# Shane Hensley comments on the RPG industry



## Rain (Oct 11, 2002)

(Not sure if this had been posted before...)



Hi all, 


I've been asked this question a lot on the various Pinnacle listserves, and thought I'd just offer up my two cents to those who are interested. Skip it if you just wanna game.  


In a message dated 10/6/2002 12:16:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, darkechilde@charter.net writes: 


>I really don't want to distract you too far from Savage Worlds, Shane, but I 

>would like to ask: What is the current climate for the gaming industry? 



Sales for *most* everyone I know (and I know most everyone in the industry) are down a bit. Here are my thoughts, in no particular order. 


1) A sluggish economy. I've noted manufacturer sales tends to lag behind the economy about 6-12 months. I guess that's because we sell lots of books and then they sit on distributor/retailer shelves for a while. When those don't sell, it takes a while to filter back up to us in reduced backstock sales (reorders). 


2) Wizkids is sucking up all the money. More power to them, no complaints here. But given the current market, all those dollars going to one company is really rough on the rest of us. Not whining--just an observation. This was *very* evident at the summer cons, when they had at least three 60+ person lines going every minute the show was open, and each person probably averaged over $100 in purchases (judging from what they were carrying up to the counter). Our sales at summer cons were down 40%, even though we sold more of our new releases than ever, and more than anyone else I know of with "bigger" releases--such as certain very large licensed properties I won't name. 


3) The d20 glut has made things very tough on the non-D20 middle tier (companies like Pinnacle, SJ Games, White Wolf in their non-d20 lines, etc.). White Wolf mitigated reduced sales on their World of Darkness lines by brilliantly capitalizing on D20, first with their Scarred Lands world and then with Everquest. I tried to do the same by doing Weird Wars with d20, and dual-statting Deadlands, and while they certainly did quite well, they proved (to me) that the D20 crowd is very heavily ensconced in the fantasy genre. Hostile Climes was an experiment, and with very little marketing and promotion, it sold as well as any DL or Weird Wars book. 


And those companies that make good products, Fast Forward, Fantasy Flight, etc, will continue to do well. The top 10 of the d20 heap is a fine place to be. 


The glut has caused the most trouble just by the sheer number of new products out there. When we started in '96, there were about 10 well-known companies, 2-3 top RPG lines, and another couple dozen cool lines that rarely broke into the top 5 sales (Deadlands got as high as #3 at its peak in '98). Now there are several hundred companies and over 1000 "current" d20 products. Add that to Wizkids' success and the fact that gaming is a niche market and you've got a tough time in the middle. 


All those d20 publishers have created a massive backlog of products that cram the store shelves. This has many detrimental effects to established companies in the middle, such as convincing some stores that they can only carry d20 and ditching the rest. Why carry a complete backstock of Deadlands, or Fading Suns, or GURPs, when you can just get in another hardback book about elves? And if you're making all your money on Wizkids, Yug-i-oh (however you spell it), and a few top D20 lines, why pick up older, riskier lines? 


Distributors and retailers, in the private forums, privately gripe about any new d20 release that isn't really different. So why do so many keep coming out? A couple of reasons. First, the companies that got in early and did good stuff are still selling 2-3000 copies of their games. That's still 2 or three times more than most third-tier companies could have done before d20. Look at Chameleon Eclectic in the old days--a company I worked with a lot. Selling 500-750 out the door was average. 


Another factor here is that a lot of the d20 publishers were guys who were making big salaries in other industries and have now translated their dying 401Ks into publishing. I'd guess 75% of those guys are starting to lose money now that the glut has taken full effect. A few are still making at least a little profit, so they're better off publishing than they are putting it back in their 401Ks since those are still on a downward trend (plus they're trapped now, since they quit their jobs). 


This is also why I keep saying the "middle" tier has trouble. The lowest tier is made up mostly of guys who still have their day jobs and put out their d20 products for fun. Most probably still make their money back if they write it themselves and get their art cheap, so why not? Again though, this takes up the scant dollars the middle tier, companies with overhead and backstock and full-time jobs, are all competing for. 


The future? I suspect you'll see Wizkids continue to do well, as well as a movement toward "retro" products like board games, but with the streamlined nature of today's rules systems. 


Roleplaying wise, I suspect you'll see two things. The non-WOTC d20 companies will move away from D20 proper and more towards the OGL, which is the exact same thing but without the need for the Player's Handbook, like White Wolf's Everquest. This allows companies to put in their own character generation rules, and change the system without violating copyrights and running afoul of WOTC. (If you don't understand the difference, check out the info at the open gaming foundation, or on WOTC's own website--don't have the addresses handy.) Most designers I know very privately don't like D20. They won't say that publicly because it's all that selling for them right now, but it's the truth, so they're dying to change it to something that better fits their needs. 


You'll also see a number of companies move away from d20 altogether to do their own thing and capitalize on those gamers who get tired of d20. My own Savage Worlds is one of them, as is Fast Forward's upcoming 1492 (which is really cool, btw--I've seen parts of it and it's truly revolutionary!) 


I think d20 will dominate, and probably 50-75% of the games out there will use it in one form or another (with or without the license). That's just fine--that remaining part of the industry (especially with many crossover gamers who buy and read other games, even if they don't play them) is still a *very* viable part of the market for companies whose emphasis isn't in d20, and is about what it was prior to D20 if you concede that D&D and Vampire owned 75% of the market before. 


You'll see that trend start later this year and really gather steam around March (when the industry has its big trade show). 


As for miniatures, you'll see more movement towards the pre-painted variety. Quietly, historical miniatures and generic minis that support fantasy RPGs (such as Reaper's extensive line), will also do well, but that's an entirely different crowd. I doubt you'll see many minis games (other than Games Workshop, who have their own market pretty wrapped up) released and succeed as they've done in the past. Look at all those that were really good, had good marketing and production, and are now gone. Clan War was cancelled, Vor, whatever White Wolf's game was called. Geez, I can't even think of a single "traditional" minis game that's still alive and supported (again, besides GW). You can name a few niche games that do okay in certain areas, like War Gods of Aegyptus (which is really cool, btw), but even that doesn't register on the industry radar. (Quick note--many miniatures games companies dislike distributors because of the 60% discount and only sell directly to customers and a few stores that champion them. Some do fairly well this way, but never get the really deep penetration of say Pinnacle or SJ Games.) 


Whew. Sorry that was so long folks. You asked.  I hope that offers some insight into what's going on in the industry right now and why certain things are happening in your local game store or with your favorite game companies. 


Shane Hensley 

Pinnacle


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 11, 2002)

Interesting analysis!  Thanks for posting that.


----------



## rounser (Oct 11, 2002)

It would be interesting to see Ryan Dancey comment, as to whether d20's impact is going pretty much as he planned, or with a twist or two.


----------



## mearls (Oct 11, 2002)

*Gluts*

Some of this is true, some of this I have a very hard time believing.

For the past 2 years, we've been hearing about the d20 glut and how any day now there's going to be a massive culling of the companies that produce d20 material.

Over that time, we have seen *one* major company get out of d20: PEG. And even that decisions seems more driven by unhappiness with working with d20 than sales issues. (It's also worth noting that, IN MY OPINION, Deadlands is at the end of its product lifecycle. I wouldn't be surprised if after the splat books for DL d20 were released PEG stopped producing major supplements for it.)

The remaining companies that went d20 and died off produced no more than one, perhaps two products. I can't think of a single, major company that released d20 materials and went belly-up.

Are sales where they were in August of 2000?

No. But anyone with a brain expected that.

Are the sales of d20 products higher than general RPG products released throughout the 90s?

Yes.

I don't trust any comment that's made about how distributors and retailers are angry about lame d20 products. As far as I can see, those same enraged retailers who are desperate for anything non-d20 are still ordered d20 materials en masse and selling them at a steady rate, a much better rate than RPG material for anything short of White Wolf's World of Darkness lines.

This goes double for all the alleged designers who don't like d20. There might be some out there, but there are plenty of us who enjoy tinkering with, reading, and *gasp* playing the game. The comment strikes me as sour grapes more than anything else. I can't relate, since D&D has always been my favorite RPG, but I can see how it would be frustrating if I, for example, had to do all my design work in Rolemaster, GURPS, or some other system that I don't prefer.

d20 is here to stay. It's fate is chained to the fate of D&D. If d20 dries up, that means the entire RPG hobby is heading down the tubes. From what I've seen, sales are doing fine. I don't think RPGs will ever again reach the fad level of sales they hit in early 80s, but the industry is far, far healthier now than it was in the period from 1993 - 1999.

Perceptions, especially on the Internet, are funny things. They tend to be driven by what someone wants to see, rather than what's actually out there.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 11, 2002)

Mike, if you hadn't posted, I would have assumed you were one of the unhappy designers mentioned above. I'm glad you aren't, because I find your work to be top-notch, and it'd suck to find out you hated what you were doing. If that makes sense.

I'm also glad you commented as you did, because it helps put the above analysis into a more well-rounded context. I hope other designers jump in to make their own analyses.

PEG got out of d20? The Deadlands stuff is good. That's too bad.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Oct 11, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Mike, if you hadn't posted, I would have assumed you were one of the unhappy designers mentioned above. I'm glad you aren't, because I find your work to be top-notch, and it'd suck to find out you hated what you were doing. If that makes sense.*




I don't think you'll find many of the "unhappy designers" that were mentioned, because they simply aren't there! There is certainly a niche group who despise d20 (mostly because it outsells their pet systems or they just love to hate the big guy), and I get the feeling Shane hangs out with that crowd (I like Shane, by the way, this isn't a dis). There is a very strong urge in some people to ignore what they do not like, or to believe that no one in their right mind would disagree.

It reminds me of the disbelieving comment by Pauline Kael, a well known movie reviewer and liberal critic, who said "No one I know voted for him" after Nixon won in '72. 

d20 is alive and well, and there are plenty of us out here who like it just fine.  

*privately whispers to Greg how much he likes the d20 System*


----------



## Synicism (Oct 11, 2002)

Interesting stuff in this thread so far. I have a lot of respect for guys like Shane L. Hensley, Steven Long, and such, and I really value their opinions.

"Roleplaying wise, I suspect you'll see two things. The non-WOTC d20 companies will move away from D20 proper and more towards the OGL, which is the exact same thing but without the need for the Player's Handbook, like White Wolf's Everquest. This allows companies to put in their own character generation rules, and change the system without violating copyrights and running afoul of WOTC. (If you don't understand the difference, check out the info at the open gaming foundation, or on WOTC's own website--don't have the addresses handy.) Most designers I know very privately don't like D20. They won't say that publicly because it's all that selling for them right now, but it's the truth, so they're dying to change it to something that better fits their needs. "

This is interesting. I haven't checked up on the OGL and d20 license in a couple years. Basically, Shane is suggesting that I can print a book under the OGL that uses d20-based rules, modified to make my own complete system, and dispense completely with the need for the PHB, DMG, and so on, so long as I comply with the notice terms of the OGL. Is this correct?

"I don't think you'll find many of the "unhappy designers" that were mentioned, because they simply aren't there! There is certainly a niche group who despise d20 (mostly because it outsells their pet systems or they just love to hate the big guy), and I get the feeling Shane hangs out with that crowd (I like Shane, by the way, this isn't a dis). There is a very strong urge in some people to ignore what they do not like, or to believe that no one in their right mind would disagree."

Well... I wonder. there are those designers who have suffered because of d20, especially those who work primarily in other systems. Guys like Steven Long, Shane Hensley, and Steve Jackson come to mind, although even SJG is doing d20 stuff in limited numbers, with their Munchkin stuff. There *are* a lot of real good games out there (Little Fears, Godlike, Ironclaw, to name a few) that just don't get the exposure they might otherwise get, and that's frustrating.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Oct 11, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *There *are* a lot of real good games out there (Little Fears, Godlike, Ironclaw, to name a few) that just don't get the exposure they might otherwise get, and that's frustrating. *




These games most likely get more exposure due to d20, not less. The OGL has expanded the market, which means more people in stores or looking at RPG products than before. These kinds of games never got that much exposure, but the whole open gaming movement was started as a means to increase the population of role playing buyers, which in theory (and practice, I believe) benefits everyone.

It's legitimate to be frustrated that your favorite game doesn't get the exposure you want, but latching onto the scapegoat of the week (in this case, d20) doesn't do these games any good. Small games can be successes, but only if the market wants them. Just ask the guys at Cheapass Games.


----------



## Numion (Oct 11, 2002)

What's a 401K?


----------



## Psion (Oct 11, 2002)

Rain said:
			
		

> *(Shane Hensley wrote):
> 
> I tried to do the same by doing Weird Wars with d20, and dual-statting Deadlands, and while they certainly did quite well, they proved (to me) that the D20 crowd is very heavily ensconced in the fantasy genre.*




Eh. Sounds a little sketchy to me. Fantasy is and always will be the big boy, but there is still a pretty sizable market for other stuff. Of the 3 d20 games my "extended group" is playing, one (mine) is D&D.

I think that it deserves having a finer point put on it: _PEG's_ products have a limited appeal in the d20 market. I would attribute that both due the the dwindling appeal of deadlands, and that PEG doesn't seem to be willing and/or able to embrace and extend their offerings into the d20 market.


----------



## mearls (Oct 11, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *Well... I wonder. there are those designers who have suffered because of d20, especially those who work primarily in other systems. Guys like Steven Long, Shane Hensley, and Steve Jackson come to mind, although even SJG is doing d20 stuff in limited numbers, with their Munchkin stuff. There *are* a lot of real good games out there (Little Fears, Godlike, Ironclaw, to name a few) that just don't get the exposure they might otherwise get, and that's frustrating. *




This is patently false.

Throughout the 90s, RPG sales were in a tailspin. This trend had already begun before the rise of CCGs.

With RPG sales, there's less money in retailers' pockets to invest in new titles.

WotC buys TSR. d20 and 3e come along. RPG sales surge upward.

More sales -> more money in retailers' hands - > more extra cash to risk on fringe games.

If anything, d20 has provided an environment where a small, cult game has a much better chance of being picked up by retailers. If Shane's other thesis was correct, that retailers were desperate for non-d20 material, we should see a spike in sales of Little Fears, or Jade Claw, or whatever. Remember, game publishers sales are driven by sales to distributors, who in turn sell to stores. If stores really wanted non-d20 stuff to thrive, they'd start ordering it.

But that hasn't happened.

In essence, Shane's analysis makes no fundamental sense. More money in the hands of retailers from Whizkids and d20 means more buying power, means a readier market for other products. If there was demand for non-d20 stuff to break up the endless tide of d20, retailers would be buying it up quick.

But he's seeing reduced sales, right? What's up with that?

There's a curious phenomena in any business sector, one that is especially apparent in the RPG biz. People tend to surround themselves with others who share their views. If I think d20 is doomed, my friends probably feel the same way. Within that environment, my belief is strengthened, sometimes to the point that no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever shake that belief. Normal industries that feature Harvard and Stanford MBAs making decisions fall for the same trap. In RPGs, were there is precious, precious little business sense, the situation is even worse.

Nobody wants to hear that maybe their game isn't all that good, or maybe no one is interested in buying it, or that it's been mismanaged into the ground. It's a lot easier on the ego to cast blame on things like marketting, or the competition, or d20.

Another thing about d20: it's caused quite a bit of resentment amongst the gaming professionals who were in the business before it came along. Imagine working in RPGs, trying to make a living at it, and then seeing some whippersnapper come along and reap more profits in his first three products than you netted in the past three years. d20 made that possible. Quite a few of the established companies avoided d20, allowing lots of little guys with new companies to step into the market. One of the mantras running around in the industry right now is that new companies are B-A-D, since they cut the sales pie into ever-smaller pieces. People in the RPG biz are fundamentally afraid of competition. A lot of people have a sense that they're lucky to be in the position to be a published author or do something creative for a living. They don't want to lose that.

I think I'm pretty lucky to have broken into the RPG industry when I did. d20 touched off a revolution in game design. In essence, we've seen a popular uprising amongst gamers who started buying stuff that they actually want to read and use in their games. d20 has forced the industry to acknowledge that a book about the ecology of the hobgoblin or a supplement about dark elves is more popular and in higher demand amongst gamers than a pulp RPG or a game with a vast, detailed metaplot. For years, game designers dictated the products that made their way to store shelves. Now that d20 has opened up the window into what people really want to buy, it's gamers who pass that judgement.

Wow, did that get off topic.


----------



## Zulkir (Oct 11, 2002)

Folks,

Since Ryan is not likely to notice this thread I thought I'd pop in and post in his stead.

Has d20 done what we thought it would do or has it taken some odd turns. The answer is "both".

As far as sales and support of our products d20 is doing exactly what we want. We couldn't be happier and are looking to expand the license not contract it. Thus when d20 Modern releases in November it will be SRDed immediately and a number of companies will have material and/or settings to support it. In addition, we hope to have the PH, DMG, MM and PsiHB all finalized in the SRD by November and then we will likely add another cap system book (we are still taking suggestions).

On the other hand, the whole thing took off *alot* faster then we thought. Some of the bumps in the process were caused by our not be prepared for the really rapid accpetance and use of the license. People were jumping on board so fast that some were not even reading much less understanding the licenses. This has gotten *much* better in the last year but we still get the occasional goof.

The variety and creativity of alot of d20 companies has really startled me (personally) and the quality of alot of offering are truly outstanding (if you have not picked up Nyambe or Monsternomicon I stongly recommend both - really top notch). But we got our first surprise way back when Relics and Rituals was released. I remember it being passed around in R&D and people shaking their heads partially in awe, partially in concern at the high quality of the work.

But overall the d2o and OGL licenses have been nothing but good and as a fanatic collector of d20 material it has made me very happy.

AV


----------



## JohnClark (Oct 11, 2002)

I think one of the biggest problems facing the RPG industry, and mearls touches on this, is that the "pie" of customers seems to be static, not many new gamers are buying things. I think a real key to success for alot of the smaller folks would be to somehow make a game that appealed to alot of people who have never played any sort of rpg before. Not a revolutionary thought, but if the market your trying to break into is already small and mostly all claimed, then you've got to look elsewhere.

P.S: I have no idea how you would design and market such a game, but it seems like that would be the way to go to really rise in the rpg ranks.


----------



## mearls (Oct 11, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Mike, if you hadn't posted, I would have assumed you were one of the unhappy designers mentioned above. I'm glad you aren't, because I find your work to be top-notch, and it'd suck to find out you hated what you were doing. If that makes sense.
> *




Wow, I hope I've never made comments that make people think I don't like d20 or D&D. On the contrary: I love the games. Heck, I'm one of those guys who clung to 1e after 2e came out. I'm old school, baby!

On a more serious note, if I didn't love RPG design I flat out wouldn't do it. I remember before d20 came along I was rather bitter that in order to work on D&D, I'd have to try my luck with articles submitted to Dragon. Working my way up to the point that I could get a design job with WotC seemed an almost impossibly difficult task. When d20 came along, man, that was like someone throwing open the gates to Shangri-La and rolling out the red carpet. I could finally start working on the game that I really wanted to work on all that time I was writing for Unknown Armies, Vampire, Feng Shui, and Hunter.

(Speaking of how hard it is to break into writing, Sam Witt has a remarkable amusing story about how he got his big break into TSR. Sam, tell the nice people the story if you have a chance. It's very cool.)


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 11, 2002)

Btw mike I do agree that it's the GAMERS dictating what they want more than just a few people at the top. *smirk* I'm living proof of that.


----------



## Pramas (Oct 11, 2002)

mearls said:
			
		

> *In essence, Shane's analysis makes no fundamental sense. More money in the hands of retailers from Whizkids and d20 means more buying power, means a readier market for other products.
> *




That makes perfect sense and it should be true, but it isn't. It's one of the many peculiar things about the game industry. When Whizkids puts out something like Heroclix, it sucks up a huge amount of the buying dollars distributors and retailers have for that month. That's no big surprise, but this is where it gets interesting. You might think, "Well, OK, I won't see big sales this month, but next month when everyone is flush with all that Whizkids money, they'll come back and order my stuff." Except that they won't. The game industry is so frontlist driven that your product from the previous month is old news and distributors and retailers are on to next thing. Furthermore, even though the channel should be swimming in dough after a hit release, it is not a rising tide that lifts all boats. For whatever reason, that extra money is not reinvested in a variety of other products. It goes to buying more Whizkids stuff, or the latest fad product like Yu-Gi-Oh, or to pay off old debt, or any of a million other places. So even in cash rich months, most publishers don't see any corresponding rise in their orders. 


*



			Another thing about d20: it's caused quite a bit of resentment amongst the gaming professionals who were in the business before it came along. Imagine working in RPGs, trying to make a living at it, and then seeing some whippersnapper come along and reap more profits in his first three products than you netted in the past three years. d20 made that possible.
		
Click to expand...


*
Old pros might be a bit jealous of new companies making lots of money, but the resentment comes from something else. Talented people who have worked hard and barely made ends meat get resentful when companies with products that SUCK become successful. And yes, it's d20 that made that possible. There are any number of companies who wouldn't have lasted beyond their first product if not for the d20 logo.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 11, 2002)

Pramas said:
			
		

> *Talented people who have worked hard and barely made ends meat get resentful when companies with products that SUCK become successful.*




Only a high demand for d20 will support products that suck from the supply side. _Somebody_ is buying it.

When supply outstrips that demand, the folks that suck should fall by the wayside.

Are we there yet? Not quite.


Wulf


----------



## Crothian (Oct 11, 2002)

This is a great read, just one little question: Who is Shane Hensley?


----------



## Mr Fidgit (Oct 11, 2002)

head of Pinnacle Games (Deadlands, Weird War, etc.)

at some point, i know he wrote some Ravenloft mods...


----------



## EricNoah (Oct 11, 2002)

I think that because of the open nature of d20 that we will never truly see an end to products that suck.    Even as those products are weeded out, new publishers will fill in the ranks.  I do think that it will be harder and harder for products (and companies) that are both NEW and GOOD to stand out and get attention.  Hopefully that's where sites like EN World can play an important role.


----------



## mikey6990 (Oct 11, 2002)

I'll throw my hat into the ring and agree with Chris Pramas.  From all of the gaming stores that I have been to, his explanation of the market dynamic is correct.  The stores are sellling more product due to d20/OGL releases, but the extra money put back into products goes into new d20/OGL products.  RPG shelf life appears to be short, and new orders seem to be for either new d20/OGL stuff or extremely hot sellers from the last month that hung on.  The non d20 sections of the store (with the exception of W40K which sells wells also) are shrinking.  Evertime I go in I look through the rest and have seen the same books or less every time.

This appears to be such a small business that people only want to invest in what sells.  During the early 90's, with TSR sales going down, the other guys were stocked to see if sales could be gained from other lines.  Now, d20 is the 800lb gorilla and a sure sales bet, so why risk other lines of sale?

This situation does get to me also.  I love GURPS, but that section of my FLGS just keeps shrinking, with noting new ordered. <sigh>

Mike


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 11, 2002)

Numion said:
			
		

> *What's a 401K? *




401K refers to a law in the United States that allows for tax-free investment of personal funds in various stocks and other kinds of investments to generate money specifically for the purpose of retirement.  Most mid to large size corporations in the US have a 401K benefits program that lets their employees have part of their pay check go to this kind of retirement investment funds, and often the company will match a portion of the money going into the account each month.

Right now the stock market (and other related markets) are doing very poorly.  In fact, most 401K accounts are losing money right now, rather than gaining money.  So some people have stopped putting money into their 401K accounts.  Also, you can pull money out of your 401K account, with some penalties.  

Apparently Some people are quitting their jobs, pulling money out of their 401K accounts at a penalty (figuring they were losing money in those accounts anyway) and starting small gaming companies.  It's gambling with your retirement, but hey, risk is the American way!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 11, 2002)

mearls said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wow, I hope I've never made comments that make people think I don't like d20 or D&D. *




Not that I'm aware of. Basically, I was trying to do a "process of elimination" on what Hensley said, since, of course, he wasn't naming names. I figured the guys who designed 3e/d20 wouldn't be unhappy with it (except tangentially, because WotC fired them); and I figured Hensley wouldn't be talking about new designers or people openly disdainful of d20 (John Wick, for example). You just ended up as one of the handful that leapt to mind for me.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 11, 2002)

I've been thinking about companies like PEG, who seemed to get into d20 reluctantly. Matter of fact, PEG was probably the second established company - after Chaosium - which got into d20 in a very obviously reluctant way. To be frank, such companies might have been better off staying out of d20, because potential buyers of their products who catch wind to this reluctance may be put-off on buying their books. Those who don't catch wind beforehand may pick up one book, but get turned off to others in the line from the same company due to this air of reluctance. I simply don't trust a company to make the kind of effort necessary to ensure the highest quality of a product if they're doing it reluctantly. 

My point is that a lot of the guys grumbling that d20 wasn't the cash cow they hoped it would be were doomed to failure before they ever published a single book, due to their attitude.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 11, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *My point is that a lot of the guys grumbling that d20 wasn't the cash cow they hoped it would be were doomed to failure before they ever published a single book, due to their attitude. *




A good point indeed. I am reminded of the PR fiasco Guardians of Order made here on ENworld after SAS d20. They made it eminently clear that they did not understand the essence of d20 (hint: it's not just about using a d20 for task resolution), and that they had only released a d20 version most reluctantly.

Wulf


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 11, 2002)

*Ryan Dancey on PEG*

Here's Ryan Dancey's comments on PEG's withdrawal from the d20 market ages ago:

http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=72

Great thread entitled: "My d20 game doesn't sell." He doesn't name any names, but he was clearly talking about PEG.

As far as I'm concerned, good riddance to PEG from the d20 market. They weren't enthusiastic about d20, and it's better that they work on something that they are enthusiastic about. The same goes for the folks who did SAS d20.

I'd differ about Chaosium --- they have cash flow problems, which is why they are having trouble putting out products of any kind (d20 or otherwise), but they weren't unenthusiastic about d20 when I spoke with them.


----------



## Sam Witt (Oct 11, 2002)

mearls said:
			
		

> *
> (Speaking of how hard it is to break into writing, Sam Witt has a remarkable amusing story about how he got his big break into TSR. Sam, tell the nice people the story if you have a chance. It's very cool.) *




Ah, for the glory days of my youth, when the world was magical and anything was possible . . .

_Cue harp strumming flashback sequence music_

In the early, early 90s, I decided I really needed to stop just playing games and writing for my personal amusment, and *do something*, already.  At the time, I was really digging a game called Nightlife, which was basically Vampire with lots more killin' and tons of different kinds of monsters.  The emphasis was more splatterpunk than goth, and the book was teensy and easily digested.

So, I called the people at Stellar Games and said, "Hey, I want to write a post-apocalypse sourcebook for NightLife."  And so it began.

Now, once I had a published credit under my belt, I became delusional.  I called the TSR offices and asked to speak to someone in their creative department about possible freelance work.  They patched me through to Bruce Heard.

*I have a really important aside to make here - if you are considering doing anything in this industry, for the love of all that you find holy, do not do this.  We have email now, it is fast and less invasive than a phone call.  Use email.  Do not call.  Honestly. *

The conversation went something like this:
*Bruce Heard*:  Hello?

*Me*:  This is Sam Witt.  I'd really, really like to do some work for Dark Sun.  I just finished a book for Stellar Games.

*BH*:  Yeah?  You have an opening in your schedule right now?  I've got a Dark Sun adventure you can write for me.

*Me*: I WIN!

At this point, my head became so swollen that it actually eclipsed the sun in most of Central Washington State and the UN's peacekeeping forces were called out to protect the populace.  When I was working at the gold mine, I would say, "Man, I'm a writer.  I oughta quit this job."  Which was true, but it was a GOLD MINE.  You don't just quit a job like that.

Anyway, it wasn't until later that I discovered that my getting that Dark Sun gig was a result of a very fortuitous error in naming.  Turns out there was another guy with a name very similar to my own AND a much longer list of credits.  Fortunately, I didn't completely suck at writing for games, and everyone was well-pleased.

_Cue strummy harp music_

And, by the way, I'm a big fan of d20 and love writing for it.  While I do plan on doing some non-d20 writing next year, just because, I don't have any plans on stopping with the d20 anytime soon. 

So, that's my story.  Whatever you do, do not attempt to emulate my antics.  It is almost certain to end poorly for you.


----------



## NLP (Oct 11, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> Well... I wonder. there are those designers who have suffered because of d20, especially those who work primarily in other systems. Guys like Steven Long, Shane Hensley, and Steve Jackson come to mind, although even SJG is doing d20 stuff in limited numbers, with their Munchkin stuff. There *are* a lot of real good games out there (Little Fears, Godlike, Ironclaw, to name a few) that just don't get the exposure they might otherwise get, and that's frustrating.



I am not sure where you get your information about Steve Long and DOJ/Hero Games but neither Steve or his company have "suffered". Both Steve and Darren Watts (DOJ's President) have remarked how well their HERO System products have been received. Many of those products are in third or fourth printing now. 

There is plenty of room in the market for non-d20 products and thanks to the internet it is fairly simple for people to locate that product and either order it online or get the information to give to their FLGS. Retailers and distributors cannot carry everything in the market, but if the fans show there is a demand for something both the retailers and distributors are happy to order it for you. It still comes down to money and the Retail/Distribution side of the food chain does not really care if that money comes from d20, HERO System, GURPS, or something else.


----------



## Sulimo (Oct 11, 2002)

Zulkir said:
			
		

> *The variety and creativity of alot of d20 companies has really startled me (personally) and the quality of alot of offering are truly outstanding (if you have not picked up Nyambe or Monsternomicon I stongly recommend both - really top notch). But we got our first surprise way back when Relics and Rituals was released. I remember it being passed around in R&D and people shaking their heads partially in awe, partially in concern at the high quality of the work.
> 
> But overall the d2o and OGL licenses have been nothing but good and as a fanatic collector of d20 material it has made me very happy.*




Funny you should mention that. Even for me, who only gets to play 3e occasionally, I'm getting quite a lot of products that I can cannibalise and use in our groups own games in other systems (primarily Rolemaster).


----------



## Sulimo (Oct 11, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *I think that because of the open nature of d20 that we will never truly see an end to products that suck.    Even as those products are weeded out, new publishers will fill in the ranks.  I do think that it will be harder and harder for products (and companies) that are both NEW and GOOD to stand out and get attention.  Hopefully that's where sites like EN World can play an important role. *




Yeah. This is especially true now that PDF only products are starting to sell. So even the entry costs of dealing with printers has evaporated.


----------



## Sulimo (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: Ryan Dancey on PEG*



			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> *As far as I'm concerned, good riddance to PEG from the d20 market. They weren't enthusiastic about d20, and it's better that they work on something that they are enthusiastic about. The same goes for the folks who did SAS d20.*




I'm glad too, but not for that reason. I was fearful the original Deadlands system would evaporate if Deadlands d20 succeeded. Actually that was my fear about alot of the niche games that I like. They'd put out a d20 version, and it would sell so well that in the end they'd give up the original game and just make d20 supplements.


----------



## RyanD (Oct 12, 2002)

rounser said:
			
		

> *It would be interesting to see Ryan Dancey comment, as to whether d20's impact is going pretty much as he planned, or with a twist or two. *




I think that it is very important to differentiate between "d20 products" and "d20 publishers".

Let's imagine that there were 5 publishers selling 10 products each in August of 2001.  And lets imagine that there were 20 publishers selling 5 products each in August of 2002.

An individual publisher might say "sales for d20 products are down compared to last year" or "the d20 glut is hurting sales".  But from the perspective of the d20 market, you would have to say "d20 sales are up by 100% over last year!"

There are publishers who are making a lot more money on d20 products than most publishers of non-d20 products generated for years prior to the release of the OGL and the d20STL.  Some of those publishers are "new", while some have businesses that straddle or significantly predate the OGL.  And some of the products produced by the new guys are incredible, and some of the products produced by the preexisting guys are horrible.  (And vice-versa).  There are big companies who are doing extraordinarily well with d20, and small companies who are doing extraordinarily well with d20.  (And vice versa).

On the other hand, with a couple of exceptions, most non-d20 publishers are finding it hard to avoid doing d20 products, and many publishers who are doing both d20 and non-d20 products are struggling with finding a balance that makes them comfortable.

The current market is the market that I believed we would grow into in 3-5 years from the release of the OGL, with odds on the 5 year window.  That we have reached this point earlier than I expected I attribute to two things:  1 - a cadre of experienced publishers who took big chances very early on, and were extremely well rewarded for doing so, and 2 - the ability of the internet to educate consumers faster than I dreamed possible about the fact that they should be setting the development agenda, not the publishers.

I'm often asked how to make a successful d20 product.  My answer is "add as much value to the player's experience as possible".  There are a lot of publishers out there who think that consumers still evaluate their products based on how cool their worlds are, or how interesting their art is, or how "fringe" their subject matter is.  None of that is true (or has ever been true).  Customers value products based on how likely they are to use those products in a game, and when used in a game, how much entertainment value they add to the pre-existing material the customer already has.  The difference in success between the publishers who follow a customer-centric focus and those who follow an alternate path is increasingly obvious in terms of unit volumes and topline revenue.

I think that in the next year or so, we will see a clear break between publishers (d20 or not) who bring products to market that maximize player value and those who do not.  And I expect that many of those who do not will blame a "glut", or "a bad system", or other forces in the marketplace for their failures vs. the competition.

There are more active RPG players than there have been in more than a decade.  The size of the RPG market in terms of raw dollars has doubled since 1999.  There are more companies who are able to self-sustain RPG publishing businesses including paying living wage salaries and earning profits for ownership than at any time in my experience.  Retailers are spending more money on RPG products and are treating RPG products as more central to their success or failure than at any time since the mid '90s.  This is a fantastic time to be an RPG publisher, but the bar in terms of design quality, customer focus, and utility has been raised higher than it has ever been, meaning that the successful products usually represent a level of effort and attention to detail which dwarfs the levels exerted in much of the work done in previous years.  The companies who adpat to these changes will be successful and those who don't won't.

I don't think that any structural force (WizKids, Yu-Gi-Oh, the recession, etc.) is having any positive or negative effect on the RPG market segment.  The ups and downs in the RPG segment caused by publisher choices and customer reaction to those choices far outweighs any impact those external forces might have had.  And I see nothing likely to change that for the foreseeable future.

Ryan


----------



## demon_jr (Oct 12, 2002)

very interesting read  

hopefully, the following will have relevance:

what about computer role-playing games, such as Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights or even non-d20 games such as the Final Fantasy franchise?

do you think the success of these games will have an impact on how well the paper-and-pencil RPG industry will do? from my own experience, i have met many people who have never even heard of Dungeons and Dragons, but love playing Baldur's Gate or games like Final Fantasy.

perhaps the success of computer role-playing games will have a positive effect on the role-playing industry?


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Oct 12, 2002)

demon_jr said:
			
		

> *very interesting read
> 
> hopefully, the following will have relevance:
> 
> ...




Strangely, CRPGs and "Pen and Paper" RPGs really don't appear to alter each other's sales. While some people do play both, a vast majority of computer gamers/console gamers do not bother with DnD. Could the millions of sales of the Baldur's Gate CRPG have driven a few sales of DnD material? Probably, but not enough to really raise eyebrows. 

Now EQ might be slightly different. I am sure that some EverQuest addicts will go out and buy the books. I don't know that it will create "new" gamers, but it should have some nice sales for SSS/WW.

This will seem incredibly bizarre to people on these boards. The vast majority of gamers do not use the internet to look for reviews, gaming supplements, etc. This doesn't mean they don't have computers, it just means they don't use them for their gaming.

I personally think the d20 system and the avenues it has opened up for smaller publishers is fantastic. 

Patrick Lawinger


----------



## National Acrobat (Oct 12, 2002)

Ok, just a few observations on what I perceive to be a great thread. Firstly, I am not a writer or involved in the industry, just a person who has played RPG's since the late 70's. Enthusiastically. Secondly, I am right there with the people who said "I was sticking to 1E when 2E came out."

The one thing that I have noticed about the D20 system is that it has opened up the minds of my gaming group, which started in college and is now 14 or so years together, to trying other genres. Before it was always ADnD. Nothing else. There could be no other games. There were no other styles. Now we rotate between SW D20, CoC D20 and 3E DnD. Plus Spycraft may be something that we try as well. I think the single reason is the mechanics and not having to learn a system.

I myself also play a Sci-Fi Hero System game which I love. Switching between the systems is not a problem for me. 

Lastly, I will agree that there are tons of D20 Products that suck. My local gaming store can't give half of it away. However, the stuff that is good, is really good and the fact that it can be used in any of the games, is really beneficial.

Peace, and those of you in the industry, keep up the good work.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Oct 12, 2002)

Originally posted by Synicism 


> Well... I wonder. there are those designers who have suffered because of d20, especially those who work primarily in other systems. Guys like Steven Long, Shane Hensley, and Steve Jackson come to mind, although even SJG is doing d20 stuff in limited numbers, with their Munchkin stuff. There *are* a lot of real good games out there (Little Fears, Godlike, Ironclaw, to name a few) that just don't get the exposure they might otherwise get, and that's frustrating.




