# D20 'philosophy' cramping my style



## Drifter Bob (Jul 16, 2004)

Ok, a few days or weeks ago we were discussing the issue of how the rules, and the obsession with rules balance and technical canonical rules interpretation, affect the game, by influencing game play toward munchkinism and in favor of rules lawyering, and away from role playing.

I chimed in on this because as a writer I think it does effect the way you approach writing material for d20, and tends to push you toward making it more 'dumbed down' and mechanical.  Well, I've run into a fairly classic example.  It's a minor thing but it's something of a stumbling block for me.

I'm working on a campaign that I had originally written and run last year, which is now being converted for a game company that shall remain nameless.

Part of this campaign involves an Imp which is using it's alter form ability to appear to be something entirely different (this paritcular imp manifests as a little girl and as a wild boar.  At the start of the adventure, it appears to be an innocent little girl, the sole survivor of a massacre that the Imp itself actually perpetrated)

So the adventure hinges on the fact that the players do not necessarily know the "little girl" is an Imp right away.  They can of course attempt a sense motive roll, if they get suspcious, but here comes the problem.  As listed in the SRD, the Imp has no bluff skill.  Seems to be that, being a Devil, and of a type which would interract with mortals a great deal, and with it's suggestion ability, an Imp would be a natural to have a few ranks of bluff.  I bet if they thought about it they would have put it in.  I would like to give it a few ranks, and in my own campaign, when I ran my players through it last year, I did just that.  Seemed natural, no reason why it shouldn't have any number of abilities... who knows what lurks in hell, why shouldn't one Imp have different skills than another?  Why shouldn't there be variant Imps?

But this is for an official publication.  If I put in a skill which isn't listed in the SRD for that particular monster, I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.

or the publisher, fearing just such a reaction, might take me to task for it.

So normally, in this situation, rather than rock the boat by annoying my publisher, or risk this kind of problem from certain elements of the D20 audience, I'd probably rewrite the encounter without the drama.  Easier to make it a strait up encounter with an Imp, hack and slash, just like in a video game.

This is the sort of thing I mean.

I have two questions.

First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)

DB


----------



## Corinth (Jul 16, 2004)

Because you can get the same effect by reassigning skill points.  There is nothing that says that you can't do this: "As SRD, but substitute Knowledge (blah) +6 for Bluff +8."  The skill point expenditures are the same, so it's still a legal stat block.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 16, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> If I put in a skill which isn't listed in the SRD for that particular monster, I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.
> 
> First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)



1) There will _always_ be some nut ranting and raving about something in/not in the rules. I would be surprised if anyone worried about one internet review from a wacko.

Generally, though - I don't think you know what you're talking about (or you're talking a few threads on some messageboard quite a bit too seriously). For all the reviews I've read, the worst thing a pedantic reviewer does is calculate the number of skill points the monster/NPC is supposed to have - not concentrate on which skills are actually there.


2) Yes, of course there is no problem in doing so. There's a reason why there are rules in how to calculate a monsters skill points. Adding a few skill ranks in Bluff while removing a couple of skill ranks from a skill you don't believe this imp requires is just fine and dandy.


----------



## Macbeth (Jul 16, 2004)

I'm not sure about d20 "dumbing down" roleplaying, but as to your specific Imp problem, why not just make a note, as part of the encounter saying "This is not a standar Imp. It has bluff."

Or, if you're really set in staying within the rules, give him an extra HD or 2, and use the added skill points for bluff. Just make a note that this is an "advanced imp" in the encounter notes.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 16, 2004)

Give 'em a rogue level. 

joe b.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 16, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)



 Not only technical, you really can give the imp ranks in the bluff skill in a number of ways, since the imp in the SRD is "only" the typical imp. Many imps can eb different.

 The easiest would be to juggle with the existing skill ranks. By my count, it should have 48 skill points. You can drop 6 ranks from the existing skills to free up those points for bluff (it would be 3 ranks, since bluff is "cross-class" for the imp. You can also drop one of the feats for Skill Focus or Persuasive.

 You can give it an ability array other than average (elite or non-elite, increasing its intelligence bonus by one or two, and thus give it 12 or 6 additional skill points.

 You can add a single level of rogue or other class with Bluff as a class skill, and use up to 7 skill points to get the 7 ranks in Bluff.

 You could perhaps give it a magic item to grant a bonus to Bluff.

 You might find a template that increases the intelligence or grants bonuses to bluff, as above.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I have two questions.
> 
> First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)
> 
> DB




I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Yes, there's a standard imp stat block just as there were standard monster blocks in earlier editions. And you can change them in 3E and nobody should complain as long as you follow the rules for doing so. Either give the imp a couple of levels in a class for a bunch of skill points or rearrange the ones in the stat block. Preface it with a little description of how you've customized the imp as you would any other NPC and you're golden. Heck, replace one of his standard feats with Skill Focus: Bluff if you want to. 
There's nothing wrong with this at all. It's in your head.


----------



## Creamsteak (Jul 16, 2004)

> But this is for an official publication. If I put in a skill which isn't listed in the SRD for that particular monster, I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.




I might be bothered if you just "give" the imp extra skill points. As stated above, you can swap skill points around, or add hit dice. Either one will accomplish your goal. Failing either, a single level in rogue provides enough skills to give a huge bonus to bluff.

My complaint would be that you could have accomplished your goal (adding bluff ranks) within the rules with a minimal adjustment instead of just ad-hock.


----------



## cdsaint (Jul 17, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Yes, there's a standard imp stat block just as there were standard monster blocks in earlier editions. And you can change them in 3E and nobody should complain as long as you follow the rules for doing so. Either give the imp a couple of levels in a class for a bunch of skill points or rearrange the ones in the stat block. Preface it with a little description of how you've customized the imp as you would any other NPC and you're golden. Heck, replace one of his standard feats with Skill Focus: Bluff if you want to.
> There's nothing wrong with this at all. It's in your head.




  Hear Hear! I almost never use monsters straight out of the MM. I'll give them the elite array, advance them, slap atemplate on them, give them class levels, or any combination of the above. Tomorrow I teach my 8th level party to fear the humble Dire rat.

Chris


----------



## Gargoyle (Jul 17, 2004)

Adding a rogue level or swapping some skills around seems like the one good way to go in this case, but if you don't want to raise the challenge rating, you may just want to modify the encounter a bit instead of the imp's stats.  

Just state in the encounter description that due to the cirumstances the imp receives a +4 circumstance bonus to Bluff the party regarding his identity.  If you feel that this raises the difficulty of the encounter beyond the challenge rating of the imp, raise the encounter level.  That's why an encounter level can be higher than a challenge rating.  If you feel that it doesn't make the encounter that much more challenging, leave the EL the same as the CR.   

It's your call, and someone somewhere will probably disagree, but that's the nature of it, so don't let these things bother you.

On the question of whether roleplaying is dumbed down in d20 because of the rules, I think there is some truth to that.   Over the last few years, the focus on D&D has shifted in the direction of wargaming rather than roleplaying.  However, I think the pendulum is beginning to swing back in the other direction.  For instance, the last year or so has seen the release of many great campaign settings rather than the class books we saw before that.  (Kudos to WOTC for the campaign setting search).   I think after players and DMs play for a while, they get over their extreme powergaming phase and want a little fluff with their crunch.  So players who were new a year or four ago are starting to roleplay more. 

Even so, I think the d20 rules are flexible enough to support just about any type of encounter you want to create.  Saying that you can't create the encounter you want without breaking the rules seems like you're giving up too soon, or are just being a bit of a perfectionist, even if it is for publication.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 17, 2004)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> Just state in the encounter description that due to the cirumstances the imp receives a +4 circumstance bonus to Bluff the party regarding his identity.




Exactly!!!  Gargoyle typed exactly what I was thinking.  Just include in the notes for the encounter that the Imp gets a +_X_ circumstance bonus to any Bluff checks due to his disguise and having "practiced" playing a little girl.

However, the fact that this suggestion was preceeded by at least 4 people suggesting you give the Imp levels of Rogue (  ) does tend to prove your point.

Rearranging the skill points is viable, but unnecessarily complicated IMO.


----------



## Spatula (Jul 17, 2004)

So your example is one that's entirely in your own head.  You're dumbing down your own work in order to avoid a perceived backlash that doesn't actually exist.  Not much of an example IMO.

MM stats are for 'typical' members of a race, just as they were back in 2E and 1E.  If you want something different or stronger or whatever, the system itself is not stopping you.  The system is incredibly flexible.  WOTC have published things similar to what you suggest in their own products (that is, monsters that are not straight out of the book, not your specific idea).


----------



## JeffB (Jul 17, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> However, the fact that this suggestion was preceeded by at least 4 people suggesting you give the Imp levels of Rogue (  ) does tend to prove your point.




Exactly..and this...


> My complaint would be that you could have accomplished your goal (adding bluff ranks) within the rules with a minimal adjustment instead of just ad-hock.




Nothing personal CS, but that's exactly what he's talking about.

If the Imp has bluff, and (god forbid   )that requires too many Skill Points, so what!.The encounter will be much more interesting with the fudging of the rules.


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jul 17, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)
> 
> DB




1.  Giving an Imp FREE skill ranks is a problem,  becasue when I DO buy a game product I expect it to be rules correct.  When I write something with the intent of sharing it with the D20 community I make sure its rules-right.  Simply because that what SHOULD be done, what your're being paid for/trying to do.  People PAY to have a book technically correct, not some writer's INTERPRETATION of the rules, since the DM who bought it's probably going to re-interpret the product for his own game (a analogy of a copy of a copy of a copy belongs here).  That said...

I'd have no problem with the story you set out.  It sounds really cool.  But lets look closer.

First, I can pull off the "Help!  Where's my MOMMIE" line so well my players won't even think to make sense motive rolls, so the Imp's lack of a Bluff ain't a problem.  Now, if I had a Rules-Lawyer (I don't let them in my game)....

The various Alter Self/Alternate Form Spells give a +10 (?) bonus to disguise checks.  Combined with the Imp's Cha, he might be able to make the check anyway.  Sense Motive is an under-utilized skill that many characters ignore.  You can give it Rogue Levels (or Bard), or up its hit dice/Int any number of things.  Bluff vs Sense Motive ain't the achille's heel of your idea.  The use the IMP encounter as the Keystone of the module is.

What if there is a Paladin in the party (or anyone with a Detect Evil spell).  That'd cut the encounter shorter than any Sense Motive roll, harder to prevent too.

What you've designed is a one-trick pony.  A really cool pony, but a pony.  There's no way I'd run that in a party with a Paladin.  I'd have to analize my particular party's Strengths and Weaknesses & see what the chance of my party seeing through the deception/attacking the imp/ or even caring about the girl are.

In the end, the d20 system, combined with the creativity of gamers, provides an infinite combonation of possibilites.  In your example, an evil party might just kill the girl and loot the bodies (thus adventure ended), the cleric could try a Heal check on the girl (umm, that's not right, adventure ended).  The Bard could Charm Person the girl to calm her nerves (imp immune, adventure ended), Paladin does Detect Evil to see if the foes are nearby (adventure ended).  Cleric does Protection from Evil on the girl to keep her safe (adventure ended).  Cleric gives her some water to drink, all he's got is Holy Water (adventure ended).  Crazed Sorecer just decide to Magic Missle it, just to be safe (adventure ended).  Heck the party wizard might be looking for an Improved Familiar and just give it a better deal.  I could sit here all day and give way after way this adventure could fail without resorting to a Sense Motive check.

Your adventure is designed for a certain segment of the gaming population, the greatest service you can give your potential customers is to point out all the weak points that came up in play-test or spells/items that could kill the adventure before it began.

Off-hand I'd say about 50% of the parties I've DM'd for would be a good fit for your adventure.  The rest might take the bait, or kill the imp.

However, I wish you luck on your endevor, post when it does come out, I'll take a look at it.

Vraille Darkfang


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 17, 2004)

Personally, I think rules like this add to the game.

For instance, in this case, a lot of players would be awfully suspicious. I mean, no offense, but it's not all that original. Half the people rescued in modules/adventures seem to be monsters in disguise.  So players would be tempted to just off the kid, to be sure, or at least, not trust it at all

You could force the players to not be suspicious, but that's rail-roading.

However, the sense motive skill offers a way around this. If the player is suspicious, but fails his roll, the whole premise works. If the player is suspicious, and makes his roll then, the player should be rewarded for not being gullible.

Also, bear in mind,  an Imp is not the most powerful of fiends. I doubt they should be terribly good at anything, including lying.  They are more irritants, not con-artists.  I would use a more suitable fiend, like some sort of lawyer.


----------



## Sejs (Jul 17, 2004)

> Part of this campaign involves an Imp which is using it's alter form ability to appear to be something entirely different (this paritcular imp manifests as a little girl and as a wild boar)




The skill point thing has been mentioned above already, but can I make one suggestion?  


Don't make the Imp's alternate form be a little girl - the "innocent 8-10 year old girl is actually evil incarnate" ploy has been so throughly burned into the collective adventurer unconscious that players will automatically be suspiscious of any plot pertinent little girls that show up.  Make her a teenage girl (14-16), or a (very) young woman (17-20).  Those would set off less alarm bells in the minds of your standard party.

I'm just sayin', is all.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 17, 2004)

I agree with what some others have said:

the beauty of d20 is that you can make a non-standard imp by reassigning skill points, adding levels, adding stats, or through a wide variety of other manuevers. That's already miles ahead of any system that supports completely ad-hoc monsters which means that you either A. make it up from scratch which is more work and less likely to be balanced or B. arbitrarily change an existing monster under a regime that gives no guidance as to what might be an appropriate amount or what other changes would be justified by adding the skill bonus.

For that reason, I would seriously counsel against just arbitrarily saying "the imp gets a +4 bonus to bluff because he's practiced and he's that cool." I've seen mods that have said things like "the bears are so enraged that calm animals spells won't work on them." Generally, the reaction of other gamers I know (and my reaction) is: "Great, my barbarian would like to get so angry hold person won't work on him, can he do that? He should be able to. After all, he gets angry enough to be stronger (the bears aren't that angry)." Similarly, to "these elementals are immune to dismissal because of their special connection to the temple" prompts the reaction "well cool, I'm summoning some elementals, what kind of special connection do they need to have to be immune to dismissal?" So, if the imp gets a +4 circumstance bonus to bluff for being "practiced", I'm going to want to know how my rogue can get a +4 circumstance bonus to his bluff if he practices telling the same lie.

Now with bluff, it's what's going on probably won't be visible from the players' end (and, what with Detect Evil, sense motive will be the least of your worries). Even so, as a DM, I roll my eyes when I see that kind of thing (or arbitrary extra skills and feats) written in modules. I like to have my NPCs play by the same rules as the PCs and that kind of thing annoys me.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 17, 2004)

*re*

Read adventures. Adventure designers for alot of companies take great liberties with encounter and creature design. Even WotC generally allows adventure designers to put in new monsters, items, and strange situations require alternate rules into modules. They probably cleave closest to the core ruleset.

I think companies that sell adventures like unique encounters and wouldn't worry if you gave an Imp some ranks in Bluff or a few rogue class levels. For example, Necromancer games always includes strange monsters, items and encounters in their modules. NG adventures are some of the most popular published 3rd edition modules.

