Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Zarrock God of Evil]

Well sneak attacking undead is one. You can't do it without changing the core rules. You can't grapple incorporeal creatures, falling damage is utterly silly.. the list is endless.

This isn't to say that you can't have these things happen, just to say that in order for them to happen (like a cleric throwing a fireball) you have to change fundamental design rules. You can even have these things happen in a manner which is more consistant with the core rules, and generally, that's the best way to go in order to minimize any potential unseen conflicts.

There's nothing important in the design rules except when measured against the result the rule has according to "fun." Ie. A good rule that results in less fun isn't a good rule (ie something like a more realistic falling damage system), while a bad rule that results in more fun isn't a bad rule (the fact that you can cut yourself out of a giant monster and it "magically" seal up and the next person swallowed has to do the same). This is true regardless of how "mechanically correct" the rule is. They're two separate things.

Also, I don't mean to imply that using more consistant-with-core-rules rules is ruining the fun. Not in the least. They're what I prefer. But more than that, I want rules that adjudicate what I want to happen regardless of what other rules may say, as long as what I want to happen isn't detrimental to the fun had by all.

Which is why the rules are really aways secondary to a good DM, good players, and a desire by all for fun to be had by all.

joe b.

The "good dm, good players, desire to have fun" argument is all well and good and I'm sure everyone here agrees to it, but I don't see how it adds anything to a discussion of rules mechanics. You and I and most other EnWorlders may have the privilige of DMing or playing in such "good" groups, but then again you don't design a system to work in an optimal environment do you? I'm a subscriber to Murphy's Law and I believe in designing things that can handle the worst case scenario.

Sure you cannot sneak attack undead, but you can create another ability that deals extra damage to undead and base a rogue class around it, getting the same effect. Sure you cannot grapple incorporeal undead since that would require you to change the definition of incorporeal or grapple but you could create supernatural abilities like "ghostcatcher" (ghostbusters like energy containment or whatnot) or create geographical locales or times-of-day when incorporeal undead are forced into a "corporeal" form and thus can be grappled if that's the focus of your campaign (Wrestling Ghostbusters - should be a great campaign actually ). You want clerics to cast fireball? Add it to the Fire domain list as a 4th level spell - this is in correspondance with other wizard spells on the Cleric domain list. Problem solved.

More realistic falling damage is actually a pretty non-controversial rule and I'm not sure its the kind of rule Sean would have any beef with. In your "Grim Fantasy" sourcebook you simply add a sidebar: Optional Rule - Realistic Falling Damage and explain how falling damage now does 1d10 dam per 10 ft. fallen and how you have to succeed a Fort. save vs. DC 10 + ½ dam suffered or die if you fall more than 30 ft.

The "cut-your-self" out mechanism does seem rather silly yes and from a logical, realworld perspective it is certainly contrived but it's made this way to fit into the core system. If there's a gaping hole in the creatures belly, does it suffer damage from bleeding? Uh, don't think so, we may need a bleeding mechanic! If a second character is swallowed can he locate the same gaping/not-so-gaping hole? Does it require a check? Does the creature have multiple stomachs (like the Dragon Cow) and if yes, in which stomach is the second character, the one with or without hole? Sure you are allowed to change this rule, but just be ready close the can-of-worms again. IMO, this is Sean's message, if you design a rule that breaks with the "core", you better deal with all the ripples it causes throughout the system. If you don't, it's bad game design.

-Zarrock

 

[Soul]

There are a host of points I could make based on somethings people have said since my last post, but instead I'll just say two things for now. Thank you to those who see my points and agree, or atleast think on similiar lines. Second, I never made it a point to say specificly limb loss dealt directly with sneak attacking undead, but more over implied that the HP abstraction for Undead implies it. We know what kills humans and creatures with similiar anotomies, i.e. loss of blood, destruction of organs, etc.. What kills Undead?

