4th Age

Game development hub. Projects, modding, and resources.
Post Reply
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

4th Age

Post by J1M »

In the interest of healthy competition, I am starting a project that is the opposite of Preacher's in every way: inspired by D&D 4e, digital, single-player, smaller scope.

Scope will be limited to increase the chances of reaching a playable state before losing interest. :lol:
  • 3 jobs
  • 3 races
  • 10 levels
Wizards recently stated that they plan to put older versions of D&D under more permissible licenses, but until that happens I will stick to implementing the game mechanics.

The first feature to tackle will be the character creator with in-game codex.

Technical choices:
  • Godot v4
  • C# scripting
  • T4 templating to generate static classes
Last edited by J1M on April 29th, 2023, 02:45, edited 1 time in total.
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

Best of luck to you in your endeavor. :bounce:

You don't need a license to use Generic Fantasy Superhero RPG the Fourth Shatting. Just as long as you don't call it D&D 4E, use their IP, etc.. you're fine. Why give them power over something they lack the legal standing to own?
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

MadPreacher wrote: February 25th, 2023, 23:19
Best of luck to you in your endeavor. :bounce:

You don't need a license to use Generic Fantasy Superhero RPG the Fourth Shatting. Just as long as you don't call it D&D 4E, use their IP, etc.. you're fine. Why give them power over something they lack the legal standing to own?
It would be a helpful marketing tool.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

One thing that bothers me about other character creators is that you have to select options in a specific (and usually dumb) order. Not the case here.

The codex is generated by T4 templates which generate links to other entries automatically. No real content there yet.

Visual style will change later, this is just the default Godot 4 theme.

Image
Last edited by J1M on April 29th, 2023, 02:42, edited 1 time in total.
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

J1M wrote: February 26th, 2023, 02:53
MadPreacher wrote: February 25th, 2023, 23:19
Best of luck to you in your endeavor. :bounce:

You don't need a license to use Generic Fantasy Superhero RPG the Fourth Shatting. Just as long as you don't call it D&D 4E, use their IP, etc.. you're fine. Why give them power over something they lack the legal standing to own?
It would be a helpful marketing tool.
You can't use their logos or IP in marketing your game. It even says so in the OGL for it.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co‐adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
OGL

So tell me again why you want to use something that gives control over your product to them that they have no legal control over?
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

MadPreacher wrote: February 26th, 2023, 10:41
J1M wrote: February 26th, 2023, 02:53
MadPreacher wrote: February 25th, 2023, 23:19
Best of luck to you in your endeavor. :bounce:

You don't need a license to use Generic Fantasy Superhero RPG the Fourth Shatting. Just as long as you don't call it D&D 4E, use their IP, etc.. you're fine. Why give them power over something they lack the legal standing to own?
It would be a helpful marketing tool.
You can't use their logos or IP in marketing your game. It even says so in the OGL for it.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co‐adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
OGL

So tell me again why you want to use something that gives control over your product to them that they have no legal control over?
I don't want to make that the focus of this thread, but I would be interested in your thoughts when the project is further along and we see what Wizards does for 4e.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

Not much visual progress to show. I added the ability for a character building choice to create additional choices.

Currently in the middle of overhauling how stat modifiers are handled so they do/don't stack correctly based on type and source.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

I removed the temporary code in the character sheet that was assisting with presenting sensible numbers. Now everything is driven off of the generic algorithm. It's not optimized, but I suppose I could share it if people are interested in how goofy the steps are when you get into typed vs. untyped bonuses and overlapping game elements.

I also found it interesting that a character is comprised of only ~25 choices by level 10.

Image

Image

Image
Last edited by J1M on April 29th, 2023, 02:44, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

Was playing Solasta for "research". A shame how much that game does right only to be saddled with 5e combat. It also left me with the impression that the game would be better with skills and crafting deleted.

Skills like heal or lockpicking are completely replaced by low level spells. Crafting fills the inventory with so much garbage that it would be better to just find an item instead of a recipe.