I wouldn't in any way worry about creating an adventure with an Imp with the Bluff skill. That is a rather tame change compared to things like the Dung Monster and the Madness Domain, both created specifically for modules as far as I know.


----------



## Mishihari Lord II (Jul 17, 2004)

DB:  When I read your initial post, I thought you were way off base.  After reading the rest of the thread, I stand corrected.  While using a circumstance bonus or adding a level of rogue would work, I see no real reason to make the extra effort.  As a DM, if I want a nonstandard monster, I simply shange its characteristics.  If this were a wargame, me against my players, this would be cheating.  Since it's a roleplaying game, and I am just facilitating everyone's enjoyment by using something a little different than what they've seen before, I am not cheating.  I see no reason why a module could not use the same tactic.  The argument could be made that this will unfairly throw off the players' tactics since they have a right to expect some consitency between the imps they encounter.  However, in this case they don't know they're facing an imp, and more tellingly, adding class levels or switching skill points would also change the imp unexpectedly and is allowed by the rules.  The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.


----------



## Camarath (Jul 17, 2004)

Would a Quasit work as well as an Imp because it has the Alternate Form ability as well as the Bluff skill [+6] (but no Diplomacy)?


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jul 17, 2004)

Just serve them the encounter and let the dice fall where they may. Plot is not written in advance. Plot is what you've had when you look back. If 100 groups play a certain scenario, there will have been 100 plots.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 17, 2004)

I don't want to comment on the general responses in the thread yet, I think it's very interesting seeing how this is playing out, how many wildly different types of reaction my original post got.

For now, I will only add a bit more information about the adventure under discussion, since some people seem to be making a few false assumptions.

It is not just a single module, this is one in a series of mini adventures which take place in a rather large campaign setting that also includes several large scale adventures.  Like all the other ones popular these days.  This one takes place in a large isolated mountain valley with one decent sized town and several small rural villages, and a forest populated by you guessed it, elves.

The encounter in question is actually intended for what will probably be mostly second level players.  They are in a sort of committee, as representatives of various local interests, which is investigating problems taking place that threaten to destabilize the political situation in the valley.   Up until this adventure, most of the encounters the party have faced have been fairly mundane, a lot of 'domestic disturbances' if you will.  The situation with this massacre is a surprise and the party is not likely to be prepared for or expecting anything really freaky to be going on.  This is where "cops" turns into "X-files" for the party.

Having said that, this little adventure does NOT depend on the party believing the Imp, it just helps the story along.  The Imp is going to retreat to this conjurers house, where it will make a stand.  If the party follows the creature, it will lead them there.  Otherwise they will have to search for it over a fairly large area of wilderness.  If they attack the Imp immediately for any reason, then it will probably simply turn invisible and fly back to the house, where it will regenerate from any wounds while awaiting the arrival of the party.  So as usual, like most DM "cheating", this is basically just intended to make everything work smoother, for the players and the DM.

The imp is incidentally pretty tough for a 2nd level party to face.  Using invisibility, regeneration, it's ability to fly, it's alternate form and it's sting, it can be pretty effective with hit and run attacks, especially when it takes cunning advantage of the layout of the building it plans to hold out in, to do things like seperate the party....

DB


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jul 17, 2004)

That's kind of backwards, if you don't mind me saying so. If the players expose the imp they should get the reward. In this case the reward is getting to the conjurer's house faster. If they don't then the imp should force them to look for it themselves.

PCs have abilities and when they are used correctly it should make life easier for them. If a paladin senses the 'girl' is evil then it should, somehow, lead them to the conjurer.

The imp wants to keep the conjurer secret from the party. He disguises himself into a little girl. As the girl the imp asks to be escorted back to town. If the girl is revealed to be an imp, the imp flees - back to the conjurers house. See what I mean?


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 17, 2004)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> That's kind of backwards, if you don't mind me saying so. If the players expose the imp they should get the reward. In this case the reward is getting to the conjurer's house faster. If they don't then the imp should force them to look for it themselves.
> 
> PCs have abilities and when they are used correctly it should make life easier for them. If a paladin senses the 'girl' is evil then it should, somehow, lead them to the conjurer.
> 
> The imp wants to keep the conjurer secret from the party. He disguises himself into a little girl. As the girl the imp asks to be escorted back to town. If the girl is revealed to be an imp, the imp flees - back to the conjurers house. See what I mean?




actually the conjurer is dead, because he made a mistake while attempting to bind the imp, and it got away and killed him, and then went on to massacre the villagers.

The point is though, this isn't a card game or even an xbox game.  It's basically a story.  This is what is supposed to have happened.  When armed investigators show up, the Imp, which isn't a really big thinker, and has been winging it up to this point, decides to return to the manse.  

I don't buy the philosophy that I have to reward the players every single time they use a skill or a spell successfully.  It does often work out that way, but not automatically, that is babyish to me.  I'm more interested in achieving at some degree of verisimilitude, which I believe makes the whole gaming experience feel more immersive.

The point of this whole thread is that this mentality, which I think is encouraged by the rules set, is tending to push storytellers away from writing material for the game, and people who are rules lawyers into it.

DB

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 17, 2004)

incidentally, the entire campaign is not reccomended for paladins, or barbarians for that matter.  Another horrible cheat!


DB


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jul 17, 2004)

I'm looking forward to the result. Fresh thinking is always welcome. It won't hurt to have a sidebar that explains your point of view, though.


----------



## Taneel BrightBlade (Jul 17, 2004)

use a demon instead of an honorable devil and have it be a little and very annoying boy of ten to early teen.


----------



## Taneel BrightBlade (Jul 17, 2004)

least wise it works in real life. No one ever (_seriously_ expects me to murder them)


----------



## Funksaw (Jul 17, 2004)

Why stat it as an "Imp?"  Why not just stat it as "Lenny*, the Imp?"  There's only one, right?  So it makes sense that a *named* Imp might have some unique skills uncommon to his sword-fodder Imp bretheren.  

Should solve the problem rather easily.  

*you can of course, use an impish name.


----------



## hong (Jul 17, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The point is though, this isn't a card game or even an xbox game.  It's basically a story.  This is what is supposed to have happened.  When armed investigators show up, the Imp, which isn't a really big thinker, and has been winging it up to this point, decides to return to the manse.




Story Now, d00d. Look it up.


----------



## Felonius (Jul 17, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> actually the conjurer is dead, because he made a mistake while attempting to bind the imp, and it got away and killed him, and then went on to massacre the villagers.



IMHO, you should use a quasit. What you describe above is more like D&D demon behavior rather than a devil. An imp would more likely corrupt someone to kill for him. YMMV, of course.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> When armed investigators show up, the Imp, which isn't a really big thinker, and has been winging it up to this point, decides to return to the manse.



Both imp and quasit have INT 10, so you might want to lower it by a point or two and perhaps increase the CHA?

My advice is: 
1) use a quasit
2) lower INT by 2, raise CHA by 2

If you don't use a quasit, change the imp's diplomacy skill ranks into bluff and do the INT/CHA switch.

Note that the imp/quasit cannot use it's skill on PCs in any case, so figure out who's the smartest NPC it has bluffed so far and work backwards to get the Bluff score you need.

With all this said, the easiest solution is the use circumstance bonuses, as has been said already and that's what I would do. Especially in a bought module where the writer forgot that an imp does not have a bluff skill.   

In the end I'd be a tiny bit annoyed for the oversight on the writers part, as I did pay him to get these things right when I bought the module...

- F


----------



## Cergorach (Jul 17, 2004)

Ok, the fact that too many people are obsessed with game mechanics is a problem, not with the game, but with the people obsessed.

Example:
I program on ocassion, i choose a programming language that i think best fits my requirement for the end result (the program) and i am familiar enough with to achieve that end result. I use the programming language to get an end result (the program), how i get to the end result isn't that important, just that i get there. But i have to use the programming 'rules' for that language to make the program work. If the language doesn't do exactly work like i want it to, i have a few options, i can work around the problem, i can add to the language, i can choose another language, or i can drop the whole idea.

The same goes for RPGs, we chose D&D3E as our rpg rules, so we should stick to those rules. We want an end result (an encounter in this situation), we have the option to write a new game mechanic, use the rules as they are, use a different rules set, or drop the whole idea altogether.

I'm guessing that dropping the idea and going for another rules system aren't an option, so we're stuck with writing a new rules mechanic or using the rules.

Writing a new rules mechanic: Is way to much work in this instance imho.

Using the rules: You have a couple of options (in order of easyness):
1.) Bluff states that you can get situational modifiers depending on how much the recepient wants to believe you (-5 on sense motive). "Hello mister, i lost my puppy *pouting eyes* could you help me look for it?"
2.) Get a situational modifier of +x. The girl knows things about the village that the pcs don't, even if those details are made up. "But mister phisher said, that's the man that bakes bread, that if i was a good girl and hid in the closet i would get a treat. And now everyone's gone! *starts to cry*"
3.) Redistribute some skill points to give the imp some ranks in bluff.
4.) Give the Imp an Int of 12 instead of 10, obviously this isn't your average imp. This would result in 6 extra skill points, that's either Bluff 6 (class skill) or Bluff 3 (not class skill), depending on whether you decide if Bluff is an Imp class skill (going with non class skill would be most save).
5.) Give the imp an extra HD, results in extra skill points.
6.) Give the imp a class level, rogue would be best.
There are a few more options, such as changing the feat selection of the imp, giving it a magical item, or combining any of the above.

The point is to be creative with the rules and not only with the story line. If you still feel that the D&D3E rules limit you to much, maybe writing your adventure for D&D3E wasn't a good idea. You might want to consider writing it for a different, more open game system.

Imho, being a good storyteller isn't enough as a game-writer or DM, you also need to understand the rules set your writing/DMing for and be creative in it's use. If you can't maybe you should consider another line of work. No offense intended, but it's just how i see things, i for one am just not cut out to be a professional programmer because i don't (yet) fully grasp the full extend of the programming languages i work with.


----------



## Numion (Jul 17, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The point of this whole thread is that this mentality, which I think is encouraged by the rules set, is tending to push storytellers away from writing material for the game, and people who are rules lawyers into it.




I don't think that the opposite of storytelling is rules lawyering. Gamist approach would be a better term, and with that I mean playing the game like it's, well, "just" a game. Rules lawyering is to gamist what railroading is for storytelling. Both are related hinderances to the game and having fun.

As for you original question, I just don't see what the big deal is. Tweaking skill points is similar to rolling for the Imps hit points instead of using average. 



> incidentally, the entire campaign is not reccomended for paladins, or barbarians for that matter. Another horrible cheat!




Why would you have trouble with an Imps skill points if you have no trouble excluding Pallys and Barbs from the campaign? Surely _that_ would be a bigger problem for any publishers.


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 17, 2004)

I will never understand people complaining about consistent rules and having to follow them.  If you don't want to follow the rules, play make believe with rock, paper, scissors settling conflicts.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 17, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> The beauty of d20 is that you can make a non-standard imp by reassigning skill points, adding levels, adding stats, or through a wide variety of other manuevers. That's already miles ahead of any system that supports completely ad-hoc monsters which means that you either A. make it up from scratch which is more work and less likely to be balanced or B. arbitrarily change an existing monster under a regime that gives no guidance as to what might be an appropriate amount or what other changes would be justified by adding the skill bonus.



Most other systems that allow you to arbitrarily change an existing monster or character are point-based (or something like it), so adding a few ranks of Bluff to the Imp would be a matter of bumping up his point cost -- analogous to bumping up his CR from 3 to 3.1.


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> I will never understand people complaining about consistent rules and having to follow them. If you don't want to follow the rules, play make believe with rock, paper, scissors settling conflicts.



The problem here is that the rules have too many unnecessary interdependencies.  The DM clearly wants an Imp with a few ranks of Bluff -- but there's no good way for him to _just_ add those skill ranks.

The rules set up hoops for him to jump through.  Some people enjoy mastering the rules as a challenge in itself -- at EN World, many of us fit that description (or used to) -- but if the goal of the rules is to help the DM and players _play_ the game, then the rules should be flexible enough that adding a feat or a skill doesn't break anything.


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 17, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> The rules set up hoops for him to jump through.  Some people enjoy mastering the rules as a challenge in itself -- at EN World, many of us fit that description (or used to) -- but if the goal of the rules is to help the DM and players _play_ the game, then the rules should be flexible enough that adding a feat or a skill doesn't break anything.





Using the rules to give a creature an abiliy that it doesn't posses normally in order specifically for it to dupe chracters into thinking it is something that it is not isn't "jumping through hoops", but is exactly what the ability to add class levels to creatures is for.  Want to make anything good at lieing?  Give it 1 or 2 levels of rogue.  Not hard to do at all.  Swapping skills around is even simpler.  Flat out adding things increases the abilities and difficulty of a creature while ignoring an increase of the Challenge Rating. 

If you view CR as a hindrance then give creatures whatever abilities you want, but don't complain when these creatures defeat PCs of seemingly appropriate level because of arbitrary ability additions.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 17, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The point is though, this isn't a card game or even an xbox game.  It's basically a story.




The point obviously is that you're writing a railroad session, exactly the sort of thing that I would never buy and would discourage everyone else from buying, as well.



> The point of this whole thread is that this mentality, which I think is encouraged by the rules set, is tending to push storytellers away from writing material for the game, and people who are rules lawyers into it.




Sounds to me more like you've got a massive chip on your shoulder and expect the entire world to drop to their knees and BEG to be told what to do by the infallable "storyteller".  If you want to tell a story, get an agent and get some novels published.  Games are to be PLAYED, not merely to be used as a vehicle to drag along passive players for the egobo of GMs and/or "authors".


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 17, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> The problem here is that the rules have too many unnecessary interdependencies.  The DM clearly wants an Imp with a few ranks of Bluff -- but there's no good way for him to _just_ add those skill ranks.




This proves, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you have NEVER read the rules.  Consult Rule Zero.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 17, 2004)

Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> What you've designed is a one-trick pony. A really cool pony, but a pony. There's no way I'd run that in a party with a Paladin.



That's not actually true. All the imp needs is a misdirection spell cast upon it or a magic item that reproduces the spell when worn, and anyone in the party attempting to discern the imp's alignment could very well end up reading the paladin's alignment instead.

Aside from that, there would be nothing wrong with giving the imp rogue levels if it makes sense for the creature to have them. If I were designing the encounter, I would consider that as one of the options available to me. One of the factors I would weigh is whether or not the group will have to fight the imp later in the adventure, and if it would be helpful for the imp to have sneak attack during that encounter. If so, rogue levels would be a completely viable solution. Add the fact that the imp is disguised and I might very well also add a circumstance modifier to Bluff anyway, just in case an overly cautious party decides to question its motives.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 17, 2004)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Using the rules to give a creature an abiliy that it doesn't posses normally in order specifically for it to dupe chracters into thinking it is something that it is not isn't "jumping through hoops", but is exactly what the ability to add class levels to creatures is for.  Want to make anything good at lieing?




So you are telling me that a Devil shouldn't have the ability to lie?  Or that 4 ranks of bluff are likely to tip the scales against a party?  

DB


----------



## Turanil (Jul 17, 2004)

> First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)



*Potion of Glibness* (+30 to Bluff for one hour)

I don't know if it has already been suggested (admit having not read through the whole thread), but you could use some magic item to make up for lack of Bluffing abilities, don't you?


