-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D20 'philosophy' cramping my style
- Thread starter Drifter Bob
- Start date
- Status
Aaron L
Hero
Dancer said:
Not a stretch at all. Hundreds of years of lieing making you better at lieing is called gaining a level or 5 in a class that is good at lieing.
Or else I could argue with my DM that my character is a very good fighter who has fought for a long time so he should get a special bonus to hit because of practice.
(Lieing, is that spelled right? It never looks right to me.)
Planesdragon
First Post
Not really. It's just sloppy.JeffB said:If the Imp has bluff, and (god forbid)that requires too many Skill Points, so what!.The encounter will be much more interesting with the fudging of the rules.
The rules ALREADY give you penty of ways to give an Imp Bluff. Not the least of which would be to have it as a "vairant imp" with a different alternate form and different skills.
But slapping skill points on willy-nilly is just sloppy, and it looks sloppy, and a good portion of your customers will recognize that and have a lower opinion of yourself and your product.
Aaron L said:
But gaining the skill in only lying (lying is the correct spelling) is different than gaining all the associated skills that go along with getting a level or 5 in Rogue. Otherwise, you are saying a being can't be a good liar without being a good thief and that's just not true.
fighting is different because that is really all that class (warrior) covers is basically fighting, not fighting, moving silently, stealing, lying and tracking. This is really were a class based system breaks down.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
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.
Seriously, if I'm improvising a story because I didn't prepare anything for the session or it went off in a direction I hadn't anticipated, I might well just add 4 points to the imp's bluff score and worry about making its stats legal if and only if he actually became a recurring NPC. However, if I'm paying you to write a module for me, I expect to be able to take the NPCs apart, modify them, put them back together, and have everything work. So, if you're writing a module, you darn well better be able to actually use the rules or at least make the attempt when it's trivially easy as it is in this case. (You also ought to be able to hit the spellcheck button on your word processor--there is no excuse for potions of "invasibility", "necklass"es of fireballs, or masterwork "glave"s). If you're too lazy to bother figuring out how to fit the imp's abilities in the system (something which takes all of ten seconds of stat modification), then why on earth would I as a DM or a player have confidence in your ability or willingness to apply yourself to the serious aspects of module writing. Does Divination screw with a story? Not if you've just arbitrarily said, "it doesn't work because it cramps my style and that's not the story I want to tell." Does the main villain single shot kill an NPC with a dozen skilled guards who would have cut the PCs down before they reached their sword hilts and then fall to the PCs blades because "it makes a good story?" (Despite the fact that, in the world the rules simulate, anyone wussy enough to be taken down by the PCs would have had to be insanely lucky to take down the NPC and anyone skilled enough to take down the NPC and escape would be skilled enough to take down all the PCs without breaking a sweat). In short, if you as a writer aren't willing to make your story work within the framework of the little rules, I have no desire to even give you a chance to make your story work within the framework of the big rules.
I can buy a ritual that grants the effect of a mindblank spell (thus precluding divinations). I can buy an ally spiking the guards drinks with a minor poison that fatigues them just enough that the assassin can get the drop on them and then get away. I can buy most of the explanations necessary to make various stories work within the gaming system. What I won't buy is a module that exhibits a casual disregard for making the story actually work within the game system. And while big problems (divinations, teleport, etc) may require a big ad-hoc mechanic or a questionable new game rule, I can forgive some of those because the system doesn't offer easy ways to create those effects. However, the system does offer a dozen easy ways to make the imp good at bluff and if you can't be bothered to use any of them but just arbitrarily say "this imp is good at bluff," then I have no grounds to be confident that you will restrain yourself in dealing with the bigger rules issues.
Switching skill ranks, adding stats, giving items, changing feats, or adding classes are not jumping through hoops. In writing for d20, they're more akin to putting one foot in front of the other. If that cramps your style and you want to know why you can't just teleport to the other side of the room, that's just too bad.
BTW, the idea that every story will work within every rules system is flawed to begin with. D&D will have a lot of trouble if you want to pit weak and inexperienced commoners against the world's greatest warrior and have them win. From what I hear, Warhammer Fantasy Role Play could handle that but would have trouble simulating 300 Spartans holding off 100,000+ Persians for three days (sure there were approximately 10,000 other Greeks there for the first few days, but D&D could simulate the legend that ignores them). Respecting the limits of the material you're working with is the first step in creating a work of art.
