Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ SR PnP rules in an SR Video Game?

Posted by: eralston May 2 2006, 10:57 PM

In the SR MMO discussion we broke down into a debate about the problems with DDO. I don't know how long-lived that discussion will be, but I think most of its fury can be diverted here.

How important are the established rules of a PnP game when making a video game adaptation of it? (Specific to an RPG version where such a concept is applicable, obvious SR as an FPS has almost no use for the established rules).

Is necessary to make sure it is actually Shadowrun (or D&D, or Exalted, or...)

OR

Is it really just futile. Will everyone just complain about your holes and you'll ultimately fail to satisfy to the point of it hindering the final product?

OR

Are the rules not necessary as long as you have a workable set of rules? Is the experience of SR completely decoupled from its game mechanics?

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 May 2 2006, 11:03 PM

Making it as a turn-based game would be all but impossible. Some douche would inevitably go AFK or something in the middle of his turn, leaving his opponants stranded.

Then that brings us to the question of reaction enhancers. If we stick with the three-second turn, cybersammies and PhysAds will be moving far faster than their meatbag players can keep up.

Ultimately, I dunno, I leave it up to you to decide what to do.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 2 2006, 11:04 PM

Depends on the game. I plan on at some point making a (totally unofficial, zero-distribution) small single-player Shadowrun game using the SR3 mechanics in their entirety, but I wouldn't, for example, try that for an MM"RP"G or a first-person shooter.

Edit: ShadowDragon brings up a good point! I would not attempt to reproduce turn-based combat.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 11:33 PM

Turnbased combat is only good in a solo game where it's ok to get up and go to the toilet. You could institute a timer and perhaps some default actions for when the timer runs out, but that would be more than it's worth. But I don't think the original poster was trying to suggest making it turn based.

Other than turns, I think it should stay as true to the actual mechanics as feasibly possible. It makes it faster for old SR players to pick the game up, and faster for new SRMMO players to pick up the PnP version. You'd also lose a lot of players if you opted to go the WoW or DDO mechanics route.

Posted by: bustedkarma May 2 2006, 11:35 PM

QUOTE (James McMurray)

...WoW or DDO mechanics route.

Which aspect are you talking about?

Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 2 2006, 11:36 PM

I think a turn based clock would be OK. I once played on some SR MUD but it annoyed me because chargen wasn't cannon.

I dunno, I like t3h r34l rules so I can really play Shadowrun.

Posted by: Brontal May 2 2006, 11:37 PM

Dark age of camelot, World of warcraft, Lineage 2 ..... the list goes on .... are all turn based games

Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 11:40 PM

QUOTE (bustedkarma)

QUOTE (James McMurray @ May 2 2006, 06:33 PM)

...WoW or DDO mechanics route.

Which aspect are you talking about?

I mean that if you were to have Shadowrun as a world and d20 or WoW character creation and levelling you'd lose a lot of people.

[quote]Dark age of camelot, World of warcraft, Lineage 2 ..... the list goes on .... are all turn based games [/quote

I don't know about DAoC or L2, but WoW is not turn based. Turn based, in game terms, generally means you take a turn and then the other guy takes a turn. WoW is time based, wherein the other guy might take 5 or 6 fast actions while you try to perform your 1 slow one (for example because he's attacking and you're trying to cast a slow spell).

Posted by: Aku May 2 2006, 11:41 PM

i donno, it would be nice to have the rules mostly intact, and obviously core concepts there, but you'd obviously have to make some sort of adjustments (like making it real time, somehow, without resorting to a twitch factor being involved)

Posted by: bustedkarma May 2 2006, 11:45 PM

QUOTE (James McMurray)

QUOTE (bustedkarma @ May 2 2006, 06:35 PM)

QUOTE (James McMurray @ May 2 2006, 06:33 PM)

...WoW or DDO mechanics route.

Which aspect are you talking about?

I mean that if you were to have Shadowrun as a world and d20 or WoW character creation and levelling you'd lose a lot of people.

I see what your saying, and yeah, I'm with you. SRO will be a tough nut to crack,

I cringe at the idea of a Runner standing is some alley in Redmond, waiting for Gangers to respawn because he's grinding karma.....or even better, standing there AFK with a Recursive Macro running.

