PC action option

[Moon Wizard]

I'm working on finalizing some changes to the options in the 3.5E ruleset (with an eye towards porting to the 4E ruleset). I wanted to get everyone's take on one of the options I'm thinking about. I originally posted as a response to another thread, but want to get a wider audience.

Original
The original option was listed in the 4E ruleset as:
Combat - Target: Enable PC actions

It could be set to on, off or report. If turned off, the player could not drop rolls or effects on tokens or combat tracker. If set to report, it would only report target of drop but not apply. Originally, this was broken down as individual options for attack, damage and effects.

Over time, I felt that the option does not really fit in with my intent.

Proposed
Combat - Target: PC actions

* On
** PC/NPC rolls use targeting and effects
** All rolls displayed in chat window
** All results displayed in chat window

* GM View
** PC/NPC rolls use targeting and effects
** All rolls displayed in chat window
** Results that include NPC as target or source are only shown to GM.
** If results only shown to GM, then targeting-only notice posted to client chat.

* Off
** PC rolls ignore targeting (no target effects, no results)
** NPC rolls use targeting and effects
** All rolls displayed in chat window
** Results that include NPC as target or source are only shown to GM.

Thoughts / Questions
* Do we really need an Off setting? This was originally added to deal with rogue players making rolls that disrupted games. However, perhaps the new kick option is really the solution.
* This sort of ties into Show GM Dice Rolls option. Perhaps it should be another value for that option.
* What options do you think make sense for your games?

Thanks,
JPG

[madman]

1. I don't think we need an off setting, the players can just throw their dice in the chat window if need be.

2. However I like the report option in your d20_JPG for things with odd DR or whatnot. Though I'm not sure how it will work in the next release. Or if it's an issue.

3. On -
** PC/NPC rolls use targeting and effects
** All rolls displayed in chat window
** All results displayed in chat window

4. GM View
** PC/NPC rolls use targeting and effects
** All rolls displayed in chat window
** Results that include NPC as target or source are only shown to GM.( I think it would speed things up, if the players know what they did was a success or not, without the GM saying you hit every time.)
** If results only shown to GM, then targeting-only notice posted to client chat.

I just drag the results to the window if I want my players to see the roll.(which I do once in a while to show them I am not just making things up, this works great for me. I think show dice could be removed as an option.

My Thoughts......

Chris

[Moon Wizard]

Thanks, madman.

* The off setting just slowed people down who wanted to be disruptive. My thought right now is to remove, since it doesn't really add value. I'm not sure of any GM who would want to apply it to all their players anyways.

* DR will be automatically handled by effects in the next 3.5E ruleset. So, hopefully, that will not be a concern.

* The GM view option is for GMs that like to run a "less information" style of game. (i.e. players don't know about DR/vulnerability/immunity, or what AC hits the creature, or what effects the creatures have, etc.)

* The players will still see the rolls with the GM view option unless the Show GM Rolls option is off. I might change the "Show GM Rolls" option to "Show GM actions" with values of on, off and rolls only (i.e. no attack, damage, effect results).

Cheers,
JPG

[madman]

That clears things up some. I think an option for less info would be great! So if a creature had DR, SR and whatnot it would not be included in the attack report to the chat, but would still report a success or failure. I love the less info on the PC'S side to avoid confusion and speed things up without....metagaming.

So it would report something like (player attack #1 [Hit])...?
But nothing else.


Chris

[Zeus]

I agree that the Off option doesn't add any real value, particularly if the Kick option is coming back.

For me, I use the On option so am happy to continue using that moving forward. Having said that I appreciate that other DMs may prefer to minimise the amount of information the ruleset provides to all clients so the GM view option sounds sensible.

Regarding the Show GM Rolls, I'm not sure I follow your proposed description am I right in understanding:

- On - All action/roll results show on client chatwindow
- Off - No action/roll results shown on client chatwindow
- Rolls Only - No action/All roll results shown on client chatwindow

If correct, would it not also make sense to have:

- Action Only - All action/No roll results shown on client chatwindow

Then again, what is meant by action?

