D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[Arnwyn]

But why isn't rule 0 (or other flexible rules) still viable when "money is involved"? Can't we give the DM / writer just a little credit to use their common sense? My point is this, of course you should adhere to the rules.

Well good, then our problem is solved.

My point was that it isn't viable to use Rule 0 when there is a rule already in place to cover a situation when "money is involved", for the many reasons already given in this thread. When people spend their money on a product, they have expectations that the product is going to conform with the rules system it says it's written for. When money is involved, it's all about expectations, and the fulfillment of those expectations.

In a large document though, you are going to inevitably have a number of gray areas. Maybe this bluff thing wasn't a good example.

It wasn't.

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)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. To be honest - I really do think it's you and your perceptions that are getting in the way, here. I have seen no evidence of anyone not allowing DMs and writers "leeway so that they can make a FEW rational judgements within the spirit of the rules without getting pounced on".

If it's a product for money, you follow the rules to meet the expectations of the consumer. Period. If the rules are there, use 'em. If not, then you really do get all the leeway in the world to come up with something new (heck, all those d20 sourcebooks out there are doing just that).

But thats not a guarantee it won't make somebody irate.

Oh, for crying out loud - are back to this again? I thought I made it clear before (and others have posted the same thing), but it looks like you missed it all.

Where do you get off thinking that there is some sort of "guarantee" that people won't complain? Face it - someone, somewhere, is going to complain about something. This problem has nothing to do with d20, D&D, or gaming in general. Nothing at all. It's human nature, and it's just going to happen. Therefore, that complaint is neither relevant nor valuable to this discussion.

Meanwhile, if I make what seems to be reasonable judgement call, I can expect to get massacred. Read 5 random reviews of D20 products at RPG.net and see if you can see what I mean.

Did so. Don't see what you're talking about. You need to be very VERY clear here if you want to adequately get your point across. What, specifically, is considered a "reasonable judgement call" that one can "expect to get massacred" for? Is it working outside of the rules when you can work within them and achieve the same result? Not sure if that's can be considered "reasonable" when it comes to a paid-for product...

I really want to understand what you're trying to say, and what this systemic failing is, becasue this subject is fascinating. But it looks like it's pretty hard to articulate because I'm still not entirely following you.

 

[barsoomcore]

If you don't agree that it's a problem or that my example is valid, or even if you think that I don't make any sense, fine.

You have failed to demonstrate (or indeed offer any evidence at all or otherwise convince anyone) that it's a problem. It's not a problem.

Your example only proves that you don't know the rules very well. It is not a valid example of the problem you have failed to convince anyone exists.

You don't make sense because you insist that a thread called "d20 philosophy cramping my style" wasn't started in order to complain about d20.

 

[BruceB]

I'm going to engage in a little self-promotion while providing an example.

My first independent d20 project, Monstrous Advanced Classes: The Vampire, is now on sale at RPG Now. I took the vampire template and reworked it into a d20M advanced class with a mess of options for customizing the mix of qualities. I had knowledgeable friends look it over, and made several modifications - I removed "enthralled" in a description of the effects of vampiric domination, for instance, since "enthralled" has a technical meaning elsewhere, and I corrected a glitch in the BAB progression. (I repeated at 4 rather than 3 and multiples of 3, which is the correct thing for a combat-y class.) And so forth and so on.

None of these are big changes. None of them would like matter very much at all in play. Likely, few readers would have twigged to problems with any of them. But the fact that the writeup is that much more compliant means that a GM who makes individual modifications won't get nailed by the interaction of GM preference with not-quite-standard rules. I've stumbled on that myself while running games, and hate it. I see this as, essentially, playing fair with the customer: someone who buys my product will get (I hope) no undeclared surprises. Where I made a specific change, like having vampires default to being susceptible to mind-affecting effects (so that the immunity to it is an option, and so that hypothetical vampire PCs are vulnerable to to the stuff), I've declared it as clearly as I could. As a customer myself, this kind of thing is important to my confidence in a product, and I like to give folks credit for being as sensibly concerned as I am.

 

[WizarDru]

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?

For Free: Andragor's 3.5 version of Jamis Buck's NPC Generator - this is the standard against which all others are judged. Jamis was the first and many would argue, the best.

Also for Free: Redblade's 3.5 NPC Generator.

Also Also Free: An Excel-based character sheet from Jon & The Burgher.

Also Also Also Free: Shannon Greene's outstanding updates to Hero Forge, an excel based character generator originally created by Lone Paladin.

And finally, my personal favorite NOT-free tool for PC, NPC and monster generation: DM Genie. Updated often, it's an all around DM tool par excellence. Combat tracking is why I bought it. Monster generation and spell references just made me happy-happy.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Drifter Bob's complaint is that the obsession with rules canon affects the way the game is played and the way supplements are written -- it "tends to push you toward making it more 'dumbed down' and mechanical."

Older editions of D&D had plenty of overly complicated rules, but they often stayed remarkably hands-off -- if only because they didn't provide any framework for designing new monsters, handling social interactions, etc.

With the move to 3E, a lot of things got spelled out. That's often good, but it means that everything has to be quantified within the rules, ahead of time -- which is time-consuming and error-prone. Do we want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters? Do we want a system where a knight, a high-level Fighter, arguably can't answer questions about the local lords and ladies because he doesn't have sufficient ranks in knowledge (nobility)?

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.

