Are there any RPGs that can be completely handled with FG?

[ffujita]

I guess this is kinda a weird question. Background: I played AD&D back in the day, and am currently playing a 5e campiagn, and am preparing to DM another one. Over and over the effects of spells, class abilities, etc. can't really be handled by the FG interface. So my two part question would be, 1) are there any tabletop type games that can be completely implemented in FG, and assuming the answer is no, how crippled would a ruleset that was constrained to be fully implemented in FG be?

I'm sure I'm not using the right concepts to think about my questions, but ... As I think about it, FG is mostly a combat resolution engine .. and a DM database. So if we restricted a ruleset so that the only impact a character could have in combat must be doable by the player characters in the FG engine, what would that mean?

Of course, if someone says -- Oh the acme ruleset *is* completely handled by FG ... then I'd want to investigate that ruleset. But I'm expecting someone who is deeply proficient in FG and multiple rule sets to say, "The game wouldn't be any fun at all because, you always want to players to be able to do action X, but FG wouldn't allow the players to do that.

In any case, if there are people out there who are knowledgeable enough to know what the question I'm trying to ask really is, I'd appreciate hearing your perspective.

[Andraax]

All the games I run require a GM to adjudicate - so none of them can be handled completely by automation.

[ffujita]

Okay, fair enough. But adjudication is different than handling the regular rules by GM fiat. Let's use 5e inspiration as an example. Here the GM would clearly have to adjudicate whether or not a player gains inspiration. But if FG handled inspiration well, then there would be an "inspiration" button that the player could press, which would give advantage on the next attack or saving throw, and would clear the inspiration that had been awarded by the GM. So, a conforming ruleset couldn't have a feature like inspiration, since there's no way for FG to implement it. (This example is *not* me complaining about FG ... I understand that lots of rule systems have so many various unstandardized rules that it's impossible to code for all of them.) So, assuming that all current rule systems have these features ... I guess my question would be, would a new ruleset that only allowed itself to implement features that were well implemented in FG be hopelessly unfun? Or is it just that one doesn't exist, yet?

[Andraax]

I use effects to handle situations like that.

[JohnD]

Why is this a pressing concern?

[ffujita]

I'm sorry, this forum was called the tavern, and I thought I could ask open ended philosophical questions. On the not philosophical side, if there was a reason to believe that such a ruleset could be fun, I might be interested in trying to create one (or participate in the project) but I could easily imagine that if you left out all of those features, it would be a rather boring ruleset.

[Mask_of_winter]

I feel there are too many variables like play style and house rules in the RPG culture for a fully automated FG ruleset to be a real RPG experience. FG is a virtual table top, not a virtual GM. What you are describing sounds like a video game to me. I heard the new Sword Coast Legends game has a DM mode.

[JohnD]

Hmm guess I didn't pick up on that. To answer your question, Rolemaster has a way of adjudication for everything... all of which can, I think, be resolved in FG.

[Nylanfs]

Perhaps we should all start listing game aspects that we know or might think that FG might not be able to handle with little to no GM adjucation?

[leozelig]

Interesting question... Philosophically speaking, I would say that the DM is an essential part of any tabletop RPG system. I am not aware of any ruleset that is defined solely by the mechanics of the game and therefore does not require ANY adjudication. If you ask me, it's those adjudicated bits that give the game life, and I would want to play a game that did not allow for that.

[ffujita]

And to be clear, in my imaginary game where FG resolves combat, the DM is still responsible for deciding whether or not the NPCs attack, ignore, bargain with, hire, or laugh at the PCs, the GM creates the world, the campaign, etc ... in addition to playing the role of all of the NPCs. But, for instance, in my imaginary game, you couldn't have "Concentration" as a resource, because that would require the GM to remember you have a spell that requires concentration, and then when you cast a subsequent spell that requires concentration to end the effects of the first spell, and afaik FG can't do that, only a GM can.