Seriously, if I'm improvising a story because I didn't prepare anything for the session or it went off in a direction I hadn't anticipated, I might well just add 4 points to the imp's bluff score and worry about making its stats legal if and only if he actually became a recurring NPC. However, if I'm paying you to write a module for me, I expect to be able to take the NPCs apart, modify them, put them back together, and have everything work. So, if you're writing a module, you darn well better be able to actually use the rules or at least make the attempt when it's trivially easy as it is in this case. (You also ought to be able to hit the spellcheck button on your word processor--there is no excuse for potions of "invasibility", "necklass"es of fireballs, or masterwork "glave"s). If you're too lazy to bother figuring out how to fit the imp's abilities in the system (something which takes all of ten seconds of stat modification), then why on earth would I as a DM or a player have confidence in your ability or willingness to apply yourself to the serious aspects of module writing. Does Divination screw with a story? Not if you've just arbitrarily said, "it doesn't work because it cramps my style and that's not the story I want to tell." Does the main villain single shot kill an NPC with a dozen skilled guards who would have cut the PCs down before they reached their sword hilts and then fall to the PCs blades because "it makes a good story?" (Despite the fact that, in the world the rules simulate, anyone wussy enough to be taken down by the PCs would have had to be insanely lucky to take down the NPC and anyone skilled enough to take down the NPC and escape would be skilled enough to take down all the PCs without breaking a sweat). In short, if you as a writer aren't willing to make your story work within the framework of the little rules, I have no desire to even give you a chance to make your story work within the framework of the big rules.
I can buy a ritual that grants the effect of a mindblank spell (thus precluding divinations). I can buy an ally spiking the guards drinks with a minor poison that fatigues them just enough that the assassin can get the drop on them and then get away. I can buy most of the explanations necessary to make various stories work within the gaming system. What I won't buy is a module that exhibits a casual disregard for making the story actually work within the game system. And while big problems (divinations, teleport, etc) may require a big ad-hoc mechanic or a questionable new game rule, I can forgive some of those because the system doesn't offer easy ways to create those effects. However, the system does offer a dozen easy ways to make the imp good at bluff and if you can't be bothered to use any of them but just arbitrarily say "this imp is good at bluff," then I have no grounds to be confident that you will restrain yourself in dealing with the bigger rules issues.
Switching skill ranks, adding stats, giving items, changing feats, or adding classes are not jumping through hoops. In writing for d20, they're more akin to putting one foot in front of the other. If that cramps your style and you want to know why you can't just teleport to the other side of the room, that's just too bad.
BTW, the idea that every story will work within every rules system is flawed to begin with. D&D will have a lot of trouble if you want to pit weak and inexperienced commoners against the world's greatest warrior and have them win. From what I hear, Warhammer Fantasy Role Play could handle that but would have trouble simulating 300 Spartans holding off 100,000+ Persians for three days (sure there were approximately 10,000 other Greeks there for the first few days, but D&D could simulate the legend that ignores them). Respecting the limits of the material you're working with is the first step in creating a work of art.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Sure, and there are a dozen ways to simulate that within the system without gaining the abilities of a 5th level rogue. For instance, relocate 2 skillpoints from another skill and swap out a feat for skill focus: bluff. Viola: +4 bluff.
One might well point out that fighter and warrior cover a lot more than just hitting too. You can't gain a level of fighter without gaining saves, hit points, and a few skill points in jump, climb, intimdate, etc. You can't gain an even level of fighter without getting a feat. A player might reasonably ask if her character can have spent 5 years practicing with her longsword and be more likely to hit and inflict damage with it. In D&D, the answer is: "no problem, take weapon focus: longsword." If the player answered, I don't want to take weapon focus: longsword--that would cramp my style, I want to have Spring Attack but I want an attack bonus with longswords, most DMs would say, "then too bad. If you want the attack bonus, the mechanic to simulate it is weapon focus--well, either that or stats and levels, but I'm not about to increase either your stats or levels right now."
It's the same way with this. D20 offers dozens of ways to accomplish what the poster wanted with little or no effort (reassigning skill points, changing stats, adding levels, swapping feats, etc) and a few that would take considerable effort (creating an entirely custom monster, creating a template or prestige class, etc). A lot of those don't come with other factors attached like adding rogue levels does. (Anyway, this isn't 2e, gaining a rogue level doesn't necessarily come with the ability to move silently, steal, and track; giving the imp one level of rogue could easily just give the imp some proficiencies (invisible to the players since the imp doesn't have to use them), six or so ranks of bluff and two ranks of sense motive, +2 reflex save (again, mostly invisible to the players since they generally don't know what the imp's saves are normally), 1d6+con hit points, +1d6 sneak attack (probably the most significant part of the addition since this WILL be visible to any players who fight the imp due to its Invisibility SLA), and +1 CR (invisible to the players except in so far as it accurately predicts the challenge they will face). Adding all that shouldn't change the story any more than using a D&D monster in the first place (which molds the story all on its own)).
