d20 Hatred near you?

[evildmguy]

I was at a bar and met a gorgeous woman who turned out be a super model and she was going to give me her phone number but then she found out I played d20 so she say "see ya, loser, I only play GURPS."

I couldn't follow this after you said you were at a bar. I mean, what were you doing away from the gaming table?

Have a good one!

edg

 

[swrushing]

Thanks! That's what I think!

It is unfortunate it is OOP and won't be in print again.

I don't want to have this taken wrong but I would be fine with only Alternity as a game system. edg

Ok thats cool.

i never bought or read this game. Can you, hopefully briefly, describe its stun, wounds, mortality system so we can see how this handles the scene?

if it matters, I am familiar with the WW wounds system from vampire and such, with soak dice and the health levels.

thanks for the info.

 

[evildmguy]

Ok thats cool.

i never bought or read this game. Can you, hopefully briefly, describe its stun, wounds, mortality system so we can see how this handles the scene?

if it matters, I am familiar with the WW wounds system from vampire and such, with soak dice and the health levels.

thanks for the info.

As I am usually verbose, this briefly thing will be tough but I will try. Let me know if I succeeded.

In Alternity, damage is represented by durability in four areas. Stuns are damage which is bruising or scraps that can be ignored within a few minutes to an hour. Wounds are cuts and lacerations, broken bones and other similar injuries. They aren't something that can be ignored but aren't life threatening. Ignoring fatigue, ANY point of mortal damage is a life threatening wound that could kill a character. Examples of this are a punctured lung, skull fracture or other major organ damage or bleeding wound damage.

A character's stun is equal to their CON. Their wounds are also equal to their CON. Their fatigue and mortal durability is equal to half their CON. Average ability scores are 8, so that means the average character has 8 stuns, 8 wounds, 4 fatigue and 4 mortal.

[[Stun = bruise damage, wounds = lethal damage and mortal = aggravated damage. However, that isn't exactly true. Each type of durability in Alternity is independent. Run out of stuns, and you are considered knocked out. Run out of wounds, and you are knocked out and hurt pretty bad. Run out of fatigue and you are out. Run out of mortal and you are dead. However, the idea is similar in terms of penalties but the specifics are quite different.]]

Okay, with that as a quick background, and ignoring a lot of other game mechanics, Mal could have taken one point of mortal damage, perhaps two from being shot. EACH of these points gives him a penalty on all actions, due to the severity of the damage. In game terms, he has to make an Endurance roll every hour (think Fortitude save), at the penalty, or suffer more mortal damage. Again, this represents damage bad enough that the character is dying. A character with mortal damage, even one point, is unlikely to recover on their own and will probably eventually die.

However, they are not helpless. They can still do things but it will probably hurt them by forcing them to make the Endurance roll more often and therefore potentially take more mortal damage, quicker.

Therefore, it would work wonderfully for describing (and playing) the scene that happened in Firefly. It took Mal a while to get around and he wasn't able to do things easily after the wound. Of course, that's my opinion. I like the system. Duh.

I hope this was brief enough. I apologize if it wasn't.

Thanks for the reply! Have a good one!

edg

 

[buzz]

A neither deep nor insightful comment - it's that robot thing again that another poster alluded to. Unless you just got clubbed in the head before making your post, I think you are quite aware of what was being talked about in the context of this discussion.

I know it's a D&D-related messageboard, but surely there is some level of pedantry that is considered just too much, hmmm?

:shrugs:

I think it's a worthy point when confronted with arguments that d20 stifles the "needs" of the market/community. The terminology that often gets used makes it sound (to me) like we're talking about equal opportunity in the workplace or housing. Ergo, I think it's useful to remind ourselves that we're not talking about "needs" here. We're talking about games.

d20 is obviously meeting the "needs" of the gaming populace. I don't think people would be buying the products otherwise. The "needs" of gamers for other systems also seems to be being met, as there is a vibrant sector of the industry doing just that. That d20 is doing something harmful by being popular, or that the great unwashed* gaming populace are somehow being kept from the other RPGs that would magically make their lives better is just something I've never agreed with, and an argument I find to be just taking itself way too seriously.