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 17, 2004)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Using the rules to give a creature an abiliy that it doesn't posses normally in order specifically for it to dupe chracters into thinking it is something that it is not isn't "jumping through hoops", but is exactly what the ability to add class levels to creatures is for.  Want to make anything good at lieing?  Give it 1 or 2 levels of rogue.  Not hard to do at all.



Adding a level or two or rogue instead of just adding a few ranks of bluff is a perfect example of the system asking you to jump through hoops.  Instead of saying, _this imp has four ranks in bluff_ (and nudging its CR up a tad), the DM has to add in a couple hit dice, modify BAB, saves, etc.  Those are _unnecessary_ interdependencies


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Flat out adding things increases the abilities and difficulty of a creature while ignoring an increase of the Challenge Rating. [...] If you view CR as a hindrance then give creatures whatever abilities you want, but don't complain when these creatures defeat PCs of seemingly appropriate level because of arbitrary ability additions.



Adding abilities without increasing CR would be a problem.  I never said otherwise.  In a system with fewer interdependencies though, you'd just add four skill points to the overall cost of the creature -- analogous to adding a fraction of a CR in the current system.


----------



## Kichwas (Jul 17, 2004)

If you do swap the skill points around or give it class levels you should explicitly say you did such in the text so that the publisher doesn't get hit with emails demanding errata from people who think you just added it in.


----------



## Cergorach (Jul 17, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Adding a level or two or rogue instead of just adding a few ranks of bluff is a perfect example of the system asking you to jump through hoops.  Instead of saying, _this imp has four ranks in bluff_ (and nudging its CR up a tad), the DM has to add in a couple hit dice, modify BAB, saves, etc.  Those are _unnecessary_ interdependencies



Adding two points of intelligence results in enough skill points to solve the problem, two extra points of intelligence doesn't require an increase of CR. Very quick, very simple, and completely within the rules.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Adding abilities without increasing CR would be a problem.  I never said otherwise.  In a system with fewer interdependencies though, you'd just add four skill points to the overall cost of the creature -- analogous to adding a fraction of a CR in the current system.



Increases of CR are giant leaps of power, a couple of skill points doesn't impact the CR at all. But that's not the problem, the problem is: where did those skill points come from. Just adding some skill points for a homebrew adventure isn't that big of a deal, for a published adventure it is a very big deal and indicates unprofessional game mechanic and game statting skills. If this is your design policy, you and your publisher have a problem, because a lot of reviewers (especialy those around here) are very critical in the game mechanics/stats used and the editing/correctness of those game mechanics/stats.


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 17, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> So you are telling me that a Devil shouldn't have the ability to lie?  Or that 4 ranks of bluff are likely to tip the scales against a party?
> 
> DB





No, Im telling you that it's painfully simple whithin the rules to make the imp a good lier.  The higher intelligence mentioned above by Cergorach is the simplest way so far.  Swapping skill points is easy as well.  

And yes, 4 ranks in bluff against a party with no one who is good at Sense Motive could mean they fail.


----------



## Psion (Jul 17, 2004)

> Adding a level or two or rogue instead of just adding a few ranks of bluff is a perfect example of the system asking you to jump through hoops.




Um, what was the problem with reassigning skill points again?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 17, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> If you do swap the skill points around or give it class levels you should explicitly say you did such in the text so that the publisher doesn't get hit with emails demanding errata from people who think you just added it in.



I don't necessarily agree with this. It is one thing to mention in the text that this imp has ranks in Bluff and quite another to provide an explanation on how the creature was redesigned. If someone wants to poke holes in your design work, they should have to go through the trouble of deconstructing the entire thing. Besides, even if the designer is wrong, most publishers aren't going to humor the nit-pickers anyway.


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 17, 2004)

I think we'd all agree that it would be wrong for a player to "magically" add 4 ranks in Bluff to his character.

So why then would it be okay for a DM to do the same?  Especially when there are so many options to get the same effect legally (circumstance bonuses, higher intelligence, class levels, etc.).


----------



## Psion (Jul 17, 2004)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> I think we'd all agree that it would be wrong for a player to "magically" add 4 ranks in Bluff to his character.
> 
> So why then would it be okay for a DM to do the same?  Especially when there are so many options to get the same effect legally (circumstance bonuses, higher intelligence, class levels, etc.).




Once again, what was the problem with reassigning skill points again? Perfectly legal, perfectly within the rules. You do realize that monsters that appear in the MM are only "typical" specimens, right?


----------



## Crothian (Jul 17, 2004)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> I think we'd all agree that it would be wrong for a player to "magically" add 4 ranks in Bluff to his character.
> 
> So why then would it be okay for a DM to do the same?  Especially when there are so many options to get the same effect legally (circumstance bonuses, higher intelligence, class levels, etc.).




Becasue when players do it, it is called cheating and when DMs do it, it is called improvisng.  

Remember until the DM createis the monster and crosses the T's the monster is just not defined.  THe DM can reassign skill pointw, alter attributes, etc to the MM monster and that is perfectly fine.  

I agree with Psion, I'd just reasign the skill points.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 17, 2004)

Creamsteak said:
			
		

> I might be bothered if you just "give" the imp extra skill points.




I think this is what the poster is complaining about - why should it bother anyone?


----------



## S'mon (Jul 17, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Just adding some skill points for a homebrew adventure isn't that big of a deal, for a published adventure it is a very big deal and indicates unprofessional game mechanic and game statting skills. If this is your design policy, you and your publisher have a problem, because a lot of reviewers (especialy those around here) are very critical in the game mechanics/stats used and the editing/correctness of those game mechanics/stats.




Yup, this is what he's complaining about.  Personally I'm sick of reviewers like that.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 17, 2004)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> I think we'd all agree that it would be wrong for a player to "magically" add 4 ranks in Bluff to his character.
> 
> So why then would it be okay for a DM to do the same?  Especially when there are so many options to get the same effect legally (circumstance bonuses, higher intelligence, class levels, etc.).




Because the DM sets the rules for the game.  As DM I can even 'magically' add skill ranks to PCs!


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 17, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Because the DM sets the rules for the game.  As DM I can even 'magically' add skill ranks to PCs!




Why bother having rules if you're going to alter them on a whim?


"Sorry Bob, you would have made your Sense Motive check, but I decided to give the imp a +4 bonus just now, so you didn't."


----------



## Creamsteak (Jul 17, 2004)

> It's basically a story. This is what is supposed to have happened.




What's supposed to have happened...  



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Adding a level or two or rogue instead of just adding a few ranks of bluff is a perfect example of the system asking you to jump through hoops.  Instead of saying, _this imp has four ranks in bluff_ (and nudging its CR up a tad), the DM has to add in a couple hit dice, modify BAB, saves, etc.  Those are _unnecessary_ interdependencies.




Or add 2 points to it's intelligence and gain 3+hit dice bonus skill points. I'm not seeing what's so hard about these changes. These "interdependencies" make the game system what it is.

I think the problem is that adding "ranks" of bluff rather than a racial bonus is inconsistent. If you want to give a creature a +4 racial, circumstance, or competence bonus, I'll never complain. Giving a creature more skill ranks than it's hit dice modified by intelligence would bring, however, is something that might erk some people. It's inconsistent.


----------



## Dancer (Jul 18, 2004)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Why bother having rules if you're going to alter them on a whim?
> 
> 
> "Sorry Bob, you would have made your Sense Motive check, but I decided to give the imp a +4 bonus just now, so you didn't."





Point is, in this instance, it's not on a whim.  It's part of the story the module is trying to tell.  Part of the story framework being designed so that everyone can have an enjoyable time.  If the monsters in the MM are just typical examples, then I see nothing wrong with giving the imp 4 levels in Bluff.

If you have to question where the levels come from, maybe the imp is an accomplished liar (and not neccessarily a thief, which he would gain with additional rogue levels).  Perhaps, hundreds of years of living in the abyss has made him develop 4 levels in Bluff.  Not too big of a stretch I think.

Another point, the difference between a GM doing this and a player doing it is that usually, the player is looking out for his own welfare.  His percieved job is to have his character survive and thrive and grow more powerful.  The GM's job is to provide a framework in which this is possible and worth doing.  If that means that an imp has an additional 4 levels of Bluff, then damn, give it the levels and get on with the fun.


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 18, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Once again, what was the problem with reassigning skill points again?




It would have been covered in the 'etc.'. I didn't mean to imply that reassigning (as opposed to simply granting) skill ranks wasn't legal or a valid solution.


----------



## Creamsteak (Jul 18, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I think this is what the poster is complaining about - why should it bother anyone?




Yep, I think that I'm one of the people *specifically* being complained about by the poster if he's who I think he is.

I still don't understand his perspective though. There are 40 different ways to get what he wants, all he has to do is use a word other than "ranks" and note the specific change. Skill ranks come from hit dice modified by intelligence and also by the human racial bonus (and any other races that might have it). Maybe there are some non-core feats and such that add other skill ranks, but they declare this explicitely. All you need to do is note that the change is a competency or circumstance bonus, comes from a magic item, boost the creature's intelligence, add hit dice, or alter the race and give it a racial bonus. There's 40 ways to do what you want, the very simplest of which is to bump the Int or add a circumstance modifier.


----------



## Cergorach (Jul 18, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yup, this is what he's complaining about.  Personally I'm sick of reviewers like that.



Don't forget that your the exception to the rule, most players and DMs want consitency in both the storyline and the rules. If it says uses D20 system, it should follow the D20 system. You wouldn't want to buy a 24carat ring only to later find out that it's only 16carat, the retailers responding: "It's gold isn't it!"


			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Because the DM sets the rules for the game. As DM I can even 'magically' add skill ranks to PCs!



Yes you could, most DMs _and_ players though aren't comfortable with such 'extreme' freestyle gaming, because if you magically add a couple of skill points to their character, what's stopping you from suddenly making them evil, another gender or race, making them senile, or worse...

If you want to make the rules more flexible for the DM, the players should know beforehand, not after the fact. It might suprise you, but most RPGs work on the mutual consent principle, and because there are often more players then DMs it means that DM should hear what the players have to say. So if the players say, no side trips to the planet earth, no meetings between my character and my real world self (don't ask), no more extended expeditions to elemental planes, no more fudging of the roles because you can't handle the fact that we outwitted your NPC (again), you as the DM should better listen, because otherwise your out of a job!

If your a publisher it goes even further, you should stay within the rules, otherwise give a good reason why you outside the rules. Just 'giving' the imp 4 extra ranks of bluff without a good reason (and i don't feel like it isn't a good reason, neither is it's cramping my style), while there are plenty of good ways to add those 4 ranks of bluff without 'fudging/bending' the rules.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 18, 2004)

If you feel that adding a few racial hit dice or a level of rogue is "jumping through hoops," then do as others have suggested:  rearrange skill points and make a special note saying "this Imp has Bluff as a class skill."  There ya go.  No need to tack on extra skills.  You're just changing the nature of your standard imp.  No big deal, and you're all done.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I have two questions.
> 
> First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)
> 
> DB



 You can use the creature factory in Monster Manual II and D20 Modern to create your Imp.  That's another Option.  The Creature Factory is there to be used, right?


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 18, 2004)

Dancer said:
			
		

> If you have to question where the levels come from, maybe the imp is an accomplished liar (and not neccessarily a thief, which he would gain with additional rogue levels).  Perhaps, hundreds of years of living in the abyss has made him develop 4 levels in Bluff.  Not too big of a stretch I think.






Not a stretch at all.  Hundreds of years of lieing making you better at lieing is called gaining a level or 5 in a class that is good at lieing.

Or else I could argue with my DM that my character is a very good fighter who has fought for a long time so he should get a special bonus to hit because of practice.    

(Lieing, is that spelled right?  It never looks right to me.)


----------



## Planesdragon (Jul 18, 2004)

JeffB said:
			
		

> If the Imp has bluff, and (god forbid   )that requires too many Skill Points, so what!.The encounter will be much more interesting with the fudging of the rules.



 Not really.  It's just sloppy.

 The rules ALREADY give you penty of ways to give an Imp Bluff.  Not the least of which would be to have it as a "vairant imp" with a different alternate form and different skills.

 But slapping skill points on willy-nilly is just sloppy, and it looks sloppy, and a good portion of your customers will recognize that and have a lower opinion of yourself and your product.


----------



## Dancer (Jul 18, 2004)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Not a stretch at all.  Hundreds of years of lieing making you better at lieing is called gaining a level or 5 in a class that is good at lieing.
> 
> Or else I could argue with my DM that my character is a very good fighter who has fought for a long time so he should get a special bonus to hit because of practice.
> 
> (Lieing, is that spelled right?  It never looks right to me.)




But gaining the skill in only lying (lying is the correct spelling) is different than gaining all the associated skills that go along with getting a level or 5 in Rogue.  Otherwise, you are saying a being can't be a good liar without being a good thief and that's just not true.

fighting is different because that is really all that class (warrior) covers is basically fighting, not fighting, moving silently, stealing, lying and tracking.  This is really were a class based system breaks down.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 18, 2004)

Blah blah blah...I don't want to rearrange skill points, I don't want to change stats, I don't want to add levels, I don't want to use feats, I don't want to use any of the d20 mechanics--they cramp my style but I want you to buy my d20 adventure and like it...blah blah blah.

Seriously, if I'm improvising a story because I didn't prepare anything for the session or it went off in a direction I hadn't anticipated, I might well just add 4 points to the imp's bluff score and worry about making its stats legal if and only if he actually became a recurring NPC. However, if I'm paying you to write a module for me, I expect to be able to take the NPCs apart, modify them, put them back together, and have everything work. So, if you're writing a module, you darn well better be able to actually use the rules or at least make the attempt when it's trivially easy as it is in this case. (You also ought to be able to hit the spellcheck button on your word processor--there is no excuse for potions of "invasibility", "necklass"es of fireballs, or masterwork "glave"s). If you're too lazy to bother figuring out how to fit the imp's abilities in the system (something which takes all of ten seconds of stat modification), then why on earth would I as a DM or a player have confidence in your ability or willingness to apply yourself to the serious aspects of module writing. Does Divination screw with a story? Not if you've just arbitrarily said, "it doesn't work because it cramps my style and that's not the story I want to tell." Does the main villain single shot kill an NPC with a dozen skilled guards who would have cut the PCs down before they reached their sword hilts and then fall to the PCs blades because "it makes a good story?" (Despite the fact that, in the world the rules simulate, anyone wussy enough to be taken down by the PCs would have had to be insanely lucky to take down the NPC and anyone skilled enough to take down the NPC and escape would be skilled enough to take down all the PCs without breaking a sweat). In short, if you as a writer aren't willing to make your story work within the framework of the little rules, I have no desire to even give you a chance to make your story work within the framework of the big rules.

I can buy a ritual that grants the effect of a mindblank spell (thus precluding divinations). I can buy an ally spiking the guards drinks with a minor poison that fatigues them just enough that the assassin can get the drop on them and then get away. I can buy most of the explanations necessary to make various stories work within the gaming system. What I won't buy is a module that exhibits a casual disregard for making the story actually work within the game system. And while big problems (divinations, teleport, etc) may require a big ad-hoc mechanic or a questionable new game rule, I can forgive some of those because the system doesn't offer easy ways to create those effects. However, the system does offer a dozen easy ways to make the imp good at bluff and if you can't be bothered to use any of them but just arbitrarily say "*this* imp is good at bluff," then I have no grounds to be confident that you will restrain yourself in dealing with the bigger rules issues.