I doubt Steve Long would consider himself harmed by d20 - discounting that it paid his wage for sometime and provides another source of income. d20 has brought many old timers back to the gaming table - many of them fondly remeber Champions. I think, subjectivly that it is one of the 'greyer' games out there. Anything that brings older gamers into the game store helps Hero. 

Relatively, the system is selling like gangbusters. Hero is unlikely to match the sales of stong d20 products, but everyone knew that when they lined up at the gate.


----------



## Kilmore (Oct 12, 2002)

I'd like to get my foot into the door myself.  I think I'll start small, though.  I'm thinking modules because for one thing, it looks like the sourcebook / module ratio is a bit skewed right now.  Does anyone else think that we need to have more adventures available?  

Also, I don't necessarily think that seeing crap emerge with the D20 license is that much of a surprise.  There was crap coming out at all times in the RPG industry.  The percentage may have wavered a bit at times, but it was always there.  I can only hope that I don't buy any, or even more, make any and publish it.


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 12, 2002)

D2o market producing crap? nahhh lol


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 12, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *D2o market producing crap? nahhh lol *




I mean this in a friendly, constructive way, truly, but I've been seeing you post along these lines a lot. While I agree with the basic premise, there is also a lot of good material. Continually posting like this, without adding to the discussion, will eventually cause people to simply ignore your posts. This thread is being posted to by many of the heavy-hitters in the d20 and RPG industry - if you have specific gripes, this is the best place to post them. Throwaway posts like this give nothing to work with discussion-wise. There is a difference between posting criticism and simply trolling. This is just trolling. I'd actually be interested in what you think if it was presented in a well-reasoned way.


----------



## Mr Fidgit (Oct 12, 2002)

Kilmore said:
			
		

> *  Does anyone else think that we need to have more adventures available?*




i would really like to see more options for modules available. i like the idea of mods that would run PCs from levels 1 to 20, but using the WotC mods wouldn't work with my group (too many have played them, heard about them, read them)

i also wouldn't mind seeing sets of these types of mods, each in different regions, or with a different flavor. (like a set of mods based in one large city, etc.)

i know there are some mega-mods out there, but they typically require PCs to be higher than first level. maybe some of those need lead-in mods, to get the PCs to the levels required (?)


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2002)

Mr Fidgit said:
			
		

> *
> 
> i would really like to see more options for modules available. i like the idea of mods that would run PCs from levels 1 to 20, but using the WotC mods wouldn't work with my group (too many have played them, heard about them, read them)
> 
> ...




Actually, I was thinking we need more higher level modules.  But I do like the idea of ones that can be run as a series.  Another interesting thing would be not just low level modules, but modules that are written to be the players very first adventure.  It would be great to study the reasons as to why character begin their life as adventures.  I also imagine thaat after seeing the dangers many would be adventurers would find something safer.  So, you'd need some tangible reward besides treasure to keep the players going.


----------



## Mr Fidgit (Oct 12, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Actually, I was thinking we need more higher level modules.*




epic-type high level?  

i was just thinking most of those mega-mods _are_ high level, or at least end up that way.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2002)

Mr Fidgit said:
			
		

> *
> 
> epic-type high level?
> 
> i was just thinking most of those mega-mods are high level, or at least end up that way. *




I've never been a fan of the mega mods, to much game time spent in one preformed location.  I like to deal with a place and be done, but with those it'll take a while to be done.  

Hopefully, when ELH hits the SRD we will see some truely epic adventures.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 12, 2002)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> *These games most likely get more exposure due to d20, not less. The OGL has expanded the market, which means more people in stores or looking at RPG products than before. These kinds of games never got that much exposure, but the whole open gaming movement was started as a means to increase the population of role playing buyers, which in theory (and practice, I believe) benefits everyone.*




I'm not sure about this. A store only has so much shelf space, and they gotta get stuff from distributors. So there's a limit to what they can stock. While there is a lot of good d20 stuff out there, from folks like Kenzer, FFG, & Green Ronin, to name a few, there is an awful lot of crap that winds up on shelves because it has the little d20 logo.

A lot of games that I used to see just don't even make it to shelves anymore.

I don't really think the d20 segment is to blame for it. It's popular sure, but I think it's partly the fault of distributors for snatching up anything d20 and tossing it out there no matter how bad it is.

I also gotta admit - there is an awful lot of overlap. The WotC splatbooks, the FFG White Books, The Quintessential Whatever...


----------



## William Ronald (Oct 12, 2002)

Overall, I think D20 is doing a lot of good for our hobby.

Traditionally, one of the biggest gripes that people in my gaming group had was having to learn a new rules system for a new game.  Having common elements helps, and has proven successful for other companies.  (White Wolf has its Storyteller system.)

I have seen many D20 products that I liked.  Nyambe was cited as an example of an innovative product.  There are a lot of good products, including those written by established writers.  (Such as E. Gary Gygax and Necropolis.)

I suspect the companies that make quality products will do well.  Some others will likely vanish.  Overall, I think our hobby is doing a lot better than the mid 1990s.  (My fear was that a few friends and I would be using a battered copy of the 2nd Edition Player's handbook in our retirement years.)

Does anyone have an idea of how many gamers are out there comapred with the boom of the 1980s and the  bust of the 1990s?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> I also gotta admit - there is an awful lot of overlap. The WotC splatbooks, the FFG White Books, The Quintessential Whatever... *




First off, I'm a sucker for class books, so I have them all.  And I've been pleasently surprised to find out how very little overlap there is.  I've found that I can use all three fighter classbooks for instance with the same character.  Each book while focusing on a fighter, does take a fighter in a different direction.  So, I'm for overlap of topics since they are being well done and work together.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 12, 2002)

*I'm concerned about d20*

I don't make any living off of RPGs but I've been an avid player for about 15 years now.  That doesn't make me an expert on the game industry and I won't make any such claims.  I'll just go ahead and say what I feel about d20 as a consumer.  

First the positive.  I like the d20 system and in specific D&D.  Since the release of 3E I've seen more new players then I did in the 90's, I've seen a wider variety of fantasy settings and products, and I've seen more new companies then I can shake a stick at.  

Now the negative.  I have no doubt that there are designers out there who dislike the d20 system nor do I think that the dislike stems from sour grapes.  When Deadlands and L5R were adapted to the d20 system they became fundamentally different games.  As I said I do like d20 but I do not like it for every game.  

I think in some ways the d20 system is a step backwards in game design.  For years designers had been moving away from strict class based character design.  Deadlands, L5R, GURPs, and White Wolf all included character generation rules that gave players a lot of options right out of the box.  In some ways D&D character creation seems to be more about what you can't do then what you can do and I've heard a lot of complains among players and DMs about it.  I know some of you might say "The rules don't really matter it is how you play."  The G in RPG stands for game so I think the rules are fairly important.  

I've never heard a retailer complain about d20.  I don't think they really care so long as they make money.   I hope d20 continues to do well in the future but at the same time I hope they continue to come out with other systems.

Marc


----------



## Synicism (Oct 12, 2002)

NLP said:
			
		

> *I am not sure where you get your information about Steve Long and DOJ/Hero Games but neither Steve or his company have "suffered". Both Steve and Darren Watts (DOJ's President) have remarked how well their HERO System products have been received. Many of those products are in third or fourth printing now.*




I mentioned Steve Long because he (1) runs a game company, (2) doesn't do d20 stuff, and (3) makes his livelihood this way. He's also a friend of mine.

I never mean to assert that his company was doing poorly. And I'm thrilled to see HERO doing so well. It's a great game.

However, is Steve the exception rather than the rule?


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 12, 2002)

Mr Fidgit said:
			
		

> *
> 
> i would really like to see more options for modules available. i like the idea of mods that would run PCs from levels 1 to 20, but using the WotC mods wouldn't work with my group (too many have played them, heard about them, read them)
> *



In a previous thread last year, I talked about what I would like to see in a $100 product. The pre-built campaign was the concept I had in mind, complete with reoccuring NPCs, NPC illustrations, and modular pieces the DM can pull in and out as needed, as well as a "level map" indicating where the PCs should be at each stage.

The conventional wisdom is that adventures don't sell as well as crunch stuff or source books, since they can at most, sell to 1 DM per group. However, as a DM, adventures are the one item I'm willing to shell out money for: one reason why games like Spycraft won't get run as often as D&D is that while a subscription to Dungeon will allow me to run a campaign all by itself, I'd have to do a whole lot of work to run a Spycraft game, since the adventure support simply isn't there! For those of us with little time, a pre-built campaign would be a life-saver.

I'd like to see the d20 industry push the limits of adventure/campaign design, and get a commesurate reward for it. New companies won't be able to take this kind of risk, but I suspect many of the bigger design houses can.


----------



## Griswold (Oct 12, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *By the way, if you stick around long enough you'll see I'm not a d20 snob - I like it a lot, sure. But just watch me defend HackMaster some time. I did that a lot back when it came out. *




Hehe, the Col. here was gushing forth praise about HM awhile backed when I inquired about it, thought I might need a bucket, BTW I picked up the PH, good stuff! 




> _Originally posted by  Mr Fidgit_
> *i would really like to see more options for modules available*




You know I had not thought about it until recently, when I was going through my 1st and 2nd edition stuff, that there do not seem to be near the amount of adventures availalbe for d20 as there were for the other editions. Now this is just going by what i see in my "FLGS". There do seem to be a cornicopia of "flavor" books out though.


Gris.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 12, 2002)

I'd love to see a mega-adventure with props and everything. Not just paper hand-outs, either. I mean actual props. Chaosium once polled people if they'd buy a $100+ adventure if it included physical, prop "artifacts" - you know, small idols, elder signs, etc. This was many years ago, and I think what actually resulted was the "Orient Express" boxed adventure that eventually came out.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 12, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *First off, I'm a sucker for class books, so I have them all.  And I've been pleasently surprised to find out how very little overlap there is.  I've found that I can use all three fighter classbooks for instance with the same character.  Each book while focusing on a fighter, does take a fighter in a different direction.  So, I'm for overlap of topics since they are being well done and work together. *




Well, they're not ALL well done.

I'm sure crunch sells an awful lot of books, but geez... how many do you possibly need?

I have no idea how many feat-chains, prestige-classes, and other random bits of crunch I have to represent the different ways a character can make another character die. In all honestly, I've rarely every used more than a tiny fraction of them, mainly because there isn't enough room on the sheets, nor do I have time to go through and make sure something doesn't suck.

Just an observation based on an actual gaming experience that came from using the same game world (Kalamar) with two different systems (GURPS and D&D3). We ran the entire GURPS game on four books: GURPS Basic, Compendium I, Magic, and Martial Arts, plus the Kalamar sourcebook.

The D&D version had the PhB, DmG, MM, five Splatbooks, two FFG white books, random selections from the FRCS, Magic of Faerun, and Oriental Adventures, plus selections from the Manual of the Planes, Freeport: City of Adventure, AND the Kalamar Player's Guide.

Is it just me, or does d20 create a hoarding instinct to go out and get every last thing out there so that we can have a zillion different options to spice up the vanilla?

How many prestige classes can we possibly need?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2002)

*Re: I'm concerned about d20*



			
				MGibster said:
			
		

> *I think in some ways the d20 system is a step backwards in game design.  For years designers had been moving away from strict class based character design.  Deadlands, L5R, GURPs, and White Wolf all included character generation rules that gave players a lot of options right out of the box.  In some ways D&D character creation seems to be more about what you can't do then what you can do and I've heard a lot of complains among players and DMs about it.  I know some of you might say "The rules don't really matter it is how you play."  The G in RPG stands for game so I think the rules are fairly important.
> *




The rules are very important.  They are the foundation, and they are no so interchangible as one might think.  Rules make certain assumptions along the base line, so switch rules sets does change the game in some way.  However, I think we will see classless d20 at some point.  I and other people have created homebrew systems, so I know it can work.  The skills point system and the feat system are already in place, and that greatly helps a classless system.  Also, CoC d20 is classless.  A level less system is more difficult, but we already see steps taking us towards that.  There are products that allow one to spend experince points to gain abilities.  That idea can be expanded upon until all the abilities gained with levels are bought with experience.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *Is it just me, or does d20 create a hoarding instinct to go out and get every last thing out there so that we can have a zillion different options to spice up the vanilla?
> 
> How many prestige classes can we possibly need? *




It's not need, it's want.  There are people who play D&D with just the core rules, I know more then a few.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: I'm concerned about d20*



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> *snip*  A level less system is more difficult, but we already see steps taking us towards that.  There are products that allow one to spend experince points to gain abilities.  That idea can be expanded upon until all the abilities gained with levels are bought with experience. *




I like the Earthdawn paradigm where you spend experience to gain the things that let you know you've gone up a level.  Then new options open up for you to spend more experience on.


----------



## satori01 (Oct 12, 2002)

While it seems this topic has been turned into a personal discussion by the "usual suspects"(sorry just saw Casablanca had to use it) I have a couple of questions about aspects of RPG business aspects from those in the know?

1) What are the Gross Maragins for retailers when it comes to RPG Products.  I'm sure this varies per Producer but what is a general precentage?  On the same thread what is the general Gross Maragin for books in general, and does this vary from RPG products?

2) Do the bulk of RPG sales come from small independents or from the major book chains,(Barnes and Nobles/ Borders).

3) If the bulk of sales comes from the large book chains:

3a) How much autonomy do the stores have in ordering?
Do the stores place their orders directly with the producing companies? Is it through Distributors?  Do these large companies place their orders in bulk and then ship requested quantities out to individual stores,(ie central warehousing and automated Purchase Order creation )?

3B) How strict is inventory/sales ratio and OBO calculations?
My general observation is pretty strict as I have seen many Major chain bookstores with old,(sometimes even 1e items) on the shelves (without discount clearance often times) well past the time one can expect to sell it.

4) Chris refrenced how novelty plays a large factor in the 'saleability" of a product, in a hobby industry like RPG do stores factor more for novelty than sales trend.  Are sales trend models for RPGs a steep spike,(initial large sales boost followed by quick decline)?


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Oct 12, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *I'd love to see a mega-adventure with props and everything. Not just paper hand-outs, either. I mean actual props. Chaosium once polled people if they'd buy a $100+ adventure if it included physical, prop "artifacts" - you know, small idols, elder signs, etc. This was many years ago, and I think what actually resulted was the "Orient Express" boxed adventure that eventually came out. *




I don't know about Orient Express, but I do remember the James Bond modules from the early 80s.  They were great.  They had handouts for the players that included "photos" of the bad guys, that sort of thing.

I would love to see a module that came with 1" grids of locations, so I could just lay them on the table, and the counters for such encounters.

Duncan


----------



## Umbran (Oct 12, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure about this. A store only has so much shelf space, and they gotta get stuff from distributors. So there's a limit to what they can stock. *




Actually, I expect there's more to it than that.  Not only is there a limit to what they can stock, there's limits on what they will try to stock.

It seems to me that d20Dwarf's position has as a base assumption the idea that retailers and the buying public are well-educated and aware.  I expect that's a bit naive.

The "trickle down" effect is limited by knowledge.  If the guy ordering for the bookstore doesn't know much, his ordering practices wil be affected.  And the buyers won't buy it if it isn't on the shelf.  The buyer doesn't seek out games or products he's never heard of...

_Godlike_ may be a good example.  It looks like a great game.  But if I didn't come here, I'd have never heard of it.  I've only ever seen copies of the core rulebook for the game for sale, and neither was in a "mass market" bookstore.  The fact that there's more money being spent on d20 stuff isn't going to help a game like _Godlike_ if nobody ever hears about it...

We here at EN World are spoiled by the amount of information we recieve.  We occasionally forget that we are a few thousand people out of millions of gamers.  Our knowledge of what exists is far beyond the norm.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 12, 2002)

This thread is superb. I'm going to take the rare step of deleting the bickering, since you guys worked it out and it's off topic.


----------



## Mr Fidgit (Oct 12, 2002)

satori01 said:
			
		

> *sorry just saw Casablanca had to use it) *




i'd never blame you for that! 

Captain Louis Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! 

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.    


i can't speak about the industry from an insider's or store owner's point of view, i'm just a consumer. 

Thorin & ColonelHardisson - a $100 mod/mega-mod/campaign is actually something i'd consider buying, as long as it was 'all inclusive'. (as in - you'd need nothing else but the core books to run.) oh, and i'm also a sucker for props  .

(an aside -- that's why i love the (original) Deadlands game. it's a game with built in props, you have to love that!)

Duncan - i still have a bunch of those James Bond mods!

the only other things i may consider buying are books detailing a new setting, but they would _really_ have to capture my imagination. so far, none have.

(aside 2 -- as mentioned earlier in the thread, the d20 Deadlands _was_ a cop-out. i wonder if Hensley was as 'concerned' about Magic and the other CCGs before Doomtown (deadlands CCG) was released? he mentions WizKids alot in that interview...)


----------



## Corinth (Oct 12, 2002)

I see D20 as a godsend to gaming.  Millions of gamers who'd never set foot outside of fantasy how explore over genres that support adventuring, and companies arise to meet this demand.  Stores that stock D20 do well, and companies that publish D20 do likewise (usually).  So what if the non-D20 stuff gets crowded out?  It's not like D20 can't do it all; it can, and soon enough it will.  When the day comes that there is nothing but D20, I'll break out the good stuff and celebrate.  Why?  Because it means that I will never again despair for finding players to play what I want- a conumdrum I've dealt with far too often in my 21 years in gaming.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Oct 12, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It seems to me that d20Dwarf's position has as a base assumption the idea that retailers and the buying public are well-educated and aware.  I expect that's a bit naive.
> *




I see the market from the manufacturer's side every day, and I'm quite aware of the challenges we have as producers to get our products into the hands of D&D players. I'm not sure what you are basing your assumption on, but you are attributing things to me that I have never said. Perhaps you confused someone else's post with mine.

I don't think we would see a marked change in what consumers buy even if every game produced had 100% exposure. Of course fans of niche products like to believe otherwise.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 12, 2002)

Corinth said:
			
		

> *I see D20 as a godsend to gaming.  Millions of gamers who'd never set foot outside of fantasy how explore over genres that support adventuring, and companies arise to meet this demand.
> *





The vast majority of d20 products are geared towards the fantasy market.  I know there are more modern settings such as Call of Cthulhu, Deadlands, Star Wars. and Spycraft but the majority of gamers I come into contact with stick with fantasy settings like Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Living Erde (sp?), or Rokugan.  Maybe that's just the way it is in my area.  



> *
> Stores that stock D20 do well, and companies that publish D20 do likewise (usually).  So what if the non-D20 stuff gets crowded out?  It's not like D20 can't do it all; it can, and soon enough it will.
> *





I don't wish for any business to go down but I don't think the d20 glut will last forever.  Nor do I think that d20 can do it all.  As I said earlier d20 Rokugan was a radically different game then the orginal L5R rules.  (Whether you hated the original rules or not isn't the point.)  



> *
> When the day comes that there is nothing but D20, I'll break out the good stuff and celebrate.  Why?  Because it means that I will never again despair for finding players to play what I want- a conumdrum I've dealt with far too often in my 21 years in gaming. *




Until d20 came out I never had difficulty getting people to try new games.  There are many new gamers and even some old timers who refuse to play anything that isn't d20.  I like d20 but I just don't think it is all that great for every game.  I really dont' think it would have gained any popularity if it weren't released as the D&D rules.  

Marc


----------



## Buttercup (Oct 12, 2002)

Mr Fidgit said:
			
		

> *Thorin & ColonelHardisson - a $100 mod/mega-mod/campaign is actually something i'd consider buying, as long as it was 'all inclusive'. (as in - you'd need nothing else but the core books to run.) *




Yeah, I'd buy such a package in a heartbeat.  If it really did have everything you would need (except the core books) to take your party from level 1-20, or maybe even just 1-10, then it would be well worth it to me.  By 'everything' I mean all maps and other handouts for players & DM, all NPCs complete with illustrations, floorplans for shops, and random, scalable encounters, all the monster tokens needed, all of the adventure booklets, and possibly a few props.  Wrap it up in an attractive box, and it would be worth every penny.

Now I'll just go back to lurking in this fascinating thread.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 12, 2002)

MGibster said:
			
		

> *I like d20 but I just don't think it is all that great for every game.  I really dont' think it would have gained any popularity if it weren't released as the D&D rules.  *




Awww, I disagree. It is a good system. Granted, it wouldn't have done as well without some brand recognition, but if it were released, say, as the FALLOUT rpg it would have done just fine. I certainly wouldn't say it wouldn't have gained "any popularity;" if it suffered at all, it would be on account of the state of the industry-- which, prior to d20, was pretty crappy.

Let me put that another way... Released under any other license (or none at all) it might not have done as well, but I still think it would have done well and received recognition as a good RPG system. An awful lot of painstaking research and design from some top game designers went into the making of d20. Don't discount that.


Wulf


----------



## Xeriar (Oct 12, 2002)

Corinth said:
			
		

> *I see D20 as a godsend to gaming.  Millions of gamers who'd never set foot outside of fantasy how explore over genres that support adventuring, and companies arise to meet this demand.  Stores that stock D20 do well, and companies that publish D20 do likewise (usually).  So what if the non-D20 stuff gets crowded out?  It's not like D20 can't do it all; it can, and soon enough it will.  When the day comes that there is nothing but D20, I'll break out the good stuff and celebrate.  Why?  Because it means that I will never again despair for finding players to play what I want- a conumdrum I've dealt with far too often in my 21 years in gaming. *




That, fortunately, will never happen.  I know many people who have varying degrees of hate for WotC.  Some won't play anything that isn't Storyteller, others won't play anything made by TSR/WotC, and by extension d20.  It's a quarter of the D&D market, but that's still sizeable.

It has something to do with the systems themselves, you expect a system set in modern times, or the future, to have a grittier feel, 'hit points', 'levels' and 'base attack bonus' don't conjure up the same feeling.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 12, 2002)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *That, fortunately, will never happen.  I know many people who have varying degrees of hate for WotC.  Some won't play anything that isn't Storyteller... *




I think I know these guys. We're talking about those herds of non-conformists, right?


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 12, 2002)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That, fortunately, will never happen.  I know many people who have varying degrees of hate for WotC.  Some won't play anything that isn't Storyteller, others won't play anything made by TSR/WotC, and by extension d20.  It's a quarter of the D&D market, but that's still sizeable.
> 
> It has something to do with the systems themselves, you expect a system set in modern times, or the future, to have a grittier feel, 'hit points', 'levels' and 'base attack bonus' don't conjure up the same feeling. *




Which is of course BS. Show me any real movement towards the above as a matter of preference for most rpg consumers. As many have pointed out, it was the creator driven fad towards the 'grittier' point-based systems you noted above when rpg sales were at a low-point. Of course, such an argument rarely relies on reason, instead throughing loaded, yet vague terms such as 'modern' and 'advanced' without specifing how such systems are progressive in the first place. d20 does exactly what most consumers want...it supports rp 'fluff' while also providing a varied, balanced 'gamist' pardigm; its advanced in that regard.

Please, argue that point...i need a good laugh.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think I know these guys. We're talking about those herds of non-conformists, right? *




No, just stubborn.  Just as stubborn as the people who will play only d20 and nothing else.


----------



## Sulimo (Oct 12, 2002)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *That, fortunately, will never happen. *




Yeah. I dont know what I'd do if it happened. I'd have more cash in my pocket thats for sure. Personally, I love using a variety of systems. Using one all the time tends to bore me. And I rather disagree with the notion that one system can fit all genres. 

*



			I know many people who have varying degrees of hate for WotC.  Some won't play anything that isn't Storyteller, others won't play anything made by TSR/WotC, and by extension d20.  It's a quarter of the D&D market, but that's still sizeable.
		
Click to expand...


*
Yeah. I have one such player in my group. A huge GURPS fanatic, who dislikes D&D with a passion...couldnt even convince him to try 3e. Its one onf the reasons I havent played much 3e.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Oct 13, 2002)

> I mentioned Steve Long because he (1) runs a game company, (2) doesn't do d20 stuff, and (3) makes his livelihood this way. He's also a friend of mine.




Wheel of Time


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2002)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> * I'm not sure what you are basing your assumption on, but you are attributing things to me that I have never said. Perhaps you confused someone else's post with mine.*




I'm responding to something you did say.  Perhaps I am misreading you.  Back on page one of this thread, you said:



			
				d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> * These games most likely get more exposure due to d20, not less. The OGL has expanded the market, which means more people in stores or looking at RPG products than before. These kinds of games never got that much exposure, but the whole open gaming movement was started as a means to increase the population of role playing buyers, which in theory (and practice, I believe) benefits everyone.*




This is "trickle down" exposure, and as I stated above I'm not convinced that it necessarily works.  My experience with consumers (my friends and I going to stores, talking with people about shopping habits) suggests that merely being next to the thing that's getting bought isn't effective advertising.  

Now you say:



> *
> I don't think we would see a marked change in what consumers buy even if every game produced had 100% exposure. Of course fans of niche products like to believe otherwise. *




This seems to contradict your earlier posting.  D20 sales help other games by increasing exposure, but increasing exposure doesn't change anything?  Huh?


----------



## Synicism (Oct 13, 2002)

Corinth said:
			
		

> *I see D20 as a godsend to gaming.  Millions of gamers who'd never set foot outside of fantasy how explore over genres that support adventuring, and companies arise to meet this demand.  Stores that stock D20 do well, and companies that publish D20 do likewise (usually).  So what if the non-D20 stuff gets crowded out?  It's not like D20 can't do it all; it can, and soon enough it will.  When the day comes that there is nothing but D20, I'll break out the good stuff and celebrate.  Why?  Because it means that I will never again despair for finding players to play what I want- a conumdrum I've dealt with far too often in my 21 years in gaming. *




If this is a troll, isn't it a bit late in the thread to start?

If it's not... does that make d20 the Microsoft Windows of the RPG world?


----------



## Sulimo (Oct 13, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If this is a troll, isn't it a bit late in the thread to start?
> 
> If it's not... does that make d20 the Microsoft Windows of the RPG world? *




I thought it was quite some time ago. And wasnt that the plan, to leverage 3e and the brand awareness of D&D to drive all the competing RPG systems out of business.


----------



## mearls (Oct 13, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *This seems to contradict your earlier posting.  D20 sales help other games by increasing exposure, but increasing exposure doesn't change anything?  Huh? *




You're assuming that the problem with games that don't sell well is that nobody has heard of them. I don't think that's the case. I think games that don't sell well have that problem because no one wants to buy them.

Most people in the United States have heard of Gary, Indiana or East St. Louis, but that doesn't mean they want to go there. Knowing about something does not mean much in terms of consumer buying patterns if a product isn't saleable on its own merits.


----------



## mearls (Oct 13, 2002)

Pramas said:
			
		

> *Old pros might be a bit jealous of new companies making lots of money, but the resentment comes from something else. Talented people who have worked hard and barely made ends meet get resentful when companies with products that SUCK become successful. And yes, it's d20 that made that possible. There are any number of companies who wouldn't have lasted beyond their first product if not for the d20 logo. *




I hear this a lot too, that d20 has produced a mountain of garbage products. Funny thing is, everyone I talk to has a different list of awful products.

I can only think of one company, the guys who did the truly, truly awful Foundation, that consistently made utter crap. And they don't produce d20 products anymore AFAIK.

I thought Avalanche's first book, Last Days of Constantinople, was truly horrible. But then again, they've cleaned up their act if the reviews I've read and comments I've heard are to be believed. Then again, LDoC was nominated for an Origins Award, so maybe I just don't know anything about d20 design.

The truth is, there is no one single company that's producing universally terrible products. From what I've seen, every company on the market has produced its share of clunkers.

And as far as resentment goes, last time I checked nobody stopped anyone from pushing a d20 product out the door early in the game. If people wanted to sit on their hands and let other people make money, well, that's their problem. Fortune favors the bold.


----------



## PEGShane (Oct 13, 2002)

Hi all,

First off, thanks for making this a truly constructive forum. I haven't seen any major trolling or flaming here, so I'm happy to participate, and sincerely thank everyone for their input!

Now on to some specific issues.

Let me start by reminding everyone that in my State of the Industry message (which was originally delivered only to Pinnacle's fans on our listservs), I did not bash D20 nor D20 publishers (and remember, I am one and happy for it!)

Second, I also said that those companies who do great books, such as Green Ronin, Fantasy Flight, Atlas, and many, many others are A) doing well with D20 and B) will continue to do well with D20. I agree with Ryan Dancey 100% that those books that are full of good crunchy bits will continue to do spectacularly. Non D20 books written in the same vein will not do as well--with a few rare exceptions--but (of course) also benefit greatly from ensuring their content is good and crunchy.

Steve Long and Hero games are a perfect example of the latter. The Hero system is nothing but crunchy, and has sold *incredibly* well. So hats off to Steve!

Now let me address a few of the comments directed at me by Mike Mearls:

>>For the past 2 years, we've been hearing about the d20 glut and how any day now there's going to be a massive culling of the companies that produce d20 material.

I said there was a glut (I didn't say there would be a massive culling of companies abandoning D20--though I think many will switch to OGL instead of D20 specifically so that they can better tailor the system to their lines and include rules for character creation.) A subtle but important difference.

As to the glut, it's simple math. *Publisher X's* game will sell better if it is one of 10 products on a shelf than if it is one of 100.

>>Over that time, we have seen *one* major company get out of d20: PEG. And even that decisions seems more driven by unhappiness with working with d20 than sales issues. (It's also worth noting that, IN MY OPINION, Deadlands is at the end of its product lifecycle. I wouldn't be surprised if after the splat books for DL d20 were released PEG stopped producing major supplements for it.)

My own experience with both Weird Wars and Deadlands D20 has been that we got a lot of new people to look at our lines because we did D20 (Weird Wars) or D20 versions (Deadlands/Hell on Earth/Lost Colony). We angered a *huge* portion of our core Deadlands audience because I personally did a very poor job of communicating that we weren't switching our system, we were just offering a D20 version, and all sourcebooks after that would be dual-statted. This occurred for many reasons, mostly because of our notorious split with our former buyer. 'Nuff said on that--I'll take full responsibility for not getting the word out very well.

Both DL D20 and Weird Wars did quite well, selling what *most* D20 publishers sold of their stuff, which is right in line with what we sold of our standard DL classic, Hell on Earth, and Brave New World lines before. While that sounds fine, I had hoped that D20 versions of our games would sell closer to the numbers done by a few breakout products, like Atlas' Penumbra series or Green Ronin's Freeport books. Perhaps an unrealistic expectation given hindsight, but considering that Deadlands often ranked in the top 10 best-selling games (Comis Retailer Magazine), it seemed that a cool campaign book *should* sell as much as an adventure (which traditionally sell much less than a sourcebook). That didn't happen. Again, and I don't want to be misquoted here as I was on another board a year ago, but those products *did* sell well--but only as well as any standard sourcebook we release these days.

Is it D20's "fault" that we didn't sell above our standard levels? Let me answer with some observations I've made from thousands of emails and discussions on our boards over the last two years (not from any real marketing surveys which I have no means to complete).

First, Deadlands' appeal is about half how much our fans like the setting, and about half how much they like the system. *Our* fans love the poker chips and cards aspect, the openness of character creation, and all the other bells and whistles preferred by those who don't generally like classes, levels, and hit points.

Second, Weird Wars gamers are generally older men who have a couple of 20th century military history books on their shelves. They "graduated" from classes, levels, and hit points years ago and don't care for D20. Many of them were *very* disappointed (and said so quite vocally!) that we had decided to use D20 for WW. They find the idea of hit points appalling because they think you can get hit with a tank round and survive, and they find the prep work needed to run D20 daunting because they have 60 hour a week jobs, kids, etc.

So *my* personal opinion is that Pinnacle's fans *are* mostly those who would prefer to play something besides D20, and that fan base is more than enough to sustain my company and do quite well. I'll continue to dual-stat Deadlands for those who prefer D20 (or more often, can only get their group to play if it's D20), and will do so happily and with the absolute best effort I and my freelancers can put forth.

Mike also said that we'll quit publishing DL D20 books after the last splat book, Way of the Righteous. That was always the plan. We did the core rulebook, the monster book, and each class book. What else is there? Everything else is dual-statted along with the classic material in books like Lone Stars, Great Weird North, and even the newest "world" expansion, Lost Colony.

From all this, my *personal* conclusion is that:

1)  If you got into D20 early, did fantasy to attract the D&D folks looking for more material in that crucial first year, your book didn't completely stink, and you've graduated into more crunchy material, you'll continue do just fine with D20. Atlas and Green Ronin are perfect examples here.

2) If you got into D20 later but did a truly outstanding (and most likely hardback) book *filled* with crunchy bits, you'll continue to do just fine. FFG fills this slot in my mind.

WOTC, of course, will also continue to do just fine.

More interesting to me personally is the recent trend by Green Ronin and White Wolf with Everquest, in using the OGL but not D20, to make their games. This allows the publisher to keep the same core rules so that everyone knows how to play, but tinker with the system enough to better reflect their game world. One can certainly argue on either side--that this reflects the success of D20 or its failure. I'll leave you to your own decision there. My opinion is that it's a sign of its success for now, but may indicate you no longer need a PHB down the line (you don't need any WOTC book to play White Wolf's Everquest, for example).

>>don't trust any comment that's made about how distributors and retailers are angry about lame d20 products. As far as I can see, those same enraged retailers who are desperate for anything non-d20 are still ordered d20 materials en masse and selling them at a steady rate, a much better rate than RPG material for anything short of White Wolf's World of Darkness lines.

They do continue to sell at a steady rate--at least for those top tier publishers. Never said they didn't. But as you know Mike, a mutual friend of ours welll known to this list, and owner of one of the companies I've mentioned above, lamented on the private Delphi forums how preorders for his last book (a beautiful, D20 hardback) were far below what he'd expected. Every retailer he talked to had told him they wanted something new, and he gave it to them. But they still sold far more books on elves and dwarves than they did his.

As recently as Friday, the owner of Gameboard told me how much all of his retailers complained about new D20 products. But again, that's all that's selling right now.

Let's examine that a bit. If retailers are sick of D20, but that's all that's selling, there could be several things going on:

A) Retailers are (mostly) gamers like the rest of us, and have their opinions which they voice incessantly.  But D20 sells, so that's what they buy. End of story.

B) D20 is about all there is right now besides GURPs and Hero. But GURPs and Hero are experiencing great sales spikes right now.

Again, draw your own conclusions. I don't have the answer, but if you doubt the truth of my comments, ask around.

>>This goes double for all the alleged designers who don't like d20. There might be some out there, but there are plenty of us who enjoy tinkering with, reading, and *gasp* playing the game. The comment strikes me as sour grapes more than anything else. I can't relate, since D&D has always been my favorite RPG, but I can see how it would be frustrating if I, for example, had to do all my design work in Rolemaster, GURPS, or some other system that I don't prefer.

No offense Mike, but I know lots of folks and talk to them often, and this *is* the general opinion. Someone said that perhaps I simply have friends who are all anti-D20. My personal gaming group is much that way and I'll freely admit it, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the heads of major companies. Again, I won't name anyone because it may hurt their business, and it's really not important anyway. Most of them aren't involved in the actual creation of material anyway--they dictate it to talented freelancers like you who *do* enjoy the material, and put their absolute best efforts forward to make a beautiful, professional product.

And someone on RPG.NET said it best. If Game Designer X has been pimping his system for years, it's probably because he believes it's a better system. Let's face it--how many game companies got started as "here's a better D&D." *Of course* he isn't going to prefer D20 over his house system.

I *didn't* start PEG for that reason, btw. I started it because a Brom painting wouldn't get out of my head.  And I don't believe the DL system is perfect or even necessarily better than D20. I do think it's better for *our* game.

>>d20 is here to stay. It's fate is chained to the fate of D&D. If d20 dries up, that means the entire RPG hobby is heading down the tubes. From what I've seen, sales are doing fine. I don't think RPGs will ever again reach the fad level of sales they hit in early 80s, but the industry is far, far healthier now than it was in the period from 1993 - 1999.

Of course it's here to stay and I never said otherwise. I think there will also be a fairly significant non-D20 market as well, such as GURPs, Hero, and perhaps my own upcoming Savage Worlds.


Again, this is a good discussion, and much appreciated ! The one thing I would hope we can all avoid is to *not* turn this into a D20 versus anti-D20 discussion--that is best left to another thread. This is simply a discussion about D20 and its impact on game publishers.

Let me sum up *my opinions* so that I'm not misunderstood, then I'll shut up and save the bandwidth. 

A) There is a D20 "glut," by simple virtue of so many products competing for shelf space. It's simple math.

B) D20 isn't a big draw for Pinnacle's fans, and I haven't proactively attempted to change that, nor will I.

C) I haven't bashed D20, WOTC, the OGL, or Ryan Dancey (who is a personal friend and I think an absolute genius). I think that it absolutely did what it set out to do, and did it well.

D) I believe that Point C had an adverse effect on the middle tier of game companies that didn't immediately jump in with D20 fantasy products. Now that the first wave has really settled, there are opportunities to do other things. GURPs and Hero will continue to thrive, and maybe my own Savage Worlds will do just as well as Deadlands, Deadlands D20, and Weird Wars, which is just fine by me!

