Needless Variation

[KDLadage]

I wasn't sure you were joking. One source of confusion was that you were referring to a House Rule that changes existing book rules, when the main topic of this thread, which you started, is what a pain it is to have all this rules variation.

OK... you are right. I should not have commented, given the topic. But the idea of variations due to house rules, and variations due to official rules are two very different issues.

I may be overstepping here, but try this:

We have the d20 SYSTEM. The word system, and the promise of the system ('not having to learn new rules') are both violated when the core, official rules, vary in ways that are not a vast improvement for that genre.

For example, I understand and can accept the vast difference between how magic is handled in d20 Fantasy and d20 Modern. These two methods fit the genre being played.

I cannot see that one recovery method is vastly superior to the other for either genre. So the shift in rules becomes problematic, because it is not an obvious thing to want to address, and so the fact that it is different, is something that a player (or a DM) could miss, causing confusion when the rule is applied.

In Star Wars, we are no longer dealing with a genre, we are dealing with a setting, and so variation here I can see. But consider...

What if the rules were the same across the board? What if all of the systems used a Fort save for stabalization? Suppose then, in D&D, the save is made at a DC of 15 by default, with a sidebar indicating how the deadliness of the game can be tailored via the use of a shift in where that DC lands... then Star Wars becomes a DC 10, D&D becomes a DC 15 and d20 Modern becomes a DC 20 (with a similar sidebar) -- same rule, variation exists, but within a solid framework of the same mechanic and so less confusion comes in...

What if the rules were the same across teh baord? What if all of the systems used a % chance of recovery for stabalization? Suppose then, in D&D, the save is made at a 10% chance by default, with a sidebar indicating how the deadliness of the game can be tailored via the use of a shift in this %age chance... then Star Wars could be a 50% chance, D&D becomes a 10% chance and d20 Modern becomes a 20% chance (with a similar sidebar) -- same rule, variation exists, but within a solid framework of the same mechanic and so less confusion comes in...

My problem is not with the fact that we have variation in chance, it is needless variation in MECHANIC that causes my trouble here...

I hope this makes sense.

 

[Psion]

We have the d20 SYSTEM. The word system, and the promise of the system ('not having to learn new rules') are both violated when the core, official rules, vary in ways that are not a vast improvement for that genre.

Consider the opposite case: where minimal changes are made where they are needed. I can think of a multigenre game where this is the case, but I fear to mention it because I know you hold that game near and dear to your heart.

The question begins to emerge: how many changes are needed. This, I think, is largely a matter of opinion.

That said, I do agree that sometimes changes are instituted not because they were expedient, but because someone thought they were a good idea, and as long as they were changing things anyways... Of course, the end user might not think the changes the designers thought were a a good idea were as compelling.

Games are very much driven by opinions, and each designer's approach and sensibilities vary a little. So what to do?

1) Identify the designers that appeal to you and follow them. Only works so long as the designer(s) you chose are writing all the things that meet your needs -- which is rarely consistently the case.
2) Take charge of your game. Yes, this means more work on your part, but if the mechanical implementation is important to you, you'll do it. This is probably going to be the case for how I treat autofire weapons in my Second World campaign, as I think the way they do it in d20 modern is rather... cracked. Gimme Dragonstar and Arsenal's rules anyday.
3) Decide which changes aren't worth sweating. This will probably be action points in my Second World campaign. Spycraft's action dice are SUCH a better mechanic IMO, but it's really not worth me sweating over the changes.

 

[JPL]

Well, the line between setting and genre is not a clear one, because many settings practically become genres unto themselves. You could say that Star Wars d20 is emulating a genre --- "cinematic space opera" --- but really it's trying to emulate the Star Wars movies.

I don't think d20 is supposed to mean "no new rules when you change games." It means that the basics, and even a whole lot of specific matters, are the same. Changes are there to emulate genre, to make the game more playable, or to account for other changes. Changes might also be there because the designers have come up with a better way of doing something --- Jump rules, or Knowledge skills, or the Endurance feat --- since the release of the earlier game.

 

[KDLadage]

Consider the opposite case: where minimal changes are made where they are needed. I can think of a multigenre game where this is the case, but I fear to mention it because I know you hold that game near and dear to your heart.

