Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Scribble]

Hrmmm Maybe the moral of the story here is:

Don't write press releases on a day when you've had an altercation with strange men?

In anycase, I think the idea is a good one. I'd love to see some of the behind the scenes design "rules" from the core game. I started a thread once asking for which ones were known.

[hint] If Sean could release a book full of em I'd be a really happy guy. [/hint]

 

[Ranger REG]

I disagree completely. Being opinionated, holding opinions, and expressing opinions is the only thing you have to fall back on as an artist of any sort. I disagree with Sean a good portion of the time too, but I would never tell him not to have an opinion because his viewpoint makes him less useful. On the contrary, without Sean's opinion he's dead to me.

You can pretty much written him off if he's silent or suddenly stop giving opinion. I won't. As long he is still making good-quality games, that's fine by me.

I just don't think a press release is a place to express an opinion, especially an opinion about his potentially future customers while introducing his new company. If I didn't have a sense of humor, I'd say he's trying to be selective of who he wants to sell his products. It reminded me of that Seinfeld episode about a peculiar Soup N-, err I mean Chef.

 

[Incenjucar]

1. Reasonable, perhaps, is better stated as 'reasoned'. Common usage and such, I guess. Unless the goal is "Play Like Sean" and not "Make Better Design and Purchase Decisions", Sean's doing it the wrong way (Unless Sean is provably "Better" than people who can find a place for Sneak Attacking Undead or Causing cold damage to cold-immune creatures). Now, if he was trying to say "In default tournament D&D", fine. That's just a balance issue. However, since most people play, you know, their own games, he's missing out most of the potential audience. Instead, he just declares things to be bad, period. Not "In most games", not "In Sean-genre games", but games, period.

2. If Sean's goal is "To Reveal the Underlying Design Philosophy of D&D, and How They Have Diverged From It", fine. So far he's just been insulting undead-hunting rogue campaigns, and possibly failing to realize that the design philosophy wasn't set in stone when initially devised. Frankly, I find it more useful to help people to realize their OWN design philosophy along with the other options out there so they can pick and choose, rather than be directed toward one thing. Honestly, I'm reminded of preachers. There are many temples to D&D, but for some bloody reason, only Sean's is the way to heaven.

3. Yes, everyone is biased. If we ignore the fact, we're going to give biased information. Biased information results in lost opportunities. What if everybody was so certain that fire was the way to chemistry that they never tried electricity? Escaping your own biases is a powerful thing.

Again, Sean's sounding more like my proffessors who have to be given long explanations as to why Fantasy is not automatically for the unwashed masses.

Now, me, I can see and accept, openly, the possible enjoyment to be found in any genre or style. An example: I -really- hate Great Gatsby. However, I will quickly reccomend it to someone who has a thing for screwed up young rich people, and explain why it would be good reading for them. I would then hurl at the thought of that stupid book, but I'm not going to tell the reader they're "reading wrong", because I know damned well that it's subjective, and so there is no 'right' answer to begin with.

And hey, it's my opinion that people should not let their opinions interfere with trying to be helpful, so nyeh.

--

Really, I think Sean should just be more blunt and honest: He'll happily teach you to play like he plays, based on what he's learned. Go to someone else who can keep their bias out of things to get a deeper look in to how you play.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

1. Reasonable, perhaps, is better stated as 'reasoned'. Common usage and such, I guess. Unless the goal is "Play Like Sean" and not "Make Better Design and Purchase Decisions", Sean's doing it the wrong way (Unless Sean is provably "Better" than people who can find a place for Sneak Attacking Undead or Causing cold damage to cold-immune creatures). Now, if he was trying to say "In default tournament D&D", fine. That's just a balance issue. However, since most people play, you know, their own games, he's missing out most of the potential audience. Instead, he just declares things to be bad, period. Not "In most games", not "In Sean-genre games", but games, period.

2. If Sean's goal is "To Reveal the Underlying Design Philosophy of D&D, and How They Have Diverged From It", fine. So far he's just been insulting undead-hunting rogue campaigns, and possibly failing to realize that the design philosophy wasn't set in stone when initially devised. Frankly, I find it more useful to help people to realize their OWN design philosophy along with the other options out there so they can pick and choose, rather than be directed toward one thing. Honestly, I'm reminded of preachers. There are many temples to D&D, but for some bloody reason, only Sean's is the way to heaven.