Whew. That's all.  Sorry for the long post, gang!

Sincerely,


Shane Hensley
Pinnacle Entertainment Group


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 13, 2002)

Couldn't there have been a way to incorporate cards and poker chips in Deadlands d20? I love that book, and the Horrors o' the Weird West, but I was disappointed that the two elements you mention weren't included in the d20 version. I don't see why a way to do it couldn't have been found.


----------



## PEGShane (Oct 13, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Couldn't there have been a way to incorporate cards and poker chips in Deadlands d20? I love that book, and the Horrors o' the Weird West, but I was disappointed that the two elements you mention weren't included in the d20 version. I don't see why a way to do it couldn't have been found. *




Chips are in there.

We didn't think the average D20 player would want cards. For those who do, it's in the upcoming Epitaph #4, as well as Edges & Hindrances.

Thanks!

Shane


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 13, 2002)

The impression i get from deadlands is that it was a pretty poor conversion, misreading what the strengths of d20 were and thus not modifying what needed mods; then the designers turned around and stated that ANY modification would be distasteful to the public.

By the way shane, i don't think you truly understand what a 'glut' is. If the average returns on a d20 supplement are no higher than non-d20, that is what is suppossed to happen in an efficient market; individual producers might not see great profit, but the AGGREGATE number of d20 product will still comprise a dominant portion of the rpg market. That is not a glut, and does not speak to the long-term future of d20, just individual producers. A 'glut' would imply that returns have dipped either below the oppurtunity cost of producing a non-d20 supplement. The numbers don't 'speak for themselves', because economic reality is one of relative benefit, not some absolute watermark.

In conclusion, perhaps you should stop posing sentiment as economics. Quite frankly, telling me that i should give a damn about the preferences of producers comes off as banal and egotistical. Please don't cover your bias with the facade of reason.


----------



## hellbender (Oct 13, 2002)

glut   Pronunciation Key  (glt)
v. glut·ted, glut·ting, gluts 
v. tr.
1.To fill beyond capacity, especially with food; satiate. 
2.To flood (a market) with an excess of goods so that supply exceeds demand. 

    From the definition, I have seen some store shelves that you can easily apply the word glut to. Looks like Shane actually does know what he is talking about. 

hellbender


----------



## Pramas (Oct 13, 2002)

mearls said:
			
		

> *The truth is, there is no one single company that's producing universally terrible products.*




I didn't say that there was. I said there are many companies who never would have gotten beyond their first product if not for the d20 logo. 

*



			From what I've seen, every company on the market has produced its share of clunkers.
		
Click to expand...


*
It's the nature of publishing, and also not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about companies who became successfull selling crappy product and how that caused resentment in some pros who had been around. 

Have some of those companies gotten better? Sure they have, but what the d20 logo allowed in the first year was the continued existence of companies that would have traditionally been weeded out by market forces.  

*



			And as far as resentment goes, last time I checked nobody stopped anyone from pushing a d20 product out the door early in the game. If people wanted to sit on their hands and let other people make money, well, that's their problem. Fortune favors the bold.
		
Click to expand...


*
I would not characterize working on non-d20 games as "sitting on your hands". Some game designers, as Shane notes, don't like d20. I would rather see game designers with no passion for d20 stay out of it than see completely mercenary projects.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 13, 2002)

Please...i want aggregates. I want to see the proportion of unsold versus sold d20 products versus the equivilant non d20 figure. Then come talk to me. Shane was alluding to numbers telling me the whole story. I want a relevant breakdown of those number with a critical eye.

Pramas, i have difficulty seeing the 'passion' in products. What i do see is balanced mechanics that i'm likely to use. Like shane, your argument is irrational. 

And as to poor products surviving, why do you have trouble appreciating that they were valid products simply by virtue of being d20. Usability counts for as much as your creative sentiment of 'quality'.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2002)

mearls said:
			
		

> *You're assuming that the problem with games that don't sell well is that nobody has heard of them. I don't think that's the case. I think games that don't sell well have that problem because no one wants to buy them.
> *




Huh? 

In what you quoted, I was trying to get d20Dwarf to clarify.  It seems to me he'd said:

1) d20 helps smaller games, by incresing overall exposure.
2) increasing exposure woudn't change what's sold.

This seems to entail a fundamental problem of logic. If statement 2 is true, statment 1 cannot betrue, and vice versa.  I was asking d20dwarf to untangle this apparent inconsistency.  

Where do my assumptions come into it?


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 13, 2002)

PEGShane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Chips are in there.
> 
> ...




Yes, I forgot that. But the chips aren't as prominent in the d20 version as in the original.


----------



## hellbender (Oct 13, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Please...i want aggregates. I want to see the proportion of unsold versus sold d20 products versus the equivilant non d20 figure. Then come talk to me. Shane was alluding to numbers telling me the whole story. I want a relevant breakdown of those number with a critical eye.
> 
> *




   That will never happen. There is no way to get an accurate and total breakdown of those numbers, as you are talking multiple companies in multiple countries. Not to mention the fact that there is no fair distributionary edicts that cover the market. Why ask for something that you know is not possible? The best you can hope for is to create a microcosm study, which will still be inaccurate, but might still allude to the greater picture.

hellbender


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 13, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *The impression i get from deadlands is that it was a pretty poor conversion, misreading what the strengths of d20 were and thus not modifying what needed mods; then the designers turned around and stated that ANY modification would be distasteful to the public.
> 
> *




Well, I have the main d20 book and the monster book, and I inhaled them the day I got them. That doesn't happen a lot with me. I don't think it's nearly as bad as you say it is, but hey, I need to take a look at it again, seeing as how I forgot that chips were used in the d20 version...


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 13, 2002)

hellbender said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That will never happen. There is no way to get an accurate and total breakdown of those numbers, as you are talking multiple companies in multiple countries. Not to mention the fact that there is no fair distributionary edicts that cover the market. Why ask for something that you know is not possible? The best you can hope for is to create a microcosm study, which will still be inaccurate, but might still allude to the greater picture.
> 
> hellbender *




I ask because that is the financial versus fiscal definition of a glut and the one that rational individuals will base descisions on. Its not just the lack of data, the methodology that shane outlined was silly.

As to my request for specific numbers, what you call microcosm i call anecdotal. It would only have any merit if a sufficiently random SAMPLING were taken.

Why do i request such information knowing that it does not exist? Its called a rhetorical question, meant to make the person being asked aware of his/her own ignorance. Now i have a question in turn, if neither you or shane have such data, why are you even making these pretty baseless claims to begin with?


----------



## hellbender (Oct 13, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I ask because that is the financial versus fiscal definition of a glut and the one that rational individuals will base descisions on. Its not just the lack of data, the methodology that shane outlined was silly.
> 
> ...




     Only speaking for myself, I just agreed with Shane's glut comment based upon the observation of the shelf stock of several stores, the sheer number of d20 products far exceeds that of any other system in my area. Which is not really as baseless as you claim, it is pretty simple marketing strategy based upon physical space devoted to role playing games, and is used quite successfully by a certain company that makes several miniatures games and is based in England. Your rhetorical question can be easily neutralized by sheer market observation. As far as a realistic financial spectrum in the rpg field, as any budding accountant will tell you, '1+1= anything you want it to'. Therefore my comments on observation over numbers.

      However, I think you brought up an interesting scenario, one of which I would be interested in taking part in with a totally unbiased attitude; the sampling of several shops that carry role playing games. Back in college I used to do these types of surveys in the field of tobacco products, and if there were other interested people willing to conduct a survey in their respective areas, without bias or altering numbers, for the sake of comparing the sheer number of d20 products in comparison to non-d20 products. However, I would not participate if it would be used in any way to bash anyone or any company, and I would hope that nobody else would participate for any agenda other than producing facts. The survey would not reflect sales, but would reflect a sampling of shelfstock offerings and would have to be done on average of twice a week, for around 3 months to gather varied information reflecting trends and inventory.

hellbender


----------



## Pramas (Oct 13, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> Pramas, i have difficulty seeing the 'passion' in products. What i do see is balanced mechanics that i'm likely to use. Like shane, your argument is irrational.*




My argument is entirely rational. I'm saying that people who are passionate about their work tend to do better work than those who aren't. It's not that radical of a statement. 

A designer who doesn't like d20 but is desinging for it because of the money is likely to do sloppy work or to not take the time to really learn the system. I'd rather see work by designers who give a damn. 

And yes, I am generalizing. 

*



			And as to poor products surviving, why do you have trouble appreciating that they were valid products simply by virtue of being d20. Usability counts for as much as your creative sentiment of 'quality'.
		
Click to expand...


*
You're right, useability counts. That's why products that are badly designed, poorly written, amuteurly ilustrated, and created without a good grasp of the rules are crap, whether they bear the d20 logo or not. I'm not talking about sentiment, I'm talking about concrete flaws.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 13, 2002)

hellbender said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Only speaking for myself, I just agreed with Shane's glut comment based upon the observation of the shelf stock of several stores, the sheer number of d20 products far exceeds that of any other system in my area. Which is not really as baseless as you claim, it is pretty simple marketing strategy based upon physical space devoted to role playing games, and is used quite successfully by a certain company that makes several miniatures games and is based in England. Your rhetorical question can be easily neutralized by sheer market observation. As far as a realistic financial spectrum in the rpg field, as any budding accountant will tell you, '1+1= anything you want it to'. Therefore my comments on observation over numbers.
> *snip* *




Speaking only for myself, the number of White Wolf products still holds its own.  Of course, to consider this, I lump everything from Vampire to Exalted together, since they're essentially variations/new-editions of the same original system in my eyes.


----------



## hellbender (Oct 13, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Speaking only for myself, the number of White Wolf products still holds its own.  Of course, to consider this, I lump everything from Vampire to Exalted together, since they're essentially variations/new-editions of the same original system in my eyes. *




    I agree there is White Wolf 'space', as it were, on shelves, however, at least where I am, the area on shelves devoted to White Wolf is nowhere near d20 space, and there are not that many repeats (other than WotC products) nor are all the d20 companies represented. Which is why I thought that a sampling survey could actually help this debate out, one way or another, or at least illuminate people as to what shelfspace holds in various points on the map.

hellbender


----------



## RyanD (Oct 14, 2002)

satori01 said:
			
		

> *1) What are the Gross Maragins for retailers*




Almost universally in the hobby gaming industry the US retailers get between 40 and 45% off of SRP.  Because most retailers can qualify to order directly from WotC and GW if they want to, most "real" game stores get up to another 5% off when they buy direct from the publishers or engage in special pre-release ordering programs and early payments.  Call the "average" discount of everything in the game inventory about 47% off SRP.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> *On the same thread what is the general Gross Maragin for books in general*




On average books have the same margins as games for hobby game retailers.

Bookstores order books at a wide variety of discount based on the kind of book and the size of the order.  Fantasy and Science Fiction hardcovers and softcovers usually sell into book stores at between 40% and 45% off SRP.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> *2) Do the bulk of RPG sales come from small independents or from the major book chains,(Barnes and Nobles/ Borders).*




Half of all of WotC's RPG sales come from bookstores who order product through WotC's book trade distributor, Holtzbrink.  Of those sales, 80-90% go to the biggest 10 book chains (including Amazon).  Independent book stores don't sell a lot of RPG products, or if they do, they often order from a hobby game distributor to get additional points of margin.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> *3) If the bulk of sales comes from the large book chains:
> 3a) How much autonomy do the stores have in ordering?*




I've been told conflicting things, and so I believe the real answer is "it depends".  Some chains, like Waldenbooks, give local store managers a lot of lattiude about the products they stock.  The "big box" retailers (Barnes & Nobel and Borders) usually try to stock such a wide selection that it wouldn't make sense for a local manager to be too involved in inventory decisions.  And I beleive that if a publisher worked hard, they could get a corprorate mandate to control inventory on certain products.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> *Do the stores place their orders directly with the producing companies?*




Some do, some don't; some order direct from some publishers, and use a wholesaler for others.  WotC exclusively uses Holtzbrink for book trade sales, but other publishers often sell direct to the chain bookstores.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> *Do these large companies place their orders in bulk and then ship requested quantities out to individual stores,(ie central warehousing and automated Purchase Order creation )?*




Yes; that is how WotC's book trade business works.  Everything goes to a warehouse in New York, where it is consolidated with shipments going to the distribution centers of the chain stores, or in some cases directly to individual stores.  The logistics of that process are managed by Holtzbrink and it is opaque to WotC who gets what, when.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> *3B) How strict is inventory/sales ratio and OBO calculations?*




My opinion is that now that the new sales-tracking software is going into the chain stores that they will be astonished at how much money they make from WotC RPGs compared to how little inventory risk they take.  Turns on D&D in the chain bookstores are ferocious.

The top-down management of the orders in the system is really a function of persistence and isn't very automated.  When a buyer or a salesperson really stays on top of the issue, inventory ratios can be kept quite high.  When nobody's minding the store, they tend to get very spotty.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> *4) Chris refrenced how novelty plays a large factor in the 'saleability" of a product, in a hobby industry like RPG do stores factor more for novelty than sales trend.  Are sales trend models for RPGs a steep spike,(initial large sales boost followed by quick decline)? *




The answer to this question depends completely on whether your'e asking about an established top-selling game (D&D), an upstart new RPG, a supplement, an adventure, or some other subcategory.

D&D earns huge sales every year from the "top of the order" products - the PHB, DMG, MM, etc.  Other games show a spike when a new core book comes out, but then show successive, smaller spikes as follow on content is reduced.

At the end of the day, most retailers make about half their RPG revenue from selling 50-100 products which have become "Evergreen" which means they sell at high, predictable volumes over a number of years.  Exceptions of course for the years that D&D has a new release, and to some extent, when Vampire has a new release.

Ryan


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 14, 2002)

Pramas said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My argument is entirely rational. I'm saying that people who are passionate about their work tend to do better work than those who aren't. It's not that radical of a statement.
> 
> ...



*

The emphasis you place on those flaws is overtly sentimental. What I and the market consider a flaw is ego drive designers who place more emphasis on their artistic pretentions than providing the compatibility with the wide d20 user network. If they don't care about sales, fine; but to say their resentment is in anyway rational and implying that consumers, aren't, is quite frankly pathetic.*


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 14, 2002)

hellbender said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Only speaking for myself, I just agreed with Shane's glut comment based upon the observation of the shelf stock of several stores, the sheer number of d20 products far exceeds that of any other system in my area. Which is not really as baseless as you claim, it is pretty simple marketing strategy based upon physical space devoted to role playing games, and is used quite successfully by a certain company that makes several miniatures games and is based in England. Your rhetorical question can be easily neutralized by sheer market observation. As far as a realistic financial spectrum in the rpg field, as any budding accountant will tell you, '1+1= anything you want it to'. Therefore my comments on observation over numbers.
> 
> ...




Glut implies that it is not sustainable; by your own admission, its a reasonable buisiness descision. Supply chains simply are not capable of placing every book in the hands of every person who wants one at original retail price. That does not indicate a net loss in either nominal or oppurtunity terms. While I think such a survey would shine some light one this situation, an immediate indicator of how viable the current situation is simply to look at the rational choice of producers and retail; are the former seeing profit comparable to non-d20 producers and are retailers still willing to order d20 products. The answers seem to be yes.. but what do i know?


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 14, 2002)

Three deep breaths before the next round of posts, please?

Thanks.  It's getting a bit warm (and frankly, humid, although I'm not sure exactly why) in here.


----------



## MulhorandSage (Oct 14, 2002)

Pramas said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My argument is entirely rational. I'm saying that people who are passionate about their work tend to do better work than those who aren't. It's not that radical of a statement.
> 
> A designer who doesn't like d20 but is desinging for it because of the money is likely to do sloppy work or to not take the time to really learn the system. I'd rather see work by designers who give a damn. *




I can't see how anyone can argue against this. Even I hadn't seem this principle in action numerous times while I was working in the computer game industry, a designer who is motivated by purely mercenary reasons is less likely to spend the time playtesting the product than one who actually has a regular campaign and designs *and* plays with passion. And playtested products are, as a rule, more usable than unplaytested ones by an order of magnitude.

Svott Bennie


----------



## rounser (Oct 14, 2002)

> The emphasis you place on those flaws is overtly sentimental.



By refuting in this way, it appears that you're essentially claiming that the market isn't discerning enough to notice a difference in quality of work between those who are passionate and inspired in their attitude towards the game they are designing for versus those who are mercenary and resentful in their attitude towards it, and designing for it anyway.

I don't know whether it matters or not, but I _suspect_ it does.  Then again, Frank Herbert claims that he can't tell the difference in the quality of his writing during the times his muse was flowing and the times he was uninspired and found writing an utter chore.  Maybe you're right, and with a professional designer, you couldn't tell the difference.

Was the FRCS book created by people who loved the setting?  I assumed that the incredible quality of the work meant that it must have been created lovingly, but your assertion would bring that assumption into question.


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 14, 2002)

I'm not yet a publisher, just a 15+ year consumer of D&D.  I  frequent 3 "local" gaming stores; the closest more or less specializes in Warhammer, and orders other products based on certain customers preorders.  The second orders d20 products haphazardly -- they have the BIGGEST collection of old '80s stuff I've ever seen, and the d20 products simply get lobbed into the shelves, apparently from across the room.  I follow reviews, and EN World, and keep track of what's new, and I can't find half of what they have.  The third, and most distant, updates their website ever week with new orders.  They place new books cover out on dedicated shelves, and order a number of non-d20 products (though not, interestingly, Warhammer).  They have a D&D/d20 set of shelves for products over a week old, and a set of non-D&D/d20 shelves (mostly WW and GURPS, honestly).  Products that don't sell in 2-3 months go into the 1/2 price bin -- those that don't sell there get marked down further.

The first two stores have their cities pretty much to themselves; the 3rd has at least 2 competing local stores.  Make of it what you will; I wish store #3 was alot closer.

I think there's a learning curve with d20, both for consumers and publishers.  The number of alternate settings and rules is very much on the rise (air-based rules & settings anyone?), and I believe as the boundaries continue to push outwards, more and more consumers will be comfortable picking up non-sword&sorcery fantasy material.  Not having to relearn game systems is a big plus -- most of my 3e gaming group play 2 nights, one in 3e and the 2nd in a sort of exploratory round-robin style, switching campaigns as the mood takes them.  In the past few months they've played Wheel of Time, Deadlands, Star Wars, and Rokugan, and are about to begin a high-level (16-20) 3e mini-campaign featuring (the) tarrasque.

I know most of them are feeling much more confident with the 3e rules now than they were a year ago -- we've begun "mastering" the game system, and are beginning to look at boundaries to push with our new knowledge.

idle thoughts
nell


----------



## apieros (Oct 14, 2002)

Ryan Dancey wrote:


> I'm often asked how to make a successful d20 product. My answer is "add as much value to the player's experience as possible". There are a lot of publishers out there who think that consumers still evaluate their products based on how cool their worlds are, or how interesting their art is, or how "fringe" their subject matter is. None of that is true (or has ever been true). Customers value products based on how likely they are to use those products in a game, and when used in a game, how much entertainment value they add to the pre-existing material the customer already has. The difference in success between the publishers who follow a customer-centric focus and those who follow an alternate path is increasingly obvious in terms of unit volumes and topline revenue.




Yes, dear god, yes.  I don't want to trash anyone's hard work, but this is why I hated Dragonlords of Melnibone- nothing I could use in my game.  I have my own homebrew world and d20 products which offer me enhancements to that world, I buy.  Those that don't, I don't.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 14, 2002)

MulhorandSage said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I can't see how anyone can argue against this. Even I hadn't seem this principle in action numerous times while I was working in the computer game industry, a designer who is motivated by purely mercenary reasons is less likely to spend the time playtesting the product than one who actually has a regular campaign and designs *and* plays with passion. And playtested products are, as a rule, more usable than unplaytested ones by an order of magnitude.
> 
> Svott Bennie *




Um... i don't know, but maybe beacause they might have a MONTETARY INCENTIVE to do so knowing that investing in playtesting will show up in future sales through the credibility of the company.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 14, 2002)

rounser said:
			
		

> *
> By refuting in this way, it appears that you're essentially claiming that the market isn't discerning enough to notice a difference in quality of work between those who are passionate and inspired in their attitude towards the game they are designing for versus those who are mercenary and resentful in their attitude towards it, and designing for it anyway.
> 
> I don't know whether it matters or not, but I suspect it does.  Then again, Frank Herbert claims that he can't tell the difference in the quality of his writing during the times his muse was flowing and the times he was uninspired and found writing an utter chore.  Maybe you're right, and with a professional designer, you couldn't tell the difference.
> ...




Not quite. What i am saying is that INSPITE of those flaws, the products might still be worth more to them because they don't have to learn a new system to utilize them or integrate what good material there is in their campaign or even find players. From their point of view and for their purposes, the non d20 company could vary well be more 'flawed' or irrelevant; and that is pretty damn rational.

Of course, all these arguments are in the end rationaly motivated. Perhaps i should simply characterize them as disingenuous and self-serving?


----------



## Inez Hull (Oct 14, 2002)

For mine, I'd really like to see Campaign 'stories' as opposed to Campaign 'settings'. 

I've GM'ed several Homebrew worlds and have never had problems creating a viable setting. However, what would be really useful to me is an overall story arc to base a campaign on with enough detail in between to allow me to flesh things out. The mega-modules are OK although most have been a bit too site based for my tastes. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Freeport adventures, but presented as a single package, with campaign details to assist in making it the base of my story, rather than the world I base it in. The Enemy Within campaign for Warhammer would be a great example of what I'm looking for, only these type of products seem to be few and far between.  I'll second the posters earlier who said they'd be willing to pay $100 for products like this.


----------



## rounser (Oct 14, 2002)

> What i am saying is that INSPITE of those flaws, the products might still be worth more to them because they don't have to learn a new system to utilize them or integrate what good material there is in their campaign or even find players.



Yes, though they may be at a quality disadvantage to those designers who are passionate about the game...though of course, the market will take care of that.  As a consumer, I don't like the idea that the designer of the dungeon adventure that I just bought thinks that dungeons are banal*, and would much rather be designing something for Call of Cthulhu.  Sometimes, there even seem to be tell tale signs in the finished product that this is the case.

That said, I suspect that the d20 publishers and designers who are _most_ passionate about the game are probably also most likely to be the ones who have to watch themselves for self indulgence in the direction of their material, rather than catering directly to "what the market wants".  Resultingly, it may well balance out!

In a similar vein: Monte Cook's comments on designers who write but don't play.  Given his comments in this article, and, on another occasion, on back when he joined TSR and no-one there was playing the game, it seems that this horse bolted long ago.

*: I don't think dungeons in and of themselves are banal, but I do think that they can be written in such a manner.


----------



## Pramas (Oct 14, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *The emphasis you place on those flaws is overtly sentimental.*




No,it isn't. It's called critical evaluation. 

*



			What I and the market consider a flaw is ego drive designers who place more emphasis on their artistic pretentions than providing the compatibility with the wide d20 user network.
		
Click to expand...


*
So let me get this straight. Any product with a d20 logo is by default "valid" and worthy of purchase and use, no matter its quality. However, non-d20 games and products are by definition made by "ego driven designers"?

Please.

*



			If they don't care about sales, fine; but to say their resentment is in anyway rational and implying that consumers, aren't, is quite frankly pathetic.
		
Click to expand...


*
Where did I say consumers are irrational? 

As for the issue of resentment, yes, again it is entirely rational. If you had worked really hard on something for years and years with little reward and you watched some no talent hack sweep in and become a success his first time out, you wouldn't feel a some resentment?


----------



## hellbender (Oct 14, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Um... i don't know, but maybe beacause they might have a MONTETARY INCENTIVE to do so knowing that investing in playtesting will show up in future sales through the credibility of the company. *




    There are quite a few d20 products out there that were slapped out without playtesting, or if they were, there were very loose interpretations of the rules. But with a slap of gloss and some sharp pictures and a few handy ideas, they get by.

    Not to sound offensive, but not everyone in business follows all the strictures and edicts that you seem to think they do. As irrational creatures, humans often make knee-jerk decisions and fly by the seats of their pants. There are a lot of prayers tossed in with the sweat and elbow grease. This is not to say that I am against d20 at all, I spend a lot of money on a lot of companies, and there are many companies out there with a proper understanding of the rules of engagment in this field and follow through by producing top-notch, useful and successful products. But you must also admit, there is some drek out there, and that contributes to the glut *in some areas*. Many retailers blindly order d20 because it is a hot ticket right now, and this could, just could, be taking up shelf space that other systems could be taking.

     The d20 movement also helps non-d20 companies as well, some shops have increased the shelf space, maybe from seeing the sheer volume of rpg products out there. All in all, the d20/OGL movement I feel is beneficial in the long term, but in the short run, there will be some struggling, and some non-d20 companies might fold or have to convert. Adaption is one of the laws of the land.

hellbender


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 14, 2002)

Pramas said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight. Any product with a d20 logo is by default "valid" and worthy of purchase and use, no matter its quality. However, non-d20 games and products are by definition made by "ego driven designers"?



Let me explain what I think Hellbender meant:

If I'm at the gaming store with $40 in my pocket, what would I get? Let's see. We have this game called "Godlike", and this game called "Nobilis"... But my chances of getting my D&D players to play either is slim.

On the other hand, Monte Cook has this cool new super-adventure called "The BaneWarrens", and the new event book (an entirely new concept) called "Requim for a God." The new issue of Dungeon has a d20 Mecha game, which I'm sure I could get my D&D group to try for at least one evening, and then there's "Spycraft", which a lot of folks have been raving about.

So the issue isn't that I have a choice between mediocre d20 products done by hacks or superior, inspired non-d20 products that have been sweated by geniuses with PhDs. The issue is that I have a choice between d20 products sweated on by geniuses, and non-d20 products sweated on by other maybe geniuses that I've never heard about.

It's no wonder d20 products outsell the others, given the same amount of design and presentation quality as the non-d20 products. I'm not saying that "Godlike" or "Nobilis" doesn't sell, but I bet that if there had been excellent implementations of such games (Note that I don't know if such a thing is even possible) as d20 games, they'd sell an order of magnitude better, simply because a potential buyer isn't thinking to himself/herself "Would this be a hard sell for my gaming group?". For this reason and this reason alone, I'd consider buying Spycraft, but not Nobilis. I'd consider "Mutants and Masterminds", but not "Godlike", and definitely not "SAS d20", which at this point everyone has agreed is the equivalent of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

In other words, my advice to John Nephew, for instance, would be to find someone who loves d20 and is a talented designer and loves Ars Magica (a certain person with the initials JT comes to mind , and get him to write the Ars Magica magic system as an extension to the d20 system. Advertise it as "the best new magic system to have ever been developed" (and if you manage to get JT to write it of course you should market the hell out of that!), and I bet that one new Core Rulebook will pay for 20 Ars Magica supplements!


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 14, 2002)

First of all,  jasamcarl, chill out man!!    If you disagree with something Pramas or someone else says you can do so without calling their assessment "pathetic".  Present your opinion and we will evaluate it on its own merits as we will evaluate what Pramas and others have to say about the industry on their merits.  We are all friends here. 

--------------

Now, I do believe that we are in the middle of an RPG rebirth, so to speak.  Some of have pointed out the success of HERO as proof that d20 doesn't glut the shelves.  Well, I believe that the success of d20 actually drives HERO sales in part.

It was the renewed interest in RPG's fueled by d20 that is in part driving sales of HERO 5th.  It is those gamers brought to d20 who are looking for something more or different that have gone and picked up HERO.  Not to mention old HERO fans like me that heard about 5th Edition on a d20 website and bought it because of that.

Ryan Dancey himself, predicted this ages ago when d20 first came out and all the doom and gloomers were saying that d20 was designed to drive everyone out of business that wasn't d20.  On the contrary, as Dancey predicted, d20 has served as a sort of benchmark that all game products and systems can be judged against thus helping the consumer find the diamonds amongst the coal.

In the old days, RPG systems were many and varied and whether one system was better than another was mostly personal opinion.  That is still true to a large extent today but d20 has given us a measuring stick by which all RPG products can be objectively judged, even ones that aren't d20.  WotC has set a certain standard for excellence and rules cohesiveness that a lot of d20 publishers are lately being judged by simply because there are so many products to choose from.  Gamers are forced to become discriminating buyers to find the quality products amongst the chaff.

Those products that are found to be good are added to the list of "benchmark" products that other products are judged by.  Over time this effect will result in consumer's  growing familiarity and experience in being able to more quickly judge the quality and usefulness of a given product when they flip through it at the game store.  Whereas before it might have taken them a read-through or playtest to arrive at the same opinion before the advent of d20.

This has begun to affect and will affect other RPG's as well.  Consumers become better at evaluating the usefulness, rules, artwork, writing quality, etc. of other RPG products now that they have a growing baseline and benchmark with which they are already using to judge d20 products.

Other RPG systems that have a lot to offer in terms of overall quality will see their sales increased by d20 as gamers seek things d20 doesn't offer them.  But those RPG systems that are not very good may very well see their sales dry up as consumers increasingly find d20 alternatives that are superior to their tired products.

The result is there will be a tightening of the market and the number of products out there.  But the quality of RPG's as a whole will rise.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 14, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Pramas, i have difficulty seeing the 'passion' in products. What i do see is balanced mechanics that i'm likely to use. Like shane, your argument is irrational.
> 
> And as to poor products surviving, why do you have trouble appreciating that they were valid products simply by virtue of being d20. Usability counts for as much as your creative sentiment of 'quality'. *




If you can't see passion in a product, you haven't seen a really great book in far too long. Sure, RPG's are a business, but they're also an art. Someone with no passion for the game has no business producing one.

Example - AD&D 2nd Edition's Planescape. The setting is one of the single most well thought out, well written, cohesive game settings out there, especially considering the fact that it was a giant metasetting for all the AD&D game worlds. It was a work of art.

d20 example - Oathbound. A lot of what I said about Planescape applies to Oathbound as well. It's a fantastic book, despite the fact that it's crunch-light, and written with a lot of attention and care devoted to making it cohesive and believable.

Just because something is usable doesn't make it good. If you were building a house, would you build your load-bearing structures out of something that was merely usable? Or might you think about looking for something that was actually good?

There are things that work.

And there are things that work well.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 14, 2002)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> *So the issue isn't that I have a choice between mediocre d20 products done by hacks or superior, inspired non-d20 products that have been sweated by geniuses with PhDs. The issue is that I have a choice between d20 products sweated on by geniuses, and non-d20 products sweated on by other maybe geniuses that I've never heard about.*




So in other words, on some level, we have d20 books that sell because they're "good enough."

On another level, we have some books that make really good use of the system, within the limitations of its capabilities.

And on a third level, we have some games with systems custom-tailored for the specifics of the game.

Do I like D&D? Yeah. It's fun. Do I like it for everything? Not particularly. Sometimes, I want to play Shadowrun. The Shadowrun system is designed for Shadowrun. It works great for Shadowrun. If I want to play Shadowrun, I'll play Shadowrun. Not GURPS Shadowrun or d20 Shadowrun or HERO Shadowrun.

Sometimes, I want to play Deadlands. I'll play Deadlands. The problem with d20 Deadlands has nothing to do with the attitude that Shane Hensley or anyone else had about d20 or their knowledge of the system. The problem with d20 Deadlands is the following:

Two gunfighters face each other down at high noon. They draw. The Man in White draws faster and plugs the Man in Black right between the eyes.

Man in Black: "Owww! That really hurt! I only have 40 hit points left! You're in trouble now!"

Kind of the same reason Legend of the Five Rings loses something in the d20 translation, despite the fact that OA and Rokugan are some of the best written d20 books I've ever seen.

When two Samurai face off in an iaijutsu duel, one stays up and the other one dies. The L5R system dealt with this pretty well. d20, quite frankly, doesn't.

Samurai 1: My honor has been avenged. My skill is superior.

Samurai 2: Damn! That really hurt! I've only got 80 HP left! Oh, you are SOOO toast.

Samurai 1: Uh...

You get the idea. Some systems are tailor-made to handle certain kinds of games. As "valid" as a d20 take on them may be, it's limited by the "versatility" that presumably has been built into the system (a totally different debate).


----------



## sunstaff (Oct 14, 2002)

I just want to start off by saying this has been an awesome thread to read with some real insight.

I am not a publisher, just a long time consumer.

I have one question: What does WoTC define as being a "good seller" 1000 units? 10,000 units? 100,000 units, or 1,000,000 units? or somewhere inbetween. 

I always hear WoTC execs saying we sold "lots" of such and such, but what is "lots?" 

Is everything compared to the PHB? or is it compared to last year or the pervious product in a line? Or is it compared to 3 years ago or what? 

I have yet to see anyone ( a gaming industry exec)give some hard numbers on what defines a "good" seller?

Secondly, As far as d20/OGL or whatever. I see it as the best marketing i've ever seen in the industry.  I do think it has accomplished "exactly" what WoTC wanted it to. 

I look it as a Beta vs VHS example. Was Beta better?, some STILL say yes. Why did it die, because it was held out to be exclusive to sony. Other makers could make a VHS which could do exactly the same thing at 2/3 the cost. Soon there was 100 makers of VHS glunting the market, and only 1 Beta, which no one with the VHS could use. Hence, beta died. 

Same goes for Apple Mac, there was a 1000 IBM comps out there, and only 1 Mac. The only reason Apple is still alive today is because they made the MAC IBM comp (PowerMac), and then made it look cool, ala IMAC

Where am I going with this? well easy. Will D20 be the only player in the ball game 5 years from now. Probably not. 

Will d20 Die off, certainly not. Its here to stay and maybe even has a bit more growth left in it.  The cool thing about it is that it lets the little guy publish something, and actually get it into the marketplace. 

But, What I will say Is I think there will be alot of "PowerMacs" of the RPG world out there. Alot of systems will become Dual-Stat. 
Why, because D20 has a Mass Appeal, its easy to learn, and Easy to Use. PLus its now compatible with about 100 other games. 

There was nothing cooler then having Darth Vader fight my friend's PC D&D Elven warrior. 

Thirdly, If a player DOES'T like d20 for all of the above reasons, and gets into a "dual-Stat" game, and likes that alternative system, then bingo, he goes what he wants BOTH ways,.

Lastly If you don't want to pay $50 for an WotC book, fine there are about 30 other Pubs out there who you can get "basically" the same stuff, at about the same quality, at 2/3 to 1/2 the price. Thats the power of d20/OGL

Will games like Gurps, Hero, etc still exist in 10 years time, yes, but unless they can present a clear alternative from d20 (alternative doesn't mean Better quality or usablity, but usally better MARKETING [VHS vs Beta example]) They likely (but maybe won't) will die out. 

The RPG industry marketing is the same as all the rest, you have to market to the retailer to get him to carry the stock, and then market to the cumsumer to actually get him to pick it up of the store self. d20 does that the "best" of any system.  Its a hard sell, and my hat is off to all that a "successful" at it. 

Matt


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 14, 2002)

*Continuing This Topic Drift*

Then you start using some form of "Massive Damage" rule.

The Man in White draws first (gains initiative) and plugs the Man in Black between the eyes (confirmed crit with a total of 21 points of damage on the 4d8 (2d8 base damage for an 1880 model .44 doubled for the crit)). The Man in Black falls to the ground, and rapidly expires. (Failed Fort Save followed by the ever popular bleeding to death.)

Or, you could freeze hit points. Make them equal to Con. Only by taking the appropriate Feat (learning the right skill) and improving Con. can the character get more hit points. Instead, he becomes harder to hit, since his defense improves along with everything else. 

It's a rare problem that doesn't have a fix.

For instance. I have a big problem with the d20 System's Feats. The typical Feat is about as extraordinary an accomplishment as getting dressed in the morning. So I'm going to change them into skills for my _Alan's Very Own Version of the *d20 SRD*_ along with a few other modifications. (An example on its way to the House Rules forum someday.)

The trick is not to say, "This can't be done." The trick is to find a way to make it work.


----------



## hellbender (Oct 14, 2002)

Thorin pretty much got my point out there. I also meant that, in my experience, there are always more d20 products on shelves nowadays over non-d20. The support is there for most any genre you want to play d20. And that is fine, to a point. I feel that many retailers keep a heavy stock of d20 because it sells, due to the support and the innovation. It is a good system, and the d20/OGL license has created a lot of very good companies to spring up and provide excellent products. This has taken a lot of physical space and I see the glut as some so-so d20 products (all a matter of taste and perception) are taking room that other systems could use. For example; in my village, you have a choice: d20, Hackmaster, Hero, or White Wolf. There are a few Palladium books, but they are being rapidly phased out. I special order Deadlands (original system) books because I know the quality is there. I have a 30 mile drive to a town with most everything, which is odd, as it is an obscure semi-shop in the basement of a pharmacy which has the best selection.