I also don't appreciate being called a "pedant" or "robot", or snide comments about my "charm", "skill", "rhetorical kung-fu", or being "clubbed in the head." I haven't directed anything personal towards you, or jessemock, or anyone else here. Disagree with or ignore me all you want; just keep it nice.

*Often more than a metaphor, unfortunately.

 

[Piratecat]

Please stay far, far away from personal insults, folks. They're neither called for nor appropriate.

 

[SSquirrel]

But that's not an indictment of movies, or an argument for just sticking to John Woo movies, since the rest are all just imitators anyway. It's an argument for maybe trying a comedy, or a period drama, or a pretentious art film. In RPGs, you check out something that actually *is* different, like My Life with Master, or Everway, or Story Engine, or Psychosis.

See I tend to look at RPGs in this sense...1)Setting, 2)Mechanics, everything else after. I can deal with wonky systems (Palaldium) to have a cool setting (RIFTS). I can also freely scrap some settings that are reasonably cool (Aberrant) and just make my own world using its system (Storyteller Supers). These 2 tend to flip flop for me. Like I said before, sometimes I'm just looking for a cool setting to place on top of an existing system I plan on using, especially if the other system doesn't look as nifty as what I want to use.

If you're not giving the Horizon line from FFG a look, you're really missing out. Grimm and Virtual are genius, and i've heard good things about Redline--dunno about the latest sixguns-n-sorcery one. [btw, on Monte Cook and AU: it actually took a lot of persuading, in the form of his design diary and other people talking about it, to get me to check out Arcana Unearthed--and i'm glad i did, because i love it--because i'd been following his stuff since D&D3E and didn't care for any of it: a few good ideas, here and there, buried under a pile of not-interesting. IMHO, of course.]

Big AU fan myself and I'd been following it since the design diaries and got it right after GenCon. My bud was gonna bring me back a copy as he was working the WW booth, but Monte sold out TWICE during GenCon heh. I got it like a week later. I'll peek at those lines from FFG...Grimm/Virtual/Redline also FFG stuff?

And my point is i want to see more games like OtE and Hero Wars and Everway and Epiphany: games that *can't* be done as a D20 System game, or, ideally, a derivative of any existing RPG. I agree: i don't need "just another system"--i want RPGs that make me say "cool, i never thought of that", in both the setting and teh system.

See I run into problems where I have to convince people to play settings and systems and its much easier to convince them on a system they already know. OtE looked interesting, but Everway I never really liked. Same with HERO and GURPS...crap for my needs. It doesn't help that I've never really considered myself a good long term GM either so if I really want to play certain systems I'm gonna have to run them, which isn't exactly what I want either *grin*.

It's not that simple. How many people in Iowa City do you think are going to discover RPGs in the next few years? PDF/online sales aren't any good for growing the hobby, because they have no exposure--you only find them if you're looking for them, and you only go looking for them if you are already interested in them.

It is that simple. People will see gaming stuff in Barnes and Noble and in Hobby Corner (model trains and such mostly but they've ALWAYS had about the best selection in town for RPGs too....odd I know) or get exposed to it by friends that already play. Not having an existing focused game store I don't expect a lot of expansion of the gaming world. Gaming has almost ALWAYS been something you don't really find until you have reason to look for it. Once someone starts playing D&D, they might do a few web searches...next thing you know they're here and they find out about RPGNow. PDf sales are fine for the hobby. The material is getting OUT there and allowing the company to build up a presence and maybe eventually make the switch over to on the shelf.

Think about it this way. If someone wants to start a business and they start out online where there is much less investment needed, if it all goes down the tubes for them, they aren't out as much. If they actually get things pressed and distributed and such, they're out a lot more money in comparison. The people in the hobby are picking up quite quickly on pdf sales and I think in a few years we'll see a few new companies regularly in stores that started life as pdf sales only. Which is FABULOUS. Also you have people like Monte Cook who sell pdfs early and then publish hardback later which suits both audiences. personally I would prefer simultaneous release but hey I prefer real copies to pdfs *grin*

I find this comment interesting. There are only 3 game systems i recall ever hearing someone refer to being "burned out" on: D20 System, Storyteller, and AD&D. I'm not sure what that means. Maybe just that those are some of the very few systems that have significant numbers of one-system players. But maybe it's something about the systems? [and, maybe it's just something about the RPers i've known.]