I suppose that stealth and perception checks are the most sophisticated skill interactions, with the consequence of enabling easy long range sneak attacks and surprise rounds. Both of which are questionable as to whether or not they are exploits.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

I translated a Godot 3.5 GDScript tutorial for grid movement into C# for Godot 4.0. Will need a lot of enhancements for 4e to handle reaction abilities that trigger on movement, but it's nice the engine has an implementation of the A* algorithm.

At some point I should learn more about stable diffusion to have nicer placeholders.

Other things on the todo list: diagonal movement and the ability to set waypoints to avoid hazards or intentionally trigger opportunity attacks.

Image

Image
Last edited by J1M on April 29th, 2023, 02:44, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tweed
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1504
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by Tweed »

I feel like this project was made specifically to troll @MadPreacher
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

Not much to show visually today. I am converting some data types to take advantage of Godot's built-in serialization and editor integration for custom Resources.
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

Tweed wrote: April 17th, 2023, 17:53
I feel like this project was made specifically to troll @MadPreacher
I don't see why. @J1M is doing his own thing and I support that. I just happen to hate DANDINO the Fourth Shitting.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

It took discarding a couple of attempts, but I am happy with how I have implemented the stat calculations now.

Due to the complexity of how stats do/do not stack, each bonus needs to contain four pieces of data:
  • the stat to modify (dungeoneering score, max HP)
  • the numerical value (+2)
  • the bonus type (enhancement, untyped, etc)
  • a unique id for the game element (specific power, feature, etc)
A record struct initially seemed like a good choice for this data. Unfortunately, Godot's native way of serialization via Resource objects is not compatible with structs. It is limited to basic types and basic collections.

By introducing additional complexity I could probably pack the four fields into 64 bits and use an integer plus some static extension methods, but I think I will wait for Godot to support .NET 7 to do that, which has a 128 bit integer, or for Godot to serialize structs.

Thought I would share a useful tip for creating a typed id that can be used in this situation.

Code: Select all

//Intentionally defined with no constants
public enum ExampleId : ushort { }
Since the enum keyword indicates an integer with some compiler protection and reflection helpers, Godot Resources can export it by treating it as an integer and you get the benefits of some type safety.

Code: Select all

[Export] public required ExampleId Id { get; set; }
For reference:
Image
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1856
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

Whoah, not sure how I missed this thread before. This is absolutely the ideal use-case for the D&D 4e ruleset. I even remember thinking about running the tabletop version with one player controlling a whole party just to use it as a tactics game. I'm honestly shocked that no one has attmepted this before. I don't have any code advice for you but I'm eager to see how far you take this project.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

Serialization is working in a way I'm happy with now.

Here's a screenshot of the Effects panel, which shows all of the modifiers on a character. It's mostly for debugging, but with some enhancements to the presentation it might stay as something visible to players:

Image
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1856
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

Are you still working on this, @J1M? I've been thinking again lately about which tabletop RPGs would make for good skirmish games out of the box, so of course I immediately remembered your project. The Lancer one I tried seemed promising but was too filled with disgusting liberalisms.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

WhiteShark wrote: July 26th, 2023, 03:52
Are you still working on this, @J1M? I've been thinking again lately about which tabletop RPGs would make for good skirmish games out of the box, so of course I immediately remembered your project. The Lancer one I tried seemed promising but was too filled with disgusting liberalisms.
Thanks for the encouragement. :D

I haven't provided any updates because I took a break from this during summer vacation and I don't have anything visual to share. (Working on item data.)

I will check out Lancer. Might be useful as motivation to target feature parity with another indie project.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

@WhiteShark

After sinking a month into Baldur's Gate 3, I think my goals with this project should be different. The amount of content in BG3 is overwhelming and it does a lot of things pretty well. But playing it makes me wish all of the time I spent in the game was rewarded with some memorable challenges. Haven't fought a dragon yet, for example.

