D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[Elder-Basilisk]

Blah blah blah...I don't want to rearrange skill points, I don't want to change stats, I don't want to add levels, I don't want to use feats, I don't want to use any of the d20 mechanics--they cramp my style but I want you to buy my d20 adventure and like it...blah blah blah.

I never said ANY of the above. The fact that you feel that you have to characterise my argument this way makes you seem intellectually dishonest.

DB

Well, I be quite certain that you said "blah blah blah"--see the first post, but pretending that makes this a direct quote would only be possible in a Michael Moore movie. Let's call it a dismissive characterization of a particular line of argument that seems prevalent in this thread.

Rereading your posts, I think my characterization may be overly harsh and more properly directed towards other posters. Still, I think this sums up a variety of the posts on this issue.

As to "I don't want to use d20 mechanics":
1. Rearranging skill points, changing stats, using feats, and all other suggested d20 mechanics has been characterized as "jumping through hoops."
2. Dancer and several other posters have specifically suggested that ignoring the rules and just arbitrarily giving a monster (and, I probably should include that S'mon's post mentioned the DM doing the same for players) is the DM's perogative. To quote one such post,

I might be bothered if you just "give" the imp extra skill points.

I think this is what the poster is complaining about - why should it bother anyone?

3. The general tone of this thread has been one of "ignore the rules, serve the "Story" or "Game."" (At least, it has been from the side that doesn't care about using the d20 mechanics for making the imp better--Dancer, S'mon, etc and maybe I'm wrong to categorize you in that group but your denunciations of "rules lawyers" and exaltation of "storytelling" (as if knowing and using the rules makes it harder to tell a story which it may occasionally do but generally doesn't--if only because knowing the rules gives you warning about which stories won't work) seems to fit in that camp). There are very good reasons why subordinating rules to story doesn't work nearly as well for an author as for an individual improvising DM.

"I want you to buy my d20 adventure and like it"
1. This is specifically mentioned in the context of writing an adventure for publication.
2. This is specifically introduced in the context of "people may complain to the publisher and I'm afraid the publisher would be gunshy about a "nonstandard" monster." (Paraphrased rather than quoted--sorry if the marks throw anyone off).
3. Adventure reviewers and critics who pay attention to the legality of statblocks, etc are singled out for specific criticism:

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.

Apparently, I'm not the only one to whom you communicated this:

Yup, this is what he's complaining about. Personally I'm sick of reviewers like that.

Now, while that may be more precisely summarized as "give my module a good review, darn it," I think that's a reasonable proxy for "buy it and like it" because, really, the primary relevance of judgements of quality (like reviews) is their effect (if any) upon purchasing. If I write a module and it gets horrible reviews but lots of people buy it, I don't think I'm in a situation to be worried about and I would expect that the publisher is LESS likely to fear bad reviews for the reasons I got those bad reviews rather than more likely. (After all, they didn't hurt the publisher's bottom line).

Anyway, my perhaps overly harsh characterization of the opposing point of view shouldn't obscure the fact that authors need to be held to very different standards than DMs (especially DMs who are improvising) and that attention to the rules and mechanics in small and easy details is a healthy habit that enables attention to the rules in bigger and more significant areas.

An author can do just fine writing a story or a backdrop for a story with no mechanics at all. (I'm greatly appreciative of efforst of the authors, editors, and possibly most of all, artists, of theforge.pl for instance). However, if you're going to include mechanics, they are useful in direct proportion to their fit within the mechanical system of the game.

 

[Crothian]

This is what I mean by the tendancy of the rules as written and currently interpreted by a loud but significant minority within the D20 audience to influence the culture of the game. I might also point out the hostility toward writers which seems to be prevalent. I remember when people were so eager to see new material for RPG's, now with the glutted D20 market, many people seem to have contempt for the writers who try to make the game more fun.

All of this tends to push me out of the market, and toward other RPG's where I don't have to deal with the hassle. Many of you will no doubt think that means the system is working exactly as it should be!

I just wanted to point it out.

DB

You also have to realize that you shouldn't be trying to please everyone. And while the people on ENWorld or RPG Net might scream about a product being "wrong" many of the fans of the particuliar companies still love and support it especially on their own messageboards. You are not going to please everyone. Frankly, I would ignore what most of the loud minoirty has to say, sure they are loud but they are also a minority. If you write a good product, people will find it.

I do agree with you on the dumbing down of d20 and the fans are the fault of it. If you did make a change to the Imp and explain it in the module that still would not prevent a few of the so called Reviewers (of which I am one) to rant on how you got the rules wrong and further pick apart the work like my 8th grade English teacher using a red pen.

Best of luck with your module though.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I agree with you, but read through the thread and see how many people feel very strongly that 4 skill points is a huge violation of the laws of humanity, and would lke to have me tried for war crimes for just considering it.

DB

And you called my post intellectually dishonest!?!

Nobody but you has mentioned war crimes prosecution or the laws of humanity (whatever the heck those are... I know of Federal Law, California State Law, Oregon Law, French law, the law of the United Kingdom, natural law, and even so-called international law but I've never heard of the "laws of humanity.")

 

[Drifter Bob]

I do agree with you on the dumbing down of d20 and the fans are the fault of it. If you did make a change to the Imp and explain it in the module that still would not prevent a few of the so called Reviewers (of which I am one) to rant on how you got the rules wrong and further pick apart the work like my 8th grade English teacher using a red pen.