3. Yes, everyone is biased. If we ignore the fact, we're going to give biased information. Biased information results in lost opportunities. What if everybody was so certain that fire was the way to chemistry that they never tried electricity? Escaping your own biases is a powerful thing.

Again, Sean's sounding more like my proffessors who have to be given long explanations as to why Fantasy is not automatically for the unwashed masses.

Now, me, I can see and accept, openly, the possible enjoyment to be found in any genre or style. An example: I -really- hate Great Gatsby. However, I will quickly reccomend it to someone who has a thing for screwed up young rich people, and explain why it would be good reading for them. I would then hurl at the thought of that stupid book, but I'm not going to tell the reader they're "reading wrong", because I know damned well that it's subjective, and so there is no 'right' answer to begin with.

And hey, it's my opinion that people should not let their opinions interfere with trying to be helpful, so nyeh.

--

Really, I think Sean should just be more blunt and honest: He'll happily teach you to play like he plays, based on what he's learned. Go to someone else who can keep their bias out of things to get a deeper look in to how you play.

Well, firstly, I too can empathise with any genre and style. I dislike most romantic comedies, yet I believe that I can discern a good romantic comedy from a bad romantic comedy, and I DO understand why many people enjoy them. But to my mind any style and genre can be achieved within the ruleset that is the SRD or the d20 core mechanic and divergence from this core must then either be based on: 1) Accident or mistake, 2) Ignorance of the ruleset or its original intention, or 3) Deliberate decision. I can forgive the first, I believe the second should be remedied whenever possible, and I would like to see good arguments for the third such as "the flavour/style we were trying to create was just not achieveable even though we analyzed all the possibilities in the existing system, and we had to accept a breach in the systems internal consistancy"

Mind you, I too am operating with some presuppositions here (that I believe ot be correct, but as I am not omniscient who knows?) is that Sean has inside knowledge of the original foundations of the d20 core mechanics, and knows the original intention of the different rules, and that he therefore is able to adhere closer to this core mechanic than people with less knowledge of the "core" (because they were limited by access, didn't analyze the system properly etc.).

Another basic assumption that I am making is that the original d20 mechanic was created with a purpose: to secure some kind of internal balance and more importantly to secure coherence and consistancy. This should, to my mind, be the main goal of any kind of "core engine" for how else can you truly discern direct additions to the "core" from systems that are not derived from the "core" if not because the additions are coherent and consistent with the basic rules and regulations that govern this core mechanic? If products started to derange wildly from the system presented in the SRD would/should they still be considered d20 games? And if so, maybe only in name? Is a d20 game any game that uses the gaming license, or is it a game that shares the same fundamental logic that lies inherent and implicit in the SRD?

I do find the "play like he plays" versus "how you play" dichotomy to be a bit off. The construction of the rules has nothing to do with playing style and should not really affect how anyone plays their games at home, and I agree with Sean if sloppy design is "simply changing principles of the core mechanics for flavour reasons". This seems - and excuse the term - a bit "lazy" to me. Surely the core mechanic is flexible enough to allow you to integrate the "flavourful" change in another way that IS adhering to the core mechanic. I also don't see how other, socalled "unbiased" designers, have any greater chance of understanding the game "I" play than Sean? Is Monte Cook unbiased? Gary Gygax? Mike Mearls? I doubt it. The three designers mentioned, whom I share a great deal of respect for and whose work I generally like, may not be stating their bias as bluntly as Sean (though Gygax is known to express his opinions very directly too), but I find it hard to believe that they are designing games anymore for "me" or "you" than Sean. I guess they are simply designing games with the best of their ability and following their creative instincts. But surely creativity and most personal tastes can be expressed inside the exisiting core mechanics?

