Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Drifter Bob said:
Well, then, let's see this larger problem. Because, if the problem doesn't exist with the bluff skill (and I wouldn't consider the rantings of a few miscreants who know the rules well enough to glance at the imp's statblock and notice that it has extra points in bluff but don't know the rules well enough to know that you can switch feats and skill points relevant enough to create a problem), then maybe it doesn't exist to begin with.
I don't believe anyone has maintained that they do. However, that doesn't change the fact that a published work is less useful to DMs and worse than it would otherwise be if it does not use the d20 mechanics to cover situations and circumstances that the DO adequately cover.
Sure, but rule zero is just as overused as all of the other rules. A campaign that relies on rule zero for resolving most (or even a sizable minority of its situations) may well be worse off than a campaign with no rules at all.
Sure. But I hardly think that your imp example supports that. Where is the distortion? And, if there is a distortion, what are the macro scale effects? I can see openly flaunting the rules in situations where large effects multiplied out to a macro scale actually are going to show up but using that to justify minor rules violations that don't promote distortions is like banning sporks because criminals sometimes use guns and both are "weapons." The one just doesn't justify the other.
Uh huh. It seems to me that there's just as loud and aggressive a "free form" antinomian perspective. In any event, arguing that one should use the rules to do things they handle just fine (like giving an imp bluff ranks) is hardly forcing "EVERYTHING" (with ominous capitalization) into the rule framework.
Really, this phenomenon is "accelerating"? Fascinating. Have you done anything to verify this? Have you compared module reviews from 3 years ago to today? Have you considered alternate causation for the differences (like perhaps reviewers didn't properly know the rules when D&D was new)?
Note the contradiction. Last I checked, munchkinish was using the complexity of the rules (usually in ways that distort or outright ignore the actual meaning of the rules in question) to gain more power. Simplistic is (among other things), well, simple. Muchkinism is about the opposite of simplicity.
So, there's been a noticable decrease in the creativity of the d20 community? Where's that happened? Care to cite examples of the kind of creative things that used to happen but don't happen anymore?
Is that so? Speaking as a frequent DM, it surprises me to know that actually caring about making my NPCs using the rules as opposed to throwing them together however strikes my fancy means that I view the players as competitors.
Oh please, great and mighty wise one, tell me what the DM is. I'm waiting for your god-like wisdom.
So we're back to "the DM can't cheat." While that works fine in a game (well, in some games, I'm sure everyone on this forum has his own share of stories about games that were ruined because the DM couldn't let go of his pet NPC or villain and cheated in order to get a result that he wanted), it doesn't work nearly so well for a writer. If you're going to advertise your writing as working with a certain system, it should require the minimum "cheating" possible.
Well, no kidding. I could point out that an Expert level would add the skill points without the sneak attack but that's not really you're problem. For all that you are cavalier about what goes on behind the curtain when it comes to breaking the rules by adding a few skill points, you're very very worried about players seeing what's behind the curtain with regard to classes. A Imp Expert with 15 hit points isn't likely to be distinguished from an ordinary Imp with 13 hit points by players.
Awfully prescient, aren't we. Tell me this, would you get complaints if you statted a warrior NPC as Str 16, dex 12, con 13, int 11, wis 10, cha 9? How about Str 15, dex 14, con 16, int 7, wis 12, cha 10? More complaints or less? What if the fighter were an orc (orcs have stats in the Monster Manual)? Then why would a named imp with nonstandard stats generate more complaints than a named orc with non-standard stats? Speaking as one of those who sometimes compains about stats, I complain about NPCs with stats of 18, 18, 16, 16, 12, 16, etc not NPCs with a 13 int instead of an 11.
Really? Who's going to complain if you stat it properly (remembering that bluff is a cross-class skill for imps if it's not listed in their statblock)? You seem to have made up your mind independently of any evidence that I'm aware of.
Um, in case you hadn't noticed, advancing monsters, swapping skill points, etc IS the letter of the rules. There's not yet a single post on this thread saying that any deviation from the Monster Manual stats is bad. The vast majority of the rule-conscious posts are suggesting how to accomplish what you want within the framework of the rules. It seems to me that you've created the "simplistic munchkin letter-of-the-rules gamer monster" in your head and decided that you can't satisfy it without impartially examining the evidence to see if that creature actually exists.
Impressive. I'd love to have a contract for something that big.
Nobody's asking you to spend all day on it. We're just saying that cutting corners is a bad thing.
BTW, where'd you get 15 cents a word and are they hiring?
Sure. Now, you try thinking about this honestly. If there are thousands of small examples throughout the module and you make up your own rules for every little one, might not a reviewer be forgiven for supposing you don't know the rules. After all, a thousand uses of rule-zero for small details in one series of mods is quite a lot. As a player in such a campaign, I'd start to get worried if I ran into 100 traps that search didn't work on (because it wasn't easy to portray the trap within the "letter of the rules") and wonder why I bothered to take that rogue level and spend points in disable device if I couldn't find any devices to disable. As a player in such a campaign, I'd start to wonder what the point of Detect Evil was if every time my cleric cast it on a bad guy, it didn't work and they didn't radiate magic from Undetectable Alignment and I never got a will save against the Misdirection. I might even get bitter and rename my spell "Detect Red Herring." With a thousand rule zeroes, it's very easy to take away player abilities and to railroad them into your plot in a way that tends to disrupt the function of a gaming group.
Why is that risky? (And for that matter, how do you know the rules don't portray something well, if you don't bother trying to figure out how to portray it within the strict interpretation of the rules?)
The assumption that removing complexity is always the way to satisfy the "nerfers" (by whom I presume you mean your rules-conscious critics) is dangerously inaccurate. Sometimes, using the rules makes you adopt a more complex and intricate plan. (I know that considering the actual rules for situations I want to create has resulted in more interesting situations as often as it has failed to do so). So, it only results in simplistic modules if you conclude that the best answer is to make everything simplistic. Otherwise, the rules can serve as a stimulus for creativity.
Such as what? I'd love to hear of this wonderful system that lets you write whatever you want and makes it all work. (Maybe it's a system where everything works equally poorly so arbitrary mechanics are a relief from non-existent or non-functional mechanics (ahh, the days of 2e)).
In any event, the bit I really wonder about is the "complex and nuanced" bit. It seems to me that d20 opens up as many complex story lines as it closes off and that nuance is almost entirely a function of the writer. (If you mean NPCs who are evil but have reasons for the evil they do, that has very little to do with the system and can be done as easily in d20 as in Rolemaster or anything else I'm aware of).
Interesting; the ones I've read haven't seemed particularly disappointing to me. Maybe I'm just not familiar with the previous versions of Call of Cthulu but I suspect that what you're observing is more nostalgia than anything else.
I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean. On the other hand, I'm also pretty sure I don't agree that there is any such culture as you imagine.
Some people might think of it as having the luxury of separating the good grains from the bad grains because we can afford not to eat the rotten stuff.
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 wouldn't say that. If your writing is as good as you think it is, that would be a loss for the hobby. What I would prefer myself is to see the "complex and nuanced" story transferred to the d20 system. That's the kind of thing I would buy a module for. Nifty complex and nuanced stories can be found in paperback novels for similar prices to modules. (And, no insult intended, but novels are generally a better read since their format lends itself to a more immersive story). Translating that complexity to d20 is what takes the work and that's what I want to see in the module.