     D20 has years of life ahead, I just hope that many fine non-D20 companies out there are also kicking years from now, and that their quality isn't being overlooked now due to their incompatibility with the d20 sytem. 

hellbender


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 14, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Um... i don't know, but maybe beacause they might have a MONTETARY INCENTIVE to do so knowing that investing in playtesting will show up in future sales through the credibility of the company. *



You're being inconsistent.   First you assert that the difference between good books and crap ones is overemphasized and sentimental on the part of game designers.  Then you assert that the difference between good and bad products is sufficiently large that a designer would spend more time and effort on it.

Besides, people aren't as logical and foresighted as you assert.  People spend more time doing things they like.


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Continuing This Topic Drift*



			
				mythusmage said:
			
		

> *The trick is not to say, "This can't be done." The trick is to find a way to make it work. *



It's because of this that more and more non-D20 OGL books will probably be published.  The D20 mechanics are very flexible, and if the classes, levels, and ever-expanding hit points are removed, most of the major criticisms of the game are too.  All these are possible.  The OGL Mutants and Masterminds doesn't have any of them, except for a very loose 'level' mechanic.


----------



## Ssendam (Oct 14, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *I think that because of the open nature of d20 that we will never truly see an end to products that suck.    Even as those products are weeded out, new publishers will fill in the ranks.  I do think that it will be harder and harder for products (and companies) that are both NEW and GOOD to stand out and get attention.  Hopefully that's where sites like EN World can play an important role. *




Even if there was no Open Gaming Licence you would STILL get products that suck. Well, we did in the 90's didn't we? I stopped buying D&D stuff because it was so bad, expensive with little content. I'm sure there were some good things but I became quite negative after seeing some dreadful products.

At least now we have a market that anyone can enter and thus ,theoretically at least, we have access to many different ideas. In addition, on places like EN World you can find reviews to just about every product so the information on what is good or not is out there.


----------



## Ssendam (Oct 14, 2002)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Strangely, CRPGs and "Pen and Paper" RPGs really don't appear to alter each other's sales. While some people do play both, a vast majority of computer gamers/console gamers do not bother with DnD. Could the millions of sales of the Baldur's Gate CRPG have driven a few sales of DnD material? Probably, but not enough to really raise eyebrows.
> 
> Patrick Lawinger *




WARNING: There are, (IMHO), good reasons that until now the crossover is small:

1) For a long time to come computer AI will not be able to replace the challenge of playing the game with "real" people. The only way to get this experience is to go online which until quite recently was not satisfactory due to speed issues. Now that internet speeds are up, and access to these speeds is more affordable, (a trend that I'm sure will continue), the online experience will be more ... enjoyable.

2) Again, "until recently" RPG computer games online have not provided the right experience that would equate to a P&P session. I think this is down to game developers not producing the right sort of game and that is probably further linked to internet speeds. With the release of Neverwinter Nights a huge advance has been made. DM's can create online dungeons / stories and run them to a group with out needing the Books. OK, I exaggerate a bit, and no it's not perfect BUT, (and this is the telling comment), a freind of mine asked recently if he could borrow my NWN world builder handbook as he wanted to see about creating a dungeon online. As people invest time in looking at the system, and like what they see they will invest more time in it and less cash in P&P systems.

In short: in the past Computer Games have been a world apart from P&P RPGS, but the gap is closing.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2002)

Ssendam said:
			
		

> *In short: in the past Computer Games have been a world apart from P&P RPGS, but the gap is closing. *




As if sitting down at one's computer will ever seriously challenge sitting down at a table with actual people?  Good gods!  If it ever reaches a point where gamers start preferring interaction via a computer over face-to-face, we'll prove we're geeks far and above what the stereotypes say.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Oct 14, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Hopefully, when ELH hits the SRD we will see some truely epic adventures. *




Are there actually any plans for putting the ELH into the SRD?


----------



## Buttercup (Oct 14, 2002)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Are there actually any plans for putting the ELH into the SRD? *




Yes, according to Anthony Valterra.  D20 Modern too, and something else that I can't recall...Manual of the Planes? Deities & Demigods?  One of those.


----------



## Tsyr (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Continuing This Topic Drift*



			
				mythusmage said:
			
		

> *The trick is not to say, "This can't be done." The trick is to find a way to make it work. *




Of course, you eventualy reach the point where you have to stop and ask "What's the point?".

For example, say I wanted to do a d20 Shadowrun. Mind you, that's the last thing I'd want to do, but theoreticly.

First of all, I would need to go ogl, not true D20... actualy, I might be able to keep d20 there, I'm not sure... I've never been a student of the OGL and d20 licenses... would the classless system Red Leaf put out be legal under d20? Because shadowrun isn't a class-based system, and wouldn't really work that way. Skills are designed to be totaly seperate of what people might think you are. Your mage could be a crack shot with a pistol, for example. As good as a fighter type, maybe even better. Granted, probably only in that weapon, but there it is. But there is no effective way to represent that in D20. And I'm not talking something that would be true after taking XX levels of feats either, it should be that way from level 1 to represent the game properly. 

An entire system for cybernetics would have to be thought up. A new stat would have to be introduced (At least one, actualy, possibly two)... Shadowrun is very specific on this point, and it's very, very important to the game. It's a critical balance point, preventing people from becomming total cyborgs, forcing mages to be really wary of cybernetics, and giving deckers and riggers something that they can do better than anyone else. And more than that, it figures prominently into the "setting story" too... things like cybermancy, for example, would exist without the essense scores. Nor would things like alpha through gamma wear, or the vast majority of biotech. 

You would have to invent a new magic system... actualy, you could probably rip the basic system from Soverign Stone, there are some similarities, but it would still need a lot of revision. 

You would need to invent several new interacting systems for dealing with decking. Decking is a major aspect of Shadowrun, and reducing it to a "do I deck in?" skill check would absolutely ruin it. New rules for making decks. Rules for making programs, running programs, loading programs, etc. Rules for headwear and otakus. 

A new health/damage/armour systems would be needed to reflect the way damage works in SR... It's very lethal, and even if you survive the first shot, your wounded badly... and that impacts everything you do in some fashion. And this has to interact with the new way of handeling BAB that I alluded to above, since the game doesn't link "ability to get shot" and "ability to shoot" in some arbitrary fashion. Armour absorbs damage, it doesn't make it easier to miss you. It absorbs different amounts of damage depending on what type of round you were hit with, where you were hit, etc. Rules for armour layering.

And more. Much more. Rules for point-buy gun creation. Rules for knowledgesoft chips. Rules for rigging, and building rigging vehicals. Rules for astral traval. And still more.

Yes, you could do it.

But if you didn't do all of that, you wouldn't have Shadowrun. You would have a generic cyberpunk game with a different rule system. Shadowrun is as popular as it is mostly BECAUSE if it's rule system. 

But like I said, yes, you could do it.

But why? I mean, after you go to all that work, what's the point? You still darn near have to learn a new system, so why not just play Shadowrun? Really, it doesn't take long to learn to use a dice pool. Many, many games use them. Believe it or not, one system is not ideal for everything, no more than one car is ideal for everyone, or one computer, or one hobby.


----------



## Tsyr (Oct 14, 2002)

> It's no wonder d20 products outsell the others, given the same amount of design and presentation quality as the non-d20 products. I'm not saying that "Godlike" or "Nobilis" doesn't sell, but I bet that if there had been excellent implementations of such games (Note that I don't know if such a thing is even possible) as d20 games, they'd sell an order of magnitude better, simply because a potential buyer isn't thinking to himself/herself "Would this be a hard sell for my gaming group?". For this reason and this reason alone, I'd consider buying Spycraft, but not Nobilis. I'd consider "Mutants and Masterminds", but not "Godlike", and definitely not "SAS d20", which at this point everyone has agreed is the equivalent of a wolf in sheep's clothing.




Just as an aside, Nobilis couldn't work as a D20 game any more than Amber could... both are diceless systems


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 14, 2002)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just as an aside, Nobilis couldn't work as a D20 game any more than Amber could... both are diceless systems  *




Actually that's kind of funny; if we consider Nobili and Amberites as all being greater deities ala De&Dg then they would be diceless in the d20 system


----------



## Geoff Watson (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Continuing This Topic Drift*



			
				Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Of course, you eventualy reach the point where you have to stop and ask "What's the point?".
> 
> ...




I'd like to see a d20 Shadowrun, actually. It's the setting that really matters, not the rules. You don't have to convert everything so it works exactly as the Shadowrun rules work. 

Geoff.


----------



## Tsyr (Oct 14, 2002)

> Shadowrun could easily be class-based (Fighting-dude, skill-dude, rigger, decker, mage, shaman, adept).




See, I would disagree with that. Just because you can break a concept down a root concept doesn't make it "classable"... For example, with your idea, without redefining what a class means (IE, BAB, REF save, etc), how would you make a mage that, at first level, was both a better shot than a fighter with a heavy pistol, and could dodge better? Really, the existing D20 class system isn't set up to handle classes that deviate from a fairly narrow sterotype. Yes, you can multiclass, but lets be honest... multi class characters loose a lot to gain a little, as a rule, and it still wouldn't let a mage consistantly (IE, for all d20 levels) be a better shot with a pistol than a fighter. The fighter would be better by virtue of BAB and the extra attacks that grants, etc.



> I was think of having 'essence loss' reduce charisma (like in cyberpunk) and effectively reduce a magical characters spellcasting stat (like a reverse Spellcasting Prodigy).




It's not a bad way of handeling essense I suppose... but charisma isn't a decimal point. Essense reduces by decimal points. Magic doesn't, no, but essense does. Granted, in game play terms, an essense of 3.6 and 3 are the same thing, basicly, but the decimal keeps track of little bits... really important when dealing with the advanced cyberwear, that is somtimes only worth .1 essense.



> It depends. Since shadowrun is basically a D&D/cyberpunk crossover (heresy!), you could use the normal D&D magic system.




Mmmm... to each their own, I suppose. But they don't function the same. Again, I think you would be loosing something major to convert it to vancian magic. Just like I think WoT lost something by still using a "slots per day" system, even if they renamed it to "weaves per day". You might be happy with it, I prefer things to try to stick to the source as close as possible. Personal difference.



> That's a optional rule in normal Shadowrun; to save time on decking, just make one computer skill check for the entire run.




Yes, but if you left it out on virtue of it being an optional rule, you would have just left out a very... um, how shall I phrase this... not "key" exactly, but similar... "central"? maybe... Anyhow, a rather big part of shadowrun, IMHO. 



> The combat system is different. So?




...so? So, the combat system is actualy probably my single favorite part OF Shadowrun. Much like the combat system in Riddle of Steel is my favorite part of that game, and for very similar reasons. (Riddle of Steel is sorta the fantasy eqiv of the shadowrun combat system). It's not something that could be tossed in favor of BAB and AC without impacting the flavor of the game. And if you DO drop BAB and AC instead, your back to reinventing the system your trying to reinvent the game to fit into.



> I find the shadowrun system to be rather poor, actually. Totally different rules for everything, wierd dice mechanics where a +1TN penalty can make a huge difference or no difference, etc.




What you find poor I find... almost refreshing, in a way. Because I've never really felt that one system CAN handle EVERYTHING equaly well. Unless you strip it down to, say, the basics that Talislanta uses... one system for everything, but that one system doesn't work very well for anything.



> I'd like to see a d20 Shadowrun, actually. It's the setting that really matters, not the rules. You don't have to convert everything so it works exactly as the Shadowrun rules work.




Mmm, we are going to have to disagree there. I think the rules in Shadowrun are at LEAST as important as the setting, and personaly I think they are probably moreso. Really, the setting isn't THAT special... as you say, it's a DnD and Cyberpunk thrown in a blender. I'm sure D20 modern will have all the rules you would need to play that. For myself, I think the shadowrun SYSTEM is special, with or without the setting, and stripping the system from Shadowrun, like stripping the Storyteller system from Exalted, leaves you with the name and idea... Not the original game, just something trying to be what it's not.


----------



## malladin (Oct 14, 2002)

*Perspective from the little guy*

Hi,  Ben here from Malladin's Gate Press.  

Just thought it might be nice to add a few of my own perspective, from the point of view of a new, small d20 publisher.

Malladin's Gate are a brand new company. We've been up and running for less than a month and have only one product available on PDF through RPGNow (sorry if that sounded too much like a plug, but I'm trying to give a bit of background as most of you probably won't know who I am).  Needless to say we are what Shane described as 'lower tier' publishers who are just writing games in our spare time. 

Hmm, where to start, this thread has become a bit all-encompassing...

The d20 system has given us a start that we might never have gotten before OGL.  Along with RPG Now we were able to set up for very small start up costs (that have already been more than recouped through sales of our first book).  Not that we're ever going to be able to make masses out of it, but we'll hopefully get to keep writing.  I think that its because of this that d20 will stick around for a good while yet.  Small 'publishers' like our selves can get our material out without having to find a publisher.

We started out writing game material a few years ago now and have been touting our own game (non d20) around pulishers.  When this failed we tried to break in to the d20 market.  Again we had to take rejection from many publishers before we found that we could actually produce and sell PDF games ourselves.  Given the imprint deals that are going around it seemed like our best avenue to get oursleves properly published (whether or not this will hapen remains to be seen).  This way we don't have to spend money we don't have and can write our best ideas rather than trying to squeeze them into an existing system.

As for the relative value of d20 over other systems, I like both.  I personally grew up on basic D&D (not AD&D, the basic, expert, companion and masters boxed sets with the great Elmore art on the front),  When 2nd edition came out we switched to it (as basic D&D seemed to be dying out at the time).  However, this all occurred before I went away to University.  There I was eductaed in numerous other game systems that I had previously been unaware of.  This led me to completely reject AD&D (2e) and I spent most of my time slagging it off and playing a variety of other systems, such as White Wolf, GURPS, Amber, Live Roleplaying games, and many others (including some unpublished ones).  The reasons for not liking D&D at this time were due to the lack flexibility for me as a GM and as a player when compared with other systems (IMO, obviously).  When 3E came out I didn't bother with it.  It was only when friends I knew who had similar opinions of older D&D told me that it was worth a look that I gave it a go.  Now I love it.  Its the only game I play regularly.  Is it better than other games?  Probably not, but many of the games I was into in the 90s seem to be running rapidly out of steam (Vampire, Deadlands).  Is it any worse?  I don't think so.  To a large extent there's not much thats very different.  Like all other roleplaying systems it has stats and skills that add together and you compare it with the result of a dice roll and a rough idea of the difficulty of the task undertaken.  On top of that there's a combat system that involves adding an action ordering an targetting system on top of the basic resolution system.  Neither is this new or bad (IMO).

I think the recent demise of other systems is more to do with the way in which people like PEG and WW have flogged their old ideas to death and left all but their hard-core without anything they really want to play.  Okay, with d20 system I can produce a 'Splat' book that is largely rules and little flavour and no game background. Speaking as a GM, I want to make my own game worlds up, so why would I bother with someone else's world?


----------



## DaemonBolo (Oct 14, 2002)

*d20 market and the feat system*

Great discussion!

I have really enjoyed this thread.  It has been more than a little informative.  I have a few comments of my own to make.  First of all, I think "glut" does apply to the d20 publishers at the moment.  Personally, I bought tons of material in the first year and a half of the d20 trend; however, it soon started to override my senses.  I just could not keep up with all the different products.

At one time, I used EnWorld to help me decide what d20 products and materials I wanted.  Now I ignore those news sections.  I have a few lines that I buy (Fantasy Flight, Sword and Sorcery, Mongoose and Green Ronin), but I tend to ignore other publishers, although I will be buying a lot from a new company called Dark Faerie Productions if they ever make it to print.  For me, too many books are coming out to even consider buying a tenth of them.

As for game retailers, all the hobby shops in my area have scaled back.  They only stock the popular d20 settings and carry no new publishers.  In fact, most have stopped carrying White Wolf!  They'll special order for you, but they will not stock it any longer.  This may be a bit sad, but nothing can be done about it.  Most game stores have limited space.

As for the d20 system, I have a feeling that we will see an even more radical concept in the next few years:  The feat system.  Instead of classes, a set of basic feats will be presented.  Take the Paladin for example, Divine Grace and Aura of Courage would end up as feats.  Someone who wanted to play a Paladin would take those feats (of course, feats would be tailored for specific alignments etc.)

This would do away will the need for classes set in stone and prestige classes in general.  Like the Epic Level Handbook, a "class" would get a certain numbers of feats.  In this manner, a PC could really be different.  The need for prestige classes would die as well.  Want a PrCs abilities?  Take a feat chain.

Just some thoughts.

Dave


----------



## Geoff Watson (Oct 14, 2002)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> See, I would disagree with that. Just because you can break a concept down a root concept doesn't make it "classable"... For example, with your idea, without redefining what a class means (IE, BAB, REF save, etc), how would you make a mage that, at first level, was both a better shot than a fighter with a heavy pistol, and could dodge better? Really, the existing D20 class system isn't set up to handle classes that deviate from a fairly narrow sterotype. Yes, you can multiclass, but lets be honest... multi class characters loose a lot to gain a little, as a rule, and it still wouldn't let a mage consistantly (IE, for all d20 levels) be a better shot with a pistol than a fighter. The fighter would be better by virtue of BAB and the extra attacks that grants, etc.*
> 
> ...




I agree that we'll disagree.

Geoff.


----------



## Henry (Oct 14, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Um... i don't know, but maybe because they might have a MONTETARY INCENTIVE to do so knowing that investing in playtesting will show up in future sales through the credibility of the company. *




Bringing all this useless corporate knowledge to bear, but the term "monetary incentive" is a slight misnomer, unless the money to be gained is extremely substantial. In RPG design, this is not the case. As a rule rather than an exception, money is a hygenic (upkeep) factor, and without it motivation suffers; however, it is not a consistent motivator in and of itself. Far more important factors include _recognition_ and _job satisfaction._

Don't believe me? Check most management and business admin training courses. Strange as it sounds, money (however attractive) will not cause an employee or contractor to be more diligent with a long-term project.


----------



## heirodule (Oct 14, 2002)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually that's kind of funny; if we consider Nobili and Amberites as all being greater deities ala De&Dg then they would be diceless in the d20 system  *




Having just played Nobilis for the first time this raises an interesting question for d20. D20 games aren't supposed to contain "charcater creation" rules.

What about a nobilis d20 game where you create any d20 charcater you want using the d20 rules, but then, when enNobled, you basicly include all the rules of Nobilis as written. The game woudln't contain "character creation" rules as such, but the charcater you PLAY would be done with the additional layer of noblilis rules and it would be diceless.

And then Nobilis could use the d20 marketing system.

Or a d20 "dreampark" type game, where you need the PHB to make your "real-life" persona, but then all other kinds of "game figure" "making" rules could be included for running your d20PC in the dreampark sub-games.

Would that work in the license? Does it mean there can be NO d20 dreampark genere game?


----------



## jakal (Oct 14, 2002)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> Mmm, we are going to have to disagree there. I think the rules in Shadowrun are at LEAST as important as the setting, and personaly I think they are probably moreso. Really, the setting isn't THAT special... as you say, it's a DnD and Cyberpunk thrown in a blender. I'm sure D20 modern will have all the rules you would need to play that. For myself, I think the shadowrun SYSTEM is special, with or without the setting, and stripping the system from Shadowrun, like stripping the Storyteller system from Exalted, leaves you with the name and idea... Not the original game, just something trying to be what it's not. *




The point is that you wouldn't be the target market for d20 shadowrun. You already play shadowrun and seem to like it. There will always be a market for non-d20 games but some people can't be bothered learning a new system, like the flexability of being able to use material from a massive library of other books, or just don't like the shadowrun system. These are the people who would buy Shadowrun d20. It wouldn't have exactly the same flavor but it would be similar and people who otherwise might not play the game would be willing to give it a go.


----------



## jakal (Oct 14, 2002)

heirodule said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Having just played Nobilis for the first time this raises an interesting question for d20. D20 games aren't supposed to contain "charcater creation" rules.
> 
> ...




The question is why would you want to? I know if I got a game that claimed to be d20 and used totaly different mechanics (SAS d20 anyone?) I would be pissed off.


----------



## kingpaul (Oct 14, 2002)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> *Yes, according to Anthony Valterra.  D20 Modern too, and something else that I can't recall...Manual of the Planes? Deities & Demigods?  One of those. *



Anthony said, on the OGF-L, that Deities and Demigods and ELH were on the short-list to be included into the SRD.

However, and this is just me speaking, I believe that they want to get the rest of the draft SRD made official...and then there's the d20M material that will be OGC to get in as well.


----------



## Tsyr (Oct 14, 2002)

For the most part we will have to agree to disagree, I admit. I just wanted to respond to one point.



> If the mage was a better fighter than the fighter, and had magic ability, then you need to look at class balance. The only way for a mage to be a better fighter than the fighter is for the fighter to really screw up when creating his character.




I didn't say be better at fighting. I said be better with at some aspects of fighting. That's my point. D20 has no real way to deal with being good at _certain things_. A fighter is a good fighter, but bad at anything else. A decker would be good at hacking, but nothing else. etc. If a mage wants to, say, get good with a pistol, but in no other way really cares about fighting, he still has to take levels of fighter or something. And taking a few levels of fighter really really hurts a mage in the long run. There is basicly no other way to do it. Yes, he could take a half-dozen feats, but that A) still cripples the mage in the long run and B) still doesn't really make him GOOD with a weapon... he just sucks less.

To illustrate what I mean, go get your copy of the Shadowrun 3E book... check suggested template for a combat mage. It suggests taking "Sword 4(6)". Then look at at sorcery... it suggests 5(7). That's on par with the 6 suggested for the street mage, street shaman, and tribal shaman. He also has Conjouring 6, same as the three above classes. He didn't spend any points on Aura Reading, but he could have very easily... dropping intimidation, for example, or halving it and taking a point off of street etiquette. And the combat mage only gives his skills priority E, too... if he was a human and had a lower race prior, that would be even easier to do. So he is still a full mage, not a multi-classed one, in D20 terms. He also just happens to be good with a sword... his sword skill is on par with the weapon skill of the any other class. Even the weapons specialist doesn't have any signifigantly higher weapon ability. The only template that does is the Adept, with a 6(8) in martial arts. So he is also very good with a sword.

What am I getting at?

Shadowrun, by virtue of not trying to force things into predefined sterotypes, allows a character to pick up one thing that he is good at, even if it doesn't fit the sterotype. In this case, for example, a mage that is also very good with a sword. He's not the all-around fighter a wep spec is, no. But in his _chosen area_ , he is on par with them, while still being a full-fledged mage too. You can't do this, really, with classes.

That, as much as anything else, is why I love shadowrun so much.


----------



## maddman75 (Oct 14, 2002)

Just wanted to put in my $.02 as a d20 consumer.

- First, I won't buy anything that isn't d20, unless maybe it would be generally useful for any game.  I'm not a system nazi or think that d20 is the One System to Rule Them All or anything, its just that my group will NEVER play anything that isn't d20.  Actually, there is almost no chance that we'll play anything but D&D.  We simply don't have the time.

- Second, I hate dice pools.  Senseless to roll a handful of dice when one will do just fine.  Just wanted to throw that in


----------



## whisper_jeff (Oct 14, 2002)

jakal said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The question is why would you want to? I know if I got a game that claimed to be d20 and used totaly different mechanics (SAS d20 anyone?) I would be pissed off. *




     Ok, I have no clue why I'm bothering to post to this thread, especially this subject of the thread since people have made up their minds for or against SAS d20 already and nothing I say will change that, but the above comment bugs the hell out of me. Now, it may just be a case of you using a term but applying a different definition to that term than I do. Thus, before I go off on my normal rant about this subject, let's see if it's just different definitions of a term. What do you consider "game mechanics" to be? Specificially, what are the d20 game mechanics? Specifics, please.


----------



## smetzger (Oct 14, 2002)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> To illustrate what I mean, go get your copy of the Shadowrun 3E book... check suggested template for a combat mage. It suggests taking "Sword 4(6)". Then look at at sorcery... it suggests 5(7). That's on par with the 6 suggested for the street mage, street shaman, and tribal shaman. He also has Conjouring 6, same as the three above classes. He didn't spend any points on Aura Reading, but he could have very easily... dropping intimidation, for example, or halving it and taking a point off of street etiquette. And the combat mage only gives his skills priority E, too... if he was a human and had a lower race prior, that would be even easier to do. So he is still a full mage, not a multi-classed one, in D20 terms. He also just happens to be good with a sword... his sword skill is on par with the weapon skill of the any other class. Even the weapons specialist doesn't have any signifigantly higher weapon ability. The only template that does is the Adept, with a 6(8) in martial arts. So he is also very good with a sword.
> 
> *



You could do the same thing with a d20 Wizard.  Put highest ability in Strength, be an Elf or take Martial Weapon Proficiency and at 1st level you are almost as good as 1st level Fighter with your sword.  As levels advance the fighter will overtake the wizard, but the difference at 1st level would be negligable.


----------



## Cergorach (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Continuing This Topic Drift*

First of i want to say that this thread is mighty enlightening. Many ideas/opinions that will be useful later on, thanks folks for providing them!



			
				Tsyr said:
			
		

> *Of course, you eventualy reach the point where you have to stop and ask "What's the point?".
> 
> For example, say I wanted to do a d20 Shadowrun. Mind you, that's the last thing I'd want to do, but theoreticly.
> <37.5KB deleted by SysOp*




I've been a SR fan since it's first edition, i can still remember the afternoon one of my gaming friends bought this 'radical new' RPG ('89). I really liked some of it's game mechanics (such as magic, d6 system, and damage) but it also had it's cumbersome aspects (can you remember the 1st ed. autofire rules?), many 'flaws' where 'corrected' with the 2nd ed. and again with the 3rd ed. But there are still cumbersome aspects to the aspects to SR3rd, just like there are cumbersome aspects to D&D3rd. The reason that my group doesn't play SR anymore has to do more with the cumbersome aspects of SR than it's setting (which we still love). I have to agree that the basics of SR are easily understood, but the details are not, it would take a major investment of time to learn them all (the many, many tables of modifiers). The advantage of D&D/D20/OGL is that it's basics are very well known (it's details are also directly based on the basics) and a lot of people play D&D (like) campaigns as their primary games.

A problem for a lot of RPGers is that of time to play, because these days a lot of RPGers are a somewhat older crowd. They either have a lot  of work to do on their studies or are already working and/or already have a family. Playing RPGs takes up a decent amount of time, it's not just the gaming session, it's also reading the rulebooks, spending time on developing a character, etc. For GMs/DMs it's evn worse, you have to spent all that time on preparing your adventure, even if you use an excisting adventure, you have a major investment of time on your hands. And as i already said, a lot of RPGers play D&D (like) campaigns as their primary game, thus spending the additional time on a radical different game isn't often welcomed by people who don't have as much time as they did in high school. Especially if they do not really know wheter they like the game or not. IMHO one of the strengths of the OGL is that it's known by a large amount of people. If you yell "Make an initiative roll!", d&d players will throw their d20 die and add their initiative modifier, SR players will throw X amount of D6s and add X amount. Basic game mechanics are 'radically' different, and will need to be explained to D&D players.

The point of making a D20/OGL SR would not be to replace SR D6, but to open it's setting to new people that wouldn't normally buy the SR D6 version because for reason X (some explained above). If you look at the SR line you will notice that only the 79xx series are really rule books (primarily rules instead of fluf), the rest are source/rule-books (71xx series), sourcebooks (72xx seriess), or adventures (73xx series). If you did a SR D20 you would probably need to do the SR main rulebook as a OGL book and could use the D20 logo for the other rulebooks (the 79xx series would need to be ported to D20/OGL and be released as a seperate line). The other game books could be done dual statted.

One might say "Why would they want to do it?". It's rather simple, MONEY, as you might have seen in this thread, D20 sells and there are many people interested in SRD20. SR D20 would mean an influx of extra money (something SR really needs), because chances are that SR D20 would sell enough to support it self or could actually make a profit. SR D20 would need only a few basic books (which could and should be developed independately from the main line) and would use the rest of the main line of SR as the 'rounding out' of it's product line. Dual statted books shouldn't neccessarily be more expensive, mostly because it's a larger print run and should therefor be cheaper to produce, thus the complaints from 'mainstream' SRers that they are paying for material that they don't use would not really be true. The question would then be, would SR D20 take something away from 'pure' SR? IMO, no, it would not be for the mainstream SR audience, it would be for the people that don't play 'mainstream' SR.

Then you come to the design aspect of things. I've spent a large amount of time thinking (mostly at times when the only thing i could do was think ;-) up ways to make SR into a D20 compatible game. I've made designs based closely on D&D and designs that where very far removed from D&D (almost simulating the results from normal SR), the thing i've realized is that for SR D20 to become a success is to make comprimises. You have to brake D&D down to it's basic aspects and then use the most important aspects to create a D20 game, sure it wouldn't be exactly like SR D6, but you wouldn't want it to be exactly like SR D6 because people would then rather want to play SR D6, thus entirely defeating the whole purpose (appealing to a larger market).

After seeing and reading Spycraft (by AEG) i've seen that SR D20 can be done compatibly with D&D and still keep the feeling of a 'modern' game. I'm really now waiting for D20 Modern to see how WotC did it and deciding which of the two i like better...

My personal conclusion is that SR D20/OGL can be done and should be done, it wouldn't detract from the gaming experience from the current fans and would open the game up to new people, and most importantly for the publisher, it would make a profit! Only problem is that Rob Boyle has already made a statement that... A well read it your self:



> _
> From the Shadorun FAQ:_
> *Are you going to publish a Shadowrun D20 system?*
> No. We have no interest in diving into the flood of D20 products since we are quite happy with the game system as it is. The Shadowrun system also does not mesh well with the character-class, hit-or-miss, no-levels-of-success D20 system.




I'll attempt to write an email argumenting the advantages and we'll see what happens. On the other hand, they don't have the the sole right to publish D&D/cyberpunk like roleplaying games, i might just write my own...


----------



## jakal (Oct 14, 2002)

whisper_jeff said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ok, I have no clue why I'm bothering to post to this thread, especially this subject of the thread since people have made up their minds for or against SAS d20 already and nothing I say will change that, but the above comment bugs the hell out of me. Now, it may just be a case of you using a term but applying a different definition to that term than I do. Thus, before I go off on my normal rant about this subject, let's see if it's just different definitions of a term. What do you consider "game mechanics" to be? Specificially, what are the d20 game mechanics? Specifics, please. *




Feats; feats are a very well defined d20 mechanic that fits easily into a supers game but aren't in a standard game of d20 SAS.

Skills; Well technically that's not a mechanic but rather a set of options, but why not use the d20 standard set of skills instead of the tristat ones. I know you don't have problems with people using the d20 non-combat skills instead of the SAS ones but they should be standard, and I feel this is indicative.

I guess the way I see porting something to d20 is to try and tell the same stories in a similar style while using the d20 system, like AEG has done with L5R. I’m probably wrong about this but I feel that some ports are just trying to change their current game just enough to be able to put the d20 logo on the cover. Of course it’s possible to make a game to bland and feel like D&D with lasers or D&D in spandex or D&D with funny hats or whatever but there is a middle ground where a game can have a feel of its own while still generally sticking to d20 mechanics.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2002)

whisper_jeff said:
			
		

> *What do you consider "game mechanics" to be? Specificially, what are the d20 game mechanics? Specifics, please. *




The six basic attributes, classes, feats, skills, and d20 task resolution.

And most importantly, the mechanic of *levelling up*, with an attendant increase in attributes, classes, feats, skills, and bonuses to d20 task resolution.


Wulf


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2002)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *And taking a few levels of fighter really really hurts a mage in the long run. *




From my experience as a long-time Shadowrun player, though, a Mage in Shadowrun who really tries to be as good as the "fighter-types" also gets hurt.  Mages in Shadowrun have more to suck down XP than anyone else in the game.  If they spend it on non-magic, they retard their growth as mages.  And, even if they do spend the XP, they still really aren't as good as the fighters - to be as good, they'd need cyberware.  And if they take that cyberware, they really, really retard their growth as mages.

So, on that basis, D&D and Shadowrun are prety similar, IMHO.

MInd you, I'd still not be interested in a d20 Shadowrun.  As others have noted, while game settings are important, game mechanics are, too.  If you change the root mechanic, you'd have a different game.


----------



## whisper_jeff (Oct 14, 2002)

jakal said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Feats; feats are a very well defined d20 mechanic that fits easily into a supers game but aren't in a standard game of d20 SAS.
> 
> Skills; Well technically that's not a mechanic but rather a set of options, but why not use the d20 standard set of skills instead of the tristat ones. I know you don't have problems with people using the d20 non-combat skills instead of the SAS ones but they should be standard, and I feel this is indicative.*




     Ok, I recognize that a _LOT_ of people feel that feats are a core part of d20. I disagree. They are a cool extension of the system, but they are not vital to the system. The game does not break down without feats. You can play D&D and completely remove feats from the game. It loses some of its _power_ but not its mechanical effectiveness. Fine, a fighter can't cleave a group of targets any more, but he can still swing a sword and kill an orc. Feats just take the game environment to the next level.

     SAS d20 has rules that similarly allow taking the game to the next level (Attributes). Also, adding feats to SAS d20 is effortless (and in hindsight, I wish I had included the Attribute). 1 Power Point gives you one feat (except Leadership which is covered by other Attributes in the game). The character still needs to fulfill the feats requirements in order to take it. Simple. Easy. Yes, I should have added it to the book and I'm kicking myself that I didn't since feats seems to be one of the key things that people focus on when contesting that SAS d20 is not a d20 game...

     As for skills, we have them. Fine, the list is different, but how hard is it to say "we're using the D&D list of skills plus the SAS d20 combat skill." Also, the mechanics for the skills are identical to traditional d20 with a couple of additions (specializations and combat skills).



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The six basic attributes, classes, feats, skills, and d20 task resolution.
> 
> And most importantly, the mechanic of levelling up, with an attendant increase in attributes, classes, feats, skills, and bonuses to d20 task resolution.*




     Six basic ability scores? Got them. Classes? Have them too. Feats? See above. Skills? Have them (see above caveat). d20 task resolution? Have that too. Levelling up? Have that as well.

     Thus, considering SAS d20 has all the elements (except feats, though adding them is effortless), why do you contest that SAS d20 isn't a d20 game? I can use Monster Manual creatures in an SAS d20 game with less than two minutes of conversions (due to armour being treated as Damage Reduction rather than an AC bonus and other minor tweaks). Would that not constitute a d20 game - being able to use other d20 material due to a similar base game mechanic?

     And as a note, I'm seriously curious about your answers to this. I've heard that SAS d20 is not a d20 game often enough but I simply fail to see how it isn't. It isn't packaged like D&D in Tights, but it is a d20 game. The mechanics are the same. Character creation is different. Once you're done creating your character, however, game play is virtually identical to d20 (with exceptions that are obvious changes for a superhero game - such as the addition of a knockback mechanic and the removal of AOO).  The _game mechanics_ are the same.

     Since we plan on doing more d20 material (Slayers d20, BESM d20, d20 Mecha, plus several others that we have yet to announce), I want to know your (collective) thoughts on it. I may not agree (duh! <grin>), but it is helpful. Some products we have planned (Slayers d20) are going to be much more traditional d20 products while others are going to be a bit different (BESM d20). Since we plan on trying to make BESM d20 as obviously a d20 product as possible while simultaneously providing players and GMs with the complete freedom of character creation that BESM provides, it's kind of important to understand what the consumer views as d20.

     Since a lot of people seem unwilling to separate D&D from d20 and vice versa, it is hard for publishers to innovate with the system through presenting new options since it will be viewed as "not d20." Currently, however, I feel that more publishers are looking to innovate the system (game designers are a creative lot, in general, so it is logical to think that they want to get creative with game mechanics eventually). Some will run the gauntlet as we did with SAS d20 and provide innovative new rules for the d20 system and deal with the hardcore audience complaining that it's "not d20" while others will follow the Green Ronin route and offer the product as OGL and thereby avoiding the entire "it's not d20" complaint since, well, it _isn't_ d20. Still, one way or another, I expect the next year or two will see more and more innovation with d20. Will it take? Who knows? All I know is that we aren't going to shy from the attempt. I also know other companies are similarly up to the challenge. I think the next year or two will be very cool for the fans. Then again, I think SAS d20 is a d20 game so what the hell do I know? <grin>


----------



## AaronBurr (Oct 14, 2002)

*RPG Industry*

The following exchange was made between Mearls and Pramas.
See below for exchange, or just read my comments.

A lot has been said about how companies like Whizkids and products like d20 add money to the retailers thus make more money available for "fringe" products.  A typical response has been that the "industry" is fad driven.  This is very true, especially when concerned with release dates.  Gaming is very much like the film industry in this regard.  For the most part you either want to be an established franchise (Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lethal Weapon, or in gaming D&D, World of Darkness) or you want to have a marquis player (Mel Gibson, or in gaming maybe Monte Cook) or you want to be the most recent blockbuster (XXX, Armageddon, Whizkids).  Blockbusters might be a creation of marquis or they might create it as the case may be, if they fit a niche in the market.