The trick is going to be, focusing on Runs (and not farming world spawns) and focusing on Group play, but still slapping in enough solo content for folks who hate PUG's, and would rather play with people they know.

Posted by: Trax May 2 2006, 11:47 PM

Would that be exactly what SR would be like in life though? Someone with fast reflexes would naturally do more actions than someone with slower reflexes. Or are people seriously trying to make it more like Final Fantasy for combat turns?

The problem with translating the rules of a pnp into a video game is that not everything is going to translate very well, so it's all mostly modifications. Just like Vampire: Bloodlines is based on the WoD rules, but not completely.

Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 11:57 PM

QUOTE (Trax)

Nope. Nobody here has (yet) advocated trying to make it turn based.

What wouldn't translate well? SR4 is an incredibly simple system compared to some. Opposed tests and thresholds are pretty easy to translate into code.

Posted by: eralston May 3 2006, 12:03 AM

I dislike pure turn-based RPers. Anyone under the idea that I wanted a stop-and-go turn-based system misread something and thanks to those who already clarified.

To preserve the rules, pseudo-turn-based would probably be the order of the day (such as in NWN, KOTOR, etc). Pure live action would probably poorly represent enhanced reflex rules and present other balance issues.

The only real quandry would be the SR3 concept of pools in a pseudo-turned-based environment. Sure you could have players set rules on their expenditure, but it wouldn't represent the mechanics in high fidelity. SR4 would probably be easier to straight port in this respect.

Posted by: ronin3338 May 3 2006, 12:05 AM

QUOTE (Brontal @ May 2 2006, 06:37 PM)

Dark age of camelot, World of warcraft, Lineage 2 ..... the list goes on .... are all turn based games

As was one of my old favorites... X-Com.

That would have a lot of similar elements to a SR game, but honestly I think it would be dull for multiplayer.

Personally, I'd like to see a multiplayer game like either Fallout, Baldur's Gate, or Champions of Norrath (in their console versions)
In any case, trying to stick to PnP rules is futile. How would you do Edge? How would you do Drain? Keep it quick, simple and fun to play with lots of action.

Posted by: Shrike30 May 3 2006, 12:06 AM

Things like wired reflexes wouldn't be too hard to do.

Neverwinter Nights was "turn based," if you looked at the mechanics. A "turn" was 5 (or something) real-time seconds, during which whatever actions you were doing that turn were executed.

A direct translation of SR over to an MMO might have issues in terms of some people going really disturbingly fast, so you'd have to work out how long a "turn" is, but you could still make it so that people with wired reflexes or whatever go 2, 3, or 4x as often as the normal crowd of people. If a "turn" is converted over to 10 realtime seconds, an unaugmented person might get off one spell or 2 rounds of ammo every 10 seconds. Each level of reflex augmentation they get shortens their "turn length" down, to 5 seconds, 3.3, or 2.5...

Putting the core mechanic into something that handles like WoW or, say, Planetside isn't going to be the hard part. The hard part will be determining if the core mechanic is at ALL fun in the video game you end up producing. I'm personally a fan of taking it as guidance, and putting together a really solid game independent of the core rules, but that an experienced PnP player could jump into, get himself some ware and abilities, and say "Yeah, this performs like I thought it should."

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 12:08 AM

QUOTE (eralston)

The only real quandry would be the SR3 concept of pools in a pseudo-turned-based environment.

Sounds like a huge endorsement for SR4 rules to me.

Posted by: Taran May 3 2006, 12:16 AM

Ironically enough, yes. In an MMO the tactical decisions come from other sources, so you don't need pools the way the PnP game does.

Posted by: Lindt May 3 2006, 12:32 AM

Im going to be honest. The chances of SRO making me happy are slim to none.
Look at how damage works. And people die, forever. Plus it would all devolve into a massive Emo Samuari scale power game anyway.

Posted by: Shrike30 May 3 2006, 12:37 AM

They'd figure out some sort of cloning thing, or have DocWagon come to pick up bodies a while after a fight and you get out of the hospital, or something odd like that. Hell, maybe nanotech that keeps you "barely alive" until you can be revived. It's all doable, just not very gritty

Posted by: hyzmarca May 3 2006, 12:41 AM

Using SR4 rules in a video game isn't the best of idea. Neither is using SR3 rules in a video game - or SR2 rules or AD&D rules or D&D3.5 rules or ny P&P game rules.

