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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 428071" data-attributes="member: 336">With as many people as playtested 3e I seriously doubt it was "overlooked".  Seems like it does well what it is supposed to do; simulate combat in an abstract manner.  Trying to achieve "perfection" in a game that uses an abstract combat system is an extraordinarily tall order.For somebody that doesn't mean to you really do a good job of failing at it.Techniques that have worked with every single group I've DM'd.  Just because you feel like you are not able to do it, doesn't mean they don't work consistently.  It is obvious that some people need "rules" for things they can do on their game anyway.  You don't have to rule zero any of this.  You just have to have an understanding of what you are trying to accomplish and be able to communicate it to your players.  Try it, it works.  You might also want to take something for your stress, it can lead to high-blood pressure and death.So what you want is a simple (easy) "rules" system from WotC that isn't arbitrary?  "Rules" systems are by definition arbitrary.  That is what DM's do arbitrate.  So tell me again, who is naive?Perhaps I do...  I'm fortunate in that way.  <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=":)" />Whenever did I claim I was infallible?  Man, you sure like putting keys on people's keyboards.  Chill out.  Paxil might help you.I'm appreciative of you recognizing that I'm brilliant.  <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=":)" />Whoever said there is any sheepish acceptance?  I've discussed all these things with my player's.  Player's who happen to recognize the fact that I'm not brilliant or infallible.  Player's who happen to agree on how we have decided to play the game.  Do I forget bonuses or penalties, of course but I don't cry about spilled milk.  Do the player's sometimes forget to add a bonus or subtract a penalty from the myriad feats and skills they have?  Of course.  How is that any different than forgetting to give someone a cover bonus or a penalty for firing into melee combat?What about them?  Hit points and AC work the same and just as well for them as they do for me.  Actually since they are such capable storytellers they might do a better job of describing cinematic combat than I can.  Nobody said they need to adopt the things that I do.  But if it was "written" in the rules they would have to do that, wouldn't they?  No, they would have the exact same freedom that I do to improvise.  Use things you like, change things you don't, add things that make the game more enjoyable.But by using the "rules" that WotC gives to them, the rules that are not arbitrary, they would do much better; wouldn't they?  What is the problem with adapting the game to your group?  What is the problem with ignoring "rules" that don't fit into your game and adopting those that do?Just in case I missed the press release, who appointed you the authority of what is well-thought out, comprehensive, shoddy, inconsistent or half-arsed?  You have an opinion...  Welcome to the real world, everyone has one or more of those.No, I haven't undercut anything.  If you don't like the way the DM makes a ruling do you discuss it with him or do you simply cry to the heavens that he is being inconsistent, shoddy and half-arsed?  If you don't like (enjoy) the game that you're playing why play at all?  Players that come to play at my table know full well what to expect.  There is no mystery to it because like I already mentioned I've discussed it with them.  If after knowing what they are getting into they don't like it, they can leave.  Or should I put them in a Dungeon and torture them to make them comply?BTW even the DMG recommends that a DM be able to cut it...  It even has a small list of things that he should be prepared to do if he is going to be successful at it.FinallyWhat attitude, if it's not broke don't fix it and if it is fix it yourself?  Or your pessimistic, defeatist attitude that if it's not in the rulebook it is by default not playtested, comprehensive, well-thought out and therefore shoddy, inconsistent or half-arsed?I agree, your attitude is not healthy for business.  You want innovation but are unwilling to innovate on your own.  It seems like you prefer to be given a set of "rules" that you follow without thought and if anything deviates from that you feel slighted because "THEY" should have had a rule for that.Fallen short of what? Your insurmountable expectations?If the games are providing a "ruleset" that works and most players are having fun, how is that falling short.  Seems to me like d20 is in a very health state of business.Are there things that could be better?  Of course. That is why D&D has been around since the early 1970's and seen several iterations of the game rules.  The latest one (3e) being the most comprehensive overhaul.  I happen to like the freedom I get from 3E.  Guess what, there are still some people that don't like 3e or anything d20.  How is that the publisher's problem?  The publisher's can't please everyone.  Should they try to do so they would fail miserably.The publisher's try to appeal with their products to the widest market possible.  Someone will always be displeased.Maybe your consumer expectations.  From what Shane has said it sold well.  So again, how is that a failure?I don't blame the GM if in your opinion yourDeadlands experience sucked.  However, the GM is responsible for the pace of the game and the challenges and the overall story.  If he didn't appeal to the widest audience (the game group) then he failed.Do you blame 20th Century Fox if in your opinion Attack of the Clones sucked?  Do you blame the cgi guys that animated Yoda?  Do you blame the actors or the extras?  No, you blame the creative force behind it, Lucas.  People always put the blame on the director.  A DM/GM is exactly that - a game's director.An RPG is an open ended environment for entertainment.  The DM has a loose framework (ruleset) that he builds upon but the creative process is his.  If a game is not fun then the DM failed he can't really blame it on the "rules".  However, if the expectations of the game group are unrealistic their game has a great chance of being "unfun".I'm sorry for your loss.  <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=":)" />And once again, who is responsible for deciding if a PC dodged an arrow or was struck?  The DM.  He assigns damage caused by the creatures, how he describes it is up to him.  In cinematic combat the DM is specially responsible for this.No, what is disturbing is gamers that have to be spoon-fed everything.What you are complaining about can be covered in 1-2 paragraphs with a good explanation of the abstract combat system of d20 and how to challenge your players.I agree that HP's are not the "optimal" wound system for cinematic combat.  In the d20 game system HP's are used to simulate actual wounds as well as fatigue, scrapes, near misses and multiple things that slowly tire you out and make you more vulnerable to "real" damage.  They have always been like that.  Maybe if instead of calling them "HIT" points they were called something else people would understand that they have nothing to do with being actually hit.  HP were never designed for cinematic combat.  Can they be made to simulate cinematic combat?  Absolutely.What you seem to want is for publisher's to cater to your tastes.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  However, that is not always feasible unless you decide to publish what you want yourself.However I prefer not to wait for an indefinite time for someone to hand me (publish) a new "ruleset" that addresses this perceived flaw.  Now that would be naive.If you feel like spouting your sarcastic remarks at me how about doing it by e-mail.  I'd prefer for this thread to stay open since it is quite interesting.[Edit] See I had to edit my brilliance and infallibility notwithstanding.  <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" /></blockquote>

Verification