Life of a Computer Programmer

I have a love/hate relationship with Microsoft's Visual Basic .NET

On the one hand, it allows me to do a lot of things that I was never able to do before. On the other, I have to learn how it does things, as opposed to the previous version.

In my job, I have to do a fair amount of database programming. Visual Basic had one way of accessing databases, VB.NET has another. Oh goody.

There's this thing called the CommandBuilder. Useful tool, if only it worked correctly.

I just spent several hours wrestling with the stupid thing - trying to insert a row into a database. That shouldn't be hard. I could write the code in five minutes in VB6. I can in VB.NET as well. Unfortunately, the VB6 code would work, the VB.NET code didn't. "Syntax Error in INSERT Statement" it kept telling me.

This was an INSERT statement that the CommandBuilder was meant to create itself. Oh, goody.

The problem? A couple of the database fields were reserved words. So, I had to enclose them in marks to say "These are Fields, not Reserved Words."

How do you do that? Well, apparently there are two properties of the Command Builder that you can set: .QuotePrefix and .QuoteSuffix

When set to "[" and "]" everything started working.

The manual? What's that?

Oh well. It works now - and a program that I wrote to save myself some time (and that took about 6 hours to get working) may now start saving some time for myself.

The Adversarial DM

This is another of my messageboard posts, this time to ENworld. No miniature stuff here, just RPG-related material.

Once upon a time, when role-playing was new to me, there was a role-playing game put out by Victory Games that allowed you to participate in adventures set in the world of James Bond.

(That's a long-winded way of saying: There once was a James Bond RPG).

The James Bond RPG introduced me to the idea of Action Points. Oh, they were called "Hero Points" back then, but the idea was the same as "Action Points" or "Action Dice" or whatever you wanted to call them. Each hero had a supply of Hero Points that they could use to change the results of various checks: either to make something they did succeed, or to make something their opponent did fail.

Fairly standard so far.

What was interesting was that the DM's characters also had Hero Points, of a sort: they had Survival Points. And they weren't used in the same manner as Hero Points.

Where the heroes would be using their Hero Points to disarm bombs, shoot the villains and avoid being shot themselves, the villains could only use Survival Points to protect themselves from harm.

If your hero shot at a villain and hit, the villain could use a number of Survival points to make you miss. (You could also use Hero Points to counteract that, of course).

However, if the villain shot at a hero and missed, the villain could not use their Survival points to turn a miss into a hit. They could only be used defensively. It was an extremely good mechanic.

When you come down to it, D&D, James Bond and most RPGs are co-operative games. If the DM designs a 10 room dungeon, then if the PCs die in room 1, they will never see the other 9 rooms - the DM's work is wasted.

Of course, once the PCs reach room 10, the bets are off.

Still, if there's no chance of failure in rooms 1-9, then there's a lessening of the tension in the game - and possibly a loss of interest as well. So, there has to be some chance of failure - just not high enough to seriously threaten the players if they work well.

Action Points for PCs are great because they give the players more chances to survive tougher encounters, and to do risky (and fun!) things. When the DM has Action Points as well, then a problem arises.

You see, the DM really holds all the cards in a RPG. He knows everything about what the PCs will face, and indeed can alter the details of the challenges to make them harder!

To preserve a feeling of impartiality on the part of the DM, we use dice. No, I'm serious: because a DM has to roll to hit like everyone else, it allows the players to know that the game isn't entirely being decided on a DM's whim.

Of course, in very serious games, the DM doesn't deviate from his planned encounters, either. I mean that in the sense of the "game" aspect of the RPG - rather than the role-playing and/or story-telling aspects.

When a DM has Action Points that can be used actively against the PCs - especially if they improve the chances of the PCs being killed - then the impartiality of the DM is threatened. Your character died because the DM chose to use an Action Point. I find that extremely dangerous thing to have in a RPG. It threatens the trust between the player and the DM.

Of course, a DM can design a dungeon so deadly that the PCs won't survive no matter what they do. (heh!) I prefer to have a dangerous place, and to let the PCs die if the dice and their decisions say so, rather than actively work against the PCs.

