DungeonmasterCal
First Post
mearls said:
That has to be the funniest damned thing I've read on this board EV-AR! I almost died from inhaling Mt. Dew on that one!
Sean Reynolds' new company press release
- Thread starter Greatwyrm
- Start date
That has to be the funniest damned thing I've read on this board EV-AR! I almost died from inhaling Mt. Dew on that one!
Vocenoctum
First Post
Did you see his website?Henry said:I still get a chuckle when I look at his tagline on these forums: "Opinionated Bald Man."
"Very Opinionated d20 gaming"
I'll give his products a chance, since I usually agree with his points, even if I disagree with the end result. (I don't mind the piercing cold feat.)
For the sneak attack undead thing, I think it's a DM's responsibility not to minimize a players ability like that. I don't think you should beef up the rogue's sneak attack by broadening it. It's good enough already, and has limitations that make sense.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Hmm. I couldn't tell if that is a press release announcing his new company or one of the latest series of SKR's rants. Personally, he should just edit out the questionable text and stick to introducing his new company and what are the goals or plans we should expect in the next 3 to 12 months.
I'm sure he's a great designer and he has proven such during his TSR's stint with 1e, 2e, and much of 3e, but we'll see if he can be a good businessman. I just don't like having to go through the experience (again) with someone who is great at what he does but really suck in the leadership/executive position (case in point, Brannon Braga handling Star Trek).
Then again, I have not yet grown any attachment to his fledgling company yet, so it will be a lot easier this time around.
I'm sure he's a great designer and he has proven such during his TSR's stint with 1e, 2e, and much of 3e, but we'll see if he can be a good businessman. I just don't like having to go through the experience (again) with someone who is great at what he does but really suck in the leadership/executive position (case in point, Brannon Braga handling Star Trek).
Then again, I have not yet grown any attachment to his fledgling company yet, so it will be a lot easier this time around.
Last edited:
Incenjucar
Legend
Sounds like he's angry that people are buying less of his products because they dare to have their own opinions. There's a lot of bad mechanics stuff out there that's great for flavor, or, in many cases, stuff that would be HORRIBLE for 'typical D&D', but great for a different style.
Really, this reminds me of Monte Cook or, heck, that psycho with the "Spin Zone" show: They're great when they're under constraint, but they have a few strong, and seemingly inflexable opinions that are better left shoved back up their behind if they want to be taken seriously by sane people.
His examples are also very horrid. Especially from a PS point of view: While I'm not sure a mere feat should let you do that ubercold stuff, having supreme versions of an element harm elemental beings has been around for editions. Berk's dissing Planescape, hrmph!![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
Really, this reminds me of Monte Cook or, heck, that psycho with the "Spin Zone" show: They're great when they're under constraint, but they have a few strong, and seemingly inflexable opinions that are better left shoved back up their behind if they want to be taken seriously by sane people.
His examples are also very horrid. Especially from a PS point of view: While I'm not sure a mere feat should let you do that ubercold stuff, having supreme versions of an element harm elemental beings has been around for editions. Berk's dissing Planescape, hrmph!
Heya Mike,
I think you're underestimating people's fondness for certain parts of a flawed design, especially when it comes to actually enhancing the feel of a game. The best example I can think of is Rifts. Rifts is a badly designed game, but elements of its system are perfect for supporting the kind of play people tend to get into with Rifts. One example is the fact that combat is long and detailed, but skill resolution is a simple pass/fail on d%. This actually works pretty well when it comes to focusing on action flick combat, where you want something quick and dumb for all those other, less important tasks Rifts characters need to do. The trouble is that the way you derive the numbers for this stuff is utter bollocks.
Now D20 games do have a definite emphasis, but the engine is solid enough to let you change it without too much trouble. The question is the degree to which people confuse soundness of mechanics for emphasis. AU's action-pointy system could be pilloried for surface vagueness, for instance, but it follows the game's DM-centered design goal nicely.
I'm always suspicious of comments like this, because they tend to be used to back some spurious argument about whay game X sucks. I'd say its more accurate to abserve that there's often a disjoint between online fandom and people who actually play certain games. Sometimes the numbers are about even (I've noticed that plenty of people play Changeling, but I hardly ever see them actually post anywhere -- the fans post about abstract issues instead), and sometimes they aren't (I've never seen an Unknown Armies game), and sometimes their connection to sales is strange or tenuous (Call of Cthulhu doesn't sell gangbusters, but lots of people like it, and the non-D20 game has had so many similar editions we have no way of telling how many people are playing its varous incarnations).
I think it's more complex than that. There are games with good parts of the design that are compelling enough to keep people hacking at it. Games that are just plain awful do, in fact, tend to fail, no matter how neat the fluff is, as do games that just don't offer a distinct feel in the systems. Lord of the Rings strikes me as a game like this. With errata-laden mechanics and too much of a similarity to D&D, it couldn't even ride a virtual license to print money to the point of sustainability.