COUGH*GURPS*COUGH

Sure... but this is not the case here, either, and after 10-years of accumulated cruft, I have argued against this sort of thing in that system as well. For example, how do you handle a shape-shifter in GURPS? Do we look at the rules in GURPS BESTIARY (3rd edition)? How about the completely different rules in GURPS FANTASY/MAGIC? Perhaps those rules presented in GURPS WEREWOLF would suffice? Or maybe you are partial to the variation on the fantasy/magic rules used in GURPS SUPERS? Or, you could throw all of those out and try for GURPS SHAPESHIFTERS?

I am not so delusional as to think this is a d20 problem...

The question begins to emerge: how many changes are needed. This, I think, is largely a matter of opinion.

Sure.

That said, I do agree that sometimes changes are instituted not because they were expedient, but because someone thought they were a good idea, and as long as they were changing things anyways... Of course, the end user might not think the changes the designers thought were a a good idea were as compelling.

Games are very much driven by opinions, and each designer's approach and sensibilities vary a little. So what to do?

1) Identify the designers that appeal to you and follow them. Only works so long as the designer(s) you chose are writing all the things that meet your needs -- which is rarely consistently the case. >> True
2) Take charge of your game. Yes, this means more work on your part, but if the mechanical implementation is important to you, you'll do it. This is probably going to be the case for how I treat autofire weapons in my Second World campaign, as I think the way they do it in d20 modern is rather... cracked. Gimme Dragonstar and Arsenal's rules anyday. >> Which is what we are doing now. But with 4 different GMs running 4 different variatios of d20, we are really starting to notice the subtle differences that are stumbling blocks for us. This stabalize save was just one of them...
3) Decide which changes aren't worth sweating. This will probably be action points in my Second World campaign. Spycraft's action dice are SUCH a better mechanic IMO, but it's really not worth me sweating over the changes. >> We are trying... but we have three rules-lawyers in our group, making things tough...

OK... let us look at this another way:

What was so compelling about one way of handling the "save" for stabalization that d20 Modern tried it a new way -- and modeled it after d20 Star Wars? If it was so compelling, why was it not adapted for d20 Fantasy (a.k.a: Dungeons and Dragons)?

I am not so upset about the idea of variation in degree, but variation in mechanic makes no sense unless it is something that must be made to keep a genre/setting feeling correct. And I see nothing in d20 Modern that would suggest to me that they are so different that this particular rule needed to be changes to a new mechanic in one and not the other.

And this is largely my opinion.

 

[Vigilance]

Speaking as a source of a lot of needless variation, I will sometimes introduce variant rules in a product I write to experiment, knowing that some GMs will like the new rule better, and some will like the old rule better.

I think more choice makes for a better game.

Chuck

 

[KDLadage]

Speaking as a source of a lot of needless variation, I will sometimes introduce variant rules in a product I write to experiment, knowing that some GMs will like the new rule better, and some will like the old rule better.

I think more choice makes for a better game.

Chuck

I agree... choices are good. More choices (generally) make a better game. But what makes more sense to you:

• Having a rule that changes.
• Having a rule that changes, with a note (perhaps boxed off from the regular flow of text) indicating that it is different as well as making note of how to use the original rule, if so desired.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

]What was so compelling about one way of handling the "save" for stabalization that d20 Modern tried it a new way -- and modeled it after d20 Star Wars? If it was so compelling, why was it not adapted for d20 Fantasy (a.k.a: Dungeons and Dragons)?

I think someone already answered this for you, but I will say it again:

Because in D&D, it is easy to stabilize through magical means, and furthermore it is easy to raise the dead should the worst happen.

Without easy access to healing and resurrection magic in d20 Modern, they needed a mechanic that would more readily preserve the life of high-level, established characters.

In D&D, once you have access to raise dead, death is really no big deal. It is easier to cheat death at high levels. Whereas in Modern, it doesn't really get any easier to cheat death at high levels-- except through the mechanic of easier "stabilize" rolls.

To sum up: The two genres have two totally different takes on the impact and permanancy of death that justifies a different mechanic.

Wulf

 

[KDLadage]

I think someone already answered this for you, but I will say it again:

Please do. I know I can be a stubborn, and sometimes obstinate SOB. I may not have paid close enough attention to see that the answer was provided.

