D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[HolyFlame]

D20 vs point based systems

When comparing the rather static race/class/level concept of D20 with point based systems people often seem to forget that the latter's flexibility has its price: Of course, in such a system it would be very easy to improve Drifter Bob's now infamous imp (I probably will buy the module just to see this guy ) with a few skill points. But it is much, much more difficult to create balanced encounters. In a point based system, if you give an NPC just the skills she needs for a given situation, she will handle that situation much better than a player character with an equal amount of points. So, just judging from points spent the difficulty of an encounter is difficult to estimate. In my experience this leads to a lot of dissatisfying and unfair encounters, plus to a lot of one-trick-pony NPC's which make the world seem less consistent. What's even worse, is that players also have the 'option' of totally screwing up their chars, which makes co-existence of min-maxers with rulebook ignorants much more difficult. In essence, what I'd like to point out is that the obsession with balance Drifter Bob criticized may make RPG life difficult in some respects, but much more easy in others.

 

[Will]

On average, I'd say 'rules' are 30% of my time in writing.

This can vary from 80% to 10% or so, depending, of course, on what I'm writing. Modules tend to take a little more, encounter charts... fruk. Encounter charts, I can spend an hour writing 100 words. I hate them with a burning passion, though I like to think I'm pretty good at them (Blood Sea encounter charts are, I think, entirely mine)

I vastly prefer projects where rules stuff is the least of my work. But I also like to invent rules... working on a project of variant classes and 'houserules' thing.

As someone stated, though, I find the amount of time on rules stuff drops with experience. You see it many times, it gets easier. Oh, and automated NPC makers on the internet are a godsend.

The other truth is that every product will contain a number of errors. The time and speed needed to make a game product simply demand it. People will bitch, people will offer 'hey, let me edit it, jokers!' They can all kiss my heiny. Bruce is very wise, listen to him. He has a lot of experience with writing and writers in this industry, and he's not being facetious with 'if you don't like it, do something else.' If you are in the industry for any length of time, you will realize that a lot of people become very very very bitter. He's actually trying to be helpful.

 

[WizarDru]

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.

No offense, Bob, but your google fu is weak.

Here's what the ENWorld Reviewers thought: 2 averages (3), 1 Good (4) and 2 Superbs (5).

On RPG.net, it was given a 3|5, 4|3 and a 2|4. Or an average of 3 on Style and 4 on Substance.

Amazon's reviewers, a notorious lot known for posting self-promoting and intentionally sabotaging reviews, still managed to give it an average of 3.5 stars.

The Dark Spiral's users gave it an average of 3.67.
Silven Crossroad's reviewer gave it good to high marks everywhere except the editing.


If anything though, that should drive home the point that weak editing and glazing over rules material is a weak spot in a product that will be considered when weighing it's quality. Minor nitpicks over small rules mistakes can be ignored, but if you place rules review and editing as the low man on the totem pole, it will come back to haunt you, in many cases. I don't frankly care much about minor mistakes, misapplied skill points or even a small typo hither and thither. I've helped edit large manuscripts, and even on 3rd and 4th passes, you see things you missed on previous runs. It happens. I don't think anyone is implying that a minor mistake like that will derail a good supplement. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is riddled with mistakes and typos in the stat-blocks...but you don't notice that in any of the reviews. As long as the effort is made, and the mistakes are minor ones, it's less of an issue...and I think you need to have the courage of your convictions to do the product as you see fit. But be prepared to fight for your work, be it with an editor, reviewer or your own inner voice.

 

[Zelgadas]

DB: When I read your initial post, I thought you were way off base. After reading the rest of the thread, I stand corrected. While using a circumstance bonus or adding a level of rogue would work, I see no real reason to make the extra effort. As a DM, if I want a nonstandard monster, I simply shange its characteristics. If this were a wargame, me against my players, this would be cheating. Since it's a roleplaying game, and I am just facilitating everyone's enjoyment by using something a little different than what they've seen before, I am not cheating. I see no reason why a module could not use the same tactic. The argument could be made that this will unfairly throw off the players' tactics since they have a right to expect some consitency between the imps they encounter. However, in this case they don't know they're facing an imp, and more tellingly, adding class levels or switching skill points would also change the imp unexpectedly and is allowed by the rules. The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.

