MoreCore Ruleset

The difference is in what the user sees. It makes no difference how you do the calculation behind the scenes, but what they see reported in chat should mach what they were expecting to see. i.e. in the case of D&D, you expect to see d20 + # = TN. Anyone who has ever played D&D would instantly understand that reported data to them at a glance without having to think about it, because it matches what they are expecting. If you did it the other way (d20 = TN - #), whether the math comes out right or not, it presents a result to them in a form that doesn't match their expectation. What happened to my strength bonus? etc. Thus, their attention is drawn away from the important parts of the game to focus on the mechanics part of it. Look, we are never going to agree. It doesn't matter. If you think your way is better, then make the extension yourself. But, if I do it, I will do it the way it makes sense to me to do it, which is to try to match the way people would normally expect it to behave. When it comes to programming, I am sure I could learn a lot from you, but I've been playing games of all types for a very long time, and I have some sense for what people find fun and what they don't in these games. I simply try to alleviate some of the mathiness and tedium of the book keeping and such so they can have a better time of it. Part of that is in the presentation. The little things do matter. But, everyone has their own opinions on these things. You can never please all of the people all of the time.

At the end of the day what is most important to my players is the story, setting and having fun. If we have no logic built into anything and just some d6's to roll we could still run the game and have a great time. Sometimes people get bogged down in how things are displayed on the screen and automation.

I think FG is far superior to all other table-top simulators, and I appreciate every second of time community developers put into trying to satisfy the whims of every system and every DM. I will be running a Traveller campaign using the MoreCore ruleset as it is.

I have added a roll for every skill that can be changed during creation and during play (/die 2d6+characteristic modifier+skill). It will take me a second to work out if it succeeded. I can ask the players to distribute damage in combat over the 3 characteristics. I can put together a character sheet for a spacecraft. I can add rollable tables. I can tell players the target number! I can click on modifier box and quickly add modifiers. A few seconds working out success/failure will make no difference to running the game. Automation is nice to have, but in no means essential.

I think we are spoiled by the likes 5e, SW, PF, Cthulhu etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vodokar

The difference is in what the user sees. It makes no difference how you do the calculation behind the scenes, but what they see reported in chat should mach what they were expecting to see. i.e. in the case of D&D, you expect to see d20 + # = TN.

---

All the user sees is that it's a success or failure, and the degree of that success or failure (the "effect"). So, how is their expectation not being met? And in my example using existing code, the result clearly shows that they're getting +1 from the skill, +1 from their character's Education stat, and that it's a "routine" check. I don't see how their "expectations" are not being met, just because I checked a modified DR against a target of 8 instead of checking a DR against a modified target of 6.

In my example, the GM says something like "Give me a routine Navigation check using Education." The user clicks "Routine", then clicks "Education", then clicks "Navigation", and the result is correct. I don't see how it's somehow "incorrect" just because - behind the scenes - the target number was not adjusted, rather the DR was modified.

I think possibly you should both agree to disagree since the conversation isn't really going anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vodokar

These are games we are talking about, not a business program. Efficiency must take a backseat to pleasing the player. Players expect to see certain things in the way their games play, especially when you are talking about old classic games; or new editions to them that are simply slight polishing of the old system. You aren't wrong from a professional business coder standpoint, Andraax. In business, time is money. Time spent fixing code that is convoluted and doesn't work is money. Time just trying to read someone else's code is money. This is not my business. It is my hobby. I enjoy working on things. I enjoy seeing other people gain pleasure from them. That is what is important to me. I will spend my time trying to make things that I believe will please people in this community. If they don't work as intended or expected, I will fix them. If they don't please people, I will do my best to give what does. If using 10 lines of code gives them something tangible that 2 lines of code does not, then that is what I will do. In this case, the tangible part is the feel of the game itself; it may be mathematically equivalent to do it another way, but the feel of the game changes by doing so. That is something that simply can not be quantified. It is not up to you to decide what other people might want in their game experience; especially in this instance, where we are talking about a potential extension that can be turned on or off by the user. That is for them to decide.

Let's take this to the other extreme here. Everyone, you already have built in 3d dice. Just roll them and do the math yourself. There, we just saved a few lines of code in the name of efficiency. No need for specialized rolls. No need for specialized character sheets or specialized tools. A new decal for the game you want to play; sorry takes lines of code and resources. No need to decorate in any way either. That would be inefficient. Every rpg game in existence can be played by simply using core or morecore without wasting our time on customizing for anything. That would be inefficient. Better yet, just write everything down on real paper and use real dice. No need for any of this. All in the name of efficiency, you know. The developers efficiency; not the users. That's what's important, right?

---

Sure, but then they really need to do something about the way those dice "melt" off the table before I've counted them all (try being a Jedi in WEG's Star Wars for example).

Also, why can't we roll dice all over the tabletop. It's so weird that it is confined to a small area of the screen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfheart

Also, why can't we roll dice all over the tabletop. It's so weird that it is confined to a small area of the screen

---

You can. I use this as a GM all the time - I can roll dice on the desktop and they don't show the "shadow" in the chat box to the players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andraax

You can. I use this as a GM all the time - I can roll dice on the desktop and they don't show the "shadow" in the chat box to the players.

---

Really? When I roll them elsewhere I get no results recorded or anything. Is there some setting I have to turn on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfheart

Really? When I roll them elsewhere I get no results recorded or anything. Is there some setting I have to turn on?

---

You get no results recorded. It's totally invisible to others. You just have to look at the numbers on the top of the dice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfheart

Sure, but then they really need to do something about the way those dice "melt" off the table before I've counted them all (try being a Jedi in WEG's Star Wars for example).

Also, why can't we roll dice all over the tabletop. It's so weird that it is confined to a small area of the screen

---

I wasn't being serious. That was hyperbole or satire or whatever they call it. Not an english major. At any rate. Andraax and I seem to always see things from opposite sides of the coin, for whatever reason. I was simply trying to argue that presentation and user interface and the subtleties of how a game makes you feel during play are equally important considerations as much as the internal logic and math of the programming. Not something we will ever agree upon. Probably I see things the way I do because I approach things from being a gamer who learned how to program rather than a professional programmer who games. I started gaming in 1973 with Avalon Hill War Games and then 1977 with D&D, so I have a different perspective. There are many ways to do things. Andraax isn't wrong. But, I still contend that the small things matter. I don't make decisions on what should or shouldn't be in a program based on efficiency. I decide that based on what I believe will make the user have an easier and better experience. That is because games are important to me and the gaming experience is important to me.

If I were making a car for someone and someone wanted it painted red, because that makes them feel good, I wouldn't argue that it already had black paint and it would be inefficient to paint it a different color and they don't really need it to be a different color because it is mathematically equivalent in protecting it from the environment. The color of it is an intangible quality of the car that has a tangible meaning to the person.

At any rate, that is all I have to say about the subject. It's accomplishing nothing arguing about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vodokar

If I were making a car for someone and someone wanted it painted red, because that makes them feel good, I wouldn't argue that it already had black paint and it would be inefficient to paint it a different color and they don't really need it to be a different color because it is mathematically equivalent in protecting it from the environment. The color of it is an intangible quality of the car that has a tangible meaning to the person.

---

Of course, since the target number is not even displayed, a more accurate comparison would be that you're saying the gears inside the transmission must be painted red, and I'm saying it doesn't matter that they're black, because you can't see them.