Actually our group was pretty burned on Rolemaster just before 3E came out. We'd been playing nothing but it for like 3 years solid. We burned out on D&D after no variety for 2 1/2 years. We all had other things that I think would have been interesting to play as well, but our campaign would get delayed on a regular basis as it was and we can only game every other weekend so mixing it up hasn't always been the easiest consideration for our group. I'm gonna be atending the Iowa City meetup on the 10th tho so maybe I'll find some new players and even new groups to game with.

Hagen

 

[SSquirrel]

So, until i see evidence to the contrary, i'll just treat that as an unquantifiable non-issue, and presume that the rate of influx of young kids to RPGs has remained a rough constant: there're roughly the same %age of kids who have the mentality to give RPGs a try as there always have been, and that's the dominant factor.

I think you're wrong on this one. Pokemon, Magic:the Gathering, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have all heavily influenced the current generation of would-be RPers and I think we're seeing more people getting involved in the hobby simply because it's not such a way geeky thing to do anymore *grin* It's actually getting popular.

Hagen

 

[diaglo]

I think you're wrong on this one. Pokemon, Magic:the Gathering, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have all heavily influenced the current generation of would-be RPers and I think we're seeing more people getting involved in the hobby simply because it's not such a way geeky thing to do anymore *grin* It's actually getting popular.

and i think you are way underestimating the effect Star Wars and the like had on the youth of the 70's and 80's. and way overestimating the nongeek factor today.

 

[barsoomcore]

What if WotC went belly-up, and took D&D with it? I fear that the other 25% of the market that's making D20 System stuff might very well go with it.

Well, it might, sure. What would you like WotC to do about that possibility? This is no evidence that d20 is bad for the market -- it's a natural result of an industry possessing one primary brand to which all others are drastically secondary. RPG = "Dungeons and Dragons" as far as branding goes and that means whatever associates with D&D is part of the vast majority.

That's got nothing to do with d20 -- it's just a consequence of the market. Anytime WotC comes up with a big hit, they're going to expand the market drastically because they ARE most of the market. Oh well.

And it's the definitive behavior of a fad (which i don't *think* D&D is, but i have to be a little suspicious when a market with a relatively stable size (influx roughly matching departure) suddenly balloons hugely in a very short period of time--is it really growing the market, or is it just a fad-like behavior?).

To worry that D&D is a fad, and that a fad will have a negative impact on a market, is perfectly sensible. Data is required to decide if it's in fact the case (what? data? in this conversation? off with you!), but it's a reasonable worry. But D&D being a fad is a very different thing than d20 being bad for the market.

d20 may be contributing to fad-like market behaviour by making it easier for publishers to get in on it, but that'll be a short-term effect (as fads always are). In the long term, making it easier for publishers to join the ranks and advertise their increased "compatibility" is good (I know you think compatibility is unimportant and that I'm just buying into a myth, but so far I haven't seen any evidence from you that this is the case, so I'll trust my own judgement there).

I'm sorry, but the semi-hard data i have, i'm not sure i'm supposed to share it, because it came from a membership organization. (snip) You don't trust me? Fine, how about Ken Hite:

Please don't think that my questions or constant complaints about lack of data originate from suspicion of you. I'm sure that you're speaking with honesty and conviction -- your posts are well-reasoned and make it clear that you care about this subject and know a great deal about it. But you can't expect me to accept a conclusion if I'm not given any evidence to support it.

It's not a question of trust, only of supporting evidence. It's important to me that you understand that. I would not want you thinking I consider you untrustworthy.

I was trying to point out that the behavior of one small D20 publisher is probably not very indicative.

It's not that it's "probably not very indicative". It's that we can't have very much confidence in its indicativeness. :\

There's no way to tell if Privateer's experience matches the industry as a whole or if they are an anomaly, and since they are small, they are as likely to be the one as the other (since whichever way they fall won't trend the market very much). That doesn't make it an 'invalid' data point -- ALL data points are valid. It means only we don't know if it's a data point that is part of the trend or not.