So, why did I choose to write about this topic today? Well, it's because of the Stargate RPG. It's based on the Spycraft game, which is based on the d20 System. I assume that the Action Dice features of Stargate are also those of Spycraft, but I'm not certain - however, if you know Spycraft and not Stargate, and the action dice system I describe seems similar, then you know it's the same.

James Bond uses an asymmetrical Hero Point/Survival Point structure. Stargate, on the other hand, allows both DM and players to use action dice for the same purposes.

In fact, Stargate goes even further than you might initially think. In D&D, to get a critical hit, one must roll a successful hit after you roll a threat. In Stargate, after you roll a threat you must spend one of your action dice to get the critical.

Now, when you realise that the DM can do that against the PCs, you may begin to realise the problem I have with the system. The adversarial relationship is suddenly to the fore. "You killed my PC" is the result. Alternatively, if the DM does not use the dice in that way, it is obvious that the DM is pulling punches.

The matter of activating "Critical Failures" as well just adds to the misgivings I have about the system.

I think I may have similar misgivings about Eberron, if it gives Action Points to enemy NPCs without warnings about their use.

How would I house rule this in my games? I'd go to the James Bond "Survival Point" paradigm. NPC action points may only be used defensively: to increase saving throws, defense scores and the like, not to attack the PCs.

The James Bond 007 RPG came out in 1983. I'd like to think that some of the concepts used in its design are remembered.

(Discussion on this topic can be found on ENworld).

In Praise of Wizards

I posted this several days ago on the Wizards boards, but I think it's worth posting again here.

Ouch. My brain hurts. I've been reading too many negative posts.

Mike, Rob, Des, Jonathan - and everyone else who is involved in making the D&D Miniatures game - Thank you.

Thank you for all the time you've put into this game, trying to make it the best it can be.

Thank you for listening to all of our opinions, good or bad.

Thank you for telling us as much as you can, even when faced with the realities of business life.

Thank you for taking the gamble of making Huge figures. Even though I'm disappointed that the Huge Red Dragon will be twice as rare as I thought it would be, and even though I'm worried about the implications of the split rarity system, thank you for trying to balance the needs of collectors and gamers.

Thank you for creating something that I have real trouble resisting the urge to "just buy one pack more".

Thank you for creating a product that is enjoyable in its own right, and that also enhances my gaming love of over 20 years - D&D.

Thank you all so very much.

You can find the original post and the discussion here.

I have a Vrock now. It's too big. It only just stands up. I still love it, though.

I wish Githyanki weren't uncommon, though. I wish they weren't so good. It'd be easier to trade for them! I wanted a few for a recent RPG session, but I couldn't get enough. Oh well, I'll probably get a few more in the next month.

RPG vs Skirmish game rule issues

If there's one thing that can confuse people, it is that the rules of the D&D RPG and the D&D Miniatures skirmish game aren't the same.

I see it over and over again, people thinking that because something works one way in the RPG, it must work the same way in the Skirmish game. Fortunately, they don't.

Why do I say fortunately? It's because the Skirmish game is simpler than the RPG. This is a big attraction, because the RPG is designed around one player controlling each figure (except the DM, of course). If you used the full RPG rules when running a Skirmish game, it'd take a lot longer. You'd also likely need a referee, because of the options allowed in the RPG rules.

The Skirmish game is simpler. Remember that, and you'll find things a lot easier.

Here are a few issues that I've seen come up from time to time.

Melee Reach and Attacks of Opportunity

In the RPG, large monsters can attack any square they can reach, the same as the Skirmish game. Where the rules differ is as follows: in the RPG, when a creature move in an area the large monster can reach, the large monster gets an Attack of Opportunity. In the Skirmish game, the AoO only occurs when the creature moves from an adjacent square.