I agree with this assessment, to a point. As the DM, it's your perogative to fudge the rules in order to facilitate good gameplay. However, I'd argue that, in a published adventure, simply fudging the rules is somewhat lazy. At least, that's how I'd see it, if I were reading the adventure. I mean, if I read an adventure that said, "this imp has a +8 to bluff because I say so", or something to that effect, I'd probably stop reading the adventure. I have certain expectations of published products, and one of those expectations is that they adhere to the rules. If they just make stuff up, and add bonuses for no apparent reason, it makes everything seem sort of arbitrary. It seems sort of like railroading. I have no problem with DMs fudging the rules on the fly in order to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. However, I do have a problem with published products giving arbitrary modifiers with no explanation. If it's a circumstance modifier to Bluff, and it's explained that way with a good reason, then fine. But if it's just a +x to Bluff, then no. A DM should always be able to tell where elements of a published adventure are coming from, and fudging the rules makes this difficult.

That said, there are plenty of viable ways to customize your imp listed above.

 

[Berandor]

Wow. I know I fell for it, too, but I just have to say:
Best.
Troll.
Ever.



Now, in case you're not a troll, and just to feed the flames a little more, here's why I think you are: Because you started with a rantish notion and a bad example, and have not yet moved your stance one iota either way. YOu disregard all and any helpful/friendly advice with gems like these:

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.

And if you don't know why I like this quote so much, go read what I wrote on a Buffy board.

Now, this was your original question

First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)

Let's pretend you're serious.

First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head

This relates to the notion that people will rip your head off for giving the imp 4 skill points in bluff. Basically, here you say that you doubt yourself for that notion (and the difficulty of changing the stat block itself), a doubt that is quickly thrown overboard in your later statements.

(since I know nobody will agree with me)

Which has already been disproved, since people agreed with you in virtually every thing oyu said. There were people agreeing about DM fiat, people agreeing about the problem with changing rules and vicious reviews, people agreeing about a rules bias in D&D - name it, there have been agreements.

second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)

Which has been done almost countless times.

Of course that is good enough for me. I think you might find that many other people would not accept that though. Try running a poll.

Why don't you try running one? Oh, because you *know* the results already. Well, judging from this thread alone, there would be a small minority not accepting any reasonable change. But why look at actual results, eh?

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

Well, if you do, why didn't you think of any one way to improve the imp's bluff skill? I mean, you don't have to know all possibilities, but one?

The point I was making is, when you have to make judements whether a lot of little things like the bluff example, and / or "bigger" calls like when 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 folks.

Well, this has really to be addressed in three ways:
1. You cannot satisfy everbody, always. Nobody can. You have to learn whom to listen to and who to disregard. Conquer your fears, Carpe D&D!

2. The majority in this thread alone has stated that it wouldn't be concerned with an imp with bluff or similar small changes.

and most importantly 3. this is in no way a rules- or D&D-related issue. Note how some people have questioned your imp's action in the adventure proposal? The fact is, when you publish something (no matter whether it is free or not), people are going to critisize it. "Players should be rewarded for discovering the ruse, not penalized", "why should only Arthur be able to pull the sword out", "AD&D adventures were railroading examples", etc.
This has nothing to do with D&D or the rules.

But you know this, I am sure, since it has been said already numerous times. I just wanted to restate that because you've earned it with your relentlessness.

Oh, and Finally

Finally, you've just GOT to stop caring what simple-minded morons think of your work. And by "simple-minded morons" I mean "everyone who doesn't like it." You'll never get anywhere in life if you listen to other people.