Best of luck with your module though.

So Crothian, are you saying that if you reviewed this module and I had the skill ranks change and explained it, you would still rant on it? Or that other reviewers might do so?

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

Nobody but you has mentioned war crimes prosecution or the laws of humanity

You are correct, and I should not tempt fate. I should be happy that the reaction to the four bluff points has not included demands for my arrest or death threats, as of yet.

DB

 

[Dark Jezter]

My hate of d02 know no limit.

Ok, a few days or weeks ago we were discussing the issue of how the rules, and the obsession with rules balance and technical canonical rules interpretation, affect the game, by influencing game play toward munchkinism and in favor of rules lawyering, and away from role playing.

I chimed in on this because as a writer I think it does effect the way you approach writing material for d20, and tends to push you toward making it more 'dumbed down' and mechanical. Well, I've run into a fairly classic example. It's a minor thing but it's something of a stumbling block for me.

It fails in just about every aspect of a game,and it is more of a rule playign game than role playing game.

Frist off it is way to liniar.You just get better in everyway.THere is no way in avoiding it.I mena no mater what you are, you have have hit points and levels.

It is over comlicated,and simplist at the same time. IT is harder to hit a mmman in plate armor.And hammers and swords tear chaim mail the same way. Then you have the detail of when you can atack,and what range weapons have,and how far you can move.

Classes, are jokes. really.From how hits points.skill points,and bonus powers are moved about. In the end in boils down to this.

levle systems do not work.They may work on paper, but a level 12 fighter or even mag doesn't need to fear having a sword swung at them, or even getting stabed. Also with the way hit points work, your either fighting as if nothing happened or are out cold.Nothing in the middle.

the flaw of rolling a d20 is also that the best fighter in the word, taking up his most magical sword, misses 5% of the time.ALso so all fighters are just as good with all weapons they use.We all know that training with hand to hand weapons will make you great with a bow.Also if your good with guns, you must know how to use a sword.

In the end, d20 is too many rules, and not enough rules at the same time.Has too many strick rules, while leaving many feild wide open with no reason. I am ranting here,and know this dosen't make much sense to many people.BUt in the end I would like to see one come with a good reason d20 is a good system.

 

[Drifter Bob]

BUt in the end I would like to see one come with a good reason d20 is a good system.

Hilarious. Sheer genius. With an adept command of irony like that, it's no wonder they call you the "Dark" Jester. Wow. I guess this means I'm some knuckleheaded anti-D&D "Hater". I'm the guy they make fun of in all those rap songs.

I take it all back.

DB

 

[Dark Jezter]

Hey, when you claim that the system is "dumbed down" because the internal mechanics are more consistant, and imply that "munchkinism" and "rules lawyering" are inferior play styles, do you really think some people aren't going to take exception.

 

[Crothian]

So Crothian, are you saying that if you reviewed this module and I had the skill ranks change and explained it, you would still rant on it? Or that other reviewers might do so?

DB

Other reviewers might. I was just saying that I am a reviewer as I'm sure not everyone is aware of that. I rarely point out little rules errors in my reviews. I think its nitpicking and unneeded. Unless a rules gaff has a big effect on the game, its not worth it to worry about.

 

[swrushing]

Ok first off let me ask Drifter Bob "please tell us what module/campaign/source book this is or at least who will be publishing ti so those of us who are either inspired or replused by your tone, opinions or arguments here can make an informed purchase decision."

Second, frankly, this still seems to me to be a problem thats in your head. Every game system with a setting i have ever seen provides in some form or another official stats for various entities in that setting. Every game system i have ever seen also procides for the vast majority of them if not all permission to alter them as needed to fit an encounter. D20/DnD is no exception.

Whether you choose to "make your fiend a "NEW CREATURE" (don't adventures go well with new creatures?), make it an advanced imp, make it an altered imp, or to just rant about how unfair it is that the d20 rules don't in advance cover every concievable situation and require the Gm to at times alter from the book stats is up to you. But, except for systems which you devise you wont find a game system that does predict every situation and avoid you having to as GM make your own alterations/additions.

But, i would say that i would be more worried in your set as Gm/author about detect evil by spell or what not than i would a good sense motive.

Also, two things...

First, a cleverly written encounter with a fiend trying deception ought to try and work its way around telling lies. Clever deception involved truth and misdirection more than dishonesty.

Second, when looking for imp alternate forms, keeping to small size, i would go the halfling route instead of the young girl. Obviously, the young girl is cliched and trite and done to death and any savvy PC will make his "sense obvious plot twist" role faster than you can say "gary Sinese playing the best friend!" On the other hand, a less sympathetic halfling, who manages to get the players to draw themselves to him rather than him dragging them in, might well slip by. Imagine a drunken bum of a halfling scared out of his wits whose partially incoherent ramblings lead the party to decide to go where he wants by themselves. a half clue the party drags out of him" will go a whole lot further in the "when they least suspect it" vein.

If i had to hazard a guess, its not the system dumbing down your story you need to worry about. Its you doing so that should be your bigger concern. You seem to have a significant level of contempt for the very fanbase you are trying to write for. I would normally see that as a sign of a mismatch. perhaps your talents would be better spent somewhere else, writing for a fanbase you like or respect, if such exists.

All the above is predicated on the assumption that you are serious and this is not just a moderately novel approach to getting a "smack at DnD players" thread to run a while.