If it's the ONLY data point we have, the best assumption is that it IS part of the trend. Until other data comes to life, that's the only way we can proceed.

Moreover, i really don't see how it "counters" the behavior of WotC as an indicator.

If we have two data points and they are in contrast to each other, we have no way of determining which one represents a trend and which one represents an anomaly.

It may be a "standard" approach to sales, but it's an abominable one.

Nonsense. It's just not a very smart way to run a company, for a number of reasons. Like you say, it shows a lack of respect for consumers and workers -- both traits that will in the long run cost you. If your customers lose faith in you, they won't buy even your good products. If your workers lose faith in you, you won't have any good products. Companies cannot maintain such a system for long. In the short term you might be able to survive but there's no way to guarantee sustainability.

Instead, you should be doing yoru very best to only put out the very best that you can. You don't just say "oh well, there'll be some bombs", you work to make sure there are no bombs.

If you can afford to. It becomes a question of cash-flow -- how do you keep money coming in while still making sure every release is brilliant? At what point do you say, "It's good enough, we need to make some sales," and send your product out the door? Each company will have a different way of making that decision. And the correct answer to that question will be different for each company.

There's room for companies to flood the market and try to make a buck as quickly as they can. And there's room for companies that craft each release with care and make sure everything with their name on it stands up to high standards. Customers have different standards of "good enough" and that's okay. Everybody knows BMWs are higher value than Chevrolet, but not everybody buys BMW (example only, not actually saying BMW is better than Chevrolet; weblinks to Total Cost of Ownership comparisions unwanted).

None of this has the slightest to do with d20 per se.

But, if what i hear from RPG producers is accurate, RPG sales differ from movies in one significant way: the shelf life and total sales are apparently not appreciably different for good and bad products.

And for this you blame d20? Look there's two possibilities here. Either gaming consumers are dummies and can't tell good products from bad. OR, your notions of good products versus bad products are out of line with what the market thinks.

I mean, who are the publishers that are saying, "Yeah, you know those really crappy books we put out, the ones that totally suck? They sell just as well as the really good ones we put out."? What are your standards for good products versus bad ones? Reviews? Your opinion? Anecdotal evidence?

None of that is worth anything in the context of the market. Plenty of movies get horrible reviews and yet go on to garner big wads of cash. I know lots of movies I think were brilliant that did poorly. I can tell endless stories of movies my friends hated that struck gold at the box office. You saying that bad products make as many sales as good products does nothing to bolster your case that d20 is bad for the RPG market.

 

[barsoomcore]

You claim that the reason system-specific statblocks have value, and thus the product has more value, is because of the effort to come up with those statblocks yourself. My counter to this is two-fold.

First, this is not inherently the case--it is only if you're using a complex system that statting up a character/object/whatever requires much effort.

Which we are, so for the d20 system, it's true. For people who are using the d20 system it is the case that statting up a whatever requires a certain amount of effort. Therefore it is also the case that products that supply those stats are providing a certain amount of value.

Second, we're still at a "your word vs. mine" point on the question of just how much effort is actually required.

No, we're not, because we can both be correct in this. If for you it is a small amount of effort, then for you the value of generated stat blocks is small.

That doesn't make it small for me. You may enjoy games in which the statistics play little part. That's fine. I may enjoy games which largely revolve around the statistics.

I've played Amber. I even went through what you did, largely rejecting the "math" aspect of games in favour of "story-telling" and so on. I've played and run many, many types of games. I've invented my own systems and run campaigns with those.

I like what I like and part of what I like is a certain level of detail in the statistics. I find d20 has the right level for me. So for me, it is not a "myth" that compatible game stats are valuable. I am not "buying into" anything. I haven't been "trained" any more than you have (and frankly, it's tremendously insulting of you to insinuate that I have. please don't). I just happen to enjoy a style of gaming different from yours.

And because of that, products with compatible game stats are indeed demonstratably more valuable to me than those without, all other things being equal.

The only myth I see in your reasoning is that one type of gaming is better than another, which is the only case in which your notion that it is a "myth" that stat blocks are valuable is true. It's only a myth if it's in fact better to play with less stats. It's not in fact better, so it's not a myth. For those who want to play systems with more stats, it's a fact.