[JohnD]

And to be clear, in my imaginary game where FG resolves combat, the DM is still responsible for deciding whether or not the NPCs attack, ignore, bargain with, hire, or laugh at the PCs, the GM creates the world, the campaign, etc ... in addition to playing the role of all of the NPCs. But, for instance, in my imaginary game, you couldn't have "Concentration" as a resource, because that would require the GM to remember you have a spell that requires concentration, and then when you cast a subsequent spell that requires concentration to end the effects of the first spell, and afaik FG can't do that, only a GM can.

Yeah, you need a video game like Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2.

[dulux-oz]

Yeah, you need a video game like Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2.

I was just thinking the same thing :)

[ffujita]

> Yeah, you need a video game like Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2.
> DMing since 1979. Ultimate License holder. Resident forum Troll (apparently).

I spent quite a bit of time trying to think of how to describe all of the differences between what I'm imagining and Neverwinter Nights, and then I realized I was being trolled.

Got me.

[ffujita]

I may stop after this, but in my mind adjudication requires judgment -- and the GM is essential to that process and always will be. A player leaps from a great height, and holds on to the corners of his tent to hopefully soften the fall damage. Does it? If so, by how much? Only a DM will be able to say. But, there are rules that everyone agrees on and require no judgment. When you cast a spell that requires concentration, the effects of your previous spell that also require concentration stop. That requires no judgment, just accounting. What I'm trying (and apparently failing) to articulate, is a tabletop game where the ruleset consisted only of rules where the accounting process is handled by FG. The ruleset would not (could not) account for every possible action that a PC might take, and many of those actions will require adjudication. But where the ruleset clearly stated what the outcome of an action would be, that rule would need to be fully implementable in FG.

[Trenloe]

The broad FG ruleset design methodology is to provide approximately 80% of RPG functionality to be implemented within a fully designed ruleset (implemented, not necessarily automatically applied). The second design philosophy is not to constrain/restrict GMs and Players so that things are automatically applied. Some fundamental things (like a critical hit) are automatically applied, in most Smiteworks provided d20 based ruleset, and the next damage roll uses the RPG specific critical rules - for example.

So, to answer your question: there isn't any FG ruleset that allows 100% auto-application of the rules. This would be a massive undertaking by the ruleset developer - if you've heard the 80/20 rule of software development: 80% of the functionality is 20% of the work, therefore to provide that final 20% of functionality would take 80% of the work (four times that to provide 80% functionality) - and this rule is a good yardstick for FG ruleset development. Very few developers are going to want to go to that amount of development, when it gets to a point of diminishing returns. And the more full automation you put into a ruleset means that there is a greater chance of some future class/spell/ability in an actively developed RPG (5e, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, Castles & Crusades, FATE, Numenera, etc.) breaking the current automation, or requiring significant rewriting of the current code to cater for the new RPG developments.

So, interesting philosophical question, but you're just not going to get a ruleset that does 100% of the RPG automation (unless it's a very simple RPG system). And the flipside is that most GMs aren't going to want to use 100% automation as they'd like some control, use house rules, etc..

[jshauber]

I think the thing you are missing is the FG and it's competitors are VIRTUAL TABLE TOPS!!!!

They are designed for a group of people to simulate role playing at the table top via a remote tool all have available. By it's very nature role playing involves someone adjudicating the actions taken by others. That is the point of role playing...you get to say what you want to do, roll some dice (possibly) and the GM decides if you are successful and how the creatures/NPCs will react to you.

While I can see where you are coming from, by automating everything you would eliminate the need for a GM other than to set up a scenario the players would then just run thru on their own. Hence the comparison to the video games mentioned earlier where everything is programmed, and the players follow a path. IF they try to do something not accounted for then nothing happens or it puts them back to a start point to make a different decision...this is why you need a GM to adjudicate those instances and allow the game to go in unexpected directions.