What I would like to know is if the interest in this project comes from a desire for a "4e Neverwinter Nights" or if it is more about seeing the 4e combat system in a digital format. Let me know what you think about this more radical approach.
  • 4e starting point for the math
  • XCOM game structure, select mission, upgrade base of operations
  • Missions encompass a series of encounters that represent an adventuring day
  • Long rests are not a game mechanic
  • Short rests are automatic, as is consumption of persistent resources like healing surges
  • Consumables spoil after a mission, use em or lose em
  • Focus on hunting monsters, not killing level 9 pickpockets
  • Missions involve being given a specific team of pre-built characters or a limited set of pre-built characters to choose from (can design more interesting encounters this way)
  • Characters have defined advancement
  • These restrictions allow players to explore more of the combat system than they would normally see and experience things like parties that significantly diverge from Fighter/Thief/Cleric/Wizard
  • Characters have no backstory or childhood trauma quests
  • Equipment in the form of unlocked options, no stash to manage
  • No skills or skill checks (traps in the form of a drain on persistent resources or 4e-style encounter traps)
User avatar
Acrux
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1831
Joined: Feb 8, '23

Post by Acrux »

I'm obviously WhiteShark, but I've been interested in this project as well. Here are my thoughts:
  • 4e starting point for the math
    Taken as a given.
  • XCOM game structure, select mission, upgrade base of operations
    Theoretically sounds good.
  • Missions encompass a series of encounters that represent an adventuring day
    I'm assuming this means, say, 3 encounters would be a single mission. Would there be "mission chains" that build off of previous missions/encounters? Are there any choices the player can make that might make a future mission play out differently/have different encounters?
  • Long rests are not a game mechanic
    Does this mean that any abilities tied to long rests are "one use per mission" or that they wouldn't exist at all?
  • Short rests are automatic, as is consumption of persistent resources like healing surges
    I don't like the automatic use of healing surges, but I can see why you'd suggest that for streamlining. I'm not sure what other persistent resources there are in 4e, but this seems like you're taking some risk/reward incentives away from the player.
  • Consumables spoil after a mission, use em or lose em
    How does a player get consumables? Do they purchase them before each mission? Are they tied to a single character or to the group? If I buy a healing potion or a fighter buys enlarge person - it's just gone? I usually don't like these kinds of systems as they feel to "gamey" rather than simulationist. But, as an alternative, Fell Seal handles consumables as items that can be used a set number of times every battle. So, the player can purchase a (say) healing potion slot usable one time in every battle. You can upgrade the number of slots (uses) over time.
  • Focus on hunting monsters, not killing level 9 pickpockets
    I'm not sure what this means. Just that monsters are the most common enemy?
  • Missions involve being given a specific team of pre-built characters or a limited set of pre-built characters to choose from (can design more interesting encounters this way)
    I would not like this. I'd much rather create my own character.
  • Characters have defined advancement
    As above, I wouldn't care for this. Isn't most of the fun in an RPG (and even most tactical games now) getting to develop your character?
  • These restrictions allow players to explore more of the combat system than they would normally see and experience things like parties that significantly diverge from Fighter/Thief/Cleric/Wizard
    I think you'd find players would already create really diverse parties, or try things like all fighter parties, solo-ing, etc. That's what already happens now in most games.
  • Characters have no backstory or childhood trauma quests
    Great!
  • Equipment in the form of unlocked options, no stash to manage
    Personally, I like individual inventories. I know that's not what's in favor these days.
  • No skills or skill checks (traps in the form of a drain on persistent resources or 4e-style encounter traps)
    I'd be very disappointed if there weren't skills and skill checks. Most of these suggestions sound like taking out most of the RPG for a tactical combat simulator with limited character options. Those already exist as a dime a dozen.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1856
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

