[necro] d20 Fallout [Archive]

Keefe the Thief

06-21-2006, 10:47 PM

A new monster is in town, the Glutton Creeper, and like Santa, he has games.

Glutton Creeper Games is just not d20 role-playing games; we are a tabletop game creation company and will bring you into the next evolution of tabletop gaming. Spread the word to all of your friends, foes, and people you don’t know, that the Glutton Creeper is on the scene.

I hope, for all the people who love fallout, that the guy who writes their marketing sprech is not allowed to write parts of the game. ;) When a new company talks about bringing "the next evolution of tabletop gaming", the words WHATSON silently creep into my brain... Eh.

Anyway, i hope it works. Fallout should get a decent conversion, even it always swam in the same pond as Gamma World.

And did anyone notice that they plan to do a Monkey Island game?

Edit: And did anyone notice this:
Fallout Pen and Paper: Players Guide is copyright © 2006 Glutton Creeper Games.
The book is going to be called "Fallout Pen and Paper: Players Guide"? What name for a book is that?

Piestrio

06-21-2006, 10:49 PM

This could be VERY cool (and let's face it I'll buy it no matter what), but with two very good post-apoc games out now that cater to two very diiferent tastes (GW and DW) I don't know how well this will do.

Piestrio

Asmodai

06-21-2006, 11:02 PM

It could be very good.

The site looks very amateurish.

Has anyone read any of their previous products?

From what I've seen, it looks like this will be a massive step up - especially if they want to have competitive art and production values.

philreed

06-22-2006, 03:58 AM

Pip

06-22-2006, 04:24 AM

When a new company talks about bringing "the next evolution of tabletop gaming", the words WHATSON silently creep into my brain... Eh.

The words that spring to my mind are IMAGINE and WRAETHTHU.

Jim Bob

06-22-2006, 04:30 AM

Overall it looks like a situation in which money is available but experience is lacking.
Their whole interaction with freelancers, from hiring to editing to payment issues will be very interesting to see :D

Radical Authority

06-22-2006, 04:38 AM

Black text on dark grey background, yay.

Then, out of nowhere - neon pink email addresses!

Nearly blinded me...

On the topic - Fallout is a great setting, and d20 could be a reasonable fit, with escalating hit points and feats being part of the game. Character classes might present more of a problem.

RA

ragnarok

06-22-2006, 04:38 AM

Not much to add to the discussion, just wanted to say that my first thought to d20 was: "Feels/looks like that system from Fallout" and now Fallout will look like d20 :D

The Lord of Nothings

06-22-2006, 06:12 AM

walkerp

06-22-2006, 06:13 AM

I'm questioning why D20 was chosen. If it is the result of deliberation by people who have extensive knowledge of the various systems out there, and if they are planning to do something interesting like M&M, or even Conan, then I would be interested. But I fear that they are jumping on D20 as a default system and one that appears to be the most popular. I'm skeptical.

philreed

06-22-2006, 06:19 AM

But I fear that they are jumping on D20 as a default system and one that appears to be the most popular. I'm skeptical.

For sales of products through distribution, which anyone that spent money on a license should be working toward, the d20 logo actually has a negative impact these days. As I said earlier, this definitely feels like a more money than experience project.

Pax

06-22-2006, 06:32 AM

It's very possible that the liscensing of Fallout for a PnP game coincides with the fact that there is, reputedly, a new Fallout PC-RPG game in the works. It's very possible that the PnP game might be able to sneak into computer game stores, even if only briefly, to share shelf-space next to a new CRPG of the same general title.

As for choosing d20? Simple: no liscensing fees for the system. Just adhere to the OGL and d20STL ... and publish away. ^_^

Jim Bob

06-22-2006, 06:48 AM

I remember an article in PC Gamer talking about how Fallout was originally going to be a GURPS game (first place i heard about GURPS), but the liscense fell through and they came up with their own system

So why not just make it GURPS?
Well...

SJGames doesn't let out GURPS for third-party paid-for products. There's no OGL for GURPS. So to make a GURPS Fallout game and charge for it, you'd have to negotiate with SJGames. Either become the very first third-party GURPS book producer, or work out some arrangement where SJGames buys the licence and then you're the paid writer.

But that'd involve SJGames negotiating to buy the licence from Interplay. And since they already had a falling-out years ago - for what reason, no-one's saying (nice and professional, I like it!) - I don't see how they'd do it this time...

I imagine the guy chose d20 because he and/or Interplay imagine "it's brand recognition, baby!" and also because... then he doesn't have to negotiate with anyone else!

I'm wondering how much he paid for the licence. I would imagine it's gotta be worth thousands, at least. And if he has thousands to blow on the licence, why not a few hundred for some web design? Or maybe he just doesn't think that's important. So... I'm getting the same feeling as Phil Reed, this bloke has more money than experience.

Unless it's just a scam or something. Maybe a Nigerian spammer offered him the Fallout licence :D

Anyone want to write him and ask about it? I am too chicken, I have this instinctive bad feeling about the guy's future...

Jim Bob

06-22-2006, 06:51 AM

It's very possible that the liscensing of Fallout for a PnP game coincides with the fact that there is, reputedly, a new Fallout PC-RPG game in the works.
No. Fallout 3 got cancelled. They even released some of their design files, could be useful for your own campaign at home! See here (http://nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=category&cat_id=61).

Sorry, no Fallout 3.

Asmodai

06-22-2006, 06:57 AM

Pip

06-22-2006, 07:03 AM

SJGames doesn't let out GURPS for third-party paid-for products. There's no OGL for GURPS. So to make a GURPS Fallout game and charge for it, you'd have to negotiate with SJGames. Either become the very first third-party GURPS book producer, or work out some arrangement where SJGames buys the licence and then you're the paid writer.

Third, I think. SJG have licensed GURPS for use by Eden Studios (in GURPS Conspiricy X) and ... those guys who do GURPS Prime Directive who's name I forget.

So it isn't beyond a shadow of a possibility - but I somehow doubt SJG would want to be involved, considering the previous falling out.

Valanti

06-22-2006, 07:24 AM

No. Fallout 3 got cancelled. They even released some of their design files, could be useful for your own campaign at home! See here (http://nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=category&cat_id=61).

Sorry, no Fallout 3.

Right, but at E3 this year there was some Buzz because of a new Fallout poster, so it's not (completely) dead!

ragnarok

06-22-2006, 07:28 AM

I'm questioning why D20 was chosen.
Besides the things pointed out by other people, perhaps because the d20 system is allready incredible similiar to the S.P.E.C.I.A.L.-System used in Fallout? Inflating HP, pick a "talent" every 3rd level, AC that starts with 10 and goes up, combat that works pretty well on a battlemat...

Pax

06-22-2006, 07:30 AM

No. Fallout 3 got cancelled. They even released some of their design files, could be useful for your own campaign at home! See here (http://nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=category&cat_id=61).

Sorry, no Fallout 3.
I was told, in the thread that pointed we RPBnetters to the Van Buren design files, that Bethesda was workign on just and exactly that - a new Fallout. Won't use the Van Buren stuff, but ...

See THIS (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=269753&referrerid=21316&highlight=Fallout) RPG.net thread, and also THIS Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3).

Oh, and THIS (http://www.bethsoft.com/news/pressrelease_071204.htm) press release from Bethesda, which opens with this statement, emphasis mine:

July 12, 2004 (Rockville, MD) -- Bethesda Softworks® announced today that it will develop and publish Fallout® 3 -- a sequel to the highly popular Fallout® role-playing game franchise. Bethesda licensed the rights to the Fallout® franchise from Interplay Entertainment Corp. (OTC Bulletin Board: IPLY) in a deal that awards Bethesda exclusive worldwide rights to the Fallout® franchise on the PC, home consoles, handhelds, and other media, with the option to develop and publish additional sequels.

mitchw

06-22-2006, 07:41 AM

So it isn't beyond a shadow of a possibility - but I somehow doubt SJG would want to be involved, considering the previous falling out.

Falling out over fallout.... all puns intended right?

Mitch

David J Prokopetz

06-22-2006, 08:07 AM

I'm questioning why D20 was chosen.Probably because the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system strongly resembles d20 at its core. Divide all skill ratings by five and tinker with the core attributes a little and you basically have it - feats, escalating hit points, armor that makes you harder to hit, weapons that express damage as dice ranges, etc. are all present in the video games to begin with.

The Lord of Nothings

06-22-2006, 08:30 AM

Can D&D support a hit location system without breaking it or unbalancing it? 'Cause i loved that about Fallout.

Simple Man

06-22-2006, 08:31 AM

Bethesda is bringing out Fallout 3 sometime in the future.

More than likely, the Fallout d20 will be the same one I saw being designed on the web some months back. If so, they simply tossed Fallout at d20 and saw what stuck (there were classes, for example). This isn't my preferred method, I'd rather it was OGL based on d20 and still kept the SPECIAL stats and skills, and stayed classless. Character building doesn't feel right without it being as such.

I'm think Jim Bob stumbled on something illegal taking place, as I'm fairly certain that Bethesda's (or Interplay's) price for the license to making a commercial Fallout PnP game would be crazy expensive, and I don't think a new company on the RP scene would have the cash.

philreed

06-22-2006, 08:33 AM

. . . and I don't think a new company on the RP scene would have the cash.

Unless it's someone with money that doesn't understand the game industry. Never forget Noir.

Simple Man

06-22-2006, 08:43 AM

Never forget Noir.

Good point.

David J Prokopetz

06-22-2006, 08:45 AM

Bethesda is bringing out Fallout 3 sometime in the future.Not the same game as Interplay's aborted Fallout 3, unfortunately. Bethesda's version is apparently going to be a real-time pseudo-FPS, among other things.

(The fans are really, really hoping that it will be more than just Morrowind with a "post-apoc" skin slapped on, but it's not looking encouraging at this point.)

Simple Man

06-22-2006, 08:49 AM

(The fans are really, really hoping that it will be more than just Morrowind with a "post-apoc" skin slapped on, but it's not looking encouraging at this point.)

I know.

Believe me, I know. :(

ragnarok

06-22-2006, 08:49 AM

I'd rather it was OGL based on d20 The Text says "Fallout d20 modern OGL Player's Handbook", so it could be OGL based d20, but I'm not sure if I understand that the right way.

Quintin Stone

06-22-2006, 08:50 AM

Very interesting. Feats surely match up well with the Fallout style of Perks. Let me second those comments about the amateur website and oddness of an unknown getting a well-known license like this.

