"
if you want a simple yes or no, why not put an odds that you think is fair, and /roll 1/100 and that would make it a percentage yes, rest = no. maybe that is easier for you to see? Or you can keep a penny near your computer and do it old school?
it almost sounds like you want to automate RP, but I am sure I must be reading more into that. I would like to see more player interaction, I dont need the NPCs of Hyldaa to Rp so much they decide they dont need us visitors, eh?
so if rolling a /roll 1 100 and having preset outcomes is too complicated for you, maybe decide what the rolls mean after you roll? :P
either way, it is simpler than rolling a die Ingame (already implemented) that allows you to, among yourself or small groups determine certain behavior that your character will interact with others, I will respond to that.
I see some value in having a system. nothing stinks more than tossing a pie and having everyone ducking it every time. Same with kids playing. everyone wants to control and win the 'game'. find people who will actually let themselves be hit in the face once in a while.. then maybe even '/me keeps an eye on you every time you pick something up'... and just ignore the godmoders who never get dirty in a foodfight. you will find these same people would not agree that they will be hit in the face even 5% of the time. That is why you can find me on ezpcusa.
Zanzibar, thanks for deciphering it, but I am still unclear whether it would always be 50/50 or what. if so maybe they mean something like /try like "/try to throw a pie at baughb" which woudl show up as "Bamko tries to throw a pie at Baughb but fails (or and hits him)? I would want a percentage. but it would still meet resistance I predict, from those I mentioned above. (I should get a bonus for agility, I was watching, I cast defensive wind, I declare my dodge on you!) but at least I think I understand the proposal now.
I think find people who will RP without being teflonic (is that a word?). ones who can not let their avatar get dirty, well, ostracize them?
gtg,... hope that is clear enough both on my views and on my suggestions.
-
Please read the link before you tell me I do not understand, and then tell me how your concept differes from that, or this conversation will continue to go in circles and I will just ignore it. Cheese and rice.....
at least pretend you are listening before you tell me "but this has nothing to do with what I am talking about." I am not even going to drop the link again, re-read my previous post if you actually want to pretend you are trying to comunicate.
and to be clear, if you do want to just talk to yourself, that is fine also, I will stop trying to understand you then.
This is attitude...
Zanzibar finally got what I meant, that should help clarify if what I said isn't clear enough. You are over complicating the matter. I will try again to explain.
You type:
/try _____________
like Zanzibar suggested.
Everyone within distance sees a message like this:
--> Zanzibar tries to ____________ (, but fails).
My only change is that the message would say:
Player [does action] or [tried to do action but fails]
Yes or no, it happened or it didn't happen. No percentages, no skills taken into account. agility and all that other stuff is what I meant about rationalizing why it couldn't happen. And slow people can dodge and fast people can get hit stuff happens even when there are things that can prevent it. Also ,the whole idea is to not use dice roles. It kind looks odd because it is rarely used just once and then you have five dice results breaking up whatever else was said or done in regards to the RP.
-
Win.
-
/try _____________
--> Zanzibar tries to ____________ (, but fails).
?
Kay Illysia I get what you mean now.
The question I raise now is has godmodding gotten that bad ingame? I can't really speak, I haven't played for more than 5 minutes in a while. It's just that you'd think people would have to common sense to decide things like '/me throws a pie' fairly. If not then I'd say this system you've got in mind Illysia is fine. I just wish that instead of having to make a game mechanic to decide such simple outcomes people would have more sense, both on the side of the pie thrower and the pie avoider.
-
It's not so much a response to godmodders as it is just an optional feature. I personally hate making those decision sometimes.
-
Personally I like the idea a lot. I think the discussion got a little off-track because the example was attacking. But if an RPer wanted to decide randomly whether they liked someone or disliked someone or were nice or not nice to someone, then they could use this feature. How about the following for a way to make it work?
<another player begs for money>
/try 98 /me gives you a valuable weapon. /say Go away loser!
Then the command rolls a 100-sided dice and plays the first command if higher than the number specified (98) or the second command otherwise.
The player who issues this command would see what the outcome was and could use the regular game to give the beggar his weapon if that is what he sees happen.
Would that work? I think it would be quite easy to implement.
-
I think that would be very nice actually. it's not exactly what I was going for but it might work better.
Would the message show to other people as well?
