Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Samothdm]

This is a bit tricky though. If he sticks to why in the context of a "core" game certain rules are overpowered, I think it will be ok. It's important to remember though, that one group's out of balance might be just right for another and that the various companies exist to fullfill these varying wants and needs.

This is the point I was going to make. Certain people run "low magic" worlds, for example. In this instances, it's entirely possible that the core wizard and sorcerer are "imbalanced".

It's also conceivable that someone may run a world where 75% or greater of the adversaries faced by his players are undead. In that case, having a option for higher-level rogues to sneak attack undead (maybe at reduced effectiveness or maybe only with blunt weapons against zombies and skeletons or something, for example) could still be "balanced."

I think it's important for DMs (and players) to consider the context of their game before evaluating something to see if it's balanced.

Some things are just straight out over-the-top, but other things which may appear at first glance to be completely imbalanced may be just right for someone else's game. By being well-read in the category, you start to get a feel for the type of stuff that each publisher puts out and can start to make judgment calls as to whether something may be appropriate for your campaign.

 

[Drew]

On one hand, Sean Reynolds has always rubbed me the wrong way. He's very blunt. I don't care for his politics (or, at least, I don't care to hear about them), and he seems to have sour grapes/contempt for some of his peers in the industry (especially his former employer).

That said, I think Sean's a good game designer. His New Argonauts book is something I'm definitely buying. I'm mildly interested in ancient Greece, but I'm very interested in low-magic D&D. Combining the two is a great idea, and they mesh very well into a high heroics but low magic genre. I think Sean will do a good job.

So, I don't know. I kind of wish Sean would cool his opinions and focus on putting out quality gaming material. I hope his new company does well.

PS: Henry, that's a great idea. I hope Sean does exactly that, and I would love to see WotC follow suit.

 

[Felonius]

And like most people that say this sort of statement it stops before actually naming what is good design verse bad.

Shouldn't you be asking this from SKR?

But seriously, I'd rather not start a debate on this, as I'm not a game designer and I have no publishing credits to back me up. Therefore, "in my experience..." in the beginning of the offending sentence.

What products are bad design that people still like?

Oooo... I'm going to regret this, but here goes... A few examples:

Dragonlords of Melnibone d20
Quintessential Everything -line (although I haven't seen all of them)
Relics & Rituals (especially the second one)
Ghost Strike -ability in Libris Mortis

Heck, *I* like both R&R -books, but the design errors throughout the books make it impossible to drop them into a game as is.

I realise, that an error-free rulebook is an impossibility, but there is a difference between print- and design errors.

- F

 

[Janx]

as for what bad things do people like:
2e BladeSinger and SpellFire...buttloads of players out there wanted this for 3e.

I think Sean's mistake is that he voiced his opinion. It's OK for sean to think that many other products out there suck. And that you can't tell good design if it bit you in the arse. But you just don't say that in a press release or other corporate communication.

Sean's message should have had the following points:
we're forming a new company
our stuff will be balanced for game play
our stuff will be fun
we'll prove our stuff is balanced
buy our stuff when it comes out

I also wouldn't have named my company after myself, if I were him. But if it ever grows to the size of WotC, they'll feel pretty dumb when he's overthrown and the company is still named after him...

Janx

 

[Felonius]

Even design is not so cut-and-dried as you suppose. All players/GMs have different values when it comes to what makes a game experience tick. A good game for that person is one that meets those needs and values. If meeting those needs requires you to sacrifice a quality someone else finds important (and invariably, it will), then the product becomes inherently less valuable to said other person.

I can't see how following good d20-design practices could make a product less enjoyable to someone. Could you give an example? (live or hypothetical)

The things I'm talking about are design basics, like always even stat bonuses, always odd stat prerequisites in feats, etc... A designer has knows the synergies between various rules, what can be accomplished with existing mechanics and what not, which rule affects another and so on.

A good designer would not omit GP/XP costs of magic items from a d20-product because of the setting fluff (R&R1), or design a phalanx fighting feat which gives AC bonuses to a person standing on the left (Dragonlords of M.).

- F

 

[Mercule]

Sean is opinionated. Pretty much everything I've read from him on politics, etc. I completely disagree with. That said, I've agreed with almost every gaming rant of his that I've read.

I'll take a look at Sean's stuff. If it's good, I'll buy it. If not, I won't.

His press release is a bit um... abrasive. It got some attension, though, didn't it? If he can put up, then all will be forgiven. If not, then it's just one more rant from opinionated Sean. Really, it's a no-lose situation for him. He's managed to stay a known entity in the gaming sphere for several years despite his well known abrasiveness because he's got some talent to back it up.