Even if you are the franchise/marquis product you still don't want to compete with a similar offering on your release date (the time you are most likely to make a profit) or the money for that genre will be split thus minimizing the profit for both.  This analysis is true for the gaming industry to a certain extent.  Essentially both views are correct.  Hot products do add money, but almost all products can be considered to be in the same genre (I know there is more than one, but the market isn't huge to begin with) thus release dates become important as does longevity of fad.  It is bad business practice to come out at the same time as a new d20 or Whizkids explosion, of course that is essentially once a month so the only answer is to try and either cover a true cult group or to find a new niche (which is exactly what Whizkids did, they boomed into existance as did Wizards with Magic).  

There are a lot of great products out there that aren't going to have "line making" appeal, but would do better without Whizkids.  Though this is true, it is better to have Whizkids in the industry because they will eventually pan out (or expand the market with new buyers) who should look to other games in the long run.  Of course those games will have to be releasing at the right time.  An example of this in the film industry would be when you see a film (good) of a particular genre not making it because of the market and a similar film or even a rip-off making it two years later.



Originally posted by mearls 
In essence, Shane's analysis makes no fundamental sense. More money in the hands of retailers from Whizkids and d20 means more buying power, means a readier market for other products.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That makes perfect sense and it should be true, but it isn't. It's one of the many peculiar things about the game industry. When Whizkids puts out something like Heroclix, it sucks up a huge amount of the buying dollars distributors and retailers have for that month. That's no big surprise, but this is where it gets interesting. You might think, "Well, OK, I won't see big sales this month, but next month when everyone is flush with all that Whizkids money, they'll come back and order my stuff." Except that they won't. The game industry is so frontlist driven that your product from the previous month is old news and distributors and retailers are on to next thing. Furthermore, even though the channel should be swimming in dough after a hit release, it is not a rising tide that lifts all boats. For whatever reason, that extra money is not reinvested in a variety of other products. It goes to buying more Whizkids stuff, or the latest fad product like Yu-Gi-Oh, or to pay off old debt, or any of a million other places. So even in cash rich months, most publishers don't see any corresponding rise in their orders.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 14, 2002)

whisper_jeff said:
			
		

> *
> Ok, I recognize that a _LOT_ of people feel that feats are a core part of d20. I disagree. They are a cool extension of the system, but they are not vital to the system. The game does not
> 
> *




But you lose inter-game compatibility! And you have to explain to all your players that there aren't feats in this game. Can you hear the groans already?



> As for skills, we have them. Fine, the list is different, but how hard is it to say "we're using the D&D list of skills plus the SAS d20 combat skill." Also, the mechanics for the skills are identical to traditional d20 with a couple of additions (specializations and combat skills).




Again, you're leaning towards SAS instead of the d20 defaults. Why add unnecessary barriers towards market acceptance? If SAS d20 was the only d20 supers game in town, then sure, do whatever you want with the skills list. But since it isn't, anything that reeks of gratituous incompatibility or that sends the vibes that you care less about the d20 market than your SAS "true blue" loyal fans is dissing the average GM (it's always the GM who picks up the book first) who thinks, "Man, these guys don't get d20, I'll look at the other d20 products first, or wait for a better implementation."



> And as a note, I'm seriously curious about your answers to this. I've heard that SAS d20 is not a d20 game often enough but I simply fail to see how it isn't. It isn't packaged like D&D in Tights, but it is a d20 game. The mechanics are the same. Character creation is different.




I don't have SAS d20, so if you'll be so kind as to send me a copy, I'll post here with an analysis of why CoC d20 is considered a d20 game, but SAS d20 isn't. My suspicion is that CoC managed to get away with the minimal changes to the system needed to provide the atmosphere and attitude for CoC gaming, while SAS d20 has gratituous changes like you described, which don't add anything for the d20 player, but are a nod to the SAS loyalist (who wouldn't buy a d20 game anyway).

In other words, consumers don't care if by making those changes you've made, you make it easier to dual-stat books. We don't care about making your life easier, or saving you printing costs. But if you gratituously deviate from the standard for no reason at all (and changing skill names is definitely in the category of "gratituous"), then you might as well give up on the d20 logo and base the entire game on the OGL, AND you should be prepared to get pissed off buyers of your product.


----------



## thomden (Oct 14, 2002)

*Honestly, d20 Deadlands wasn't "good enough"*



			
				PEGShane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Both DL D20 and Weird Wars did quite well, selling what *most* D20 publishers sold of their stuff, which is right in line with what we sold of our standard DL classic, Hell on Earth, and Brave New World lines before. While that sounds fine, I had hoped that D20 versions of our games would sell closer to the numbers done by a few breakout products, like Atlas' Penumbra series or Green Ronin's Freeport books. Sincerely,
> 
> ...




First let me say I love Deadlands.  But I'd rather play D&D3e because I can get players to actually play.  I was initially very excited about d20 Deadlands, and couldn't wait for it to come out.  

Frankly, I was a little dissapointed by the quality of it.

The original DL core books were gorgeous, especially with the Brom cover.  I was expecting a product of that quality.

If you truly wanted a "breakout" product, PEG would need to put a product out that had the love and attention paid to it the core DL hardcover books have.  Look at d20 Cthulhu for example (though the diagonal formatting drives me nuts- I fail my sanity check everytime...), it is a very high quality product and has become a "breakout" product.

I really want to buy a copy of d20 DL, but it's gotta have the love!


----------



## Oberton (Oct 14, 2002)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ...
> This will seem incredibly bizarre to people on these boards. The vast majority of gamers do not use the internet to look for reviews, gaming supplements, etc. This doesn't mean they don't have computers, it just means they don't use them for their gaming...
> ...




Easy there now,  I think you might have gone just a bit to far with that comment.  

There is a trend developing with computers and gamers.  I see it everyday as gamers bring their MS EXCEL, e-tools, rpg master and etc. generated character sheets to the gaming table.  They have a different version of the RANGER class from a very popular web-site.  They want to buy a book they read about on enworld and etc.  I am seeing tons of yahoo communities that players post on during the week to discuss meta game details while at work.  I could go on and on about the computer and gaming...  The simple fact that PDF products are showing up at gaming tables and the DM's are using the OGL files during a game to do quick searches for rules, seems to indicate that computers are becoming important. My players went nuts for the AURAN products and their 3-D Images and animiation. They sound effects and mini movies. 

Later and Game-ON...

Oberton


----------



## whisper_jeff (Oct 14, 2002)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> *
> I don't have SAS d20, so if you'll be so kind as to send me a copy, I'll post here with an analysis of why CoC d20 is considered a d20 game, but SAS d20 isn't.*




     ... You're kidding me. You're arguing that SAS d20 isn't a d20 game and you don't even own it (which presumably means you haven't even read it...). I'm willing to discuss the SAS d20 or not d20 issue when a person has read the book and given it a fair chance but if you haven't even read the book...


----------



## Oberton (Oct 14, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, I was thinking we need more higher level modules.  But I do like the idea of ones that can be run as a series.  Another interesting thing would be not just low level modules, but modules that are written to be the players very first adventure.  It would be great to study the reasons as to why character begin their life as adventures.  I also imagine thaat after seeing the dangers many would be adventurers would find something safer.  So, you'd need some tangible reward besides treasure to keep the players going. *




I would really like to see a product that has all kinds of random charts for generating character details. There was a company who once made such a product and I am sure all of the "old schoolers" will remember it, but for the life of me I can not.. (If I do I will edit this post).  How about the charts in the first edition of the DMG.  You know the ones in the very back.  Random charts for room contents, herbs, poison, sounds, smells and etc.. God what a great set of charts.. I use to look over them just to get ideas for dressing up a dungeon.  I also learned a ton of new terms (I was 15 years old then) and ways to describe the environment.  With todays PDF options (which can be scripted--programmed) you could really make some cool charts that could generate a rooms contents, weather, and etc..  But I would really like to see a published product with a CD included or a Web-Site to support the product...

Later and Game-ON
Oberton


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 14, 2002)

whisper_jeff said:
			
		

> *     ... You're kidding me. You're arguing that SAS d20 isn't a d20 game and you don't even own it (which presumably means you haven't even read it...). I'm willing to discuss the SAS d20 or not d20 issue when a person has read the book and given it a fair chance but if you haven't even read the book... *



Read my post again: I've analyzed what you yourself reported --- that people complain about the missing feats and the skill list. The issues there should be pretty obvious to anyone who didn't consider the SAS game primary and the d20 game secondary.


----------



## Ssendam (Oct 14, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As if sitting down at one's computer will ever seriously challenge sitting down at a table with actual people?  Good gods!  If it ever reaches a point where gamers start preferring interaction via a computer over face-to-face, we'll prove we're geeks far and above what the stereotypes say.   *




Why can't playing online people challenge sitting round a table with people?

Ok, so it's not what I prefer, but the topic was about crossover between the two. All I'm saying is that the gap between computers and P&P has closed significantly with NWN, and there will be others to follow judging on the success of NWN. As the gap closes you will find that people will try the computer games and some will prefer them.

A game like NWN does have advantages over P&P, like; - the fact that a large amount of bookkeeping is taken care of, - being able to play with a group when you have none or not enough players in your area, - the scope to play in a group that has players in it from all over the world. 

For me personally there is still a large downside but at least I can recognise the advances made over time and I'm looking into the future a little, (my personal view, sure, but thinking is good for my brain).

Also, this isn't the 80's computers are hardly considered "geeky" anymore. That's another trend that will continue, computers being commonplace, they are already putting them in our fridges and getting them to go online to order our groceries! (well, at least I still do that the "old fashioned way").


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2002)

whisper_jeff said:
			
		

> *Ok, I recognize that a _LOT_ of people feel that feats are a core part of d20. I disagree. *




I really don't mean this to sound as snarky as it is going to, but you aren't permitted to disagree. The d20 consumer doesn't grant you, the designer, that privelege. This is why you keep hearing the same complaints. 



> *Yes, I should have added it to the book and I'm kicking myself that I didn't since feats seems to be one of the key things that people focus on when contesting that SAS d20 is not a d20 game...*




You are missing the point of the d20 logo. You never got past the point of thinking, "The d20 logo will help sell my game." There's nothing wrong with that; the problem is that you fail to deliver 100% on the promise that is implicitly made by the d20 logo-- to whit:

*This game is compatible with d20.*

The logo does not mean, "This game is compatible with d20, _with a few minor tweaks by the GM._" 



> *As for skills, we have them. Fine, the list is different, but how hard is it to say "we're using the D&D list of skills plus the SAS d20 combat skill." Also, the mechanics for the skills are identical to traditional d20 with a couple of additions (specializations and combat skills).*




Ever step you take away from the d20 experience as delivered by D&D is a broken promise to the end user.



> *Six basic ability scores? Got them. Classes? Have them too. Feats? See above. Skills? Have them (see above caveat). d20 task resolution? Have that too. Levelling up? Have that as well.
> 
> Thus, considering SAS d20 has all the elements (except feats, though adding them is effortless), why do you contest that SAS d20 isn't a d20 game?*




Because you don't have ALL the basic elements in place. You must have them all. There must be a 1-to-1 analog, and you don't have it.



> * I can use Monster Manual creatures in an SAS d20 game with less than two minutes of conversions*




See above. The d20 logo is your company's promise to the GM that even as little as 2 minutes of conversion should not be necessary. 



> *I've heard that SAS d20 is not a d20 game often enough but I simply fail to see how it isn't.*




I mean this with all respect, but if you still cannot grasp why it isn't, that's a fundamental flaw, and it is going to introduce flaws into every "d20 compatible" product you design. 

Rather than riding the wave of d20, you seem to find yourself struggling to swim against the tide. 



> *Since a lot of people seem unwilling to separate D&D from d20 and vice versa, it is hard for publishers to innovate with the system through presenting new options since it will be viewed as "not d20."*




Not true; it is not that people are not willing to separate D&D with d20. The problem is that D&D is the defining game for what d20 is. Folks do not expect you to deliver D&D in Tights, but they do expect you to remain consistent with the character creation, character advancement, and basic task resolution defined in the PHB. 

If you find that the d20 logo stifles your ability to innovate, the solution is simple: *DON'T USE IT.* 

You still have access to the OGL, you can innovate and tweak to your heart's desire, and you will not suffer the backlash of the broken d20 promise. You can't have it both ways; if you want to use the d20 logo, you must deliver d20. If you are not delivering d20, please don't be disingenuous and slap the d20 logo on your product.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. 


Wulf


----------



## Michael Tree (Oct 14, 2002)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> * Just as an aside, Nobilis couldn't work as a D20 game any more than Amber could... both are diceless systems  *



The first rule of conversions is "Convert the setting and the characters, not the rules."

I notice that your posts about converting Shadowrun are full of details about how specific aspects of the Shadowrun _game mechanics_ would be difficult to implement in D20.  Many of these mechanics have nothing to do with the setting.

The second rule of conversions is "D20 does not mean D&D".  Lots of alternatives are possible.  IMO the Star Wars RPG's Wound/Vitality rules and armor rules would best reflect shadowrun. 

Nor do classes have to be restrictive.  D20 modern's open-ended classes could work very well, if rules for magic and cyberwear were added.  D20 doesn't even need to have classes.

If a book is made OGL instead of D20, such as Godlike and Mutants and Masterminds, you don't even need levels.  Everything could be point based.


----------



## kenjib (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Continuing This Topic Drift*



			
				Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> But if you didn't do all of that, you wouldn't have Shadowrun. You would have a generic cyberpunk game with a different rule system. Shadowrun is as popular as it is mostly BECAUSE if it's rule system.
> *




Actually, as far as I can tell you could just release Shadowrun, as-is, under the OGL license.  The exact same game.  The only difference from the current system would be that now other publishers could create supplements for Shadowrun according to your definition of open content.

Is this incorrect?

So, if Shane predicts that more people will be going toward OGL and away from d20, such a change has very different implications than anyone so far has mentioned on this thread.  In fact, it seems quite contradictory with the opinion that d20 is taking over like Microsoft.

What would the industry look like if GURPS, Storyteller, and HERO were all released under the OGL, without any changes to the rules?  Let's assume that each one created their own parallel the d20 license to protect the sales of their core books.

I think that would be a positive move forward.  We could have Chaosium writing a GURPS supplement, and Green Ronin writing something for HERO.  However, the GURPS, and HERO games will still have the exact same rules that they always did, we just get more options to choose from as regards supplements and campaign options.

It would give the consumers access to supplements written for the best systems, by the best publishers, and both the supplement publisher and the license holder profit (as nice supplement support drives sales of the core rules).  It looks like it could be a win-win solution for everyone.  The only possible hitch is in whether other systems without D&D's brand power can still drive sufficient core sales and cottage industry to remain profitable.  I can't conjecture on this.  Anyone?  GURPS would be a perfect example with it's extensive in-house expansion line.  Would GURPS benefit from competition in expansions or would it lose profit overall by licensing the core rule system out?

I think it would be great if other companies re-released under new licenses based on the OGL.  The consumer, at least, would probably be a clear winner.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 14, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *
> The first rule of conversions is "Convert the setting and the characters, not the rules."
> *




I just wanted to back up Michael Tree here especially since I left this out of my earlier post. I've been running an Amber game using the d20 System for two years now. It works great and I even prefer it to my GURPS Amber, Diceless Amber, Home-Brew v.1 and v.2 Amber, Amber Hero, and Amber 7th Sea campaigns.


----------



## Tsyr (Oct 14, 2002)

> Is this incorrect?




No, that's more or less correct as I understand it.

As much as I'd like to see it, I don't think it would ever happen. Some companies are fairly protective of their property... by making it OGL, it is (sort of) a bit less "theirs", I think is how they would feel.


----------



## Oberton (Oct 14, 2002)

hellbender said:
			
		

> *
> ...
> 
> However, I think you brought up an interesting scenario, one of which I would be interested in taking part in with a totally unbiased attitude; the sampling of several shops that carry role playing games. Back in college I used to do these types of surveys in the field of tobacco products, and if there were other interested people willing to conduct a survey in their respective areas, without bias or altering numbers, for the sake of comparing the sheer number of d20 products in comparison to non-d20 products. However, I would not participate if it would be used in any way to bash anyone or any company, and I would hope that nobody else would participate for any agenda other than producing facts. The survey would not reflect sales, but would reflect a sampling of shelfstock offerings and would have to be done on average of twice a week, for around 3 months to gather varied information reflecting trends and inventory.
> ...




You can count me in on this survey. I can hit several locations in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and other towns in Louisiana... If someone really puts together a good survey contact me please  warrenla@bellsouth.net or go to www.d20con.org


Oberton

Game-ON


----------



## kenjib (Oct 14, 2002)

Ssendam said:
			
		

> *
> That's another trend that will continue, computers being commonplace, they are already putting them in our fridges and getting them to go online to order our groceries! (well, at least I still do that the "old fashioned way"). *




tangent alert!

Didn't that idea fade away after all of the online grocery stores that would have fulfilled these orders dot.tanked?


----------



## Oberton (Oct 14, 2002)

Inez Hull said:
			
		

> *For mine, I'd really like to see Campaign 'stories' as opposed to Campaign 'settings'.
> *




God yes,  we need much more material as GM's or DM's if you wish...  I have more worlds now than ever...  Harn d20, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, EverQuest--love the bard, Sword and Sorc., Auran, and so-on... I will continue to purchase the d20 products that do well on enworld and allow me to pick apart the product for my game.  I will say this, I am now starting to allow my players to purchase products and use them in my D&D game which I run at a local hobby shop.  I do tell them this:  We can try out the new feat, class or whatever and if it does not hurt the game fine.  But I might decide that it does not work in my world.  This has had a cool impact.  First, I have seen the players try new things with their characters and second, the store owner is now purchasing more crunchy bit books for the players... 

Later and Game-ON

Oberton
www.d20con.org


----------



## Rifter (Oct 14, 2002)

*Another point of view*

First off, this has been a terrific thread.  

Next, I wanted to discuss the glut.  There is one.  I work for a local game store, and certain titles, come to the shelf, and go right off.  Others, we have to work to sell... and yet others, never sell.  The store owner has gotten a lot more gun-shy, when ordering new products in.  Certain companies, the owner will always order their products.  Other ones, he will pass, unless someone asks him directly for it.  

So, to get by this, it helps to have knowlegable people at the store.  I sell a LOT of D20 products, because I buy a bunch, and read them for the game I run, and the games I play in.  If someone comes in looking for a product, I can ask them what they are looking for, and get them hooked up.  Products don't sell for many reasons.  Not what the person is looking for, not high enough quality, very narrow niche (Avalance products suffer from this, but man, they are great historical "idea" books), and, others are priced pretty high, for what you get (some of Fast Forward's hardbacks, and Bastion books come to mind).  

To sell books, you need to get known.  I talk about stuff from Enworld, and eventually that stuff gets orders where I work.  But, a lot of stuff still goes by, and I have to get it ordered.  I then show some friends, and a few more books get orderd.  People need to know about these different books.  Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a good channel for getting information to the stores.  The store owner calls the distributor, and asks for what is new.  He gets the list, and orders anything that sounds interesting.  He never even LOOKS at the product.  With D&D products it is a no-brainer, but for smaller 3rd party products, this gets difficult.  

I have a suggestion for a lot of the companies that are making new games, using D20, such as Dragon Star or Spycraft.  Please, make a few adventures, that get characters from lvl 1 to lvl 6 or 8.  I like to GM, but I GM fantasy.  I would LOVE to GM those 2 games in particular, but I don't really have the "feel" down.  I learn the feel by playing in a game a GM runs, or running a module, that already fits.  Also, put in some of the cool mechanics your game has, that makes it stand apart from others.  

For the comments on Deadlands.  I too picked up the main book, and the monster book, as soon as they came out.  After being an avid fan of the original book, I was devistated by the transition to D20.  It just doesn't always work well.  Though, hearing that there will be optional mechanics to use cards, really piques my interest.  Though, I still think that deadlands, like many other games, works better on its own system, than being pounded into shape on another system.  

In summary, you really need to get your supplements known.  Send flyers to the distributors, giving some information about your products.  Get advocates in all the markets, even smaller ones.  You will probalby have some better luck with advocates in smaller markets, since more people tend to know each other.  Finally, do everything in your power to let people know about your products.  Press releases to the news sites like EN world, banner ads help a lot.  (I have purchased items I had never heard of, because of banner ads here... like Masters of Arms, Aerial Adventures and soon to be: elements of magic).  Make it interesting.  Banner ads are like billboards.  They get the word out, that you exist.  From there, the users can choose whether they want to check it out or not... but you need to give consumers the ability to know about your product.  Also, watch your price.  I have seen one copy of Book of the Righteous sold at our store.  I bought it.  It is one of the best books I have read.  But, friends of mine look at the price, and gasp.  The $100 adventure sounds GREAT, but I don't know many people that would fork over that much money.


----------



## whisper_jeff (Oct 14, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I really don't mean this to sound as snarky as it is going to, but you aren't permitted to disagree. The d20 consumer doesn't grant you, the designer, that privelege. This is why you keep hearing the same complaints.
> 
> ...




     Forgive the snark in this reply: That's horse. Many people view Spycraft (for example) as compatible with d20 yet, when the chips are down, there are conversions that need to be made in order to use it with D&D (which is often touted as the base-line of d20). Same with Star Wars. And several other games that are viewed as acceptably d20. 

     The idea that a game must be 100% compatible, without any conversion at all, in order to be d20 is laughable. There are numerous products already out there that have conversions required in order to use with other d20 material. Why don't they get racked over the coals? Because they are published by companies that were "on the d20 bandwagon" early whereas we waited before entering the market so we look like we're just trying to cash in. Isn't that what it really is all about. Other companies, because they've been doing d20 for a while, are allowed to make modifications and changes to the system because "they know d20." GOO, on the other hand has done no d20 products prior to SAS d20 so we clearly don't know our asses from our elbows and must surely be doing this _just_ to get our piece of the d20 pie, right?

     Ignoring the sarcasm of the above, the point is still valid - why can other companies make similar changes to d20 but not suffer the same wrath?

     Seriously, I am curious - why can other companies make changes to the system - change the skill list so that it is appropriate to the genre/setting, change armour to damage reduction, and other minor changes - changes similar to those we made? Why can they do it without the uproar and venom but when we do it we're apparently mercenaries just cashing in by "tricking" people with the d20 logo?

     Considering I can drop a Spycraft character into SAS d20 with minimal conversions (the same number of conversions you'd have to make to drop the same Spycraft character into D&D...), why is Spycraft acceptably different from d20 while SAS isn't? Seriously?

     Ignoring my possibly biased and clearly stated opinion on this subject, as a game designer, I am curious why people view changes to the d20 system as accetpable from some companies and blasphemy from others.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2002)

whisper_jeff said:
			
		

> *Why is Spycraft acceptably different from d20 while SAS isn't? Seriously?*




*Take a close look at the front cover of Spycraft.*

Subtle, but relevant. 

You'll also note that Spycraft has all of the definitive d20 elements.

I will concede your point that gamers including myself give a certain amount of "latitude on attitude." Spycraft is a great system, built from the ground up around d20 for all the right reasons. I don't get the impression that you embrace d20 for those reasons, nor that you ever will.


Wulf


----------



## Ssendam (Oct 14, 2002)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *
> 
> tangent alert!
> 
> Didn't that idea fade away after all of the online grocery stores that would have fulfilled these orders dot.tanked? *




LOL, caught me! (but I call it artistic licence).

The point is still the same though, computers are now commonplace, and you aren't a geek if you have/own/use one.


----------



## whisper_jeff (Oct 14, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Take a close look at the front cover of Spycraft.
> 
> ...




     First, as for the Spycraft cover, I think you're being too subtle - what are you talking about? I have a guess (the lack of a d20 logo on the _front_ cover), but I'm going to ask rather than assume.

     Second, as for me not embracing d20 - you don't know me from a hole in the ground so how can you make that judgement? Seriously, what has given you that impression because it is, in my opinion, patently false. When I work on a d20 product, I am attempting to make the best product possible, as I do with _any_ product I work on. You may not like it, and that is your right, but don't ever doubt my desire to make the best product possible. Anyone who questions that doesn't know me at all.


----------



## Bartholomew Fair (Oct 14, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *Not true; it is not that people are not willing to separate D&D with d20. The problem is that D&D is the defining game for what d20 is. Folks do not expect you to deliver D&D in Tights, but they do expect you to remain consistent with the character creation, character advancement, and basic task resolution defined in the PHB. *



Um, please speak for yourself Wulf. Some of us _like_ SAS d20 and use it alongside our other d20 System games (D&D, Star Wars, CoC, etc.) with no trouble at all. Not all of us get our knickers in a twist just because there are some small differences between the respective games. HP vs. VP/WP anyone?


----------



## Luddite (Oct 14, 2002)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *
> 
> tangent alert!
> 
> Didn't that idea fade away after all of the online grocery stores that would have fulfilled these orders dot.tanked? *




Yes and no.  The On-Line only grocery stores have faded away.  But in my area, many of the chain brick and morter grocery stores are now offering on-line ordering and delivery service.

Computers are becoming more an more apart of the cosummer's life.  Not only do all my friends and peers have computers, but so do all their mothers. 8*)

-Luddite


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2002)

whisper_jeff said:
			
		

> *First, as for the Spycraft cover, I think you're being too subtle - what are you talking about? I have a guess (the lack of a d20 logo on the _front_ cover), but I'm going to ask rather than assume.*




Correct. Spycraft uses the d20 logo exactly once, on the lower back cover, in the minimum possible size allowed by the license.

I think it is worthwhile to question why they chose that position. 



> *Second, as for me not embracing d20 - you don't know me from a hole in the ground so how can you make that judgement? Seriously, what has given you that impression because it is, in my opinion, patently false. *




My opinion is based solely on your posts here in the public forums of ENworld. This seems a reasonable place to form an opinion of your position on d20. I have not formed an opinion of you personally (except that you're occasionally snarky). 



> *You may not like it, and that is your right, but don't ever doubt my desire to make the best product possible. Anyone who questions that doesn't know me at all. *




I don't question your ability as a fellow designer. By all accounts, BESM and Tri-Stat is a fantastic system. However, I continually question your inability to understand the mind of the d20 gamer.

Perhaps it is too subtle or intangible to explain, but some companies and some designers "get it" and some don't. By your own admission you don't get it.

Wulf


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2002)

Jeff, in retrospect I'd like to apologize.

I don't think that whatever shortcomings there may be (in my opinion) in SAS d20 consitutes any evidence that you haven't embraced d20.

I recall my early opinion being formed by your contention that the essence of d20 was "roll a d20, compare it to a DC." (I use quotes, but I paraphrase). 

While I think it's clear you're missing a certain _je ne sais quoi_ about d20, it's unfair to characterize you as insincere.

Clearly, by your posts here, you are sincere in your attempts to come to grips with it.

I apologize for insinuating otherwise.


Wulf


----------



## whisper_jeff (Oct 15, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Correct. Spycraft uses the d20 logo exactly once, on the lower back cover, in the minimum possible size allowed by the license.
> 
> I think it is worthwhile to question why they chose that position. *




     I believe the answer is very simply "because that is their standard practice." Looking at a couple of their other d20 products that I have available, they all have the logo very small and often just on the back cover. Since they are known as a d20 company, they don't have to advertise the fact quite as much. As a new company to d20, GOO has to make it a little more obvious. I don't think there was any other reason for their choice than "standard operating procedure."

     Had they wanted to "play down" (as you suggest) any connection to d20, they could have done away with the logo entirely and gone OGL. There is no requirement to use the logo - in fact, using the logo has restrictions attached.

     Also, are you implying that, had I elected to place the d20 logo on SAS in as small a size as possible, just on the back cover, the design decisions I made would have been acceptable?

The remainder of my comments related to your post have been cut because, really, there's just no point. You think I don't "get" d20 and I feel you don't "get" SAS d20.


----------



## EarthsShadow (Oct 15, 2002)

*Ooo Ooo...*

I have something to say on all these wonderful and colorful topics...

To Cergorach: If you want help in working on a good cyberpunk/Shadowrun d20 conversion, I have some ideas I could throw at you.  I would buy a SR d20 game in a heartbeat, and I love the original system also, but I know that most d20 players are not open minded enough to try different systems.  Nothing personal.

To the SAS d20 argument: To all involved, this argument is mute and pointless.  Each of you are trying to convince the other that you are right and the other side is wrong.  Both of you are right, get over it, and move on.  There are some people that have a specific viewpoint on what 'd20' is, which includes classes, level up, xp, bab, vancian magic, feats, things like this...and then there is the other side, that views 'd20' as 'just roll a d20 and add in modifiers to check against a DC.'  Both sides are right, neither is wrong.  

To Jeff of GOO: On a personal note, SAS d20 is the only superhero game I will play for d20 BECAUSE of the variations and changes you did make to the system, and KEEPING it d20 at the same time.  It's an awesome game, and keep up the work.  I will purchase d20 BESM and d20 Mecha next year also.

As for the roleplaying industry, the way I see it, the d20 revolution is slowing down.  There are more quality products coming out now over a longer period of time and not as many rushed products like there was in the first year.  

As for what makes a d20 game a d20 game, I think it is summed up as follows: You roll a d20, add in your modifiers, and compare it to a Difficulty Number/Target Number.  You have the Six basic abilities, which I think there should be a couple more, but that's just a personal bias against the system.  You have skills with skill ranks, you have classes that level up (and personally I don't even think classes themselves are REQUIRED per se, but most feel that they are required because of the fact that we are just used to them.  Simple and to the point.  People don't like change to much, which is unfortunate), you have experience points, and you have hit points/vitality points/wound points that increase with levels.  I can understand why someone would say that Feats are a necessity in a d20 game, but if Attributes take the place of Feats and do the same thing, then that's cool with me.  

And to all the other publishers out there, make some more good products for us to purchase.  We appreciate it.


----------



## Tsyr (Oct 15, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Correct. Spycraft uses the d20 logo exactly once, on the lower back cover, in the minimum possible size allowed by the license.
> 
> ...




I'll side with Jeff here (Plus, I'm a GOO-numbed zombie-worshiper, but that's beside the point)... you can check this for yourself. It's just how they do it. Same thing for Rokugan... lower corner, very tiny. And Rokugan is 100% compatible.

Dungeons has it in the same spot, though a touch bigger. The other "word" books have it twice, but still the very tiny size. 

Don't have any of my "XXXX of Rokugan" books on hand to check with those, though.

I don't think there is any subtle meaning there, sorry.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 15, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Bringing all this useless corporate knowledge to bear, but the term "monetary incentive" is a slight misnomer, unless the money to be gained is extremely substantial. In RPG design, this is not the case. As a rule rather than an exception, money is a hygenic (upkeep) factor, and without it motivation suffers; however, it is not a consistent motivator in and of itself. Far more important factors include recognition and job satisfaction.
> 
> Don't believe me? Check most management and business admin training courses. Strange as it sounds, money (however attractive) will not cause an employee or contractor to be more diligent with a long-term project. *




That is not quite correct. This is when we get into the differences between economics and the technical aspects of business as seperate disciplines, but let me just say this; money IS the consistent motivator in the long run. Those who do not value tend to be hedged out eventually. The vague notions of job satisfaction and other such have historically been round about manners of compensation when wages are 'sticky' for some reason and are highly uneven in their effect.

As to your assessment of the rpg industry, i have no doubt that the traditional motivation of production has this so-called 'passion'. But, as ryand has stated, d20 is changing this, with its big name brand, DND, now being run as a CONSUMER-driven business. The pie is growing bigger and an increasing number of the new producers are apparently entering in large part because they see profit oppurtunities. They are likely to produce more d20 because they can now get more income to complement their 'luxery' work, attaining a higher level of utility in the process. The suits are winning, and thank god.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 15, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *
> You're being inconsistent.   First you assert that the difference between good books and crap ones is overemphasized and sentimental on the part of game designers.  Then you assert that the difference between good and bad products is sufficiently large that a designer would spend more time and effort on it.
> 
> Besides, people aren't as logical and foresighted as you assert.  People spend more time doing things they like. *




You obviously do not understand my argument. Your first assertion is correct, that 'bad' products, i.e. less marketable ones are produced because of sentimental instincts. The second one is pretty much a butchery of symantics; the difference in marketability between a good and bad product is such that there will be an incentive to put more effort, i.e. playtesting into it. What you fail to appreciate is that I understand that balance and other production values will effect income from a given book, but that the essential market the book is being written for should be a wide one for a book to be considered 'good', i.e. buyable for a large number of people. What you created was a false dichotomy.


----------



## Lizard (Oct 15, 2002)

I waffled about ten times over whether or not to post this, since I really don't want to jump back into this mire, but I finally decided to go ahead. What's a little more muck?



			
				whisper_jeff said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ok, I recognize that a _LOT_ of people feel that feats are a core part of d20.  *



 (Rest deleted)

The problem, I feel, is not that "This deviates from other D20 rules" but "This deviates from other D20 rules _seemingly solely for greater compatibility with TS SAS_." There is a _perception_, however false it may be, that D20 SAS was created by taking the files for TS SAS and changing the minimal possible amount of text. 

Mutants&Masterminds seems to change a great deal more of the core rules than SAS did -- a 'damage save' instead of hit points, for example. I will go out on a limb and say that M&M will be generally better received by the more vocal elements of the D20 community, because it will be _perceived_ that the changes were made for the sole purpose of making a better D20 superhero game, not for the sake of compatibility with existing products. 

The degree to which perception and reality overlap are, of course, anyone's guess...


----------



## Oberton (Oct 15, 2002)

*SAS, D20, OGL and Bill Gates*

Hum, I just don't get the argument about SAS products.  At the various game stores in New Orleans, I have never heard anyone complain about products that don't follow the letter of the d20 core system rules. Most people like to see a little variance in the games.  This gives them ideas and such.  I really think the argument or debate, if you will, is more a designer’s point of view not a consumers.  In the end, all designers must please the consumer and SAS does seem to do this with their products.

Also, someone compared d20 to Microsoft earlier in this thread saying they (WOTC -- d20) will dominate the market.  I as a professional software developer have been riding Bill Gates coat tails for sometime and thousands of other developers like me, have no problem with this. In fact we depend on Microsoft to continue to put out great products for us to support and add features onto…  If we did not have a strong company like Microsoft to push product design and etc, we would all still be working on very hard to use machines and paying computer stores tons of cash to configure our machines, no matter what the UNIX crowd wants you to believe ( I am sure that will get a commit)...  Bill has done us a big favor. I believe d20 has done the gaming community a similar favor and there is room within the system, be it d20 or OGL, for everyone to express their design ideas...   Like the developers for Microsoft, the designers of d20 games will eventually dominate the market as long as they continue to produce great products for their system and like software developers, the community of game designers will have to learn to accept this inevitability…


Later and Game-ON

Oberton


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 15, 2002)

Theuderic, if you aren't interested in participating in the industry discussion, please post elsewhere and don't muddy the thread.  Thanks.

EDIT - I'm deleting the chaff from this exchange.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 15, 2002)

whisper_jeff said:
			
		

> *
> Ok, I have no clue why I'm bothering to post to this thread, especially this subject of the thread since people have made up their minds for or against SAS d20 already and nothing I say will change that....
> *




Heck, no.  For what it's worth, I haven't, yet. That's one of the reasons this discussion is so interesting.

 - Piratecat


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 15, 2002)

SAS=Silver Age Sentinels, right? I kept thinking someone had done a Special Air Service d20 book, along the lines of Afghanistan d20.

I haven't made up my mind yet, either. I don't know much about it, truth to tell.


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 15, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> * I don't know much about it, truth to tell. *




 Ah now we are getting somewhere.  Just Joking


----------



## Geoff Watson (Oct 15, 2002)

Lizard said:
			
		

> *The problem, I feel, is not that "This deviates from other D20 rules" but "This deviates from other D20 rules seemingly solely for greater compatibility with TS SAS." There is a perception, however false it may be, that D20 SAS was created by taking the files for TS SAS and changing the minimal possible amount of text.
> *




I think you are correct. Jeff has mentioned on the GoO boards that they made it as close as possible to the TriStat rules to save space when dual-statting supplements; and that most of the typos in the d20 book were due to copying straight from the Tristat manuscript.

Geoff.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Oct 15, 2002)

*And yet another perspective...*

Keeping with the "discussion of the d20 system's affects on the industry" let me present the view of a new freelance writer. Note that I don't have any more authority here than a non-writer, I was just stating it so people know my perspective.

The d20 system has been, for me, all about possibilities. I now have a writing career with multiple sourcebooks written or pending because of d20. Before, there just wasn't the market for freelancers. Now, I can write and be published. It's an incredible feeling to know that someone might pick up my work and think it's worth some money, much less time and attention! Likewise, ideas that might not have gone beyond my gaming group will now reach thousands of people! I'm able to afford college this year because of my freelance writing -- if it weren't for the d20 system, I'd have had to take a year off to work in some other job in order to pay for another year of school. How cool is that? And yeah, it's a career now. It's something that I could concievably do for the rest of my life, whereas before my writing was little more than something to please people who found my website. I mean, does that not strike a chord with any entrepeneur out there?

