D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[S'mon]

Yep, I think that I'm one of the people *specifically* being complained about by the poster if he's who I think he is.

I still don't understand his perspective though. There are 40 different ways to get what he wants, all he has to do is use a word other than "ranks" and note the specific change. Skill ranks come from hit dice modified by intelligence and also by the human racial bonus (and any other races that might have it). Maybe there are some non-core feats and such that add other skill ranks, but they declare this explicitely. All you need to do is note that the change is a competency or circumstance bonus, comes from a magic item, boost the creature's intelligence, add hit dice, or alter the race and give it a racial bonus. There's 40 ways to do what you want, the very simplest of which is to bump the Int or add a circumstance modifier.

Would "+4 Bluff" as an undefined bonus be ok with you, or would that imply it was 'ranks' and still annoy you? (serious question, not trying to be facetious). Wouldn't altering the Imp race to give it a +4 Bluff racial bonus be contrary to what's written in the MM and thus violate 'the rules'?

AFAICS the best approach to keeping the rules-lawyers happy would be the INT-boost, as has been mentioned.

 

[S'mon]

Re adding skill points:

Yes you could, most DMs and players though aren't comfortable with such 'extreme' freestyle gaming, because if you magically add a couple of skill points to their character, what's stopping you from suddenly making them evil, another gender or race, making them senile, or worse...

Well I add skill points to a PC (or NPC) to reflect life experience not related to heroic challenges (CR/XP) - if a PC spends a year at sea they get a rank in Profession (Sailor). If a PC consistently acts 'evil' (evil as defined IMC - mass murder of innocents is a typical indication) I'll note that they count as the Evil alignment for purposes of spells etc. "Suddenly" making an existing PC another gender or race, unless the result of a magical curse, would violate campaign continuity, but when someone brings a preexisting PC to my game I might well change a nonhuman race to human (or ban the PC). Senile - hm, again ok as magical curse; I make old NPCs senile quite often; a senile PC wouldn't really be viable so I'd only make them senile if the PC were to be retired from play - explains why the 20th level Wizard is no longer adventuring.

If you want to make the rules more flexible for the DM, the players should know beforehand, not after the fact. It might suprise you, but most RPGs work on the mutual consent principle, and because there are often more players then DMs it means that DM should hear what the players have to say. So if the players say, no side trips to the planet earth, no meetings between my character and my real world self (don't ask), no more extended expeditions to elemental planes, no more fudging of the roles because you can't handle the fact that we outwitted your NPC (again), you as the DM should better listen, because otherwise your out of a job!

Mutual consent - I try to get the majority of players alongside (I'm actually a lot less dictatorial than I used to be). However IME since there are far fewer good GMs than there are would-be players and I'm living in a large city, I am the scarce resource, not them. I have far more trouble turning away players or running games with 7 players at my table than I do finding enough players! So I have little worry about being out of my (unpaid) job.

 

[Felonius]

This bit with the bluff skill is a very minor thing. Lets keep it in perspective. I cited it as an example of a much larger problem.

The D20 rules mechanics as currently written do NOT adequately cover all situations and all circumstances that you might come across in a game.

I don't think there's any RPG there that can handle everything.

I'm curious though. What large flaws in d20-system (or D&D) do you see that are problematic to you?

3X D&D has done a good thing by making the rules more comprehensive and more rationally interconnected, but there has been a negative result of this. It has tempted a certain loud and aggressie segment of the D20 fan base to push very hard to force EVERYTHING which can take place in a game into the rule framework. By bending everything to fit within this framework, you tend to distort everything, which is causing an accelerating phenomenon that is making the game more munchkinish and simplistic, to appease this demographic, while sapping much of the creativity out of it. It also increases this cultural trend within the game to view the DM as a competetor.

So is a comprehensive rule system good or not (in you opinion)?

You also seem to say that sticking to rule equals munchkinism, which is a bit of an oxymoron...

RPGs are played differently from group to group around the world and you can't please each and every player and DM, or even a demographic. People play hack&slash with Vampire and immersive storytelling with Rolemaster and GURPS. D&D gaming groups particularily seem to consist of the whole spectrum of RPG player sub-types.

In the end you write your work and let it find it's public. And there's plenty of D&D players who don't care about the rules. Look at Mongoose! They are selling.

Lets think about the reactions I got here. Some people suggested adding a rogue level. That would actually increase the power of the Imp quite a bit more than I wanted. It doesn't need a sneak attack, for example. Others suggested adding intelligence. This would cause complaints, even if I put in a note explaining why I did it. I guarantee that someone in this thread would be offended by that. Others pointed out swapping points from one skill to build a bluff skill. That sounds like a good idea, it's the one I'll probably actually use, but some people won't even like that.