 

[jgbrowning]

Zarrock,

I think you may be missing the gist of the argument. Good design is, by definition, better than bad design. No surprise there. I think we'd all prefer good design over bad design anyday.

However, what someone thinks is good may limit what someone else wants to happen. So is that good design or bad design?

Bad and Good are dependent upon what you want to happen. If i want those these above to happen i have to stretch the rules as you say. Some would consider that bad design, some would consider that good design.

To me:
Questions: Critting undead: bad design or good design?

Answer: Neither.

Reason: Opinion. What do you want to happen and how do you want it to happen? Does the method in which it happens lead to fun by all or to troubles later on? Do these "troubles" later on remove fun or not?

To me, it's not cut and dried since the basic rules themselves are simply codifications of what one particular group wanted to happen. They made those rules (and made them well, I think), but that doesn't mean those rules are "good" when applied to situations with differing expectations.

joe b.

 

[Thanee]

What kills Undead?

Yep, Undead are a fundamental design flaw in D&D.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

Zarrock,

I think you may be missing the gist of the argument. Good design is, by definition, better than bad design. No surprise there. I think we'd all prefer good design over bad design anyday.

However, what someone thinks is good may limit what someone else wants to happen. So is that good design or bad design?

Bad and Good are dependent upon what you want to happen. If i want those these above to happen i have to stretch the rules as you say. Some would consider that bad design, some would consider that good design.

To me:
Questions: Critting undead: bad design or good design?

Answer: Neither.

Reason: Opinion. What do you want to happen and how do you want it to happen? Does the method in which it happens lead to fun by all or to troubles later on? Do these "troubles" later on remove fun or not?

To me, it's not cut and dried since the basic rules themselves are simply codifications of what one particular group wanted to happen. They made those rules (and made them well, I think), but that doesn't mean those rules are "good" when applied to situations with differing expectations.

joe b.

I think this post pretty much sums up the problem we have here in this argument - people are not talking about the same thing. Pretty much any argument that can run for this amount of pages and still hasn't reached an agreement is a sign of one of three things:

1. People don't want to agree.
2. People are not talking about the same thing or misunderstand each other's messages
3. People are operating with a set of radically different assumptions and presuppositions that are by nature irreconcilable.

I don't believe the first applies in this discussion, nor very often on EnWorld in general, so the explanation clearly lies somewhere inside the realm of the latter two causes.

In my perception a lot of people here seemed to have missed the gist of SEAN's argument, just as I may or may not have missed the gist of yours. As I said, he's not trying to prevent you from implementing crits on undead in your campaign, he's telling designers that if they do a thing like that, they should consider all the possible side-effects and explain how this changes the core assumptions of the d20 system. If they cannot, for one reason or another, the prudent thing would be to implement a similar rule that DOES NOT change the core assumptions.

To elucidate my point:

Question: Critting undead: bad design or good design?

Answer: Bad design.

Question: Critting undead and explaining how this affects the entire balance of the game, how CRs on Undead should be adjusted in such encounters,how these criticals are explained etc.

Answer: Good design.

Questions: Not critting undead, but implementing another ability that allows certain classes or characters with certain feats to increase their damage against undead.

Answer: Good design.


I don't see how this point is missing the gist of the argument, but I do realise that we may never agree on this, not in 20 pages of posts and not in a 100, and I accept this. I do not consider your opinion inferior to mine nor am I insulted about your lack of agreement with me, Sean, or my arguments. I can only conclude that our tastes, assumptions, and expectations differ in certain areas. All I expect in return is the same courtesy, no more and no less.

-Zarrock

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

Yep, Undead are a fundamental design flaw in D&D.

Bye
Thanee

Indeed they are, and they would be killed off immediately if that was only possible!



-Zarrock

 

[jgbrowning]

I think this post pretty much sums up the problem we have here in this argument - people are not talking about the same thing. Pretty much any argument that can run for this amount of pages and still hasn't reached an agreement is a sign of one of three things:

1. People don't want to agree.
2. People are not talking about the same thing or misunderstand each other's messages
3. People are operating with a set of radically different assumptions and presuppositions.