Those that compare d20 to Microsoft (of which there has been thankfully little in this thread) would be more appropriate comparing d20 to Linux: open source, basic structure, distributed far and wide, and easily modified by developers. I think the OGL has done more FOR the industry than any other development in the last, what, 20 years? I've only been playing for around the last 15, so I'm not entirely sure. The fact is that it's moving products that would otherwise never see the light of day before it came around, and that can't be a bad thing to me. 

The real question is: where do we go from here? I think if the software model teaches us anything, it's that we go up. I think as more companies use OGL instead of normal d20 (or, heaven forbid, open up straight d20 material to OGL) then we'll see a more free exchange of good, solid ideas. I mean, look at what's happening now. Soon I should be able to start up my own gaming company and publish PDF supplements for Mutants and Masterminds. Green Ronin makes more money off more core books being sold, I make money off of my work, and we're all happy campers. (Note: I'm not planning on doing that, just using it as an example).  That's just amazing to me. It's nearing a free exchange of ideas on a platform that reaches a large audience....all the best parts of open-source software with all the best parts of broadly distributed software. 

One final note. Recently, my normal gaming group has ended its Wheel of Time campaign and moved to what we call the Rotating Game Format. Each member of the group gets 4 gaming sessions to run convention-style one-shots using whatever game they want. This allows our group to try out all those ideas we've said "Well, wouldn't it be cool to run a XXXX game?" about.  My turn is up next, and I'm running Metal Gear Solid using the Spycraft game. The guy before me ran Masters of the Universe D&D. One of the guys after me is going to run Mecha Crusade, and another is going to do Greco-Roman D&D. These ideas that are cool for quick games but not exactly what we want to invest campaign-level effort into are overflowing fountains of ideas and testbeds for new concepts. And we use d20, because we can switch games and genres with minimal effort. Rotating Game Format has allowed all of my gaming group the ability to strut their stuff without waiting until the current campaign of whatever game ends. 

I'm all for d20. Solid system, solid success, solid OGL concepts.


----------



## baseballfury (Oct 15, 2002)

Lizard said:
			
		

> *
> The problem, I feel, is not that "This deviates from other D20 rules" but "This deviates from other D20 rules seemingly solely for greater compatibility with TS SAS." There is a perception, however false it may be, that D20 SAS was created by taking the files for TS SAS and changing the minimal possible amount of text.
> *




I'd go one step further. I'd say, "This deviates from other D20 rules because the whole project was a blatant money grab and the bare minimum work was done to the TS rules to release a d20 version." It looks even worse, IMO, because it was an inept money grab. White Wolf got it right with Creature Collection (the money grab part, I mean; the book itself was terrible). Trying to "hop on the bandwagon" so late in the game and so obviously just looked foolish.


----------



## mearls (Oct 15, 2002)

This is a general response to Shane's post. I'm not going to quote it to save space.

First, a few of my comments were not aimed specifically at Shane but rather at the general trends I see in designers and in the market. I thought it was a little weird that his email message had been posted here, and wasn't sure if he posted or read this message board.

The issue of a glut v. a culling: this really comes down to personal definitions or views on the subject. To me, a glut isn't a glut until publishers start moving out of the market. We see companies diversifying, but not many pulling completely out of d20. Even then, for every company that drops d20 for something else (PEG) we see others that are jumping into the market (GOO). As long as the same volume of companies are willing to invest in d20 products, I don't see the market as glutted. A glut to me means that supply exceeds demand. When that happens, we should start seeing companies drop out. Now, companies may be moving fewer units of a d20 book, but I'm not convinced the numbers have reached the point that d20 has proven unprofitable.

I think Deadlands is in a unique position: it already has an established fan base and has been around for a few years. I'm not convinced that a d20 version could be a breakout hit, primarily because most people who wanted to play Deadlands already had picked it up. Since you already had a fanbase playing the game, a d20 version may not have been as attractive since people have already learned the rules and built up a collection of sourcebooks. I'd be curious to compare the sales of new d20 games or d20 conversions of recently released games. I'm willing to bet there's a bit more acceptance of them, since you don't have an existing fanbase that has a connection to the game's original system.

I'd be curious to see how WW did compared to non-d20 RPGs released during the same time period. While some fans may have complained about the system, I thought it worked fine. To be honest, I think a lot of designers are a little too worried about deviating from D&D. Players accepted some radical changes to D&D's underlying engine in the changeover from 2e to 3e. My gut read is that as long as the players do not have to learn many new rules, most GMs are willing to learn new rules to run a game that appeals to them.



> Shane writes:*
> They do continue to sell at a steady rate--at least for those top tier publishers. Never said they didn't. But as you know Mike, a mutual friend of ours welll known to this list, and owner of one of the companies I've mentioned above, lamented on the private Delphi forums how preorders for his last book (a beautiful, D20 hardback) were far below what he'd expected. Every retailer he talked to had told him they wanted something new, and he gave it to them. But they still sold far more books on elves and dwarves than they did his.
> *



*
*

If it's the book I think you're talking about, I'm not surprised that it isn't moving quickly. d20 books have to have utility for use during a game. If a book is too different from the average D&D campaign, I don't expect many D&D players to buy it. I think the non-d20 v. d20 markets are fundamentally different. Non-d20 players, specifically those who avoid d20, IME tend to collect game books, buy them for reading material, and place more value on novel rather than useful new material. They tend to make up lots of stuff wholesale for their games, including systems, and look at and buy RPGs books as one would purchase fiction. d20 buyers, OTOH, put a lot more value on utility. They buy books to use in their games. A subset buy books solely as reading material, but the majority of them see RPG books as tools to use in their games. If a book doesn't offer any obvious utility that directly translates into their campaigns, they tend to avoid it.



> Shane writes:
> *
> As recently as Friday, the owner of Gameboard told me how much all of his retailers complained about new D20 products. But again, that's all that's selling right now.
> 
> ...




I think both of these ideas are true. People who open game stores usually do so to turn their hobby into a something they do for a living. They know a fair bit about gaming and many of them are hardcore gamers. They like the games that say the regular posters at RPG.net like, but those same titles rarely have any commercial success.

Since d20 is drawing more people into gaming and more RPG revenue into store, it makes sense that other titles will also have improved sales. A rising tide carries all ships, as they say.

I don't think that B indicates people are leaving d20. I think that there was one time in this industry's history when D&D was vulnerable to a potential rival: 1989, the release of 2e. Other than that, I don't think a title has ever come close to posing a real threat to D&D's position. However, I do suspect that the market is poised right now for a breakout hit, be it d20 or something else. The industry is overdue for one, and with D&D3 reinvigorating the fan base the timing is right.



> Shane writes about designers not liking d20:
> *
> No offense Mike, but I know lots of folks and talk to them often, and this *is* the general opinion. Someone said that perhaps I simply have friends who are all anti-D20. My personal gaming group is much that way and I'll freely admit it, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the heads of major companies. Again, I won't name anyone because it may hurt their business, and it's really not important anyway. Most of them aren't involved in the actual creation of material anyway--they dictate it to talented freelancers like you who *do* enjoy the material, and put their absolute best efforts forward to make a beautiful, professional product.
> *




Whether this is true or not is immaterial. The intial message made it sound like there were legions of game designers chained to desks, forced to work on d20 material whether they liked it or not. There are designers who enjoy the system, and I'm willing to bet that as the d20 field matures they will grow in number and establish themselves in the business. I didn't have a single word in print until the year 2000. Since then, I've worked on over 50 titles and sold over a million words of work. I'm not alone. Ari Marmell, Patrick Younts, tons of other guys whose names I'm forgetting since it's midnight and I'm brain dead, are all breaking into the scene and now leaving their mark. Just as d20 is new, many of the designers behind it haven't been on the scene for long. But we're out there. Just because we don't post to mailing lists or hang out at the Velvet Room doesn't mean we aren't an emerging force. I suspect that in the next three years, we're going to see a lot of exciting things from these guys. We're writing sourcebooks and supplements right now, but soon we'll all be graduating up to writing complete games (d20 or not) and owning our own companies.

Let me make it clear that I don't think d20 is the be all and end all of gaming. The next game I'd like to run is a Warhamer FRP campaign. But as a software engineer, I think d20 is the first true *system* ever produced as an RPG. It demands work but rewards it. It allows a newbie or casual DM to produce balanced encounters, NPCs who can pose a threat to the characters without overpowering them, and gives him controls to prevent characters from becoming too powerful. It is a system in the sense that all of its parts combine together to form a cohesive whole. Each part is integrated into the system in a logical manner, and the entire thing was playtested on a greater scale than any other RPG ever produced. It's a radical change moving from designing for other systems to d20. You can't just make stuff up. You need to know the entire system to fit new pieces into it. I didn't feel 100% confident designing for the game until a year into my career. But man, does the system reward playing with it, learning it, and understanding its underlying structures. Once you have that down, it's far easier to build stuff for than any other game engine I've worked with as a designer or GM.

I don't think I'm alone in this, and I think the next few years will bear this out.


----------



## mearls (Oct 15, 2002)

*Re: And yet another perspective...*



			
				Moridin said:
			
		

> *Those that compare d20 to Microsoft (of which there has been thankfully little in this thread) would be more appropriate comparing d20 to Linux: open source, basic structure, distributed far and wide, and easily modified by developers. I think the OGL has done more FOR the industry than any other development in the last, what, 20 years? I've only been playing for around the last 15, so I'm not entirely sure. The fact is that it's moving products that would otherwise never see the light of day before it came around, and that can't be a bad thing to me.
> *




This is an apt analogy. When I worked as a software developer, I dreaded working on MS stuff. There was very, very little information posted on the Internet. MS makes far too much money off selling technical support to coders to put any more than the barest information out there.

Perl and other open source tools, OTOH, have plenty of material on the web. I don't know how many times I hopped over to CPAN and downloaded Perl modules that overcame hurdles I had to handle at work.

d20 is the same way. Need naval combat rules for your d20 game? You can use any of the published ones out there, modify them to suit your needs, and publish them in your game book.

Personally, I prefer to work on d20 stuff because I know that my "work for hire" is out there for anyone to use. Before d20, if I wrote some cool new rules I sold all rights to the company I worked for. Now, I can keep a huge database of rules material and draw on it for new projects. That's a very powerful tool.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 15, 2002)

mearls said:
			
		

> *I think Deadlands is in a unique position: it already has an established fan base and has been around for a few years. I'm not convinced that a d20 version could be a breakout hit, primarily because most people who wanted to play Deadlands already had picked it up. Since you already had a fanbase playing the game, a d20 version may not have been as attractive since people have already learned the rules and built up a collection of sourcebooks. I'd be curious to compare the sales of new d20 games or d20 conversions of recently released games. I'm willing to bet there's a bit more acceptance of them, since you don't have an existing fanbase that has a connection to the game's original system.
> 
> I'd be curious to see how WW did compared to non-d20 RPGs released during the same time period. While some fans may have complained about the system, I thought it worked fine.  *



So Mike, I'm curious. How do you explain then, the success of Call of Cthulhu d20? It's been around for 20 years, has a RABID fan base, and the flame wars associated with the announcement of Call of Cthulhu d20 over at RPG.net was just amazing.

Yet, within 3 months of the publish date, not only did many of the rabid fans rave about the book, but WoTC came close to selling out their entire print run! And that's a fan base that's bought a large number of CoC supplements, etc. I'd be surprised if the CoC installed base wasn't larger than for Deadlands.

My suspicion is that the quality difference (i.e., the conversion to d20 was so well done that even veteran CoC players couldn't help but be sucked in --- I know, speaking as someone who bought CoC 4th edition and many a campaign from Chaosium) between Deadlands d20 and CoC d20 is why CoC d20 is a breakout hit, while Deadlands d20 is being dropped by its publisher.


----------



## Morgenstern (Oct 15, 2002)

mearls said:
			
		

> *...I think d20 is the first true *system* ever produced as an RPG. It demands work but rewards it. It allows a newbie or casual DM to produce balanced encounters, NPCs who can pose a threat to the characters without overpowering them, and gives him controls to prevent characters from becoming too powerful. It is a system in the sense that all of its parts combine together to form a cohesive whole. Each part is integrated into the system in a logical manner, and the entire thing was playtested on a greater scale than any other RPG ever produced. It's a radical change moving from designing for other systems to d20. You can't just make stuff up. You need to know the entire system to fit new pieces into it. I didn't feel 100% confident designing for the game until a year into my career. But man, does the system reward playing with it, learning it, and understanding its underlying structures. Once you have that down, it's far easier to build stuff for than any other game engine I've worked with as a designer or GM.*




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 , 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 ! (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 ).

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 ... got to wrap up the Fixer/Pointman Class Guide.
(hey one little plug at the end isn't that bad is it ?)

Great thread. Look forward to a continuing dicusion with reviewers, fans, and designers all in the same ring .


----------



## hellbender (Oct 15, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That is not quite correct. This is when we get into the differences between economics and the technical aspects of business as seperate disciplines, but let me just say this; money IS the consistent motivator in the long run. Those who do not value tend to be hedged out eventually. The vague notions of job satisfaction and other such have historically been round about manners of compensation when wages are 'sticky' for some reason and are highly uneven in their effect.
> 
> As to your assessment of the rpg industry, i have no doubt that the traditional motivation of production has this so-called 'passion'. But, as ryand has stated, d20 is changing this, with its big name brand, DND, now being run as a CONSUMER-driven business. The pie is growing bigger and an increasing number of the new producers are apparently entering in large part because they see profit oppurtunities. They are likely to produce more d20 because they can now get more income to complement their 'luxery' work, attaining a higher level of utility in the process. The suits are winning, and thank god. *




     Is your business textbook written by Bazooka Joe? I think you are making a macrocosm case of a microcosm industry. It is never really a good thing when the suits are winning, because there aren't that many suits.

     In the real world, business runs heavily on speculation and risk. The true motivations, success and thriving, must be placed before monetary thoughts. You have a direct focus, which brings indirect benefits.

hellbender


----------



## whisper_jeff (Oct 15, 2002)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think you are correct. Jeff has mentioned on the GoO boards that they made it as close as possible to the TriStat rules to save space when dual-statting supplements; and that most of the typos in the d20 book were due to copying straight from the Tristat manuscript.*




     Almost accurate. Well, actually, that might be exactly accurate but it isn't accurate to I should have said if that is in fact what I said that. 

     A great deal of effort was made to ensure the systems were compatible to facilitate dual-statting _but,_ as anyone who has looked at the two systems closely will note, they were amazingly similar thus facilitating this process. If one system had a +2 bonus for a given situation, I found that the other had a similar +2 bonus. I believe there were only a handful (and not a full one at that) of incidents where the Tri-Stat modifier and the d20 modifier for a given situation were not the exact same. When they were different, we obviously went with the d20 modifier but found them identical often enough that it was not a major issue, making compatiblity for dual-statting very easy. Also, due to the similarities between the modifiers, it made me confident that I did not need to change other modifiers for rules that d20 did not cover (ie: called shots) since, using all the other similarities as a basis, they probably would have been the same had they already existed in d20.

     As for the Tri-Stat-isms slipping through the editing process.... Well, we do have egg on our faces regarding that. Obviously, a lot of the material was taken from the Tri-Stat manuscript and converted to the d20 system (duh!) and, sadly, the tight production schedule allowed some stupid, minor editing foibles to slip through. There are just enough to be annoying, from my perspective. In most cases, they appear in the character write-ups in the back of the book which were done last, once the system was finished but very shortly before the book was sent to press. That is why the problem occured - I didn't want to convert the characters until the system was finalized and we were working on the system material up until about two weeks before the book went to press. One more week would have made all the difference in the world...

     Anyhow, editing mistakes? Yup. They are there. They don't break the book, but they are annoying. Casual system conversion? Nope. Don't ever think that it was a casual process - a great deal of time and thought was put into converting Silver Age Sentinels Tri-Stat to SAS d20 (no, not the British Special Forces <grin>).


----------



## whisper_jeff (Oct 15, 2002)

baseballfury said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'd go one step further. I'd say, "This deviates from other D20 rules because the whole project was a blatant money grab and the bare minimum work was done to the TS rules to release a d20 version."  *




     For those who want to understand why I get so upset when I see people complaining about SAS d20, the above is a perfect example of it. Seeing people imply that I didn't do a lot of work on the project pisses me off because I know how much time, effort, and thought I put into the project. You are welcome to comment on the success or failure of that effort (assuming you've read the book), since everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when people imply that I didn't put effort into the project?...


----------



## Rich34 (Oct 15, 2002)

baseballfury said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'd go one step further. I'd say, "This deviates from other D20 rules because the whole project was a blatant money grab and the bare minimum work was done to the TS rules to release a d20 version." It looks even worse, IMO, because it was an inept money grab. White Wolf got it right with Creature Collection (the money grab part, I mean; the book itself was terrible). Trying to "hop on the bandwagon" so late in the game and so obviously just looked foolish. *




I think this is definitely a fault of a lot of systems that do a d20 conversion.  Deadlands d20 had this problem with Way of the Huckster and Book o'the Dead (both of which really surprised me, because I was very impressed with the Deadlands d20 core book and Way of the Gunslinger). Holistic's Devils & Deviltry was similarly flawed. 

I can understand why it happens - I mean, they already spent so much effort in coming up with the material originally, but it REALLY shows when the material isn't re-written from the ground up.  

The dual-statted books have similar problems  - it seems all too often that the d20 stuff is just tossed in as an afterthought, and it ignores both the strengths & weaknesses of the d20 system.   And no matter which system you play - the original or d20 - there's this section of the book that's pretty useless to you.  Again, I understand why it happens, but I end up feeling a bit short-changed after my purchase..

Richard


----------



## whisper_jeff (Oct 15, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *SAS=Silver Age Sentinels, right? I kept thinking someone had done a Special Air Service d20 book, along the lines of Afghanistan d20.
> 
> I haven't made up my mind yet, either. I don't know much about it, truth to tell. *




     Well, if you want to read a very informative review (it covers the good and the bad of the product very well, in my opinion), check out the review on rpg.net:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7213.html

     Admittedly, it's a favourable review over all, which might explain why I like it, but I think it also honestly points out the flaws of the product (some editing foibles that have already been discussed in this thread).


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 15, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *In what you quoted, I was trying to get d20Dwarf to clarify.  It seems to me he'd said:
> 
> 1) d20 helps smaller games, by incresing overall exposure.
> 2) increasing exposure woudn't change what's sold.
> ...




You assume all games are the same.

Some games have poor sales because they have limited exposure. For those games, increased visibility may result in increased sales.

Some games have poor sales because the consuming public at large simply does not want what they are offering. For these games, increased visibility will have little, if any, effect.

How many games are in the first category? I'm inclined to guess "a few". How many games are in the second category, probably "a lot". No matter how cool the designer thinks it is, a game like "Orcworld" is unlikely to ever have the mass appeal of a game that offers players the chance to be stereotypical heroes without the cultural lessons.


----------



## PEGShane (Oct 15, 2002)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> * --- I know, speaking as someone who bought CoC 4th edition and many a campaign from Chaosium) between Deadlands d20 and CoC d20 is why CoC d20 is a breakout hit, while Deadlands d20 is being dropped by its publisher. *




Sigh. This is why I don't participate in these forums very much. Is there *anywhere* in *any* of my messages where I said we were dropping DL D20? No.

Exclusively DL D20 books are done after Way of the Righteous. That's all that was ever planned, as the line is dual-statted for *both* systems now, and entire books are converted in the regular Epitaph updates.

Shane Hensley
Pinnacle


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 15, 2002)

PEGShane said:
			
		

> *
> Exclusively DL D20 books are done after Way of the Righteous. Shane Hensley
> Pinnacle *



My apologies for getting that fact wrong. Your overall tone of disappointment with d20 had led me to believe that you had dropped support for Deadlands d20.

Regardless, my main point still stands. Despite the installed base CoC has, CoC d20 has generally been a success, while PEG seems to regard Deadlands d20 as a disappointment not worthy of major investment. If you could reconcile all that with your expression that d20 players are not interested in anything other than fantasy, please enlighten me.


----------



## Cergorach (Oct 15, 2002)

PEGShane said:
			
		

> *Sigh. This is why I don't participate in these forums very much. Is there *anywhere* in *any* of my messages where I said we were dropping DL D20? No.*




Just take a deep breath, bitch slap the offender upside the head (or let someone else do it), count to ten, and politely explain it... Once, twice, trice... Or how many times you can without foaming at the mouth.

Boards (forums) such as these have such a diversity of people that you will always find people you don't like, it's the nature of the game. Those you don't like or annoy you to much, you just ignore, just like in real life (no you aren't allowed to throttle them, even if you do that in real life ;-). But the diversity of this board (and many others) is also it's strength. You would be suprised how many 'annoying' people (sometimes) say something interesting. It's a skill to pick through the threads and pick out your 'treasure' and join a discussion...

These people (and yes i'm one of them) won't stay quiet because you happen to be a game designer, even a famous one, or author their favorite game. They say what's on their mind and it's up to each of us how to deal with that...


----------



## Synicism (Oct 15, 2002)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *- First, I won't buy anything that isn't d20, unless maybe it would be generally useful for any game.  I'm not a system nazi or think that d20 is the One System to Rule Them All or anything, its just that my group will NEVER play anything that isn't d20.  Actually, there is almost no chance that we'll play anything but D&D.  We simply don't have the time.*



*

I've noticed that this is a disturbing trend. Though I wonder - if you are the GM, couldn't you simply decide to try out another game? I know a lot of groups where there is one person who is always the GM.

I mean, there is so much more to roleplaying than D&D. How will a group know what else there is if they never explore other options?

I realize D&D can be a lot of fun, but if players never try anything else, they will never find out what else there is.

Kinda sad, isn't it?*


----------



## Synicism (Oct 15, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *If a book is made OGL instead of D20, such as Godlike and Mutants and Masterminds, you don't even need levels.  Everything could be point based. *




If someone would release one, I might never by a d20 label book again. Don't get me wrong - there are some great ones. But I have a zillion prestige classes (Swashbuckling Adventures gave me like 90 of them), more feats than I can swing a sword at, a ton of alternative mechanics that have been added on that let me spend experience to get permanent character perks, or make combination attacks with my multiple attack iterations, fight duels, and do any number of other things.

On the plus side, I get weight training walking to a game. On the downside, it's a pain to sort through.

I WISH someone would put out a book that would give me an OGL-compliant system that would let me customize to my heart's content and not have to hunt for prestige classes.


----------



## kenjib (Oct 15, 2002)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> *...while PEG seems to regard Deadlands d20 as a disappointment not worthy of major investment.*




I think you might want to re-read Shane's posts more carefully before re-iterating this statement.  As far as I can tell from what he has posted:

They had a plan to release the core d20 rules then dual-stat supplements in the future.  They are following through with it.  They haven't backed out on their planned level of commitment.  Deadlands d20 sold "quite well."  He has been consistent about this in his posts.  Where do you read "not worthy of major investment" into this?


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 15, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> I mean, there is so much more to roleplaying than D&D. How will a group know what else there is if they never explore other options?
> ...
> Kinda sad, isn't it? *



Not really. What I've discovered is that while my groups will occasionally play CoC, or a science fiction game, or super-heroes, whenever we return to D&D, there's always a sigh of relief. For some reason, D&D has long term play potential that none of the other games have. What this means is that anything you buy for D&D will almost certainly have use, while CoC, say, might get a month of play a year, at best.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 15, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *You'll also note that Spycraft has all of the definitive d20 elements.*




Except that when you boil it down, Spycraft's system (and by extension, the system from the Farscape book, which, if I remember correctly, DOES have a d20 logo on it) is quite different. Character creation and levels work the same, but the combat mechanics are like night and day.

Personally, I think the Spycraft combat system fixed everything wrong with the D&D3 one, but that's just my personal taste. Still, it's very different, anf you need to do a lot of work to make them the same.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 15, 2002)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> *
> Not really. What I've discovered is that while my groups will occasionally play CoC, or a science fiction game, or super-heroes, whenever we return to D&D, there's always a sigh of relief. For some reason, D&D has long term play potential that none of the other games have. What this means is that anything you buy for D&D will almost certainly have use, while CoC, say, might get a month of play a year, at best. *




My guess as to why is that D&D has a well-developed character advancement system. Many of the abilities players can acquire only come in at higher levels and therefore you have a reason to play the long-haul game so you can get to those higher levels. Vampire and some of the other White Wolf games also have this.

Quite a few games have excellent character construction rules but after building your initial character not much else happens game-wise, so they have to rely on the plot and story to keep suspense. D&D can provide both story reasons and game reasons to keep playing.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 15, 2002)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> *Not really. What I've discovered is that while my groups will occasionally play CoC, or a science fiction game, or super-heroes, whenever we return to D&D, there's always a sigh of relief. For some reason, D&D has long term play potential that none of the other games have. What this means is that anything you buy for D&D will almost certainly have use, while CoC, say, might get a month of play a year, at best. *




Well, I will be the first one to admit that D&D is very, very easy to play and run. It seems to be one of those institutional games. Still, there are groups that always go back to D&D, groups that always go back to Vampire, Champions, Rifts, Palladium Fantasy, whatever it may be. Still, it's the same with all of these groups. It's like getting stuck in a rut.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 15, 2002)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> *My suspicion is that the quality difference (i.e., the conversion to d20 was so well done that even veteran CoC players couldn't help but be sucked in --- I know, speaking as someone who bought CoC 4th edition and many a campaign from Chaosium) between Deadlands d20 and CoC d20 is why CoC d20 is a breakout hit, while Deadlands d20 is being dropped by its publisher. *




Well, there are a couple things:

1. CoC d20 came out a lot later than Deadlands d20. In that time, developers have been able to play with the system a lot more and we've seen that variations can and do work.

2. The central failing of Deadlands d20 is, IMO, the same problem that turned me off to Weird Wars. A reasonably experienced character can survive a direct hit from a 88mm rocket/Gatling Gun/bundle of dynamite and walk away down about 40 HP. THAT'S why a lot of Deadlands fans didn't like the d20 version. "Stock" d20 (the D&D system) just doesn't work for it. It ruins the flavor of a harsh, gritty setting because characters are too damn hard to kill.

3. I bet that a Deadlands d20 that came out with a slick hardcover like the CoC or Star Wars books, with a tweaked out system like CoC's would have done much, much better. There has been a lot of innovation out there recently.

4. Someone mentioned that d20 was a lot more like Linux than Microsoft Windows. Yes and no. The Open Gaming License is a lot like the open software movement that drives Linux, and in that sense, it is. The OGL might be the single coolest thing that happened to gaming. d20, OTOH, is quite a different animal. Suddenly, there are "compatibility" issues. Books have to "follow the d20 rules," which basically means look like D&D. BIG difference, no?

5. I'm a freelancer. I write because I like to. The fact that I can get paid to do it now is great. In that respect, I love d20. In my latest project, however, I ran up against the system. Certain things "HAD" to be certain ways because that was "the way d20 worked." Thankfully, it all worked out in the end, and quite well. Still, I think it would be a lot more fun to play with the OGL than get stuck in the rigid conventions of the d20 license.


----------



## Aaron2 (Oct 15, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *2. The central failing of Deadlands d20 is, IMO, the same problem that turned me off to Weird Wars. A reasonably experienced character can survive a direct hit from a 88mm rocket/Gatling Gun/bundle of dynamite and walk away down about 40 HP.*




If you take damage from an 88 and walk away (i.e. with hps left) it WAS NOT A DIRECT HIT. I'm sick of this. Plenty of games have "hero points" or some such and that is exactly the same mechanic.


Aaron (sorry. Its just a sore point for me)


----------



## Aaron2 (Oct 15, 2002)

> [B}I've noticed that this is a disturbing trend. Though I wonder - if you are the GM, couldn't you simply decide to try out another game? I know a lot of groups where there is one person who is always the GM.
> 
> I mean, there is so much more to roleplaying than D&D. How will a group know what else there is if they never explore other options?[/B]




I've run about half a dozen different game systems and played about a dozen more. However, I only buy d20 stuff now. d20 fans aren't all isolated loners hiding in a corner of ignorance waiting to be enlightened. We know other game. We've played other games. We prefer D&D.


I am Aaron and I am a Hack&Slasher.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 16, 2002)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am Aaron and I am a Hack&Slasher. *




Hi Aaron; I'm Steve and I'm a Hack & Slasher too!


----------



## Sulimo (Oct 16, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, I will be the first one to admit that D&D is very, very easy to play and run. It seems to be one of those institutional games. Still, there are groups that always go back to D&D, groups that always go back to Vampire, Champions, Rifts, Palladium Fantasy, whatever it may be. Still, it's the same with all of these groups. It's like getting stuck in a rut. *




Yeah. Our group has gone and played all sorts of games, but always seem to return to Rolemaster, and its always like putting your fave pair of slippers on again.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 16, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *Except that when you boil it down, Spycraft's system is quite different. Character creation and levels work the same, but the combat mechanics are like night and day.*




Except that combat mechanics don't make my list of core d20 elements.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 16, 2002)

hellbender said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Is your business textbook written by Bazooka Joe? I think you are making a macrocosm case of a microcosm industry. It is never really a good thing when the suits are winning, because there aren't that many suits.
> 
> ...




Do you even understand the economic fundementals that are the context to business strategy? This 'macrocosm' case works for any pseudo-competitive industry where the barrier to entrance is not that high; you seem to believe rpgs operate within a broad economic vacuum, that relative returns and input markets do not operate and in a certain respect that has been the case in the past. But someone decided to make this into a viable business, giving the broad range of consumers control over what is made and what is not. The price signals have been lit and 'suit', i.e. everyone who ascribes to a capitalist model, much higher than you give it credit for, are flooding in.

'Risk' as you call it tends to be minimized over time, because, though few consciencly place primary value on money, EVERYONE places some value on it and therefore do as much to avert risk as possible.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 16, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *




I don't know what he said but, damn, he sure sounds smart in all of his posts.


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Oct 16, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't know what he said but, damn, he sure sounds smart in all of his posts. *




And nasty.  Every post I've seen from him has been negative, attacking other people.

At least that's what I recall.

Because of this attitude I find that I seem to disagree with him before I even start reading his posts.

Duncan


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 16, 2002)

Duncan Haldane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And nasty.  Every post I've seen from him has been negative, attacking other people.
> 
> ...




This is a double standard commonly held on this board. When the numerous attacks on the 'suits of hasbro' was flying after the rounds of layoffs, that was seen as moral indignation; but dare to call out anyone who posts on this board and who can actually defend themselves and allow me to respond in turn, and i'm the bad guy. I am not so much negative as critical. Your only problem is that i don't go with the popular, 'easy' targets. Its apparently ok to attack someone as long as you don't have to take responsibility for it. That might explain why there is so little inclination to make unfounded, poorly-conceived, inflammatory assertions about those who are not part of this small enworld community.


----------



## psionotic (Oct 16, 2002)

It would be cool if this thread could stay on subject, because I for one happen to like it.  So if the economic lessons and ensuing insults could cease, maybe it won't be closed in the next 8 minutes or so.

Getting back to Deadlands D20 vs Cthulu D20, I'm thinking that these cases might serve as examples for other publishers as to when its good to 'go D20' and when it isn't.

Although I've never played Deadlands, all I've ever heard about it suggests that the quirks of the system (poker hands for spells, high card for initiative, etc) really helped the flavor of the game and made for some unique gameplay.  Changing systems to one that doesn't support the flavor of the game as strongly didn't work in many people's minds.

My experience with Cthulu is that the original system itself was in no way especially tied to the feeling of the game.  Adding the D20 system then didn't 'take away' from the game at all... (and in fact added something to it, in my opinion)

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled flame war.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 16, 2002)

Took a little longer than 8 minutes, but not much.

I'll leave this here for now, but let's swing back to the topic, please?


----------



## JoeCrow (Oct 16, 2002)

psionotic said:
			
		

> *Although I've never played Deadlands, all I've ever heard about it suggests that the quirks of the system (poker hands for spells, high card for initiative, etc) really helped the flavor of the game and made for some unique gameplay.  Changing systems to one that doesn't support the flavor of the game as strongly didn't work in many people's minds.
> 
> My experience with Cthulu is that the original system itself was in no way especially tied to the feeling of the game.  Adding the D20 system then didn't 'take away' from the game at all... (and in fact added something to it, in my opinion)
> *




Gotta say I'm with Psionotic on this one. My current crew's been playing together for about 5 years or so, mostly alternating between D&D and Deadlands in the last few. While I bought the core Deadlands d20 books, that was just to see how they did it and to find crunchy bits to rip off (and to throw some $ to m'man Shane in his hour of need). 

We've stuck with the Deadlands Classic system for actual playing, mostly coz that's what we're used to. (Hell, we're still using mostly version 1.0.) Deadlands d20 is ok, but we don't feel it the same way we do Classic. Odd, considering how hard it is to get these clowns to play any *other* system besides d20. 

In truth, the one thing that I think would have solved almost *all* the complaints with Deadlands d20 is the massive damage adjustment from CoC d20. Unfortunately, that particular mechanic is still stuck in non-open limbo. 

On the CoC d20 thing, Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying System is pretty generic in feel. That's kind of the idea. If Chaosium had had the market share to pull it off, and the cojones to OGL it, the BRS could have given d20 a run for it's money. Still might, if they go for it. Hence, the CoC d20 system isn't going to face the same market problems as a conversion from a system that was *specifically* designed for the game in question.

On the BRS vs. d20 thing, it might not make sense for Chaosium to go the OGL route, per se. They're a fairly small company. But a more accessible licensing setup might replicate some of the beneficial effects that the d20 license has had for WotC.


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Oct 16, 2002)

JoeCrow said:
			
		

> *On the CoC d20 thing, Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying System is pretty generic in feel. That's kind of the idea. If Chaosium had had the market share to pull it off, and the cojones to OGL it, the BRS could have given d20 a run for it's money. Still might, if they go for it. Hence, the CoC d20 system isn't going to face the same market problems as a conversion from a system that was *specifically* designed for the game in question.
> *




IMO the BRS has one big hole in the system - stats are not linked to skills in any way.  I've played/read numerous Chaosium games, and this has always bugged me.

Duncan


----------



## Lizard (Oct 16, 2002)

JoeCrow said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just to be anal: No, it isn't (non-open, that is).

From the SRD:
"Massive Damage
If a character ever sustains damage so massive that 50 points of damage or more are inflicted in one deduction, and the character isn't killed outright, the character must make a Fortitude save (DC 15). If this saving throw fails, the character dies regardless of current hit points."

Now, given that in the SRD, changing the numbers (either the 50 or the Save DC) up or down is such an obvious derivative (akin to making Skill Focus give +3 to a skill, for example), that no one would attempt to claim it was any sort of violation of anything.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 16, 2002)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> *If you take damage from an 88 and walk away (i.e. with hps left) it WAS NOT A DIRECT HIT. I'm sick of this. Plenty of games have "hero points" or some such and that is exactly the same mechanic.(sorry. Its just a sore point for me) *




If I make an attack roll, and I make your AC, I hit you. If I score a critical, I hit you really, really well.

If a "stock" d20 character (with HP and stuff) is holding a bundle of dynamite when it goes off, he takes just as much damage as if someone threw it at him and it blew up at his feet. Same with the rocket. He could blow it up himself and he would take the same damage as if someone shot it at him. He could be tied up, immobile, or unconscious and would still take the same damage if someone set it on the ground and detonated it as if someone shot him with it. So how is it different? Damage is damage. Sorry, but in this case, the analogy fails.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 16, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> If a "stock" d20 character (with HP and stuff) is holding a bundle of dynamite when it goes off, he takes just as much damage as if someone threw it at him and it blew up at his feet. Same with the rocket. He could blow it up himself and he would take the same damage as if someone shot it at him. He could be tied up, immobile, or unconscious and would still take the same damage if someone set it on the ground and detonated it as if someone shot him with it. So how is it different? Damage is damage. Sorry, but in this case, the analogy fails. *



Uh, no! If you're helpless, the explosion would do an automatic coup de grace on you, and you'd have to make an incredibly hard fort save to stay alive.

If he's holding it and it goes off, and he survives, he managed to roll away. Same as if someone threw it at him. In CoC, if the damage exceeds a certain threshold (15 points), he has to make a fort save or die, period.

I don't have a problem with d20's handling of hit points, especially with CoC d20's massive damage threshold. In fact, I prefer it so much that I'm likely to pass over Spycraft in favor of d20 Modern.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 16, 2002)

psionotic said:
			
		

> *Although I've never played Deadlands, all I've ever heard about it suggests that the quirks of the system (poker hands for spells, high card for initiative, etc) really helped the flavor of the game and made for some unique gameplay.  Changing systems to one that doesn't support the flavor of the game as strongly didn't work in many people's minds.*




Well, so far, there are three Deadlands games out there. There's Deadlands, with its custom system, Deadlands d20, and Deadlands GURPS.

Of the three of them, you're right, Deadlands classic, as you called it, is by far the most fun, because of all the neat stuff you can do with it and the cool toys it gives out. It isn't perfect (it takes, on the average, two or three head shots with a .45 to kill a normal person), but it's certainly a lot of fun tossing cards and poker chips around!