Switching skill ranks, adding stats, giving items, changing feats, or adding classes are not jumping through hoops. In writing for d20, they're more akin to putting one foot in front of the other. If that cramps your style and you want to know why you can't just teleport to the other side of the room, that's just too bad.

BTW, the idea that every story will work within every rules system is flawed to begin with. D&D will have a lot of trouble if you want to pit weak and inexperienced commoners against the world's greatest warrior and have them win. From what I hear, Warhammer Fantasy Role Play could handle that but would have trouble simulating 300 Spartans holding off 100,000+ Persians for three days (sure there were approximately 10,000 other Greeks there for the first few days, but D&D could simulate the legend that ignores them). Respecting the limits of the material you're working with is the first step in creating a work of art.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 18, 2004)

Sure, and there are a dozen ways to simulate that within the system without gaining the abilities of a 5th level rogue. For instance, relocate 2 skillpoints from another skill and swap out a feat for skill focus: bluff. Viola: +4 bluff.

One might well point out that fighter and warrior cover a lot more than just hitting too. You can't gain a level of fighter without gaining saves, hit points, and a few skill points in jump, climb, intimdate, etc. You can't gain an even level of fighter without getting a feat. A player might reasonably ask if her character can have spent 5 years practicing with her longsword and be more likely to hit and inflict damage with it. In D&D, the answer is: "no problem, take weapon focus: longsword." If the player answered, I don't want to take weapon focus: longsword--that would cramp my style, I want to have Spring Attack but I want an attack bonus with longswords, most DMs would say, "then too bad. If you want the attack bonus, the mechanic to simulate it is weapon focus--well, either that or stats and levels, but I'm not about to increase either your stats or levels right now."

It's the same way with this. D20 offers dozens of ways to accomplish what the poster wanted with little or no effort (reassigning skill points, changing stats, adding levels, swapping feats, etc) and a few that would take considerable effort (creating an entirely custom monster, creating a template or prestige class, etc). A lot of those don't come with other factors attached like adding rogue levels does. (Anyway, this isn't 2e, gaining a rogue level doesn't necessarily come with the ability to move silently, steal, and track; giving the imp one level of rogue could easily just give the imp some proficiencies (invisible to the players since the imp doesn't have to use them), six or so ranks of bluff and two ranks of sense motive, +2 reflex save (again, mostly invisible to the players since they generally don't know what the imp's saves are normally), 1d6+con hit points, +1d6 sneak attack (probably the most significant part of the addition since this WILL be visible to any players who fight the imp due to its Invisibility SLA), and +1 CR (invisible to the players except in so far as it accurately predicts the challenge they will face). Adding all that shouldn't change the story any more than using a D&D monster in the first place (which molds the story all on its own)). 



			
				Dancer said:
			
		

> But gaining the skill in only lying (lying is the correct spelling) is different than gaining all the associated skills that go along with getting a level or 5 in Rogue.  Otherwise, you are saying a being can't be a good liar without being a good thief and that's just not true.
> 
> fighting is different because that is really all that class (warrior) covers is basically fighting, not fighting, moving silently, stealing, lying and tracking.  This is really were a class based system breaks down.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Blah blah blah...I don't want to rearrange skill points, I don't want to change stats, I don't want to add levels, I don't want to use feats, I don't want to use any of the d20 mechanics--they cramp my style but I want you to buy my d20 adventure and like it...blah blah blah.




I never said ANY of the above.  The fact that you feel that you have to characterise my argument this way makes you seem intellectually dishonest.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Ok, this whole debate is getting really nasty, and I've barely been a part of it.  I wan't to bring it back to the point I wanted to make.  

This bit with the bluff skill is a very minor thing.  Lets keep it in perspective.  I cited it as an example of a much larger problem.

The D20 rules mechanics as currently written do NOT adequately cover all situations and all circumstances that you might come across in a game.  That is why rule zero is still the ultimate rule.  People can ALWAYS rationalize some way to make it work within the rules framework, but that often ends up with a distortion, like fitting a square peg into a round hole.  These distortions can have a large effect multiplied out to a macro scale.

3X D&D has done a good thing by making the rules more comprehensive and more rationally interconnected, but there has been a negative result of this.  It has tempted a certain loud and aggressie segment of the D20 fan base to push very hard to force EVERYTHING which can take place in a game into the rule framework.  By bending everything to fit within this framework, you tend to distort everything, which is causing an accelerating phenomenon that is making the game more munchkinish and simplistic, to appease this demographic, while sapping much of the creativity out of it. It also increases this cultural trend within the game to view the DM as a competetor.  

That is not what the DM is, I'm sorry.  The DM is the great and powerful Oz, doing things behind the curtain.  The players are the most important aspects of the plot, but if they know everything the DM is doing, there is no story.  It's just a war game.

Lets think about the reactions I got here.  Some people suggested adding a rogue level.  That would actually increase the power of the Imp quite a bit more than I wanted.  It doesn't need a sneak attack, for example.  Others suggested adding intelligence.  This would cause complaints, even if I put in a note explaining why I did it.  I guarantee that someone in this thread would be  offended by that.  Others pointed out swapping points from one skill to build a bluff skill.  That sounds like a good idea, it's the one I'll probably actually use, but some people won't even like that.

The point is, this requires quite a bit of second guessing.  Maybe I should have known the rule about swapping skill points on monsters, but I didn't know it, and even that is't going to please a segment of the D20 audience who demand strict canonical adherence to the "letter of the rules" and do not approve of those parts of the rules which reccomend flexibility, like rule zero.  

Now this is a very minor part of this document I'm working on here.  This is over 100,000 word document, a campaign meant to take players from 1st through 6th level.  It includes are 2 major underground dungeon crawls, 3 major wilderness encounters, and over 20 mini adventures like this one with the Imp.  I'm not even sure right now how many monsters and NPC's are in there off hand yet, but there are a lot of them.  37 major NPC's in the town alone.  Over 50 monsters in one of the dungeons.

I have to worry about writing a good adventure, balancing it out correctly, capitalizing and statting it the particular way the publisher likes it, obeying all the OGL rules, handling major rules issues like new spells and magic items, etc. etc. etc..  all on a deadline, for very little money (I've been paid anywhere from 2 cents to 15 cents a word for writing in the rpg industry, usually closer to 2-5 cents).   I really can't spend all day worrying about every minor, petty little thing like 4 skill ranks for this Imp.   

Try to think about this honestly.   This is just one very minor example, but there might be thousands of small issues where there isn't an easy way to express or portray something within the letter of the rules.

So when I hit one of these, I have to make a jugement call.  I can try to figure out the best way to do it within the strict interpretations of the rules, but that is risky.  I can float the dilemma out to a discussion forum like this and get 5 or 6 different answers and a sense of how angry this particular rules issue makes people, (effective, but time consuming) or I can simply modify the encounter a little so that it doesn't rely on whatever very minor rules bending seemed required. This is the safest option.  Take out the complexity and smooth it over to satisfy the nerfers.

THIS means that my module is going to be basically dumbed down a little.  It will be acceptable to that section of the audience who LOVE rules lawyering over all else, but it's frankly not going to be as nuanced or interesting as something I would write for another role playing game.  You wonder why d20 versions of such cool genres as Conan, Melnibone, D20 Cthulhu etc. seemed a little disapointing....

This is what I mean by the tendancy of the rules as written and currently interpreted by a loud but significant minority within the D20 audience to influence the culture of the game.  I might also point out the hostility toward writers which seems to be prevalent.  I remember when people were so eager to see new material for RPG's, now with the glutted D20 market, many people seem to have contempt for the writers who try to make the game more fun.

All of this tends to push me out of the market, and toward other RPG's where I don't have to deal with the hassle.  Many of you will no doubt think that means the system is working exactly as it should be! 

I just wanted to point it out.  

DB


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)



Giving a creature ranks in skills really isn't a technical rules question. If anything, someone complaining because a creature has ranks in a skill not listed in it's SRD writeup is nuts. Now if you'd changed the way the Imp's magical ability worked then I could see some level of complaining. But for skills? Feh. 

And even so, the creatures given in the SRD/MM are the weakest of their kind. There's no reason not to give them a few skill ranks in whatever is needed. If you need a lot of skill ranks, consider advancing the creature, or givin it a comple Expert class levels or something.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Giving a creature ranks in skills really isn't a technical rules question. If anything, someone complaining because a creature has ranks in a skill not listed in it's SRD writeup is nuts. Now if you'd changed the way the Imp's magical ability worked then I could see some level of complaining. But for skills? Feh.
> 
> And even so, the creatures given in the SRD/MM are the weakest of their kind. There's no reason not to give them a few skill ranks in whatever is needed. If you need a lot of skill ranks, consider advancing the creature, or givin it a comple Expert class levels or something.




I agree with you, but read through the thread and see how many people feel very strongly that 4 skill points is a huge violation of the laws of humanity, and would lke to have me tried for war crimes for just considering it.

DB


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> > Blah blah blah...I don't want to rearrange skill points, I don't want to change stats, I don't want to add levels, I don't want to use feats, I don't want to use any of the d20 mechanics--they cramp my style but I want you to buy my d20 adventure and like it...blah blah blah.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, I be quite certain that you said "blah blah blah"--see the first post, but pretending that makes this a direct quote would only be possible in a Michael Moore movie. Let's call it a dismissive characterization of a particular line of argument that seems prevalent in this thread.

Rereading your posts, I think my characterization may be overly harsh and more properly directed towards other posters. Still, I think this sums up a variety of the posts on this issue.

As to "I don't want to use d20 mechanics":
1. Rearranging skill points, changing stats, using feats, and all other suggested d20 mechanics has been characterized as "jumping through hoops."
2. Dancer and several other posters have specifically suggested that ignoring the rules and just arbitrarily giving a monster (and, I probably should include that S'mon's post mentioned the DM doing the same for players) is the DM's perogative. To quote one such post,


			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Creamsteak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



3. The general tone of this thread has been one of "ignore the rules, serve the "Story" or "Game."" (At least, it has been from the side that doesn't care about using the d20 mechanics for making the imp better--Dancer, S'mon, etc and maybe I'm wrong to categorize you in that group but your denunciations of "rules lawyers" and exaltation of "storytelling" (as if knowing and using the rules makes it harder to tell a story which it may occasionally do but generally doesn't--if only because knowing the rules gives you warning about which stories won't work) seems to fit in that camp). There are very good reasons why subordinating rules to story doesn't work nearly as well for an author as for an individual improvising DM.

"I want you to buy my d20 adventure and like it"
1. This is specifically mentioned in the context of writing an adventure for publication.
2. This is specifically introduced in the context of "people may complain to the publisher and I'm afraid the publisher would be gunshy about a "nonstandard" monster." (Paraphrased rather than quoted--sorry if the marks throw anyone off).
3. Adventure reviewers and critics who pay attention to the legality of statblocks, etc are singled out for specific criticism:


			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.



Apparently, I'm not the only one to whom you communicated this:


			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Yup, this is what he's complaining about. Personally I'm sick of reviewers like that.




Now, while that may be more precisely summarized as "give my module a good review, darn it," I think that's a reasonable proxy for "buy it and like it" because, really, the primary relevance of judgements of quality (like reviews) is their effect (if any) upon purchasing. If I write a module and it gets horrible reviews but lots of people buy it, I don't think I'm in a situation to be worried about and I would expect that the publisher is LESS likely to fear bad reviews for the reasons I got those bad reviews rather than more likely. (After all, they didn't hurt the publisher's bottom line).

Anyway, my perhaps overly harsh characterization of the opposing point of view shouldn't obscure the fact that authors need to be held to very different standards than DMs (especially DMs who are improvising) and that attention to the rules and mechanics in small and easy details is a healthy habit that enables attention to the rules in bigger and more significant areas.

An author can do just fine writing a story or a backdrop for a story with no mechanics at all. (I'm greatly appreciative of efforst of the authors, editors, and possibly most of all, artists, of theforge.pl for instance). However, if you're going to include mechanics, they are useful in direct proportion to their fit within the mechanical system of the game.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> This is what I mean by the tendancy of the rules as written and currently interpreted by a loud but significant minority within the D20 audience to influence the culture of the game.  I might also point out the hostility toward writers which seems to be prevalent.  I remember when people were so eager to see new material for RPG's, now with the glutted D20 market, many people seem to have contempt for the writers who try to make the game more fun.
> 
> All of this tends to push me out of the market, and toward other RPG's where I don't have to deal with the hassle.  Many of you will no doubt think that means the system is working exactly as it should be!
> 
> ...




You also have to realize that you shouldn't be trying to please everyone.  And while the people on ENWorld or RPG Net might scream about a product being "wrong" many of the fans of the particuliar companies still love and support it especially on their own messageboards.  You are not going to please everyone.  Frankly, I would ignore what most of the loud minoirty has to say, sure they are loud but they are also a minority.  If you write a good product, people will find it.  

I do agree with you on the dumbing down of d20 and the fans are the fault of it.  If you did make a change to the Imp and explain it in the module that still would not prevent a few of the so called Reviewers (of which I am one) to rant on how you got the rules wrong and further pick apart the work like my 8th grade English teacher using a red pen.  

Best of luck with your module though.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I agree with you, but read through the thread and see how many people feel very strongly that 4 skill points is a huge violation of the laws of humanity, and would lke to have me tried for war crimes for just considering it.
> 
> DB




And you called my post intellectually dishonest!?!

Nobody but you has mentioned war crimes prosecution or the laws of humanity (whatever the heck those are... I know of Federal Law, California State Law, Oregon Law, French law, the law of the United Kingdom, natural law, and even so-called international law but I've never heard of the "laws of humanity.")


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I do agree with you on the dumbing down of d20 and the fans are the fault of it.  If you did make a change to the Imp and explain it in the module that still would not prevent a few of the so called Reviewers (of which I am one) to rant on how you got the rules wrong and further pick apart the work like my 8th grade English teacher using a red pen.
> 
> Best of luck with your module though.




So Crothian, are you saying that if you reviewed this module and I had the skill ranks change and explained it, you would still rant on it?  Or that other reviewers might do so?

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Nobody but you has mentioned war crimes prosecution or the laws of humanity




You are correct, and I should not tempt fate.  I should be happy that the reaction to the four bluff points has not included demands for my arrest or death threats, as of yet. 

DB


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 18, 2004)

*My hate of d02 know no limit.*



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Ok, a few days or weeks ago we were discussing the issue of how the rules, and the obsession with rules balance and technical canonical rules interpretation, affect the game, by influencing game play toward munchkinism and in favor of rules lawyering, and away from role playing.
> 
> I chimed in on this because as a writer I think it does effect the way you approach writing material for d20, and tends to push you toward making it more 'dumbed down' and mechanical.  Well, I've run into a fairly classic example.  It's a minor thing but it's something of a stumbling block for me.




It fails in just about every aspect of a game,and it is more of a rule playign game than role playing game. 

Frist off it is way to liniar.You just get better in everyway.THere is no way in avoiding it.I mena no mater what you are, you have have hit points and levels. 

It is over comlicated,and simplist at the same time. IT is harder to hit a mmman in plate armor.And hammers and swords tear chaim mail the same way. Then you have the detail of when you can atack,and what range weapons have,and how far you can move. 