I still think a plain circumstance bonus is the simplest solution. Explain it in the encounter text for DM.

The point is, this requires quite a bit of second guessing. Maybe I should have known the rule about swapping skill points on monsters, but I didn't know it, and even that is't going to please a segment of the D20 audience who demand strict canonical adherence to the "letter of the rules" and do not approve of those parts of the rules which reccomend flexibility, like rule zero.

As I said, you cannot please everyone. However, *I'm* a bit worried that you had a problem with modifying a monster when creating a module *for a publisher*, but you didn't consult Monster Manual...

Now this is a very minor part of this document I'm working on here.

< snipped a description of extensive work>

This is just one very minor example, but there might be thousands of small issues where there isn't an easy way to express or portray something within the letter of the rules.

Get yourself a rules editor or ask if the publishing company has an editor who checks rules as well.

When I buy a published module I'm paying the publisher for the story *and* the rules content.

If I want a story, I buy a book. If I want rules, I buy PHB. If I wan't both in a module, I expect that both are good and that it's playable off the shelf with minimal work required. After all, I wouldn't be buying modules if I had time to design my own.

THIS means that my module is going to be basically dumbed down a little. It will be acceptable to that section of the audience who LOVE rules lawyering over all else, but it's frankly not going to be as nuanced or interesting as something I would write for another role playing game. You wonder why d20 versions of such cool genres as Conan, Melnibone, D20 Cthulhu etc. seemed a little disapointing....

I don't see how rules can take away from the story. Conan, Elric and Cthulhu are cool nevermind the rules.

Dragonlords of Melnibone was disappointing to me *as a product*, but that's because the writers did not understand the rules. IMHO, ruleswise it was a hack job rushed out of the door in order to cash with the starting d20 craze. However the setting was as great as ever.

D20 Cthulhu was a great product and I'm a long time Call of Cthulhu fan. It also had some flaws like over-extensive firearms section and D&D feats like whirlwind attack on the player side of the book, but in the end an excellent piece of work.

I haven't seen d20 Conan yet, but I'm sure the "Conaness" of the etting is not diminished by the dice used.

This is what I mean by the tendancy of the rules as written and currently interpreted by a loud but significant minority within the D20 audience to influence the culture of the game. I might also point out the hostility toward writers which seems to be prevalent. I remember when people were so eager to see new material for RPG's, now with the glutted D20 market, many people seem to have contempt for the writers who try to make the game more fun.

I think you are overestimating the impact of Internet reviews and forum naysayers. 10 000 forum readers and their 40 000 friends are a drop in an ocean compared to your potential market in US alone.

All of this tends to push me out of the market, and toward other RPG's where I don't have to deal with the hassle. Many of you will no doubt think that means the system is working exactly as it should be!

Changing a gaming system is always a valid choice and d20 is not for everyone. I'm sad to see you go as I started looking towards your product, but then again I'm a sucker for super-modules/ready campaigns.

- F

 

[S'mon]

The D20 rules mechanics as currently written do NOT adequately cover all situations and all circumstances that you might come across in a game. That is why rule zero is still the ultimate rule. People can ALWAYS rationalize some way to make it work within the rules framework, but that often ends up with a distortion, like fitting a square peg into a round hole. These distortions can have a large effect multiplied out to a macro scale.

3X D&D has done a good thing by making the rules more comprehensive and more rationally interconnected, but there has been a negative result of this. It has tempted a certain loud and aggressie segment of the D20 fan base to push very hard to force EVERYTHING which can take place in a game into the rule framework. By bending everything to fit within this framework, you tend to distort everything, which is causing an accelerating phenomenon that is making the game more munchkinish and simplistic, to appease this demographic, while sapping much of the creativity out of it. It also increases this cultural trend within the game to view the DM as a competetor.

I agree with this of course - and well said. Luckily I have good & intimidated players who don't complain that my margoyles have Fighter BAB, STR 22 & Improved Grapple - they just scream & die...

You can't bend everything to fit within D&D's rules framework (or any other framework) and maintain a believable world or one that simulates any genre other than sui generis D&D. The Conan OGL game is very good BTW, but it still needs a fast & loose approach to the RAW if it's to really give the feel of its pulp sword & sorcery genre.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

One need not suppose that the rules cover every situation to think that they should apply equally to PCs and NPCs. Rules for charging cover charging perfectly well (even if they are needlessly restrictive). If an NPC can charge a PC in given circumstances, etc ad nauseum, then a PC should be able to charge the NPC in the exact same circumstances. If, like Skip in his recent movement article, you decide to improvise a rule to cover pulling flying creatures off-balance with a trip-like manuever, it should be equally available to PCs and NPCs and the mechanics should work the same way for both (though they need not be equally good at it).