[Leonal]

While not directly related to rolls, what I'd like is for NPC effects to not be reported to the players on an NPC's turn. (d20_JPG)

If it's already possible to turn this off, I'm not sure of how. ^^;
***
Regarding rolls, I prefer results to be GM's view only as there may often be situational modifiers that have an effect on the outcome, as madman/Chris mentioned.

[DNH]

I am one of the DMs who threw this particular spanner in the works! Re the 4e game, anyway. Here are some thoughts then ...

* I would agree that the Off option is probably little used and could be removed. On a personal basis, our group has been playing together for many years now and I can trust my players not to make rolls when they shouldn't be. A stern word or two would nip any such action in the bud, should it occur. I appreciate other DMs (I was a *DM* for many years, long before I *GM*'ed anything!) play with many other people, many of those being unknown quantities at the start of the game, but I think the kick option would soon deal with these rogue players.

* The On option clearly has its place. Many DMs are happy for this level of automation and that's fine. It doesn't really suit my game though, but ...

* The GM View option looks to be perfect. It's the old Report option, with added bells and whistles. This sounds like it would allow me as DM to adjudicate everything before it gets applied (and possibly fudge something here and there) but still have the players take their share of the donkey work.

* Not too sure what this means though - "If results only shown to GM, then targeting-only notice posted to client chat" - unless it's a chat post something like (I forget the syntax) "Boris attacks - Longsword +2, rolls a 24 --> Purple Worm #2". ie whatever the DM sees, minus the hit/miss results.

In short then, I like and welcome your proposed changes and would agree that you could probably quite safely remove the Off option.

Thanks.

[Moon Wizard]

For PC to PC actions, the On/Report options will be identical (i.e. full disclosure).

Here is an example of what I am thinking for actions (i.e. attack, damage, etc.) that include at least one NPC (i.e. non-friendly faction):

On Example
Roll:
Testor -> [ATTACK (R)] Heavy Crossbow [EFFECTS +2] (1d20+12=23)
Result:
Attack[23] -> [at Monster 33] [DEF EFFECTS -2] [MISS]

Report Example
Roll:
Testor -> [ATTACK (R)] Heavy Crossbow [EFFECTS +2] (1d20+12=23)
Result (GM):
Attack[23] -> [at Monster 33] [DEF EFFECTS -2] [MISS]
Result (Player):
Attack[23] -> [at Monster 33]

Off Example (PC initiator)
Roll:
Testor -> [ATTACK (R)] Heavy Crossbow [EFFECTS +2] (1d20+12=23)
Result:
(none)

Off Example (NPC initiator)
Roll:
Monster 33 -> [ATTACK (R)] Bite (1d20+8=26)
Result (GM):
Attack[26] -> [at Testor] [DEF EFFECTS +4] [HIT]
Result (Player):
Attack[26] -> [at Testor]

Also, to clarify, results will always be hidden from players when the roll is hidden (i.e. Show GM rolls).

JPG

[Moon Wizard]

DrZ,

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. Let me clarify my terminology, and then let's talk about the "Show GM Roll" option.

Roll = Any roll of the dice.

Action = A roll or effect initiated by a PC/NPC (attack, damage, init, save, skill, ...)

Result = The application of a roll or effect to the target of an action.
The only actions which this will apply to right now is:
* Attack Rolls - defense effects and hit/miss/crit indication
* Damage Rolls - adjusted damage information

The proposed change would only reflect the reporting of the result, not change that the result was applied (i.e. damage).

Given that, my proposal was to change "Show GM Roll" to a new option of "Show Rolls to Players" or "Show Actions to Players" with 3 options:
* On - Rolls/Actions/Results are visible to all
* Rolls Only - Rolls/Actions are visible to all, Results visible to GM only
* Off - All GM sourced actions are hidden, all NPC actions are hidden, PC actions visible to all, results visible to GM only

As you can tell, I haven't found a good name for the new option, or a combined option. Maybe "Show GM/NPC actions". Suggestions are appreciated. ;)

BTW, thanks to everyone for chipping in on this one. The more I dug into what people were asking, the more complicated it seemed to get. Trying to keep as simple as I can, while giving people options they need.