Obviously. As I said before, if that time [to work out all the mechanics] has to be taken at all, the author should take the time -- but we're discussing the philosophy of 3E/3.5E/d20 and how it has changed from earlier editions. In what direction do we want the game to go?

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"...

The popularity of d20 does not imply that it's flawless. Obviously many, many people enjoyed 1E and 2E but enjoyed 3E even more. There's no reason a fourth edition couldn't improve the game still more.

...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.

"High detail" and "less time" may not typically go together, but a better design can yield both.

 

[Drifter Bob]

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.

Yeah, maybe you are right.

I actually had a friend like that who used to play in my campaign that I had collaborated with on some things last year, but we had a falling out partially due to our different beliefs about RPG's!

Basically he hated the house rules that we constantly put in the game (mostly combat rules as several people in our group have fencing, martial arts and / or military backgrounds) The other players were always pushing for greater and greater verisimilitude and more combat options, and liked experimenting with the rules. This guy hated the very idea of house rules on principle though, especially when we played D&D. In the end no compromise seemed possible and he quit the game. I think he still thinks of me as a blasphemer on that tip.

He also used to rather untactfully yell at and criticise a couple of the girls in our group who were new to RPG's and not really up on the rules. It's a shame because he is a nice guy, very smart and a good role player. Just real uptight. We had other problems though which were my fault.

There is another guy in our current gaming group who is our resident rules lawyer, who is a very laid back guy and easy to get along with. He does a good job of finding loopholes in plot or house rules if such exist, though not to the degree that derails the game or anything. Unfortunately he is in the middle of renovating a house, I've tried to float some things out to him to look at but he never has time.

I need to find a new rules geek, that's definately the case.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

You have failed to demonstrate (or indeed offer any evidence at all or otherwise convince anyone) that it's a problem. It's not a problem.

Fair enough

Your example only proves that you don't know the rules very well. It is not a valid example of the problem you have failed to convince anyone exists.

I did a good job of proving one thing at least.

You don't make sense because you insist that a thread called "d20 philosophy cramping my style" wasn't started in order to complain about d20.

Admittedly, not the wisest choice, in retrospect.

DB

 

[Crothian]

DB, I think you had some good points along the way but the thread sdid get sidetracked a little and went off focus some. Have you considered starting a new thread, possibltyy with a better title and example?

 

[Drifter Bob]

DB, I think you had some good points along the way but the thread sdid get sidetracked a little and went off focus some. Have you considered starting a new thread, possibltyy with a better title and example?

Yeah, I was thinking of a few other threads to start. I think my point is made here. I'll probably start a 'things I like about D&D" thread and another one with examples of things that are hard to convert in the rules, just so see interesting ways to convert them.

I think making a reform argument is a little too difficult and invokes too much hostility, even with a nice title. Anyway, I think I've made my point, I guess I keep getting sucked back into the discussion as people keep making this or that assertion that I don't know the rules or whatever. I guess I wouldn't mind if the thread were ended.

DB

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Drifter Bob's complaint is that the obsession with rules canon affects the way the game is played and the way supplements are written -- it "tends to push you toward making it more 'dumbed down' and mechanical."

frankly, i would call it his troll but...

its just not true. In the last cpouple of years i have seen more significant, well thought out radical departures from the core DND/D20 than in the years before and they are intersting and well recieved and worth the money. if the writers of Midnight, MnM, Conan, and the lot were writing with the same "but what if some people dont like the changes..." attitude/delusion shown here, we would never have seen them.

Older editions of D&D had plenty of overly complicated rules, but they often stayed remarkably hands-off -- if only because they didn't provide any framework for designing new monsters, handling social interactions, etc.

Lack of rules does not mean greater freedom. it usually tends to mean greater inconsistency.

With the move to 3E, a lot of things got spelled out. That's often good, but it means that everything has to be quantified within the rules, ahead of time -- which is time-consuming and error-prone. Do we want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters?

if by "we" you mean the customers, it looks like the answer is a resounding cash-onm-the-dollar "yes."

Do we want a system where a knight, a high-level Fighter, arguably can't answer questions about the local lords and ladies because he doesn't have sufficient ranks in knowledge (nobility)?

No, which is why we would EXPECT the writer of such a character to spend skill points on knowledge nobility IF THE VISION OF THE CHARACTER SAYS " he would know these things." To get to a 15 result off a take 10 a 10th level fighter would need (assuming no INT bonus) to have spent 10 skill ranks to get +5. Thats very doable. of course, 1oth level is not high, so we are really talking 15.

The onus is on the writer to build the characters to do what he is wrting them to be able to do.

or would you prefer he just write up the fighter, spend all his skills on the combat stuff, arr arr arr mo' power, and then go "gosh darn, he needs to be able to answer nobility questions too, letds add the "noble template" to represent all the time he spent doing courtly stuff"?

Obviously. As I said before, if that time [to work out all the mechanics] has to be taken at all, the author should take the time -- but we're discussing the philosophy of 3E/3.5E/d20 and how it has changed from earlier editions. In what direction do we want the game to go?

The game has went already.

The popularity of d20 does not imply that it's flawless.

Nope and no one is saying that, but when it comes to questions of "do we want..." where "we" is "us" (the consumers) the popularity does speak volumes.

Obviously many, many people enjoyed 1E and 2E but enjoyed 3E even more. There's no reason a fourth edition couldn't improve the game still more.

and in a discussion of "what we would like to see in DND 4?" thats a subject.

"High detail" and "less time" may not typically go together, but a better design can yield both.

and it can do the laundry and wash the car too... in theory.