Darren MacLennan

06-22-2006, 08:51 AM

..and for those of us who don't know what happened with Noir, can somebody please explain?

If there's one thing that damages conversations, it's people referencing obscure events as if everybody should know what they are. Have some pity on your more ignorant kin, brothers.

-Darren MacLennan

Pax

06-22-2006, 08:51 AM

This isn't my preferred method, I'd rather it was OGL based on d20 and still kept the SPECIAL stats and skills, and stayed classless. Character building doesn't feel right without it being as such.
It wouldn't be TOO hard to go full-on d20, and still keep most of what made S.P.E.C.I.A.L. ... well .... special, if you will.

Strength = Strength
Perception = Closes parallel is Wisdom, for skill purposes
Endurance = Constitution
Charisma = Charisma
Inteligence = Intelligence
Agility = Dexterity
Luck = No equivalent.

Perks are feats, that's a plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face equivalent.

As for classes? Lose 'em. Everyone gets the same hit die for HP; everyone picks a certain number of skills to be "Tag" skills - IOW, "Class Skills".

Poof. I just d20'd Fallout, in very broad and general terms. What's my prize? :D

I'm think Jim Bob stumbled on something illegal taking place, as I'm fairly certain that Bethesda's (or Interplay's) price for the license to making a commercial Fallout PnP game would be crazy expensive, and I don't think a new company on the RP scene would have the cash.
Dunno, the company claims to have negotiated a liscense. God only knows if they actually did - or if the folks selling it had it to sell in the first place.

Quintin Stone

06-22-2006, 08:53 AM

Not the same game as Interplay's aborted Fallout 3, unfortunately. Bethesda's version is apparently going to be a real-time pseudo-FPS, among other things.
I hadn't heard anything like that. Bethesda seems to be pretty tight-lipped about it so far. Do you have a source?

Waiwode

06-22-2006, 08:54 AM

Unless it's someone with money that doesn't understand the game industry. Never forget Noir.
Could someone offer a brief explanation? I'm feeling more clueless than my usual level of continuous cluelessness here.

Doug.

Simple Man

06-22-2006, 08:57 AM

My comment wasn't so much the "hotness" of the liscense (FO is dead, pretty much), but rather the companies they would be purchasing from, which have pretty high cash values on all their licenses (Interplay, especially).

My assumption that it was just d20 with Fallout slapped on was from my previous experience with the playtest rules, which were exactly that. Classes included Warrior, Explorer, and 4 or 5 others I can't remember. Yeah, it was just a blatant rehash of core d20 classes, practically obvious that the word "Rogue" was scraped off and "Explorer" was added to give that FO feel.

Simple Man

06-22-2006, 09:02 AM

Quintin Stone

06-22-2006, 09:03 AM

My comment wasn't so much the "hotness" of the liscense (FO is dead, pretty much), but rather the companies they would be purchasing from, which have pretty high cash values on all their licenses (Interplay, especially).
Who knows, maybe with Interplay being dead dead dead, it could be they realized that beggars can't be choosers.

Ellie the Technomancer

06-22-2006, 09:05 AM

I hadn't heard anything like that. Bethesda seems to be pretty tight-lipped about it so far. Do you have a source?
They repeatedly said that F3 would be built using the Oblivion engine, and would be aimed more at action than anything else. Just check Bethesda's different annoucements about Fallout 3.

theliel

06-22-2006, 09:06 AM

No. Fallout 3 got cancelled. They even released some of their design files, could be useful for your own campaign at home! See here (http://nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=category&cat_id=61).

Sorry, no Fallout 3.

Incorrect. Bethseda purchased the rights to make fallout single player games only with interplay holding other rights. Fallout 3 has been in concurrent development with Oblivion (i.e. while oblivion was being coded, fallout 3 was being designed, and now that obvlivion is out, fallout 3 is being coded). While no gameplay was shown publically at E3, there were posters for the game and the guys at Bethseda are pretty geeked about it.

based on interplay's last SEC filing (which states they have 0 programmers/developers on payroll, have no capitol and will surly fold w/out significant finanical investment in the near future)
the only license they have left is the MMO license for fallout...and I expect that to go on the chopping block when they go chapter 13.

as for the d20 thing. meh.

David J Prokopetz

06-22-2006, 09:07 AM

Participant-Observer

06-22-2006, 09:10 AM

They also need to learn and follow the d20STL. This . . .

"Available Now

E – Scenarios: d20 Dungeons and Dragons "

. . . indicates that they do not understand the license at all.

Overall it looks like a situation in which money is available but experience is lacking.

The Fallout book will also be Fallout d20 modern OGL Player's Handbook (http://www.gluttoncreeper.com/page3.html). Ummm ... if your game is OGL, it can't use the d20 trademark, IIRC. Or am I wrong here? Maybe I'm just being pedantic and it'll be okay so long as they don't use the d20 icon/ logo. After all, there are a number of OGLs floating around nowadays, and one has to distinguish between them.

I was rather hoping that Fallout PnP would just re-use art from the rather splendid instruction manuals. Would a Fallout RPG really be Fallout without Fallout Guy? (Again, I'm grumbling with no evidence other than their call for new art and the title graphic on the main page).

I am cautiously pessimistic about the whole venture.

The Lord of Nothings

06-22-2006, 09:11 AM

Er... maybe i'm out of the loop, but isn't Fallout being like Oblivion a good thing? I haven't played it but everyone praises how open-ended it is-- which is what i liked about Fallout

Quintin Stone

06-22-2006, 09:13 AM

They repeatedly said that F3 would be built using the Oblivion engine, and would be aimed more at action than anything else. Just check Bethesda's different annoucements about Fallout 3.
The only one I've found on their site is this (http://www.bethsoft.com/news/pressrelease_071204.htm) and it's 2 years old. So is this interview (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/fallout3/news.html?sid=6102442&mode=news). Neither really gives the impressions listed above, which is why I was hoping for a source. There doesn't seem to be any real information coming out of Bethesda since 2004.

philreed

06-22-2006, 09:13 AM

Noir was an RPG from about a decade ago that was funded by money from outside the industry. The company spent a lot on marketing (many ads, a big party at GAMA, "Ladies' Day" for RPGs) but as soon as the money was gone so was the company. (I can't remember exactly where the money came from but I want to say it was inheritance money.)

theliel

06-22-2006, 09:13 AM

Er... maybe i'm out of the loop, but isn't Fallout being like Oblivion a good thing? I haven't played it but everyone praises how open-ended it is-- which is what i liked about Fallout

meh. the engine it's self not so bad, but fallout was a tactical role playing game.
the idea of moving it into action would make it more fps or rts like, which was just fucking annoying as shit in fallout: tactics, because real tinme + billions of enemies and a tactical enviornment does not a fun time make.

though there are rumblings of it being 3rd person, i have a feeling bethseda is going to but the game and then violate the openings with a craptastic fps/rts hybrid.

David J Prokopetz

06-22-2006, 09:15 AM

Er... maybe i'm out of the loop, but isn't Fallout being like Oblivion a good thing? I haven't played it but everyone praises how open-ended it is-- which is what i liked about FalloutThere's the aesthetic as well as the gameplay to consider. Besides, a lot of fans liked Fallout for having one of the most elegant turn-based, personal-level tactical combat systems ever brought to the PC; throwing all that out in favour of Elder Scrolls' "walk up to the enemy and repeatedly click on it until it dies" model doesn't sit well with many folks.

philreed

06-22-2006, 09:15 AM

The Fallout book will also be Fallout d20 modern OGL Player's Handbook (http://www.gluttoncreeper.com/page3.html). Ummm ... if your game is OGL, it can't use the d20 trademark, IIRC. Or am I wrong here?

It's more complicated than I want to get into here. The reason I say they don't know what they're doing is simply because of the way they're using the D&D TM.

Don't use the D&D TM that way. Immediate indication that you (not you, you know what I mean) do not understand the license.

Ellie the Technomancer

06-22-2006, 09:18 AM

It wouldn't be TOO hard to go full-on d20, and still keep most of what made S.P.E.C.I.A.L. ... well .... special, if you will.

Strength = Strength
Perception = Closes parallel is Wisdom, for skill purposes
Endurance = Constitution
Charisma = Charisma
Inteligence = Intelligence
Agility = Dexterity
Luck = No equivalent.

Perks are feats, that's a plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face equivalent.

As for classes? Lose 'em. Everyone gets the same hit die for HP; everyone picks a certain number of skills to be "Tag" skills - IOW, "Class Skills".

Poof. I just d20'd Fallout, in very broad and general terms. What's my prize? :D

Dunno, the company claims to have negotiated a liscense. God only knows if they actually did - or if the folks selling it had it to sell in the first place.
[Sheepish grin] Or make it as it was supposed to be, a GURPS game :)

After all, the SPECIAL system is just the GURPS system, slightly modified to dodge any legal trouble. The game was way into production when the deal between Interplay and SJGames fell through, so it's not like Interplay had time to design a completely new system anyway. They had to keep most of it as their game was designed around it.

For the record:

Strength = ST
Perception = Vision (IQ + Alertness + Acute Vision) & some DX
Endurance = HT
Charisma = Charisma advantage + other Reaction roll modifiers
Intelligence = IQ
Agility = Part of DX
Luck = The different Luck advantages (or Unluckiness disad)

Perks = GURPS Advantages / disadvantages
Skills = GURPS skills
Hit Locations, crippling injuries, etc: all of this is already an integral part of the combat system
And GURPS is already classless.

chaosvoyager

06-22-2006, 09:18 AM

...Now witness the firepower of RPG.net's semi-operational SEARCH FUNCTION!

About Noir (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=267725)

Participant-Observer

06-22-2006, 09:19 AM

It's more complicated than I want to get into here. The reason I say they don't know what they're doing is simply because of the way they're using the D&D TM.

Oh sure. I got the problem with the use of D&D(TM). I was pointing out what I understood to be another problem: d20 products can't be OGL, as they require use of one of the core d20 books?

But, as I haven't read the d20/ OGL licence for yonks, I'll do myself a favour and shut up. :)

PS Thanks for the attempt at clarification in response to my muddle of a question.

David J Prokopetz

06-22-2006, 09:20 AM

Strength = ST
Perception = Vision (IQ + Alertness + Acute Vision) & some DX
Endurance = HT
Charisma = Charisma advantage + other Reaction roll modifiers
Intelligence = IQ
Agility = Part of DX
Luck = The different Luck advantages (or Unluckiness disad)Personally, I think the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. attributes are better for the purpose they serve than GURPs' bodged-together mess of sub-attributes.