Why does it work like this? Simplicity. Although it's not that hard to work out the reach (threatened) area when there's only a few figures on the board, by the time you get to 20+ figures, things get a lot more complicated. It's easy to see which figures are adjacent; it's not so easy to see which figures are 2 squares away... and then remember whether or not they have reach.

The Carrion Crawler (a large creature) doesn't have reach. The Elf Spearguard has Reach 2. And the Aspect of Lolth has Reach 3.

The less you have to check your opponent's cards during the game, the quicker it will be. So, Melee Reach doesn't allow Attacks of Opportunity if the creature isn't adjacent.

5 foot steps and Sidestep

There's a rule in the RPG that states that if the only movement for a creature is a 5 foot step in any direction (that's one square), it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

That rule doesn't exist in the Skirmish game. Any normal movement will provoke an AoO. There's an exception, which comes from the ability Sidestep.

Why doesn't the Skirmish game allow a Sidestep for all figures? Again, I suspect it's for simplicity. Movement follows one set of rules (if you move from an adjacent square, you provoke an Attack of Opportunity). You only need to teach the one rule to a new player.

The Sidestep ability allows you to add the sense of that 5' step to the figure that really need it (normally rogues with Sneak Attack), and maintain the simplicity of the game.

Magic Weapon vs Magic Fang

This one turns up quite a bit. Why does magic weapon affect all creatures whilst magic fang only affects Animals and Magical Beasts? Why doesn't it work the same way as the RPG?

I think you can guess the answer: it keeps things simple.

In the RPG, magic weapon only affects manufactured weapons, with the exception of the Monk's attacks. When you apply that to the miniature game, you suddenly have to decide whether or not the creature is wielding a weapon.

But wait! It get's more complicated. The Medusa has two melee attacks: the first is with a shortsword, the second is a bite attack from her snakes. One is a manufactured weapon, the other isn't. So what happens when magic weapon is cast?

So, to keep things simple, magic weapon affects everything, including animals. For the same reason, magic fang only works on animals or magical beasts rather on "natural weapons".

This makes it better than magic fang doesn't it? So, why have both of them?

Well, because it adds flavour. Druids and Rangers can cast magic fang, and Clerics and Wizards can cast magic weapon. It's worth remembering that both spells won't be on the same figure, and they're not spells used in isolation - the figure doesn't have magic fang and that's it! If a figure can cast magic weapon (and that's it), and another figure can summon a wolf and cast magic fang, which is the better figure?

Point costs, faction and utility determine which figure you'd use. There are times when the figure with magic fang is the better figure; it's not quite as simple as it might initially appear.

Incidentally, you can cast magic fang and magic weapon on the same animal or magical beast, giving it +2 to its attacks and "Ignores DR".

Conclusion

There are lots of other differences between the games. (The way Spell Resistance works is one). Normally, it's to make the game simpler. Have a go of the Mass Combat system one of these days, and you'll see why Simpler is good for the game. :-)

Of Chickens and Warbands

I ended the last entry of this blog with an unexpected postscript: a hen had become a mother. I can now tell you that there are two little baby chickens running about, coloured black and white like all the other chickens this hen has hatched out. Now I have to worry about a fox or cat getting them. (Surely not Lily!)

I spent part of today being frustrated at work, still waiting for a couple of computers to be built so I can test my newest program on them. Unfortunately those computers are being frustrating all on their own, and am annoying my colleagues even more than me. They just don't want to come together.

I also managed to write a review of Archfiends, although it may be a few days before it gets posted on the 3rdedition.org site; it has to be edited and then posted. It's not a trivial procedure, alas! (There's also a review of Dragoneye in the pipeline - I finally got around to writing that one during Easter. Well, three months late isn't that bad...)

While I was waiting for my cooking fire to get going this evening, I built a couple of 200 point warbands that I intend to use tomorrow afternoon in my regular Friday Magic and Miniatures session at my other FLGS.

I haven't many packs of Archfiends yet, so I'm using what I've got so far.