I don't believe the first applies in this discussion, nor very often on EnWorld in general, so the explanation clearly lies somewhere inside the realm of the latter two causes.

In my perception a lot of people here seemed to have missed the gist of SEAN's argument, just as I may or may not have missed the gist of yours. As I said, he's not trying to prevent you from implementing crits on undead in your campaign, he's telling designers that if they do a thing like that, they should consider all the possible side-effects and explain how this changes the core assumptions of the d20 system. If they cannot, for one reason or another, the prudent thing would be to implement a similar rule that DOES NOT change the core assumptions.

I don't see how this point is missing the gist of the argument, but I do realise that we may never agree on this, not in 20 pages of posts and not in a 100, and I accept this. I do not consider your opinion inferior to mine nor am I insulted about your lack of agreement with me, Sean, or my arguments. I can only conclude that our tastes, assumptions, and expectations differ in certain areas. All I expect in return is the same courtesy, no more and no less.

-Zarrock

This is why I love ENworld.

I actually agree with you, pretty much completely. I strive to be as "rule compliant" as possible and when making new things try to make them within that frame.

However, I don't think making things outside of that frame is bad design. It can be bad design, but it can also be making the rules fit the flavor. The rules are just tools and sometimes you simply don't have the right one and you have to jury-rig somthing that works, but doesn't necessarily look like everything else because your goal is something outside the normal parameters of the game. The original rules (undead can't be critted) are simply the rules made for one set "feel" of gaming. Sometimes they should be disgarded, regardless of balance, when aiming for a "feel" that's significantly different.

Also (although this is a bit off subject) since I'm a 3rd party publisher, I know that my rules aren't really that important balace-wise in comparison to the need for balance from WoTC. We have different market segments and different audiences. The people reading my books are tinkerers and I assume they're well versed in what they like and don't like ala rules balance issues.

Generally, I guess, I assume almost everyone reading something I write is a good DM or a good player....

joe b.

 

[Thanee]

I think Undead (and Constructs) should count as objects when it comes to damaging (destroying) them. Finally a decent use for Sunder!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felonius]

I think this is the real point of contention. Many people don't care about fundamental game design as long as the game's fun. And sometimes, that fundamental game design is something that should be altered depending upon what type of result is desired.

Of course all individual DMs and gaming groups are free to ignore and modify the rules as much as they like. For them the rule-books are just guidelines and this is as it should be. I don't think anyone contributing on this thread is contending this.

However, a game designer, cannot ignore the fundamental game design building blocks of the system he or she is creating a product for. The very least a designer should do, is to point out why he's changing the game in such a way.

If this is not done, my first assumption is that either the designer didn't care about it (bad), or he doesn't know it exists (worse!). This, of course if I catch it before-hand instead of in the midlle of a gaming session...

-------

While reading this thread, I've realised that some of us keep talking about slightly different things (or approach the issue from different angles).

Some say that anything goes as long as it's fun and this freedom should not be limited. I agree, but this works only on individual DM or campaign level.

I' saying that in game design this is not so. A game designer is NOT free to do everything he wants just because it's fun (in his opinion). He needs to keep the existing system in mind and understand the interdependencies in it. This way he creates balanced rules, which fit into the existing framework and he does not invent the wheel again or create redundancy.

If a game designer has such a cool idea, that in order to realize it game system fundamentals must be changed or broken, he must explain it in the rule and take the possible repercussions on other rules into account (and explain them as well).

Or seriously think if OGL would be a better way to go instead of d20...

- F

PS: Please note that I'm not judging or pointing fingers at any existing (or demised ) game designers. I'm only expressing my opinions on the matter of game design.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Making a game that was better than 2e was like outrunning a cripple.

Pure gold.