Ellie the Technomancer

06-22-2006, 09:22 AM

Er... maybe i'm out of the loop, but isn't Fallout being like Oblivion a good thing? I haven't played it but everyone praises how open-ended it is-- which is what i liked about Fallout
We don't know if it's gonna be open-ended or not. All we know is that it will use Oblivion's engine... meaning real-time 3D combat, no party, no tactics, "just click until it falls" type of combat. This isn't like any of the first two Fallouts, and is something that pisses off a lot of their fans (including me).

Simple Man

06-22-2006, 09:22 AM

Who knows, maybe with Interplay being dead dead dead, it could be they realized that beggars can't be choosers.

My ignorance is showing. I had no idea Interplay was a corpse.

Well, in that case, they'd be dealing with Bethesda. I may be wrong, but I think there isn't any Elder Scrolls PnP RPGs out there for a reason...

On Oblivion Engine: If you played Fallout 1 and 2, and loved their original engine, you would see that it's a very, very bad thing. Especially since turn based combat will be a thing of the past (unless they do the world's first turn-based FPS).

Quintin Stone

06-22-2006, 09:25 AM

We don't know if it's gonna be open-ended or not. All we know is that it will use Oblivion's engine... meaning real-time 3D combat, no party, no tactics, "just click until it falls" type of combat. This isn't like any of the first two Fallouts, and is something that pisses off a lot of their fans (including me).
You can do a lot with an engine. I've seen a turn-based X-Com clone made from the Quake engine. I think it's a little early to drown in despair just because people assume that using Oblivion's game engine means the game will be just like Oblivion.

My ignorance is showing. I had no idea Interplay was a corpse.

Well, in that case, they'd be dealing with Bethesda.
Hm, not necessarily. It depends on the license that Bethesda worked out with Interplay. For example, I know that Interplay retained the rights to a Fallout MMO game. It's possible they retained the PnP rights as well.

theliel

06-22-2006, 09:32 AM

Interviews from 2k4

http://www.duckandcover.cx/content.php?id=66
important bits:
Will you be using the SPECIAL system in Fallout 3?
Yes, we have rights to it and plan on using it.

and

Whilst every fan tends to have a different idea of what precisely Fallout 3 should be, there are a few things that most of us are unified on. Are you aware of the strong desires for turn-based combat and the classic 3/4 top-down viewpoint? Do you think pure turn-based combat in an RPG is viable in today's market?

Yes, of course we've heard many of the old-school fans regarding the view and combat resolution. What's viable today? Certainly turn-based combat limits your audience to a small number, but I do find that audiences will come if your game is good enough and the presentation is superb. Ultimately we'll do what we think will be the most fun.

Though I understand a lot of decisions are yet to be made about the game, could you see Bethesda doing an RPG that didn't use first/third person camera angle (like Morrowind) as its default view? Should you decide to explore this direction, is the technology you're developing capable of supporting this viewpoint?

The rendering technology can put cameras anywhere. But don't confuse camera angle with interface and interaction, they're two very different things.

another interview, again from 2k4

http://www.telefragged.com/interviews/fallout3/

Finger: The diehard Fallout fans are demanding that Fallout 3 take place from a top-down view and that its combat will be turn-based. I've read many comments that say it's not Fallout without these elements. What can you say to those fans right now to ease their minds?

Pete Hines: Until we show the game itself, nothing we say will ease their minds.

also, remember bethseda paid over a mil for the rights for 3, and 2 and 3 more for 4 and 5...unless interplay goes under;)

the rpg license must have been lots cheaper considering the fire sale.

ragnarok

06-22-2006, 09:32 AM

[Sheepish grin] Or make it as it was supposed to be, a GURPS game :) Seeing how you envision FO in Gurps I'd say that it feels like the actual game doesn't resemble Gurps in any aspect.

Is there any info aviable how the FO-game would have included GURPS?

theliel

06-22-2006, 09:38 AM

You can do a lot with an engine. I've seen a turn-based X-Com clone made from the Quake engine. I think it's a little early to drown in despair just because people assume that using Oblivion's game engine means the game will be just like Oblivion.

Hm, not necessarily. It depends on the license that Bethesda worked out with Interplay. For example, I know that Interplay retained the rights to a Fallout MMO game. It's possible they retained the PnP rights as well.

Interplay's financial status: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19360

As you can see, it's not a corpse quite yet, but people are debating pulling the plug and getting on with it...

Quintin Stone

06-22-2006, 09:39 AM

Interviews from 2k4
Thanks for the links. Unfortunately still very short on details. Definitely he gives an indication that turn-based may be out, which sucks if that's the case. However, he gives no hard facts one way or the other. I still don't see anything suggesting FPS perspective. Just look at Silent Storm for proof that you can have a good tactical turn-based game without the need for a locked 3/4 isometric view. It's 2006, what's wrong with a little camera control?

David J Prokopetz

06-22-2006, 09:46 AM

Definitely he gives an indication that turn-based may be out, which sucks if that's the case.Indeed. The tactical combat was a major selling point for me, and even the most sophisticated real-time models you'll find in games today are barely on par with the simpler turn-based models in terms of tactical depth.

Quintin Stone

06-22-2006, 09:49 AM

Indeed. The tactical combat was a major selling point for me, and even the most sophisticated real-time models you'll find in games today are barely on par with the simpler turn-based models in terms of tactical depth.
The real-time system option in Fallout Tactics just didn't make for as fun a game, though it was faster (and sometimes necessary in that game to account for its quirks and to make fights against swarms of opponents finish in a reasonable time).

Simple Man

06-22-2006, 09:57 AM

Ellie the Technomancer

06-22-2006, 10:38 AM

Seeing how you envision FO in Gurps I'd say that it feels like the actual game doesn't resemble Gurps in any aspect.
All I can say is that for me, the resemblance is striking, to say the least.

Is there any info aviable how the FO-game would have included GURPS?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Fallout is just a setting that was supposed to use GURPS as its rule set. Just like Forgotten Realms uses D&D as its rule set.

Ellie the Technomancer

06-22-2006, 10:42 AM

Thanks for the links. Unfortunately still very short on details. Definitely he gives an indication that turn-based may be out, which sucks if that's the case. However, he gives no hard facts one way or the other. I still don't see anything suggesting FPS perspective. Just look at Silent Storm for proof that you can have a good tactical turn-based game without the need for a locked 3/4 isometric view. It's 2006, what's wrong with a little camera control?
I guess you are an optimist, then. :) Me, I hated Morrowind and I don't like Oblivion, so my optimism has been pretty much crushed.

For me, Fallout died when Interplay pulled the plug on Black Isle's Van Buren (after killing Baldur's Gate 3: The Black Hound).

Waiwode

06-22-2006, 11:05 AM

Fallout is just a setting that was supposed to use GURPS as its rule set. Just like Forgotten Realms uses D&D as its rule set.
Not like that at all, as FR did use D&D as a rulesystem, and Fallout never did use GURPS. It may have been supposed to. But it didn't, and it didn't early enough in the develpment of the original game that any GURPS-y vestiges were removed and it didn't resemble GURPS in the slightest. Levels and level-based abilities alone divorce it from that system.

Moreover, there was never a time playing it that I (and possibly hundreds of others, if not hundreds of thousands over three computer games that used the existing mechanic) thought ... "You know what this game is missing? GURPS. GURPS would have made it perfect."

Doug.

Pax

06-22-2006, 11:40 AM

Got linkage?
The d20 company's own website, in their News section - follow the Fallout link at the top of this thread.

Quintin Stone

06-22-2006, 11:41 AM

I guess you are an optimist, then. :) Me, I hated Morrowind and I don't like Oblivion, so my optimism has been pretty much crushed.

For me, Fallout died when Interplay pulled the plug on Black Isle's Van Buren (after killing Baldur's Gate 3: The Black Hound).
I just try to take a wait-and-see attitude. I figure there's no point in lamenting the awfulness of FO3 before we actually have any details on FO3. On the other hand, I'm not frothing at the mouth excited because, again, we have no details to get excited about.

I did like Morrowind and Oblivion, but Oblivion did not turn out to be the Greatest Game Ever, which many thought it was when they first started. Ultimately, its bland sameness across the entire experience really hurt it.

Piestrio

06-22-2006, 12:24 PM

For sales of products through distribution, which anyone that spent money on a license should be working toward, the d20 logo actually has a negative impact these days. As I said earlier, this definitely feels like a more money than experience project.

Well, perhaps some talanted RPD designer on this very site should offer to advise/help them ;)

Piestrio

theCimmerian

06-22-2006, 12:40 PM

The Fallout book will also be Fallout d20 modern OGL Player's Handbook (http://www.gluttoncreeper.com/page3.html). Ummm ... if your game is OGL, it can't use the d20 trademark, IIRC. Or am I wrong here? Maybe I'm just being pedantic and it'll be okay so long as they don't use the d20 icon/ logo. After all, there are a number of OGLs floating around nowadays, and one has to distinguish between them.

Well, generally games go Open Gaming License so they can be D20 compatible but include their own character creation rules. Plus, then they aren't obligated to put "Requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition Revised Player's Handbook" or "Requires the use of D20 Modern" prominently on the cover.

I'm pretty sure you could use both D20 and OGL in the product title. As long as you follow the terms of both the D20 trademark and the OGL license, you're fine. So I believe it's not legally wrong. But I don't see how it helps sell the product. OGL or D20 should be sufficient. Including both seems redundant.

I am cautiously pessimistic about the whole venture.

Me too. As many others have said, the writing and the website layout are discouraging.

Tensen01

06-22-2006, 12:46 PM

My first thought when I saw the site was "What the hell is a Creeper Games Glutton" Bad, bad logo design...

I must say, I'm psyched about this, though. Fallout! The original(I guess)... I can't say if it'll be good, but it'll be Fallout and thus I must buy it. Even if I already have the fan-made game, which, does anyone know how well it plays?

Oh, and I applied for an artist position with them(GCG) specifically about the Fallout game. I'll let you know what I hear(if I hear anything)

Pointycat

06-22-2006, 01:37 PM

Dunno, the company claims to have negotiated a liscense. God only knows if they actually did - or if the folks selling it had it to sell in the first place.

Uncomfortably reminds me of Whatson -- wasn't that the 'company' that had 'negotiated' the Dragon Ball Z license, and talked about it for months before vanishing off the face of the earth? I'm not saying Creeping Ooky Gamers or whatever this outfit is isn't telling the truth, but there seems to be a massive gulf between their alleged licensing power and their professionalism.