I also don't see how his opinion is keeping him from being helpful? Personally I find people with strong opinions ten times more helpful than those who never express a firm opinion. Even if I strongly disagree at least I know his position and that just makes life easier for me. I RL I actually find people without firm opinions more suspicious than those who have them (unless I'm quite positive that the lack of a firm opinion is down to insecurity, shyness, or the like, in which case I sympathise). As a side-note, I find people with strong opinions more interesting and entertaining (the press release had me chuckling, but that may be just me), even our sportsstars are mostly dull as cardboards these days.

If "sneak attack" was intended the way Sean claims it to be intended, then I say: "Leave it at that, and invent something else to cover the effect of the feat you desire in your game." If the "core" system has one core definition for a "sneak attack", then use THAT definition for everything concerning sneak attacks. You want some sneak attacks and critical hits to affect robots? Fine, do as FFG did and create robots like the soulmechs who have vulnerable parts in their - albeit articifical - anatomy. Of course, you should be able to do whatever you please with the rules in your OWN game and nothing is stopping you (unless Sean is planning on expanding his business with an army of rules enforcers and govern the industry with an iron fist ).

With the flexibility that seems to be inherent in the current d20 system, I see no reason why you should change the basic principles of the original mechanics when there seems to be plenty of space to create a similar effect by not doing so. I, of course realise, that no human being is probably able to catch every little discrepancy but I'm happy as long as they keep trying.

Sean seems to want to "preserve and defend" that core mechanic and I find that commendable, and hope I would feel the same even if I felt differently about his stance . I interpret it as a gesture of professionalism and a sign of his faith in the original conception of the system, even if it sometimes comes off as overly meticulous, nitpicky, or downright abrasive.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, and now I better head off to bed before I get caught up in this thing (luckily that happens rarely).

-Zarrock

 

[Incenjucar]

I agree that it's good to know why something is: However, I feel the response to that understanding should be "How could I change it and still make things work", not "No touchie".

The feel is important, certainly (and again, this is RPGA-style gaming, since a huge number of gamers out their modify like mad, hence why there's enough 3rd party purchasing for Sean to even MAKE such a company concept), but there are aspects of that feel that aren't such sacred cows. How does "Some thieves can sneak attack undead if trained for it, most can't" destroy the feel of the game? Is "rogues run when they see zombies" really that integral to D&D?

Yes, Sean has insider information (Basically the 'how to' info I've been watching WotC avoid producing). He knows the 'point buy' of how things work better than we do. However, since he was part of that, he might also be less able to seperate himself from the notion that it's not a perfect set of rules. House rules exist for a reason. So far, that which he has called wrong are merely different and potentially repercussive. So was 3.5. So is UA (or AU, for that matter).

Trying to define d20 and so forth is for other threads (On the WotC boards, it becomes this massive and pointless argument with absolutely no way to prove anyone's point). May as well ask diaglo what D&D is.

The core mechanic is "roll a d20 to determine success versus this DC, based on these modifiers, and these conditions". Everything else is an extension of that. As someone mentioned, does being able to turn elementals or outsiders or animal instead of undead break the game so much worse than being able to sneak attack undead?

What does a rogue do with their sneak attack if you're in a setting where undead are 90% of the foes you face? Should the DM say "Sorry, sucks to be you, trap-boy", rather than provide the feat option? Further, your mention of using core mechanics is fairly off, since you're suggesting NOT using the core sneak attack rules with a single modification. Wouldn't it be much easier if you just used a pre-existing mechanic, instead of inventing a new one?

Also, since when is flavor before mechanics a bad way to go?

As for the opinion thing: Opinions are fine, as SUPPLIMENTS to facts.

Opinions without context are, again, the otyugh's favorite part of the body.

Gulguthra bait really doesn't entice me, personally.

Now, if he gives a nice, clean, objective look at things, and then adds a margin that says he prefers method A to method B, that's fine and dandy, and at least shows he can focus on what's useful to people who don't think he's the God of Gaming on Toast.

Again, "House Rules: How to tell if they'll work in your game or not" sure as heck beats "House Rules: Don't use these ones."

