Banishing "Sacred Cows"

[Desdichado]

Well, I expect we'l have to agree to disagree on a number of points.

Quite likely! At least we're down to cleaning up the last little bits of stuff we don't mutually understand, at least!

For one, I don't think it's unfortunate that WotC didn't try to get them back into the fold. For one thing, the task would not have been "easy". It would entail a significant design challenge, and even more significant marketing challenge. There's a real question here that the extra costs would not be worth the players found.

Would it have had to? The point buy chargen method only takes, what, half a page or so to explain? And how difficult was it, really, to come up with those mechanics? How much of a design challenge would it really be to take the next obvious step and include a half-page text box on point-buy advancement, instead of levelling? Especially if they have access to the mathematical models that the system is based on? And do they really have to market it? The entire rpg community outside of D&D constanly complains that they can't get away from D&D.

For another - I think it's a philosophically bad move to try to make an one game into all things for all people. It would also be a horrible public relations move - WotC is already often seen as the lumbering giant of the gaming world, and comparisons between WotC and Microsoft were not uncommon even before the release of 3E. They would not endear themselves by trying to become more of a monopoly.

Except that the OGL makes this complaint not hold much water. If they're truly trying to build a universal system, then you have to truly be universal. I.e., the system has to be able to accomodate other play styles besides standard D&D. Arguably, games like Star Wars and The Wheel of Time play out much like D&D in most respects. Call of Cthulhu obviously doesn't, but the levelling really sits uncomfortably in that system as well.

Anyway, I can't see how it's worse PR anyway. It's just doing wha they're already doing, just doing it a little bit better.

Increasing the size of the D&D user base is only good to a point. The gaming world as a whole, and D&D in particular, gains from diversity and cross-pollination. If the D&D user base grows at the expense of other systems, in the long run we have fewer fresh ideas.

Eh, I won't argue with you there. As I said earlier, stepping away from D&D in the late 80s and pretty much all through the 90s exposed me to a lot of other RPG ideas, much of which were pretty good.

Lastly, there's the Open Gaming concept - WotC made a very specific decision to not personally try to make every single thing the game might need, because it wasn't economically advantageous. It simply doesn't pay WotC to try to dig out every gaming penny available. It does actually pay WotC to allow other people to create exactly the material you describe.

Which brings us full circle to the overlooked complaint I made earlier, that 3rd party companies have so far been reluctant to really "stretch" the system much. We have a good alternative magic system or three, lots of alternative classes, gazillions of prestige classes, feats, equipment and even skills, even an OGL game (Spycraft) that does action points and VP/WP. But nobody'd yet really tried to stretch the system to see if it can do something radically different.

Except WotC itself in Call of Cthulhu, actually. Which is an interesting counterpoint to the idea that the 3rd party companies were supposed to do that kind of thing. But I agree that you're right; in theory that's what was supposed to happen, and probably --eventually-- will.

 

[Desdichado]

Joshua, yes, the number of market share is significant (there's that word again!) to your argument, and I never advocated that you stop using it. I was merely pointing out that Ryan's quote may in fact be entirely accurate, and also totally unrelated to the discussion at hand. I actually said that the quote about all other systems being insignificant shouldn't be used, as we aren't sure what Dancey actually claimed to be insignificant. Was it the next biggest game? Was it all the other games put together? Was it the people that buy those games and NOT D&D as well? We don't know, so we should stop pretending we do.

I recall fairly clearly that he said that from a sales perspective the number of all other gamers combined was insignificant. I might recall that incorrectly, though.

Mostly tho, I'm tired of the bickering. A discussion of the sacred cows of D&D might be interesting. Watching you and Umbran and the occasional other snipe at each other for 3 pages is not. Unfortunately, that's what this thread has become. I don't know about you, but I figured out a long time ago that you and Umbran (and Thorin, what the heck) just aren't going to resolve anything. So I think you should drop it and move on.

Actually, I think the discussion between me and Umbran has been pretty interesting, for the most part. Not that there hasn't been any sniping, but that's just something that it's hard to avoid relative to some topics, I suppose. Doesn't mean that when all is said and done there isn't some good information pulled out at the end. Contrary to popular statements that nobody ever changes their mind on an internet debate, I've done so several times as long as it doesn't degenerate into a pure flame-fest, which we certainly haven't done here.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

OK, here's the reasons I like the Shadowrun system.....
Classless-Not quite, there is magic active, magically adept, and mundanes, so I guess it does have classes.
Race-You have humans, elves, orks, trolls, ect....
The point buy system-You can improve skills or stats during the course of play, developing new paths for your PC to use, or improve currently owned skills. With the point buy like that, you can tailor your PC.
No HP-Personally, I never have like HP. Now, everyone has 10 wound boxes. A light wound does 1 point of damage, a moderate wound does 3 boxes, and a serious wound does 6 points of damage. A possibly fatal wound puts out 10 boxes, and nocks a character out. If you take 2 moderate wounds, and a serious, you are down and dying.
So how does it reflect the differences in people? You use your body, some cyberwear, some spells, and some armor to help resist damage.