Dragon Fury (LG, 200 points)

• Large Silver Dragon


• Cleric of Moradin


• Cleric of Lathander


• Soldier of Cormyr


• Dalelands Militia


• Ember, Human Monk

Obviously, the bulk of the army is in the Large Silver Dragon. The Cleric of Lathander is one of two LG miniatures I possess with magic weapon, which the Large Silver Dragon needs desperately. I don't have Mialee yet; I almost resorted to using the Evoker's Apprentice!

The Dalelands Militia is there as part of the "Come to me" strategy. Any figure with a ranged attack ensures that the opponent can't just get into a defensive stance and wait for you. The Cleric of Moradin is there simple for shield of faith. Ember is in the warband because I like her. ;-)

The other warband I built is as follows:

Wrath of Orcus (CE, 200 pts).

• Aspect of Orcus


• Tiefling Captain


• Orc Warrior x2


• Cultist of the Dragon


• Orc Champion


• Werewolf

This is another case of me having fun. I wanted to include the Aspect of Orcus because, apart from being a good figure, it looks great!

I have a group of four Abyssal Maws that are ready for the Cultist to summon (of course!) and the Werewolf is in there because I bought him as a single today. I had a couple beforehand, though.

I've little idea how those warbands will play tomorrow; I hope I actually do get a game! (It's fairly likely, I must say).

Anyway, bed is calling - I've been waking up at 6 am recently regardless of when I went to sleep, so I need to get there early if I'm to have enough rest!

Of Warlords and Shoelaces (and Chickens!)

I took another step into the great world of self-sufficiency today: I bought some shoelaces.

There's probably a great parable here about One Man's Need for Shoelaces and what it means in his relationship with the world, but it probably doesn't apply to me, because I have bought shoelaces before. True, this was the first time I bought them whilst I've been living on my own. (First full day today!) However, it's not really that important. They're also slightly too long. Oops. I don't think there's any deep meaning to be found here. Sorry about that.

More interesting are the April issues of Dungeon magazine and Dragon magazine I picked up yesterday. Yes, I actually get the April issues in April. I find that astonishing - my experience with comic books was that the date printed on the cover had nothing to do with the date they were available.

I've got issues 1-250 of Dragon on the CD-ROM Archive they put out a few years ago. (I used to buy it for issues 172-200). I started collecting it again when 3E was released, so I have every issue from 274 to 318. (That last is the April issue).

I didn't get Dungeon before 3E came out; but I have every issue since it did. (About #82 or so, I think). At least, I did have every issue, but I lent a couple to a friend - I haven't got them back yet.

I find both magazines to vary in usefulness, but as I never know when something good will come out - and I've no other source of adventures - I get every issue.

The best things about Dragon of late (excepting Gary's "On a Soapbox" column and Aaron William's "Nodwick") are the articles on the D&D Miniatures Game. The April issue (#318) has one of the better articles to date: Fang & Shadow: Campaign Play for D&D Miniatures.

It expands the campaign skirmish rules of the D&D Miniatures game in a number of interesting ways: adding a few new scenarios and magic items and providing new ways for your Warlord to advance.

All I need now is to get into a Skirmish Campaign. Unfortunately, I don't have enough friends who play the game yet to do so.

This might be changing, though. A couple of new players are likely to be joining my Sunday group in the near future, and Greg's been making noises about getting some of the miniatures soon. I hope he does. :-)

Of course, the miniatures campaigns will have to contest with my play of various board games and the D&D RPG, but that's usual for me.

So many games, so little time!

Postscript: I'd intended to end this log there, but I was hearing odd noises from the chickens outside, so I wandered out to investigate. It seems that one of the hens has been broody on the sly, and has just hatched out a few new young chickens.

A few months ago, a fox took all our chickens except for that one hen. We bought a rooster, and that hen has taken it into her small little mind that she's going to replenish the henhouse all on her own - and she's doing a good job of it. There were seven chickens hatched earlier this year, and I now have to find out how many she's hatched this time around.

I just hope the foxes stay away.

Sunday Gaming Day

Every second Sunday I meet up with my friends to play D&D. Before that, I get a chance to play some other games.