Y'see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Feng Shui isn't just liked for its setting and "fluff." People love the rules, but are pained by bits of them.
Well, that's rather the point. I see the recursive conversation about D20 design working according to this metaphor:
Person A: "See, this thing's an Indy 500 racer!"
Person B: "Actually, I'm looking for a motorcycle."
A: "Oh, you can turn it into a motorcycle."
B: "OK. What if I make these changes?"
A: "But then it's not an Indy 500 racer any more!"
That's what this Sneak Attacking undead thing feels like to me. I can see it as a perfectly fine niche ability, as long as its hooked up to the right fluff. And of course, I should be able to do just this -- but then, purists who see the Indy racer as the ultimate end think you're being daft.
I think you're underestimating people's fondness for certain parts of a flawed design, especially when it comes to actually enhancing the feel of a game. The best example I can think of is Rifts. Rifts is a badly designed game, but elements of its system are perfect for supporting the kind of play people tend to get into with Rifts. One example is the fact that combat is long and detailed, but skill resolution is a simple pass/fail on d%. This actually works pretty well when it comes to focusing on action flick combat, where you want something quick and dumb for all those other, less important tasks Rifts characters need to do. The trouble is that the way you derive the numbers for this stuff is utter bollocks.
Now D20 games do have a definite emphasis, but the engine is solid enough to let you change it without too much trouble. The question is the degree to which people confuse soundness of mechanics for emphasis. AU's action-pointy system could be pilloried for surface vagueness, for instance, but it follows the game's DM-centered design goal nicely.
I'm always suspicious of comments like this, because they tend to be used to back some spurious argument about whay game X sucks. I'd say its more accurate to abserve that there's often a disjoint between online fandom and people who actually play certain games. Sometimes the numbers are about even (I've noticed that plenty of people play Changeling, but I hardly ever see them actually post anywhere -- the fans post about abstract issues instead), and sometimes they aren't (I've never seen an Unknown Armies game), and sometimes their connection to sales is strange or tenuous (Call of Cthulhu doesn't sell gangbusters, but lots of people like it, and the non-D20 game has had so many similar editions we have no way of telling how many people are playing its varous incarnations).
I think it's more complex than that. There are games with good parts of the design that are compelling enough to keep people hacking at it. Games that are just plain awful do, in fact, tend to fail, no matter how neat the fluff is, as do games that just don't offer a distinct feel in the systems. Lord of the Rings strikes me as a game like this. With errata-laden mechanics and too much of a similarity to D&D, it couldn't even ride a virtual license to print money to the point of sustainability.
Y'see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Feng Shui isn't just liked for its setting and "fluff." People love the rules, but are pained by bits of them.
Well, that's rather the point. I see the recursive conversation about D20 design working according to this metaphor:
Person A: "See, this thing's an Indy 500 racer!"
Person B: "Actually, I'm looking for a motorcycle."
A: "Oh, you can turn it into a motorcycle."
B: "OK. What if I make these changes?"
A: "But then it's not an Indy 500 racer any more!"
That's what this Sneak Attacking undead thing feels like to me. I can see it as a perfectly fine niche ability, as long as its hooked up to the right fluff. And of course, I should be able to do just this -- but then, purists who see the Indy racer as the ultimate end think you're being daft.
Terry Pratchett had some line in "Night Watch" about people who confuse rudeness with honesty. I can't for the life of me remember it, but I'm gonna have to get it framed.
For my part, I don't usually buy products from or go to movies that star abrasive jerks. This results in me trying to avoid learning personal things about certain actors or writers for fear of finding out that they're abrasive jerks. I'm glad that other folks can maintain that distinction in their minds, and it's undeniably a strength on their part, but if you act like an abrasive jerk enough and I know about it, it seeps into areas where it shouldn't matter in terms of my perception of you.
For my part, I don't usually buy products from or go to movies that star abrasive jerks. This results in me trying to avoid learning personal things about certain actors or writers for fear of finding out that they're abrasive jerks. I'm glad that other folks can maintain that distinction in their minds, and it's undeniably a strength on their part, but if you act like an abrasive jerk enough and I know about it, it seeps into areas where it shouldn't matter in terms of my perception of you.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Hmm. What did he do?Incenjucar said:
Mystery Man
First Post
If only WoTC would freelance some Forgotten Realms work.
Ranger REG
Explorer
They have to. Their in-house designers roster on the company's payroll is severely reduced since the last three layoffs dating back to Winter of 2000-2001.Mystery Man said:
Hmm. I wonder if SKR submitted his press release to Morrus. After all, it was Morrus who once ranted about recieving boring press releases. From a cynical POV, SKR's press release is a bit entertaining. Definitely not boring if it can stir up this much brouhaha.
Then again, I don't understand what makes Brits tick.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