 

[seankreynolds]

Sorry, but this post isn't too kick Sean's ass (Which I hope doesn't count as a hijack)
but without giving too much away Sean; can you elaborate on what The New Argonauts will be like (low magic stuff tends to pique my interest)?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll cut & paste a response to a similar question from my boards:

{Sean - does/will TNA discuss how a DM should handle a low-magic setting as contrasted against the "default" setting and reams of magic items?}

It's difficult for me to give a short answer to that because the talk-to parts of the book aren't all in one place and aren't always broken out into a handy sidebar (in some cases, it's part of a larger discussion and it would be hard to follow the point if you had to jump out in the middle to read a sidebar and then come back to finish a paragraph).

I know I specifically mention the lack of easy healing affecting encounters, how there are few area attacks or mental attacks so Ref and Will saves become less important, how Toughness should give a little more kick because of the lack of heating, alternate ways to build magical/legendary items (like Heracles using the Nemean lion's skin) without needing spellcasters, and toning down monsters that deal a lot of damage. I know this because it's in one of the early sidebars about it being a low-magic campaign.


Basically there are several places where I talk right to the DM and say, "Because of the low-magic assumption of this campaign, you need to think about X, Y, and Z."

What does a rogue do with their sneak attack if you're in a setting where undead are 90% of the foes you face? Should the DM say "Sorry, sucks to be you, trap-boy", rather than provide the feat option?

Actually, the smarter thing to do is build a rogue class with a different ability instead of sneak attack*, rather than changing what the definition of what "sneak attack" is. As soon as you allow the rogue to sneak attack in one book, any player with that book thinks he should be able to sneak attack in the campaign he's in, whether or not that campaign is undead-heavy. In other words, changing the meaning and effects of a core mechanic has a much greater effect on the game than creating a balanced variant class.

*Just as the smart thing to do in a campaign without undead is to give the cleric something other than turn undead, rather than changing the effect of turn undead. Just as the smart thing to do in a campaign without heavy armor is to give heavy-armor-proficient classes something to compensate for their lower-than-core armor classes, rather than changing the definition of "heavy armor." Just as the smart thing to do in a campaign without divine spellcasters is to give arcane spellcasters healing spells, rather than changing the definition of "healing."

Further, your mention of using core mechanics is fairly off, since you're suggesting NOT using the core sneak attack rules with a single modification. Wouldn't it be much easier if you just used a pre-existing mechanic, instead of inventing a new one?

Easier isn't always better, or fair. It would be easier if all magic items cost exactly 1,000 gp to create no matter what they did. It would be easier if we didn't use level adjustments at all and a drow Ftr1, human Ftr1, and vampire human Ftr1 were all treated as exactly the same power level. It Would be easier if D&D had only one character class, with one rate of progression for saving throws and BAB. I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that's a better situation than what we have now.

 

[Henry]

I agree that it's good to know why something is: However, I feel the response to that understanding should be "How could I change it and still make things work", not "No touchie".

Which is exactly what it sounds like Sean is going for. I think his "pointing out the manhole" analogy is sound. Your implied assumption of "and still make things work" means you need to know why something will or won't work. In The New Argonauts (Sean, you really need a better acronym than TNA ) he doesn't appear to be saying, "you don't need to do a low-magic game", he is planning on saying, apparently, "If you are going to do a low-magic game, don't forget about these points."

 

[Scribble]

Actually, the smarter thing to do is build a rogue class with a different ability instead of sneak attack*, rather than changing what the definition of what "sneak attack" is. As soon as you allow the rogue to sneak attack in one book, any player with that book thinks he should be able to sneak attack in the campaign he's in, whether or not that campaign is undead-heavy. In other words, changing the meaning and effects of a core mechanic has a much greater effect on the game than creating a balanced variant class.

I see what you're saying here, but I disagree to a bit.

For one thing, I think that anyone who thinks that they can just "use" any feat or option from any book without the DM's approval is mistaken. The DM has the final say on what is or is not going to harm the campaign.

For another, I don't really see how "Taking this feat allows you to overcome the rule that states sneak attack cannot be used on undead" Is any different then "Taking this feat allows you to overcome the rule that states you cannot cast spells without a material spell component"

Next, creating a whole new class seems a bit unbalanced to me. Now, not only do you have the ability to sneak attack undead, but you also gain that free feat slot that would have been used up by the undead feat...

As I believe you pointed out earlier, feats are a limited resource. If you want to use it to gain the ability to sneak attack undead, you loose the ability to do something else with that feat slot.