Classes, are jokes. really.From how hits points.skill points,and bonus powers are moved about. In the end in boils down to this. 

levle systems do not work.They may work on paper, but a level 12 fighter or even mag doesn't need to fear having a sword swung at them, or even getting stabed. Also with the way hit points work, your either fighting as if nothing happened or are out cold.Nothing in the middle. 

the flaw of rolling a d20 is also that the best fighter in the word, taking up his most magical sword, misses 5% of the time.ALso so all fighters are just as good with all weapons they use.We all know that training with hand to hand weapons will make you great with a bow.Also if your good with guns, you must know how to use a sword. 

In the end, d20 is too many rules, and not enough rules at the same time.Has too many strick rules, while leaving many feild wide open with no reason. I am ranting here,and know this dosen't make much sense to many people.BUt in the end I would like to see one come with a good reason d20 is a good system.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> BUt in the end I would like to see one come with a good reason d20 is a good system.




Hilarious.  Sheer genius.  With an adept command of irony like that, it's no wonder they call you the "Dark" Jester.  Wow.  I guess this means I'm some knuckleheaded anti-D&D "Hater".  I'm the guy they make fun of in all those rap songs.

I take it all back.

DB


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 18, 2004)

Hey, when you claim that the system is "dumbed down" because the internal mechanics are more consistant, and imply that "munchkinism" and "rules lawyering" are inferior play styles, do you really think some people aren't going to take exception.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> So Crothian, are you saying that if you reviewed this module and I had the skill ranks change and explained it, you would still rant on it?  Or that other reviewers might do so?
> 
> DB




Other reviewers might.  I was just saying that I am a reviewer as I'm sure not everyone is aware of that.  I rarely point out little rules errors in my reviews.  I think its nitpicking and unneeded.  Unless a rules gaff has a big effect on the game, its not worth it to worry about.


----------



## swrushing (Jul 18, 2004)

Ok first off let me ask Drifter Bob "please tell us what module/campaign/source book this is or at least who will be publishing ti so those of us who are either inspired or replused by your tone, opinions or arguments here can make an informed purchase decision."

Second, frankly, this still seems to me to be a problem thats in your head. Every game system with a setting  i have ever seen provides in some form or another official stats for various entities in that setting. Every game system i have ever seen also procides for the vast majority of them if not all permission to alter them as needed to fit an encounter. D20/DnD is no exception.

Whether you choose to "make your fiend a "NEW CREATURE" (don't adventures go well with new creatures?), make it an advanced imp, make it an altered imp, or to just rant about how unfair it is that the d20 rules don't in advance cover every concievable situation and require the Gm to at times alter from the book stats is up to you. But, except for systems which you devise you wont find a game system that does predict every situation and avoid you having to as GM make your own alterations/additions.

But, i would say that i would be more worried in your set as Gm/author about detect evil by spell or what not than  i would a good sense motive. 

Also, two things... 

First, a cleverly written encounter with a fiend trying deception ought to try and work its way around telling lies. Clever deception involved truth and misdirection more than dishonesty.

Second, when looking for imp alternate forms, keeping to small size, i would go the halfling route instead of the young girl. Obviously, the young girl is cliched and trite and done to death and any savvy PC will make his "sense obvious plot twist" role faster than you can say "gary Sinese playing the best friend!" On the other hand, a less sympathetic halfling, who manages to get the players to draw themselves to him rather than him dragging them in, might well slip by. Imagine a drunken bum of a halfling scared out of his wits whose partially incoherent ramblings lead the party to decide to go where he wants by themselves. a half clue the party drags out of him" will go a whole lot further in the "when they least suspect it" vein.

If i had to hazard a guess, its not the system dumbing down your story you need to worry about. Its you doing so that should be your bigger concern. You seem to have a significant level of contempt for the very fanbase you are trying to write for. I would normally see that as a sign of a mismatch. perhaps your talents would be better spent somewhere else, writing for a fanbase you like or respect, if such exists.

All the above is predicated on the assumption that you are serious and this is not just a moderately novel approach to getting a "smack at DnD players" thread to run a while.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Ok, this whole debate is getting really nasty, and I've barely been a part of it.  I wan't to bring it back to the point I wanted to make.
> 
> This bit with the bluff skill is a very minor thing.  Lets keep it in perspective.  I cited it as an example of a much larger problem.




Well, then, let's see this larger problem. Because, if the problem doesn't exist with the bluff skill (and I wouldn't consider the rantings of a few miscreants who know the rules well enough to glance at the imp's statblock and notice that it has extra points in bluff but don't know the rules well enough to know that you can switch feats and skill points relevant enough to create a problem), then maybe it doesn't exist to begin with.



> The D20 rules mechanics as currently written do NOT adequately cover all situations and all circumstances that you might come across in a game.




I don't believe anyone has maintained that they do. However, that doesn't change the fact that a published work is less useful to DMs and worse than it would otherwise be if it does not use the d20 mechanics to cover situations and circumstances that the DO adequately cover.



> That is why rule zero is still the ultimate rule.




Sure, but rule zero is just as overused as all of the other rules. A campaign that relies on rule zero for resolving most (or even a sizable minority of its situations) may well be worse off than a campaign with no rules at all.



> People can ALWAYS rationalize some way to make it work within the rules framework, but that often ends up with a distortion, like fitting a square peg into a round hole.  These distortions can have a large effect multiplied out to a macro scale.




Sure. But I hardly think that your imp example supports that. Where is the distortion? And, if there is a distortion, what are the macro scale effects? I can see openly flaunting the rules in situations where large effects multiplied out to a macro scale actually are going to show up but using that to justify minor rules violations that don't promote distortions is like banning sporks because criminals sometimes use guns and both are "weapons." The one just doesn't justify the other.



> 3X D&D has done a good thing by making the rules more comprehensive and more rationally interconnected, but there has been a negative result of this.  It has tempted a certain loud and aggressie segment of the D20 fan base to push very hard to force EVERYTHING which can take place in a game into the rule framework.




Uh huh. It seems to me that there's just as loud and aggressive a "free form" antinomian perspective. In any event, arguing that one should use the rules to do things they handle just fine (like giving an imp bluff ranks) is hardly forcing "EVERYTHING" (with ominous capitalization) into the rule framework.



> By bending everything to fit within this framework, you tend to distort everything, which is causing an accelerating phenomenon




Really, this phenomenon is "accelerating"? Fascinating. Have you done anything to verify this? Have you compared module reviews from 3 years ago to today? Have you considered alternate causation for the differences (like perhaps reviewers didn't properly know the rules when D&D was new)?



> that is making the game more munchkinish and simplistic,




Note the contradiction. Last I checked, munchkinish was using the complexity of the rules (usually in ways that distort or outright ignore the actual meaning of the rules in question) to gain more power. Simplistic is (among other things), well, simple. Muchkinism is about the opposite of simplicity.



> to appease this demographic, while sapping much of the creativity out of it.




So, there's been a noticable decrease in the creativity of the d20 community? Where's that happened? Care to cite examples of the kind of creative things that used to happen but don't happen anymore?



> It also increases this cultural trend within the game to view the DM as a competetor.




Is that so? Speaking as a frequent DM, it surprises me to know that actually caring about making my NPCs using the rules as opposed to throwing them together however strikes my fancy means that I view the players as competitors.



> That is not what the DM is, I'm sorry.




Oh please, great and mighty wise one, tell me what the DM is. I'm waiting for your god-like wisdom.



> The DM is the great and powerful Oz, doing things behind the curtain.  The players are the most important aspects of the plot, but if they know everything the DM is doing, there is no story.  It's just a war game.




So we're back to "the DM can't cheat." While that works fine in a game (well, in some games, I'm sure everyone on this forum has his own share of stories about games that were ruined because the DM couldn't let go of his pet NPC or villain and cheated in order to get a result that he wanted), it doesn't work nearly so well for a writer. If you're going to advertise your writing as working with a certain system, it should require the minimum "cheating" possible.



> Lets think about the reactions I got here.  Some people suggested adding a rogue level.  That would actually increase the power of the Imp quite a bit more than I wanted.  It doesn't need a sneak attack, for example.




Well, no kidding. I could point out that an Expert level would add the skill points without the sneak attack but that's not really you're problem. For all that you are cavalier about what goes on behind the curtain when it comes to breaking the rules by adding a few skill points, you're very very worried about players seeing what's behind the curtain with regard to classes. A Imp Expert with 15 hit points isn't likely to be distinguished from an ordinary Imp with 13 hit points by _players_.



> Others suggested adding intelligence.  This would cause complaints, even if I put in a note explaining why I did it.




Awfully prescient, aren't we. Tell me this, would you get complaints if you statted a warrior NPC as Str 16, dex 12, con 13, int 11, wis 10, cha 9? How about Str 15, dex 14, con 16, int 7, wis 12, cha 10? More complaints or less? What if the fighter were an orc (orcs have stats in the Monster Manual)? Then why would a named imp with nonstandard stats generate more complaints than a named orc with non-standard stats? Speaking as one of those who sometimes compains about stats, I complain about NPCs with stats of 18, 18, 16, 16, 12, 16, etc not NPCs with a 13 int instead of an 11.



> I guarantee that someone in this thread would be  offended by that.  Others pointed out swapping points from one skill to build a bluff skill.  That sounds like a good idea, it's the one I'll probably actually use, but some people won't even like that.




Really? Who's going to complain if you stat it properly (remembering that bluff is a cross-class skill for imps if it's not listed in their statblock)? You seem to have made up your mind independently of any evidence that I'm aware of.



> The point is, this requires quite a bit of second guessing.  Maybe I should have known the rule about swapping skill points on monsters, but I didn't know it, and even that is't going to please a segment of the D20 audience who demand strict canonical adherence to the "letter of the rules" and do not approve of those parts of the rules which reccomend flexibility, like rule zero.




Um, in case you hadn't noticed, advancing monsters, swapping skill points, etc IS the letter of the rules. There's not yet a single post on this thread saying that any deviation from the Monster Manual stats is bad. The vast majority of the rule-conscious posts are suggesting how to accomplish what you want within the framework of the rules. It seems to me that you've created the "simplistic munchkin letter-of-the-rules gamer monster" in your head and decided that you can't satisfy it without impartially examining the evidence to see if that creature actually exists.



> Now this is a very minor part of this document I'm working on here.  This is over 100,000 word document, a campaign meant to take players from 1st through 6th level.  It includes are 2 major underground dungeon crawls, 3 major wilderness encounters, and over 20 mini adventures like this one with the Imp.  I'm not even sure right now how many monsters and NPC's are in there off hand yet, but there are a lot of them.  37 major NPC's in the town alone.  Over 50 monsters in one of the dungeons.




Impressive. I'd love to have a contract for something that big. 



> I have to worry about writing a good adventure, balancing it out correctly, capitalizing and statting it the particular way the publisher likes it, obeying all the OGL rules, handling major rules issues like new spells and magic items, etc. etc. etc..  all on a deadline, for very little money (I've been paid anywhere from 2 cents to 15 cents a word for writing in the rpg industry, usually closer to 2-5 cents).   I really can't spend all day worrying about every minor, petty little thing like 4 skill ranks for this Imp.




Nobody's asking you to spend all day on it. We're just saying that cutting corners is a bad thing. 
BTW, where'd you get 15 cents a word and are they hiring?



> Try to think about this honestly.   This is just one very minor example, but there might be thousands of small issues where there isn't an easy way to express or portray something within the letter of the rules.




Sure. Now, you try thinking about this honestly. If there are thousands of small examples throughout the module and you make up your own rules for every little one, might not a reviewer be forgiven for supposing you don't know the rules. After all, a thousand uses of rule-zero for small details in one series of mods is quite a lot. As a player in such a campaign, I'd start to get worried if I ran into 100 traps that search didn't work on (because it wasn't easy to portray the trap within the "letter of the rules") and wonder why I bothered to take that rogue level and spend points in disable device if I couldn't find any devices to disable. As a player in such a campaign, I'd start to wonder what the point of Detect Evil was if every time my cleric cast it on a bad guy, it didn't work and they didn't radiate magic from Undetectable Alignment and I never got a will save against the Misdirection. I might even get bitter and rename my spell "Detect Red Herring." With a thousand rule zeroes, it's very easy to take away player abilities and to railroad them into your plot in a way that tends to disrupt the function of a gaming group.



> So when I hit one of these, I have to make a jugement call.  I can try to figure out the best way to do it within the strict interpretations of the rules, but that is risky.




Why is that risky? (And for that matter, how do you know the rules don't portray something well, if you don't bother trying to figure out how to portray it within the strict interpretation of the rules?)



> I can float the dilemma out to a discussion forum like this and get 5 or 6 different answers and a sense of how angry this particular rules issue makes people, (effective, but time consuming) or I can simply modify the encounter a little so that it doesn't rely on whatever very minor rules bending seemed required. This is the safest option.  Take out the complexity and smooth it over to satisfy the nerfers.




The assumption that removing complexity is always the way to satisfy the "nerfers" (by whom I presume you mean your rules-conscious critics) is dangerously inaccurate. Sometimes, using the rules makes you adopt a more complex and intricate plan. (I know that considering the actual rules for situations I want to create has resulted in more interesting situations as often as it has failed to do so). So, it only results in simplistic modules if you conclude that the best answer is to make everything simplistic. Otherwise, the rules can serve as a stimulus for creativity.



> THIS means that my module is going to be basically dumbed down a little.  It will be acceptable to that section of the audience who LOVE rules lawyering over all else, but it's frankly not going to be as nuanced or interesting as something I would write for another role playing game.




Such as what? I'd love to hear of this wonderful system that lets you write whatever you want and makes it all work. (Maybe it's a system where everything works equally poorly so arbitrary mechanics are a relief from non-existent or non-functional mechanics (ahh, the days of 2e)). 

In any event, the bit I really wonder about is the "complex and nuanced" bit. It seems to me that d20 opens up as many complex story lines as it closes off and that nuance is almost entirely a function of the writer. (If you mean NPCs who are evil but have reasons for the evil they do, that has very little to do with the system and can be done as easily in d20 as in Rolemaster or anything else I'm aware of).



> You wonder why d20 versions of such cool genres as Conan, Melnibone, D20 Cthulhu etc. seemed a little disapointing....




Interesting; the ones I've read haven't seemed particularly disappointing to me. Maybe I'm just not familiar with the previous versions of Call of Cthulu but I suspect that what you're observing is more nostalgia than anything else.



> This is what I mean by the tendancy of the rules as written and currently interpreted by a loud but significant minority within the D20 audience to influence the culture of the game.




I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean. On the other hand, I'm also pretty sure I don't agree that there is any such culture as you imagine.



> I might also point out the hostility toward writers which seems to be prevalent.  I remember when people were so eager to see new material for RPG's, now with the glutted D20 market, many people seem to have contempt for the writers who try to make the game more fun.




Some people might think of it as having the luxury of separating the good grains from the bad grains because we can afford not to eat the rotten stuff.



> All of this tends to push me out of the market, and toward other RPG's where I don't have to deal with the hassle.  Many of you will no doubt think that means the system is working exactly as it should be!




