I am not here to debate the merits of 4th Edition D&D. From what I can glean, it has its good points and its bad points. Mostly what I've heard is that the good points are in the system and the bad points are in the business. I imagine that this is what drove Paizo to Pathfinder RPG. Actually, I'm excited about both of these new offereings.
My question is about the virtual gametable portion of DDI. Again, from what I hear, it is system agnostic. Its advertising points include the idea of gaming with your old group a time zone away. While it not the first solution for this, with WoTC behind it, it could become a de facto standard. Of course, with WoTC behind it, it could also price itself out of business.
Let's be optimistic and assume the former. The last time I asked about this, Paizo knew very little about this tabletop. Based on the fact that the game license for 4th edition itself would not be released for months at that point, I am not surprised (though I was then). I suspect that WoTC has been too busy with 4E launch stuff to prime to pipeline for DDI extras with 3rd parties, but one can hope.
So, after much preamble, my question is this, does Paizo intend to support its products with DDI virtual tableop representations of the maps and/or avatars?
I could extend this question beyond DDI. I notice that Paizo is providing data sets for RPGXplorer Characters and Rules. What about the RPGXplorer GM Tools that is supposed to be coming out?
I notice that Paizo is providing data sets for RPGXplorer Characters and Rules. What about the RPGXplorer GM Tools that is supposed to be coming out?
From my understanding, Paizo granted permission for the RPGX guys to provide datasets. They didn't actually do up the datasets themselves. (If memory serves, one of the RPGX users made up the actual datasets).
|
I think a better question is whether WotC intends to allow the D&DI databases, which are all going to be on a corporate server, and which are going to be programmed with 4E rules and information, to be open to third party rules insertions and graphics additions.
If the maps can be programmed using the available tiles there is likely to be a way to import them. I would not expect custom graphics to be possible.
I would definitely not expect it to be open to having non-4E rules material added.
I think a better question is whether WotC intends to allow the D&DI databases, which are all going to be on a corporate server, and which are going to be programmed with 4E rules and information, to be open to third party rules insertions and graphics additions.
If the maps can be programmed using the available tiles there is likely to be a way to import them. I would not expect custom graphics to be possible.
I would definitely not expect it to be open to having non-4E rules material added.
If you mean to imply that the table will adjudicate any rules, I believe you are wrong on this. If you mean that you probably can't add in your own rules for referencing/character creation ... I'll say you're probably right. At one point I think I saw designers comment on how the DDI will deal with people who use house rules in their games, and I think they said there would be a way to host a certain number of files if you're a subscriber. So much has changed (and continues to do so!) with the DDI though, that this idea may have been abandoned some time ago.
Cheers! :)
|
|
If you mean to imply that the table will adjudicate any rules, I believe you are wrong on this.
No, I mean to question whether the programming will allow any non-4E rules to be added to the database.
If you mean that you probably can't add in your own rules for referencing/character creation ... I'll say you're probably right. At one point I think I saw designers comment on how the DDI will deal with people who use house rules in their games, and I think they said there would be a way to host a certain number of files if you're a subscriber. So much has changed (and continues to do so!) with the DDI though, that this idea may have been abandoned some time ago.
Cheers! :)
I would go further than that and suggest that is a reason for the delay of the GSL. They need to make it clear that non-WotC material will not be added to the database by WotC, so creating any of it is useless for a GSL publisher. If they do it, that creature or adventure will not be compatible with the D&DI, and they cannot present it as such to players.
One of the posters over at ENWorld managed to interview some of the designers and got some pretty good information. I'll provide a link in a second, but the pertinent piece of info from the interview isNo, I mean to question whether the programming will allow any non-4E rules to be added to the database.
I would go further than that and suggest that is a reason for the delay of the GSL. They need to make it clear that non-WotC material will not be added to the database by WotC, so creating any of it is useless for a GSL publisher. If they do it, that creature or adventure will not be compatible with the D&DI, and they cannot present it as such to players.
The character generation looks to have some interesting aspects to it. To start, one of the things they pointed out was that it will flag any ‘illegal’ use even if it allows it. This would be perfect for quickly rooting out characters not suitable for RPGA play, but also useful for players who are using house rules. You may be breaking the rules, but if that’s your rule zero, the game will allow it.
If you're interested in 4E, it might be worth reading the whole thing of course. You can, here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=223866
As to your suspicion, I don't really know. It could be, but I suspect something else. Perhaps a more closed licensing scheme? Only time will tell.
Cheers! :)
|
If you're interested in 4E, it might be worth reading the whole thing of course. You can, here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=223866
Linkified for you point-and-clickers.
Good to see you are still about, David!
Linkified for you point-and-clickers.
Good to see you are still about, David!
I took a break from these boards for a few weeks after Paizo's descision but I still like you guys over here, and ended up wandering back. Thanks for the linking, I had meant to but completely forgot!
Oops! :)