[ffujita]

Thanks for your reply Trenloe -- in addition to being helpful in its own right, it has allowed me to infer that I've using the word "ruleset" incorrectly. And though you've answered my question when I word it correctly, I still want to say it the way I meant it. I was saying "ruleset" when I meant "RPG system." Rewording, I was trying to ask if an RPG system that was simple enough to resolve combat entirely within FG would be a boring/unfun RPG system. (I think) I understand why we'll never see the 5e ruleset (if I understand correctly, that means the program in FG that partially implements 5e) developed to the level that I'd consider fully automated. My question I guess was the other way round, could one design a fun to play RPG system, if you limited it to things that FG can easily handle?

And at this point, while I'd be thrilled if this new question actually got some thoughtful responses, I can be glad that at least I've got some of my vocabulary sorted out.
Thanks!

[dulux-oz]

> Yeah, you need a video game like Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2.
> DMing since 1979. Ultimate License holder. Resident forum Troll (apparently).

I spent quite a bit of time trying to think of how to describe all of the differences between what I'm imagining and Neverwinter Nights, and then I realized I was being trolled.

Got me.

Actually, I wasn't - I can't comment for JohD but I was serious - everything you described up to this point had me thinking "that's exactly like Neverwinter Nights". I ran my RPG group through a scenario I developed on NWN and, while it was fun, it wasn't what I consider Traditional Role-Playing, so we never did it again.

Whether that's that you meant or not, that's what my perception of what you were asking :)

BTW we don't really get trolls around here - no billy goats and no bridges - JohnD possibly being the exception and displaying the most troll-like behaviour - but if he IS a troll its more of the cuddly fair-ground sort with the fluro-pink hair (sorry John) :p

Cheers

[JohnD]

Actually, I wasn't - I can't comment for JohD but I was serious - everything you described up to this point had me thinking "that's exactly like Neverwinter Nights". I ran my RPG group through a scenario I developed on NWN and, while it was fun, it wasn't what I consider Traditional Role-Playing, so we never did it again.

Whether that's that you meant or not, that's what my perception of what you were asking :)

BTW we don't really get trolls around here - no billy goats and no bridges - JohnD possibly being the exception and displaying the most troll-like behaviour - but if he IS a troll its more of the cuddly fair-ground sort with the fluro-pink hair (sorry John) :p

Cheers

No worries I still have a bottle of Captain Morgan to keep me lubricated.

[ffujita]

>While I can see where you are coming from, by automating everything you would eliminate the need for a GM other than to set up a scenario the players would then just run thru on their own.

But that is *not* where I'm coming from. I really *don't* think that I'm missing the point that FG is a virtual table top. There are many things that a DM must adjudicate, and the rules say what those things are; a point I've stressed a couple of times earlier in this thread.

But sometimes the RPG system dictates what the outcome of an action is going to be. If a first level fighter attacks a dragon and rolls an attack of 3 and DM says that the fighter decapitated the dragon -- the DM is not adjudicating she's dictating. And I guess that game would be fun for some. But the reason we care about optimizing our characters is that we expect the DM to follow the rules, where the rules make it clear what the outcome is or how the outcome should be determined.

Wanting automation in those instances where the rules dictate the outcome, or the procedure to determine the outcome, isn't wanting to play a GMless game, it's wanting to play a game that is focused on role playing and not on mechanics.

Would it *hurt* your tabletop experience for FG to recognize your armor and correctly calculate your AC? Would the DM be able to say, ATM you're all AC10 cause your sleeping when you're ambushed? Of course! But I would say that the game would lose none of its tabletop nature if your armor was automatically recognized and your AC was automatically calculated. Is the game less fun when my sneak attack damage is rolled automatically instead of me needing to roll an additional d6 in the chat screen and have the DM manually add that damage to the target? Would the game be less fun if when you cast a spell with a consumable material component, that component was automatically erased from your inventory?

Okay -- so that is where I'm coming from and I already rephrased my question in my previous post.