I wouldn't say that. If your writing is as good as you think it is, that would be a loss for the hobby. What I would prefer myself is to see the "complex and nuanced" story transferred to the d20 system. That's the kind of thing I would buy a module for. Nifty complex and nuanced stories can be found in paperback novels for similar prices to modules. (And, no insult intended, but novels are generally a better read since their format lends itself to a more immersive story). Translating that complexity to d20 is what takes the work and that's what I want to see in the module.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> Ok first off let me ask Drifter Bob "please tell us what module/campaign/source book this is or at least who will be publishing ti so those of us who are either inspired or replused by your tone, opinions or arguments here can make an informed purchase decision."
> 
> Not gonna happen.
> 
> ...


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> Ok first off let me ask Drifter Bob "please tell us what module/campaign/source book this is or at least who will be publishing ti so those of us who are either inspired or replused by your tone, opinions or arguments here can make an informed purchase decision."




This seems like a thinly veiled threat to boycott my work or that of any publisher who hires me because I dare to point out what I see as a problem.  Cute.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Note the contradiction. Last I checked, munchkinish was using the complexity of the rules (usually in ways that distort or outright ignore the actual meaning of the rules in question) to gain more power. Simplistic is (among other things), well, simple. Muchkinism is about the opposite of simplicity.




The combination of the two terms is intentional.  I think the two phenomenons are tied together and compliment each other.



> As a player in such a campaign, I'd start to get worried if I ran into 100 traps that search didn't work on




You are making the assumption that by not always sticking to the letter of the rules, you are also going to be breaking the spirit of the rules.  Why would I want to make undetectable traps?  I don't think that is anywhere near the same thing as 4 bluff points just so the Imp can lead the party to the place they are trying to find to begin with.  I'm not talking about stacking the odds agains the party, why would I want to do that? 

I recently bought a bunch of the old modules from youth off of Ebay.  I've been looking them over, and I notice in many of these modules deemed classics on this very board, they fudged the rules all the time, only they did so (mostly) in a way which was very much in line with the spirit of the game.

If I put in a few things which don't fit in the tecnical letter of the rules perfectly and succeed in making the adventure more fun, that is one thing.  If I violate the spirit of the game and / or make it unfair or cheesy, I deserve all the criticism anyone direct at me.




> Why is that risky? (And for that matter, how do you know the rules don't portray something well, if you don't bother trying to figure out how to portray it within the strict interpretation of the rules?)



 it's risky because you don't know how your interpretatoin should be recieved.  People don't agree on the rules.  When it's close to a gray area, you can get in serious trouble unless you have a signed affidavit from WOTC saying it's ok... 




> I wouldn't say that. If your writing is as good as you think it is, that would be a loss for the hobby. What I would prefer myself is to see the "complex and nuanced" story transferred to the d20 system. That's the kind of thing I would buy a module for. Nifty complex and nuanced stories can be found in paperback novels for similar prices to modules. (And, no insult intended, but novels are generally a better read since their format lends itself to a more immersive story). Translating that complexity to d20 is what takes the work and that's what I want to see in the module.




Look, you seem like an honest guy, we simply disagree.  All I ask of you then, is to keep your eyes open and see if you notice something like this trend over the next several months.  Then lets talk about it again, say around the end of the year.

DB


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 18, 2004)

Well, in all honesty, I disagree with almost all of your rant (big surprise). I find that the D20 rules do an excellent job of creating a framework upon which you can provide almost any adventure imaginable (though I do still find it a bit odd that no rules exist for grappling hooks in 3E). If you own any of the splat books, you'll see the section "New uses for existing skills." In case you have't read it, it states that the skills system is fairly open-ended, allowing you to pick an appropriate skill for any situation that may arise. This may not be open content, but it is a precendent that was set. Now, as an adventure writer, you will constantly run into situations that should be settled by a skill check, but the rules don't tell you which one. Its OK, use deductive logic and make a call, then write that into the rules. No reviewer will call you out on this if they are familliar with the rule.

You also write:


			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> This is what I mean by the tendancy of the rules as written and currently interpreted by a loud but significant minority within the D20 audience to influence the culture of the game. I might also point out the hostility toward writers which seems to be prevalent.



On this matter I fully agree with you. I've seen this venom directed at new writers and veterans alike. You have to have a pretty thick skin in order to do write in this industry. Why do players feel the need to get on messageboards and point out the apparent (and I'm using the aword apparent because of the number of tmies that they're actually wrong) mistakes a writer has made? Does pointing out a mistake or two in the math actually make a difference when it comes to a product's playability? Numerous mistakes in the same product I can understand, but a small number is to be expected given the sheer number of calculations a designer has to make in order to get the thing written at all. My opinion is that this is simply a ploy for certain posters to make themselves look smarter than the designer in front of other fans. Someone gets an ego boost out of it and as a result the writer loses the respect of some of the more easily influenced fans. My bet is that the majority of the people who read it shrug and enjoy the book anyway.

Of course it dosen't matter what industry you're in, you will always find some group that is not content with the current establishment. Most of these people are shovelling the crap as fast as they can to make themselves look cool, though a few actually come up with new ideas that might one day revolutionize it. You have to take the good with the bad if you want to play the game. Despite this unsavory element, I would rather be writing material for D20 than any other game system on the market.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Hey, when you claim that the system is "dumbed down" because the internal mechanics are more consistant, and imply that "munchkinism" and "rules lawyering" are inferior play styles, do you really think some people aren't going to take exception.




For what it's worth, though I may be cranky and a bit of a curmudgeon, I am not a D&D hater.  I do think munchkinism and rules lawyering are inferior play styles though   

DB


----------



## James Heard (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> This seems like a thinly veiled threat to boycott my work or that of any publisher who hires me because I dare to point out what I see as a problem.  Cute.
> 
> DB



Let me be the first to make it explicit. Better keep that info to yourself if you want even a chance of a sale with me.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> You are making the assumption that by not always sticking to the letter of the rules, you are also going to be breaking the spirit of the rules.  Why would I want to make undetectable traps?  I don't think that is anywhere near the same thing as 4 bluff points just so the Imp can lead the party to the place they are trying to find to begin with.  I'm not talking about stacking the odds agains the party, why would I want to do that?




Probably for the same reason that a lot of module writers I've seen do it: because you think it would be cool and would fit the story you want to tell and don't consider other ways to tell the story or to be cool.

For instance, I recently prepped a module for a con where the author has an invisible imp automatically place a noose around a character's legs (actually, he says the imp uses sleight of hand--which he doesn't have--and gets a DC which he couldn't make and gives an arbitrarily high spot check to notice, but hey, once you've discarded some of the rules, why keep the rest?) and then kobolds use mechanical advantage to pull the PC down a funnel while other kobolds dump buckets containing swarms of vermin on the PCs. I can only imagine that the author who wrote it though it would be a cool trap that showed how devious and cunning his kobolds were and how tough the PCs were to be able to take it and keep on going. (I've switched to generous Elder-Basilisk for the moment). Now, I don't know, how long he thought about it or whether he considered other means of setting up what is essentially a trap, but for him, ignoring the letter of the rules to get his story across involves ignoring the spirit of the rules as well.

Similarly, for a guy who DMed for my home group about a year ago, all of the monsters had a 28+ strength so that, no matter how much effort my character spent on his AC (and I was trying to make a defensive character), he'd get hit on a 2--or a 3 if I was using combat expertise for full. He didn't do anything against the letter of the rules to accomplish that but it's worth noting that his idea of a cool and nifty story line involved a rather uninteresting series of uebermonsters on flat featureless planes. He's a nice guy and still plays in the group but I wouldn't rely upon his sense of cool and nifty.

Maybe you're different and all of your cool and nifty nuanced and complex story ideas really are cool, nifty, nuanced and complex. However, I think that making them fit within the letter of the rules serves as a very useful check against the kind of kewl, n1fty, nuanc3d, and c0mp13x ideas that a lot of authors and DMs--including some widely published authors--come up with.



> I recently bought a bunch of the old modules from youth off of Ebay.  I've been looking them over, and I notice in many of these modules deemed classics on this very board, they fudged the rules all the time, only they did so (mostly) in a way which was very much in line with the spirit of the game.
> 
> If I put in a few things which don't fit in the tecnical letter of the rules perfectly and succeed in making the adventure more fun, that is one thing.  If I violate the spirit of the game and / or make it unfair or cheesy, I deserve all the criticism anyone direct at me.




Well, that's a real issue. But it's only part of it. There's also the risk of missing the opportunities provided by the rules as written. For instance, if you insist that the imp has to successfully deceive the PCs, you blind yourself to ways in which even a detected imp could advance the story. (Earlier suggestions in the thread that a detected imp might flee back to his summoner's lair (possibly because he knows it better than other places) seem like a fine way of handling the possibility of discovery). And having those ways is much better than not having them because it helps for a DM who decides to try to adapt your mod to a party with a paladin or whose cleric casts Detect Evil or who rolls a 1 on the Imp's bluff when the party bard rolls a 20 on his sense motive. (Or who has a character who's simply designed to figure out what makes people tick--a bard with Negotiator and Skill Focus: Sense Motive and a 12 wisdom for a 2nd level sense motive of +11 for instance).

Having different manners of getting to the next location makes for a more useful module than for one that falls apart if the party successfully sees through the imp's trickery.



> it's risky because you don't know how your interpretatoin should be recieved.  People don't agree on the rules.  When it's close to a gray area, you can get in serious trouble unless you have a signed affidavit from WOTC saying it's ok...




Well, I think you're exaggerating here. I ran across a mod recently where an author used Improved Unarmed Strike to give a Mummy Fighter  iterative attacks with its slam attack. Technically, he didn't do it right--it should have given the mummy an unarmed attack for 1d4+str bonus rather than letting him slam for 1.5x str bonus. That's not a gray area though it's an understandable mistake. Whether or not the unarmed strike would carry Mummy Rot is more of a gray area. However, he didn't need a signed affadavit to do it and had I been reviewing the module rather than providing feedback, I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it (though it would have been a mark against the module). The encounter wasn't too overpowering either so the mistake didn't have the obviously negative effect of mistakenly making a situation much more deadly than the rules would normally make it and the EL would predict.

In real gray areas of the rules (for instance, "do luck and moral bonusses to hit increase grapple checks"), I (and I suspect a lot of reviewers) tend to be forgiving. However, it's always worth investigating to find out whether or not it really is a gray area. A lot of people simply write off anything they don't understand as a gray area and that's not wise.


----------



## Turanil (Jul 18, 2004)

My last experience with a DM who did improvise the rules was a disaster. It is always possible to make great adventures in using the rules per se. Players must use the rules per se, why not the DM? 

As for the imp, I would also point out that when you tell he MUST convince* the PCs of his lies or the story fails... I see it as RAILROADING. 

As a DM I have no problem if the players discover that the little girl is an imp. Better for the players, they are happy to have discovered the truth before the imp could make a fool of them. This happened once in a campaign of mine. For some reason the cleric did cast a Dispel Magic on their employer, made an extremely lucky roll and passed Spell Resistance, so discovered that the kind old woman was in fact an Alu-Demon before she could complete her nasty goal with them. This was really a great mement for the players, and the story nonetheless went on thereafter without problems (even if modified).

(* *Potion of Glibness* and no need to bend any rule).


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

James Heard said:
			
		

> Let me be the first to make it explicit. Better keep that info to yourself if you want even a chance of a sale with me.




right back at you pal.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Probably for the same reason that a lot of module writers I've seen do it: because you think it would be cool and would fit the story you want to tell and don't consider other ways to tell the story or to be cool.
> 
> For instance, I recently prepped a module for a con where the author has an i




There are also plenty of ways to completey screw up the spirit of the game WITHIN the letter of the rules, frankly, and thats at least as a big of a problem as the bad DM's and bad adventure writers you are citing here.  I'm personally the last thing from a killer DM incidentally, but killer DM's can wreak just as much havoc in the rules as out of them.



> in which even a detected imp could advance the story. (Earlier suggestions in the thread that a detected imp might flee back to his summoner's lair
> (snip)
> Having different manners of getting to the next location makes for a more useful module than for one that falls apart if the party successfully sees through the imp's trickery.




Amigo.  I think you are confusing a suggestion with my own post describing the adventure a little more.  The thing plays out just fine if the players detect the Imp.  Of course it can happen, I just try to give it a litle better chance of not happening.  Please go back and read my earlier post explaining the situation with the Imp.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Turanil said:
			
		

> My last experience with a DM who did improvise the rules was a disaster. It is always possible to make great adventures in using the rules per se. Players must use the rules per se, why not the DM?




Because it's not a competition between the players and the DM.  It's not monopoly, or risk, or axis and allies.  It's a role playing game.  The DM is not the players enemy, he or she is just the arbiter of the story.

And because, contrary to many peoples quasi religious beliefs, the rules do not cover every circumstance.



> As for the imp, I would also point out that when you tell he MUST convince* the PCs of his lies or the story fails... I see it as RAILROADING.




At the risk of seeming repetetive, please go back and read my earlier post on this exact subject.  You will notice that the imp does not HAVE to convince the PC's, it just makes things easier on the PC's and the DM.  There is no railroading.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

From earlier in the thread, by ME:



> For now, I will only add a bit more information about the adventure under discussion, since some people seem to be making a few false assumptions.
> 
> It is not just a single module, this is one in a series of mini adventures which take place in a rather large campaign setting that also includes several large scale adventures. Like all the other ones popular these days. This one takes place in a large isolated mountain valley with one decent sized town and several small rural villages, and a forest populated by you guessed it, elves.
> 
> ...





DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

James Heard said:
			
		

> Let me be the first to make it explicit. Better keep that info to yourself if you want even a chance of a sale with me.




By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.

DB


----------



## James Heard (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.
> 
> DB



Yes, pretty much. Though I think that any future projects you might have in any creative capacity will suffer from the same problems until you address this chip on your shoulder you have with criticism, and suggestion, and your fanbase.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.
> 
> DB




Drifter Bob, despite the venom spewed at you by some posters, don't give up on this project.  It sounds like you have some really cool ideas, and they are something I'd certainly like to see.  I know its hard to not let some of the comments get under your skin, but think about it- the people who will nitpick a module to death are people with no lives and nothing better to do, and represent a vast minority of the total audience for the module.  I personally think that as a writer you should probably justify why the imp has a few extra skill points (advance HD, rogue level, or increased INT), but just do it and get on with writing the freakin' adventure!  Most 1E AD&D modules had gross "violations" of the rules in them (special one-time circumstances), and people still played and enjoyed them.  I'd personally LOVE to see a series of modules that break the "back to the dungeon" mold and have some complex NPC interactions, deceptive twists, and interesting RP opportunities- which it sounds like your series has the potential for.  So sit back, take a break, and let this whole ugly deal discussion go.  At least don't make a hasty decision tonight before you abandon the project.


----------



## Cergorach (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.



*shrugs* _You_ started this thread, _you_ should have known that such a discussion would entail critisism, if you can't handle that, don't start the discusion in the first place. To be honest, it doesn't sound i would like your adventure, not because of your 4 skill points. But because of the entire mindset you bring to afore mentioned project, it is bound to seep into the adventure your writing. My advise would be to stick with story writing and let someone else handle the gamemechanics aspects of the adventure, that way your inadequate game mechanic skills wouldn't be a problem...


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 18, 2004)

*re*

Drifter Bob,

The D20 system isn't perfect for simulating every situation. The example you used isn't one of the problems with the d20 system.