-
I still do not see what benefits such a command gives, compared to the player tossing a coin before typing his/her action. A couple of reasons here:
- typing 2 (or more) outcomes after /try is longer than typing only 1 after you toss your coin (as a player)
- the command would be shorter with a syntax such as Zanzibar's example, yet the systematic "but failed" would be limiting; it's usually when something fails that a description needs to be fleshed out.
- the "try" verb itself is limiting. For example, to decide if/what someone pickpockets from you, I don't see what you would actually try to do, since your character wouldn't even notice a successful pickpocket.
- also, the /try seems limited as a replacement to a /me, but then you may need commands with /my, /mypet, and others.
I think what I'm missing is the psychological aspect of your request, why you'd rather have PS toss a coin than do it manually.
Apart from that, I'm sure we can help optimise your idea to cover syntax issues with maximum simplicity, before you submit your feature request.
/try [ x ] [ /me, /my ] success_text [ /me, /my ] failure_text
Brackets contain optional text, with meaning and defaults as follow:
- [ x ] the chances of success, 50% by default
- the attempt is made by /me by default
There's a need to clearly separate the success and failure texts, with a sign or quotes. Advice needed from PS commands syntax expert here.
-
It's just a nice way of incorporating it into the mechanics. It's no more beneficial to RPing than having objects or guildhouses in game. Technically you can RP those things, but it is nice to have a provision for them.
-
I'm confused... the RP crowd shuns the mechanics for lots of reasons... but now even RP is getting too burdensome and it would be nice if mechanics could do parts of your RP for you? Or is this simply a way to put the blame on the mechanics if you never get hit by a pie in the face... instead of being called a godmodder?
I promise... I am not trying to be contrary here... I'm not even saying it is a horrible idea... just trying to understand the "why" of it.
-
I'm confused... the RP crowd shuns the mechanics for lots of reasons... but now even RP is getting too burdensome and it would be nice if mechanics could do parts of your RP for you? Or is this simply a way to put the blame on the mechanics if you never get hit by a pie in the face... instead of being called a godmodder?
I promise... I am not trying to be contrary here... I'm not even saying it is a horrible idea... just trying to understand the "why" of it.
Well, you've made a number of insinuations in that post:
- the RP crowd shuns mechanics, both specifically and generally
- the RP crowd has an agenda to blame the mechanics for things
- Illysia is trying to avoid being called a godmodder
It comes across as complaining.
If you want to understand it better, you'll have to start by not looking at things in terms of black and white. There isn't an RP crowd and a non-RP crowd - people are a little of this, a little of that, even if they tend to do one thing or the other. There isn't an organized RP front, and there isn't an agenda to blame the mechanics or the PLers or anything else of that nature.
With combat for instance, people want dice rolls so that they can fight in a way that better represents the abilities and motives of the characters involved. They aren't opposed to the mechanics - they just want an alternative system to use until the mechanics are adjusted to their liking.
With Illysia's wish, I think he wants a way to do actions that have their beginnings in the creative mind but have a result determined by something extra-personal. Extra-personal elements, in this case it's chance, make the game fun and realistic. Reality is that which is "out there", so a game can't have realism if you aren't connected to things outside of yourself.
I hope that helps! Chances are the OP can give you a good answer as well once he gets around to the thread again. :)
-
I'm confused... the RP crowd shuns the mechanics for lots of reasons... but now even RP is getting too burdensome and it would be nice if mechanics could do parts of your RP for you? Or is this simply a way to put the blame on the mechanics if you never get hit by a pie in the face... instead of being called a godmodder?
I promise... I am not trying to be contrary here... I'm not even saying it is a horrible idea... just trying to understand the "why" of it.
This is off topic I believe, but I do not think the 'RP crowd' stuns the game mechanics as much these days as years past. This possibly being true is the reason a great role player like Illysia would ask for this to begin with. A new thread could be started on this idea to find out if is indeed true.
zanzibar I do not think Mythryndel is complaining at all. Please do not start a new arguement here.
-
I do apologize if I came across as complaining... but if you look back at this thread... the term godmodder is used... there is also a statement about not wanting to make a decision all the time as to the outcome... and I do see two distinctly different sets of people in PS. I do not deny that most fall into both camps, but the camps are there. Just look at the thread about the new server... or any of several others... to see that there are a number of people who shun mechanics. This is not a strawman. I am NOT accusing Illisia of being one of these, but am simply, and honestly, trying to figure out why a shortcut of this nature is desirable.
