D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[I'm A Banana]

The point I was making is, if it's a more significant judement call like if you are introducing a new monster or a new spell or race or class, or just trying to emulate some kind of magical or situational effect that's going on wihch isn't already clearly mapped in the rules, then you really will find yourself on dangerous ground with some people. This, in turn, may lead some writers to just skip things, smooth over the corners etc.

Obnoxious critics are no reason for sloppy rules, IMHO.

I was just pointing out that you can find something which fits in the technical parameters of the rules and probably lies easily within the spirit of the game, and get reacitons like ....
I think this is the kind of thing which many writers find difficult to cope with.

I don't think it should be difficult to deal with, as a writer of more than just d20 material. No matter how kickass an idea may be, there will be people who don't like it -- a significant number of people. You can't please everyone, just yourself. If pleasing yourself doesn't please anyone else, either ignore the attacks, or keep it to yourself. Either way, it's never gonna please everyone else.

If you're happy with just slapping points onto monsters, who cares if Kamikaze Midget isn't? It's your product, it's your vision, if it's important to you, it doesn't matter. If you argue passionately for it, and ardenly believe it to be the best approach, your conviction will win hearts. Or, if it doesn't, you will at least have stuck to your principles. It may not convince everyone -- hell, it may not convince ANYONE. But if you believe in it, the only person it needs to convince is you. And if you don't believe in it that strongly, that refine the idea until you do. You need to stand behind your arguments not because other people need to recognize them and accept them, but because you believe them.

As for the example, simpler is always better. What's easier in this case, introducing a new template, or just changing skill selection and a feat? I'd argue that the template is valid, but it's not the best way to go about it, because it's needlessly complex. Just switch out Dodge for Skill Focus (Bluff), and switch it's Diplomacy points in to Bluff points. *Infinately* easier than introducing a template.

I mean, compare and contrast...a template to make you a good liar is not on the same par as a template that turns you into a frickin' vampire, mang. Meanwhile, switching skill for skill, feat for feat, are definately in the same league.

 

[BruceB]

Briefly, then: No, d20 writing is not as a whole getting stupider. Just the opposite, in fact. This year has seen a serious boom in cleverly conceived and artistically implemented work that tunes the raw mechanics to all kinds of interesting specific effects, like Conan and OGL Steampunk and Blood & Fists and a bunch of others. But the thing is that all this particularly neat work is coming from people very comfortable with the basics.

It is no crime to say "I just don't think in those terms." I've passed up at least one d20 project for precisely that reason - I could have slogged through and done an okay job, but it was better handled by someone with fire in the belly for it. Despite your protestations, every time you get specific at all, it's with complaints about the brokenness of the system, the obsessions of the fans, and like that. Everything positive you say is in vague generalities lacking any sort of detail. If this is not the impression you intend, the useful response to people pointing it out is not to berate them, but to provide the detail that's missing. If we saw one-quarter the words about d20 stuff you like and can do well that we've seen in complaints, it would add up to a very different impression. You are not providing substance to match your claimed intent, essentially, while you are providing substance to match your initial tirade.

I presume this is going to get me denounced as well.

 

[Drifter Bob]

impression. You are not providing substance to match your claimed intent, essentially, while you are providing substance to match your initial tirade.

That would probably be because the "initial tirade" was the point of this thread. This was not a "things I love about D&D" thread any more than it's about being 'anti D&D'. You are basically just trying to insist that I don't "love" D&D, which is something I see happen in every single reform oriented thread about D&D.

If you want to see me saying nicer and more substantial things about D&D, you could start by reading through some of the other threads I have posted to on this very board, or in other places including historical martial arts boards where I have been put down for defending D&D.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

You need to stand behind your arguments not because other people need to recognize them and accept them, but because you believe them.
.

point taken

 

[Drifter Bob]

This year has seen a serious boom in cleverly conceived and artistically implemented work that tunes the raw mechanics to all kinds of interesting specific effects, like Conan

Conan was slaughtered in many if not all the reviews I've seen, which no doubt affected sales, and the carreers of the writers...

DB

 

[S'mon]

What reviews are those? The ones I've seen loved it (except for the execrable proofreading).

 

[Drifter Bob]

What reviews are those? The ones I've seen loved it (except for the execrable proofreading).

I was interested in buying this the other day. Seems like about 2/3rds of the reviews I googled were negative to mixed. Most of the complaints did seem to center around the editing.

http://consumerinfo.tultur.com/-/1904577695/Conan-Rpg/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1904577695/104-0063603-5356740?_encoding=UTF8

One Rpg.net review gave it a 3 for style and a 5 for substance I think

Not that bad reviews mean it's a bad product!

DB

 

[hong]

Also, incidentally, I do know the rules, quite well.

But Bob, that's what they ALL say.

 

[Drifter Bob]

But Bob, that's what they ALL say.

You are right. Maybe MSB should chime in with his opinion.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

I'm also "not a crook", by theway