D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[Drifter Bob]

Probably for the same reason that a lot of module writers I've seen do it: because you think it would be cool and would fit the story you want to tell and don't consider other ways to tell the story or to be cool.

For instance, I recently prepped a module for a con where the author has an i

There are also plenty of ways to completey screw up the spirit of the game WITHIN the letter of the rules, frankly, and thats at least as a big of a problem as the bad DM's and bad adventure writers you are citing here. I'm personally the last thing from a killer DM incidentally, but killer DM's can wreak just as much havoc in the rules as out of them.

in which even a detected imp could advance the story. (Earlier suggestions in the thread that a detected imp might flee back to his summoner's lair
(snip)
Having different manners of getting to the next location makes for a more useful module than for one that falls apart if the party successfully sees through the imp's trickery.

Amigo. I think you are confusing a suggestion with my own post describing the adventure a little more. The thing plays out just fine if the players detect the Imp. Of course it can happen, I just try to give it a litle better chance of not happening. Please go back and read my earlier post explaining the situation with the Imp.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

My last experience with a DM who did improvise the rules was a disaster. It is always possible to make great adventures in using the rules per se. Players must use the rules per se, why not the DM?

Because it's not a competition between the players and the DM. It's not monopoly, or risk, or axis and allies. It's a role playing game. The DM is not the players enemy, he or she is just the arbiter of the story.

And because, contrary to many peoples quasi religious beliefs, the rules do not cover every circumstance.

As for the imp, I would also point out that when you tell he MUST convince* the PCs of his lies or the story fails... I see it as RAILROADING.

At the risk of seeming repetetive, please go back and read my earlier post on this exact subject. You will notice that the imp does not HAVE to convince the PC's, it just makes things easier on the PC's and the DM. There is no railroading.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

From earlier in the thread, by ME:

For now, I will only add a bit more information about the adventure under discussion, since some people seem to be making a few false assumptions.

It is not just a single module, this is one in a series of mini adventures which take place in a rather large campaign setting that also includes several large scale adventures. Like all the other ones popular these days. This one takes place in a large isolated mountain valley with one decent sized town and several small rural villages, and a forest populated by you guessed it, elves.

The encounter in question is actually intended for what will probably be mostly second level players. They are in a sort of committee, as representatives of various local interests, which is investigating problems taking place that threaten to destabilize the political situation in the valley. Up until this adventure, most of the encounters the party have faced have been fairly mundane, a lot of 'domestic disturbances' if you will. The situation with this massacre is a surprise and the party is not likely to be prepared for or expecting anything really freaky to be going on. This is where "cops" turns into "X-files" for the party.

Having said that, this little adventure does NOT depend on the party believing the Imp, it just helps the story along. The Imp is going to retreat to this conjurers house, where it will make a stand. If the party follows the creature, it will lead them there. Otherwise they will have to search for it over a fairly large area of wilderness. If they attack the Imp immediately for any reason, then it will probably simply turn invisible and fly back to the house, where it will regenerate from any wounds while awaiting the arrival of the party. So as usual, like most DM "cheating", this is basically just intended to make everything work smoother, for the players and the DM.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

Let me be the first to make it explicit. Better keep that info to yourself if you want even a chance of a sale with me.

By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.

DB

 

[James Heard]

By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.

DB

Yes, pretty much. Though I think that any future projects you might have in any creative capacity will suffer from the same problems until you address this chip on your shoulder you have with criticism, and suggestion, and your fanbase.

 

[Gothmog]

By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.

DB

Drifter Bob, despite the venom spewed at you by some posters, don't give up on this project. It sounds like you have some really cool ideas, and they are something I'd certainly like to see. I know its hard to not let some of the comments get under your skin, but think about it- the people who will nitpick a module to death are people with no lives and nothing better to do, and represent a vast minority of the total audience for the module. I personally think that as a writer you should probably justify why the imp has a few extra skill points (advance HD, rogue level, or increased INT), but just do it and get on with writing the freakin' adventure! Most 1E AD&D modules had gross "violations" of the rules in them (special one-time circumstances), and people still played and enjoyed them. I'd personally LOVE to see a series of modules that break the "back to the dungeon" mold and have some complex NPC interactions, deceptive twists, and interesting RP opportunities- which it sounds like your series has the potential for. So sit back, take a break, and let this whole ugly deal discussion go. At least don't make a hasty decision tonight before you abandon the project.