Deadlands GURPS isn't bad. It's certainly much more deadly than Deadlands clsssic - that pistol shot to the head will probably drop you outright. And the combat system is quicker. It also does a pretty good job of maintaining the feel with cards for spellcasting and poker chips for different things, but shoehorning the game into a "generic" system, even a tweaked one, takes something away. It's somehow lacking, especially when you get into the Harrowed.

Deadlands d20 is a good, solid d20 product. It's mechanically well done and comparatively well written and edited. However, it just ain't Deadlands. All the "feel" of it is gone. As a friend of mine put it, "If I want to play Deadlands, I want to play DEADLANDS. If I want to play D&D cowboys and cthulus, I'll play d20 Deadlands." He has a point. It's somehow not the same, quirks of the d20 system notwithstanding. I'm not saying it wasn't fun. But it just wasn't DEADLANDS.

You're absolutely right on with the idea of the tailored systems. Deadlands is tailored for its style of gameplay. Storyteller is perfect for White Wolf's WoD games. The AEG "roll and keep" system is ideal for L5R. Some games need their own systems or they cease being those games.


----------



## JoeCrow (Oct 16, 2002)

Lizard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just to be anal: No, it isn't (non-open, that is).
> 
> ...




I dunno. Anthony V seemed to feel that unless said rule was verifiably developed by someone who'd never seen the CoC book and had never spoken to anyone who'd seen it, the similarity to copyrighted text might be actionable. At least that's the impression I got when I asked him about it on the Ogf-list. I may have misinterpreted his somewhat non-committal reply.


----------



## mkletch (Oct 16, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I've never been a fan of the mega mods, to much game time spent in one preformed location.  I like to deal with a place and be done, but with those it'll take a while to be done.
> 
> Hopefully, when ELH hits the SRD we will see some truely epic adventures. *




Same here.  We had a guy drop his $30 or whatever on the RttTEE, and we had a TPK.  Now what to do?  We had played those characters from 1st, building them up organically to the required level for the super-mod.  Starting new characters artificially at the higher level would not have been cool (to our group).  We build characters, not game-system entities.

The super mod is a cool concept, but fails to meet consumer need.  A series of adventures gives players more choice, both in the game and in the store.  A mega-mod simply drives all of the sales as one unit.  Eventually, this will fall off (I hope).

-Fletch!


----------



## mkletch (Oct 16, 2002)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by Mr Fidgit
> Thorin & ColonelHardisson - a $100 mod/mega-mod/campaign is actually something i'd consider buying, as long as it was 'all inclusive'. (as in - you'd need nothing else but the core books to run.)
> ...




The problem is that such a product would be an enormous risk for a publisher, except for one that had all of the necessary resources on staff (WotC six months ago could have pulled it off).  It would take over a year to assemble such a product, and who knows where the industry could have gone by then; your fundamental product design decisions would be partially or totally out of date.

Plus $100 bucks is a big wedge of cheese for those a) in school, b) struggling in a weak job market or c) with kids and mortgage and 2 cars and....   I happen to fall into C, and C is a larger piece of the gaming market than in five or ten years ago, as old gamers are flocking back because of d20 and 3E.  However, A and B are probably still the two largest segments of the RPG market.  Those who are independently wealthy and have no concern for their personal, monthly cash flow are few and far between.

-Fletch!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 16, 2002)

mkletch said:
			
		

> *Same here.  We had a guy drop his $30 or whatever on the RttTEE, and we had a TPK.  Now what to do?
> 
> The super mod is a cool concept, but fails to meet consumer need.  A series of adventures gives players more choice, both in the game and in the store. *




Well, to be fair, it sound like the problem was the TPK and not the module. I don't see how a series of little modules is any less dangerous to your character than the mega module.

Does the act of binding 3 thematically linked modules into one mega module somehow make it more deadly?

Or does the TPK-- where ever it occurs-- despoil the module so that you can't use it again? Is that your point-- that IF there is a TPK you'd rather throw away a $12 module than a $30 one?

I really don't understand.

Wulf


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 16, 2002)

As a illustration of Wulf's point you might want to check out (contact)'s retro story hour about the Temple of Elemental Evil; no TPK's so far but enough character deaths to account for two to three TPK's and they're still running strong. Makes me long for the days of evil GMing.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 16, 2002)

Unfortunately, this belongs back on about page 4. 

While there are a huge number of available d20 products available, I don't think there is a glut. That stuff is still flying off the shelves.

At my FLGS they've been adding shelf space to the RPG products pretty steadily for the past couple years. When I first found them right after 3e came out they were a sleepy little store, with half a shelf of D&D products and a wall of shelves for all the other games (most of the store is devoted to minis). Now D&D has eaten up about a third of that wall, d20 products have a pair of additional shelves, new D&D and d20 products have a separate display right as you walk in, and all other RPGs have a small new release display. 

Obviously d20 has the lion's share of the space, and the best space at that, but those products turn over. If you see something you like, snatch it because it'll be gone next time. In comparison, the shelf of GURPS and the shelf of Deadlands (classic system) has remained static the entire time I've shopped there. By standard definitions, the GURPS material is a glut, because there is NO demand for it at this store, and obviously the supply has outstripped that. 

And now for something completely different.

I just returned from a trip to CA, and when there I stop in at the Borders in town. I only go twice a year, so I really notice the changes. The RPG section has doubled, pushing graphic novels to a new location. While the selection will never beat my FLGS, I did see a number of d20 companies there. More surprisingly, there were endcap displays! Since the displays are right next to the search computer, a lot of Borders patrons see RPGs every day.

The competition is pretty stiff and pretty abundant, but it looks like a good time to be in RPGs to me.

PS


----------



## mkletch (Oct 16, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *I've noticed that this is a disturbing trend. Though I wonder - if you are the GM, couldn't you simply decide to try out another game? I know a lot of groups where there is one person who is always the GM.
> 
> I mean, there is so much more to roleplaying than D&D. How will a group know what else there is if they never explore other options?
> 
> I realize D&D can be a lot of fun, but if players never try anything else, they will never find out what else there is.*




Well, many gamers, especially those who have been around for literally decades, are now at a point in their life where their time must be broken up between many, many responsibilities or commitments.  I have other things I can spend time and money on that help to to relax or have fun.  Learning a new system takes time and money, but does not contribute to relaxation or enjoyment.  It is an investment to learn a new system, and to some people, the investment phase is a barrier to entry.  d20 lowers the barrier to entry for new players, because they can leverage what they already know and get started quickly and easily.

Hey, when I was in college 9-12 years ago, I played SR 1st ed., Gurps fantasy/modern/sci-fi, palladium robotech/fantasy/rifts, homebrew systems, battletech, wargames, and all that stuff.  But now, with *maybe* six or eight hours of gaming, one night a week, I don't have that flexibility.  d20 is easy to learn for new players, is easy to modify, and easy to switch to new genres.

I play with two new gamers (like totally new, never gamed before) comfortable with d20 to the point where they can roleplay AND game at the same time.  If I were switch them to a new system, they would start back at square 1 again, and I might lose one or both due to frustration.  If I instead play Spycraft, Star Wars or one of the d20 Supers games, that has a very high chance for success.

Nothing against non-d20 Deadlands; it seems like a fine game, but it would tear apart my gaming group like the tital forces near a black hole.  Oh, and for those that stick with it, it would slow things down, just like time dilation near a black hole.  Oh, and it would suck down my money that, possibly, could never see a return on investment; my money would also disappear into the black hole.  I think black holes are cool, from an astrophysics standpoint, but I won't throw my time, money, effort or gaming group into one...

-Fletch!


----------



## mkletch (Oct 16, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *Well, to be fair, it sound like the problem was the TPK and not the module. I don't see how a series of little modules is any less dangerous to your character than the mega module.
> 
> Does the act of binding 3 thematically linked modules into one mega module somehow make it more deadly?
> 
> Or does the TPK-- where ever it occurs-- despoil the module so that you can't use it again? Is that your point-- that IF there is a TPK you'd rather throw away a $12 module than a $30 one?*




Some gaming groups will simply roll up new characters after a TPK and keep going in one fashion or another.  We don't like to do that; it cheapens (at least for us) the new characters, the second-stringers.  If we simply start the module over with new organically grown characters, then we all come into the module with meta-game knowledge, and that spoils it a bit.  The mystery/discovery is gone.

Binding three-five modules into a mega-mod does not make it more deadly to the characters.  But is it more deadly to the player's wallets.  Yes, I would rather spend $12 on each of three modules than spend $30 to get them all together in one binding.  If bound together, I and the other players in my group lose flexibility.  If we die early, the later modules (if separate) can be ignored (if not yet purchased), or somehow fit into another campaign (if already purchased).  But a mega-mod is not well 'chapterized', if I can make up a term.  Segments of it cannot be easily separated from the whole.

I have to consider the mod as a whole, which is fine if the players want to be led by the nose toward a specific end.  When one guy in your group shells out big bucks for a mega-mod, the other players will feel a certain responsibility to run it, even if they want to do other things.  If I want my character to do something beyond the scope of the mega-mod, there is a chance that the campaign will follow the new tangent, rather than the mod.  Then he wasted his $30.  If it is in separate modules that comprise chapters of the whole, the players (and therefore the characters also) have much more flexibility in their decision making.  "No.  I don't want to go into the Inner Fane.  I've faced horrible death too many times and just want to go fight a more managable evil today."  A mega-mod robs the players of this option, unless they are willing to screw their DM.  Look at 1st ed modules.  There were so many of them, with variety at each character level.  So you did what seemed cool _to your particular gaming group_, not some designer who bundled the mega-mod that *he* thought would be really cool.

Flexibility is the strength of the SRD/d20, for both players, DMs/GMs and designers.  Products that limit flexibility should fall off.  If RttTEE were published as 4-5 self contained but plot-linked modules, even if it cost more, it would have been a better investment.

-Fletch!


----------



## D'karr (Oct 16, 2002)

*Mega-Module Blues*

A problem with Mega-modules is that too many times the storyline for the module is often tied to a restrictive time schedule.  This by necessity forces the adventuring party to have to cut back on resting and recuperation as well as equipping options.  A good example of this is City of the Spider Queen.  I'm not sure if RttToEE does the same.

Meanwhile, look at the original Slavers modules (A1-A4 Series), not the mega-module.  Each module was linked to the overall storyline but could be played alone.  In addition, the timeline was restrictive but could be altered to fit.  Even if one of the modules was a TPK.

Then there is the original ToEE which was designed as a mega-module.  It suffered from some of the same problems but most elements were static so it seemed like the timeline was static too.

Of course a DM can alter this in any which way they feel comfortable but if you spend $30 on a module you want to have options available not restrictions.

I use mega-modules but mostly judiciously, altering many elements to fit my specific campaign.  A lot of DM's might not have that much experience or maybe even flexibility to do this.  They might just want something they can plug in right out of the box without any major hassles.


----------



## Felon (Oct 16, 2002)

My sole exposure to Deadlands has been the d20 version. Just as PEG no doubt hoped, I bought the book figuring it would be easier for me to get my D&D players to jump in. It didn't work out too well. The same players that are content to hack an owlbear a half-dozen times with greatswords and battle-axes before it drops cannot accept that both barrels of a 12-gauge can be emptied into a human being with no appreciable effect.



			
				Aaron2 said:
			
		

> *If you take damage from an 88 and walk away (i.e. with hps left) it WAS NOT A DIRECT HIT. I'm sick of this. Plenty of games have "hero points" or some such and that is exactly the same mechanic. *




I don't know which systems you're alluding to, but I can make a few generalizations about how the "hero points" or "fate points" used by other systems differ from d20's hit points:

1) They are reserved for heroes and major characters. Thugs and other bit players don't enjoy the same benefits that larger-than-life characters receive. On the contrary, in d20, you can expect to reach a level where even minor opponents have sufficient hit points to withstand extreme damage (e.g. the aforementioned shotgun blast).

2) There are methods for replenishing them, but they aren't something that can be taken for granted. In d20, on the other hand, there are no inherent means for regaining hit points, other than the woefully inadequate "regain-your-level-in-hit-points-per-day-of-complete-rest" system. The specific game setting is left to its own devices to handle healing. D&D and Deadlands take the path of least resistance: magic. They expect at least one of the party members to be relegated to the role of "healer". This is a fairly inelegant method. Some high-level parties wind up with so much healing power that absurdly suicidal antics become feasible (e.g. jumping off a mountain instead of climbing down, because it's quicker), while others will have to stop and "set camp" for 8 hours after very combat. Moreover, this an artificial, "inbred" method with no literary or cinematic point of reference (which means jack-all to some folk, but to others the illusion that they're living-out an action movie or fantasy novel is the main appeal of role-playing). As I understand, Spycraft has an action point system that provides each character with a method for tending to their boo-boos, representing the "second wind" that characters of heroic stamina routinely get somewhere between the second or third act of a movie.

3) Even if a system uses "hero points", they don't necessarily take an all-or-nothing approach to taking damage. Take the example provided above with the guy who was shot with the 88, yet wasn't actually struck due to the magic of hit points. Now, that same character gets a frag grenade lobbed at him. If he survives, we may once again assume that it wasn't a "direct hit", but how are we supposed to tell if he's been hurt badly, hurt slightly, or not hurt at all? Do we assume that attacks of every sort either miss or harmlessly graze the character until he runs out of HP, at which point he promptly drops dead?

Let's forget about ultra-lethal "gritty realistic" combat, where characters by all rights should be dropping like flies left and right.  The appeal for that style of combat is limited to RPG's where players are discouraged from ever drawing a weapon, or where players are simply not terribly attached to their characters (ala Paranoia). I don't think Deadlands falls under either category. Let's run with that notion I mentioned earlier, that many--if not most--players envision themselves as the same sort of larger-than-life characters from literature and cinema. They likewise expect their combats to mirror the action scenes depicted in literature and cinema, be it a bloody spaghetti western shootout or the climactic free-for-all melee from LoTR. The d20 system's hit-point system does not deliver that experience. If a character with 200 hit points takes 199 points of damage, he's still able to physically perform at 100% of his capability. At 0 he suddenly drops, and ten short points of damage later, he dies. There is really no stage between "perfect condition' and "at death's door". John Wayne may be able to take a bullet in the shoulder without flinching, but the arm does hang limp at his side, if only for the rest of that scene.

I can tell you from experience that suspension-of-disbelief gets stretched beyond its limits when an NPC gets shot five times, runs away with 3 hit points left, and the PC's aren't able to catch up to him because those wounds don't slow the guy down even slightly. Should I just point out to everybody that they didn't really score any direct hits after all, but rather the loss of hit points represents how their attacks fatigued the hell out of him as he skillfully matrixed his way around the bullets? I can tell you they won't buy it.

There are some other big problems with Deadlands d20 combat. There's the Armor Class issue. With all due respect to Jim West, cowboys riding around wearing bulletproof vests and dusters lined with steel plates are pretty lame. Then there's the problem with the amount of actions a character can cram into a round. If a man with a knife and a man with a gun spot each other from a distance of 60 feet and they both decide to attack, the man with the knife can cover the entire distance and stab the man with the gun before the latter can get off a shot--heck, he'll still be flat-footed. My players didn't buy this either.

Now, let's look at Call of Cthulhu. Here we're talking about a game where the combat isn't human-vs-human so much as it is fragile-human-vs-things-man-wasn't-meant-to-kill. Hit points, in conjunction with the modified death-from-massive-damage rule, work in CoC because players are supposed to be easy to slaughter while monsters are supposed to be incredibly hard to put down. Players don't need to worry about healing, because they have no reasonable expectation to survive a single violent encounter, let alone multiple ones. Here is a game where characters aren't larger-than-life, and players readily accept that they can die ignominiously at any time. The notion that combat should be fair or balanced or tons of fun is pretty laughable. I'd say comparing the appeal of Deadlands and CoC is a matter of apples-and-oranges.

Frankly, I wish more d20 publishers had been willing to wait for d20 Modern to come out. I have high expectations for it, and I hope it will address at least some of the issues I've mentioned above. I hear it's retaining the hit-point-based system though, which is not encouraging.


----------



## Aaron2 (Oct 16, 2002)

> *In d20, you can expect to reach a level where even minor opponents have sufficient hit points to withstand extreme damage (e.g. the aforementioned shotgun blast).*




If he has enough hit points to withstand several shotgun blasts, he's not a minor character. Minor characters have 1 HD and they drop like flies. In fact, they drop faster than any game I've played 'cept Bushido (or Feng Shui which uses the same mook rules).

You need to make a destinction between high and low level play. High level play always produces larger than life character. That's the whole point. If you don't want your character to be super-humanly tough, don't make a 15th level character. You can't consider D&D power scaling to be a bug. Its a feature!



> *Do we assume that attacks of every sort either misses or harmlessly grazes the character until he promptly drops dead?
> *



*

Yes. In a sense. Your just looking at it backwards. 




They likewise expect their combats to mirror the action scenes depicted in literature and cinema, be it a bloody spaghetti western shootout or the climactic free-for-all melee from LoTR.

Click to expand...



Boramir's death scene in the LOTR movie is a great example of hit points in action. Boramir is fighting along, his hps slowly draining, it doesn't look good. Bang, he's hit by that 1/2 orc dude. Does Boramir suddenly become inepts? No. He may stumble around a little, but while he's doing that acting, the orcs don't attack him. When they do attack again, Boramir continues to cut them down as before. Bang, he's hit again. This time he falls to his knees in a bit of player RPing. Again, when the orcs attack, the big B keeps cutting them down as before. When the final arrow strikes home (reducing B's hps to below 0), he falls over. The rest of the orcs run past him while the leader dude sets up for the coup de grace. This is exactly how it would happen in D&D.


Aaron*


----------



## Synicism (Oct 16, 2002)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> *Boramir's death scene in the LOTR movie is a great example of hit points in action.*




Which is all well and good for that kind of combat. But it isn't appropriate to every RPG.

In Deadlands, certain things are supposed to be highly dramatic. A character who is trying to defuse a bundle of dynamite really has to worry about being blown to bits.

In d20, once you hit about 8th-10th level, grabbing said bundle of dynamite and just running away to a remote area and letting the bundle blow up in your arms in order to save the populace becomes a legitimate option because you'll still have hit points left.

That's idiotic. But the system supports it. Or, as a friend of mine said in a high level game only half jokingly, "sure, I'll reach into the molten iron and pull out the magic sword. It's only 10d10 damage."

That's even more idiotic. And it totally ruins Deadlands. After about two years of play, my harrowed bounty hunter was a horrifying badass. He was stronger than a demon-possessed elephant, hit harder with a cavalry saber as hard as a rifle shot, could heal from the brink of death in an hour, and could run as fast as a racehorse.

But you know what? He about died defending the rest of the party from four guys armed with scatterguns. There was risk involved. In d20, with as many levels as the character would have had, he could have waded through an infantry battalion armed with scatterguns and killed them all because he would have had so many hit points.

It's inane. It works for games like D&D where characters are supposed to be like Boromir from LotR. But even in fantasy, the D&D paradigm can fall apart. The best example is L5R, where one strike from a katana during an iaijutsu duel is supposed to kill the loser. In d20, two skilled iaijutsu duelists could hack at each other for hours before one of them dropped.


----------



## hellbender (Oct 16, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Do you even understand the economic fundementals that are the context to business strategy? This 'macrocosm' case works for any pseudo-competitive industry where the barrier to entrance is not that high; you seem to believe rpgs operate within a broad economic vacuum, that relative returns and input markets do not operate and in a certain respect that has been the case in the past. But someone decided to make this into a viable business, giving the broad range of consumers control over what is made and what is not. The price signals have been lit and 'suit', i.e. everyone who ascribes to a capitalist model, much higher than you give it credit for, are flooding in.
> 
> 'Risk' as you call it tends to be minimized over time, because, though few consciencly place primary value on money, EVERYONE places some value on it and therefore do as much to avert risk as possible. *




    Having taught Western and Eastern business strageties, I think I can grasp the concept of the basics. Being a member of the Strategic Learning Institute's thinktank doesn't hurt either. All I said, in the beginning, was that all the d20 products are pushing aside the physical space on shelves, and this pseudo-intellectual diatribe began where I am faced with textbook jargon that is irrelevant in this situation is brought up. All I said was, open your eyes, and look around.

hellbender


----------



## Felon (Oct 17, 2002)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> *If he has enough hit points to withstand several shotgun blasts, he's not a minor character. Minor characters have 1 HD and they drop like flies.*




To suggest that only characters of 1st-level can be considered minor seems a bit silly. And it's a good deal sillier to point at any given fictional character that's ever been killed by a single attack and glibly say "Oh, he was obviously just 1st-level". The term "minor" is relative, not absolute--particularly so in d20. Characters at any level will be fighting cannon-fodder goons who, as Nigel Powers puts it, don't even have name tags. To a 10th-level character a group of 4th and 5th-level flunkies can easily be considered minor opponents, yet each one can stop .44 slugs with his face, even the 10th-level character's slugs. And they won't even be fazed. If it's some sort of "heroic" factor insulating these thugs from an instantaneous, ignominious death, then why is a character with much more experience and a far superior affinity with deux-ex-machina incapable of overcoming that factor and killing them with a single bullet between the eyes? Because the heroic factor in d20 is represented by hit points, and of course that's purely defensive, which is yet another difference between hit points and other systems' "hero points" (action points, willpower, etc.). So again, not "the same thing".



> *You need to make a distinction between high and low level play. High level play always produces larger than life character. That's the whole point. If you don't want your character to be super-humanly tough, don't make a 15th level character. You can't consider D&D power scaling to be a bug. Its a feature!*




I can and do consider what you call "power-scaling" to be a viable but flawed feature that has managed to withstand the test of time without undergoing some much-needed fine-tuning. I want my 15th-level character to be a badass crack-shot  that can walk away from a gunfight having left behind a row of corpses with a single hole in each of their foreheads. But here's the funny thing: thanks to good ol' power-scaling, the chances that my gunslinger can do this actually decreases as he gains levels. When he's 1st-level, he can one-shot bad guys left and right (until he gets one-shotted anyway). When he's 20th-level, he won't be squaring off against those 1st-level characters that drop off like flies unless he actively goes trolling for them. The nameless chaff the GM tosses at him will be chaff built-to-scale. Minor bit players, but with sufficient hit points to ensure that my gunslinger, even with his various little feats, will have to empty his revolver just to take out one of them. 



> *Boramir's death scene in the LOTR movie is a great example of hit points in action. Boramir is fighting along, his hps slowly draining, it doesn't look good. Bang, he's hit by that 1/2 orc dude. Does Boramir suddenly become inepts? No. He may stumble around a little, but while he's doing that acting, the orcs don't attack him. When they do attack again, Boramir continues to cut them down as before. Bang, he's hit again. This time he falls to his knees in a bit of player RPing. Again, when the orcs attack, the big B keeps cutting them down as before. When the final arrow strikes home (reducing B's hps to below 0), he falls over. The rest of the orcs run past him while the leader dude sets up for the coup de grace. This is exactly how it would happen in D&D.*




Well, you do a good job interpolating that fight scene with d20 mechanics, I'll give you that...but you have passed over a heck of a lot of the comments I made in my post, and that includes statements that deflate what you're describing here. Boramir is clearly *not* fighting at 100% capacity up until the moment he drops. His attacks become clumsy and desperate. He's gravely injured, with numerous organs punctured, and barely capable of standing. much less making 30ft moves between attacks. In fact, it's pretty easy to see that he's mortally-wounded well before that third shaft drops him. If Lurtz hadn't gotten that final shot off, Boramir wasn't gong to simply get up, arrows still protruding from his torso, and stroll away from the battlefield with a dozen hit points shouting "Cleric! Get your butt over here! And where are those hobbits? Someone keep an eye on them while they're looting the bodies!". And _that_, my friend, is how it would happen in D&D.


----------



## Morgenstern (Oct 17, 2002)

*Um...*

I thought we were discussing the market for RPGs and d20 products in particular, but if we have to talk game design I'm up for that too .

On the subject of hit points, have you read how Star Wars and Spycraft deal with taking damage? In both cases, nobody likes to get shot at any level, though higher level characters/agents are a bit harder to get a clean hit on...

HP are not an absolute in d20 design. There are a number of other ways of dealing with 'ouch'.


----------



## D'karr (Oct 17, 2002)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> [SNIP]
> I can and do consider what you call "power-scaling" to be a viable but flawed feature that has managed to withstand the test of time without undergoing some much-needed fine-tuning. *




If it has withstood the test of time for over 25 years I wouldn't necessarily consider it a flaw.  Maybe it isn't as broken as it appears to you.



> *
> I want my 15th-level character to be a badass crack-shot  that can walk away from a gunfight having left behind a row of corpses with a single hole in each of their foreheads. But here's the funny thing: thanks to good ol' power-scaling, the chances that my gunslinger can do this actually decreases as he gains levels. *




Again, not a flaw of the game design



> *
> When he's 1st-level, he can one-shot bad guys left and right (until he gets one-shotted anyway). When he's 20th-level, he won't be squaring off against those 1st-level characters that drop off like flies unless he actively goes trolling for them. The nameless chaff the GM tosses at him will be chaff built-to-scale.*




And herein lies the problem.  It is the GM who is responsible for making the game world real to the players.  I routinely give the players bonuses or penalties in combat due to damage.  If the player gives himself penalties, without me due to roleplaying the damage, I even give XP awards for that type of roleplaying.  I tell the player that the 88mm mortar that landed close enough to do XYZ HP of damage knocked the wind out of him and that he will be stunned for d6 rounds.  I make that decision.  I don't need rules for that.

However,  I actively pursue the storylines my players want to play.  If my 10th level players want to have a bloodfest on a canyon fighting orcs, that is what I tailor the game to do.  They fight orcs cleaving them as they go along ending tired (low HP) but victorious.  I'm responsible for that as the GM.  I talk to my players and communicate with them to find out what they want.  I don't blame the rules if my players are not having fun, I blame myself.  I also don't blame the rules for not providing the required level of "realism" for my game.  I add that myself.

As a GM I use some common sense and make the world "real".  Unfortunately the only thing that doesn't come packaged with the game is a DM with common sense.  And you can't make common sense fit into every rule, no matter how well written.



> *
> Well, you do a good job interpolating that fight scene with d20 mechanics, I'll give you that...but you have passed over a heck of a lot of the comments I made in my post, and that includes statements that deflate what you're describing here. Boramir is clearly not fighting at 100% capacity up until the moment he drops. His attacks become clumsy and desperate. He's gravely injured, with numerous organs punctured, and barely capable of standing. much less making 30ft moves between attacks. In fact, it's pretty easy to see that he's mortally-wounded well before that third shaft drops him. If Lurtz hadn't gotten that final shot off, Boramir wasn't gong to simply get up, arrows still protruding from his torso, and stroll away from the battlefield with a dozen hit points shouting "Cleric! Get your butt over here! And where are those hobbits? Someone keep an eye on them while they're looting the bodies!". And that, my friend, is how it would happen in D&D.   *




Like I said before, don't blame D&D rules or lack thereof for the follies of a DM.  The DM could describe each combat just like that.  The players can describe the damage like that.  It is up to the game group how the game is played, not to the "rules".  If you've agreed as a group that you want the damage to be cinematic (LotR example) there is nothing stopping you from doing that.  My current group is an example of that.


----------



## hong (Oct 17, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> In d20, once you hit about 8th-10th level, grabbing said bundle of dynamite and just running away to a remote area and letting the bundle blow up in your arms in order to save the populace becomes a legitimate option because you'll still have hit points left.
> *




Pick one of the following:

1) For every "stupid rules! Can't handle situation!" example, there is a counterexample. In this case, think of the ending to _Predator_, and Arnie surviving what looks like a close-range nuclear blast.

2) The hit point system is designed essentially for _combat_. Sometimes, it won't work quite as well outside combat. That's where DM's discretion comes in. If you, as DM, think that a hero who jumps on a grenade to keep it from killing his friends should die immediately, then he dies. Personally, I think it's a lot more fun to give said hero a chance of surviving, however small. But that's just me.



> *
> It's inane. It works for games like D&D where characters are supposed to be like Boromir from LotR. But even in fantasy, the D&D paradigm can fall apart. The best example is L5R, where one strike from a katana during an iaijutsu duel is supposed to kill the loser. In d20, two skilled iaijutsu duelists could hack at each other for hours before one of them dropped. *




It's entirely possible, and even probable, for an iaijutsu master to kill his opponent in the strike phase of a duel. See the prestige class writeup in OA.


----------



## hong (Oct 17, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> If a "stock" d20 character (with HP and stuff) is holding a bundle of dynamite when it goes off, he takes just as much damage as if someone threw it at him and it blew up at his feet.*




So he dodged the worst effects of the blast, or threw himself flat at the right time, or something. Handwave it a bit; you're allowed to do that.



> *Same with the rocket. He could blow it up himself and he would take the same damage as if someone shot it at him. He could be tied up, immobile, or unconscious and would still take the same damage if someone set it on the ground and detonated it as if someone shot him with it. *




Someone who is tied up, immobile, or unconscious is helpless, and therefore subject to coup de grace attempts. An enemy could walk up to him, point a gun (or a rocket) at his head and pull the trigger. That's an auto-crit, and a Fort save to avoid dying outright (usually at a near-impossible DC).

Now you might say that you can't normally coup de grace with rockets, but then rockets aren't exactly common in D&D, and so fall outside the scope of the rules as written. I wouldn't have a problem allowing CdG attempts with ranged weapons as part of a more generic ruleset.


----------



## hong (Oct 17, 2002)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> To suggest that only characters of 1st-level can be considered minor seems a bit silly. And it's a good deal sillier to point at any given fictional character that's ever been killed by a single attack and glibly say "Oh, he was obviously just 1st-level". The term "minor" is relative, not absolute--particularly so in d20. Characters at any level will be fighting cannon-fodder goons who, as Nigel Powers puts it, don't even have name tags. To a 10th-level character a group of 4th and 5th-level flunkies can easily be considered minor opponents, yet each one can stop .44 slugs with his face, even the 10th-level character's slugs. *




A 10th level character who takes a .44 slug to the face is dead, just the same as a 1st level character.

What's that, you say? Someone with 10 levels of hit points should surely beable to take a direct hit in the face from a .44? Nonsense. The point of those 10 levels of hit points is to represent skill at _avoiding_ a direct hit in the face. If said 10th level d00d still gets hit, then that's clearly a situation where those hit points have run out; and thus they are going to die like anyone else.

Furthermore, in D&D, a 10th level fighter with Power Attack and a greatsword can easily dish out something like 4d6+20 points of damage per hit, and they get two attacks per round on a full attack. Even someone who's 3rd or 4th level will usually go down in a single round.

What's that, you say? We're talking about guns, not some anachronistic melee weapon that went out of fashion around the same time as lederhosen? Well, the same principle applies: damage dealt scales with level, just as does hit points.



> *And they won't even be fazed. If it's some sort of "heroic" factor insulating these thugs from an instantaneous, ignominious death, then why is a character with much more experience and a far superior affinity with deux-ex-machina incapable of overcoming that factor and killing them with a single bullet between the eyes? Because the heroic factor in d20 is represented by hit points, and of course that's purely defensive, which is yet another difference between hit points and other systems' "hero points" (action points, willpower, etc.). So again, not "the same thing".*




Other systems do have super-high dodge skills, or parry, or whatever. It's still the same thing: a powerful character _cannot be killed with a single shot_. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be much point to becoming more powerful.



> *I can and do consider what you call "power-scaling" to be a viable but flawed feature that has managed to withstand the test of time without undergoing some much-needed fine-tuning. I want my 15th-level character to be a badass crack-shot  that can walk away from a gunfight having left behind a row of corpses with a single hole in each of their foreheads. But here's the funny thing: thanks to good ol' power-scaling, the chances that my gunslinger can do this actually decreases as he gains levels.*




Then you have a dumb DM, if he thinks he must scale EVERY opponent and EVERY encounter to the party level.



> *When he's 1st-level, he can one-shot bad guys left and right (until he gets one-shotted anyway). When he's 20th-level, he won't be squaring off against those 1st-level characters that drop off like flies unless he actively goes trolling for them. The nameless chaff the GM tosses at him will be chaff built-to-scale. *




That's an issue to take up with your DM, and not something mandated by the rules. When we went through the RttToEE, we had 10th level characters routinely coming up against groups of 1st and 2nd level mooks. They didn't last long, just as you seem to want.



> *Well, you do a good job interpolating that fight scene with d20 mechanics, I'll give you that...but you have passed over a heck of a lot of the comments I made in my post, and that includes statements that deflate what you're describing here. Boramir is clearly not fighting at 100% capacity up until the moment he drops. *




See "spiral of death", and undesirability thereof in a game.



> *His attacks become clumsy and desperate. He's gravely injured, with numerous organs punctured, and barely capable of standing. much less making 30ft moves between attacks. In fact, it's pretty easy to see that he's mortally-wounded well before that third shaft drops him. *




That's because Boromir was on negative hit points and had the Remain Conscious feat.


----------



## Felon (Oct 18, 2002)

D'karr said:
			
		

> *If it has withstood the test of time for over 25 years I wouldn't necessarily consider it a flaw.  Maybe it isn't as broken as it appears to you.*




It's not broken. It provides a simple, video-game style mechanism for tracking a character's health. Just because it's withstood the test of time, though, that doesn't mean it's achieved a state of perfection. Like I said, it needs fine-tuning. I like d20 plenty, but hit points are a flawed artifact of 1e D&D's combat system that went overlooked during the big overhaul that WotC performed converting the system to 3e.



> *And herein lies the problem.  It is the GM who is responsible for making the game world real to the players.  I routinely give the players bonuses or penalties in combat due to damage.  If the player gives himself penalties, without me due to role-playing the damage, I even give XP awards for that type of role-playing. I tell the player that the 88mm mortar that landed close enough to do XYZ HP of damage knocked the wind out of him and that he will be stunned for d6 rounds.  I make that decision.  I don't need rules for that.*




Man o man, I don't mean to get all snarky and jasamcarl-like, but how I pray for the day when all the smug GM's inculcated in their fluffy little fawning circle of gamers up in the clouds come back down to planet Earth, and stop proffering gamers who live in the real world all the quaint little techniques that only function within the confines of their pristine, perfect little groups.

Your system of improvised penalization, where players contrive all manner of ways to flagellate themselves with self-imposed handicaps in exchange for scraps of XP is cute, but are you naive enough to believe such an arbitrary system is an easy, ideal solution for *every* group of gamers to implement? Perhaps you have an ideal group of gamers who all love you and coddle you and stroke your hair and tell you how wonderful this ad-lib wound system is. If so, that's great. I'm happy for you 

Putting aside your own infallibility when it comes to assigning all these off-the-cuff effects ("Uh, gee, that arrow hit you...in the arm! Yeah! You drop your weapon!"..."Wow! I rolled three 6's on that 8d6 fireball. Let's see, I say you're stunned for 1d6 rounds!") and your players' sheepish acceptance of those whimsical penalties, do you see where this knee-jerk approach to applying notions of "common sense" to hit points might actually lead to enormous debacles of gaming in the hands of someone less brilliant than yourself? How about all the left-brained DM's out there that are capable storytellers, but have a half-baked grasp of game mechanics (of which there are many)? They would constantly be coming up with sloppy, unfair, and just plain stupid calls on how penalties are assigned, getting players killed routinely. That would tend to sour a players' ability to appreciate the DM's finer qualities, wouldn't it? 

And imagine, for a second, that there's actually a large contingent of players who actually have some standards of their own when it comes to their gaming experience, and believe it ought to be governed by well-thought-out rules, that have undergone at least a bare minimum of playtesting. They might just find this slap-dash approach to a comprehensive damage system to be shoddy, inconsistent, and just plain half-arsed. I do.

Now, if your answer to that is "Then they can find someone else to play with!" or "You shouldn't be a GM if you can't cut it!", then you have undercut your own position. Getting back onto what this thread is supposed to be about--the overall welfare of the RPG industry--it's safe to say that attitude is not one that's healthy for business. If d20 or any other system has a gap in rules that ultimately results in the GM having to take up so much slack that it's too much hassle to run, or has shortcomings that frustrate players to the point that they're turned off by the experience, then the game's publishers have fallen short. That's what happened with my group's foray into Deadlands d20. You can play the elitist all you want blame the GM and players for not being up to snuff, but ultimately the publisher is the one who suffers when Deadlands fails to succeed in the market due to its inability to meet consumer expectations.



> *As a GM I use some common sense and make the world "real".  Unfortunately the only thing that doesn't come packaged with the game is a DM with common sense.  And you can't make common sense fit into every rule, no matter how well written. Like I said before, don't blame D&D rules or lack thereof for the follies of a DM.  The DM could describe each combat just like that.  The players can describe the damage like that.  It is up to the game group how the game is played, not to the "rules".  If you've agreed as a group that you want the damage to be cinematic (LotR example) there is nothing stopping you from doing that.  My current group is an example of that. *




Yeah, I had a groovy group like that once too, but don't take it for granted that what works within your microcosm is applicable to 90% of the gamers out there. Most people can agree on basics, but once they're into the specifics--like how to decide whether a character dodged an arrow, or was struck in the arm--then the disparity of views to begins to tell. 