P&P games are designed to be played on pen and paper, it is an infinitly flexible but there is not much room for fidelity due to the effort it takes for players and GMs to keep track of things. Video games are absolutly rigid but have room for a great deal to fidelity due to the speed at which a computer can make calculations.

A SR video game should have much more detailed rules that cover a much larger range of possibilities with much greater percision.

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 01:09 AM

QUOTE (Brontal)

Dark age of camelot, World of warcraft, Lineage 2 ..... the list goes on .... are all turn based games

they're all time-based. if they were turn based, you'd have to stop and wait while the other players took their turns.

Posted by: eidolon May 3 2006, 02:44 AM

If a video game is done correctly, shouldn't the rules be transparent anyway?

Also, hyz, do you really think the d20 rules are flexible? If you take them to their furthest extent, you already get VGoP. Flexibility is something you have to put into some of the systems out there.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 03:10 AM

That's the second time I've seen "VGoP." I'm guessing "video game on paper?" If so, then all I can say is that you get that effect when you go looking for that effect. It's quite possible to lplay any PnP game with a video game feel to it, just like it's possible to play it witht he exact opposite feel.

Posted by: hyzmarca May 3 2006, 03:49 AM

QUOTE (eidolon)

Pen and Paper games are flexible by nature no matter what their rule set is. The only absolute limit is the imagination of the GM and players.

Posted by: Brontal May 3 2006, 10:14 AM

QUOTE

they're all time-based. if they were turn based, you'd have to stop and wait while the other players took their turns.

A turn in pnp games represents the time characters, no matter if pc or npc, have to perform theire actions.
The big, noticeable difference in that games to pnp is that there is noone telling the players "Ok, this turn is over lets start the next turn."
In games like Daoc, etc. there is permanently one turn after the other. The only visible notice when the next turn starts is the indicator ( most times a kind of action icon ) when you are able to perform your next action / special .

edit:

QUOTE

In any case, trying to stick to PnP rules is futile. How would you do Edge? How would you do Drain?

Simply by using the same gamemechanics allready used in Daoc, etc.

Lets have a closer look on what happens when 2 characters try to kill each other( for example) .

The basic situation :

Both character are standing next to each other, A has got a plate mail armor and a 2 handed sword, B has a chainmail armor a shield and a morning star.
Both start to hit on each other at the same time.

- calculaction of the speed and modifiers ( buff, fast / slow weapon)
.... in case of SR it would be rule for initiative ( is this the right word ? )...
- hypotetical result : B is faster ( less armor hinderance, faster weapon, ..... )
- both start perform theire actions at the same time -- the difference is that the action of B happens before the action of A
- to hit calculation starts ( does B hit at all ? can A parry B ? etc... )
... in case of SR it would be dice rolling --- the same happens in a mmorpg
- result B hits A -- now starts the damage calculation ( basic weapon damage / modifiers for atributes / modifiers for A's armor against B's weapon / etc. )
.... in case of SR well simply the rules for damage calculation ....

and so on

What i want to express here is that those games allready are using turn based rules, it is just a different ruleset. Lineage 2 is using the Lineage 2 ruleset, Dark age of camelot is using the Dark age of camelot ruleset, World of warcraft is using the World of warcraft rule set.
Why should Shadowrun not use the Shadowrun ruleset ?

Drain / Edge : just use the rules for drain / edge .... it could be possible to pre-define how to perform a spell or adding a button to press for edge-usage ( but that is more a question of the grafikal user interface then a question of gamemechanic )

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 03:11 PM

Drain is easy: when you cast a spell the system rolls your drain. If you fail to soak it all you take damage.

Edge is slightly more difficult because of some of it's retroactive uses. One way to do it would be to have it be something you trigger conditionally based on health of self, health of enemy, margin of failure, etc. Then also have a button for "use edge on next roll."

Posted by: eidolon May 4 2006, 07:21 AM

QUOTE (James McMurray)

Yes, video game on paper.

IME, you get that effect when you play d20 systems with players that know nothing else. See: M:tG, and how its designers, the same that work on d20, have created entire swaths of "roleplayers" that only care about how many effects they can stack onto one sword.

