Tired of d20 yet?

[Kanegrundar]

And that huge list of books wouldn't be daunting to a newbie GM? We're talking about playing a game and having fun, not honing a craft. That's great if the GM is so into it. Whatever floats your boat. I say if the GM has found a game that he thinks is fun whether it's D&D 3E or any other system then let him try his hand at it. As long as he/she and the rest of the group is having fun, who cares if he screws something up? GM'ing in any system is a matter of practice. Just don't take it too seriously.

Kane

 

[woodelf]

And that huge list of books wouldn't be daunting to a newbie GM? We're talking about playing a game and having fun, not honing a craft. That's great if the GM is so into it. Whatever floats your boat. I say if the GM has found a game that he thinks is fun whether it's D&D 3E or any other system then let him try his hand at it. As long as he/she and the rest of the group is having fun, who cares if he screws something up? GM'ing in any system is a matter of practice. Just don't take it too seriously.

Kane

Robin's Laws is a 16-32p digest-sized paperback, and the easiest read in an RPG book i've ever seen. Uncle Figgy's guides are each 10-12 webpages. All 3 of those are something you read once to get a feel for the job, and then refer back to when you have problems. The DM's Design Kit is a book of adventure design advice and forms. You use as little or as much of it as you want to. One newbie GM i know used it systematically for her first scenario, and probably never looked at it again. All of them, combined, are less reading than the D&D3E PH--much less the DMG. Several small, clearly-titled how-to books with easily-digested straight-forward advice are gonna be an easier read than a huge rulebook full of stuff, with varying importances that the newbie may not be aware of.

And, no, i don't care if the GM "screws something up", whether i'm the GM or the player. I'm suggesting these brief intros not to prevent that, but to prevent the group not having fun. If the group doesn't have enough fun to give the GM a second chance, the GM won't have time to practice and get better. And, yes, i've played with inexperienced GMs that did a poor enough job that nobody would want to play with them again.

 

[Kanegrundar]

And, no, i don't care if the GM "screws something up", whether i'm the GM or the player. I'm suggesting these brief intros not to prevent that, but to prevent the group not having fun. If the group doesn't have enough fun to give the GM a second chance, the GM won't have time to practice and get better. And, yes, i've played with inexperienced GMs that did a poor enough job that nobody would want to play with them again.

I've never played with a GM that went to the trouble on studying up on how to GM. Some have been bad, while most others were (and still are) just fine. I consider myself a moderately good GM (basing on the fact we always have fun and I don't hear any complaints), and it was all just a matter of learning enough of the rules and having a good imagination. That said, my first couple of times out the gate were pretty poor looking back on it. No one gave up on me and I got better each session. It seems a little harsh to me to give up on someone that really wants to GM after their first pitiful attempt. Now if it was someone that was just screwing around, that I can totally see walking out on.

Kane

 

[diaglo]

and Robin's uneducated book of Guesses means zip to me.

 

[WizarDru]

That's true. I guess partly it's just a matter of semantics: if an "easy" lock were DC10, but the only ones that actually came up were DC20+ (because who bothers to put a lock less secure than that on something? and why make the players roll for a DC10 lock?), i think it'd work better for me.

But it's also an issue of game play. My players took one look at the DCs for open locks and use magic device, and said "screw this" and never even put a single point into them, because of the number of points it would've taken just to be adequate. Now, if all skills had similar usefulness threshholds, this wouldn't have been the case--whether those thresholds were high or low. From a game-play standpoint, it seems like a problem when some skills require 5 points before you get to do Cool Stuff with them, while others require 15. Especially when, IMHO, the Cool Stuff in each case is roughly equally-cool..

I think there's a few differences, however, in game-play terms between the DC 5 climb and the DC 20 lock. First, the climb is a potentially lethal skill to fail at, depending on the situation. It's in everyone's interest to set the threshold lower on that basis alone. Furthermore, you can't take 20 on a climb that could kill you, while it's usually much easier, preferred in fact, to take 20 on picking a lock. Failing a climb check has potentially fatal and certainly negative circumstances...failing to pick a lock merely means you try again (unless there's a trap...but that's search and disable device). Plus, climbing is much more likely to happen in combat than picking a lock, relatively speaking, where even taking 10 isn't an option. Add in situational modifiers and armor check penalties and you can start to see why the base DC is set lower. There are fewer modifiers to the skill check of picking a lock, while there are a host for climbing.

In other words, a rogue with no ranks in pick lock, but with masterwork picks, Skill Focus or the Nimble Fingers feat and undisturbed time will easily take 20 to unlock a DC 25 lock at first level (assuming a DEX of 14-16, depending). Add in Four ranks, and a DC 30 is not impossible. That means that a rogue or bard with any inclination should be able to pick an average lock with little trouble. A character optimized to the task (Dex 16, nimble fingers, skill focus, masterwork tools) can take 20 to meet a DC 34 at first level.

Looking at the base DC doesn't tell the whole story, IMHO.

 

[Kanegrundar]

In other words, a rogue with no ranks in pick lock, but with picks and a

Uh oh. WizarDru fell asleep at the keyboard in mid-sentence!

Kane

 

[Psion]

Uh oh. WizarDru fell asleep at the keyboard in mid-sentence!

Or worse.
(insert dramatic music here)

 

[Kanegrundar]

Or worse.
(insert dramatic music here)

ACK!!!

 

[WizarDru]

There is no WizarDru. This unit has been replaced.

Move along, citizen.


Woke up, and finished my paragraph above. D'oh!

 

[PJ-Mason]

And that would be the understatment of the thread: "OGL" is not a system, it's a license. Referring to "OGL games" as though they are a reasonable collective, in any context except legalities or open-content development, is just silly.

I haven't seen any OGL games yet where i couldn't tell it was a relative of D&D or D20 games. But they are usually distinctive enough from from D&D and D20 Games (which use most to all of the D&D rules) that they deserve their own category. The fact that many others seem to understand what i mean and use the same categories as i do would indicate that i am not the only one who thinks like that. I don't consider it silly. Ranting at someone who doesn't see things as you do is whats silly.

Any system could be released under that license, and at least half a dozen have been so far.Some of them don't even have freakin' numbers, much less saving throws or armor class.

Which ones? All the ones i've seen or own seem to have generally the same basic charactistics, the stats, the skills, and saves. Though i hear Castles & Crusades doesn't have skills. Haven't seen that one yet. I don't know if we'll ever see an OGL thats completely alien to D&D/D20 games, since accepting the license and not using any of the benefits would be a very strange choice.

When you say D&D - you know what you are getting.

When you say D20 - people know that it is going to be pretty much D&D in another genre. Or the same genre, with maybe some minor alterations to fit the setting. Like Midnight or star wars.

Saying OGL game instead of D20 - Lets people know (if they know of the OGL) that they may well be dealing with some radical changes to the D20 system, but that they will probably recognize some of it. Its perfectly legitimate label and helpful to a lot of people.