Garlick

06-22-2006, 03:00 PM

From their "E-Scenarios" they have for sale:

d20 D&D The Masuleum
$2.95
Near a small settlement, in the hills, lay a long abandoned mausoleum. Rumors speak of a cult of monks that revered and studied the ways of an elephant god. A dark generic dungeon crawl adventure designed for characters of 4-6 levels (EL 3-8).

---

Not only do they not know how to properly present their licensing, they don't have a spell-checker for the title of a product that they're selling. And their copy changes tense.

That, and there's another module titled "Crevice of the Elements." I'm going to stay away in droves.

David J Prokopetz

06-22-2006, 03:04 PM

That, and there's another module titled "Crevice of the Elements."Fire and water I can deal with, but when we get to the Crevice of Wind, I'm going home.

Simple Man

06-22-2006, 04:23 PM

Not like that at all, as FR did use D&D as a rulesystem, and Fallout never did use GURPS. It may have been supposed to. But it didn't, and it didn't early enough in the develpment of the original game that any GURPS-y vestiges were removed and it didn't resemble GURPS in the slightest. Levels and level-based abilities alone divorce it from that system.

Moreover, there was never a time playing it that I (and possibly hundreds of others, if not hundreds of thousands over three computer games that used the existing mechanic) thought ... "You know what this game is missing? GURPS. GURPS would have made it perfect."

Doug.

Fallout was originally intended to use GURPS, but something happened (which I know little about, unfortunately) either between SJG and BlackIsle or between the BlackIsle staff that got GURPS dropped and their own "special" system created in it's stead.

Just spatting out the history and clarifying what I can clarify.

And yes, I wouldn't have liked Fallout as much as I did if it used GURPS rather than SPECIAL. The flavor (setting, talking heads) would have kept me from disliking it, but the character building process would have made me dislike that aspect of the game.

Pax

06-22-2006, 04:27 PM

SJG decided the Fallout game was going to be TOO violent, and didn't want to risk having GURPS associated with "yet another ultra-violent video game". At least, that's what I've heard.

Pip

06-22-2006, 04:30 PM

SJG decided the Fallout game was going to be TOO violent, and didn't want to risk having GURPS associated with "yet another ultra-violent video game". At least, that's what I've heard.

Yes, I heard that.

Then someone at SJG said that this wasn't the case, and that they wouldn't discuss what the disagreement was further.

Jim Bob

06-22-2006, 05:07 PM

Oh, and THIS (http://www.bethsoft.com/news/pressrelease_071204.htm) press release from Bethesda, which opens with this statement, emphasis mine:
You would have been better to emphasise the date of the press release: July 12, 2004

I can quite readily believe that two years ago someone planned something. But now? No, it's not happening.

I'm think Jim Bob stumbled on something illegal taking place, as I'm fairly certain that Bethesda's (or Interplay's) price for the license to making a commercial Fallout PnP game would be crazy expensive, and I don't think a new company on the RP scene would have the cash.
About something illegal, I don't know. Who the fuck knows with people, eh?

Interplay's recent SEC filing (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057232/000117091806000576/fm10q-033106.txt) says,
Product development expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2006 were approximately $0, a 100% decrease as compared to the same period in 2005. This decrease is due to a $81,000 decrease in personnel costs as a result of a reduction in product development personnel during 2006 as compared to 2005.

[...]

Currently the Company has no internal development of new titles.

[...]

Administrative personnel costs: $400,000

[...]

As of March 31, 2006, we had a working capital deficit of approximately $12 million, and our cash balance was approximately $40,000. We currently have no cash reserves and are unable to pay current liabilities. We cannot continue in our current form without obtaining additional financing or income or reducing expenditures.
With debts of millions, forty grand in the bank, paying admin staff $400,000 a year, and with exactly ZERO projects in the line, I think the Fallout licence might have been cheaper than expected!

Also, as Phil points out, wealthy people can start rpg companies, too. Or groups of not-so-wealthy people. I mean, how much cash was raised by the Trekkies to make more Star Trek episodes?

Incorrect. Bethseda purchased the rights to make fallout single player games only with interplay holding other rights.
And in the two years since...?

I wouldn't hold my breath for Fallout 3 ;)

And the SJGames-Black Isle issue - forget it. You'll never find out. It's called "business confidentiality." That's like "discretion" and "good manners" and stuff. I know that in talking to a lot of game designers and rpg company staff, you may get the impression that business confidentiality doesn't exist - "How I was fucked by this bunch of fucken retards!111!" - but it does.

About d20 Fallout, I am curious, but not optimistic. ;)

John P.

06-22-2006, 05:09 PM

I liked Fallout's turn-based combat. I also think that walking around, and fighting, in the 1st/3rd person view of a Fallout-equivalent of Oblivion's graphical excellence would be the awesomest.

For me, Fallout's setting, mood and story were the prime appeals, and those can be done equally well, and probably much better, with Oblivion's engine. Sure, blowing away your enemies gorey bit by gorey bit was also fun, but i'm sure they can find ways to incorporate that for 3-d models -other games have.

Also, using Oblivion's 1st/3rd person view does not equal an fps. Oblivion isn't an fps -an fps/rpg hybrid is more reasonable. It's not like Fallout was all about "role-playing" either, there was plenty of action, and shooting.

And yeah, their website doesn't bode well.

Quintin Stone

06-22-2006, 05:27 PM

You would have been better to emphasise the date of the press release: July 12, 2004

I can quite readily believe that two years ago someone planned something. But now? No, it's not happening.
They were a bit busy with Oblivion. Your only evidence that it won't get done is... your own intuition?

What about Pete Hines' brief statement on the status of Fallout 3 (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/14/bethesda-fallout-3-is-our-baby/) in February this year?

Or the confirmation by a Bethesda rep (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/11/e3-fallout-3-appears-in-spirit/) that it's still in development even though nothing would be ready for E3 2006?

GestaltBennie

06-22-2006, 06:55 PM

By the way: Interplay is dead! Woohoo!

My Christmas wish came early! My faith in humanity is restored! Kharma does exist!

On that note, I've gotta call that guy I pantsed in high school in front of the cheerleading squad.

Note to self: Next time you get hired by a computer game company, make sure it puts out nothing but crap. Because fans won't appreciate the effort you put into making the good ones.

David J Prokopetz

06-22-2006, 07:16 PM

I liked Fallout's turn-based combat. I also think that walking around, and fighting, in the 1st/3rd person view of a Fallout-equivalent of Oblivion's graphical excellence would be the awesomest.I think an FPS-like real-time combat system would detract from the "gritty" factor somewhat. If you're jumping around like a jackrabbit to dodge bullets while brandishing a shotgun like a B-movie maniac, there's a very different aesthetic at work than when you're agonising over lines of fire and carefully planning every move because you know that one false step will land you with a hole in your chest the size of a basketball.

I mean, powerful enemies could one-shot you pretty easily in Fallout - or even mooks, if you were so unwise as to expose yourself to being hosed down with automatic gunfire. Do you imagine for a moment that a FPS-style version would be nearly so tactically demanding?

Mongoose

06-22-2006, 07:25 PM

Note to self: Next time you get hired by a computer game company, make sure it puts out nothing but crap. Because fans won't appreciate the effort you put into making the good ones.

I was a little curious about why anyone is dancing on Interplay's grave, but I don't follow the market attentively, either. Is their some complaint about Interplay other than the garden-variety "all they care about is money instead of trying to make me happy" thing?

Mongoose

GestaltBennie

06-22-2006, 08:03 PM

I was a little curious about why anyone is dancing on Interplay's grave, but I don't follow the market attentively, either. Is their some complaint about Interplay other than the garden-variety "all they care about is money instead of trying to make me happy" thing?

Mongoose

I dunno. It may be that he's a former employee who was hurt by a layoff - there's certainly more than a few of us scattered around - in which case I could understand the comment. Beyond that... it's been a less than perfect day and I'm in a bad mood and really didn't need to read a comment celebrating the death of a company that I spent an obscene amount of overtime working to keep healthy.

And karma isn't just an illusion, it's way, way overrated.

Pax

06-23-2006, 01:07 AM

Well, the only things I hold against Interplay are:

(a) not finishing Van Buren

(b) making that POS playstation incarnation of the Fallout franchise. It's designers should be shot, and whoever greenlighted it should be tarred, feathered, flayed, crucified, stabbed, and THEN shot. O_o;;

Heortling

06-23-2006, 02:39 AM

Bah, I had hoped Mongoose would do this :)

John P.

06-23-2006, 03:37 AM

I think an FPS-like real-time combat system would detract from the "gritty" factor somewhat. If you're jumping around like a jackrabbit to dodge bullets while brandishing a shotgun like a B-movie maniac, there's a very different aesthetic at work than when you're agonising over lines of fire and carefully planning every move because you know that one false step will land you with a hole in your chest the size of a basketball.

I mean, powerful enemies could one-shot you pretty easily in Fallout - or even mooks, if you were so unwise as to expose yourself to being hosed down with automatic gunfire. Do you imagine for a moment that a FPS-style version would be nearly so tactically demanding?

As tactically demanding as a turn-based system? Probably not, but it could come close, all the while upping the grittiness and in-your-face factor. I say this, because there's a range in how tactical an FPS-hybrid can be, and it seems to me that that range is much wider nowadays (and widening) than what it used to be.

Witness the jitter-fest that was/is Doom&Quake (which i totally agree is not in the spirit of Fallout) versus games like Battlefield and (especially) F.E.A.R. In other words, i think it's more to do with specific implementation than the medium itself.

The big difference with turn-based is, obviously, time constraints. In turn-based you have all the time in the world to come up with a battle plan, and then you take your time executing it step-by-step. In real-time you're forced to come up with something quickly, and even then execution might not go as planned, since enemy reactions are far less predictable.

I'm not saying that the later approach is inherently better than turn-based, just that i like it a lot.

ragnarok

06-23-2006, 03:43 AM

All I can say is that for me, the resemblance is striking, to say the least. Either you have a case of "If everything you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like nails" or I have a serious misunderstanding of Gurps. Let's assume the latter for this thread. I don't want to start a flame war.

I'm not sure I understand your question.The question was meant as "Is there any Info that shows/hints how Fallout would have looked like if the deal with SJG would have worked out?" for IMHO the game would have looked and played quite different.

Rupert

06-23-2006, 05:14 AM

Witness the jitter-fest that was/is Doom&Quake (which i totally agree is not in the spirit of Fallout) versus games like Battlefield and (especially) F.E.A.R. In other words, i think it's more to do with specific implementation than the medium itself.

