PC action option

[Zeus]

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

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.