[Griogre]

It would have to be a simple absolute system to do a full implementation ruleset with almost no GM needed. Ignoring implementation issues brought up by Trenloe, there is also an 80/20 rule on the GM and players just running the automation. How do you have the GM and Players signal the ruleset what version of the rule to use? The first 80% of the signals is going to be easy. The last 20% is going to be a bitch and your players and GM will spend more time looking up the details of how to implementation the last 10%+ than it would have taken to do it by hand.

That's the ultimate weakness, IMO, of automation. It's only useful up until until a certain tipping point. The tipping point is its quicker (and possibly more accurate) to do it manually than figure it out how to do it with automation. On the 5E ruleset I personally believe some effects and automations are past that point. Third party targeting in particular is extremely powerful but having a player set it up and run it succesfully seems beyond a large number of players and its the same for the new if effects.

[ffujita]

Lastly, let me apologize for my anger. TBH, I have only played Baldur's Gate and not Neverwinter Nights, but I'm assuming it's basically a Baldur's Gate upgrade, which might be fun, but nothing like D&D. I've only been playing with FG for a little over a month now, and I can say that I'm enjoying our sessions *more* than a pure table top experience because the math/accounting is 80% taken care of, which means that our DM can focus on adjudicating our actions, and not keeping track of numbers as much which slows down the role playing. I'm just wishing there were a way to get the accounting done on the last 20%.

[Trenloe]

I'm just wishing there were a way to get the accounting done on the last 20%.
Ah, so you are asking for 100% automation in one of the complex rulesets. As mentioned above, you will *never* get this for a complex RPG.

[Griogre]

Neverwinter had a DM mode and was a licensed D&D property with an editor where you could build your own adventures. It why a lot of people laugh at some of the DM hype with Sword Coast Legends because Neverwinter had that. RPG Computer games limit their complexity of choices by limiting player options, but one reason I love RPGs is the ability to not have your choices limited but that adds complexity and, of course, really requires a GM.

I don't know if you have tried a lot of "GM-Assistant" software? Many of the issues of using this type of software successfully would apply to a full automation ruleset. It is an interesting question to ask and try to answer just in interface design.

[jshauber]

[QUOTE=ffujita;236465
Would it *hurt* your tabletop experience for FG to recognize your armor and correctly calculate your AC? Would the DM be able to say, ATM you're all AC10 cause your sleeping when you're ambushed? Of course! But I would say that the game would lose none of its tabletop nature if your armor was automatically recognized and your AC was automatically calculated. Is the game less fun when my sneak attack damage is rolled automatically instead of me needing to roll an additional d6 in the chat screen and have the DM manually add that damage to the target? Would the game be less fun if when you cast a spell with a consumable material component, that component was automatically erased from your inventory?

Okay -- so that is where I'm coming from and I already rephrased my question in my previous post.[/QUOTE]

For most of what you are asking it is merely a button click--flatfooted from the modifier screen, doing a slight bit of extra work to set up the sneak attack as a separate entry on the action tab so that when you make a sneak attack you roll from a different entry with the damage built in. For the spell, in 5E you could place the spell/components on the weapon section and every time you cast it just make an attack from there and the "ammo" is automatically deducted. Doesn't work like that in other sets at this time, but might be something that could be done at some point, proven it works in 5E, just need to do some extra coding for others (easy for a non-programmer to say...).

FG isn't built to be video game like in that aspect, but there are ways to include some of what you are looking for with just a little extra effort.

IF you have specific examples of what you would like to see, like you mentioned above, post them and we will be happy to help as we can with how to make it happen in FG if possible so that your experience is more in line with what you are hoping for.

As Trenloe said, won't get 100%, but you can get much closer than you are now by drawing on the experience of the vets around here. I know they have helped me immensely and I am still learning new stuff over 2 years into FG. And FG keeps improving as community ideas are implemented in the core programming.