Even F.E.A.R isn't as tactical as the tricker fights in the various Fallout games, IME. I find F.E.A.R a great deal of fun, and for a fps it is pretty tactical, but it's not in a the same league as a good turn-based game. The other thing is that fps games tend to be about personal, or microtactics - "do I jump now, or duck behind that barrel?" Fallout was more about "can I sneak round behind that guard? Who should I shoot first? Can I lure them into letting me kill them piecemeal?"

The big difference with turn-based is, obviously, time constraints. In turn-based you have all the time in the world to come up with a battle plan, and then you take your time executing it step-by-step. In real-time you're forced to come up with something quickly, and even then execution might not go as planned, since enemy reactions are far less predictable.

I find the AI in most fps games to be just as predictable as that in turn based games, and there's no intrinsic reason it should be better or worse in any particular medium.

David J Prokopetz

06-23-2006, 07:33 AM

As tactically demanding as a turn-based system? Probably not, but it could come close, all the while upping the grittiness and in-your-face factor.Yeah, if you define "in your face" as "spending 95% of your time getting an up-close view of the wall textures", which is what making effective use of cover in every FPS I've ever played seems to entail. :p

The big difference with turn-based is, obviously, time constraints. In turn-based you have all the time in the world to come up with a battle plan, and then you take your time executing it step-by-step. In real-time you're forced to come up with something quickly, and even then execution might not go as planned, since enemy reactions are far less predictable.It also means that the game must necessarily be less tactically complex if you want it to be playable; requiring split-second tactical judgements when the viewpoint prevents you from acquiring full information about the scenario and one false move will kill you is going to frustrate most players unless the judgements required are relatively simple.

Besides, I've never seen an FPS, pseudo- or otherwise, where good reflexes won't trump good tactics every time. Turn-based means no exploiting the physics model to dodge bullets if you screw up.

kregMosier

06-23-2006, 07:51 AM

I've been in love with Fallout since the original (ok, or maybe Wasteland, but that's different). The announcement had me giddy, but the creators site makes me a little nervous.

As much as a GURPS Fallout would make more sense stylistically, i know it'll never officially happen due to the past falling-out with SJG. If it IS going to be d20, I'd really much rather see an established 'biggie' create/produce the game, like Green Ronin, Mongoose, or...hell, even WotC. Let's just hope that it doesn't end up being a .pdf-with-art-direction-by-a-13-year-old-and-writing-by-his-cousin sort of thing. (i mean seriously, you've seen the sheer amount of crap d20 stuff out there, haven't you?!)

-k

theliel

06-23-2006, 08:38 AM

i just realized that SPECIAL was the proto 3.x. yo have stats (SPECIAL), levels, hit points, saves and skills...then you have feats....it's like classeless 3.x...

And i'm sorry if there are ex-employes of the demon corp, but the fact is that interplay started making the classic bad design/publishing decisions when they became a public company.

people hate them not only for what they did, but for what could have been, and really, that's alot of hate.....

but mostly we hate "the brass" at interplay. If you go to d-con i'll buy you a beer, or something, 'cause i don't think any of thep rogrammers/workers/drones deserved the bad rap.

Helico

06-23-2006, 10:09 AM

Besides, I've never seen an FPS, pseudo- or otherwise, where good reflexes won't trump good tactics every time. Turn-based means no exploiting the physics model to dodge bullets if you screw up.

Have you tried Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30? Good game. I don't know if it tactics surpass reflexes in importance, but it will certainly equal it. Not having good tactics in that game is a great way to get killed.

LucitasBastardChilde

06-23-2006, 12:45 PM

No. Fallout 3 got cancelled. They even released some of their design files, could be useful for your own campaign at home! See here (http://nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=category&cat_id=61).

Sorry, no Fallout 3.

FOr a moment, I had hope. And then you stomped on it. You stomped on it like a psychotic jackboot on a newborn baby. To hell with you.

:)

Just joking. I hope this game works out okay. I'll probably buy it as Fallout has given me hours of wonderful enjoyment and memories, and I'd love to continue that with some friends around the table. I've been doing horror gaming for too fucking long.

J

John P.

06-23-2006, 01:45 PM

Rupert

Even F.E.A.R isn't as tactical as the tricker fights in the various Fallout games, IME. I find F.E.A.R a great deal of fun, and for a fps it is pretty tactical, but it's not in a the same league as a good turn-based game. The other thing is that fps games tend to be about personal, or microtactics - "do I jump now, or duck behind that barrel?" Fallout was more about "can I sneak round behind that guard? Who should I shoot first? Can I lure them into letting me kill them piecemeal?"

David J Prokopetz

Besides, I've never seen an FPS, pseudo- or otherwise, where good reflexes won't trump good tactics every time. Turn-based means no exploiting the physics model to dodge bullets if you screw up.

I think we'll just have to agree that i'm right and you guys are wrong :)

May i further point you to consider Thief, Splinter Cell and Oblivion itself (the Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild missions)? Those are arguably FPS/RPG hybrids, and tactics did matter, a lot - i may be misrembering, haven't played Fallout for a long time, but i don't recall it to have been more tactically challenging (in Rupert's later sense) than any of those three games.

Allright, even so, tactics still matter more than reflexes in turn-based games (since you don't need any reflexes in those), but if i had to pick, i'd go for a good mix of the two, for the price of getting the greater immersion that, for me, real-time provides.

David J Prokopetz

06-23-2006, 02:15 PM

I think we'll just have to agree that i'm right and you guys are wrong :)

May i further point you to consider Thief, Splinter Cell and Oblivion itself (the Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild missions)? Those are arguably FPS/RPG hybrids, and tactics did matter, a lot - i may be misrembering, haven't played Fallout for a long time, but i don't recall it to have been more tactically challenging (in Rupert's later sense) than any of those three games.Thief is a sneaker/environmental puzzle game, not a combat-oriented title at all, and Oblivion's combat tactics boil down to "buff your stats ahead of time and repeatedly click on the enemy until it dies".

Don't confuse puzzle-solving with tactical play. :)

Pax

06-23-2006, 03:44 PM

Thief is a sneaker/environmental puzzle game, not a combat-oriented title at all,
... you never played either Thief 1 or Thief 2 past the first few missions, did you?

"Sneaking" quickly became secondary, then TERTIARY. "Stealing" became "a sideline, if you have the time to spare". They both quickly devolved into FPS-like "go to X, kill Y, escape via Z" affairs.

Which is why many of the fan-created missions were FAR superior to the official stuff: they focussed on, oh I dunno, actually being a freakin' THIEF, rather than being some sort of semi-invisible superwarrior.

As for Oblivion? Archery. Archery + stealth = surprisingly Thief-like play. ^_^

David J Prokopetz

06-23-2006, 03:46 PM

... you never played either Thief 1 or Thief 2 past the first few missions, did you?

"Sneaking" quickly became secondary, then TERTIARY. "Stealing" became "a sideline, if you have the time to spare". They both quickly devolved into FPS-like "go to X, kill Y, escape via Z" affairs.The later challenges downplayed the sneaky, yes, but they were still more environment puzzles than tactical challenges - hence the "environmental puzzler" bit.

As for Oblivion? Archery. Archery + stealth = surprisingly Thief-like play. ^_^Click on the enemy from a distance until dies, then. :p

Sinclair

06-23-2006, 04:35 PM

I dunno, Oblivion could be sorta tactical at times... But yeah, nowhere near a game like Fallout (I just had a thought: Wouldn't it be pure awesome if the Fallout games had had interrupts? Like in the JA games?). I hope it's good, but I'm not that confident in their ability to make it as "characterful" as the Fallout games were.

As for the pen and paper RPG, meh. I suppose in both cases, Fallout 1 and 2 were beautiful ... But I'm not sure if trying to bring them back is going to make things better or worse.

Pax

06-23-2006, 07:05 PM

The later challenges downplayed the sneaky, yes, but they were still more environment puzzles than tactical challenges - hence the "environmental puzzler" bit.
Um.

I never considered the missions that essentially came to "get from Point A to Point B (so you can collect Widget X which opens Door Y at Point C), despite creatures D, E, F, G, H, J, I, J, K, L, M, and N, who all want to kill you" to be an environmental puzzle. No, it's "kill first or be killed, run and gun". I can't begin to tell you how sick and bloody tired I was of Undead, before I was HALFWAY through with T1.

It'd've been nice, even, if the "storyline missions" were seperated by 2-5 "generic B&E missions". Sadly, there's precious little "thieving" to be done, title notwithstanding.

(Which doesn't change my enthusiasm for the setting; I'd love to see an RPG treatment of it ...!)

Click on the enemy from a distance until dies, then. :p
... and that differs from high-lethality missions of Thief ... how, exactly?

Simple Man

06-23-2006, 09:55 PM

Note to self: Next time you get hired by a computer game company, make sure it puts out nothing but crap. Because fans won't appreciate the effort you put into making the good ones.

I apologize, I assure you that I have nothing against the various people who worked for Interplay over the years, just the people who made bad decisions regarding certain licenses that shall remain nameless (but are sorta obvious given the thread title).

The working people of Interplay, no matter who they are, were just doing their job. I couldn't possibly have a beef with them.

David J Prokopetz

06-23-2006, 10:44 PM

No, it's "kill first or be killed, run and gun". I can't begin to tell you how sick and bloody tired I was of Undead, before I was HALFWAY through with T1.I'm still not seeing how this supports your assertion that it's as tactically deep as Fallout.

... and that differs from high-lethality missions of Thief ... how, exactly?I'm not commenting on its similarity to Thief, or lack thereof - whatever gave you that impression? I'm merely pointing out that standing in one spot and clicking on the enemy until it dies is by no stretch of the imagination a tactical exercise.

GestaltBennie

06-24-2006, 12:09 AM

I apologize, I assure you that I have nothing against the various people who worked for Interplay over the years, just the people who made bad decisions regarding certain licenses that shall remain nameless (but are sorta obvious given the thread title).

The working people of Interplay, no matter who they are, were just doing their job. I couldn't possibly have a beef with them.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

Chuckie Fort

06-24-2006, 12:43 AM

So, I'll just come out and say it - I call bullshit on these guys. Unprofessional website, improper use of the OGL and they bought the license from...what's that? the company that doesn't own it anymore and hasn't for 2 years?

Nope. I'm thinking it's a couple of fanboys who're talking big and haven't bought jack. Hell, I could design a better webpage than that, and all I know's HTML.