Thanks,
JPG

[Moon Wizard]

Leonal,

In the upcoming 3.5E ruleset, you will be able to make individual effects GM visible only. This is automatically done for DR, REGEN, FHEAL, etc.

This means that only PC applied effects will be visible on turn change for NPCs.

Cheers,
JPG

[Zeus]

Oh OK, I get what your going now, head was feeling fuzzy in the early hours of the morning.:confused:

Given the option is really to do with what level of information is presented to players and given an action incorporates a roll I would suggest changing 'Show GM Rolls' to 'Report Actions to Players'.

One other thought I had was to also widen the Options window a little, the current width of the window imposes constraints on the length of the option headings as well as the number of checkboxes one can sensibly display before labels get crammed. Making it slightly wider would allow for more descriptive headers. Just a thought.

[Leonal]

Leonal,

In the upcoming 3.5E ruleset, you will be able to make individual effects GM visible only. This is automatically done for DR, REGEN, FHEAL, etc.

This means that only PC applied effects will be visible on turn change for NPCs.

Cheers,
JPG

Great! I'm looking forward to it. :)

[DNH]

One other thought I had was to also widen the Options window a little, the current width of the window imposes constraints on the length of the option headings as well as the number of checkboxes one can sensibly display before labels get crammed. Making it slightly wider would allow for more descriptive headers. Just a thought.
Or how about tooltips over the options with an explanatory note or two? Is that possible?

[Moon Wizard]

Those are all great suggestions.

I was also considering the change over to using the label cyclers in the options (similar to BRP ruleset). It would make room to be a bit more descriptive in the text.

Cheers,
JPG

[vodokar]

It seems to me that the issue is not only what information is provided to the client, but also to give the DM the opportunity to confirm the result on an npc action before it is applied.

I had an idea.

There could possibly be an option whereby the roll and result is reported to the GM and a dialogue pops up asking the DM to confirm the hit or miss.

Once the DM confirms or denies the hit or miss, then a message could be sent to the client reporting the hit or miss.

ex:

DM rolls attack for Monster 33 vs Testor.

DM chat window reports:

Monster 33 -> [ATTACK (R)] Bite (1d20+8=26)
Result (GM):
Attack[26] -> [at Testor] [DEF EFFECTS +4] [HIT]

Dialogue box pops up: Monster 33 hits Testor? Yes No

Press yes:

Monster 33 -> [ATTACK (R)] Bite
Result (Player):
Attack -> [at Testor] [HIT]

Press no:

Monster 33 -> [ATTACK (R)] Bite
Result (Player):
Attack -> [at Testor] [Miss]

[Moon Wizard]

Unfortunately, pop-up dialogs are not really supported in the FG interface, plus they create another whole flow of action to be built in the ruleset. The dialog windows could easily be lost behind another window creating strange half-completed action situations. I'm definitely not against them, and have considered them many times. However, they would need a more comprehensive FG/ruleset upgrade.

I figure that the way it works now, but hiding some of the text, takes care of the 90% scenario. The GM can announce hit/miss situations to the players, and adjust hit points and wounds on the fly as needed.

The reason I started this thread is because someone asked, and because I was never quite happy with the Enable PC Actions option. I think the option we worked out here is closer to what I wanted to see.

Regards,
JPG

[Moon Wizard]

One other tabletop application I tried before FG had the idea of pending damage. Then, you could adjust the damage, apply DR, etc., before applying the damage to the NPC.

It ended up being great for adjusting damage for situations or fudging. However, I ended up performing a bunch of extra clicks just to apply damage in the normal manner. It was just a slower approach for live play.

I figure that the current FG approach plus the addition of DR effect types will actually be much more streamlined for the majority of situations.

Regards,
JPG

[tdewitt274]

One other tabletop application I tried before FG had the idea of pending damage.
There are a few games out there that do have a "Pending" damage mechanic, like Alternity and I think d6 Star Wars worked this way. I always thought it may work well in the Combat Tracker to accumulate the information and then apply it when you reach the next phase.