Because in D&D, it is easy to stabilize through magical means, and furthermore it is easy to raise the dead should the worst happen.

OK... this may mean that the DC for stabilization (or percentage chance) might need to be modified in one game over the other, and I would say that a side-bar for variations on lethality might be in order. Two separate mechanics, however... I cannot see that genre convention requiring a change in mechanic.

Without easy access to healing and resurrection magic in d20 Modern, they needed a mechanic that would more readily preserve the life of high-level, established characters.

OK... so I place a d20 Modern game in which (for example... since d20 Modern is supposed to not assume a setting...) super science is available (a-la MEN IN BLACK). Now, I have a save mechanism that is needlessly different, because I have access to elements where raising the dead, or preserving live (via a 'healing-potion-like' concoction). Again, if the d20 MODERN game rules assume that the setting must be URBAN ARCANA, then fine -- setting the lethality (and perhaps a new mechanic) might be warranted. But as a relatively 'generic' modern set of rules... I am having trouble swallowing this pill.

In D&D, once you have access to raise dead, death is really no big deal. It is easier to cheat death at high levels. Whereas in Modern, it doesn't really get any easier to cheat death at high levels-- except through the mechanic of easier "stabilize" rolls.

See above.

To sum up: The two genres have two totally different takes on the impact and permanency of death that justifies a different mechanic.

To make such assumptions is ok in a SETTING, but as a GENRE, no-access-to-super-healing is not a GENRE assumption. In *many* Modern Settings, such things might be handily available...

So, again, I ask: why two separate mechanics, when one mechanic and a 'dial' setting the level of lethality would be easier to deal with, would not make assumptions about the game I decide to run, and would make it evident -- via the fact that the rules would tell you to set this 'dial' for your campaign...

This may seem a minor thing, but I feel that this is one of those 'slippery slopes' where many other changes are hidden that I (and my group) just may not be aware of. Like I said before (in this or one of the other threads...) -- having things change that are required for the genre, that makes sense to me. Like the DAMAGE SAVE in Mutants and Masterminds -- I understand the need for this, and why it was included. It is a GENRE convention that damage is not consistent from blast to blast in any way at all... The rule is placed up front; rules for how to use the standard HIT POINTS are included. All good things.

I, however (obviously) feel that this is a different animal. It feels like 'different for the sake of being different.' Give a DM the tool; expose the assumption and allow it to be set as desired... making the change, without any real reason (as I have indicated above, I see no real reason just yet)... seems wrong.

As always, YMMV, IMHO, and all that jazz...

 

[Vigilance]

I dont think they were assuming no one had access to super-healing.

I think they thought some new mechanics regarding death and dying were appropriate.

I also disagree with what seems to be your basic premise that they, in the process of changing some rules, made the game less generic.

I find d20 Modern to be a very tight design, and able to handle a wide variety of genres and styles.

Chuck

 

[Spatula]

K... this may mean that the DC for stabilization (or percentage chance) might need to be modified in one game over the other,

The percentage chance that D&D uses doesn't work for Modern because it is wholly independant of the character making the stabilization checks (hence Wulf's "established characters" comment). Using the Modern system of a Fort save, and modifying the DC to account for desired lethality is fine - not really worthy of sidebar, though as modifying the DC and the effects of it are a no-brainer.

and I would say that a side-bar for variations on lethality might be in order. Two separate mechanics, however... I cannot see that genre convention requiring a change in mechanic.

Modern uses a different mechanic for the reasons explained above. Why D&D 3.5 doesn't use a similar mechanic, I couldn't say.

OK... so I place a d20 Modern game in which (for example... since d20 Modern is supposed to not assume a setting...)

It assumes you're playing in a modern-day setting. Furthermore, the rules assume a lack of FX abilities (like healing magic), despite the presence of such in the back of the book - because the designers realized that people might not want to use them.

And the presence or lack of healing magic is only part of the equation - the other part is the Massive Damage Threshold. It's much lower for Modern characters than it is for D&D. Although in Modern, if you fail the Fort save you're merely dropped to -1 HP (and the stabilization rules come into play). In D&D, you're dead.