Pass. I love Fallout to pieces, but even the free, unlicensed RPG avialable on the net for awhile is better than this.

Asmodai

06-24-2006, 01:13 AM

Well it is definately in the realm of "I'll believe it when I see it."

Ellie the Technomancer

06-24-2006, 09:08 AM

Not like that at all, as FR did use D&D as a rulesystem, and Fallout never did use GURPS. It may have been supposed to. But it didn't,

Someone asked me how Fallout was supposed to use GURPS, and my answer was, it was supposed to use it as an integral part of the game. What does what you say have anything to do with that?

and it didn't early enough in the develpment of the original game that any GURPS-y vestiges were removed and it didn't resemble GURPS in the slightest. Levels and level-based abilities alone divorce it from that system.

Of course, the system wasn't classless, wasn't based on skills based on attributes, didn't include advantages and disadvantages... right.

BTW, the change came pretty late in development, and it had nothing to do with the "level of violence" (it's an RPG for god's sake, where killing thing is an innate part of the action).

Moreover, there was never a time playing it that I (and possibly hundreds of others, if not hundreds of thousands over three computer games that used the existing mechanic) thought ... "You know what this game is missing? GURPS. GURPS would have made it perfect."

Doug.
And when exactly did I ever said that myself?

Also, it doesn't change the fact that if you're to release Fallout as a setting, you're much better using GURPS - or any other skill-based classless system - than D20. Gritty settings with high chance of dying are just not made for it. Just look at what they did for the Babylon 5 RPG. Yuck...

Ellie the Technomancer

06-24-2006, 09:23 AM

Either you have a case of "If everything you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like nails" or I have a serious misunderstanding of Gurps. Let's assume the latter for this thread. I don't want to start a flame war.
Why would I start a flamewar about that?

I'm not blind, I know Fallout had differences with GURPS (levels, percentage based skills, etc) - it had to just to avoid any legal trouble. But still, a lot of stuff is taken from it.

The question was meant as "Is there any Info that shows/hints how Fallout would have looked like if the deal with SJG would have worked out?" for IMHO the game would have looked and played quite different.
I was around when all of this came around. I do remember a FAQ about this particular subject. But it was, what, at least eight years ago?

[Googling]
Here's the only thing I can find: Fallout: A GURPS Post-Nuclear Adventure. (http://www.duckandcover.cx/official/gurps/).

David J Prokopetz

06-24-2006, 11:45 AM

Vargo Teras

06-24-2006, 05:59 PM

danzig138

06-24-2006, 06:18 PM

Also, it doesn't change the fact that if you're to release Fallout as a setting, you're much better using GURPSHard to change a fact that isn't, in fact, a fact. Thus far, some people have managed to mangle the d20 system pretty good. I certainly think, with some slight mods, many of which are already available as 3rd party OGC, d20 could easily work for Fallout.

Jim Bob

06-24-2006, 07:36 PM

Also, it doesn't change the fact that if you're to release Fallout as a setting, you're much better using GURPS - or any other skill-based classless system - than D20. Gritty settings with high chance of dying are just not made for it. Just look at what they did for the Babylon 5 RPG. Yuck...
Not if you want to release Fallout as a setting and charge people for it.

If you want to release it as a free book, okay you can do that, so long as Interplay's lawyers don't get all excited, hoping for some spare cash to drag Interplay out of their death spiral.

But if you want to charge people for the book, then you have to come to legal agreements with SJGames, and Interplay and/or this "Glutton Creeper" guy. Given that Interplay and SJGames have already demonstrated that they are unable to reach final legal agreements with one another, it seems unlikely they'd be willing to do through a middleman, with some third company producing the book.

So it seems that it's not possible to do a GURPS Fallout book and charge for it. Whether it'd be a good book, whether GURPS is the right system for it, is irrelevant. This Glutton Creeper guy has obviously gone for a system whose owners will give him no arguments ;)

As to your comments about d20, yes I agree "d20 suxxorz" :D But remember your favourite GURPS? An old boast of GURPS was that even if you didn't like the system, you could still use the sourcebooks. And that's true of d20, too. d20 sourcebooks which are more rules than setting (like Jeremiah) are less useful than those which are more setting than rules (like Stargate SG-1). But still, there's the setting info there.

So if nothing else, d20 Fallout could be useful to people who want to run games in that setting, whether they use d20, GURPS, Toon, or whatever.

Of course, we'll have to see what the book ends up looking like - or indeed, if it happens at all.

Has anyone written to Glutton Creeper and/or Interplay to ask them about this? Have we any further details?

Rupert

06-25-2006, 01:49 AM

Thief is a sneaker/environmental puzzle game, not a combat-oriented title at all, and Oblivion's combat tactics boil down to "buff your stats ahead of time and repeatedly click on the enemy until it dies".

There are some tactical elements to Oblivion, mainly to do with attracting only one or two enemies at a time if they are tough, so you don't get mobbed to death. However, with a bow and some stealth skill it's dead easy - sneak up, shoot one guy, and back off so when he comes after you the fight doesn't attract the rest. Rinse. Repeat.

David J Prokopetz

06-25-2006, 01:51 AM

There are some tactical elements to Oblivion, mainly to do with attracting only one or two enemies at a time if they are tough, so you don't get mobbed to death. However, with a bow and some stealth skill it's dead easy - sneak up, shoot one guy, and back off so when he comes after you the fight doesn't attract the rest. Rinse. Repeat.Exploiting the enemy AI's limited radius of threat detection is a metagame tactic at best, but I will grant that it is a tactic nonetheless. :p

Asmodai

06-25-2006, 02:31 AM

Exploiting the enemy AI's limited radius of threat detection is a metagame tactic at best, but I will grant that it is a tactic nonetheless. :p

It's the main basis of play in most MMO's....

David J Prokopetz

06-25-2006, 11:37 AM

It's the main basis of play in most MMO's....That's why I don't play 'em. :)

(Honestly, my favourite MMO combat system would have to be an old, old title called The Realm. Turn-based, grid-movement combat in an MMO? Well, why not?)

Ellie the Technomancer

06-25-2006, 02:18 PM

Here's a question for you: why not just adapt the system that Fallout already uses?
Actually, I think that a PnP SPECIAL system had already been made. I don't know if it has been commercialy released, however.

I do agree that the best solution would simply be to use the SPECIAL system as it is. My point is compared to doing a D20 version of Fallout.

I don't buy your assertion that it's just a crippled, dressed-up version of GURPS
Except of course that I never said that SPECIAL is crippled. What I'm saying is it used many concepts that are an integral part of GURPS. Since it was supposed to use GURPS, I feel safe to say they were inspired by it. YMMV.

it does a number of very setting-appropriate things that are difficult to represent in GURPS without hacking together a mess of derived attributes and shuffling all the skill assignments around. The lack of DX as the uber-stat is, by itself, a major shift.
Now I'm curious. Can you give me some examples?

Ellie the Technomancer

06-25-2006, 02:27 PM

Not if you want to release Fallout as a setting and charge people for it.

If you want to release it as a free book, okay you can do that, so long as Interplay's lawyers don't get all excited, hoping for some spare cash to drag Interplay out of their death spiral.
I was talking uniquely in terms of the system, and was never really serious about all this anyway. I never really thought that Fallout could be released as a GURPS product. My intervention was mostly a commentary about how everyone and their dog wants to go D20 when there are much better alternatives out there (of which GURPS is only one, it just happens to be the one I prefer).

The case of Fallout is just particularly ironic in that it was initially based on a completely different system, and will now have to be forced in a D20 mold.

David J Prokopetz

06-25-2006, 02:38 PM

Now I'm curious. Can you give me some examples?For one, you can represent a socially gifted character who's not also intellectually brilliant and highly perceptive without delving into Advantages and derived sub-attributes. The Intelligence/Perception/Charisma split is a major shift in philosophy - and doubly so as Intelligence and Perception "inherit" skills that are lumped under DX in GURPS, reducing the system's reliance on both DX and IQ as "must-have" stats.

Of course, GURPS 4E resolves this matter by simply having DX and IQ cost twice as much as ST and HT, but there are multiple approaches to any problem. :)

Quintin Stone

06-25-2006, 02:49 PM

A PnP adaptation of SPECIAL Fallout can be found at http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=category&cat_id=63

This version of SPECIAL is very crunchy for a tabletop system. After all, SPECIAL was designed for a computer game where number crunching is all handled behind the scenes, by the computer. You have to track AP's, both resistance and threshold and AC for armor (plus then armor condition which reduces armor effectiveness by a percentage), range based on Perception, and other stuff.

The damage formula is: (Initial Damage - Threshold) - ((ID - DT) X DR, round down).

Great if you've got a computer to handle all this stuff or you hand out calculators to your players. If there's another, more playable, version of SPECIAL that's been published, I don't know about it.

Reynard

06-25-2006, 03:30 PM

The case of Fallout is just particularly ironic in that it was initially based on a completely different system, and will now have to be forced in a D20 mold.

Levels? Check.
Skills? Check.
Feats? Check.
Turn based combat? Check.
Single rol then static initiative? Check.
Hit Points? Check.
Completely arbitray weapon damages? Check.

yeah. Too bad they didn't [pick something that was anything like the orginal game system.

David J Prokopetz

06-25-2006, 03:42 PM

Levels? Check.
Skills? Check.
Feats? Check.
Turn based combat? Check.
Single rol then static initiative? Check.
Hit Points? Check.
Completely arbitray weapon damages? Check.Skill checks with a flat probability curve, rather than the bell curve of GURPS? Check.

A combat mechanic involving a to-hit roll that can be translated directly into d20 + modifiers versus a fixed target number while retaining exactly the same distribution of outcomes? Check. ;)

Waiwode

06-25-2006, 04:10 PM

What I'm saying is it used many concepts that are an integral part of GURPS. Since it was supposed to use GURPS, I feel safe to say they were inspired by it. YMMV.
Now I'm curious. Can you provide examples?

Doug.

Scurvy_Platypus

06-25-2006, 04:29 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS
Scroll down to "GURPS in other media"
The computer game publisher Interplay licensed GURPS as the basis for a post-nuclear war computer role-playing game in 1995. Late in development and after disagreements between the two companies, the GURPS character-building system was replaced with the SPECIAL System, the GURPS name was dropped, and the game was released under the name Fallout.

http://www.thecomputershow.com/computershow/previews/fallout.htm

http://www.sjgames.com/ill/1997/ill-jan97.html
Entry for January 13, 1997
GURPS Fallout Progress Report
Interplay's GURPS Fallout computer game is rolling along - it's scheduled for an April release. Here's an article about it, and an interview with Tim Cain, the producer.