I'm obviously Acrux, so here's what I think.
J1M wrote: September 3rd, 2023, 17:03
What I would like to know is if the interest in this project comes from a desire for a "4e Neverwinter Nights" or if it is more about seeing the 4e combat system in a digital format. Let me know what you think about this more radical approach.
I definitely lean toward the latter simply because that's where 4E shines. The combat system works the best with carefully crafted encounters and set pieces more or less tailored to the party. I don't think it's very compatible with a more freeform approach. To be honest, a lot of this is essentially what I thought you were doing already.
  • 4e starting point for the math
  • XCOM game structure, select mission, upgrade base of operations
  • Missions encompass a series of encounters that represent an adventuring day
  • Long rests are not a game mechanic
This all sounds good.
  • Short rests are automatic, as is consumption of persistent resources like healing surges
I remember not whether there's some reason to save healing surges for in-combat use. If there is, their consumption should be a choice (though a button to quickly use as many as is optimal betwen fights would be welcome).
  • Consumables spoil after a mission, use em or lose em
This could work. I also like the idea of Fell Seal's refilling slots system which WhiteShark recommended above. Both work to encourage the player to actually use consumables.
  • Focus on hunting monsters, not killing level 9 pickpockets
Yes please. Everyday enemies that are level bloated purely for the sake of challenge feel completely absurd.
  • Missions involve being given a specific team of pre-built characters or a limited set of pre-built characters to choose from (can design more interesting encounters this way)
  • Characters have defined advancement
Not a fan of these. Builds are one of 4E's big draws and the system mastery required to make a good one is a core skill. I wouldn't mind recruiting prebuilt characters as defaults or extra henchmen or something, but as the player I would want the freedom to customize my party.
  • These restrictions allow players to explore more of the combat system than they would normally see and experience things like parties that significantly diverge from Fighter/Thief/Cleric/Wizard
Instead, if you want to force the player to branch out, you could make side missions that place certain restrictions on the party you can bring. Wizardry did that with the alignment doors. I think that would be accomplish your goal without taking all character building out of the hands of the player.
  • Characters have no backstory or childhood trauma quests
If characters are customizable, I'm totally fine with this. If managing a roster of fixed prebuilt characters as you suggest above, I think it may be better for them to have a little personality—though childhood trauma is not necessary. Customization automatically makes me invested, so without that, I would need something else to make me care.
  • Equipment in the form of unlocked options, no stash to manage
This could be... alright, I guess, though I don't really see the advantage. It sounds like two different ways to represent the same thing, except the former is more abstracted for reasons I don't understand. If this means that each piece of equipment is stuck with one character, I'm against it. In theory, though rare, I can imagine scenarios where one might wish to swap equipment around.
  • No skills or skill checks (traps in the form of a drain on persistent resources or 4e-style encounter traps)
I think retaining skills were better. A lot of the structure you describe reminds me of the Shadowrun trilogy: mission-based, central hub, combat-focused, fixed roster, etc. I enjoyed the way skills let me tackle missions differently in those. Plus, some skills have potential in-combat uses (Athletics, Stealth), so I don't see a clean way to remove them entirely.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

