[GURPS] Wrathchild's FW v1.1

[Benz72]

Benz, that's an interesting thought. I hadn't considered that route, assuming that people would prefer not to input all that stuff. Hmmm....

I'm sure there would be a very strong preference for having the data come pre-loaded. The point of the 'blank' template is that there is no functionality unless someone buys the book and inputs the data themselves e.g. without buying martial arts, all of the MA options add 0 or multiply by 1 so that there is no game effect. When the used decides to buy the book and spend the hour plugging in all the data those options will work.

As a side benefit, this means that the user will be able to tweak bonuses and penalties easily to customize their rules instead of using RAW.

[Doctor Thantos]

Winter,

Thanks.

This is the token from my dresden files inspired game.

Doctor Thantos.

[Micco]

Wasn't this IP debate decided years ago when some game company tried to claim that the process of evaluating success by comparing a die roll to a target was their copyright? I seem to recall that formula and relationships could be patented, but copyrights do not cover processes, only 'content'. But you'd likely have to sanitize it a bit to make sure that any 'owned' terminology is neutered to avoid copyright issues. But IANAL, thankfully.

<soapbox>
I really can't understand how SJG thinks that by making it more difficult for people to use GUPRS it will somehow cause more books to be sold. They need to get out of the 1980s. Paizo publishes their whole rule system on the web and has probably sold more books in just over a year than SJG has sold in the last five (okay, hyperbole, but you get the point!)

Frankly, I won't pay for the framework because I'm morally opposed to SJG's closed, restrictive stance on their game. (I already own all the key 3rd Edition and 4th Edition books.) If I had an awesome framework to manage some of the mechanics complexity, however, I might well switch my games to GURPS which would generate at least half a dozen book sales by my players.
</soapbox>

[Woodman]

Yeah and WotC abandoned the OGL and is now charging a monthly fee for access to their online content, and they are probably selling more then Paizo and SJG combined. All these companys have different business models and individually each one seems to work out quite fine but i highly doubt interchanging the models would work for the companys.

Also note, that the original offer was to make the framework available as a free download via e23, the idea to sell it came from Winter, because he cant afford to bring this up to professional standards for free.

[Venatius]

Yeah and WotC abandoned the OGL and is now charging a monthly fee for access to their online content, and they are probably selling more then Paizo and SJG combined. All these companys have different business models and individually each one seems to work out quite fine but i highly doubt interchanging the models would work for the companys.

Also note, that the original offer was to make the framework available as a free download via e23, the idea to sell it came from Winter, because he cant afford to bring this up to professional standards for free.

Which I can understand. It helps incentive Winter to really work on getting the framework up to a polished, professional level, since the work now has a more substantial reward than our thanks. I assume, also, that official e23 distribution would mean it's possible to keep in the combat autocalculation and such in? I already kinda wanted to donate to this project, and as long as Winter is going to see profits I'm fine with a one-time payment. I do have to add, though, if the auto-calculation features were to be removed like we've discussed a bit, I would be a lot more leery of paying, as those are kind of the primary thrust of the appeal.

Here's an odd ToS question, though; does it violate any policies regarding Maptool itself to distribute a framework made with it for profit?

[Doctor Thantos]

The integration with the GCA and the GCA2MT token is enough for me.

If I can get the character sheets to work in my campaign, that's worth it. Being able to have my players click on a skill and do the check based on there own character sheet is fabulous.

The hit charts, other stuff is great. I don't use the combat resolution and some of the other fancy stuff yet.

Doctor Thantos.

[Benz72]

Another thought.
SJG does release a GURPS lite ruleset for free. Perhaps if the free distribution model doesn't cover any functionality beyond what they are already giving away the initial idea will be more palatable. Making a 'for profit' add on could be worked out later.

[Micco]

Let me be clear...I really have no issue with paying for the hard work to create the framework. I just hate to encourage SJG's closed system stance. It's more of a 'vote with my dollars' thought. If they'd allow it to be distributed without restriction, however, I'd be more than happy to donate to the project to get it done! Strange, huh?