1. Add a Rogue level.
2. Reallocate skill points.
3. Add 2 points of Intelligence.
4. Change out a feat it has for Skill Focus (Bluff).
6. Add an Expert level if the Rogue level is too strong. He is an expert at bluffing. No abilities or powers added on, just extra skills points he can spend on bluff.
7. Say he lived in Asmodeus's court for a while. He gets a +4 circumstance or competence bonus to his bluff check because he watched the Master of Lies in action and picked up a few tricks. Most players aren't going to care if use a rationale like this. They might even think that such a background for an Imp was cool.
8. Add another Imp hit dice and put it all in Bluff. 
9. Give it a magic item that grants a bonus on bluff checks.
10. Give it an innate magical power that makes its voice be suggestive granting it a bonus on bluff checks.

I have just listed 10 ways within the framework of the D20 rules to give the Imp the ability to bluff well. You can use anyone of these to make an Imp a great bluffer. Some of them are simply DM caveat. That doesn't make any difference as long as their is some rule based rationale for why it receives a Bluff bonus. 

That is why designing game modules is different from writing a short story. It requires a knowledge of the rules, how they can be used, as well as a great imagination and good writing skills.

Game companies publish modules all the time that modify rules. They don't need to arbitrarily add skill points to do it. They make up new abilities for unique creatures, add class levels, new feats, new races, and other such things to do what they need to do.

Sounds to me like you feel the DM shouldn't have to follow the rules if he doesn't want to, and the players should just accept it. I don't agree with that. The DM should have to work within the framework of the D20 rules. If he decides to make up new rules or modify existing ones, he should have a good rationale that fits within the framework of the rules.


----------



## Thotas (Jul 18, 2004)

Y'know, I very much doubt if I personally would catch a detail as small as giving an imp an extra 4 skill points ... though I'm with the people who think that if one has rules, they're there to be used.  Which is why, if I did catch the anomaly as I was preparing to use the adventure, I'd just ... use any of the half dozen or so good-and-rules-correct suggestions that've been posted here so far and fix the imp myself.  Though I shouldn't have to since that's what the author of the adventure got paid for.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Why bother having rules if you're going to alter them on a whim?
> 
> 
> "Sorry Bob, you would have made your Sense Motive check, but I decided to give the imp a +4 bonus just now, so you didn't."





My philosophy (which outside D&D 3e almost every GM has, IME):
The rules are there as a DMing aid to assist with his representing the world to the players, so he doesn't have to make everything up on the fly when adjudicating PC vs NPC/monster/environment conflict & rewards (XP) - ie they're there to make the DM's job easier.  It's not a competitive wargame, so there's no question of fairness (DM vs player) involved.  Thus the DM sets all DCs for Sense Motive rolls, and for all other rolls, according to what he feels is appropriate.  Since I'm not a 'storytelling' DM I would not alter a DC post-fact just to get a desired story-result, but I will certainly set the DC pre-roll according to my view of my game-world; certainly IMC an Imp would likely be a good bluffer; I don't blame WoTC for not assigning them skill ranks in Bluff but I'm certainly not going to be bound to that by some rules-lawyer waving a copy of the MM.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Creamsteak said:
			
		

> Yep, I think that I'm one of the people *specifically* being complained about by the poster if he's who I think he is.
> 
> I still don't understand his perspective though. There are 40 different ways to get what he wants, all he has to do is use a word other than "ranks" and note the specific change. Skill ranks come from hit dice modified by intelligence and also by the human racial bonus (and any other races that might have it). Maybe there are some non-core feats and such that add other skill ranks, but they declare this explicitely. All you need to do is note that the change is a competency or circumstance bonus, comes from a magic item, boost the creature's intelligence, add hit dice, or alter the race and give it a racial bonus. There's 40 ways to do what you want, the very simplest of which is to bump the Int or add a circumstance modifier.




Would "+4 Bluff" as an undefined bonus be ok with you, or would that imply it was 'ranks' and still annoy you?  (serious question, not trying to be facetious).  Wouldn't altering the Imp race to give it a +4 Bluff racial bonus be contrary to what's written in the MM and thus violate 'the rules'?

AFAICS the best approach to keeping the rules-lawyers happy would be the INT-boost, as has been mentioned.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Re adding skill points:



			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> Yes you could, most DMs _and_ players though aren't comfortable with such 'extreme' freestyle gaming, because if you magically add a couple of skill points to their character, what's stopping you from suddenly making them evil, another gender or race, making them senile, or worse...




Well I add skill points to a PC (or NPC) to reflect life experience not related to heroic challenges (CR/XP) - if a PC spends a year at sea they get a rank in Profession (Sailor).  If a PC consistently acts 'evil' (evil as defined IMC - mass murder of innocents is a typical indication) I'll note that they count as the Evil alignment for purposes of spells etc.  "Suddenly" making an existing PC another gender or race, unless the result of a magical curse, would violate campaign continuity, but when someone brings a preexisting PC to my game I might well change a nonhuman race to human (or ban the PC).  Senile - hm, again ok as magical curse; I make old NPCs senile quite often; a senile PC wouldn't really be viable so I'd only make them senile if the PC were to be retired from play - explains why the 20th level Wizard is no longer adventuring.




> If you want to make the rules more flexible for the DM, the players should know beforehand, not after the fact. It might suprise you, but most RPGs work on the mutual consent principle, and because there are often more players then DMs it means that DM should hear what the players have to say. So if the players say, no side trips to the planet earth, no meetings between my character and my real world self (don't ask), no more extended expeditions to elemental planes, no more fudging of the roles because you can't handle the fact that we outwitted your NPC (again), you as the DM should better listen, because otherwise your out of a job!




 Mutual consent - I try to get the majority of players alongside (I'm actually a lot less dictatorial than I used to be).  However IME since there are far fewer good GMs than there are would-be players and I'm living in a large city, I am the scarce resource, not them.  I have far more trouble turning away players or running games with 7 players at my table than I do finding enough players!  So I have little worry about being out of my (unpaid) job.


----------



## Felonius (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> This bit with the bluff skill is a very minor thing.  Lets keep it in perspective.  I cited it as an example of a much larger problem.
> 
> The D20 rules mechanics as currently written do NOT adequately cover all situations and all circumstances that you might come across in a game.



I don't think there's any RPG there that can handle everything. 

I'm curious though. What large flaws in d20-system (or D&D) do you see that are problematic to you? 



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> 3X D&D has done a good thing by making the rules more comprehensive and more rationally interconnected, but there has been a negative result of this.  It has tempted a certain loud and aggressie segment of the D20 fan base to push very hard to force EVERYTHING which can take place in a game into the rule framework.  By bending everything to fit within this framework, you tend to distort everything, which is causing an accelerating phenomenon that is making the game more munchkinish and simplistic, to appease this demographic, while sapping much of the creativity out of it. It also increases this cultural trend within the game to view the DM as a competetor.



So is a comprehensive rule system good or not (in you opinion)? 

You also seem to say that sticking to rule equals munchkinism, which is a bit of an oxymoron... 

RPGs are played differently from group to group around the world and you can't please each and every player and DM, or even a demographic. People play hack&slash with Vampire and immersive storytelling with Rolemaster and GURPS. D&D gaming groups particularily seem to consist of the whole spectrum of RPG player sub-types. 

In the end you write your work and let it find it's public. And there's plenty of D&D players who don't care about the rules. Look at Mongoose! They are selling. 



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Lets think about the reactions I got here.  Some people suggested adding a rogue level.  That would actually increase the power of the Imp quite a bit more than I wanted.  It doesn't need a sneak attack, for example.  Others suggested adding intelligence.  This would cause complaints, even if I put in a note explaining why I did it.  I guarantee that someone in this thread would be  offended by that.  Others pointed out swapping points from one skill to build a bluff skill.  That sounds like a good idea, it's the one I'll probably actually use, but some people won't even like that.



I still think a plain circumstance bonus is the simplest solution. Explain it in the encounter text for DM.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The point is, this requires quite a bit of second guessing.  Maybe I should have known the rule about swapping skill points on monsters, but I didn't know it, and even that is't going to please a segment of the D20 audience who demand strict canonical adherence to the "letter of the rules" and do not approve of those parts of the rules which reccomend flexibility, like rule zero.



As I said, you cannot please everyone. However, *I'm* a bit worried that you had a problem with modifying a monster when creating a module *for a publisher*, but you didn't consult Monster Manual...   



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Now this is a very minor part of this document I'm working on here.
> 
> < snipped a description of extensive work>
> 
> This is just one very minor example, but there might be thousands of small issues where there isn't an easy way to express or portray something within the letter of the rules.



Get yourself a rules editor or ask if the publishing company has an editor who checks rules as well.

When I buy a published module I'm paying the publisher for the story *and* the rules content. 

If I want a story, I buy a book. If I want rules, I buy PHB. If I wan't both in a module, I expect that both are good and that it's playable off the shelf with minimal work required. After all, I wouldn't be buying modules if I had time to design my own.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> THIS means that my module is going to be basically dumbed down a little.  It will be acceptable to that section of the audience who LOVE rules lawyering over all else, but it's frankly not going to be as nuanced or interesting as something I would write for another role playing game.  You wonder why d20 versions of such cool genres as Conan, Melnibone, D20 Cthulhu etc. seemed a little disapointing....



I don't see how rules can take away from the story. Conan, Elric and Cthulhu are cool nevermind the rules.

Dragonlords of Melnibone was disappointing to me *as a product*, but that's because the writers did not understand the rules. IMHO, ruleswise it was a hack job rushed out of the door in order to cash with the starting d20 craze. However the setting was as great as ever.

D20 Cthulhu was a great product and I'm a long time Call of Cthulhu fan. It also had some flaws like over-extensive firearms section and D&D feats like whirlwind attack on the player side of the book, but in the end an excellent piece of work.

I haven't seen d20 Conan yet, but I'm sure the "Conaness" of the etting is not diminished by the dice used.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> This is what I mean by the tendancy of the rules as written and currently interpreted by a loud but significant minority within the D20 audience to influence the culture of the game.  I might also point out the hostility toward writers which seems to be prevalent.  I remember when people were so eager to see new material for RPG's, now with the glutted D20 market, many people seem to have contempt for the writers who try to make the game more fun.



I think you are overestimating the impact of Internet reviews and forum naysayers. 10 000 forum readers and their 40 000 friends are a drop in an ocean compared to your potential market in US alone.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> All of this tends to push me out of the market, and toward other RPG's where I don't have to deal with the hassle.  Many of you will no doubt think that means the system is working exactly as it should be!



Changing a gaming system is always a valid choice and d20 is not for everyone. I'm sad to see you go as I started looking towards your product, but then again I'm a sucker for super-modules/ready campaigns. 

- F


----------



## S'mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The D20 rules mechanics as currently written do NOT adequately cover all situations and all circumstances that you might come across in a game.  That is why rule zero is still the ultimate rule.  People can ALWAYS rationalize some way to make it work within the rules framework, but that often ends up with a distortion, like fitting a square peg into a round hole.  These distortions can have a large effect multiplied out to a macro scale.
> 
> 3X D&D has done a good thing by making the rules more comprehensive and more rationally interconnected, but there has been a negative result of this.  It has tempted a certain loud and aggressie segment of the D20 fan base to push very hard to force EVERYTHING which can take place in a game into the rule framework.  By bending everything to fit within this framework, you tend to distort everything, which is causing an accelerating phenomenon that is making the game more munchkinish and simplistic, to appease this demographic, while sapping much of the creativity out of it. It also increases this cultural trend within the game to view the DM as a competetor.




I agree with this of course - and well said.  Luckily I have good & intimidated players who don't complain that my margoyles have Fighter BAB, STR 22 & Improved Grapple - they just scream & die...   

You can't bend everything to fit within D&D's rules framework (or any other framework) and maintain a believable world or one that simulates any genre other than sui generis D&D.  The Conan OGL game is very good BTW, but it still needs a fast & loose approach to the RAW if it's to really give the feel of its pulp sword & sorcery genre.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 18, 2004)

One need not suppose that the rules cover every situation to think that they should apply equally to PCs and NPCs. Rules for charging cover charging perfectly well (even if they are needlessly restrictive). If an NPC can charge a PC in given circumstances, etc ad nauseum, then a PC should be able to charge the NPC in the exact same circumstances. If, like Skip in his recent movement article, you decide to improvise a rule to cover pulling flying creatures off-balance with a trip-like manuever, it should be equally available to PCs and NPCs and the mechanics should work the same way for both (though they need not be equally good at it).

Also, contrary to your apparent belief, it need not be a competition between the players and the DM in order for it to be important for NPCs to be governed by the same rules as PCs. I like to think of the D&D rules as tools for creating a world that the PCs can interact with. If the PCs use appraise, sense motive, diplomacy, and bluff when role-playing their purchases and attempt to use magic to verify the nature of their purchases, NPCs should be able to do the same. If the PCs decide to counterfeit money, NPCs can do so too (and detect the PCs' counterfeits under a fair skill mechanic (forgery is one of the skills I don't think works very well in D&D 3.x) just like the PCs could do to their forgeries). Similarly, if NPCs can become immune to scrying, not show up on divinations, and ward their fortresses against teleportation, PCs should be able to do so too. Conversely, if PCs scry their foes, teleport to them, and kill them, they should expect similar retaliation from NPCs. If the PCs are dumb, they can get hosed. Similarly, if the DM is foolish and doesn't consider that his pet NPC might get dimensional anchored before teleporting away, he should generally let the PCs have their well-earned victory. Four skill points on an imp won't end the world. The principle of the DM playing by the same rules as the PCs, however, is quite important.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Because it's not a competition between the players and the DM.  It's not monopoly, or risk, or axis and allies.  It's a role playing game.  The DM is not the players enemy, he or she is just the arbiter of the story.
> 
> And because, contrary to many peoples quasi religious beliefs, the rules do not cover every circumstance.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> BUt in the end I would like to see one come with a good reason d20 is a good system.




I agree that it's both over-complicated & simplistic; yet level-based systems are immensely satisfying to play through and see your PC gain in power over time.  As a player, skill-based systems like Runequest with trivial % increases just aren't as much fun.  As a simulation D&D is woeful - EGG pointed this out at the front of the 1e DMG.  As a game, it's the most popular RPG by a long way - and that's not just first-mover advantage.  Rules Lawyering players who criticise monster 'builds' as 'illegal' are a scourge upon the earth, and I hope I never see such at my game, but D&D is fundamentally a fun game to play.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Turanil said:
			
		

> As for the imp, I would also point out that when you tell he MUST convince* the PCs of his lies or the story fails... I see it as RAILROADING.




This is a valid complaint IMO - I'd be concerned if a scenario required a particular outcome from PC-NPC interaction to work.  This 'storytelling' or 'railroading' style makes players feel disempowered, far more than a GM or author giving an Imp a good Bluff skill or whatever - the important thing with the Bluffing imp is that the XP be commensurate with the challenge, according to whatever scale the GM uses - if the alteration makes the imp a much bigger challenge than 'normal' I would certainly give more XP.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 18, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I agree that it's both over-complicated & simplistic; yet level-based systems are immensely satisfying to play through and see your PC gain in power over time.  As a player, skill-based systems like Runequest with trivial % increases just aren't as much fun.  As a simulation D&D is woeful - EGG pointed this out at the front of the 1e DMG.  As a game, it's the most popular RPG by a long way - and that's not just first-mover advantage.  Rules Lawyering players who criticise monster 'builds' as 'illegal' are a scourge upon the earth, and I hope I never see such at my game, but D&D is fundamentally a fun game to play.