SJ Games has an alpha version in house for evaluation - we'll tell you more soon.

-- Steve Jackson

David J Prokopetz

06-25-2006, 04:30 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS
Scroll down to "GURPS in other media"And this has what bearing on the present discussion?

Jim Bob

06-25-2006, 10:23 PM

And this has what bearing on the present discussion?
Well they are arguing about whether or not Interplay did any actual development work with the game using the GURPS system. Ellie the Technomancer was kind enough to give us a link (http://www.duckandcover.cx/official/gurps/), and from that it's plain they did get down to actual alpha-testing with GURPS as the basis for it all. For example,

http://www.duckandcover.cx/official/gurps/images/gfall05.gif

So I think we can fairly say that the idea of using GURPS for the Fallout computer game got beyond the stage of just being an idea, or of talk.

I believe the argument they're trying to make goes something like this,

"Once, people were going to use the GURPS system for the Fallout computer game."
"Therefore, they thought that GURPS was good for playing in the Fallout world."
"If it was good for Fallout back then, it still is now."
"Therefore, if we have a Fallout game on tabletop, we should use GURPS."

Now, I am no great fan of d20, and much prefer GURPS. So I agree that it'd be better to use GURPS for it. However, when we talk about a Fallout setting, there are two kinds of rpg setting,

Non-commercial, and
Commercial.

If we do things non-commercially, okay we can use GURPS, or d20, or Toon, or whatever the hell we want.

If we want to make a Fallout setting book commercially, then we have to organise a commercial agreement between Interplay or Glutton Creeper, and SJGames. Given that the original Interplay-SJGames deal fell through, this seems very unlikely indeed.

So even if the Glutton Creeper website seems a bit dazed and confused in other ways, in choosing d20 they are making a sensible decision. The only other widely-known open gaming licence system is Fudge. People can judge for themselves whether someone wishing for commercial success would be better served publishing a Fudge setting book, or a d20 one.

Of course, the guy could also go with his own game system, made up just for the book. Whether that is commercially better or worse than going with d20 is an open question. But me, if I'd spent the money he must have to get this licence, I'd be betting on d20. It's the safest way.

Whether GURPS or d20 is the better system for this particular setting, or the better system in general, is irrelevant to the fact that circumstances essentially force the guy to use d20.

David J Prokopetz

06-25-2006, 10:26 PM

Well they are arguing about whether or not Interplay did any actual development work with the game using the GURPS system. No; we are discussing whether the system as it actually exists in the published game most closely resembles (and lends itself most readily to adaptation by means of) GURPS or d20. That a directly GURPS-derived version of the game existed at one point isn't especially relevant to this discussion, as it was never published and no one apart from the developers who worked on it has any idea what its implementation looked like.

Tensen01

06-25-2006, 11:32 PM

I'm onboard the project in a manner of which I will not disclose due to the fact that I don't know the specifics of legal stuff just yet but it involves art.

Oh, and here's the official forums for the game: http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/viewforum.php?f=60

Jim Bob

06-25-2006, 11:42 PM

I'm onboard the project in a manner of which I will not disclose due to the fact that I don't know the specifics of legal stuff just yet but it involves art.
Good luck with that! I hope you are paid well, and achieve much fame as a result! At least, fame among the geek world;) Have you a webpage, or current art credits, so we can get a sample of your style?

No; we are discussing whether the system as it actually exists in the published game most closely resembles (and lends itself most readily to adaptation by means of) GURPS or d20.
I think perhaps you did not read my post completely.

Nonetheless, whether the Fallout computer game character and combat system more closely resembles GURPS or d20 I don't think matters much. With levels and percentile skills it actually more closely resembles a certain other game system whose makers are subject to some heated discussion around here from time to time. Anyway, as I said - what does it matter?

Would the game be marketed only to those nostalgic for the computer games? If so, then it had better have very much the same feel as them. Would it have a wider target audience? If so, then the system need not resemble the old one.

Edit: over on their forum, the Glutton Creeper guy says (http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14929&sid=fccaeb39529396ebd4ee5215afc37b54),
And as for d20, the advantages are probably that it has a large base of people who are already familiar with the mechanics, and the fact that it can be used for free by publishers. GURPS, on the other hand, requires paying Steve Jackson Games for the license.
See? I was right ;)

Tensen01

06-26-2006, 12:06 AM

Thank you for your well-wishes, I certainly hope it's a stepping stone.

I have a website(or gallery) at http://tensen01.deviantart.com/

and here's an example of my stuff:

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs9/300W/i/2006/070/4/c/Fighter___Wijon_Van_Garrick_by_Tensen01.jpg

Not the best, but it's there. lol, and don't say "oh, well, if that's the level of art we can expect..." lol

I've done better, and some color... We'll see what they want though.

David J Prokopetz

06-26-2006, 12:12 AM

Anyway, as I said - what does it matter?How would you feel about a Fallout adaptation using the Synnibar ruleset?

See? System matters. :p

the system need not resemble the old oneSure it needs to. If the system you use just plain isn't capable of presenting activities and themes that resemble what you see in the computer games, you're going to alienate your core fanbase - and since they're you're biggest word-of-mouth advertising vector, regardless of who you're actually trying to appeal to, that's a Bad Idea™.

(Besides, I think you're getting entirely too hung up on the "but it uses percentiles!" thing. Percentile dice against a percentile-rated skill with a fixed modifier to represent the difficulty of the activity can be mapped directly to d20 + skill modifier versus a fixed DC; the distribution of outcomes doesn't even change, and conversion of statistics is a trivial mathematical exercise.)

Jim Bob

06-26-2006, 12:17 AM

Tensen, you should put your website in your sig. Whether artist, writer, or just plain gamer, it's good to do that, so that people can know what you like, what you do, what your interests are. And for anything commercial you definitely want to be able to promote yourself. You never know who might be reading the forum, or be friends with someone who reads it... The same goes for non-commercial things like gamer groups and clubs (thus my own sig).

Of course it is even better if you have your own website, www.tensen.com or whatever.

I think your art is quite good, and very appropriate to rpgs. Whether you can do Fallout-ish stuff I don't know, but for rpgs in general I'd be glad to see your art around. You seem to be unaware of Poser, which if you've seen GURPS Magic, such ignorance is a good thing ;) Real art done by hand, huzzah!

I don't know you, so I may be telling you what you already know, but have a good look around at the rates you can expect. Don't make it a project of love, get the cash - you work, you get paid! Don't fall in the river on that first stepping stone, it's a slippery one. :cool: I see that on your deviant art site you're enquiring about pay rates. Do a search through the Freelancer's forum here, there are a few experienced artists. My advice is to listen most closely to those with a few publication credits under their belt, rather than fellow newbies. As one who's done some writing, I know that many undersell themselves.

Jim Bob

06-26-2006, 12:27 AM

How would you feel about a Fallout adaptation using the Synnibar ruleset?

See? System matters. :p
Not that much. The system only matters to me if, as I said, the book is more system than setting. So for example Jeremiah being d20, that ruined it for me, because there was some much crunch and so little setting info by comparison. But Stargate SG-1 was great, because there was so much info there compared to crunchy stuff.

That is, if the system is crap (to me) it doesn't matter, so long as the book is mostly setting, I can ignore it. It could be FATAL, so long as most of the book's setting, I wouldn't give a shit.

Sure it needs to. If the system you use just plain isn't capable of presenting activities and themes that resemble what you see in the computer games, you're going to alienate your core fanbase -
It's a well-known tendency of fanboys to overestimate their own importance to the success of the thing they're fans of. The fanboys will buy the book no matter what (see Serenity), and then regardless of its actual quality, quite a lot of them will spend hours and hours online bitching about it. It's too short, too long, needs a new edition, keeps going through too many editions, crap art, too much art, black and white, colour, should be hardcover, should be softcover, should have more feats, shouldn't be just feats, where's the list of guns, why didn't they include this character from the show/game, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.

Your "core fanbase" is going to bitch no matter what. And then go ahead and buy everything your put out anyway :D That's the nature of fanboys.

What makes for success beyond that small core of fanboys, I don't know. And neither do you, or you'd be running a successful rpg company :p

I just hope there's lots of setting info in it.

Tensen01

06-26-2006, 12:28 AM

Thank you for all your advise, and I'll be heeding it. I've heard enough horror stories to make sure I have my ducks in a row. And thank you for the comments on my work... Like I said that's not my best, and some of my other stuff is more like what I'll probably be doing.

I've posted in the Freelance forum as well, so we'll see.

I keep planning to change my sig but never do... Maybe I'll do that right now.

again, thank you muchly.

Megazver

06-26-2006, 12:32 AM

Hey guys, I've found something interesting (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1913551).

Jim Bob

06-26-2006, 12:44 AM

Hey guys, I've found something interesting (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1913551).
That is indeed very interesting. Be careful, Tensen! And any other volunteers... I'd be interested to see if Interplay ever does some sort of press release on their website... Probably not. It's looking like even Phil wasn't pessimistic enough about it... :eek:

Tensen01

06-26-2006, 12:54 AM

Fore-warned is fore-armed.

Piestrio

06-26-2006, 01:03 AM

Here's hoping it all turns out legit. :)

Piestrio

David J Prokopetz

06-26-2006, 01:20 AM

It's a well-known tendency of fanboys to overestimate their own importance to the success of the thing they're fans of.Not fanboys - fanbase.

There's a big, big difference.

The majority of any property's fanbase is a silent majority, and their word-of-mouth influence is enormous; fanboy shrieking on Internet forums matters very little, but a simple "well, I didn't think it was very good...", quietly passed from one casual fan to another, and from there to the broader community, is more influential than all the advertising buzz in the world. It's that silent majority you need to appeal to - and there's a very real risk, if you produce a follow-up product that doesn't resemble its predecessor, that you'll lose their interest.

You don't have to give a rip about the hardcore fanboys; they're going to bitch and whine and buy it anyway. It's the ones with no particular emotional investment that you have to worry about, because it's actually possible to lose their patronage, and their silent disapproval can hurt you more badly than the screaming of a thousand self-appointed critics.

So what do you need to appeal to your casual fans?

One word: familiarity.