[damned]

Hey ffujita - dont get angry. IN 99.9% of cases people responding are not trying to anger you - even if it might feel that way.
AC calculation in 5e is a bit of a glaring hole in my opinion.
Far and away the RPGs that I have actually taken the time to learn (which is but a fraction of those that I own, which is but a fraction of those out there) have exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions. Annoying little buggers when it cones to programming. Im sure you could probably take a really simple system like Fighting Fantasy (the one that began as a choose your own adventure) and at least one spell would mess things up. I am sure there will be a system out there that doesnt have the exceptions and that could be programmed. Would it be boring? It might be boring for long term play but would probbaly be just fine for one shots and beginner play.

[Griogre]

I thought a little about systems that it might be possible and came up with Mini Six Bare Bones (https://www.antipaladingames.com/p/mini-six.html) and Mythic Game Master Emulater (https://www.mythic.wordpr.com/page14/page9/page9.html) may allow the fully automatic experience. I know you weren't trying to get rid of the GM but getting rid of the GM means you can use the computer to run a game with a computer's ability to look up rules and make rule decisions, exponentially increasing the number of reliable and consistent decisions a GM could make at a computer's speed.

[Mask_of_winter]

Yes, I'm thinking micro/one-sheet RPGs like this one: https://www.rpgnow.com/product/120987/Adventurers?src=hottest_filtered

[mghauber]

Interesting discussion. Not sure if this is where you're coming from ffujita, but I'll chime in a little....

A few months back, I was thinking about computers and RPG's and how things have really changed since some of us "old timers" played with old, eraser worn character sheets and graph paper. However, the MECHANICS of most RPG's haven't changed. You roll dice, compare that to a certain ability, and a combination of inherent skill and random dice rolling determine an outcome. Could be an attack roll, a roll to sway a guard to let you pass, or to climb a rope...what have you.

However, what if a computer simulation could account for things that our dice rolls normally do. As an example, in D&D, generally larger weapons do more damage because they have a larger "die type" associated with them. All fighters usually run around with great swords or huge axes because the rules dictate that they have the potential to do more damage. However, I recall reading that as mail armor evolved, there was a point when smaller, broader puncturing weapons that could penetrate weak spots were far more effective than large "slashing" weapons that were not as precise. I remember one version of D&D had large tables that attempted to account for this by altering the THACO's. Can't believe I remembered that.

Now, instead of assigning "arbitrary" damage dice, what if I said my character was "exceptionally skilled" with small blades such as daggers. Axes are something that I chop wood with and claymores are too difficult to conceal when I'm walking down the street. Is it fair to say that my character could do damage that would be just as lethal with a dagger as a brute swinging a battle ax. Perhaps not as messy or shocking as cutting someone in half, but puncturing the heart or lung, or severing a major artery would result in the "just as dead" status.

Would it be very difficult to have a computerized simulation "look" at my character and his abilities, this case knife fighting, and compare that to an opponents abilities, say agility, armor and evasion for lack of better examples, and then determine the outcome with a large random factor? Then just determine the outcome. I understand that there would be a HUGE amount of variables, but they could be somehow added to the mix when you thought of them so that the "database" of variables would grow without the need to track everything....

Not real sure if I've made any sense or not, or if this is where ffujita was going, but I do sort of understand what you're saying....maybe....or I'm having an acid flashback....not sure...

I can make a spread sheet give me a random number between one and one million, but I still roll a d20 to attack... perhaps there is an opportunity to allow the "expansiveness" of computers broaden what we envision an RPG to be, leaving the GM to be a true adjudicator and storyteller....

...or acid flashback....hahahaha

[Full Bleed]

I'm just wishing there were a way to get the accounting done on the last 20%.
I think you'd of gotten more traction with your post if you'd focused more on a "5e ruleset request" type topic rather than engaged in the mythology/value of a VTT being able to automate 100% of a particular game. In general because your idea of 100% is likely very different than the next person. And, in specific, because you clearly have ideas about things you'd like to see FG do that it, currently, doesn't.

Here are some of the things that I count that you've mentioned with regard to the 5e ruleset:

1) AC computation
2) Tracking Concentration Spells and their Effects
3) Apply Sneak Attack Damage more easily

(Note: Having those things in FG's 5e ruleset would hardly equate to making FG a "video game".)