One might well point out that fighter and warrior cover a lot more than just hitting too. You can't gain a level of fighter without gaining saves, hit points, and a few skill points in jump, climb, intimdate, etc. You can't gain an even level of fighter without getting a feat. A player might reasonably ask if her character can have spent 5 years practicing with her longsword and be more likely to hit and inflict damage with it. In D&D, the answer is: "no problem, take weapon focus: longsword." If the player answered, I don't want to take weapon focus: longsword--that would cramp my style, I want to have Spring Attack but I want an attack bonus with longswords, most DMs would say, "then too bad. If you want the attack bonus, the mechanic to simulate it is weapon focus--well, either that or stats and levels, but I'm not about to increase either your stats or levels right now."
It's the same way with this. D20 offers dozens of ways to accomplish what the poster wanted with little or no effort (reassigning skill points, changing stats, adding levels, swapping feats, etc) and a few that would take considerable effort (creating an entirely custom monster, creating a template or prestige class, etc). A lot of those don't come with other factors attached like adding rogue levels does. (Anyway, this isn't 2e, gaining a rogue level doesn't necessarily come with the ability to move silently, steal, and track; giving the imp one level of rogue could easily just give the imp some proficiencies (invisible to the players since the imp doesn't have to use them), six or so ranks of bluff and two ranks of sense motive, +2 reflex save (again, mostly invisible to the players since they generally don't know what the imp's saves are normally), 1d6+con hit points, +1d6 sneak attack (probably the most significant part of the addition since this WILL be visible to any players who fight the imp due to its Invisibility SLA), and +1 CR (invisible to the players except in so far as it accurately predicts the challenge they will face). Adding all that shouldn't change the story any more than using a D&D monster in the first place (which molds the story all on its own)).
Dancer said:
Drifter Bob
First Post
Elder-Basilisk said:
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
Drifter Bob
First Post
Ok, this whole debate is getting really nasty, and I've barely been a part of it. I wan't to bring it back to the point I wanted to make.
This bit with the bluff skill is a very minor thing. Lets keep it in perspective. I cited it as an example of a much larger problem.
The D20 rules mechanics as currently written do NOT adequately cover all situations and all circumstances that you might come across in a game. That is why rule zero is still the ultimate rule. People can ALWAYS rationalize some way to make it work within the rules framework, but that often ends up with a distortion, like fitting a square peg into a round hole. These distortions can have a large effect multiplied out to a macro scale.
3X D&D has done a good thing by making the rules more comprehensive and more rationally interconnected, but there has been a negative result of this. It has tempted a certain loud and aggressie segment of the D20 fan base to push very hard to force EVERYTHING which can take place in a game into the rule framework. By bending everything to fit within this framework, you tend to distort everything, which is causing an accelerating phenomenon that is making the game more munchkinish and simplistic, to appease this demographic, while sapping much of the creativity out of it. It also increases this cultural trend within the game to view the DM as a competetor.
That is not what the DM is, I'm sorry. The DM is the great and powerful Oz, doing things behind the curtain. The players are the most important aspects of the plot, but if they know everything the DM is doing, there is no story. It's just a war game.
Lets think about the reactions I got here. Some people suggested adding a rogue level. That would actually increase the power of the Imp quite a bit more than I wanted. It doesn't need a sneak attack, for example. Others suggested adding intelligence. This would cause complaints, even if I put in a note explaining why I did it. I guarantee that someone in this thread would be offended by that. Others pointed out swapping points from one skill to build a bluff skill. That sounds like a good idea, it's the one I'll probably actually use, but some people won't even like that.
The point is, this requires quite a bit of second guessing. Maybe I should have known the rule about swapping skill points on monsters, but I didn't know it, and even that is't going to please a segment of the D20 audience who demand strict canonical adherence to the "letter of the rules" and do not approve of those parts of the rules which reccomend flexibility, like rule zero.
Now this is a very minor part of this document I'm working on here. This is over 100,000 word document, a campaign meant to take players from 1st through 6th level. It includes are 2 major underground dungeon crawls, 3 major wilderness encounters, and over 20 mini adventures like this one with the Imp. I'm not even sure right now how many monsters and NPC's are in there off hand yet, but there are a lot of them. 37 major NPC's in the town alone. Over 50 monsters in one of the dungeons.
I have to worry about writing a good adventure, balancing it out correctly, capitalizing and statting it the particular way the publisher likes it, obeying all the OGL rules, handling major rules issues like new spells and magic items, etc. etc. etc.. all on a deadline, for very little money (I've been paid anywhere from 2 cents to 15 cents a word for writing in the rpg industry, usually closer to 2-5 cents). I really can't spend all day worrying about every minor, petty little thing like 4 skill ranks for this Imp.
Try to think about this honestly. This is just one very minor example, but there might be thousands of small issues where there isn't an easy way to express or portray something within the letter of the rules.
So when I hit one of these, I have to make a jugement call. I can try to figure out the best way to do it within the strict interpretations of the rules, but that is risky. I can float the dilemma out to a discussion forum like this and get 5 or 6 different answers and a sense of how angry this particular rules issue makes people, (effective, but time consuming) or I can simply modify the encounter a little so that it doesn't rely on whatever very minor rules bending seemed required. This is the safest option. Take out the complexity and smooth it over to satisfy the nerfers.
