D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[Ovinomancer]

P.S. and no, I will not cite examples of what I'm talking about, if you don't know already you are in denial and will never get it.

Drifter Bob, I'm not a professional writer, but I believe that this could have been said much simpler. Try 'Neener, neener, neener,' next time; it would be more succinct.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Heh, but your product got 4.00 Stars here at EN World.

You should be proud!

Thanks, but 'shhhhhhhh'.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

What you have here is, apparently, someone who's a professional module author, who doesn't like having to use the rules to the game, or know the rules to the game, and hates those who do.

Please, I know the rules, I don't hate those who do. If you don't like the way I worded my argument, (which was admittedly obnoxious, I wrote some of that originally several weeks ago after drining too much Jamesons) read the first couple of paragraphs and the last few lines of what Monte Cook Wrote in this link.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

Drifter Bob, I'm not a professional writer, but I believe that this could have been said much simpler. Try 'Neener, neener, neener,' next time; it would be more succinct.

I'll add that to my collection, thank you.

DB

 

[FireLance]

Okay, I consider myself pretty much of a pedant where the rules of the game are concerned. I am no RPG industry insider, just a player and DM who happens to like the game and (I think) know it fairly well.

I went and re-read DB's first post. I think he presents a fair point. For reasons of plot or story, DMs and designers of modules and games may want to introduce creatures with unique and special abilities. However, if these abilities go against the rules as written, does it mean that they cannot be used? No, only that they have to be used carefully.

Here's an rough analogy. Let's say I go to see a movie called "Vampire". The protagonist faces a humanoid creature with prominent fangs that drains blood from its victims, changes into a bat and a cloud of gas at various points in the story, does not reflect in a mirror, and summons a pack of wolves to attack the protagonist. In the climactic encounter, the protagonist presents a holy symbol, and the creature knocks it aside with a sneer. He produces a clove of garlic, and the creature only laughs. He stabs it in the heart with a stake, but it plucks it out and continues attacking. The sun rises, but the creature is unaffected. Finally, the protagonist manages to trap the creature in a cave and sets off an avalanche that buries it, and the movie ends.

Such a movie will not be satisfying to me. You see, the use of the word "vampire" in the title of the movie creates an expectation in my mind of a creature with certain characteristics that I commonly associate with vampires. Instead, what I find is a creature that has some of the characteristics, but not others. What is worse, there is no explanation given why this so-called "vampire" differs so greatly from my expectations. Perhaps it was the intent of the film-maker to challenge our pre-conceived assumptions about vampires. Perhaps he just wanted to portray a vampire as an almost unstoppable force. Regardless of his intent, it ruined my enjoyment of the film.

So, how can a film-maker remain true to his vision while still helping me to enjoy the movie? Simply by acknowledging my pre-existing expectations and telling me that they do not apply in this case. Perhaps the protagonist has the same expectations that I have, but is warned that they are wrong. Perhaps this creature is a vampire that has managed to overcome the typical weaknesses, or perhaps the vampires themselves lie about their weaknesses to mislead those who seek to kill them.

Like movie-goers, DMs who buy a module or players who play in one have certain expectations. One of them is that the rules will be followed, and an explanation will be given if they are not. I don't think that's a lot to ask.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Like movie-goers, DMs who buy a module or players who play in one have certain expectations. One of them is that the rules will be followed, and an explanation will be given if they are not. I don't think that's a lot to ask.

I think that is a reasonable expectation, but I also think when the critter in question is a much more minor, and less thoroughly ingrained critter as an Imp, and the modification itself is so minor, then the audience should cut us a little slack there. I mean, frankly, I think an Imp should have a few bluff points. It's not that "out of character" like a vampire immune to sunlight. Nor does it make him immensely powerful.

If the publishers don't mind taking up the space I'd certainly be willing to put a short list at the beginning of a module warning DM's of a few minor tweaks to this or that standard rules convention. I just want to be able to have that wiggle room without making a federal case out if it, as Monte himself pointed out in his little rant, in which he was dealing with an almost identical situation.

Again, I'm not talking about major arbitrary rules changes here, just being able to push the envelope a little teensy bit at the outer boundaries thereof.


DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

That said, if there's a satisfactory workaround in the rules (as there appears to be with the Imp), then it's probably best to use it. But the useless pedantry involved in objecting to chucking a measely 4 skill ranks on top of a creature's profile is a perfect example of the negativbe side of D20's System Mastery design goal.

Looking forward, it looks to me like nonsense like this can be vanquished once and for all by coming out with another book like Unearthed Arcana that talks about the "wiggle room" in various game concepts as elements of design, instead of just DMing. Then it can go into SRD canon and everyone will agree with it, just as they did when the legions of folks who, for example, defended to death the idea that monks should be crappy with a staff all changed their tune once the 3.5 SRD said otherwise. Such is the flexible spine of a pedant.

I agree, this would probably fix the problem.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

The second would be declared incompetent and ignorant to boot. The first is apparently some sort of visionary. What gives?

Seeing as how 99% of the people in this thread disagreed with me, I am probably incompetent and ignorant, and apparently a quack rather than a visionary. I appreciate the indirect complement though.

DB

 

[S'mon]

The obvious answer Saeviomagy is that RPG rules are not like the immutable laws of nature (electricity), in fact they're not even like wargame rules, though some people here seem to think otherwise. RPG rules are merely a crutch to help the GM present their world/scenario/plot, and a way to regulate players' interaction with that world (etc). They _don't define in-game reality_, they merely reflect it, often imperfectly. So if it's a world/scenario where an imp is a good bluffer, but the rules don't reflect that, the rules need to change, not the world.

 

[rounser]

From Monte Cook's essay on rules departure:

As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, "What have we wrought?"

Judging by this thread, one almighty sea change in how people think about the game and therefore use it, I'd say. And a bit of a double-edged sword of a change at that.