As a consequence of that more direct approach, I think some people would have been able to provide some good workarounds for these things... or, perhaps, they could be added in an update.

So, while Trenloe's 80/20 programming assertion is largely true, it's not particularly helpful when features that are more important to you happen to be deemed too difficult or not important enough to make the cut. In fact, it could easily be that the lack of some feature is an over-sight or simply a failure to fully prioritize/understand the value of covering a particular rule or mechanic. That's where input from the end user comes into the equation.

[Trenloe]

So, while Trenloe's 80/20 programming assertion is largely true, it's not particularly helpful ...
Hey, it was completely helpful to the vague philosophical question that was being asked at the time. Only later did the true intent of the OP come out. :)

[damned]

...when features that are more important to you happen to be deemed too difficult or not important enough to make the cut. In fact, it could easily be that the lack of some feature is an over-sight or simply a failure to fully prioritize/understand the value of covering a particular rule or mechanic. That's where input from the end user comes into the equation.

https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/
:)

[ffujita]

Thanks everyone for your input. I was poorly expressing my question, and getting upset when people didn't read it the way I meant it. (which might or might not be what I wrote :)

Every week I'm becoming more proficient in assigning Effects to spells, and I'm told that with the next drop 3.1.3, lots more will be covered. I'm fully committed to playing 5E in FG with whatever level of automation of rules coverage it does allow, and I expect that in time I'll speak up as to the things that I really want next.

I really was asking a philosophical question, and my retreat to 80/20 was to show/demonstrate that I really didn't want to play a DM less game, which a large number of people inferred from my post.

Let me try to rephrase that question once more, now that I've gained some perspective or vocabulary or both.

If one were to start with FG as is, and then created a RPG system where all of the mechanics of the system could be handled within FG as is, could that RPG system be fun and interesting to play in the long run, or would it inevitably be so simplistic that after a session or two, one would lose interest?

Okay, that's my philosophical question. A non-philosophical aspect of it would be if people are/would be interested in that system (from the previous posts I'm pretty sure the answer to that one is, "Not so much.)? And once again, let me reiterate, I'm not displeased with FG and 5E. I was wondering if "exceptions to the exceptions" are essential to making a RPG system fun. And I make lots of 5e help requests in the 5e forum. But this was a different thing -- I wasn't really asking for help, or improvement to FG.

[Full Bleed]

If one were to start with FG as is, and then created a RPG system where all of the mechanics of the system could be handled within FG as is, could that RPG system be fun and interesting to play in the long run, or would it inevitably be so simplistic that after a session or two, one would lose interest?

That totally depends on implementation... which is what I find so puzzling about your query.

If supporting "all of the mechanics" comes at the cost of losing flexibility then it would likely fail to suit most GM's/gamers.

That is, if the implementation is so rigid that the GM loses the ability to adjudicate the game outside the proverbial box, then it's a problem waiting to happen.

That said, I reject the notion that supporting a mechanic more thoroughly automatically means that the GM loses necessary flexibility or control. In most cases developers can certainly do *both*. There are many ways to provide more support for a rule without ham-fistedly taking power away from the GM's ability to run a more fluid game.

Frankly, when I hear people associate VTT automation with video games or "over simplification" it's usually indicative of a lack of vision about how something could be done.

[ffujita]

I believe that in a tabletop game, the GM should always have the ability to over-rule any accounting decisions made by the FG ruleset. So "all of the mechanics being handled" would mean that the GM would never *have* to over-rule the accounting decisions just to implement the RAW.

[Nylanfs]

I can't envision such a system because how I interpret RAW and going to be different than you other people interpret RAW.

[ffujita]

Well, the idea would be that however FG handled the situation *would be* RAW. Which the DM is free to modify.

[viresanimi]

Diceless / Ruleless roleplaying is pretty simple to implement. Just add creativity. It works mate!

Vires Animi