D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[Will]

Just to be clear, my melodrama comment doesn't follow DB's 'I am not being melodramatic' comment, at least not temporally. Note the edit timestamp on his post.

No accusation of intention, just realized people might not realize.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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....

Thanks for poting this. It illustrates my point very well, I think.

So, here are two issus. #1 is that the players should be the center of the story. Well, just because king arthur, or say, merlin have special abilities, doesn't mean that they are the center of the story. They can be minor NPC's who live far away somewhere, perhaps hire the characters to do somehting. What is so different from that as having distant gods which effect the plot.

On the other hand, #2, why can't you have a fun game in which the players are not necessarily the center of all things? I can think of a lot of lower level adventures where the characters are say, apprentices involved in relatively petty intrigues while not matching the power of their masters. Why should that be excluded from the range of possible adventures?

Cant you see how silly it is to insist that the players can do everything every NPC can do?

If the players aren't the center of the story, it's just not fun to play.

Yeah, you can have a story where the main characters aren't the center of the story (there's a few that people enjoy), but I wouldn't want to pretend to be that character, no matter how good the "story" is, because I don't come to a D&D to revel in the creativity of the DM, I come to Play a Game.

This is because D&D is not an exercise in collaborative fiction, it's a game with a plot.

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.

Hmm... I've been called many things, but...

Maybe that's because calling people names (be it Munchkin or Fictionalist) isn't exactly conducive to a discussion?

Quote:
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.

Ok, since you don't seem to realise this, I'll point out what seems obvious to me: the difference between D&D and say, poker, Axis and Allies, and Chutes and Ladders, is that the latter are all direct competitions between players, with no referee or, storyteller involved. There isn't one guy in Axis and Allies drawing the map for you as you play, or someone inventing new poker cards in the middle of that game.

The DM is not just another player compadre. I know some people really, really want this to be the case, but it just isn't, so forget about it. Play magic the gathering if you don't like it.

As for video games, I've written a few of those myself. You as a player have NO IDEA what is going on in the background. In most cases, it's nothing like what you think. More "cheating" goes on in video games than in any RPG.

D&D contains no player vs. player (or player vs. DM) antagonism.

How does this prove your point? Just because neither side is trying to 'win' doesn't mean that you can cheat. Not every game has competition (who are you 'competing against' when you play Solitaire?), but every one has some semblance of challenge, and cheating destroys that challenge (however subtly) unless everyone can cheat.

The DM's position in D&D is that of a judge. A judge doesn't take sides, he just is the arbiter between them. A judge doesn't break the rules, he interprets and enforces them. As a tool, one of the rules is "the DM makes the rules," but that is still one of the rules.

But just because a DM can decide to hand out points willy-nilly doesn't mean you as a writer can, either. I'm not taking you to task for anything related to antagonism or challenge or competition, I'm taking you to task because you seem to think cheating is OK when done in the interest of the "story."

This is backwards in my opinion. The story should come out of D&D, you shouldn't try to shoehorn your narrative into the structure of a game. It ain't gonna work, because D&D isn't an exercise in collaborative fiction. It's a game.

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.

Whatever gave you the impression that I do monologues in my games? Thats a straw dog if I ever heard one. Along the same lines, If you want to play D&D like it's Risk with wizads, go ahead, just don't try to force everyone else in the RPG community to do it the same way.

d00d, I was over-stating for effect. It's a literary convention that stretches back to the Bible and before, mang.

Speaking of straw dogs, I'm not trying to force anyone to play my way, nor am I stating that my way of play is better than anyone elses'. I'm saying that I will not buy a product whose author is so infatuated with their own imagination that they will cheat just to get a certain effect, ESPECIALLY when they could've done it in 400 different legit ways.

That's not the same as saying you can't accomplish the story, or even that you can't break rules once in a while. James Joyce can violate the rules of writing and still come up with a work that recieves critical accalaim. I'm gonna go out on a limb, here, and presume that you ain't the d20 equivalent of Joyce. Maybe I'm wrong. But obsessing over how The Man is Keeping You Down isn't helping your case much...

 

[S'mon]

I do not like some small, loud factions of the culture of D&D who react with hostility and bitterness toward any attempt to discuss any percieved problems with the game.

Well, these people are certainly annoying, and very vociferous (here in this thread - normally on ENW they hang out in the Rules Forum); I'm not sure what proportion of modern D&D players they are. Judging by WotC's boards there is a lot of support for treating D&D as Magic-the-Gathering with minis & battleboard; ie a tightly defined skirmish fantasy wargame. This is anathema to me, you, and plenty of other players, it results in a lot of bland and uninteresting (but rules compliant!) product. Still, it doesn't really do you or me any harm, I can play the game I like and you can always write product aimed at a different segment of the market, I'd think. Eg IMC I don't _need_ a stat block for Imps - ATT, Dmg, AC, Init, saves & any skills & powers to be actually used in play would be plenty. I hate those giant unnecessary stat blocks using up valuable ink!

 

[Numion]

Man, this thread didn't go as well as it could've.

Just a little addition: you do realize that WotC itself has kinda "OKed" modifying stat blocks? The SRD quote proves this, but even the WotC adventures have "Monster X, as MM page YY except: blah blah". I didn't really understand why that's not good enough for Drifter Bob, because it really is for everyone else, despite him claiming otherwise.