[Winter]

Winter, because he cant afford to bring this up to professional standards for free.

It helps incentive Winter to really work on getting the framework up to a polished, professional level

Also note, that the original offer was to make the framework available as a free download via e23, the idea to sell it came from Winter, because he cant afford to bring this up to professional standards for free.

To clear up a potential misconception, I don't want to sell the framework. My cut from any sales of framework would undoubtedly be tiny, and with the contracts, paperwork, and taxes will probably be a bigger hassle than it's worth. I'd actually prefer to keep working on the framework for free, indefinitely, as long as people were patient with the speed I can afford to work at - a update of the size I had been doing every month or two. The only reason I can't continue to do this is that the combat resolution, among other pieces, violates SJG's policy for unofficial aids.

To get around this restriction, I'd either have to license the GURPS ruleset from SJG for use in the framework or allow SJG to sell the framework themselves. I certainly can't afford any licensing fees. So I've asked about letting SJG sell the framework. Given my other commitments, it will be a stretch for me to make a "polished, professional program" in a reasonable period of time, but if they, and you all, are patient with me and any others who choose to join, we can probably make a decent program.

that official e23 distribution would mean it's possible to keep in the combat autocalculation and such in? I already kinda wanted to donate to this project, and as long as Winter is going to see profits I'm fine with a one-time payment. I do have to add, though, if the auto-calculation features were to be removed like we've discussed a bit, I would be a lot more leery of paying, as those are kind of the primary thrust of the appeal.

Absolutely we'd keep the combat autocalc in, at least if I have anything to say about it. I believe it would be absurd to do otherwise.

Here's an odd ToS question, though; does it violate any policies regarding Maptool itself to distribute a framework made with it for profit?

That's one of the questions that I have to answer before I can even make the formal proposal to SJG. Hell, I'd give MapTools a cut in a heartbeat. Trevor et. al. have done the real programming.

[Benz72]

If I believed in prayer I'd hope that Trevor and SJ can meet for coffee, decide they really like each other and have Trevor be hired as a SJG consultant (or some such) to write MT for GURPS. SInce the RP system will let you model anything, there isn't much lost by having MT be GURPS preferenced and other game capable.

I can see it now... a new type of game company SGJonline, telling really good stories with a nice framework over the web, all the background work done by the program, and everybody concentrating on the role playing instead of the game. Tweak the realism/grittiness/complexity knobs to suit a play style and the program starts including optional rules.

I wonder what 'adoption'? by a major gaming company would do to/for MT?

[Winter]

Woodman wrote with a problem with tokens some ten days ago. I'm sorry it's taken so long to get to his problem.

And i have a little problem with imported GCA2MT tokens too, if i use afflictions i cant open the character sheet in MT until i remove the affliction from the inventory and even after that i cant open the advantages window. I dont know what is getting messed up where, but i suppose its about the rather complex afflictions i entered in GCA and GCA2MT messing up the corresponding XML somehow. I'll append an example token with a problematic affliction.

[a harpy token attached]

Here's the short explanation. It appears that the harpy's Song affliction doesn't do HP damage, but some other kind of damage. Perhaps it lowers Will temporarily. Unfortunately, this framework isn't set up to handle afflictions automatically. I'm working on a "conditions" feature to allow temporary effects on various attributes, but it wasn't in any of the versions I released. You'll have to game out this sort of affliction as you would without the framework.

There are other issues with this Song affliction. The only kind of damage this framework can handle right now is HP damage. So the framework will choke when it tries to apply "Will-2" damage to a token. Secondly, either you or GCA2MT appear to have entered -1/yd in the r1maxRange section. The MT framework expects a simple number in that field, a maximum range, not a rate of some sort. There is no way in the current framework to indicate the sort of drop-off that you appear to want. Lastly, there is also no "aff mal" in the damage type dropdown, so the framework won't know how to display "aff mal" in the appropriate section, and will fail when it tries to figure out how much HP damage a wound from "aff mal" inflicts.