I have always assumed (yes, I know what happens when you assume) that the reason for the strict RP style of play is so that things were not automatic... so that they were more personal, so that the only limit to what was possible was settings and your imagination. This suggestion seems counter productive to that style of play. Unless I have missed something, or there is something that I have not thought of going on here.
-
I have always assumed (yes, I know what happens when you assume) that the reason for the strict RP style of play is so that things were not automatic... so that they were more personal, so that the only limit to what was possible was settings and your imagination. This suggestion seems counter productive to that style of play. Unless I have missed something, or there is something that I have not thought of going on here.
This is not to accommodate that style of play. It'll make sense if you don't try to pigeonhole this as a way of helping one style of RP over the other. It is just a suggestion for a nice feature.
-
Personally I like the idea a lot. I think the discussion got a little off-track because the example was attacking. But if an RPer wanted to decide randomly whether they liked someone or disliked someone or were nice or not nice to someone, then they could use this feature. How about the following for a way to make it work?
<another player begs for money>
/try 98 /me gives you a valuable weapon. /say Go away loser!
Then the command rolls a 100-sided dice and plays the first command if higher than the number specified (98) or the second command otherwise.
The player who issues this command would see what the outcome was and could use the regular game to give the beggar his weapon if that is what he sees happen.
Would that work? I think it would be quite easy to implement.
It would neither work nor would it be easy to implement, let alone useful.
- From a programmers point of view, it means parsing a free form string. Thats only easy, when "/" is not allowed as part of the message.
- It will not work particularly well from the users persepective, because s/he has to type both alternatives, even though only one will be shown.
- It's not useful in general, because it is too unflexible: What about tripple or quad choices? Different commands (see parsing problem above)? Displaying the rolled value (/try 98 /me gives you %x Tria)? Basing the numeric argument of /try on on something related (e.g. /try target_charisma /me is flattered /me is disgusted).
My bet is, that the /try command would get so complex, that people will just silently use /roll (or real world dice) to make their decission.
-
If no one want to put that kind of effort into it then they will probably just not bother at all. They will choose without a roll too. This is only useful for someone who wants to go a little further than usual.
-
The parsing is only as difficult as the required syntax is complex (no more than 2 choices so far, no nested commands either). Besides, that concerns only the devs, if a feature request is actually done. As far as Illysia is concerned, the feature itself is relevant.
Illysia, maybe you should come with more syntax examples of how you would use it, to show how simple (or not) you really want it. Some people already told that they would have a use for it. And those who wouldn't (including me) can still participate in helping. As long as the devs will understand your request (faster than we did, eh eh), that's all that matters.
-
Before I was accused of not understanding Zanzibar's summary of this, I said:
"Zanzibar, thanks for deciphering it, but I am still unclear whether it would always be 50/50 or what. if so maybe they mean something like /try like "/try to throw a pie at baughb" which woudl show up as "Bamko tries to throw a pie at Baughb but fails (or and hits him)? I would want a percentage. but it would still meet resistance I predict, from those I mentioned above. (I should get a bonus for agility, I was watching, I cast defensive wind, I declare my dodge on you!) but at least I think I understand the proposal now. " Also note my "predictions" seem to be bearing out in the posts after that post.
So, as I understand it, (and this is my opinion of what such a mechanic would mean to ME, so please, do not imply I am insulting anyone... :whistling: ) this would enble the roll of a dice to RP my character. No thanks. If someone were to toss a pie at me, I would make a quick assessment, how far away, am I paying attention, did I not notice their statement right away (not paying attention) and RP accordionly. (Pie hits Bamko right in the ear.... <return> /me jumps back and whips off helm, cleaning pie out of ear <return> /say What in the name of Talad was THAT for?!?!? But if having an argument across the plaza and it is thrown while watching them from 20 yards away? different kind of outcome. This would take the RP out of all of these situations. (again, my opinion.)
Maybe that is the problem, too many people are NOT doing that?
So: WHY do you think we need this? If I were to answer that, from what I have read, I would say EITHER you have an issue with others godmodding, OR you do not want to feel bad for always making the pie hit (or not hit) you or others.
and that brings up other issues.
We have /roll X Y already. but to make it, without modifiers, or even having you decide what the modifers are, would be godmodding AND automatied RP, IMO,
/try 99 steal your short sword of seduction 01 fail <would be about as bad as > /me sneaks up to Baughb and slides his short sword of seduction out of his pack and runs away unseen.
