Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Framework(s) for D&D 4e, including Veggiesama's.

Moderators: dorpond, trevor, Azhrei, giliath, Gamerdude, jay, Mr.Ice

User avatar
Ghiolekk
Giant
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Ghiolekk »

Rumble wrote:I think it was disabled in later builds based on user feedback; now only the GM can see NPC output. I can't look at the code to see what the situation is, though. Is this an NPC being controlled by the GM, or by you as a player (because if the latter, I'd just change it to a PC token type).


I am the Gm and I want the NPC's hit texts or effect texts to be visible by my players. But if this is a time consuming matter for you to look upon codes and stuff then don't even bother Rumble. It is not something that is 100% important to be there, though sometimes it is quite useful as the NPC output hit/effect text works as a reminder of aftereffects, failed saves, flavour texts, and other circumstances a power can do and cannot be described simply as a state (e.g. Dazed save ends). So tbh except for GM:Attack / Damage encrypted data I cant realy see the reason the user feedback for enabling only the GM to see the NPC output.

User avatar
Rumble
Deity
Posts: 6235
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Rumble »

Ghiolekk wrote:I am the Gm and I want the NPC's hit texts or effect texts to be visible by my players. But if this is a time consuming matter for you to look upon codes and stuff then don't even bother Rumble. It is not something that is 100% important to be there, though sometimes it is quite useful as the NPC output hit/effect text works as a reminder of aftereffects, failed saves, flavour texts, and other circumstances a power can do and cannot be described simply as a state (e.g. Dazed save ends). So tbh except for GM:Attack / Damage encrypted data I cant realy see the reason the user feedback for enabling only the GM to see the NPC output.


Okay, just wanted to make sure I understood the question.

I don't remember the exact feedback, but it was generally "We don't want the players to see anything about the monsters." Code wise, it's not that big a deal - I think it's a matter of changing one or two if statements.

User avatar
Ghiolekk
Giant
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Ghiolekk »

Rumble wrote:
Ghiolekk wrote:I am the Gm and I want the NPC's hit texts or effect texts to be visible by my players. But if this is a time consuming matter for you to look upon codes and stuff then don't even bother Rumble. It is not something that is 100% important to be there, though sometimes it is quite useful as the NPC output hit/effect text works as a reminder of aftereffects, failed saves, flavour texts, and other circumstances a power can do and cannot be described simply as a state (e.g. Dazed save ends). So tbh except for GM:Attack / Damage encrypted data I cant realy see the reason the user feedback for enabling only the GM to see the NPC output.


Okay, just wanted to make sure I understood the question.

I don't remember the exact feedback, but it was generally "We don't want the players to see anything about the monsters." Code wise, it's not that big a deal - I think it's a matter of changing one or two if statements.


Thank you very much for the instant replies :P
If there are only one or two "if" statements in the code I would be more than happy to implement them on my running campaign. And ofc no need for you to make any change in the original 5.11. Thnx again for your understanding.
P.S. Flavor text is visible to players... hehehe :twisted:

User avatar
Rumble
Deity
Posts: 6235
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Rumble »

But flavor text is flavor!

Anyway, yes, it's pretty simple to change. If you go to the macro AttackPost on Lib:4e, you'll see a section that begins with:

Code: Select all

[r,if(isPC()),CODE:
{
[r:if(getProperty("rfw.hitCount")>0 && hitEff !="--none--" && hitEff != 0, "<b>Hit</b>: "+hitEff+"<br>", "")]


That's the if check that determines what to display. If you read down, you'll see in the second half of the IF (the false side), all of the lines say

Code: Select all

[g,r:


at the beginning. If you just remove the g, from each of those, that information will display to everyone too. You are of course free to completely reformulate the if statement as well, but the quickest - even if least efficient - way to make that stuff display is removing the g, from those lines.