Also, contrary to your apparent belief, it need not be a competition between the players and the DM in order for it to be important for NPCs to be governed by the same rules as PCs. I like to think of the D&D rules as tools for creating a world that the PCs can interact with. If the PCs use appraise, sense motive, diplomacy, and bluff when role-playing their purchases and attempt to use magic to verify the nature of their purchases, NPCs should be able to do the same. If the PCs decide to counterfeit money, NPCs can do so too (and detect the PCs' counterfeits under a fair skill mechanic (forgery is one of the skills I don't think works very well in D&D 3.x) just like the PCs could do to their forgeries). Similarly, if NPCs can become immune to scrying, not show up on divinations, and ward their fortresses against teleportation, PCs should be able to do so too. Conversely, if PCs scry their foes, teleport to them, and kill them, they should expect similar retaliation from NPCs. If the PCs are dumb, they can get hosed. Similarly, if the DM is foolish and doesn't consider that his pet NPC might get dimensional anchored before teleporting away, he should generally let the PCs have their well-earned victory. Four skill points on an imp won't end the world. The principle of the DM playing by the same rules as the PCs, however, is quite important.

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.

 

[S'mon]

BUt in the end I would like to see one come with a good reason d20 is a good system.

I agree that it's both over-complicated & simplistic; yet level-based systems are immensely satisfying to play through and see your PC gain in power over time. As a player, skill-based systems like Runequest with trivial % increases just aren't as much fun. As a simulation D&D is woeful - EGG pointed this out at the front of the 1e DMG. As a game, it's the most popular RPG by a long way - and that's not just first-mover advantage. Rules Lawyering players who criticise monster 'builds' as 'illegal' are a scourge upon the earth, and I hope I never see such at my game, but D&D is fundamentally a fun game to play.

 

[S'mon]

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.

This is a valid complaint IMO - I'd be concerned if a scenario required a particular outcome from PC-NPC interaction to work. This 'storytelling' or 'railroading' style makes players feel disempowered, far more than a GM or author giving an Imp a good Bluff skill or whatever - the important thing with the Bluffing imp is that the XP be commensurate with the challenge, according to whatever scale the GM uses - if the alteration makes the imp a much bigger challenge than 'normal' I would certainly give more XP.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I agree that it's both over-complicated & simplistic; yet level-based systems are immensely satisfying to play through and see your PC gain in power over time. As a player, skill-based systems like Runequest with trivial % increases just aren't as much fun. As a simulation D&D is woeful - EGG pointed this out at the front of the 1e DMG. As a game, it's the most popular RPG by a long way - and that's not just first-mover advantage. Rules Lawyering players who criticise monster 'builds' as 'illegal' are a scourge upon the earth, and I hope I never see such at my game, but D&D is fundamentally a fun game to play.

Actually, my post was meant as a joke. I re-posted a Silent Wail's famous Hate of d02 rant, which has become the gamer's version of "all your base are belong to us."

 

[billd91]

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

I'm starting to think you came into this forum with your initial post looking for an excuse to give up the project. Your initial statement suggested you had a chip on your shoulder about d20.
We've offered you several constructive ways to handle your sample encounter with the lying imp, all within the game structure, illustrating a variety of different design ideas. We've also offered a bit of criticism about the attitude you seem to have toward the gaming consumers.
So now you pack it in? I think you're being over-sensitive, which may be one of the roots of the problem. You're overly concerned with the impact rules-lawyer reviews will give you if you deviate from the rules to do what you want to do. Well, one expects the rules you use to be as properly edited and correct as the English of your composition to be taken seriously (or are the rules of English composition too restrictive as well?). But just as it's OK to split an infinitive from time to time to boldly give the phrase the proper feel (according to Strunk and White), it's OK to bend the rules or deviate from the "standard SRD monsters" in a game publication where it's necessary and appropriate. And in the case of the imp, it's an easy task with hardly any modification necessary, none that are rule-breakers. And I'm betting that with a little creativity, most other situations you're trying to build into the story can be handled entirely within the general context of the d20 rules as well.
Authors often find that they are more creative if given a framework to write within than if they're given absolutely no framework at all.

 

[S'mon]

One need not suppose that the rules cover every situation to think that they should apply equally to PCs and NPCs.

I agree with this; it doesn't mean that I'll allow Vrock Tanar'ri PCs in my lowish-magic sword & sorcery-style D&D campaign, but it does mean that combat rules & most other rules work the same way for PCs and NPCs wherever possible - an exception is the Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy rules, as stated in the PHB these can't be used to force PC action/attitudes because what a PC thinks of an NPC is largely the player's prerogative; it's no fun being forced to have your heroic Paladin act intimidated and I think this was a good decision by WotC.