D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[S'mon]

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."

Yup. You agree w my analysis though?

 

[Dark Jezter]

Yup. You agree w my analysis though?

Pretty much, yes. Level-based systems may not be strictly realistic, but they are very satisfying and fun to play. This is why I've stuck primarily with D&D rather than switching over to GURPS, HEROQuest, or the Storyteller system.

 

[Drifter Bob]

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.

A lot of pepole take this to the point though that they demand that NOTHING an NPC can do should be unavailable to PC's. I saw a thread here on ENworld where people were saying basically, that you could not under any circumstances have NPC's with "special" powers that PC's couldn't get, like for example a king arthur PC who had the magic power to draw excalibur out of the stone. If he can do it then so should every PC.

To me, obviously, this really "cramps the style" of a good story. Not that you are going to be stacking lazer finger wielding orcs at the PC's all day, but IMO there should be a few things which are mysterious and not necessarily within the reach of every PC. That seems patently obvious.

DB

 

[S'mon]

A lot of pepole take this to the point though that they demand that NOTHING an NPC can do should be unavailable to PC's. I saw a thread here on ENworld where people were saying basically, that you could not under any circumstances have NPC's with "special" powers that PC's couldn't get, like for example a king arthur PC who had the magic power to draw excalibur out of the stone. If he can do it then so should every PC.

To me, obviously, this really "cramps the style" of a good story. Not that you are going to be stacking lazer finger wielding orcs at the PC's all day, but IMO there should be a few things which are mysterious and not necessarily within the reach of every PC. That seems patently obvious.

DB

Yup, I agree 100% - there's plenty of stuff IMC that isn't directly available to PCs; I don't generally let players play demon lords or constructs, for instance; and there certainly could be a human NPC with an ability not in the general rules; maybe due to their lineage (Arthur). Of course if a player wanted to play such an NPC I'll consider if I can accommodate them (giving players what they want is a good thing IMO), but it's my campaign, I make the decision.

 

[Drifter Bob]

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.

Thanks a lot for your comments. I think I actually will maybe just put this on the back burner for a while and take a break, and revisit it in a few weeks when I'm finished with another project (non D&D) I'm trying to get done on a deadline. I am a little burnt out right now.

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.

Frankly, there may have been a bit of that in my mind. This is basically my thought process: I wanted to try to get this finished within a certain period of time. I was going through the document and trying to fix everything to be rules compliant. I ran across more and more things which were fine during the playtest but for publication, to me were possible gray areas, some very minor like this bluff issue and some more serious. I worked them all out with some research (I did of course consult the manuals and SRD), but it started taking a longer and longer time to do it.

I also started getting more and more nervous about trusting my own best rules interpretations on some of these judgement calls. I could remember previous projects where I had contradictary complaints, one reviewer liked A and C but hated B and D and said they were 'wrong' in some subtle way having to do with the underlying philosophy of D&D. Another hated A and B but liked C and D. I got criticised for using mechanics strait out of the rule books. For example, some people were angry that a 2nd level arcane spell could potentially disrupt spellcasters of much higher levels (though they got a saving throw). I made the spell second level specifically because I knew of the divine spell "Silence" which was second level.. what else did I have to go on? Yet people told me that Silence was itself considered unbalanced by "those in the know" and contrary to the "philosophy" of D&D and I should have known that.

So I decided to post it to EN world to see if people could find me the best solution. I appreciate that y'all did so, incidentally. But at the sime time I was realising that if I had to resort to online forums to get the right answer on every case like this, the project was going to take much, much longer than I'd planned on. It meant I had to seriously consider just smoothing over some of these situations (i.e. make it a strait fight with an imp with no bluffing or misleading at all) It also occured to me that this was an example of exactly the kind of problem we had been discussing in the past on ENworld about D20. But if I brought that up, it would threaten the project, because I know people get so offended by any critique of D&D that they will boycott me on the basis of my complaint. I decided to hell with it and posted anyway.

So now you know.

DB

 

[Celtavian]

re

A lot of pepole take this to the point though that they demand that NOTHING an NPC can do should be unavailable to PC's. I saw a thread here on ENworld where people were saying basically, that you could not under any circumstances have NPC's with "special" powers that PC's couldn't get, like for example a king arthur PC who had the magic power to draw excalibur out of the stone. If he can do it then so should every PC.

To me, obviously, this really "cramps the style" of a good story. Not that you are going to be stacking lazer finger wielding orcs at the PC's all day, but IMO there should be a few things which are mysterious and not necessarily within the reach of every PC. That seems patently obvious.

DB

I think such an attitude is very rare. Giving special powers to unique NPC's makes them more interesting.

