Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Sean Reynolds' new company press release
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Zarrock God of Evil" data-source="post: 1808871" data-attributes="member: 2025"><p>If rules get confusing and discussion breaks up around uncertainties in the rules system, the game will be less fun. Bad rules do not necessarily "ruin the fun" but they certainly do not support it either. IMO, a good rule is a rule that is not felt during gameplay, that is clearly understood and explicated, and that is not up to debate etc. This seems to be the view Sean is advocating and previous posts on this thread have already shown several ways in which you can easily create the desired effect (extra damage to undead, non-useless rogues in a non-standard undead-heavy campaign) with minimum fuss. How is that impeding the fun? You can uphold the fundamental rules AND have fun? Why would you not want to do that? I'd like to see some examples of fundamental changes that have to be made in order for you to enjoy your game or create the particular flavour you are looking for, and that you see no way to pull off without changing the definitions inside the core rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Several of the latest posters have equalled vital spots to either "losing limbs" (since this is the only example that can justify the argument for "extra damage" to corporeal undead) or "negative energy spots" (a concept that I think Sean has dismantled quite effectively already - it opens up a can of worms and could warrant a new accessory all of its own). This definition is "entirely your own", there's nothing in the core books that supports the claim that vital spots include "limbs" and "negative energy spots", quite on the contrary actually. The standard sneak attack does extra damage but it does NOT hinder movement (which should surely be the result of an attack to your lowers limbs) nor does it impair your fighting skills: you don't lose the ability to two-weapon fight because you've been sneak attack, so the attack is probably not aimed at your arms, you don't go blind, deaf, or suffer concussion, so clearly you are not being hit in the head.</p><p></p><p>That's leaves only one logical conclusion:</p><p></p><p>- The "vitals" that sneak attacks refer to are completely abstract and thus sneak attacks against undead cannot be allowed since they don't have vitals. The extra damage cannot be justified as "chopping away important bodyparts" since the core system does not support this possibility.</p><p>- The vitals refer to internal organs such as the heart, liver, intestines, etc., that are critical to the survival of organic beings but are either not part of or not essential for undead, constructs, etc. </p><p></p><p>I admit that this should probably be spelled out somewhere in Core Books if it is indeed the truth (and I believe logic supports it, since nothing in the core rules addresses "limbloss").</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are changing the point slightly here. Sean is not telling you how to modify you games at home, he wants professional designers to be more aware of the basic principles of the mechanics and not make unfounded changes to the basic definitions of the core rules. There's a big difference. Professionals should meet a certain standard, the integrity of the d20 System and the way it is generally perceived especially in terms of quality depend on it. </p><p></p><p>If the rules put out in the various supplements fiddled so much with the core system that I would have to spend hours of "homework" refitting it to my "core" campaign, then the license starts to lose its main value: portability and shared understanding of the common ruleset. </p><p></p><p>Or a bit more drastically, if the rules presented in various supplements cause endless debate, confusion or other annoyances, does the supplement not lose value? Will I loose faith in parts of the d20 industry? All of it? In the longterm? Sure the market should "automatically" punish this in a perfect world. But as Sean said, not all gamers have the necessary time to gain the comprehension of the core rules necessary to evaluate the material. How much slagging off of the D20 system is not based on false assumptions about the rules? If I want to insert a cheap shot, many cr*p products sell well in the real world even though their quality is clearly inferior to their competitors. The reason? Hmm - price, promotion, customer ignorance, branding, etc. and any combination of these factors. But shouldn't we all want "quality" above else in the d20 industry?</p><p></p><p>Point is the you should be able to pretty much do anything you want INSIDE the boundaries of the d20 system, so there's no excuse for going the other route. To me its a cop-out. There may be benign reasons for the errors mentioned and I sympathise with that but the basic design philosophy of a d20 company should at least be based around correspondance with the core mechanics and definitions. </p><p></p><p>In the few cases were this has been deemed insufficient publishers have gone OGL but even these supplements often show a great deal of harmony with the existing "core" and inside this license pretty much EVERY kind of flavour, genre, etc. has been presented. It can be done. It may take a bit more work. But that's what we should expect from professionals - everywhere. If I change the basic premises of a systems development methodology that I use for no better reason than "it makes it easier for me" or "I never quite got around to OO-modelling so I've changed the definition and notation of objects" and confusion arises among the project participants and programmers because of it, I'll face the music from above (and I'm not talking angel choirs here). My solution might have been "creative" and it may have sought the "flavour" I was looking for, but maybe what I should have done was to seek a better understanding of OO-modelling AND THEN found a way to integrate these basics into my personal practice in manner that is consistent and unambiguous. </p><p></p><p>This is the standard I would expect of myself and its the standard I expect from