 

[Cergorach]

By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.

*shrugs* You started this thread, you should have known that such a discussion would entail critisism, if you can't handle that, don't start the discusion in the first place. To be honest, it doesn't sound i would like your adventure, not because of your 4 skill points. But because of the entire mindset you bring to afore mentioned project, it is bound to seep into the adventure your writing. My advise would be to stick with story writing and let someone else handle the gamemechanics aspects of the adventure, that way your inadequate game mechanic skills wouldn't be a problem...

 

[Celtavian]

re

Drifter Bob,

The D20 system isn't perfect for simulating every situation. The example you used isn't one of the problems with the d20 system.


1. Add a Rogue level.
2. Reallocate skill points.
3. Add 2 points of Intelligence.
4. Change out a feat it has for Skill Focus (Bluff).
6. Add an Expert level if the Rogue level is too strong. He is an expert at bluffing. No abilities or powers added on, just extra skills points he can spend on bluff.
7. Say he lived in Asmodeus's court for a while. He gets a +4 circumstance or competence bonus to his bluff check because he watched the Master of Lies in action and picked up a few tricks. Most players aren't going to care if use a rationale like this. They might even think that such a background for an Imp was cool.
8. Add another Imp hit dice and put it all in Bluff.
9. Give it a magic item that grants a bonus on bluff checks.
10. Give it an innate magical power that makes its voice be suggestive granting it a bonus on bluff checks.

I have just listed 10 ways within the framework of the D20 rules to give the Imp the ability to bluff well. You can use anyone of these to make an Imp a great bluffer. Some of them are simply DM caveat. That doesn't make any difference as long as their is some rule based rationale for why it receives a Bluff bonus.

That is why designing game modules is different from writing a short story. It requires a knowledge of the rules, how they can be used, as well as a great imagination and good writing skills.

Game companies publish modules all the time that modify rules. They don't need to arbitrarily add skill points to do it. They make up new abilities for unique creatures, add class levels, new feats, new races, and other such things to do what they need to do.

Sounds to me like you feel the DM shouldn't have to follow the rules if he doesn't want to, and the players should just accept it. I don't agree with that. The DM should have to work within the framework of the D20 rules. If he decides to make up new rules or modify existing ones, he should have a good rationale that fits within the framework of the rules.

 

[Thotas]

Y'know, I very much doubt if I personally would catch a detail as small as giving an imp an extra 4 skill points ... though I'm with the people who think that if one has rules, they're there to be used. Which is why, if I did catch the anomaly as I was preparing to use the adventure, I'd just ... use any of the half dozen or so good-and-rules-correct suggestions that've been posted here so far and fix the imp myself. Though I shouldn't have to since that's what the author of the adventure got paid for.

 

[S'mon]

Why bother having rules if you're going to alter them on a whim?


"Sorry Bob, you would have made your Sense Motive check, but I decided to give the imp a +4 bonus just now, so you didn't."

My philosophy (which outside D&D 3e almost every GM has, IME):
The rules are there as a DMing aid to assist with his representing the world to the players, so he doesn't have to make everything up on the fly when adjudicating PC vs NPC/monster/environment conflict & rewards (XP) - ie they're there to make the DM's job easier. It's not a competitive wargame, so there's no question of fairness (DM vs player) involved. Thus the DM sets all DCs for Sense Motive rolls, and for all other rolls, according to what he feels is appropriate. Since I'm not a 'storytelling' DM I would not alter a DC post-fact just to get a desired story-result, but I will certainly set the DC pre-roll according to my view of my game-world; certainly IMC an Imp would likely be a good bluffer; I don't blame WoTC for not assigning them skill ranks in Bluff but I'm certainly not going to be bound to that by some rules-lawyer waving a copy of the MM.