Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

Looks like Sean revised his announcement.

 

[francisca]

Enh. There's nothing wrong with a feat allowing you to sneak attack undead, provided the right narrative trash is wedded to it. And narrative trash -- not "logic" -- is the justification for the way undead work, because none of us has ever seen a real zombie or what-have-you.

(other stuff snipped for brevity)

Preach on brother! Please, one and all, suspend disbelief for several hours and enter this elaborate world full of bizarre creatures: dragons, trolls, undead, elves, dwarves, etc... perform great deeds and wield mighty magics.

But don't try to sneak attack undead, because that's just crazy talk!

So, here we are, 4 years after 3E/d20, and we're bickering about rules mechanics. d20, the one system to rule them all, with an elegant, integrated set of mechanics, designed to alleviate ad-hocery and rescue the players from evil inconsistent DMs and their damn judgement calls. I've seen good arguments pro and con in this thread. But in the end, it comes down to the players trusting the DM to present them with a challenging and inspiring field of play, just like it always has.

 

[Mystery Man]

Looks like Sean revised his announcement.

I would have revised my statement (if it were mine) to inform all the pointy headed, thinned skinned, easily offended twerps to bite me. But, thankfully it wasn't mine and I'm not running a business so...

yeah. Diplomacy, it's cool.

 

[Incenjucar]

Gotta respect someone who respects their audience (and their bottom line) enough to revise something. If it was, say, fine art, I'd say stick to your guns, but this is something you actually want to be useful rather than polarizing.

Reasonableness is a useful thing when you're dealing with game balance, especially, and not just a niche product. If I wore hats, I'd tip it.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

Looks like Sean revised his announcement.

Actually, he just elaborated on the original statement. The original one is still there lower on the page .

I think he has taken the main arguments pro and con his first press statement and integrated them nicely into this new statement. This should alleviate all the confusion about the intentions of SKR Games. Well done...

The new punchline "Expert d20 design...with a personal touch" seems to be new as well - or is it just me?

-Zarrock

 

[Desdichado]

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.

So, you're talking about the item creation rules then?

 

[Psion]

So, you're talking about the item creation rules then?

Cute, but items aren't straight up XP (only one-sixth of the GP-equivalent cost is XP) and they aren't class-like structures.

Nice try, no cookie.

 

[Desdichado]

I think this is the real point of contention. Many people don't care about fundamental game design as long as the game's fun. And sometimes, that fundamental game design is something that should be altered depending upon what type of result is desired.

To each their own as long as everyone's having fun.

Not only that, SKR's idea of what is "correct" game design seems to hinge quite a bit on what the original designers of 3e intended. Personally, I don't think that's necessarily relevant. Who cares what they intended? To use the example that's been done to death already in this thread:

1. The original designers intended that sneak attack effect "vital organs" and the like.
2. The original designers intended that undead don't have vital organs.
3. As a logical implication of points 1 and 2, Undead are immune to sneak attack.
4. SKR says here on this thread, that it's "better" to honor those original intentions and not change those "fundamentals of d20" if modifying sneak attack vs. undead.
5. Regardless of the original intent, all sneak attack really is is more damage dice.
6. The definitions of what sneak attack and undead are is arbitrary, not fundamental.
7. I can come up with an equally arbitrary set of definitions on how sneak attack and undead work that are completely compatible with the rules, but not with the designers' "original intent."
8. If I do, then a feat that allows sneak attack to affect undead is not fundamentall wrong, as SKR says.
9. If I do, why is it incumbant on me as a designer to go into lengthy asides of why such a feat would work?
10. I don't need SKR, or anyone else, telling me that doing so is "wrong" or "less smart" because I don't see how the original intent is so sacred that I can't have a different set of assumptions that work just fine.

 

[Desdichado]

I would have revised my statement (if it were mine) to inform all the pointy headed, thinned skinned, easily offended twerps to bite me. But, thankfully it wasn't mine and I'm not running a business so...

yeah. Diplomacy, it's cool.

Yep. I disagree with SKR on a lot of things, but dang, I gotta respect someone who stands behind what they say.

Not that SKR isn't standing behind what he says by clarifying. I'm just saying.

 

[Desdichado]

Cute, but items aren't straight up XP (only one-sixth of the GP-equivalent cost is XP) and they aren't class-like structures.

Nice try, no cookie.

No, they aren't straight-up XP, in that there are other costs besides XP. But they do cost XP for ...why again? And why are item creation not class-like structures? In prior editions they were; any magic-user/wizard could attempt to create magic items, and often did.

One side effect that's been noticable in games I've been in is that earlier, wizards used to make (or at least attempt to make) magic items all the time. How else do you get that funky weapon that the fighter prefers to be magical?

Now, however, nobody in my games ever ever would even consider burning a feat on Item Creation, or XP on it either. Just go find some NPC wizard out there and hire him to do it for you.

Maybe it's good game design to cripple what used to be a common attribute of a certain class so that it's extremely unattractive for players to use. Maybe they wanted to change the D&D paradigm on item creation entirely.

But somehow I don't think so. So yeah, item creation may not be exactly what you describe as bad game design, but from a practical standpoint, I don't see that the differences are significant.