(Yeah, I really mean everyone)

 

[Bagpuss]

We've gone for 8 pages just to say move a few skill points from skill X to skill Y.

It's allowed by the rules, its been done before, even by WotC and everybody knows the MM only has examples of creatures they aren't all genetic clones of each other.

I guess it's a slow news day or something.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I think it went on 8 pages because there really are players who try to hold the DM to the rules. They will moan and complain if the DM doesn't follow some specific rule until they get their way. I know more than one person has complained about such players. Luckily I haven't had to deal with players of this kind.

My buddy faces this kind of thing on occasion as a DM. He usually caves allowing the players to do as they want to avoid the confrontation. I think there are more than a few DM's who don't like confrontation and cave in the face of the player pressure whether it be over rules, allowing Prc's, or other aspects of the game.

 

[National Acrobat]

I think it went on 8 pages because there really are players who try to hold the DM to the rules. They will moan and complain if the DM doesn't follow some specific rule until they get their way. I know more than one person has complained about such players. Luckily I haven't had to deal with players of this kind.

My buddy faces this kind of thing on occasion as a DM. He usually caves allowing the players to do as they want to avoid the confrontation. I think there are more than a few DM's who don't like confrontation and cave in the face of the player pressure whether it be over rules, allowing Prc's, or other aspects of the game.

Hmm, I always nip that in the bud on the first night of a new, starting campaign. Each player gets a hand out entitled "Rules of the Road" which tells them all they need to know about the beginning campaign in terms of what is allowed, what rules will be changed, etc. That way, it's there in black and white and they are free to ask my why I've chosen to do what I have, and I answer them. We take care of that before character creation. It seems to help quite a bit.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think it went on 8 pages because there really are players who try to hold the DM to the rules.

Yes but modifiy the monsters is within the rules anyway.

 

[WizarDru]

Well, 8 pages later, the Bluff thing is really a non-issue. It's been addressed several times in different ways how it could legitmately be done. I think that horse has been flogged enough, personally.

The issue that I think Drifter Bob intended to be his central point, and the Bluff question as an example of it, was that he percieves D&D having gone down a road to railroading everything to adhere to the rules, and that the rules are ill-suited to the task. In short, he is worried that the 'tail is wagging the dog', which is to say that the story is being driven by the tenets of the rules, and thus stifling creativity. Further, he believes that this mentality will lead to D&D becoming unpopular once more, and the game and hobby as a whole will suffer.

I couldn't disagree more, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable stance to take. It merely runs counter to everything I've experienced in the last four years.

The d20 system has yet to provide me with a situation that I couldn't model reasonably well, with a little reflection. Does it do everything well? It certainly does not. But it is, by and large, the best D&D system committed to paper, as far as I'm concerned. I am continually impressed by how thorough the design of the game was, with a level of consistency, accessability and mechanical forethought that was largely unmatched prior to its release. D&D is compromise between solid mechanics and verisimilitude, and sometimes the former has to be favored over the latter to make a good game. But the game is highly mutable, by design, since the creators knew that individual DMs and players like to tinker with the system.

Were these concerns new ones, I might be more concerned....but I heard these kind of discussions twenty years ago. What level fighter was Gilgamesh? Fafhrd? Conan? What class and level was Merlin? Gandalf? Ged?

The problem, of course, is the way that Drifter Bob framed his question, IMHO.

While I mentioned that the system is mutable, it was generally assumed that this would be done by individual DMs and players. In a campaign setting, providing a DM with alternate rules is wonderful. But in a published module, which is meant to save a DM time, it's appreciated if you follow the RAW, and leave the choice to the individual DM...OR highlight any deviance from the rules, so they can make an informed decision. WotC has published plenty of material where they have altered creatures up and down, as befits the individual situation.

Creating an encoutner against a wounded and dying owlbear, for example, where it only has half of it's normal hit points, is a different EL than a fully healthy one. Giving the imp a bonus as opposed to changing his spent skill points? That's a judgement call, based on the situation. If he's luring them over a pit-trap, you need to consider that a higher bluff is going to be a more dangerous ability...but that you should probably modify the EL, instead. The fact that there are several ways to address an issue within the system is a strength, IMHO.

Ultimately, this is an RPG. It is a social game, based around a rule set whose original version was designed to facilitate killing monsters and taking their stuff. It has evolved far beyond that, of course, and can accomdate a wide variety of playstyles. Since it is a purely mental exercise, the rules are often up to interpetation, and much of it is discussed, sometimes heatedly, on the rules forum. The popularity and existence of the rules forum merely reinforces the vitality and flexibility of the rules, as well as the fact that there are many different interpetations on how to play. A printed module best serves its audience by hewing close to the rules, to allow those who wish to play the RAW with what they want, and allowing those who tinker to apply their changes against the base assumptions of the existing system.

 

[RFisher]

If I put in a skill which isn't listed in the SRD for that particular monster, I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.

I apologize. I usually try to read an entire thread before posting but...8 pages!

Anywho, some ideas...

1. Don't sweat the nitpickers. People are smart enough to ignore those comments when reading reviews.

2. Explicitly state that you know it isn't by the book. Take the wind out of their "obviously hasn't read or understood the rules" complaint.

3. Find some loophole within the system to add it.

4. Make up a new name for the monster. If you don't call it an "Imp", you can't be accused of it being a non-standard imp.