Um, no thanks. I would rather use my "overcomplicated system where all parties agree on the modifers rather than making it worse by letting the godmoders have a tool to abuse.
Note, I am NOT saying YOU are a godmodder, I am saying godmodders would abuse it. Clear enough?
I made an edit on http://www.yliakum.com/index.php?topic=13.0 (http://www.yliakum.com/index.php?topic=13.0) I think that is even clearer, (at the top of it) but meh, can not please all of the people all of the time, eh? I am not going to remove the complicated stuff, because most people I talk with eventually make the system to be complicated enough to grasp the majority of factors that have an effect. a 50/50 system of catch vs success for picking pockets would not last long. and if mechanics enforced, Imagine the uproar. Many people talked with me about that complicated system, making it, yes, more complicated. (and perhaps harder to read, go ahead someone , reply to it with YOUR system, if better, we all can use it. )
And finally, I do not see how this would be "going a little further than usual" (I would hazzard my RP, as per the post, went a lot further than "usual" for most people, but sometimes it is better just to wing it and play fair, leaving out the complications, but for important things, nice to have die rolls <as in dice, not death>). Now if they wanted to make a specific implementation for throwing pies, (or any object) they could modify the combat code perhaps, add in range and other factors. But I would they rather spend their time on missle weapons first.
-
khoridor: For me I think /try <chance number> <one option> (And then fail indicator[i.e. but fails] would appear if you didn't make it) would be a nice enough start so:
/Illysia /try 50 /me tickles Khoridor's side to make him laugh
>Illysia tickles Khoridor's side to make him laugh
>Illysia tickles Khoridor's side to make him laugh but fails
(keep in mind that whenever what you do affects someone else you should probably ask unless you already know them pretty well and you know they wouldn't mind)
/Illysia /try 90 /me walks along and nearly trips
>Illysia walks along and nearly trips
>Illysia walks along and nearly trips but doesn't
/Illysia /try 70 /me tosses an apple to Khoridor
>Illysia tosses an apple to Khoridor
>Illysia tosses an apple to Khoridor but doesn't succeed
But there are times when a second option would work much better.
/Illysia /try 60 /me nearly sneezes faster than she can cover her mouth /me sneezes faster than she can cover her mouth
(This is like I'm sick)
>Illysia nearly sneezes faster than she can cover her mouth
>Illysia sneezes faster than she can cover her mouth
Bamko: That is nice, if you don't want to use it then don't. Also note:
It....can't be used in connection with complex actions....
Pickpocketed is too loaded an issue to use this command.
-
Sounds to me like this boils down to not always wanting to decide what random thing your character does. I would suggest it might be better to have the tool check a predefined list saved on/by the user machine. An ordered list, perhaps, so that instead of specifying in the call to the function specific outcomes you would call, for example, 'rand action#' where action# is a number on the list. It could be further refined so that you could specify actiontype as well. This would allow you to type "rand #," "rand type" or just "rand." "Rand" would pick a random action from the list, "rand type" would pick a random action of a particular type from the list and "rand #" would pick the specific action. Further you could have it look to see if a specific probability is given as a percentage, "rand # x%."
-
Sounds to me like this boils down to not always wanting to decide what random thing your character does. I would suggest it might be better to have the tool check a predefined list saved on/by the user machine. An ordered list, perhaps, so that instead of specifying in the call to the function specific outcomes you would call, for example, 'rand action#' where action# is a number on the list. It could be further refined so that you could specify actiontype as well. This would allow you to type "rand #," "rand type" or just "rand." "Rand" would pick a random action from the list, "rand type" would pick a random action of a particular type from the list and "rand #" would pick the specific action. Further you could have it look to see if a specific probability is given as a percentage, "rand # x%."
Do you think this is a realistic solution for average players?
Either way, that's more complicated than simply sending yourself a tell with the /roll command, or flipping a coin in real life.
-
I don't think average players will use it much regardless of how it might be implemented. Then again I'm not much for fancy roleplaying. It would, however, lend itself to shortcuts. Actually I could see how someone might want to have some kind of script that would run such a tool every now and again to, say, produce a facial tic or some other characteristic eccentricity at random intervals without having to actually do them manually.
-
Ok, so what I see from the examples is that it's not either the success or failure text which is always displayed. The success/attempt text always appear, and the failure text is added in case of failure. That indeed makes thee typing shorter.