For instance, this last Sunday we played:

• Lord of the Rings boardgame with the Sauron expansion


• San Marco boardgame


• D&D Miniatures

Unusually, we didn't end up playing D&D. I'm taking a break from DMing - I've been running this group for the past three and a half years - and Gofa's taking a shot with a swashbuckling game. However, Gofa couldn't make it to the session, so I ran them through a session of the Star Wars RPG - 1st edition. That's the one published in 1987 by West End Games.

I spent three happy years playing the original SW RPG, so slipping back into using the rules (even after a break of about eight years) wasn't hard. I hope Julian, Greg and Ben enjoyed themselves. Actually, I know Greg did, and we're planning to run a Star Wars RPG campaign.

Using the 3.5E rules. (That's the revised d20 rules from Wizards). Why those rules rather than the enjoyable D6 System rules? I'm not quite sure - but I think part of the reason is that I prefer the character advancement you get in a class-based game, rather than a skill-based game.

So, it's likely that we'll be soon meeting on every Sunday - one week for the Greyhawk D&D 3.5E campaign, and the next week for the Star Wars campaign. Of course, this probably means I'll need to get some of the Star Wars collectible miniatures... or Greg will have to. (I'd prefer it if Greg got them).

There's just one slight drawback to using the Revised Star Wars rules - no-one in the group has them! (Yes, that's a slight drawback). Greg and I have the original set of rules, but we never quite got around to picking up the new set.

I ordered a copy today from my FLGS. (Friendly Local Gaming Store). I discovered there are two other people in Ballarat also ordering the revised SWRPG rules as well. Odd! Hopefully they'll get in before I have to run the next session. ;-)

It's going to be an expensive month. In addition to feeding myself (doing cooking, shopping, washing, etc.) I also want to pick up more Archfiends and the Expanded Psionics Handbook. We'll see what happens.

In any case, there should be some fun Sundays coming our way!

Alone At Home with Only A Cat for Company

Is this thing on?

I'm using a Weblogging site that apparently will upload the results to my webpage. That's cool, and it's easier than me doing all the html coding myself. (I do so on the rest of my pages - which is why they have a somewhat spartan look at times).

Today marks the beginning of a new adventure: Living On My Own At Home. About a year and a half ago, my mother lost her fight with cancer. Last week, my father remarried - something I'm very, very happy about as I get on extremely well with his new wife. Today, both of them left for a six week holiday in Rome and Venice.

That leaves me Alone At Home with Only A Cat for Company.

Lily would be very put out if she found out I was referring to her as Only A Cat, so I won't tell her.

Anyway, the main worry for me is depression and loneliness. I'm at home four days of the week; although that might be reduced to three days with the establishment of a regular weekly game on Sundays. Still, it's three long days with the Winter closing in.

When I get depressed, I want to spend more. I'll have to watch that.

I bought three packs of D&D Miniatures today: two Archfiends and one Dragoneye. I already had the Aspect of Bane I picked up in the first AF pack, but I didn't have either the Orc Champion or the Thayan Knight, so I'm pretty happy. Oh, and I bought a few singles, including two Githyanki Fighters - I'm planning a D&D RPG adventure with a few Githyanki, so I'd rather like to get some more in the next month. Hopefully some of my friends picked them up in their packs.

I had my first game with Archfiends on Sunday. I was trying out the Aspect of Bane - along with two Human Executioners, a Cleric of Nerull and Urthok the Vicious. I came up against a CE army with a Gnoll Archer, Cleric of Lolth, Aspect of Lolth, Ogre Ravager and an Orc Champion.

I lost badly. Oh well. At least the Gnoll Archer died at my hands.

I'm convinced that the Aspect of Bane could be good - but I'd rather like a LE figure with the fear ability first. Can you please make one, Wizards?

Hopefully there will be a few new updates to the Minis site in the next few days - I've still got a few reviews of KCDinc to post, and there are other things to upload as well; including some material useful to those using the miniatures in the RPG.

Cheers!