[unofficial weekender] What do you mean Saturday?!

[sundancer 42901xp 0]

Evil chaotic? You’re a monster.

I thought I established by now that I am German? 😉

Give it another week or so, and I reckon it should be ready to make a few playthrough videos, if anyone is interested….

I still got that board sitting next to me you send me…. 3000 years ago? Does that still work is that obsolete tech?

[limburger 21668xp 0]

@blinky465 of course you should post videos and a battle report … do it in the project system.
You won’t get a golden button, unless you can prove there is an AI involved 😉

THAC0 is a mystery to me as well. Somehow the creators of D&D wanted to make their game extra difficult to grasp so they decided to pick a few weird dice and  invented a ton of ways of rolling them that were not supposed to make any sense at all.

Alignments need to burn in hell … it has made people go “that is an ork, he is evil … so killing him is ok” whereas I am ‘good’ (even though I’m robbing every damn place I can get to or forcing people to pay for the privelege of my visit)

[blinky465 17027xp 2]

@limburger – there is a rudimentary AI and I don’t mind admitting that it was good fun to play against the computer (it even caught me by surprise a couple of times, even when I could read the code and follow its logic tree to supposedly understand the choice process). It’s not quite “sentience” but it’s getting there 😉

That said, I *did* try putting an entirely different type of “AI” into individual miniatures, in my quest for another golden button. The project stalled and I had to admit that in all honesty, I was pushing the meaning of the word “intelligence” (I might yet give it a go anyway and see if I can’t push my luck with the Gatekeeper of the Golden Button).

 

@sundancer – the prototype hardware should still work (though I now make maps from multiple 8×8 panels connected together, rather than one large one). In fact, just for you, I’ll make sure it’s backwards compatible so you can join in too.

[blinky465 17027xp 0]

So I went a little crazy this afternoon, passed up on a lunchtime “meal deal” and instead spent my money on a coffee and this month’s Wargames Illustrated magazine. This month’s magazine includes a ruleset called Blam! Blam! Aargh! which looks really interesting:

 

It recommends a 3×3 board for a fast-paced skirmish game but, interestingly, splits it into large regions or “zones” rather than squares or measured distance movement. In the rules it suggests using a larger board if you like – but *also* recommends keeping the board split into the same number of regions (i.e. an offset 5×5 grid). So instead of a larger board creating more areas/zones, the number remains the same (and each area just gets larger).

I fancy giving the rules a try but will have to find someone to play them with, as my wife is thoroughly sick to death of most of my days being taken up with coding apps for tabletop gaming (so I’m not going to get away with committing a few weeks to coding up a computer-driven opponent just to try a new ruleset out!).

Has anyone else played these rules?

[sundancer 42901xp 0]

“Blam! Blam! Aargh!”? XD That sounds either like a comic or a 1930 mobster thing. Love the title *g*

[crazyredcoatParticipant 13642xp 1]

When I play DnD I am always in the Chaotic column. Usually Chaotic Neutral. It’s easier to roleplay something you practice in everyday life! 😛 I’m planning on getting the metal work and weapon casings done on my Marines today. If I feel like it I might get the gold details done, too, but we’ll have to see about that. I tried out the red panels thing and it worked quite well. No pics at the moment because I’ve lost a cable somewhere, but hopefully I can get them finished and uploaded to my project by the next weekender. They’ve taken me so long…that project hasn’t had an update for a few months now…

Have some more music in lieu of pictures.

[limburger 21668xp 0]

I’d argue that all players are chaotic whatever-suits-their-purpose … and the ones that use alignments tend to use them as an excuse to be grade A a-holes (“I’m evil so I can steal your stuff … ” or “I’m good, they are evil … killing them is justified”)
It’s too much of a crutch to be decent and makes for really silly stereotypes (like the Lawful Good paladin … )

@blinky465 I’d say AI is overrated. We want an enemy that can be beaten without making us look like we’re stealing candy from a baby …
And we want it to have the memory of a goldfish too, because there’s no way games featuring stealth would be fun if the guards never stopped searching once alarmed.