Frankly, I find it quite disturbing to think that there might still be some game designer pursuing the remnants of this thread who might stumble across your comments and take that lofty nonsense about "the follies of a GM" seriously. The rulebook serves as a toolkit for the DM. Now, maybe there are virtuoso GM's out there who have a MacGyver-like ability to jury-rig rules for their game with duct tape, baking soda, a can of Coca-Cola, and a pack of pop rocks, but most folks will just wind up making a big mess. They need the best tools that they can get their hands on. The fact remains that hit points are not a great tool for creating dramatic, cinematic combat encounters. Even you don't dispute that statement so much as insist that a good DM should just ditch his tools and drive in the screws with his teeth


----------



## Felon (Oct 18, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *A 10th level character who takes a .44 slug to the face is dead, just the same as a 1st level character. What's that, you say? Someone with 10 levels of hit points should surely beable to take a direct hit in the face from a .44? Nonsense. The point of those 10 levels of hit points is to represent skill at _avoiding_ a direct hit in the face. If said 10th level d00d still gets hit, then that's clearly a situation where those hit points have run out; and thus they are going to die like anyone else.*




Yes, well, you know I did already address the shortcomings of that rationale you're espousing at some depth in my previous long-winded posts, so rather than re-hash, I'll only suggest you go back and check it out when you have a few minutes. Suffice to say, the big problem is that, just as with Synicism's dynamite scenario, just as with PEGShane's comments about a soldier shrugging off a direct hit from a tank round, just as with my anecdote about characters jumping off a mountain because it's the shortest way down, is that character, having done the math. _knows_ for certain that there's not a chance of dying. So much for drama. Some dastard pulls a gun on the hero, the hero sighs and walks across the room to take his shotgun down off the wall. "Well, nobody's shot at me today, so I have some dodging points to burn. You go ahead and start shooting. I gotta load this thing."  

Now, before everyone rushes to make some obtuse commennt about how the GM can arbitrarily override the rules in this situation and decide what happens in a given situation, but realize that in doing so you're just going off on a completely unrelated tangent. Here's my statement: d20's hit point system is a flawed and inadequate method for handling realistic or cinematic combat. Saying "a good DM would easilty handle it this way" or "a GM who lets that happen is dumb" doesn't refute my statement one tiny iota. It is irrelevant what a DM can or might do. If the system's adequate, the DM _doesn't have to_ override it and make up house rules on the spot to keep things from getting goofy.



> *Other systems do have super-high dodge skills, or parry, or whatever. It's still the same thing: a powerful character _cannot be killed with a single shot_. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be much point to becoming more powerful.*




Conan is a powerful character. In one story, a handful of guards catch Conan someplace that he shouldn't be. Does Conan just roll initiative and tear the guards apart? No. One of the guards has a crossbow leveled at him and Conan knows he's more than likely a dead man if he tries anything funny. He has to use his wits to wait for an opportunity to strike. 

In D&D, a couple of barbarians are sitting in a bar when they are  surprised by four goons with crossbows. In a movie or novel, the characters might use a tactic like flipping over their table and using it as a  makeshift mantlet, perhaps picking it up and using it to ram the guards. In D&D, the barbarians needn't bother thinking out a plan like that, they just rush the guards knowing that they can't be killed. In fact, the barbarians are somewhat foolish if they do use the makeshift-mantelet tactic, since in D&D it almost always better to do something offensive than defensive. Characters relying on hit points don't have to use their wits. 



> *Then you have a dumb DM, if he thinks he must scale EVERY opponent and EVERY encounter to the party level.*





Interesting perspective. Let's do a field study. When you get a chance, run out to your local hobby shop and find how many published d20 products you can find that provide 15th-level parties with 1HD opponents to fight. Let's keep everyone posted on the results. I'm sure we'll find it enlightening how many dummies are making a living scaling every opponent in every encounter to the party's level.  



> *That's because Boromir was on negative hit points and had the Remain Conscious feat. *




Oh, *that's* the answer! ROFL! Good one. Any time I see some hero fighting on despite mortal wounds, I'll just think "Oh, he's got that feat from one of the splatbooks!" Heh. You're a real card.  

But wait a sec...Remain Conscious has Iron Will as a prerequisite, and that's hardly appropriate for Boramir, is it?  

Wait, never mind. We'll just say he had a very low Wisdom score, and the Iron Will didn't compensate enough. Yeah, that works. Hey, looks like the time I've spent with you guys must have unlocked the powers of spurious reasoning that lay hidden deep within me. Glad to see that this thread hasn't been entirely unproductive.


----------



## hong (Oct 18, 2002)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, well, you know I did already address the shortcomings of that rationale you're espousing at some depth in my previous long-winded posts, so rather than re-hash, I'll only suggest you go back and check it out when you have a few minutes.*




And _you_ can see my reply to Synicism.



> * Suffice to say, the big problem is that, just as with Synicism's dynamite scenario, just as with PEGShane's comments about a soldier shrugging off a direct hit from a tank round, *




Nobody, as far as I know, has shown how a soldier can survive a direct hit with a tank round. Point me to where the hit point model mandates that taking X points of damage must be the result of a direct hit.



> *just as with my anecdote about characters jumping off a mountain because it's the shortest way down, is that character, having done the math. knows for certain that there's not a chance of dying. *




1) Massive damage Fort save. Natural 1 always fails.

2) Hit points presume a character actively attempting to avoid the worst effects of an attack. Someone who jumps off a mountain in the knowledge that he has lots of hit points is, arguably, not actively attempting to avoid the worst effects of the attack, and therefore the hit point model doesn't apply. Spatula time.

3) The jump-off-a-cliff example is awfully, terribly old. It's so old it has hair. If this is the worst aspect of the model you can come up with, that would indicate it's actually doing rather well in the areas it's _supposed_ to model.



> *So much for drama. Some dastard pulls a gun on the hero, the hero sighs and walks across the room to take his shotgun down off the wall. "Well, nobody's shot at me today, so I have some dodging points to burn. You go ahead and start shooting. I gotta load this thing."  *




How is this different to having, say, massive PD and DR in GURPS? Or any other mechanic by which a powerful character can avoid being hit by lesser characters?



> *Now, before everyone rushes to make some obtuse commennt about how the GM can arbitrarily override the rules in this situation and decide what happens in a given situation, but realize that in doing so you're just going off on a completely unrelated tangent. Here's my statement: d20's hit point system is a flawed and inadequate method for handling realistic or cinematic combat.*




It is? I hadn't noticed.



> *Saying "a good DM would easilty handle it this way" or "a GM who lets that happen is dumb" doesn't refute my statement one tiny iota. It is irrelevant what a DM can or might do. If the system's adequate, the DM doesn't have to override it and make up house rules on the spot to keep things from getting goofy.*




There's no such thing as a perfect model. Some models have more obvious holes than others, that's all.



> *Conan is a powerful character. In one story, a handful of guards catch Conan someplace that he shouldn't be. Does Conan just roll initiative and tear the guards apart? No. One of the guards has a crossbow leveled at him and Conan knows he's more than likely a dead man if he tries anything funny. He has to use his wits to wait for an opportunity to strike. *




For every "stupid rules! Can't handle situation!" example, there is a counterexample. In this case, in _The Long Kiss Goodnight_, Geena Davis's character is involved in a standoff with a mook who has a gun pointed at her head. They argue for a bit, and then Davis slaps the gun out of the way, twists the mook's arm around, and uses his own gun to shoot two of his friends who were sneaking up on her. And you know what? I _like_ it like that.



> *In D&D, a couple of barbarians are sitting in a bar when they are  surprised by four goons with crossbows. In a movie or novel, the characters might use a tactic like flipping over their table and using it as a  makeshift mantlet, perhaps picking it up and using it to ram the guards. In D&D, the barbarians needn't bother thinking out a plan like that, they just rush the guards knowing that they can't be killed. In fact, the barbarians are somewhat foolish if they do use the makeshift-mantelet tactic, since in D&D it almost always better to do something offensive than defensive. Characters relying on hit points don't have to use their wits. *




Have you actually played D&D at high levels, or like so many others, are you so hypnotised by hit points that you start believing it's nothing more than chop-chop-chop-kill?

In the last high-level outing I was in, our 13th-15th level party got our butts kicked by a derro necromancer and her uber-death slaad companion. Not once, but twice. In one battle, the slaad reduced the 170+ hp fighter to single digits twice (he got a heal spell in between), knocked the rogue and the archer (me) unconscious, and blinded half the party, before we teleported the hell out of there. In the next session, the necromancer's horde of wraiths and spectres swarmed us and took out the cleric, and we again had to teleport the hell out of there. We finally managed to take them down on the third go after a protracted session of planning out buffs, strategy, and similar things.

Tactics are VERY important at high level, possibly even more so at low level. And a character who focuses entirely on offense without looking at things like saves, AC and resistances better have a humongous initiative bonus, because if he doesn't take out the opposition in the first round, he's meat in the second round.



> *Interesting perspective. Let's do a field study. When you get a chance, run out to your local hobby shop and find how many published d20 products you can find that provide 15th-level parties with 1HD opponents to fight.*




Do you always rely on other people to exercise your imagination for you?



> *Let's keep everyone posted on the results. I'm sure we'll find it enlightening how many dummies are making a living scaling every opponent in every encounter to the party's level.
> *




The DMG itself says that high-level characters should be given the opportunity to enjoy the powers they gain. That means being able to demonstrate that they are, indeed, badasses by comparison with the everyday people around them. Do you prefer to argue by what's in the core rules, or what's in various modules, most of which I don't give a whit about, and some authors of which don't even know half the rules anyway?



> *
> Oh, that's the answer! ROFL! Good one. *




Your blustering technique needs work.



> *Any time I see some hero fighting on despite mortal wounds, I'll just think "Oh, he's got that feat from one of the splatbooks!" Heh. You're a real card.  *




I know. You, however, have some catching up to do.



> *But wait a sec...Remain Conscious has Iron Will as a prerequisite, and that's hardly appropriate for Boramir, is it?  *




Boromir can have Iron Will, and with his Wisdom of 9, he might still have a Will save of +4 at 10th level. Quick quiz: how useful is a +4 Will at that level? Answer: not very.



> *Wait, never mind. We'll just say he had a very low Wisdom score, and the Iron Will didn't compensate enough. Yeah, that works. *




Indeed it does. You are enlightened. You can thank me later.



> *Hey, looks like the time I've spent with you guys must have unlocked the powers of spurious reasoning that lay hidden deep within me. Glad to see that this thread hasn't been entirely unproductive.  *




Now I'm confused. Your reasoning is indeed spurious, but this fact hasn't been very well hidden. Am I missing something?


----------



## Synicism (Oct 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by hong _*It's entirely possible, and even probable, for an iaijutsu master to kill his opponent in the strike phase of a duel. See the prestige class writeup in OA. *




Yeah. And it's also not beyond the realm of possibility that the one-cut-one-kill duel will lead to some grievous wounds, a few more rounds of combat, and one very confused iaijutsu duelist.

L5R is an extremely deadly game. We used to joke that just looking at a sword might kill you. The d20 system mechanics takes a lot of that away.

Granted, there are many things that you can do with the system to fix that. Spycraft did a decent job with the HP/VP mechanic. Although I would have preferred to see no VP at all and some kind of dodge or parry roll instead.

Likewise, Mutants & Masterminds has a lot of promise with its damage saves. 

And every time someone comes up with a "new and improved" damage resolution method, we get farther and farther from the "stock" d20 that we tend to see these days and closer to what Shane Hensley predicted - more OGL and less d20. People taking the system and tailoring it to suit the particularities of their games.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by D'karr _*Like I said before, don't blame D&D rules or lack thereof for the follies of a DM.  The DM could describe each combat just like that.  The players can describe the damage like that.  It is up to the game group how the game is played, not to the "rules".  If you've agreed as a group that you want the damage to be cinematic (LotR example) there is nothing stopping you from doing that.  My current group is an example of that. *




I'm not blaming the rules for anything. Stock d20 works great for certain types of play.

However, being a big fan of operational consistency in my games (I hate being surprised by unusual rulings so I tend to avoid them whenever possible), I don't believe that rule zero, while always a nice tool to have, should be required to fix these sorts of things.

This gets back to my last post - the OGL lets designers fix things and tailor the system to their own needs.

If you want a game where fundamentally fragile human beings are capable of superhuman stunts but will still suffer extremely serious injuries when impaled with a sword or blown away with a sniper rifle, then you can provide for active defenses and few hit points.

That way, sure it may take just as many shots to bring a character down, but only one hit.

In many ways, this is more reflective of actual combat, even in fantasy. Actual swordfights are a series of maneuvers, attacks, parries, feints, and dodges, until there is a single serious injury that generally ends the fight.

However, and this goes back to the series of gripes about Silver Age Sentinels d20, this kind of tweaking should be encouraged, not dismissed because it's "incompatible."

By sticking to the d20 license, a lot of the potential behind the OGL itself, independent of d20, gets lost.


----------



## hong (Oct 18, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> Yeah. And it's also not beyond the realm of possibility that the one-cut-one-kill duel will lead to some grievous wounds, a few more rounds of combat, and one very confused iaijutsu duelist.*




Just to be clear, I'm referring to the iaijutsu master _prestige class_ in OA. That class gets big bonus damage on the first round of combat, multiple attack rolls in the same situation, and various other stuff. It's basically designed so that you _can_ get the one-shot-kill that's core to the duel concept. Once that first round is over, the duelist is just a rather mediocre fighter, but that's the tradeoff for taking a specialist PrC.

And really, is it so unreasonable that not _every_ iaijutsu duel might end in a conclusive result?



> *L5R is an extremely deadly game. We used to joke that just looking at a sword might kill you. The d20 system mechanics takes a lot of that away.*




This is a taste thing. There have been other L5R players on these boards who have commented on this difference between d10 and d20, and have said they like how in d20 you don't have to fear for your life every time you get into a fight. Just sometimes. 



> *Granted, there are many things that you can do with the system to fix that. Spycraft did a decent job with the HP/VP mechanic. Although I would have preferred to see no VP at all and some kind of dodge or parry roll instead.*




Personally, I don't like dodge/parry rolls. 1) Too much rolling involved, especially for big combats; 2) the potential for long periods where noone makes any progress. But some people seem to like it....


----------



## Synicism (Oct 18, 2002)

Hong said:

"Nobody, as far as I know, has shown how a soldier can survive a direct hit with a tank round. Point me to where the hit point model mandates that taking X points of damage must be the result of a direct hit."

The thing about a HP system is that an attack either hit or it didn't. If you want to change the model, having a lot of HP lets a character hopscotch through a landmine, fall all his reflex saves for half damage, and still walk away.

Hong said:

"1) Massive damage Fort save. Natural 1 always fails."

Not necessarily. There are a number of variants published for the treatment of ones and 20's. I personally use the -10/30 rule, where a natural one is a -10 and a natural 20 is a 30.

So yes, your natural 20 may not always succeed and your natural one may not always fail.

"Hit points presume a character actively attempting to avoid the worst effects of an attack. Someone who jumps off a mountain in the knowledge that he has lots of hit points is, arguably, not actively attempting to avoid the worst effects of the attack, and therefore the hit point model doesn't apply. Spatula time."

Show me where it says that. Granted, that's a nice use of rule zero and it makes perfect sense. But I'm talking about numbers. You can't build a system assuming that players will act a certain way.

Hong said: 

"The jump-off-a-cliff example is awfully, terribly old. It's so old it has hair. If this is the worst aspect of the model you can come up with, that would indicate it's actually doing rather well in the areas it's _supposed_ to model."

Hmm... you're right. It is pretty old. Actually, TSR expanded it in the Spelljammer game to deal with reentry.

Yes. It is possible for a character to fall from outer space to the ground, hit, and survive, if he has enough hit points. It's right there, in the system.

Silly? Sure. However, the fact remains that SOMEONE must play that way. Otherwise the rule wouldn't exist.

Hong said:

"How is this different to having, say, massive PD and DR in GURPS? Or any other mechanic by which a powerful character can avoid being hit by lesser characters?"

Simple. In GURPS, I am either hit or I am not. If someone swings a sword at me and I parry the blow, I didn't get touched. If someone takes a shot at me and I dodge, I didn't get touched.

However, should my defenses fail, I have a very few hit points upon which to rely to take the hit. Especially given the damage multipliers that GURPS uses.

In "stock" d20, I swing, I hit, I do damage. You swing, you hit, you do damage. Lather, rinse, repeat. Many attacks, many hits, each one whittling away at the combatant's ability to fight.

In a GURPS fight, I might have my first ten attacks parried or dodged, only to land with my eleventh, stab my opponent through the chest, and kill him. In a D&D fight, I might have to actually hit him with my sword eleven times before he drops.

Big difference in the mind's eye. And that's what rules in a RPG are supposed to do, right? Help us imagine what's going on?


----------



## Synicism (Oct 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by hong _*Just to be clear, I'm referring to the iaijutsu master _prestige class_ in OA. That class gets big bonus damage on the first round of combat, multiple attack rolls in the same situation, and various other stuff. It's basically designed so that you _can_ get the one-shot-kill that's core to the duel concept. Once that first round is over, the duelist is just a rather mediocre fighter, but that's the tradeoff for taking a specialist PrC. This is a taste thing. There have been other L5R players on these boards who have commented on this difference between d10 and d20, and have said they like how in d20 you don't have to fear for your life every time you get into a fight. Just sometimes.  Personally, I don't like dodge/parry rolls. 1) Too much rolling involved, especially for big combats; 2) the potential for long periods where noone makes any progress. But some people seem to like it.... *




You're right. It is a taste thing. Personally, I don't see the difference in time taken between me making an an attack roll vs. an AC and, if successful, rolling damage (two rolls of the dice), and me making an attack roll, and then having my target make a defense roll to see if he evaded somehow (same two rolls of the dice). I prefer the mental imagery the second way better. Others might not.

You do have a good point - it's possible to make the one-shot-one-kill highly likely with the right prestige classes.

This begs the following question. Does the proliferation of prestige classes designed to alter the system to produce certain effects that might otherwise be impossible (like the Iaijutsu Master) not seem like the plugging of a leaky dam?

Would it not have been easier to design a system that could handle these sorts of things in one book?

Granted the d20 approach does allow for a LOT of books, and that's good for publishers and chiropractors who treat gamers' back problems caused by lugging that much paper around. But what about everyone else?

Getting back to Shane Hensley's point again, this is what the OGL was designed for. To let people make up their own stuff. I like a lot of the d20 system. It's quick, it's tight, and it's easy to figure out. I don't like certain aspects of "stock" d20, like hit points, classes, and levels. The OGL allows me to fix it for my own purposes.

That is great!

What is not great is the criticism that tends to get heaped on such things.

"It's incompatible with d20."

"It doesn't work for my D&D game."

Wonderful. We have a d20 STL for those things. We have an OGL for people who want to make something suited to their product. Maybe dual-statting is an option - stock d20 on one side, and the OGL system on the other. But the OGL provides the tools. And the industry is (finally) starting to use them.


----------



## Synicism (Oct 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by hong _*And really, is it so unreasonable that not _every_ iaijutsu duel might end in a conclusive result?*




Oh, and just as a historical note, knowing what I know about swords and the wounds they inflict on unarmored targets who are not moving to avoid getting hit, I'd say that the idea of the loser of a real iaijutsu duel surviving longer than the 1 minute it takes a D&D character to bleed to death from 0 to -10 HP is, factually, pretty unreasonable.


----------



## hong (Oct 18, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> The thing about a HP system is that an attack either hit or it didn't. *




Well, let's be clear about what we're talking about. In _every_ RP combat system, an attack either hits or it doesn't. You either apply damage, or not. What varies is what the _game-mechanical application of damage_ (a "hit") is meant to represent in-game.

One bug/wart/misfeature of the hit point model is that hits ain't hits. Someone who takes 10 points of damage from a sword might have suffered a mortal wound to the belly (if they have 4 hp), a serious cut to the side (if they have 12 hp), or a minor graze (if they have 100 hp). The mapping between the abstract rules model and in-game reality is left unspecified.

The same applies to the VP/WP system, which is really just hp dressed up differently. Someone who takes 10 VP damage has in fact been _missed_; they use up their VP in dodging what would have been a solid hit. Only attacks that deal WP damage are real, physical hits that draw blood. The VP ablation process is explained in terms of fatigue or luck, but the point remains the same: hits ain't hits.

Contrast this to something like GURPS, which has explicit mechanics for parrying, dodging and blocking attacks. In this model, there is a clear and rigid mapping between the outcome of the abstract model, and what happens in-game. If you take 10 points of damage, that's always a serious wound (assuming you have 10 HT), regardless of how many points you have in swordfighting skills. In this sort of model, character ability comes into it in the parry/dodge roll, which determines whether you take that 10 points of damage in the first place.



> *If you want to change the model, having a lot of HP lets a character hopscotch through a landmine, fall all his reflex saves for half damage, and still walk away.*




Nothing wrong with that. If you fail your Ref save, that doesn't mean you stand up and take the full force of the blast. It means you managed to dodge aside, but not quite as successfully as you would have liked.



> *
> Hong said:
> 
> "1) Massive damage Fort save. Natural 1 always fails."
> ...




Well, if we're going to go into variants, there are tons of them, some of which might also make it _harder_ to survive silly stunts like jumping off cliffs. d20 modern sets the massive damage threshold at damage equal to your Con, for example. I'm just going by what's in the PHB/SRD.



> *
> "Hit points presume a character actively attempting to avoid the worst effects of an attack. Someone who jumps off a mountain in the knowledge that he has lots of hit points is, arguably, not actively attempting to avoid the worst effects of the attack, and therefore the hit point model doesn't apply. Spatula time."
> 
> Show me where it says that. Granted, that's a nice use of rule zero and it makes perfect sense. But I'm talking about numbers. You can't build a system assuming that players will act a certain way.*




Yes, it's rule 0. So what? I never said the hit point model was perfect. I said that it works. And personally, I've never seen anyone purposefully jump off a cliff in the knowledge that they'll survive a fall. I've seen lots of characters fall into pits or have their fly spells dispelled, but that's different.



> *
> Hong said:
> 
> "How is this different to having, say, massive PD and DR in GURPS? Or any other mechanic by which a powerful character can avoid being hit by lesser characters?"
> ...




As in any ruleset. In fact, you said much the same thing about D&D -- see the first bit right above.



> *In "stock" d20, I swing, I hit, I do damage. You swing, you hit, you do damage. Lather, rinse, repeat. Many attacks, many hits, each one whittling away at the combatant's ability to fight.*




And this is a Good Thing, believe it or not.



> *In a GURPS fight, I might have my first ten attacks parried or dodged, only to land with my eleventh, stab my opponent through the chest, and kill him. In a D&D fight, I might have to actually hit him with my sword eleven times before he drops.*




As said before, hits ain't hits. In the end, the same result eventuates: you fight for eleven rounds, one guy eventually takes a killing blow, and the other is exhausted or heavily wounded.



> *Big difference in the mind's eye. And that's what rules in a RPG are supposed to do, right? Help us imagine what's going on? *




No, they're supposed to help us _play the game_. A situation where two people hack at each other for multiple rounds without any discernible result is boring for most gamers, regardless of how "realistic" it might be.


----------



## hong (Oct 18, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh, and just as a historical note, knowing what I know about swords and the wounds they inflict on unarmored targets who are not moving to avoid getting hit, I'd say that the idea of the loser of a real iaijutsu duel surviving longer than the 1 minute it takes a D&D character to bleed to death from 0 to -10 HP is, factually, pretty unreasonable. *




You only take 1 minute to bleed to death if you took precisely enough damage to reduce you to -1 hp. When attacks are dealing out something like 10d6 or 20d6 damage, you'll typically either survive (have enough hp to soak it) or be dead.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Oct 18, 2002)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *Hong said:
> 
> Hong said:
> 
> ...




The problem with the GURPS example, is that the first attack has just the same chance to kill them as the eleventh. In D&D, you can tell whether you are winning or losing; it's not just whoever gets lucky first.

Geoff.


----------



## D'karr (Oct 18, 2002)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's not broken. It provides a simple, video-game style mechanism for tracking a character's health. Just because it's withstood the test of time, though, that doesn't mean it's achieved a state of perfection. Like I said, it needs fine-tuning. I like d20 plenty, but hit points are a flawed artifact of 1e D&D's combat system that went overlooked during the big overhaul that WotC performed converting the system to 3e.*




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.



> *
> Man o man, I don't mean to get all snarky and jasamcarl-like...
> *




For somebody that doesn't mean to you really do a good job of failing at it.



> *
> [snipped all the inconsequential "snarky" remarks]
> 
> techniques that only function within the confines of their pristine, perfect little groups.
> *




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.



> *
> [snip]
> are you naive enough to believe such an arbitrary system is an easy, ideal solution for every group of gamers to implement?
> *




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 you have an ideal group of gamers [snip some more inconsequential remarks]
> *




Perhaps I do...  I'm fortunate in that way.  



> *
> Putting aside your own infallibility when it comes to assigning all these off-the-cuff effects
> *




Whenever did I claim I was infallible?  Man, you sure like putting keys on people's keyboards.  Chill out.  Paxil might help you.



> *
> and your players' sheepish acceptance of those whimsical penalties, do you see where this knee-jerk approach to applying notions of "common sense" to hit points might actually lead to enormous debacles of gaming in the hands of someone less brilliant than yourself?
> *




I'm appreciative of you recognizing that I'm brilliant.  

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?



> *
> How about all the left-brained DM's out there that are capable storytellers, but have a half-baked grasp of game mechanics (of which there are many)?
> *




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.



> *
> They would constantly be coming up with sloppy, unfair, and just plain stupid calls on how penalties are assigned, getting players killed routinely. That would tend to sour a players' ability to appreciate the DM's finer qualities, wouldn't it?
> *




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?



> *
> And imagine, for a second, that there's actually a large contingent of players who actually have some standards of their own when it comes to their gaming experience, and believe it ought to be governed by well-thought-out rules, that have undergone at least a bare minimum of playtesting. They might just find this slap-dash approach to a comprehensive damage system to be shoddy, inconsistent, and just plain half-arsed. I 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.



> *
> Now, if your answer to that is "Then they can find someone else to play with!" or "You shouldn't be a GM if you can't cut it!", then you have undercut your own position.
> *




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.



> *
> Getting back onto what this thread is supposed to be about
> *




Finally



> *
> --the overall welfare of the RPG industry--it's safe to say that attitude is not one that's healthy for business.
> *




What 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.



> *
> If d20 or any other system has a gap in rules that ultimately results in the GM having to take up so much slack that it's too much hassle to run, or has shortcomings that frustrate players to the point that they're turned off by the experience, then the game's publishers have fallen short.
> *




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.



> *
> That's what happened with my group's foray into Deadlands d20. You can play the elitist all you want blame the GM and players for not being up to snuff, but ultimately the publisher is the one who suffers when Deadlands fails to succeed in the market due to its inability to meet consumer expectations.
> *




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 *your*Deadlands 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".



> *
> Yeah, I had a groovy group like that once too, but don't take it for granted that what works within your microcosm is applicable to 90% of the gamers out there.
> *




I'm sorry for your loss.  



> *
> Most people can agree on basics, but once they're into the specifics--like how to decide whether a character dodged an arrow, or was struck in the arm--then the disparity of views to begins to tell.
> *




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.



> *
> Frankly, I find it quite disturbing to think that there might still be some game designer pursuing the remnants of this thread who might stumble across your comments and take that lofty nonsense about "the follies of a GM" seriously. The rulebook serves as a toolkit for the DM.
> 
> [snipped some more inflammatory crap]
> ...




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.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Oct 18, 2002)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> Interesting perspective. Let's do a field study. When you get a chance, run out to your local hobby shop and find how many published d20 products you can find that provide 15th-level parties with 1HD opponents to fight. Let's keep everyone posted on the results. I'm sure we'll find it enlightening how many dummies are making a living scaling every opponent in every encounter to the party's level.
> *



Queen of Lies: 11th level module. First major encounter has a troop of bug bears (CR 2), female drow (CR 3), dinosaurs (CR 3), backed up by relatively low level cleric and wizard.

The encounter is TOUGH! Hard. The players barely survived by the skin of their teeth.

It was cool. The players wanted to get at the Cleric and Wizard, but with all the troops they had with their disposal, they actually began to fear bug bears. The fighter finally got good use out of her Great Cleave feat.


----------



## Celtavian (Oct 19, 2002)

*Re*

The hit point system is a very viable model for simulating fantastic combat. A DM must simply be creative when determining damage.

A roll to hit does not necessarily mean you were directly hit. It even states in the PHB that part of hit points is one's ability to dodge or take blows more effectively. AC is avoiding blows all together, which completely mitigates damage.

I liken it a to a boxing match. There are many blows that hit, but not all blows land a hit hard enough to really injure the opponent. In fact, many of the blows in boxing are simply done to set up knock-out attacks or wear the opponent down. 

That is the essence of hit points. Alot of blows are exchanged, some miss entirely, some land but are shaken off by the opponent, some land hard and seriously injure the opponent (Crits), and when the opponent is on his last legs, all it takes is a few solid blows to finish him or her off.

The hit point system does a reasonably fair job of showing the slow process of two opponents wearing each other down. It doesn't handly all situations well, such as the classic example of jumping off a cliff, but if your players do such things in a RPG, then find a new group.

The hit point model allows a heroic fantasy warrior to be heroic without dying to the first wizard or dragon he or she meets. In GURPS, you are going to die quickly to such beasts and wizards rule, especially if you allow the 100 point Super magic advantage where they can exceed the normal damage caps.

On a last note, I would never use the hit point system for a modern campaign with guns. Guns are an entirely different form of combat that require a different model to simulate. This is my opinion because I run all my modern campaign's using the GURPS system. GURPS is the best system for modern campaigns. It really catches the gritty, dangerous reality of gun combat and their martial arts system is second to none. (except for the arm lock maneuver.)

Even given my preferences, each person will use the system they feel best suits their style of play. Some folks like gritty fantasy and some folks like four-color modern campaigns. It's up to the DM and his or her players to figure which fits the group and game world best. 

Just remember, none of this is reality, so comparing simulated combat systems based on real world combat is a moot point. There have been folks who have survived countless "you should have died" events, while some die to the lightest of wounds. Combat is a strange situation that one can never really determine an obvious outcome. 

Ultimately, it's up to you as a DM to throw strange events into your combats to give them flavor no matter what system you use. You are the luck, fate, or divine guidance of your campaign world, if you exercise that power on occasion to liven up a combat or two, more power to you. It's your job to make combat fun, and not just wipe your PC's or the villains out because someone made a bad roll or only has so many hit points.


----------



## spacecrime.com (Oct 19, 2002)

mikey6990 said:
			
		

> *This appears to be such a small business that people only want to invest in what sells.  *




I'm coming in late to the discussion and am probably being redundant, but I just had to note that there is no business that is so large that it wants to invest that stuff that doesn't sell. 

(Okay, maybe Enron. But that's about it.)

As far as the "money from hot product doesn't float all boats" argument, this is mostly true -- and the reasons why it is true should be pretty obvious.

I'm making a lot of money on Wizkids right now. The demand pretty much exceeds my ability to fill it -- I could invest every dollar I have in Wizkids product and turn it all back into money within a short period of time.  I also have demand for other products, but that's largely filled with my existing stock and a modest budget for new product. 

If I've got a lot of money to spend, where should I spend it? On products that have a lot of immediate demand and turn quickly? Or on products where the demand is stable and largely filled by my current investment? Why should I "spread the money around" to slow-moving products when I can make more money faster on the hot product?

There are limits to this approach, of course. Wizkids won't be hot forever, so some of the money we make from them has to go into developing new product lines. However, most of the money needs to go into making the most of the hot product while it is hot.

cheers,


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 19, 2002)

Of all the systems I've played over the last 17 years D&D's HP system works the best.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 20, 2002)

*Falling damage*



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, it's rule 0. So what? I never said the hit point model was perfect. I said that it works. And personally, I've never seen anyone purposefully jump off a cliff in the knowledge that they'll survive a fall. I've seen lots of characters fall into pits or have their fly spells dispelled, but that's different.
> *




My friend was running a bit of a playtest adventure for us one time and he gave us some characters to play.  I had a 10th lvl *I think* Dwarf who was a few levels of fighter aqand several levels of cleric, don't rememebr the exact blend.  I pictured him as a very devout warrior and played him as such.  

When we were attacked by these undead things while we were on this massive ship *sides were about 300' high* and I attacked one and rolled a 1, Chris determined that my axe went flying from my hands out the hole in the side of the boat.  

Now this guy was ALL about his axe,  complete specialist, was a pretty wicked magic axe, ,etc.  He saw his axe go flying out the hole in the boat toward the water and my first response for him was "Noooooooooo!!!!" and diving out the hole after it.  

We tied up a little miniature we found that looked like him and occasionally lowered it as I fell cuz others in the group were fighting.  While this was going on I was busy looking up the rules for falling damage for Chris and during my fall discovered I couldn't die from the damage.  I ahd already cast Resist Elements:Water *since that is what I would be impacting with* and I think a Bless or something else for bonus hit points.  This made the falling damage non lethal and then he rolled badly anyway, so I made it out pretty much ok.  

Knowing what I know now I would definitely do it again and not fear for my character's life, but for the first several minutes of his falling, I was completely sweating it and it was good.  I don't think good in character reasons for doing dumb things is what Hong was talking about really, but it's a funny story and I thought it fit nicely


----------



## Felon (Oct 23, 2002)

Well, the boards have finally managed to stay up long enough for me to find this old thread. Glad to see all the bickering continued just fine without me 

Only one comment here that I feel compelled to reply to, and for what it's worth I'll take a stab at being more diplomatic in my response:



			
				hong said:
			
		

> * never said the hit point model was perfect. I said that it works.*




OK, it's not perfect but it works. It's serviceable. It's adequate. It has redeeming features.

So why do you seem to feel compelled to gainsay--at every possible opportunity, in any given thread on this messageboard, and with fervent obstinance--the remarks of people who are basically saying that exact same thing? If you're willing to admit that it's imperfect, why do you try to shoot down any attempt at criticizing the HP system? You accept its imperfections, but some folks feel the imperfections are, in certain situations, glaring enough to warrant fine-tuning. You say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Others say, "If it can work better, can't we at least _discuss_ improving upon it?"


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 23, 2002)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Well, the boards have finally managed to stay up long enough for me to find this old thread. Glad to see all the bickering continued just fine without me
> 
> Only one comment here that I feel compelled to reply to, and for what it's worth I'll take a stab at being more diplomatic in my response:
> 
> ...




Uh, no. What hong has been saying, and i agree, is that the examples given for how the hp system is broken have come from a poor understanding of what they represent. There may be weaknesses (though i think the system is pretty much perfect from both a gamist and simulationist perspective), but noone here has articulated what they are in any lucid fashion.


----------



## CCamfield (Oct 23, 2002)

Well, maybe it's nitpicking, but if hit points are more than physical toughness, why don't the HPs which aren't physical toughness return faster?  Take two characters, one 1st level and one 10th, and reduce them both to 1 hit point.  The one who's 10th will take a lot longer to completely heal from the injury.  Yes, granted, they're also a lot tougher than the 1st level character, but the treatment of natural healing still feels to me like HPs=physical only.


----------



## hong (Oct 23, 2002)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> *Well, maybe it's nitpicking, but if hit points are more than physical toughness, why don't the HPs which aren't physical toughness return faster?  Take two characters, one 1st level and one 10th, and reduce them both to 1 hit point.  The one who's 10th will take a lot longer to completely heal from the injury.  Yes, granted, they're also a lot tougher than the 1st level character, but the treatment of natural healing still feels to me like HPs=physical only. *




That was in 1E and 2E. In 3E, you recover hit points at the rate of 1 per level per day, so the 10th level character will also recover 10 times faster than the 1st level one.

This is a first-order correction, which allows for characters of varying levels to recover hit points at an equivalent rate. The _second-order_ correction, which would allow for characters of varying _classes_, isn't built in yet, and that remains a wart. For example, a 10th level fighter with 100 hp will take twice as long to recover as a 10th level wizard with 50 hp. But that's something I'm willing to live with; in any case, healing magic typically makes these factors irrelevant in the case of high-level characters.


----------



## Agnostic Paladin (Oct 23, 2002)

*I don't mind that actually*

I figure a wizard who gets beat down probably isn't really in as bad of shape as a fighter who gets beat down just as far.  Bruised and bloody, but not broken and oozing like the fighter. Purely a stylistic response I suppose, and I'd be fine with a system like one hit die per week instead of one hit point per day.


----------



## kenjib (Oct 23, 2002)

Actually, the problem is not so much in natural healing as it is in healing magic.  Cure light wounds, for example heals either a gaping death blow for a 1st level wizard or a little bit of muscle strain for a 20th level fighter with high constitution.  With these two characters, cure light wounds and heal are very close in relative power, so what does "light wounds" really mean?  There are all kinds of ways to explain this away with pseudo-metaphysics (hehe - redundant term?), like saying that it takes more energy to heal someone who is more powerful, but such explanations are really a case of the tail wagging the dog.

It works best if you just don't worry about it too much.


----------