You also shouldn't shy away from giving special powers to the PC's on occasion as well. For example, Destan who writes a Story hour here infused a few of his PC's with the spirit of a child. His players enjoyed the addition as near as I can tell. It makes for great additions to his story hour.

Adventure design is open ended. My main point was that you don't need to disregard an existing rule (like a limit on the number of skill points for outsiders) to add a little extra flavor to a creature or encounter in an adventure. You can just write a new rule. Monte Cook does it all the time, and he is considered one of the best game designers out there right now.

 

[hong]

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...

Why am I reminded of a six-inch tall DM waving a tiny rulebook in the air and screaming "FEAR ME! FEAARRR ME!"?

D&D's monster creation framework is so loose that you could make almost anything you wanted and still be within the letter of the rules. There's nothing governing what special abilities a monster can have. There's nothing governing racial skill bonuses or bonus feats either. You could make a "demi-imp" with a +20 racial bonus to Bluff and suggestion at will as a spell-like ability, and there would be nothing in the book to say you're Not Allowed. Even something like BAB is fuzzy; just give it divine power or Tenser's transform if you really must have fighter BAB.

The only thing that all this DM power-tripping might do is cause the monster's nominal CR to be too low relative to its actual strength. But again, CR is more the result of eyeballing than a rigorous algorithm, so the letter of the rules is not the issue.

I mean, sheesh. A watertight ruleset d20 is not.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Why am I reminded of a six-inch tall DM waving a tiny rulebook in the air and screaming "FEAR ME! FEAARRR ME!"?

D&D's monster creation framework is so loose that you could make almost anything you wanted and still be within the letter of the rules. There's nothing governing what special abilities a monster can have. There's nothing governing racial skill bonuses or bonus feats either. You could make a "demi-imp" with a +20 racial bonus to Bluff and suggestion at will as a spell-like ability, and there would be nothing in the book to say you're Not Allowed. Even something like BAB is fuzzy; just give it divine power or Tenser's transform if you really must have fighter BAB.

The only thing that all this DM power-tripping might do is cause the monster's nominal CR to be too low relative to its actual strength. But again, CR is more the result of eyeballing than a rigorous algorithm, so the letter of the rules is not the issue.

I mean, sheesh. A watertight ruleset d20 is not.

I agree. The point is though, many people don't see it this way. Read through the thread.

DB

 

[I'm A Banana]

To me, obviously, this really "cramps the style" of a good story.

And to me, I wouldn't want to play as a mook in the Legend of Arthur...

....now tell me I can play as Arthur, and you might've got me....

But it seems that your main problem is one that is relatively simple, and not all that uncommon, and, yes, it has a name for those who view it as an inferior style of gaming too: Drama Queening. Or perhaps Invincible DMing. You're really "just" a fictionist.

d20 is not a forum for telling a story, and if you try to make it such, there are situations where the rules will dissapoint you. It's not just a story.

It's a GAME. It has TEAM ASPECTS. RANDOM CHANCE. And it has RULES. And if you want to PLAY the GAME, you need to realize these, accept these, and work within them.

If you'd rather tell a story, don't bother.

An RPG is a videogame. It is poker. It is Axis and Allies. It is Chutes and Ladders. It is infinately more flexible and enjoyable, and able to benefit much more from creativity and player input, but it is not an excersize in collaborative fiction, and it never. Ever. Ever. will be.

Can it be creative, engagning, even artful? Absolutely. That's what makes it a such a great game. To play. But it *is* a game. There's nothing "just" about it, a game can be as multifaceted and artistic as Paradise Lost if it wants to be.

But it is a game. And it needs to fit within the conventions and customs set up for a game. Which includes OBEYING THE RULES. Otherwise it's just fiction. It's just a story. It's just you going through the motions of what's already happened in someone elses' imagination. And that's not a game. That's just Role-Playing....and I can do that without risking a natural 20, having to have a healer, worrying that a spell will unravel a plot, or shelling out $30 for your campaign in which you have chosen to break the game to satisfy the story.

I mean, to each their own, but that's almost 100% backwards from what I actually enjoy doing on a weekly basis, which is playing a game in which a story takes place. Not telling a story with a d20 roll or two in between monolgoues.

 

[Dogbrain]

An RPG is a videogame. It is poker. It is Axis and Allies. It is Chutes and Ladders. It is infinately more flexible and enjoyable, and able to benefit much more from creativity and player input, but it is not an excersize in collaborative fiction, and it never. Ever. Ever. will be.

But isn't an airplane the exact same thing as a horse-drawn cart? Mustn't an airplane be expected and required to perform exactly as does a horse-drawn cart in all things and in all capacities?

But it is a game. And it needs to fit within the conventions and customs set up for a game. Which includes OBEYING THE RULES.

Too bad you are ignorant of the rules in this case: Rule Zero.