And the example
/Illysia /try 60 /me nearly sneezes faster than she can cover her mouth /me sneezes faster than she can cover her mouth
(This is like I'm sick)
>Illysia nearly sneezes faster than she can cover her mouth
>Illysia sneezes faster than she can cover her mouth
shows that the failure text would rather be anywhere in the attempt text. So a clear enclosing seems needed for and only for the failure text, such as
/try 60 /me {nearly} sneezes faster than she can cover her mouth
That keeps the syntax pretty simple.
/try xx attempt_command {failure_text}
where:
- xx is optional and default to 50 percent
- attempt_command always shows, and is a standard /me or /my command.
- failure text can be anywhere after, before or inside attempt_command, and, if absent, is defaulted to "but fails" at the end.
( I used the {} delimiters as an example, not as a recommendation. )
Am I missing something?
-
I don't think average players will use it much regardless of how it might be implemented. Then again I'm not much for fancy roleplaying. It would, however, lend itself to shortcuts. Actually I could see how someone might want to have some kind of script that would run such a tool every now and again to, say, produce a facial tic or some other characteristic eccentricity at random intervals without having to actually do them manually.
It would be manual since you would have to press the hotkey for the shortcut. You would have to write the shortcut; a shortcut mechanism doesn't mean you don't need to understand the syntax of the command, unless someone else sends you a shortcut file to copy into your PlaneShift directory. By average player, I of course meant from a technical perspective, not an RP perspective. And to have something like a facial tic at truly random moments, you would have to be running some kind of bot.
I'm just not sure what the point is in working out the details of an overcomplicated solution when a simpler solution with the same effect has already been proposed. Then again it's also possible that I misunderstood your proposal, which is always possible.
-
My suggestion was to make it as simple as possible for the end user to use at will, not necessarily to set up, though. Some people type very fast but I do not so the fewer characters I have to type to invoke such a thing the better I like it. I suppose it would slide down an undesirable slope to make it random over a duration, you wouldn't wan to allow people to use it to do any action that was already implemented in the game mechanics such as /dig. Restricting it to 'emotes' might be difficult.
-
Personal opinion, one should use your knowledge of your character to roleplay, not use random dice rolls to decide if your going to sneeeze or like/dislike someone.
All other occasions where people feel inclined to use dice rolls, combat etc. will be handled by the game mechs using various formulae evaluating skill levels and stats plus luck to decide outcomes.
-
My suggestion was to make it as simple as possible for the end user to use at will, not necessarily to set up, though. Some people type very fast but I do not so the fewer characters I have to type to invoke such a thing the better I like it. I suppose it would slide down an undesirable slope to make it random over a duration, you wouldn't wan to allow people to use it to do any action that was already implemented in the game mechanics such as /dig. Restricting it to 'emotes' might be difficult.
I would say that if it's very difficult to setup, then it's not easy to use. Your way has more options of course.
Personal opinion, one should use your knowledge of your character to roleplay, not use random dice rolls to decide if your going to sneeeze or like/dislike someone.
All other occasions where people feel inclined to use dice rolls, combat etc. will be handled by the game mechs using various formulae evaluating skill levels and stats plus luck to decide outcomes.
There's a difference between sneezing by chance and liking someone by chance. Whether or not you sneeze, fall, hit a target with a pie, etcetera are all subject to chance. Something like liking someone or joining a religion are in a different category since they're based on personality and experience.
Ideally, pies will be objects that one can use as projectiles, sneezes will be determined by a formula that takes into account the levels of dust and pollen in your location compared to your endurance and charisma stats, and the probability of tripping at any point will be determined by a formula that takes into account your agility stat and the terrain. But until such things are implemented....
-
Well I think you guys have tortured the idea to death enough that it will never be implemented. :)
I guess you'll have to make do with just typing out what you do.
-
I'm sure you're welcomed to pretend little happened after post 36.
-
hmm ...
/roleplay a fight for me or not if i happen to like him then i'll give him a beer unless i happen to get pickpocketed then i'll just say hi unless i happen to be under a spell that prevents me from speaking unless beer just happens to be the antidote
....
indeed, why bother using that 3d world or your imagination at all :) oh crystal ball, show us the way!
Edit: meaning interaction between players is just more fun then having the program determine the outcome of any (element of) RP.