[crazyredcoatParticipant 13642xp 0]

@limburger In one of the campaigns our DM made a comment that he could just kill us all and make us create new characters because we were being slight murderhobos and lunatics, so as a joke we created new characters that were full lawful good just to be annoying. We made a Paladin that was so by-the-book that all crimes were met with death, even jaywalking. Another character was 5 gnome children in a trench coat who couldn’t handle sharp things and had to hold someone’s hand to cross the road and so on. Then my character was a polyglot pacifist who always had a book about the bad guys we WEREN’T fighting. Suffice to say, our DM decided a bit of the old murderhobo was ok and basically rebuilt the campaign for us. 😛

[limburger 21668xp 0]

@crazyreadcoat so you played Stallone as Judge Dredd then 😉
I’d argue that ‘lawful good’ doesn’t mean you get to murder people … that’s closer to lawful evil in my book.

[blinky465 17027xp 1]

Awwww man, now I’m as confused as that frightened teen back in the nineties wondering what you’re all talking about.

If murder is against the law, then surely someone who goes around murdering people is, by definition, *unlawful* ??

I can understand the argument that murdering someone who is utterly evil, for the common good, puts you in the “good” rather than “evil” pile (which is different to murdering someone because it’s a bit of a laugh). But in both cases, that’s got to make you “unlawful” right?

I think I’ll stick to mugs.

[sundancer 42901xp 0]

If murder is against the law, then surely someone who goes around murdering people is, by definition, *unlawful* ??

No, in the same way as locking someone up because he stole something isn’t against the law… it’s punishment. And in the mind of an ultra-lawfull character everything is wrong and punishable by death 😉

[blinky465 17027xp 0]

@limburger – giving AI a memory is what’s proving to be the hardest part of this whole project (and I’ve had some *real* head-scratchers in how to get four players, potentially across different time zones, to get their own physical boards up-to-date before taking their own turn – while keeping all non-visible pieces hidden from each player).

Because whenever a character goes out of sight of another, the easiest thing to do would be “choose a random action to complete” but it really did feel a bit lame during testing (although at the same time, as a player I knew that as soon as I ducked a character out-of-sight, they would be “safe” for that turn, as it was quite likely that the AI player would just wander off).

By far my game plays better when it’s two people against each over over the ‘net. I very nearly didn’t bother with an AI opponent. But I feel like a dice-based random-choice opponent was better that nothing – and now I’ve gone down a rabbithole!

[blinky465 17027xp 1]

@sundancer – locking someone up because they stole something *is* against the law (the name “unlawful imprisonment” is a bit of a clue). An agent of the law, with the authority to apprehend and imprison people can, but everyone else can’t. Similarly, if murder is against the law, people who have been authorised to use lethal force are not “murdering”.

Maybe in the mind of a “good” person everything is wrong? What started out as a pithy comment has now left me actually confused about “good” and “lawful”.

Adhering to the law – whatever that law may be and no matter how immoral – makes one lawful. Even if the law is “evil”. But breaking the rule of law makes a character unlawful. Is the wink because you’re teasing me now? I’m baffled and convinced more than ever that nobody actually knows what “alignment” in RPG games means!

[sundancer 42901xp 0]

@blinky465 I think you miss the point that “lawful” characters *enforce* the law. They are “the police”. At least in their head. They are like religious fanatics: “We are in the right. Full stop”. You can’t argue with these characters.

Lawful good: The regular police. The abide the law and not what they *think* is the law and punishment is also according to law. You steal, you go to jail. You murder someone, you go to jail even longer.

Lawful neutral: Everybody else. “Don’t break the law but when you put this there in your tax return form you’ll pay less taxes” type. Running a red light in the middle of the night isn’t braking the law. Especially if you’re riding a bicycle 😉

Lawful evil: Jaywalking is punishable by cutting of the feet.

[blinky465 17027xp 1]

@crazyredcoat – is your Paladin really “good lawful”? If they kill someone for jaywalking? (it does remind me of some of the more darkly comic satire from early Judge Dredd stories).

But just as much of the humour in Judge Dredd came from the over the top application of the law, and the satire coming from someone upholding ridiculous laws to the point of looking like a psychotic arse (while considering themselves to be one of the “good guys” simply for being lawful) I’d suggest that a Paladin lawfully killing people for jaywalking isn’t “good” at all.

Indeed, in a world where it is mandated that jaywalking *had to* be punished by death, to be “morally good” you’d have to act unlawfully (and refuse to execute, rather then partake in the unlawful act). There would be no way you could be both (morally) good and lawful, if the laws are morally “evil”.

Or have I completely misunderstood, yet again?

[Author]

Posts