THIS means that my module is going to be basically dumbed down a little. It will be acceptable to that section of the audience who LOVE rules lawyering over all else, but it's frankly not going to be as nuanced or interesting as something I would write for another role playing game. You wonder why d20 versions of such cool genres as Conan, Melnibone, D20 Cthulhu etc. seemed a little disapointing....
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
This bit with the bluff skill is a very minor thing. Lets keep it in perspective. I cited it as an example of a much larger problem.
The D20 rules mechanics as currently written do NOT adequately cover all situations and all circumstances that you might come across in a game. That is why rule zero is still the ultimate rule. People can ALWAYS rationalize some way to make it work within the rules framework, but that often ends up with a distortion, like fitting a square peg into a round hole. These distortions can have a large effect multiplied out to a macro scale.
3X D&D has done a good thing by making the rules more comprehensive and more rationally interconnected, but there has been a negative result of this. It has tempted a certain loud and aggressie segment of the D20 fan base to push very hard to force EVERYTHING which can take place in a game into the rule framework. By bending everything to fit within this framework, you tend to distort everything, which is causing an accelerating phenomenon that is making the game more munchkinish and simplistic, to appease this demographic, while sapping much of the creativity out of it. It also increases this cultural trend within the game to view the DM as a competetor.
That is not what the DM is, I'm sorry. The DM is the great and powerful Oz, doing things behind the curtain. The players are the most important aspects of the plot, but if they know everything the DM is doing, there is no story. It's just a war game.
Lets think about the reactions I got here. Some people suggested adding a rogue level. That would actually increase the power of the Imp quite a bit more than I wanted. It doesn't need a sneak attack, for example. Others suggested adding intelligence. This would cause complaints, even if I put in a note explaining why I did it. I guarantee that someone in this thread would be offended by that. Others pointed out swapping points from one skill to build a bluff skill. That sounds like a good idea, it's the one I'll probably actually use, but some people won't even like that.
The point is, this requires quite a bit of second guessing. Maybe I should have known the rule about swapping skill points on monsters, but I didn't know it, and even that is't going to please a segment of the D20 audience who demand strict canonical adherence to the "letter of the rules" and do not approve of those parts of the rules which reccomend flexibility, like rule zero.
Now this is a very minor part of this document I'm working on here. This is over 100,000 word document, a campaign meant to take players from 1st through 6th level. It includes are 2 major underground dungeon crawls, 3 major wilderness encounters, and over 20 mini adventures like this one with the Imp. I'm not even sure right now how many monsters and NPC's are in there off hand yet, but there are a lot of them. 37 major NPC's in the town alone. Over 50 monsters in one of the dungeons.
I have to worry about writing a good adventure, balancing it out correctly, capitalizing and statting it the particular way the publisher likes it, obeying all the OGL rules, handling major rules issues like new spells and magic items, etc. etc. etc.. all on a deadline, for very little money (I've been paid anywhere from 2 cents to 15 cents a word for writing in the rpg industry, usually closer to 2-5 cents). I really can't spend all day worrying about every minor, petty little thing like 4 skill ranks for this Imp.
Try to think about this honestly. This is just one very minor example, but there might be thousands of small issues where there isn't an easy way to express or portray something within the letter of the rules.
So when I hit one of these, I have to make a jugement call. I can try to figure out the best way to do it within the strict interpretations of the rules, but that is risky. I can float the dilemma out to a discussion forum like this and get 5 or 6 different answers and a sense of how angry this particular rules issue makes people, (effective, but time consuming) or I can simply modify the encounter a little so that it doesn't rely on whatever very minor rules bending seemed required. This is the safest option. Take out the complexity and smooth it over to satisfy the nerfers.
THIS means that my module is going to be basically dumbed down a little. It will be acceptable to that section of the audience who LOVE rules lawyering over all else, but it's frankly not going to be as nuanced or interesting as something I would write for another role playing game. You wonder why d20 versions of such cool genres as Conan, Melnibone, D20 Cthulhu etc. seemed a little disapointing....
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
Last edited:
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Giving a creature ranks in skills really isn't a technical rules question. If anything, someone complaining because a creature has ranks in a skill not listed in it's SRD writeup is nuts. Now if you'd changed the way the Imp's magical ability worked then I could see some level of complaining. But for skills? Feh.Drifter Bob said:
And even so, the creatures given in the SRD/MM are the weakest of their kind. There's no reason not to give them a few skill ranks in whatever is needed. If you need a lot of skill ranks, consider advancing the creature, or givin it a comple Expert class levels or something.
Drifter Bob
First Post
WayneLigon said:
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
- Status
