Words Of Wisdom said:
Kasz216 said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Kasz216 said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
| Kasz216 said: I mean how hard is it to make D&D games that play like D&D! |
How would you make it? For example (3.5), how would you handle spell durations (rounds vs minutes) in terms of game time? Would you have the game always tracking rounds? Would a certain amount of time always pass in between battles? Would you follow the turn-based format or attempt real-time? It's harder than you think. |
I'd go with real time exploring with turn based battles when combat was engaged. Actions take a while to perform before you get your roll to go with the time multiplayer wise. If everyone in a multiplayer game is either doing an action that takes time or resting for a set period of time, it jumps ahead. (For example if everyone is crafting stuff that's going to take half a day.) as for rounds vs minutes it's just a matter of calculating how much time passes in a round. For example D&D like game i've played that focused on a few people fighting at once has each round calculated at about 6 seconds. (Since initative is to decide who goes first in what is basically happening all at the same time, the number of characters and monsters moving per round is irrelevant.)
So if you had a spell that lasts 20 rounds... it would last 120 seconds. Each round woud take 6 secodns off the 120 seconds it lasts. After the battle, it switches back to real time, and the the time counts off just like it does in real life. |
So would you see the game being more like Tactics or Arcanum/Fallout? |
Honestly believe it or not i haven't played Arcanum or Fallout. Just Wasteland so honestly i'm not sure how to respond. The Fallout series is one of those games that's on my "must play" list that i keep forgetting about I'd have the battles happen on the actual same map you explore. It allows for a more seamless transition as you could use a non grid tactics system like Phantom Brave for movement that measures feat even better then a grid would and use the same terrain and graphics for exploring that you do for the battles. Allowing for things like the splitting up of the party easier for exploring multiple paths at once... splitting up to lure enemies etc. While within the interface everything works exactly like D&D. |
Arcanum/Fallout use a system where all areas consist of invisible hexagon shaped places. Since the areas are already proportioned out, you can fight immediately without switching to a different area. In Tactics, you go to a battle scene with the area remapped into squares...etc. So the question is whether you'd want all areas sectioned into 5' squares as in D&D or go to an area like that only for battle. I'm guessing the former. The action list would also be quite long though unless you sorted it by action before everything else: Standard Action, Move Action, Full-Round Action, Swift Action, and Free Action. You'd still also have to have a way to handle Immediate Actions which could get really annoying with a lot of characters playing at once. |
Yeah, you'd have to sort it by action like that, which if it were me i'd allow quick sorting through the different groups by C and Z. have each group be a different color for quick cycling. Also allow the resorting within groups so the more used actions stay up top.
Perhaps even having the first or last group(so a quick z gets you there) being a "shortcut" menu where you "bookmark" your most used skills for the lazy.
Immediate actions i could see being a case of just hitting a button when it's not your turn. For example the - button. A button that was out of the way. So you weren't accidently pressing it. The delay between actions should be able to allow interruptions while also making sure the time is fast actions are fast enough.
It has a little bit of what i call Jeopardy syndrome but that shouldn't be too much of a problem and too much out of the ordinary outside of the rare occasion people that are supposed to be in the same party on the same screen willingly come to blows.
