Do published modules have to follow the d20 rules strictly?

[MerricB]

G'day folks!

I originally posted this over at Dragonsfoot, but it probably is better over here.

I know there's a bunch of people out there who rant and scream whenever a 3E module is released that doesn't follow all the rules precisely. I know also that I can be one of them.

However, if the module said up front "This module doesn't follow the d20 rules precisely. Some of the skills bonuses aren't possible using the core system, but have been set that way to create an unique feel for this module" would it be so bad?

I know that I and several others tore into Rob Kuntz's Maze modules for not following the d20 rules precisely (especially in the monster stats & pregen characters), but the question is this: would we have minded so much if he'd given an explanation for the divergences beforehand?

The DMG does mention the lighter style of play, where strictly following the rules is less important than other matters.

What do you all think?

Cheers!

 

[EricNoah]

I wouldn't pay money for a product that a) bent the rules AND b) didn't explain the "new rule" in effect. I expect stats to be true to the D&D rule, or if there's a variant rule I expect to have it laid out. But just making up a bunch of stats doesn't fly with me. One reason is that if the product isn't following the rules, it makes it that much harder for me to a) use bits and pieces in my own adventures/games, and b) adjust and modify what is there (adding levels to the bad guys or whatever).

 

[Theuderic]

argh! I can't believe this!

 

[ced1106]

I'm irritated enough as it is with adventures that refer to the non-core books (eg. with a monster, or with a spell or magic item for an NPC) without a good reason. If an adventure really **is** enhanced by a rules change, fine, but, after reading 200+ adventures, I'm of the opinion that "unique" for an adventure writer translates to "dumb flashy gimmick" in my vocabularly. Adventure writers could do both: supply the idea per the core books, and the idea as they wish. DMs modify things anyway, so they should be given the tools to choose, not be told what to run.

All that being said, I'm the happy owner of the "Kaiin Player's Guide". Not only does it not follow the 3e rules, it's not even a OGL/d20 product. But it was written by Robin D. Laws, and is one of the best fantasy roleplaying cities I've ever read.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[MerricB]

Cedric, do you mean by that "refer to another book for a magic item/spell, etc. without fully stating it in the text of the module"?

So, there are supplements out there that give an NPC "Cirrem's Dolorous Song", an imaginary spell from the supplement "Cirrem's Magic", but don't actually reprint the spell so you know what it does?

Cheers!

 

[ced1106]

Cedric, do you mean by that "refer to another book for a magic item/spell, etc. without fully stating it in the text of the module"?

Good point. If I don't have to look up the information in another book, it's less of a problem. Then again, since it **is** new, the author risks introducing something unfamiliar to the DM, so he either botches up the scene by mis-using a spell, or decides to remove it entirely. Heck, I'm even reading an adventure that has **all** the stats of the monsters used in the adventure. Neat!


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[CRGreathouse]

However, if the module said up front "This module doesn't follow the d20 rules precisely. Some of the skills bonuses aren't possible using the core system, but have been set that way to create an unique feel for this module" would it be so bad?

Yes. I think modules that don't follow the rules are incomplete (what if I need to calculate touch AC -- or flat-footed touch AC?) and a lazy way to get out of doing things right. It makes it hard for me to use and reuse the material, and tends to lead to inexplicable situtions (how the PC/NPC is that good/bad can't be described under the rules).

Frankly, I wouldn't consider buying it with a label like that.

 

[MerricB]

Obviously there are lesser and greater violations of the rules.

Here's an example from an adventure I was preparing the other day:

The PCs meet a Stone Giant. There is the possibility of combat, so I give him the full (and correct) MM stats. However, this Stone Giant is also something of an artisan, so he has the Craft (sculpture) skill with a +12 level! Now, there's no way under the rules that he could have that skill without additional levels of Expert (about 8), and I don't particularly want to increase his HD in such a manner - is this bad, then, just to assign this skill rank?

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Note also, that not including vital information (such as how AC is calculated or at least flat-footed/touch ACs) is another area altogether.

Cheers!

 

[Tonguez]

Yeah I suppose it comes down to modifying the 'flavour' of the game (like giving a Stone Giant +12 craft skill) vs modifying the crunchy-bits that can kill you (like AC)

And I really hate anything derived from non-core books which aren't clearly stated out for me
Refer page 32 of the Bobsworld Monster Guide just doesn't cut it