User avatar
Hawke
Great Wyrm
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Contact:

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Hawke »

Excellent! Thanks, that will help me out, too. I think I might be maybe 2-3 versions behind official, do you imagine the change would work for me too? (one more session before we upgrade, don't wanna ruin momentum)

User avatar
Rumble
Deity
Posts: 6235
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Rumble »

Hawke wrote:Excellent! Thanks, that will help me out, too. I think I might be maybe 2-3 versions behind official, do you imagine the change would work for me too? (one more session before we upgrade, don't wanna ruin momentum)


That probably hasn't changed for a while, so I expect you'd be fine.

paulstrait
Dragon
Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by paulstrait »

Can someone who uses this fw speak to the question of how quickly it works once it is being used properly? It was terribly slow for us in our first session, but a big part of that is that a bunch of macros were screwed up b/c it was our first time using it, and also people were just getting the hang of how to use it.

We've been using veg for levels 1-20, but now that epic has started, I wanted to make a switch so I could take advantage of parsing. I'm trying to decide between v5 and slim, and I know that v5 is laggy, so the main question is whether the extra time it adds due to lag is smaller than the time it saves via its automation.

The fact that rumble prefers slim to v5 strongly suggests that on balance, slim might be the best way to go.. but for people who just use v5, and especially from people who have used both and can speak to the relative difference, how fast does it go once its being used properly? How long does it take on average to get through a round of combat with 5 PCs and 5 NPCs?

User avatar
Ghiolekk
Giant
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Ghiolekk »

paulstrait wrote:Can someone who uses this fw speak to the question of how quickly it works once it is being used properly? It was terribly slow for us in our first session, but a big part of that is that a bunch of macros were screwed up b/c it was our first time using it, and also people were just getting the hang of how to use it.


No I can reassure that is not that slow or laggy. There is a certain delay but it is not a disappointing one and game halting. You will experience the greatest of delayys if you try to move a lot of tokens at the same time, especially those with many macros built in them. Also you will get some delay around 2-5 secs or even a bit more across all your players if you execute a macro that has multiple targets, damage expressions and conditions. Nevertheless, the framework talking only for v5 is a stable one and the parsing is done remarkably well. Trust me you will experience no DM's brainwash after 4-6 h of continuous hacking and slashing.

paulstrait wrote: We've been using veg for levels 1-20, but now that epic has started, I wanted to make a switch so I could take advantage of parsing. I'm trying to decide between v5 and slim, and I know that v5 is laggy, so the main question is whether the extra time it adds due to lag is smaller than the time it saves via its automation.


Cant really answer what is the difference between slim and heavy one but u can certainly try out some of the epic tokens that are in the library for v5 one.

paulstrait wrote:How long does it take on average to get through a round of combat with 5 PCs and 5 NPCs?

On average ?!?! Well I think you are pretty experienced as you run Epic tier campaign as to answer this question. You cannot calculate the incalculable :mrgreen:
Have a nice playtime with Rumble. Automation wins everything.

User avatar
AidyBaby
Dragon
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by AidyBaby »

I run Rumble's v5 full framework every week and I don't notice much in the way of delays or laggyness. I ran the slim version for a while but whilst I loved the appearance, the tracking of states and general better automation forced me back to the full version. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either.

-- AidyBaby --
D&D qualities are related inversely to those of Poker... and I love both.
http://www.yorkpoker.co.uk

User avatar
Hawke
Great Wyrm
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Contact:

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Hawke »

Definitely slow in the sense that whenever someone uses an attack power it will show up on their screen very quickly, but everyone else it takes 5 or so seconds to pop up. Initially we were a bit bummed by the slowness, but it's actually turned out to be a boon - it lets the player who ran the macro narrate what happened before the "crunch" of the numbers shows up on the screen.

As mentioned before, though, the slim is much faster if you're looking for speed.

