Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morgenstern" data-source="post: 422636" data-attributes="member: 5485">Amen.I'd argue there are lots of other systems out there that are quite good and easy to develope for, but since no one else has gone OGL yet, there is not a lot of opportunity to compare.I'm the mechanics lead for Spycraft, and I will attest that d20 can be made to give and flex in a lot of ways, but it does not take kindly to random perturbations. Changes in one part 'echo' all over the system, and writing with anything less than a comprehensive guide to the environment you are are working in (be it D&D or some other D20 system) is suicidal.Small example: Ability scores used as prerequistes for feats should always be odd numbers. But how many people know why? If you choose to write a feat with Wis 14+ as a prerequisite, what consequence have you invoked that 13+ or 15+ wouldn't have?My opinion of the d20 market (from the creative side) is that there are distinctly two kinds of writers out there: there are mechanics writers, and there are story writers. These are entirely different skill sets. Sure, a few people have both, but rarely is someone as strong in both activities. Good writers of either type are actually sort of rare <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, but we won't get into that just yet. The d20 liscence allowed hordes of story writers without the necesarry skill set to build GAMES to still create PRODUCT because they could use the d20 system for that, and settle in to what they did best- building worlds, characters, and stories. This brought a lot of new companies/studios into existance right there. Later it became apparent that at least a modicum of mechanical talent was required on a project team to add crunchy bits. Worlds/Adventures = Good.Worlds/Adventures with setting specific crunchy bits (like prestige classes rooted in the setting or a new moster for a dungeon) = Better!Personally I think the fantasy market is a little flooded, if not precisely glutted. D&D players still make up the single largest block of customers, and they can be amazingly difficult to persuade to play other games, "d20 System" logo or not.This is the first of two hurdles a non-fantasy d20 game has to overcome to succeed. The other is that a non-fantasy d20 game also needs a LOT of new crunchy bits to function, and that means finding a capable d20 mechanics author/team to write all your new rules- far, far moreso than producing a moderately crunchy new D&D product. The need for such people was momentarily eclipsed in the intial surge of d20/D&D offerings. Now the worm has turned so to speak, and "crunch" is often a key determinant of a product's utility and desirabilty- because nearly by definition most Game Masters have at least moderate story writing skills, and are able to do a lot of the work of that nature themselves <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />! (there are of course some crazed rule-tinkering GMs out there, who take great delight in disasembling the parts of the book I write and seeing how they tick, and what they could change to make them tick more loudly for their own games <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />).On the subject of garbage still selling- If your story/setting writing component is mediocre, you can still make back a modest profit on a book (at least the first few times- it will come back to haunt you if you don't outgrow certain habits), because your machanics side is still already based on the really excellent work that went into d20. You put half-baked mechanics in a book, you get nailed first time out of the gate. Very little flushes a new module's reveiws like a crapily designed monster. Because the quality of the adventure is subjective - the review is being interpretive on those points and frankly most reviews will let the product off with a good lashing and a "not my cup of tea, but some people may like it". The accuracy of the rules is objective and viciously precise. There is little mercy that I've seen in the d20 market for bad rules...I'm rambling now, but I always interested in how these disussions overlook the awesomely D&D-o-centric nature of virtually all d20 publishing. There is an enormous difference in the risk taken between a new d20 game and a supliment that is D&D in all but imprint...Must get back to work <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />... got to wrap up the Fixer/Pointman Class Guide.(hey one little plug at the end isn't that bad is it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />?)Great thread. Look forward to a continuing dicusion with reviewers, fans, and designers all in the same ring <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.</blockquote>

Verification