People distrust change. If your adaptation doesn't resemble the source material closely enough to engender a feeling of familiarity, that distrust will be transfered to the product itself - and folks will stay away. To bring it back to the matter at hand, the best way to ensure familiarity - obviously enough - would be to adapt the video game's existing system. However, if we're to be given a binary choice between d20 and GURPS, as proposed in this thread, d20 is unequivocally the better choice; it lends itself most easily to producing an adaptation that retains the familiar elements of the video game's systems.

Yeah, I can hear the next objection already: what about movie adaptations of books? They make all sorts of changes, to the point that the story isn't even recogniseable, and they sometimes succeed anyway, right?

Sadly, the comparison is inapt. The moviegoing public is a bigger demographic than people who read books; folks who are new to the franchise are going to vastly outnumber those who are already familiar with it. However, the opposite is true in this case: computer gamers, even computer RPG gamers, vastly outnumber tabletop roleplayers - by at least couple of orders of magnitude, in fact. Not only that, but the current generation of gamers contains many more folks who started out with computer games and made the jump to tabletop than vice versa. I would not hesitate to assert that "people who have played Fallout on their computer" is, by itself, a bigger target demographic than the entire tabletop roleplaying hobby.

That's what you're up against here.

Tensen01

06-26-2006, 01:37 AM

Not fanboys - fanbase.

There's a big, big difference.

The majority of any property's fanbase is a silent majority, and their word-of-mouth influence is enormous; fanboy shrieking on Internet forums matters very little, but a simple "well, I didn't think it was very good...", quietly passed from one casual fan to another, and from there to the broader community, is more influential than all the advertising buzz in the world. It's that silent majority you need to appeal to - and there's a very real risk, if you produce a follow-up product that doesn't resemble its predecessor, that you'll lose their interest.

You don't have to give a rip about the hardcore fanboys; they're going to bitch and whine and buy it anyway. It's the ones with no particular emotional investment that you have to worry about, because it's actually possible to lose their patronage, and their silent disapproval can hurt you more badly than the screaming of a thousand self-appointed critics.
I believe that's what he meant... That Fanboys think they matter more than they actually do.

David J Prokopetz

06-26-2006, 01:41 AM

I believe that's what he meant... That Fanboys think they matter more than they actually do.He's attempting to equate all fans with screaming Internet fanboys in a disingenuous bid to claim that the existing fanbase is irrelevant.

Jim Bob

06-26-2006, 01:57 AM

He's attempting to equate all fans with screaming Internet fanboys in a disingenuous bid to claim that the existing fanbase is irrelevant.
They're both irrelevant.

You can't say in one breath that computer gamers outnumber roleplayers, and then in the next breath say that we really have to worry what computer gamers think of some rpg book adaptation of some computer game.

You're assuming that all the fans of some show or game suddenly become roleplayers simply because there's an rpg of their show or game. If that were so, Stargate SG-1 would have brought a couple of million people into roleplaying. I'm not privvy to their sales figures, but I think we can fairly say that if they'd made a couple of million sales they'd be boasting about their immense success.

What I am saying is that neither you nor I know the secret to a stunningly successful rpg - or else we'd be running an rpg company. It's plain that some things - doing it in d20 rather than GURPS, abusing your fanboys on forums or whatever - are going to have zero negative effect on your game's success. But what makes it very successful? I don't know. And neither do you.

I know it's a rare thing to hear in internet discussion, these words "I don't know." So perhaps they're easy to read over and not notice. What sorts of things will make a Fallout tabletop rpg successful? Beyond the obvious, like good art, good system, lots of setting detail, easily readable font, etc - beyond the obvious which is so often missed - I don't know. And neither do you :p

David J Prokopetz

06-26-2006, 02:01 AM

They're both irrelevant.Declaring it so doesn't make it so. You're going to have to back that one up.

You can't say in one breath that computer gamers outnumber roleplayers, and then in the next breath say that we really have to worry what computer gamers think of some rpg book adaptation of some computer game.Why not?

You're assuming that all the fans of some show or game suddenly become roleplayers simply because there's an rpg of their show or game.Nope - I'm saying they're the people you have to appeal to in situations where there's an existing crossover market. As there is here, in that vitually all tabletop roleplayers are also video gamers, and the portion of the video game market that plays tabletop games is also the portion of the video game market that's most likely to play computer games like Fallout.

Let's be honest: outside of ridiculously big-name properties like Star Wars, no licensed property ever inducted large numbers of new folks into the roleplaying hobby. Most such products draw their buyers from existing roleplayers who are also fans of the property in question. The target market for this product is exceedingly well-defined.

[snip bragging about one's own ignorance]I'm glad that you can admit - with some pride, I note - that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, but you're not going a very good job of demonstrating the same of me. As I said earlier, simply declaring it to be so doesn't make it so. :p

(Incidentally, that consumer familiarity is a vital element for success is one of the most basic principles of modern marketing - which is really all I'm saying here. If you're planning on refuting the basic tenets of an entire academic discipline, you've got your work cut out for you.)

Hobgoblin

06-26-2006, 02:04 AM

The turn-based tactical FPS was called Infection and was very well regarded. I could never get into it, though.

The Fallout guys and SJGames did in fact clash over the level of violence. The last straw was when SJGames wanted the scene in the opening cinematic where the riot officer executes the unarmed civilian removed. At that point the Fallout guys said fuck it and went their own way.

As for Fallout D20... I'll buy ANYTHING Fallout-related.

Rupert

06-26-2006, 04:35 PM

Nonetheless, whether the Fallout computer game character and combat system more closely resembles GURPS or d20 I don't think matters much. With levels and percentile skills it actually more closely resembles a certain other game system whose makers are subject to some heated discussion around here from time to time. Anyway, as I said - what does it matter?

What, Rolemaster/Spacemaster? :)

Rupert

06-26-2006, 05:01 PM

People distrust change. If your adaptation doesn't resemble the source material closely enough to engender a feeling of familiarity, that distrust will be transfered to the product itself - and folks will stay away. To bring it back to the matter at hand, the best way to ensure familiarity - obviously enough - would be to adapt the video game's existing system. However, if we're to be given a binary choice between d20 and GURPS, as proposed in this thread, d20 is unequivocally the better choice; it lends itself most easily to producing an adaptation that retains the familiar elements of the video game's systems.

Much of the familarity comes from 'look n feel', and I just don't see that with much of the d20 'system'. Sure, feats look like perks, but 'd20+adds vs DC' doesn't look much like 'd100 roll under', and by the time you get those extra stats that everyone says don't work like in GURPS (Perception, etc.) working in d20 it won't look much like d20 anymore.

Then we come to combat, and that just doesn't work like d20 combat at all really - hit locations, special effects from hits and criticals to those locations, continual lowering of hit chances with range (rather than in broas bands), strength minima for weapons, etc. - that's GURPS, not d20. Again, by the time you alter d20's combat to look and feel like Fallout's it won't look much like any other d20 game.

On top of all that, GURPS 4e actually has stats that look more like Fallout's than d20 does, so again, getting the look and feel right means the d20 system gets all bent.

What d20 has going for it is that it's free, and it has a lot of players who are already somewhat familiar with it (though they'd better be willing to learn a bunch of changes). That's about it, really.

David J Prokopetz

06-26-2006, 05:47 PM

On top of all that, GURPS 4e actually has stats that look more like Fallout's than d20 doesI think you're reaching there. When you translate from Fallout to GURPS, you end up rolling three stats into one and discarding another entirely, and the skill assignments aren't even remotely close.

Besides, there are a lot of similarities you're glossing over. Fallout's perks, for example, very strongly resemble d20 feats; GURPS doesn't really have any equivalent, as you tend not to buy new special abilities after character creation. In Fallout, skills steadily increase for a flat cost and, over time, come to dominate the base stat ratings, as in d20; in GURPS, skills are relatively static, and don't get raised very much after character creation, as every skill level costs more than the last. In Fallout, attacking somebody is a flat check against a target number, as in d20; in GURPS, an attack can involve multiple opposed checks.

ragnarok

06-26-2006, 05:59 PM

The link posted by Eli is really cool(and now I have a real headache from trying to imagine how the game and it's nearly endless stream of combat could have worked with Gurps).

Much of the familarity comes from 'look n feel', and I just don't see
that with much of the d20 'system'. Sure, feats look like perks, but 'd20+adds vs DC' doesn't look much like 'd100 roll under'But statistically it's the very same!

and by the time you get those extra stats that everyone says don't work like in GURPS (Perception, etc.) working in d20 it won't look much like d20 anymore.This doesn't stop anyone from making a OGL game from d20 :-)

Then we come to combat, and that just doesn't work like d20 combat at all really - hit locations, special effects from hits and criticals to those locations, That's actually quite easy. IIRC Fallout didn't allow severed bodyparts until you killed someone(and thus you don't have the problem normally associated with people trying to marry D&Ds hit points with hit locations :)). You could do hit locations like:
Take a negative modifier to the attack-roll(dependend on the location you want to hit) for a combination of "increased threat rating/better damage multiplier/special effect"(for example "Eye=Hit-10, threat rating +3, damage multiplier +2, blindness (1d4+1 rounds or until healed if Damage>Con)") .

continual lowering of hit chances with range (rather than in broas bands), strength minima for weapons, etc. - that's GURPS, not d20.The Continual lowering would actually be quite a change in play, but strength minima for weapons, come on, it wouldn't change the gameplay [of d20] just the shopping tours between the scenes :)

Rupert

06-26-2006, 10:32 PM

I think you're reaching there. When you translate from Fallout to GURPS, you end up rolling three stats into one and discarding another entirely, and the skill assignments aren't even remotely close.

Let's see:

Fallout:

Strength (ST)
Perception (PE)
Endurance (EN)
Charisma (CH)
Agility (AG)
Intelligence (IN)
Luck (LK)

Standard d20:

Strength (Str)
Dexterity (Dex)
Constitution (Con)
Intelligence (Int)
Wisdom (Wis)
Charisma (Cha)

GURPS 4e

Strength (ST)
Dexterity (DX)
Intelligence (IQ)
Health (HT)

Prerception (Per)
Will

With GURPS 4e alowing independant adjustment of Perception from IQ, and GURPS' use of ads/disads to effectively give a charisma rating GURPS maps very nicely onto Fallout, aside from Luck, and the stat range is even reasonable - all you really need to do is add five to the Fallout stat. The d20 stats also map, aside from Luck, though you then end up with Perceptive people automatically having strong wills as well. Also, you need to fiddle the stat range a bit.

Besides, there are a lot of similarities you're glossing over. Fallout's perks, for example, very strongly resemble d20 feats; GURPS doesn't really have any equivalent, as you tend not