For afflictions, until I release a framework with a "conditions" system, I recommend you remove them from GCA before exporting to MapTool, and simply play them out as you always have. Sorry - I'm working on some sort of fix, but it isn't ready for public consumption yet.

Code: Select all

{"ID":183,"name":"Affliction","notes":"Song","quantity":1,"weight":0,"r1acc":3,"r1AD":1,"r1bulk":0,"r1damage":"Will�2","r1damageType":"aff mal","r1descr":"Song","r1maxRange":-1/yd,"r1RoF":1,"r1skill":11,"weapon":"save"}]

[Winter]

Dr. Thantos' "Knight of the Sword" token has similar problems to Woodman's harpy. Either the good Doctor Thantos or GCA2MT is creating afflictions with odd entries. The framework, unfortunately, doesn't know what "Will-2" or "HT-1" damage means, and doesn't know that the "aff mal" damage type should be handled differently from other damage types.

Code: Select all

[{"ID":493,"name":"Affliction","notes":"Banish","quantity":1,"weight":0,"r1acc":3,"r1AD":1,"r1bulk":0,"r1damage":"HT�1","r1damageType":"aff mal","r1descr":"Banish","r1maxRange":Speed/Range,"r1RoF":1,"r1skill":15,"weapon":"save"},

There's also a problem with this token's katana.

Code: Select all

 {"ID":267,"name":"Katana","notes":"Fidelacchius (Faith","quantity":1,"weight":5,"m1AD":1,"m1damage":"1d6+7","m1damageType":"cut(!","m1descr":"one-handed swing","m1maxReach":"2","m1minReach":"1","m1parryBonus":"0","m1skill":15,"m2AD":1,"m2damage":"1d6+5","m2descr":"one-handed thrust","m2maxReach":"1","m2minReach":"1","m2parryBonus":"0","m2skill":15,"weapon":"save"} ....] 

The damage type is listed as cut!( - and I'm afraid the framework will probably not know what to make of that. The values

Code: Select all

cr, cut, imp, pi-, pi, pi+, pi++, burn, tight-beam, corr 

are the only ones the framework knows how to handle.

If these affliction entries are removed within GCA and the token reexported, I'll bet the token will work as it should. Of course, the affliction will have to be played without any automation from the framework until I can figure out a good way to get afflictions working.

[Winter]

Another thought.
SJG does release a GURPS lite ruleset for free. Perhaps if the free distribution model doesn't cover any functionality beyond what they are already giving away the initial idea will be more palatable. Making a 'for profit' add on could be worked out later.

This is worth considering, Benz. I've looked at the GURPS Lite ruleset with an eye to automating it. However, I'm a little leery of spending hours developing a framework I wouldn't want to use myself. I'd rather spend the free time I have on improving the existing framework.

That's just me, though. Would many people be interested in a GURPS Lite framework? Maybe in a few months, I could gut the existing framework, and rebuild it for GURPS Lite.

[Doctor Thantos]

Winter,

I wasn't so worried about the automation so much as having it just appear in the character sheet in MT. That feature rocks and really helps me keep straight what the various NPCs' can do. (Its a high point game so there are a lot of unusual abilities.)The potential of the framework is awesome please keep up the good work.

Thanks for figuring that out, I will adjust the file accordingly.

Doctor Thantos

PS. The cut(!) is from the armor divisor enhancemet. GCA put that there when I selected armor divisor enhancement, ignores armor. I can remove it, but will it work for the other armor divisor enhancements?

[Woodman]

For afflictions, until I release a framework with a "conditions" system, I recommend you remove them from GCA before exporting to MapTool, and simply play them out as you always have. Sorry - I'm working on some sort of fix, but it isn't ready for public consumption yet.

I actually didn't expect the Afflicts to really work, but i was surprised that it broke things. Maybe a function to detect stuff that won't work and makes the framework ignore it would be helpful. as for Afflictions themselves, i think it would be enough to resolve the actual hitting and ideally the resistance roll, as the effects can be so wildly different i doubt a computer could reasonably resolve them properly.
So keep up the good work, and i hope some kind of resolution about the licensing stuff soon comes up.