Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Nisarg]

Well, I'm specifically talking about this part:



This just rubs me the wrong way. To me that sounds like I must not realize it's crap, because I'm buying it.

Well, someone keeps buying the crap. Sean might not have meant you specifically, you know.

Nisarg

 

[Nisarg]

Out of genuine curiousity, and not trying to incite any kind of discussion, people here keep referring to Sean's "political views"... what exactly are those views and where has he brought them up? I sincerely haven't heard about this...

Nisarg

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Out of genuine curiousity, and not trying to incite any kind of discussion, people here keep referring to Sean's "political views"... what exactly are those views and where has he brought them up? I sincerely haven't heard about this...

Nisarg

This isn't the place for it. You can visit his website http://www.seankreynolds.com/ and read all you'd like.

This is one of those things where you have to learn to draw a line between your business and your personal life.

 

[RichGreen]

Out of genuine curiousity, and not trying to incite any kind of discussion, people here keep referring to Sean's "political views"... what exactly are those views and where has he brought them up? I sincerely haven't heard about this...

Nisarg

He's a bit of a leftie.

Sean was an opinionated, angry young man when he was TSR's webmaster. He's now a grumpy old man, but still a bloody good games designer. The FRCS, Magic of Faerun, Living Greyhawk Gazeteer and Anger of Angels are all very good books.

Cheers


Richard

 

[Greatwyrm]

For the record, I'm aware the release does not contain the following phrase: "..and you, Chad Stevens, are an idiot for buying this stuff."

As a run-of-the-mill gamer who buys a lot of d20 stuff, mostly from WotC, I do feel that particular clip was directed at people like me.

 

[Henry]

Sean was an opinionated, angry young man when he was TSR's webmaster. He's now a grumpy old man, but still a bloody good games designer. The FRCS, Magic of Faerun, Living Greyhawk Gazeteer and Anger of Angels are all very good books.

I still get a chuckle when I look at his tagline on these forums: "Opinionated Bald Man."

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

The FRCS, Magic of Faerun, Living Greyhawk Gazeteer and Anger of Angels are all very good books.

I do find it....amusing?... to hear someone whose name was on the cover of the book that brought us Spellfire bitch about feats that break expectations established in the core rules.

 

[Chun-tzu]

So....

How do I get to shoot three arrows a round at level 2?

The Archer class from Sovereign Stone gets Extra Shot (self-explanatory) as a class feature at second level. The Archer in EN Publishing's Three Arrows for the King is also based on this Archer (and thus features Extra Shot at second level).

 

[Felonius]

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.

Vampire is sort of an exception with one vital spot that can be harmed with a specific weapon type. However, a vampire is immune to attacks targeting liver, spleen, brains, tendons, etc... Enough so that the general undead immunity to sneak attacks in d20 system is not negated.

For many people, sneak attack is just DAMAGE. Those who think that way will fail to see the problem.

But sneak attack -damage in d20 is not just extra damage. It's extra damage dependant on the skill of the attacker and the vulnerabilities of the attacked. By design. This is a basic d20 premise which the designers should know and take into account.

IMHO, the people who think of sneak attack as just extra damage do not fully understand the game mechanics and rules justification behind it. A designer should.

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.

But this justification is against the basis which all other designers build upon.

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.

I agree about the sorcerer.

I'm not saying that one could not design alternatives as long as they are labeled as such. I wouldn't have a problem with a magical weapon that enables sneak attacking undead in a setting where undead have vulnerable spots with links to negative energy plane. However, dropping one to basic d20 environment (D&D) without such justification is (again IMHO) sloppy design.

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.

Well... drow-weaponry is (was) somewhat Realms-specific design issue. I understand the both sides of this particular argument, but I will not dwell on it now, especially because nowadays you can have the best of the both worlds.
(Drowcraft -property in Underdark pg. 68)

I can point you to the errata.

I knew about it, but thank you. (I also love my R&R1 )

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.

See my point about alternatives above. I agree with what you're saying above and I certainly am not claiming that d20-system (nevermind D&D) is the pinnacle of RPG design.

I'm just saying that there are good and bad ways to design rules mechanics for d20, whether the mechanics build upon existing material or offer alternatives.

- F

 

[Pants]

BTW, the only reason that WotC stuff seems more "broken" than the typical d20 publisher is because:

A. The typical WotC book has at least 20 times as many people buying and reading it.

B. The "baby effect" I described above prevents many people who follow d20 companies from seeing the flaws in their products.

I also think that there's two major camps of d20 purchasers here:
1) The group that allows ONLY WotC products, as if they are a sure measure of quality and balance.
2) The group that degrades WotC products, as if they are a sure measure of low quality and a lack of balance.

Suffice it to say, neither of these is really true.

I do find it....amusing?... to hear someone whose name was on the cover of the book that brought us Spellfire bitch about feats that break expectations established in the core rules.

Along with the Spell Power mechanic, the Red Wizard, Persistent Spell, and that one feat that allowed a spell-caster to consider his prime spell-casting stat as an effective 2 points higher for the purpose of DC's and spells known.

Don't get me wrong, I loves me some FRCS, but mostly for the fluffy bits.