any professional in any industry and thus I can only sympathise with Sean's efforts. </p><p></p><p>-Zarrock</p><p></p><p></p><p>-Zarrock</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Zarrock God of Evil, post: 1808871, member: 2025"] If rules get confusing and discussion breaks up around uncertainties in the rules system, the game will be less fun. Bad rules do not necessarily "ruin the fun" but they certainly do not support it either. IMO, a good rule is a rule that is not felt during gameplay, that is clearly understood and explicated, and that is not up to debate etc. This seems to be the view Sean is advocating and previous posts on this thread have already shown several ways in which you can easily create the desired effect (extra damage to undead, non-useless rogues in a non-standard undead-heavy campaign) with minimum fuss. How is that impeding the fun? You can uphold the fundamental rules AND have fun? Why would you not want to do that? I'd like to see some examples of fundamental changes that have to be made in order for you to enjoy your game or create the particular flavour you are looking for, and that you see no way to pull off without changing the definitions inside the core rules. Several of the latest posters have equalled vital spots to either "losing limbs" (since this is the only example that can justify the argument for "extra damage" to corporeal undead) or "negative energy spots" (a concept that I think Sean has dismantled quite effectively already - it opens up a can of worms and could warrant a new accessory all of its own). This definition is "entirely your own", there's nothing in the core books that supports the claim that vital spots include "limbs" and "negative energy spots", quite on the contrary actually. The standard sneak attack does extra damage but it does NOT hinder movement (which should surely be the result of an attack to your lowers limbs) nor does it impair your fighting skills: you don't lose the ability to two-weapon fight because you've been sneak attack, so the attack is probably not aimed at your arms, you don't go blind, deaf, or suffer concussion, so clearly you are not being hit in the head. That's leaves only one logical conclusion: - The "vitals" that sneak attacks refer to are completely abstract and thus sneak attacks against undead cannot be allowed since they don't have vitals. The extra damage cannot be justified as "chopping away important bodyparts" since the core system does not support this possibility. - The vitals refer to internal organs such as the heart, liver, intestines, etc., that are critical to the survival of organic beings but are either not part of or not essential for undead, constructs, etc. I admit that this should probably be spelled out somewhere in Core Books if it is indeed the truth (and I believe logic supports it, since nothing in the core rules addresses "limbloss"). You are changing the point slightly here. Sean is not telling you how to modify you games at home, he wants professional designers to be more aware of the basic principles of the mechanics and not make unfounded changes to the basic definitions of the core rules. There's a big difference. Professionals should meet a certain standard, the integrity of the d20 System and the way it is generally perceived especially in terms of quality depend on it. If the rules put out in the various supplements fiddled so much with the core system that I would have to spend hours of "homework" refitting it to my "core" campaign, then the license starts to lose its main value: portability and shared understanding of the common ruleset. Or a bit more drastically, if the rules presented in various supplements cause endless debate, confusion or other annoyances, does the supplement not lose value? Will I loose faith in parts of the d20 industry? All of it? In the longterm? Sure the market should "automatically" punish this in a perfect world. But as Sean said, not all gamers have the necessary time to gain the comprehension of the core rules necessary to evaluate the material. How much slagging off of the D20 system is not based on false assumptions about the rules? If I want to insert a cheap shot, many cr*p products sell well in the real world even though their quality is clearly inferior to their competitors. The reason? Hmm - price, promotion, customer ignorance, branding, etc. and any combination of these factors. But shouldn't we all want "quality" above else in the d20 industry? Point is the you should be able to pretty much do anything you want INSIDE the boundaries of the d20 system, so there's no excuse for going the other route. To me its a cop-out. There may be benign reasons for the errors mentioned and I sympathise with that but the basic design philosophy of a d20 company should at least be based around correspondance with the core mechanics and definitions. In the few cases were this has been deemed insufficient publishers have gone OGL but even these supplements often show a great deal of harmony with the existing "core" and inside this license pretty much EVERY kind of flavour, genre, etc. has been presented. It can be done. It may take a bit more work. But that's what we should expect from professionals - everywhere. If I change the basic premises of a systems development methodology that I use for no better reason than "it makes it easier for me" or "I never quite got around to OO-modelling so I've changed the definition and notation of objects" and confusion arises among the project participants and programmers because of it, I'll face the music from above (and I'm not talking angel choirs here). My solution might have been "creative" and it may have sought the "flavour" I was looking for, but maybe what I should have done was to seek a better understanding of OO-modelling AND THEN found a way to integrate these basics into my personal practice in manner that is consistent and unambiguous. This is the standard I would expect of myself and its the standard I expect from any professional in any industry and thus I can only sympathise with Sean's efforts. -Zarrock -Zarrock [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Sean Reynolds' new company press release
Top