I think the person mentioned above would do a lot more damage to my campaign with the ability AND an open feat slot.

But maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll cut & paste a response to a similar question from my boards:

{Sean - does/will TNA discuss how a DM should handle a low-magic setting as contrasted against the "default" setting and reams of magic items?}

It's difficult for me to give a short answer to that because the talk-to parts of the book aren't all in one place and aren't always broken out into a handy sidebar (in some cases, it's part of a larger discussion and it would be hard to follow the point if you had to jump out in the middle to read a sidebar and then come back to finish a paragraph).

I know I specifically mention the lack of easy healing affecting encounters, how there are few area attacks or mental attacks so Ref and Will saves become less important, how Toughness should give a little more kick because of the lack of heating, alternate ways to build magical/legendary items (like Heracles using the Nemean lion's skin) without needing spellcasters, and toning down monsters that deal a lot of damage. I know this because it's in one of the early sidebars about it being a low-magic campaign.


Basically there are several places where I talk right to the DM and say, "Because of the low-magic assumption of this campaign, you need to think about X, Y, and Z."



Actually, the smarter thing to do is build a rogue class with a different ability instead of sneak attack*, rather than changing what the definition of what "sneak attack" is. As soon as you allow the rogue to sneak attack in one book, any player with that book thinks he should be able to sneak attack in the campaign he's in, whether or not that campaign is undead-heavy. In other words, changing the meaning and effects of a core mechanic has a much greater effect on the game than creating a balanced variant class.

Smarter? Riiight. Always nice to see mine isn't the biggest ego out there.

You must REALLY hate all of those feats that let you use turning attempts for other effects.

*Just as the smart thing to do in a campaign without undead is to give the cleric something other than turn undead, rather than changing the effect of turn undead. Just as the smart thing to do in a campaign without heavy armor is to give heavy-armor-proficient classes something to compensate for their lower-than-core armor classes, rather than changing the definition of "heavy armor." Just as the smart thing to do in a campaign without divine spellcasters is to give arcane spellcasters healing spells, rather than changing the definition of "healing."

I'm sorry, since when did a feat "Change the Definition" of something?

Does Weapon Focus change the definition of BAB all the sudden because it doesn't give you more attacks?

Last I checked, Sneak attack was more or less "Cause extra damage to an opponent that is denied their Dodge and Dex". This is just overcoming a resistance by one group of creatures.

Or is breaking past DR with the right material 'redefining' things all the sudden?

Smart. Uh huh. Keep patting yourself on the back there.

Easier isn't always better, or fair.

Neither is harder always better, of fair. Moot point.

It would be easier if all magic items cost exactly 1,000 gp to create no matter what they did. It would be easier if we didn't use level adjustments at all and a drow Ftr1, human Ftr1, and vampire human Ftr1 were all treated as exactly the same power level. It Would be easier if D&D had only one character class, with one rate of progression for saving throws and BAB. I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that's a better situation than what we have now.

Ah, yes, the old absurdity defense.

You must have enoyed 2e more than I did, with a new mechanic for every new situation and all. Maybe we should roll a.. hmn.. d8... yeah.. a d8.. +1d4.. yeah, for this new unrogue... and.. adjusted by.. 2/3 strength.. yeah.

Or we could just add a feat to the system that had the desired effect and have more time to play the game.

 

[Belen]

You must REALLY hate all of those feats that let you use turning attempts for other effects.

I will pipe in on this one. I detest all the feats that allow Clerics to use turning in other capacities. Why? It's called power creep. It is also a blatant pandering towards whingey players.

Just because an ability is not useful 100% of the time should not be a reason to add to it. A character is defined as much by their weakness as by their strengths. A cleric still gets good HD, medium BaB, good AC and powerful spells. Turning was a bonus, not a detriment, as the class would be fully balanced without turning. It should not be a source for cheesy add-ons.

Sean is correct. A new mechanic would be stronger than either tacking on extra uses to an existing mechanic or blatantly breaking their own rule system.

Of course, I am sure that the "turning" feats are great for people who need ever more power, but they actually add to the weight of the game and make it far more unwieldy.