Edit: reduced my exaggerated time estimate :P
Last edited by Hawke on Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kyuss11
Giant
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:12 am

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by kyuss11 »

Rumble's framework is not laggy and in our game the results actually appear very quickly with-in a few seconds.Like what was mentioned before,the only things that lag for what it actually 7 seconds"Tested" is multiple tokens selected and then a macro like EXT. REST being applied to them.I will say that lag that is experienced in the game,is possibly more due to one of you players having a bad or slow connection,computer etc.Rumble's framework has a slight learning curve to get all the functions and powers to work smooth,but battles in my game with 6 players-6 enemies take only about 30-40 minutes to play.My players and I also have learned the framework and understand by having Tech sessions what and what not the framework will cover and calculate.Sorry if I seem defensive,but Rumble's framework is the best system for 4e in maptools when it comes to the micro-managing and frankly what the whole point to a framework is suppose to be. :D

User avatar
AidyBaby
Dragon
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by AidyBaby »

kyuss11 wrote:Rumble's framework is not laggy and in our game the results actually appear very quickly with-in a few seconds.Like what was mentioned before,the only things that lag for what it actually 7 seconds"Tested" is multiple tokens selected and then a macro like EXT. REST being applied to them.


Yep, I agree. Using extended rest with the full party selected is slow. It's actually quicker to do each token individually! Not sure why, in general, it's slower for other people but I definitely do not experience this.

-- AidyBaby --
D&D qualities are related inversely to those of Poker... and I love both.
http://www.yorkpoker.co.uk

User avatar
Ghiolekk
Giant
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Ghiolekk »

AidyBaby wrote:
kyuss11 wrote:Rumble's framework is not laggy and in our game the results actually appear very quickly with-in a few seconds.Like what was mentioned before,the only things that lag for what it actually 7 seconds"Tested" is multiple tokens selected and then a macro like EXT. REST being applied to them.


Yep, I agree. Using extended rest with the full party selected is slow. It's actually quicker to do each token individually! Not sure why, in general, it's slower for other people but I definitely do not experience this.

-- AidyBaby --


Totally agree. I grant EXT RESTS and SHORT RESTS in each token individually.
I never move multiple PC tokens across big map areas. Best is to simply cut and paste them.
I always use a hotkey for End Turn macro.
I rarely load a handout in a token or whatsoever. Best thing is to use the Tables panel. Works like a charm into showing players handouts pictures etc etc. All the other campaign information and features of the area are in a special token.
Cant recall now other tricks of the trade concerning speed performance :roll:

Longshot
Cave Troll
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:59 am
Location: Honolulu, Hi.

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by Longshot »

paulstrait wrote:Can someone who uses this fw speak to the question of how quickly it works once it is being used properly?


I use this framework for in-person play. We have a laptop capable of average performance (hooked up to a big flatscreen TV) in the room running off a wireless connection, and there is barely a second between my clicks and a reaction. What this means to me is that any slowdown after that is due to the internet. Though, yes, intereact with tokens individually for better response times.

magnavox
Kobold
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:59 pm

Re: Rumble's 4E Framework, Version 5 - Discussion

Post by magnavox »

I've noticed as I've started building tokens with their powers that now I'm getting a lot of errors like this:

Error executing "switchToken": the token name or id "Torgarr" is unknown.

Torgarr is in this case another player token. It's not a case of a single power generating this error. In this case it was pressing the End Turn macro. For more oddity, Torgarr is not the next token up on the initiative, but the initiative won't pass on to the next token in any case, due I'm assuming because the end turn macro failed to execute properly.

Other powers are also failing with this error. I haven't altered any of the campaign macros and I've found if I export (some of) the tokens and then import them into a new campaign things seem to work (for now) but I'd like to know how to fix this if it comes up in play.

as a related issue, I also noted that the condition tracking and removal functions tied to the initiative order also didn't seem to be working correctly. Possibly due to my errors in building a couple powers that applied conditions.

On another subject. Is there a discussion topic with advice on how to properly build powers for this framework that I missed? I could use a hand with the logic for some of these powers. The basic powers that just cause damage are easy. Some of the leader roll powers that apply multiple buffs and debuffs to allies and enemies can get a little daunting, and hard to troubleshoot, particularly since they seem to break the campaign if I get them wrong :(

Post Reply

Return to “D&D 4e Frameworks”