Spells.
I like the magic in Shadowrun, because you can cast a spell, and the targets gets a chance to resist (using body or willpower) and then the mage suffers "drain" by casting the spell, which is stun damage. The mage gets to resist the drain (the more powerful the spell, the worse the drain) and if they are good, lucky, prepared, or any combo of the three, they can take no drain at all. If they screw up, they suffer horrible drain, drain that can knock them out or kill them.

Unarmed combat works out pretty good, and once you get used to the combat system, it is quick, easy, and adaptable. Like I stated before, we overlaid it into Forgotten Realms (Elminster was a hermetic mage, a grade 16 initiate) and it worked just fine (Yes, the Shadowrun universe contains rules for creatures and magical constructs, including summoning elementals and spirits.

Just my no sense......

 

[Umbran]

Would it have had to? The point buy chargen method only takes, what, half a page or so to explain? And how difficult was it, really, to come up with those mechanics? How much of a design challenge would it really be to take the next obvious step and include a half-page text box on point-buy advancement, instead of levelling

For a "point-buy" advancement, you'd need a whole lot more than a half page. It would be a fairly big design project - every aspect that characters get with levelling have to be thought over and given point values - skills, feats, special abilities, spells, hit points, stat raises. There's a lot of stuff tied to the levelling procedure.

Except that the OGL makes this complaint not hold much water. If they're truly trying to build a universal system, then you have to truly be universal.

Um, one problem - the OGL is not an indication of an attempt to make the game universal. In my observation, it's much more an attempt to shift the creation of "support" products onto smaller publishers. While it is concievable that this leads to it becoming universal, it just as well may not. I don't think WotC cares so long as core rulebooks sell.

Personally, I don't want to see it become universal, for reasons previously mentioned.

Which brings us full circle to the overlooked complaint I made earlier, that 3rd party companies have so far been reluctant to really "stretch" the system much.

My best guess is that they don't think there's enough market to justify the work involved. While you seem to make light of it, creating good, balanced rules variants isn't easy. It takes lots of time and effort. That's time and effort that could be used to create a product more sure of selling.

Wait a while. People aren't yet tired of the D&D rules - it's only ben a couple of years, people are still exploring the rules as they are.. When people start getting bored, there'll be more market for variants.

 

[Desdichado]

Um, one problem - the OGL is not an indication of an attempt to make the game universal. In my observation, it's much more an attempt to shift the creation of "support" products onto smaller publishers. While it is concievable that this leads to it becoming universal, it just as well may not. I don't think WotC cares so long as core rulebooks sell.

Personally, I don't want to see it become universal, for reasons previously mentioned.

True, yet one of the things they did mention as the system was launched is that it had the potential to be universal. To be honest, I never really believed that until I saw Call of Cthulhu. Yet, I think a big part of the reason nobody much has taken the plunge with it is that WotC has given little to no guidance on how to work within the system. That "fourth" core rulebook that Dancey said he'd like to market someday, that "behind the curtain" mechanics book; that's really essential.

But as you say, they've obviously not made it their goal, because they're not taking the steps they could (and should) to make d20 universal. And, unlike you, at this point in my life, I'm fine with just d20. If I can find d20 variants that allow me to play any kind of game I can imagine, that's the state I want to get to.

 

[Umbran]

True, yet one of the things they did mention as the system was launched is that it had the potential to be universal.

Yes, but let us not confuse advertising copy with actual intent. To say, "This system has the potential to be universal" is not nearly the same thing as "We intend to make this system universal." One syas you are providing the foundation, the other says you actually intend to build the house.

Yet, I think a big part of the reason nobody much has taken the plunge with it is that WotC has given little to no guidance on how to work within the system. That "fourth" core rulebook that Dancey said he'd like to market someday, that "behind the curtain" mechanics book; that's really essential.

No, it isn't essential. It's just very, very helpful. Honestly, giving other people said meta-mechanics book wouldn't necessarily be a great thing. If they follow the meta mechanics, they are following the same thought paths as the designers. That's not new. If you want real stretching, real originality, you let people work without knowing what patterns the original designers were following.

And, unlike you, at this point in my life, I'm fine with just d20. If I can find d20 variants that allow me to play any kind of game I can imagine, that's the state I want to get to.

First (and it actually isn't a big deal), but you assume too much. I argue that the gaming community really needs other games to exist, not that I personally need to play them.

Why do other games need to exist? Because you wouldn't get such a good d20 Call of Cthulhu if they weren't trying to model aspects of the original, successful non-d20 Call of Cthulhu. Because the various d20 Supers rules are learning from previous, non-d20 Supers games. Because the best examples of non-vancian magic come from non-d20 games. Because, in short, d20 can learn and be inspired by other games. If your mind is stuck on d20, it becomes much more difficult to break the mold.

And, in the end, there are things that d20 simply cannot do, as a simple manner of statistics. The core mechanic of d20 is that 20-sided die. The "find a DC, roll a d20, add modifiers". If it doesn't have that, it isn't d20, no matter how you slice it. And, this method has a characteristic statistic - one markedly different from games that use a dice pool.

The statistical characteristics of the system do have an effect on the "feel" of the game - what you can and can't do, and how like you are to succeed. How the session flows, and how the character changes with time and experience. d20 and a dice pool simply aren't equivalent, and will always do different things well.