I can't find a group of people that want to play D&D using the d20 system, and doesn't expect it to be "just like a video game". The VG aspect I'm talking about is the assumption that because there are 5k rules, you must use them all, all the time. You're supposed to boil the game down to "13+3-7+11/3*2+4", and somehow that's what constitutes "fun". IMO, in trying to cover all situations, they've ruined the feeling of flexibility (and therefore fun) that I look for in games. This has led me to have no small amount of disdain for the system, but I retain the (thus far misguided) notion that I'll someday play in a d20 game that doesn't have that feel. (Or at least, I tell myself that I'm holding out for that, so that I won't feel so bad for buying tons of the books while trying to make myself like it.)

YMcertainlyV, I'm talking about me.

Posted by: Brontal May 4 2006, 11:24 AM

Something else that came to my mind

QUOTE

Is necessary to make sure it is actually Shadowrun (or D&D, or Exalted, or...)

OR

Is it really just futile. Will everyone just complain about your holes and you'll ultimately fail to satisfy to the point of it hindering the final product?

OR

Are the rules not necessary as long as you have a workable set of rules? Is the experience of SR completely decoupled from its game mechanics?

An actual example for PnP conversion to a mmorpg is D&D online.

I have not played it but as far as I read about it the gamerules are :

- partly 1:1 converted from pnp
- partly more or less drastic modifications of the pnp rules
- partly completly left out
- I do not know if they created new rules

Is it a workable set of rules ?

As far as i could read, yes the rules are working ( it is a playable game ) .

Will everyone just complain about your holes and you'll ultimately fail to satisfy to the point of it hindering the final product?

As far as I have read, some people are complaining others like it.

Is the experience of D&D completely decoupled from its game mechanics ?

At this point i express my opinion :
If I want to play D&D then I want to play D&D including for example character alligment beeing meaningfull, caster characters beeing powerfull but limited cos of the need to memorize spells, npc using the same rules as player characters .

In my view the experiance of a game is very close connected to the gamemechanics.
I think it creates a very different feeling for a player if for example in D&D his wizzard cast a fireball spell at a group of goblins and annihilates them or if the the same wizzard casts the same spell at the same group but the rules are changed / modified and the goblins ( all goblins by default ) simply have more hitpoints and survive , other examples are that monsters in D&D online are modified to have resistances / high regeneration rate / additional abilities ( slimes beeing able to cast heal on themselfs) .

As a conclusion I think gamerules are a very complex building, each part depending on each other, aiming for the result to create a specific atmosphere for a game.
Changing, modifying or ignoring those rules will lead to a different result, the experiance will be different.
This is not meant to be a comment about ddo beeing good or bad or fun to play or not.

Finally I think that it is not a good idea to write D&D or Shadowrun on the box and then deliver something different.

QUOTE

You're supposed to boil the game down to "13+3-7+11/3*2+4", and somehow that's what constitutes "fun".

Yes, I see this problem too, but as long as nobody forces a player to min/max it is a decission which only each player can make for himself.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 4 2006, 02:32 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

You're supposed to boil the game down to "13+3-7+11/3*2+4", and somehow that's what constitutes "fun".

I have no idea how anyone could consider that fun. I mean, there's nothing more complicated than basic arithmetic! To be fun, it needs at least some exponentiation, a few logarithms, and the summation of an infinite series.

~J

Posted by: Valentinew May 5 2006, 12:04 AM

Personally I'd love to see somebody do for SR what Neverwinter did for D&D.

(No, I'm sorry. I didn't read the rest of the thread. I normally do, but I don't have enough computer programming knowledge in rl to follow the mechanics of what gets discussed. Sorry if I derailed the direction of the thread.)

Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 5 2006, 12:14 AM

QUOTE (eidolon)

I can't find a group of people that want to play D&D using the d20 system, and doesn't expect it to be "just like a video game". The VG aspect I'm talking about is the assumption that because there are 5k rules, you must use them all, all the time. You're supposed to boil the game down to "13+3-7+11/3*2+4", and somehow that's what constitutes "fun".

I thought that was just D&D 1st edition mentality, not video game mentality.

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 12:56 AM

Nah, that's just "VGoP" mentality. It has nothing to do with which game you're playing, only how you're playing it.