Thanks for the feedback! Responses inline.
Acrux wrote: September 3rd, 2023, 18:00
I'm obviously WhiteShark, but I've been interested in this project as well. Here are my thoughts:
  • 4e starting point for the math
    Taken as a given.
  • XCOM game structure, select mission, upgrade base of operations
    Theoretically sounds good.
  • Missions encompass a series of encounters that represent an adventuring day
    I'm assuming this means, say, 3 encounters would be a single mission. Would there be "mission chains" that build off of previous missions/encounters? Are there any choices the player can make that might make a future mission play out differently/have different encounters?
    There would be mission chains, yes. Current thinking is not to lock missions based on choices. But if you focus on recruiting Rangers and Warlords, you won't have any progress in other areas, such as unlocking equipment.
  • Long rests are not a game mechanic
    Does this mean that any abilities tied to long rests are "one use per mission" or that they wouldn't exist at all?
    One use per mission.
  • Short rests are automatic, as is consumption of persistent resources like healing surges
    I don't like the automatic use of healing surges, but I can see why you'd suggest that for streamlining. I'm not sure what other persistent resources there are in 4e, but this seems like you're taking some risk/reward incentives away from the player.
    Correct, I want to increase the challenge in tactical combat. Removing skill and decisions that can snowball outside that helps. Consumable stockpiles are another example.
  • Consumables spoil after a mission, use em or lose em
    How does a player get consumables? Do they purchase them before each mission? Are they tied to a single character or to the group? If I buy a healing potion or a fighter buys enlarge person - it's just gone? I usually don't like these kinds of systems as they feel to "gamey" rather than simulationist. But, as an alternative, Fell Seal handles consumables as items that can be used a set number of times every battle. So, the player can purchase a (say) healing potion slot usable one time in every battle. You can upgrade the number of slots (uses) over time.
    Equipment and consumables would be part of the 'kit' provided in the mission parameters. Some missions might offer a choice of consumable kits.
  • Focus on hunting monsters, not killing level 9 pickpockets
    I'm not sure what this means. Just that monsters are the most common enemy?
    I think it is more fun to fight enemies with immunities and vulnerabilities than humanoids.
  • Missions involve being given a specific team of pre-built characters or a limited set of pre-built characters to choose from (can design more interesting encounters this way)
    I would not like this. I'd much rather create my own character.
    Would this preference be met if you could only build one character? What if the character you owned was more of an "officer" that participated in the mission less directly? The reason I ask is because custom characters directly clash with the design goal of pushing the limits of challenging encounters.
  • Characters have defined advancement
    As above, I wouldn't care for this. Isn't most of the fun in an RPG (and even most tactical games now) getting to develop your character?
    I really enjoy character building and breaking game systems. But I think something is lost if a boss goes down like a bitch in round 1 to a flurry of crossbow bolts and every other encounter can be solved with the same configuration.
  • These restrictions allow players to explore more of the combat system than they would normally see and experience things like parties that significantly diverge from Fighter/Thief/Cleric/Wizard
    I think you'd find players would already create really diverse parties, or try things like all fighter parties, solo-ing, etc. That's what already happens now in most games.
    I strongly disagree. Most games assume a party so small that you can't even double up on a role and they certainly don't build encounters designed to challenge a wide variety of parties like that.
    I understand where you are coming from. It is fun to build a custom party. The element I find missing is enough challenge that would force you to modify that party. Or at least your tactics. I want a dungeon so infested with undead that Turn Undead is pivotal. I want antimagic zones and rust monsters and dire situations where you consider sacrificing a party member so the others can survive.
  • Characters have no backstory or childhood trauma quests
    Great!
  • Equipment in the form of unlocked options, no stash to manage
    Personally, I like individual inventories. I know that's not what's in favor these days.
  • No skills or skill checks (traps in the form of a drain on persistent resources or 4e-style encounter traps)
    I'd be very disappointed if there weren't skills and skill checks. Most of these suggestions sound like taking out most of the RPG for a tactical combat simulator with limited character options. Those already exist as a dime a dozen.
    Yes, the scope would be tightly focused on the tactical combat. Which part of skill checks do you enjoy? In my experience, they mostly just force me to put a lockpicker in the party and use a charismatic character class. There is never better or more interesting content for failing a check. Passing them is assumed.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

@WhiteShark @Acrux

Thanks for the clear feedback on custom characters. I was thinking of the customization coming in at the party level rather than the character. With maybe custom characters usable for optional max level challenges. But it's clear that would be poorly received.

I think there's still room for missions with preset characters, but the primary mission chains should be a place to demonstrate mastery rather than 'puzzle' encounters.

The biggest design challenge will be training the player to try a mission again with a different party configuration.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

@WhiteShark

Sorry to say, but I paused work on this. Playing BG3 sapped my motivation for D&D combat.
User avatar
Acrux
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1831
Joined: Feb 8, '23

Post by Acrux »

Another addition to the long list of evils that game has wrought.
Post Reply