 

[Crothian]

Oooo... I'm going to regret this, but here goes... A few examples:

Dragonlords of Melnibone d20
Quintessential Everything -line (although I haven't seen all of them)
Relics & Rituals (especially the second one)
Ghost Strike -ability in Libris Mortis

Heck, *I* like both R&R -books, but the design errors throughout the books make it imposible to drop them into a game as is.

Why would you regret this?

Dragonlords I think is universally seen as bad. It is a very old d20 product and many of the older ones have problems.

Quint series is filled with good and bad books, don't discount the series though. Too many people take a look at a few bad books and falsely believe the whole series is bad.

Relics and Rituals I've had no problems with. I do like the Excaliber and Olympous ones better then the first two though.

 

[Psion]

Oooo... I'm going to regret this, but here goes... A few examples:

Dragonlords of Melnibone d20

I think that's a classic example in the vein the Mearls gave of great Fluff, sucky crunch.

Of course, I've not exactly seen lots of people who defend this as a flawless gaming gem, rather view it as ripe for plunder in the fluff department.

I certainly didn't hesitate to tell the Emperor he had no clothes:
http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Psion&product=DLOM

But then, that's why I don't totally buy into what mearls is saying about WotC getting flak just because more people read them. You just HEAR more flak. It's not like people like DLOM better than, say ELH. It's that there were less people out there to pronounce how they would never use DLOM's mechanics in their game.

Quintessential Everything -line (although I haven't seen all of them)

Mostly, yeah. But a few are pretty good. (Quintessential Sorcerer is a thing of beauty.)

Relics & Rituals (especially the second one)

I'll agree especially the second one has some issues.

As for R&RI, that's one of those books you can pry from my cold dead hands. Not that it's perfect. I still think the DM would have to be smokin something to allow the vigilant in a game.

Ghost Strike -ability in Libris Mortis

Don't have it. Don't see people loving it though. Is this that "sneak attack" undead thing that some people are up in arms about? If so, doesn't sound broken so much as "inconsistent with some people's conceptualization of what sneak attack is."

 

[Felonius]

Is this that "sneak attack" undead thing that some people are up in arms about?

Yes.

If so, doesn't sound broken so much as "inconsistent with some people's conceptualization of what sneak attack is."

I would say "inconsistent with the d20-design conceptualization of what sneak attack is."

Sean explains why in the Libris Mortis -thread much better than I ever could.

- F

 

[Psion]

I can't see how following good d20-design practices could make a product less enjoyable to someone. Could you give an example? (live or hypothetical)
(...)
The things I'm talking about are design basics, like always even stat bonuses, always odd stat prerequisites in feats, etc...

Ah, but just what is a "d20 design basic." I don't see "don't design feats that let you sneak attack undead" as a d20 design basic. Only people with certain sensitivities will have a problem with it. (Cathing up to your reply to my subsequent post here) Sean finds it inconceivable that an undead creature could be sneak attacked, because they don't have vitals that are any more special than anywhere else. And yet... a vampire seems to.

For many people, sneak attack is just DAMAGE. Those who think that way will fail to see the problem. Or they may have a more complex justification, like that undead have vital points that aren't necessarily organs, but spots in their physilogy that form the basis to their link to the negative energy plane.

Don't get me wrong. There are things that I see as just WRONG WRONG WRONG. Like paying straight up XP for class-like structures of abilities. Arcane prestige classes that give powerful abilities and don't give up spellcasting advancement to pay for it.

But yet, some things other people see as bad design I see no problem in. Again with arcane prestige classes, I see no problem with classes that are compelling for the sorcerer to take because they don't lose anything. AFAIAC, the sorcerer is weak enough that it can afford a little strengthening.

A designer has knows the synergies between various rules, what can be accomplished with existing mechanics and what not, which rule affects another and so on.

And I might agree with the designer on some of those points. Other points, like the inherent "bad design" of having weapons that disintigrate while all sorts of other creatures have capabilities that the PCs can never take advantage of, is to me not a problem in the least bit.

A good designer would not omit GP/XP costs of magic items from a d20-product because of the setting fluff (R&R1),

I can point you to the errata.

But really, I could also point out the inherent bad design of the dichotomy between the way that prices of multiple enchantments are handled between "bonus items" and "non bonus items." (And, of course, the solution is the Artificers Handbook.)

I could also point out the fact that imbalance in feats is tolerated.

But these are things we live with, in a system that Mearls has described as being a tough car to beat.