[Moon Wizard]

Pending damage is definitely something that could be implemented in a ruleset, especially for rulesets where damage needs to be pending to follow the rules.

In D&D, the damage is instant, and players and GMs make decisions about the remainder of their turns based on how an enemy status changes (unwounded, heavily wounded, unconscious, dying).

I was just mentioning that I had used that mechanic in 3.5E before, and I found it was actually more work to manage than any time it saved.

It's funny, because the same tabletop program also offered light sources on maps, which I also found to be more work to manage than the benefit gained. (i.e. a lot more GM setup and in-game management)

Cheers,
JPG

[madman]

Hello JPG

I was wondering how the new system will work?

so if i had a condition (say sickened) like in Pathfinder. It's a -2 to all rolls. Will this be something that can be done with the new effects, or not.

Cause, I think I saw A post that said something about, you would be thinking about Pathfinder?

Sorry about posting in the wrong place, I thought you would see it since you have been watching it.

I know that you will do a great job with this! regardless of input from us.

Shaking with anticipation!

Chris

P.S. Ready to Play test it all.

[Moon Wizard]

The new system will be similar to the 4E ruleset effects, except that the duration of effects is different, and there are actually more conditions to track.

I'm not sure how Pathfinder will be affected, but the changes should be easier to implement since I modularized a lot of the roll modification and result handling code.

I just wish it was faster to get it all done. But, I feel like I'm closing in. I've almost stepped through every feature to shake out the initial bugs; and once I finish that, I want to run a couple sample encounters. Then, release to the community to help me finish testing. 3.5E will actually be ahead of 4E in a couple areas for a bit, plus there are FG client and developer updates as well.

Cheers,
JPG

[Callum]

I think your proposed new system would work very well for my group, if I've understood it correctly. I'm very happy for the players to see the results of their rolls, including whether they hit or not, but I don't want them to automatically know if an opponent has DR or some effect changing its AC, etc. The "GM View" option would work for me, right?

[Moon Wizard]

Here's the option that I ended up with:

* On - Users see all rolls and results
* Rolls - Users see all rolls, but do not see results that involve an NPC (source or target)
* Off - Users do not see rolls initiated by GM, and they do not see results that involve an NPC (source or target)

Rolls = Any dice rolls made by the GM or players
Results = Application of a roll vs. targets. Currently, that means AC comparison for attacks and damage application for damage rolls.

Cheers,
JPG

[bigbsonnier]

is there a forum topic that discusses the upcoming 3.5E ruleset Re-release (or 3.5e/d20 merger/re-release as i've understood it). Just kind of want to stay informed of the progress. I've got a few in my group that really dig the 3.5E as apposed to 4E, i prefer 4E's simplicity but they prefer the customization of 3.5E, i think i might end up house rulling some customization into 4E as it will probably solve the issue but then again maybe not. Either way they'd be pretty stoked for a clean 3.5E ruleset. Granted i've only messed a little with the demo but i found it rather clunky and everything i'm reading about the 4E ruleset says not clunky. I'm excited to here your updating the 3.5E ruleset.

So anywho to make a long story short...(er) is there a forum topic to track the 3.5E ruleset progress and release?

[Moon Wizard]

There's not really a dedicated forum topic to the 3.5E work. Essentially, the 3.5E update is part of the v2.8 update of FG.

The next version (v2.8) will be announced in the Laboratory forum when it is ready for community testing, and it will be announced on the City Hall forum when it is released.

Regards,
JPG

[DNH]

Moon, will this 2.8 version include the PC action option updates for 4e also, or just 3.5e?

[bigbsonnier]

There's not really a dedicated forum topic to the 3.5E work. Essentially, the 3.5E update is part of the v2.8 update of FG.

The next version (v2.8) will be announced in the Laboratory forum when it is ready for community testing, and it will be announced on the City Hall forum when it is released.

Regards,
JPG


Ah, cool. Look forward to it.

[Moon Wizard]

Just 3.5E initially, though there are several items I want to port over to 4E quickly (this option plus a few others).

Thanks,
JPG