...says the Ceramic DM contest judge

 

[Drifter Bob]

Oh, and automated NPC makers on the internet are a godsend.

I have been searching for something like that without success. I tried role playing master which actually caused fairly serious errors (incorrect armor class) and PCgen which I use but find way to clunky and inflexible. Could you reccomend something specific?

DB

 

[Crothian]

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

Conan has been a huge success dispite the problems it had.

 

[apsuman]

The point though is really this:

A) do the rules as currently written encourage this tendancy to try to make everything fit into the rules even when it doesn't

< snip >

DB

You gave the Bluff as an example, then several people pointed out possible solutions and then some other bodies pointed out that the bluff was just an example of a larger problem.

I will come on out and say it: I think the rules as written allow for *SOOOOOOO* much creativity that I insist *when possible* that the author stick to the rules.

So, can you (or anyone) give an example of how the system fails? Another, better, example perhaps?

DB, it sounds to me that you did a real bang up job creating an adventure campaign. It also sounds to me that you need a rules geek to edit your work and offer up suggestions within the rules to do what you want to do.

 

[Arnwyn]

Certainly, if that time has to be taken at all, the author should take the time -- but do we want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters?

You responded to one of my posts with the above, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Simply put - it's too late. We already do have that game system... now aspiring authors must live within its confines if they hope to sell products. Further, based on the clear popularity of d20, it looks like "we" do "want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters" - because people have decided that getting the detail is worth the time. 'High detail' and 'less time' really are mutually exclusive options, I'm afraid. And for fans of d20, the people have chosen.

Thus, the above quote isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[billd91]

My question is, why can't we give DM's and writers a bit more leeway so that they can make a FEW rational judgements within the spirit of the rules without getting pounced on. (If they violate the spirit of the rules, or if they really make gross violations of the letter of it, pounce away)

It's not a question of giving the DMs the leeway. They already have it and will make plenty of judgements in the spirit of if not always the letter of the rules. But they're doing it for their own personal games and not putting it out as a general offering for all groups to consider and buy. I may be able to write a letter in "family code" with all sorts of inside references that family members might get. But that doesn't mean I should write in that style for general publication and expect good reviews.

Somebody else also mentioned spending time playtesting. This campaign was playtested, for a year. It went fantastically well, it was one of the most successful campaigns I have ever run, something of a legend now among my friends. In fact it was because it went so well that I decided it might be a good idea to try to share it with the d20 community.

This has been pointed out before, but this is definitely not the best way to play test for publication. You should have another DM run it based on what you've written. That's the real acid test of your ability to write an adventure, whether someone can take your text and implement it successfully.

A few months later, once that looked like I had a serious opportunity to sell it, I started working on it again to make sure it was rules compliant enough for the D20 market. That has so far taken me about four hours a day almost every day for a month, well over 100 hours, and I'm not even 1/3 of the way through.

I would say this is a typical ratio for a D20 adventure, at least 60-70% of the time spent is on rules cross checking. For a sourcebook with more mechanics that would go up to as much as 90%. I always felt that was why the WOTC class sourcebooks I had bought like their druid ranger book or their rogue book seemed so dry.

Adventures I've written for some other modules require as little as 5-10% of the time working on rules compliance. The audience seems a lot more forgiving, of course most of the independent RPG's I've written for are rules lite so that does make sense, but I also wrote at least one very crunchy suppliment for a rules heavy system with the same result. That doesn't mean I don't like D&D!!!!! I'm just pointing out the effect that I was seeing.

I would also be interested to hear what other writers consider the ratio to be for them.

It doesn't really surprise me that a substantial amount of time is spent in careful editing. That's often what good quality control takes (it sure does in the software industry where I work). But if you were spending as little as 5-10% of the time on other modules you've written, you obviously weren't writing for Hero. Hero is notoriously more nit-picky than D&D. Or you're looking back on things through the filter of nostalgia since I doubt you have really hard data on time spent compared to now.