 Actually, my post was meant as a joke.  I re-posted a Silent Wail's famous Hate of d02 rant, which has become the gamer's version of "all your base are belong to us."


----------



## billd91 (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.
> 
> DB




I'm starting to think you came into this forum with your initial post looking for an excuse to give up the project. Your initial statement suggested you had a chip on your shoulder about d20. 
We've offered you several constructive ways to handle your sample encounter with the lying imp, all within the game structure, illustrating a variety of different design ideas. We've also offered a bit of criticism about the attitude you seem to have toward the gaming consumers.
So now you pack it in? I think you're being over-sensitive, which may be one of the roots of the problem. You're overly concerned with the impact rules-lawyer reviews will give you if you deviate from the rules to do what you want to do. Well, one expects the rules you use to be as properly edited and correct as the English of your composition to be taken seriously (or are the rules of English composition too restrictive as well?). But just as it's OK to split an infinitive from time to time to boldly give the phrase the proper feel (according to Strunk and White), it's OK to bend the rules or deviate from the "standard SRD monsters" in a game publication where it's necessary and appropriate. And in the case of the imp, it's an easy task with hardly any modification necessary, none that are rule-breakers. And I'm betting that with a little creativity, most other situations you're trying to build into the story can be handled entirely within the general context of the d20 rules as well.
Authors often find that they are more creative if given a framework to write within than if they're given absolutely no framework at all.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> One need not suppose that the rules cover every situation to think that they should apply equally to PCs and NPCs.




I agree with this; it doesn't mean that I'll allow Vrock Tanar'ri PCs in my lowish-magic sword & sorcery-style D&D campaign, but it does mean that combat rules & most other rules work the same way for PCs and NPCs wherever possible - an exception is the Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy rules, as stated in the PHB these can't be used to force PC action/attitudes because what a PC thinks of an NPC is largely the player's prerogative; it's no fun being forced to have your heroic Paladin act intimidated and I think this was a good decision by WotC.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Actually, my post was meant as a joke.  I re-posted a Silent Wail's famous Hate of d02 rant, which has become the gamer's version of "all your base are belong to us."




Yup.  You agree w my analysis though?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 18, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yup.  You agree w my analysis though?



 Pretty much, yes.  Level-based systems may not be strictly realistic, but they are very satisfying and fun to play.  This is why I've stuck primarily with D&D rather than switching over to GURPS, HEROQuest, or the Storyteller system.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I agree with this; it doesn't mean that I'll allow Vrock Tanar'ri PCs in my lowish-magic sword & sorcery-style D&D campaign, but it does mean that combat rules & most other rules work the same way for PCs and NPCs wherever possible - an exception is the Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy rules, as stated in the PHB these can't be used to force PC action/attitudes because what a PC thinks of an NPC is largely the player's prerogative; it's no fun being forced to have your heroic Paladin act intimidated and I think this was a good decision by WotC.




A lot of pepole take this to the point though that they demand that NOTHING an NPC can do should be unavailable to PC's.  I saw a thread here on ENworld where people were saying basically, that you could not under any circumstances have NPC's with "special" powers that PC's couldn't get, like for example a king arthur PC who had the magic power to draw excalibur out of the stone.  If he can do it then so should every PC.

To me, obviously, this really "cramps the style" of a good story.  Not that you are going to be stacking lazer finger wielding orcs at the PC's all day, but IMO there should be a few things which are mysterious and not necessarily within the reach of every PC.  That seems patently obvious.

DB


----------



## S'mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> A lot of pepole take this to the point though that they demand that NOTHING an NPC can do should be unavailable to PC's.  I saw a thread here on ENworld where people were saying basically, that you could not under any circumstances have NPC's with "special" powers that PC's couldn't get, like for example a king arthur PC who had the magic power to draw excalibur out of the stone.  If he can do it then so should every PC.
> 
> To me, obviously, this really "cramps the style" of a good story.  Not that you are going to be stacking lazer finger wielding orcs at the PC's all day, but IMO there should be a few things which are mysterious and not necessarily within the reach of every PC.  That seems patently obvious.
> 
> DB




Yup, I agree 100% - there's plenty of stuff IMC that isn't directly available to PCs; I don't generally let players play demon lords or constructs, for instance; and there certainly could be a human NPC with an ability not in the general rules; maybe due to their lineage (Arthur).  Of course if a player wanted to play such an NPC I'll consider if I can accommodate them (giving players what they want is a good thing IMO), but it's my campaign, I make the decision.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Drifter Bob, despite the venom spewed at you by some posters, don't give up on this project.  It sounds like you have some really cool ideas, and they are something I'd certainly like to see.  I know its hard to not let some of the comments get under your skin, but think about it- the people who will nitpick a module to death are people with no lives and nothing better to do, and represent a vast minority of the total audience for the module.  I personally think that as a writer you should probably justify why the imp has a few extra skill points (advance HD, rogue level, or increased INT), but just do it and get on with writing the freakin' adventure!  Most 1E AD&D modules had gross "violations" of the rules in them (special one-time circumstances), and people still played and enjoyed them.  I'd personally LOVE to see a series of modules that break the "back to the dungeon" mold and have some complex NPC interactions, deceptive twists, and interesting RP opportunities- which it sounds like your series has the potential for.  So sit back, take a break, and let this whole ugly deal discussion go.  At least don't make a hasty decision tonight before you abandon the project.




Thanks a lot for your comments.  I think I actually will maybe just put this on the back burner for a while and take a break, and revisit it in a few weeks when I'm finished with another project (non D&D) I'm trying to get done on a deadline.  I am a little burnt out right now.



> I'm starting to think you came into this forum with your initial post looking for an excuse to give up the project. Your initial statement suggested you had a chip on your shoulder about d20.




Frankly, there may have been a bit of that in my mind.  This is basically my thought process: I wanted to try to get this finished within a certain period of time.  I was going through the document and trying to fix everything to be rules compliant.  I ran across more and more things which were fine during the playtest but for publication, to me were possible gray areas, some very minor like this bluff issue and some more serious.  I worked them all out with some research (I did of course consult the manuals and SRD), but it started taking a longer and longer time to do it.  

I also started getting more and more nervous about trusting my own best rules interpretations on some of these judgement calls.  I could remember previous projects where I had contradictary complaints, one reviewer liked A and C but hated B and D and said they were 'wrong' in some subtle way having to do with the underlying philosophy of D&D.  Another hated A and B but liked C and D.  I got criticised for using mechanics strait out of the rule books.  For example, some people were angry that a 2nd level arcane spell could potentially disrupt spellcasters of much higher levels (though they got a saving throw).  I made the spell second level specifically because I knew of the divine spell "Silence" which was second level.. what else did I have to go on?  Yet people told me that Silence was itself considered unbalanced by "those in the know" and contrary to the "philosophy" of D&D and I should have known that.

So I decided to post it to EN world to see if people could find me the best solution.  I appreciate that y'all did so, incidentally.  But at the sime time I was realising that if I had to resort to online forums to get the right answer on every case like this, the project was going to take much, much longer than I'd planned on.  It meant I had to seriously consider just smoothing over some of these situations (i.e. make it a strait fight with an imp with no bluffing or misleading at all)  It also occured to me that this was an example of exactly the kind of problem we had been discussing in the past on ENworld about D20.  But if I brought that up, it would threaten the project, because I know people get so offended by any critique of D&D that they will boycott me on the basis of my complaint.  I decided to hell with it and posted anyway.

So now you know.

DB


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 18, 2004)

*re*



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> A lot of pepole take this to the point though that they demand that NOTHING an NPC can do should be unavailable to PC's.  I saw a thread here on ENworld where people were saying basically, that you could not under any circumstances have NPC's with "special" powers that PC's couldn't get, like for example a king arthur PC who had the magic power to draw excalibur out of the stone.  If he can do it then so should every PC.
> 
> To me, obviously, this really "cramps the style" of a good story.  Not that you are going to be stacking lazer finger wielding orcs at the PC's all day, but IMO there should be a few things which are mysterious and not necessarily within the reach of every PC.  That seems patently obvious.
> 
> DB




I think such an attitude is very rare. Giving special powers to unique NPC's makes them more interesting.

You also shouldn't shy away from giving special powers to the PC's on occasion as well. For example, Destan who writes a Story hour here infused a few of his PC's with the spirit of a child. His players enjoyed the addition as near as I can tell. It makes for great additions to his story hour.

Adventure design is open ended. My main point was that you don't need to disregard an existing rule (like a limit on the number of skill points for outsiders) to add a little extra flavor to a creature or encounter in an adventure. You can just write a new rule. Monte Cook does it all the time, and he is considered one of the best game designers out there right now.


----------



## hong (Jul 18, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I agree with this of course - and well said.  Luckily I have good & intimidated players who don't complain that my margoyles have Fighter BAB, STR 22 & Improved Grapple - they just scream & die...




Why am I reminded of a six-inch tall DM waving a tiny rulebook in the air and screaming "FEAR ME! FEAARRR ME!"?

D&D's monster creation framework is so loose that you could make almost anything you wanted and still be within the letter of the rules. There's nothing governing what special abilities a monster can have. There's nothing governing racial skill bonuses or bonus feats either. You could make a "demi-imp" with a +20 racial bonus to Bluff and suggestion at will as a spell-like ability, and there would be nothing in the book to say you're Not Allowed. Even something like BAB is fuzzy; just give it divine power or Tenser's transform if you really must have fighter BAB.

The only thing that all this DM power-tripping might do is cause the monster's nominal CR to be too low relative to its actual strength. But again, CR is more the result of eyeballing than a rigorous algorithm, so the letter of the rules is not the issue.

I mean, sheesh. A watertight ruleset d20 is not.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Why am I reminded of a six-inch tall DM waving a tiny rulebook in the air and screaming "FEAR ME! FEAARRR ME!"?
> 
> D&D's monster creation framework is so loose that you could make almost anything you wanted and still be within the letter of the rules. There's nothing governing what special abilities a monster can have. There's nothing governing racial skill bonuses or bonus feats either. You could make a "demi-imp" with a +20 racial bonus to Bluff and suggestion at will as a spell-like ability, and there would be nothing in the book to say you're Not Allowed. Even something like BAB is fuzzy; just give it divine power or Tenser's transform if you really must have fighter BAB.
> 
> ...





I agree.  The point is though, many people don't see it this way.  Read through the thread.

DB


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 18, 2004)

> To me, obviously, this really "cramps the style" of a good story.



And to me, I wouldn't want to play as a mook in the Legend of Arthur...

....now tell me I can play as Arthur, and you might've got me....

But it seems that your main problem is one that is relatively simple, and not all that uncommon, and, yes, it has a name for those who view it as an inferior style of gaming too: Drama Queening. Or perhaps Invincible DMing. You're really "just" a fictionist.

d20 is not a forum for telling a story, and if you try to make it such, there are situations where the rules will dissapoint you. It's not just a story.

It's a *GAME*. It has *TEAM ASPECTS*. *RANDOM CHANCE*. And it has *RULES*. And if you want to *PLAY* the *GAME*, you need to realize these, accept these, and work within them.

If you'd rather tell a story, don't bother.

An RPG is a videogame. It is poker. It is Axis and Allies. It is Chutes and Ladders. It is infinately more flexible and enjoyable, and able to benefit much more from creativity and player input, but it is not an excersize in collaborative fiction, and it never. Ever. Ever. will be. 

Can it be creative, engagning, even _artful_? Absolutely. That's what makes it a such a great game. To play. But it *is* a game. There's nothing "just" about it, a game can be as multifaceted and artistic as _Paradise Lost_ if it wants to be.

But it is a game. And it needs to fit within the conventions and customs set up for a game. Which includes OBEYING THE RULES. Otherwise it's just fiction. It's just a story. It's just you going through the motions of what's already happened in someone elses' imagination. And that's not a game. That's just Role-Playing....and I can do that without risking a natural 20, having to have a healer, worrying that a spell will unravel a plot, or shelling out $30 for your campaign in which you have chosen to break the game to satisfy the story.

I mean, to each their own, but that's almost 100% backwards from what I actually enjoy doing on a weekly basis, which is playing a game in which a story takes place. Not telling a story with a d20 roll or two in between monolgoues.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 18, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> An RPG is a videogame. It is poker. It is Axis and Allies. It is Chutes and Ladders. It is infinately more flexible and enjoyable, and able to benefit much more from creativity and player input, but it is not an excersize in collaborative fiction, and it never. Ever. Ever. will be.




But isn't an airplane the exact same thing as a horse-drawn cart?  Mustn't an airplane be expected and required to perform exactly as does a horse-drawn cart in all things and in all capacities?



> But it is a game. And it needs to fit within the conventions and customs set up for a game. Which includes OBEYING THE RULES.




Too bad you are ignorant of the rules in this case:  Rule Zero.


----------



## Cergorach (Jul 18, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> Too bad you are ignorant of the rules in this case:  Rule Zero.



*starts paging trough his precious core books*
There is no rule zero!

;-)

I make a distinction between a writer writing an adventure that's going to be published and a DM. One is going to have to please hundreds if not thousands of people, the other is only trying to please a handfull of people. I expect a certain professionalism from a pro, i expect that when i tally up all the skill points it's going to fit the rules, if it isn't i expect that the adventure says so and why. If it says that it's all for the story or that it's cramping the play style, i'll (and a lot of other folks) think that it's an easy way out, especially when there are so many simple 'solutions'. If your only a DM and just add 4 skill points to the imp to make it 'work' i wouldn't find it a problem at all. The difference is that one your doing for fun, the other your doing for money...


----------



## Will (Jul 18, 2004)

As a full-time freelance writer... guffaw.

Man, us writers are such hysterical types.

Drifter Bob: If you're going to be a game writer, I just have one thing to say... SUCK IT UP.

Game writing requires working within a rules framework. That's what makes it game writing rather than, say, 'host a murder' or Choose Your Own Adventure. Or scripting a computer game. If you want to do one of those others, go ahead.

See, the reason you have to work within rules is because ultimately it's not YOUR story, it's not YOUR game. It's the game of someone who bought the adventure. If you make up a bunch of stuff that doesn't fit within the rules, it means the person running the game has no idea if your vision of how things fit together will jibe with what they made. If it does, great. But if it doesn't...

Adding a few ranks of Bluff out of the blue, without using any rules, won't make a big heap of difference. The problem is that people might wonder either 'does he understand the rules?' or 'what else is he making up that perhaps I didn't notice?'

These are bad because they can cause the adventure to implode. The most dramatic would be something like 'Oh. If we combine element A and B, the world ends/we become gods/etc.' Which then requires a patch. Which might lead to another patch. Which then leads to realizing the entire setting no longer makes sense, so we must retcon X, change Bob's backstory, and so forth. The rules to an extent help ensure things are consistant with itself and anything added to the game.

It's bad enough having to look up/remember some rule in the midst of the game (how does grapple work again? Flip flip flip. Oh, right) It's worse to have to make up rules in the middle of the game. (Ok, a balor's whip is sort of grappling but not. Er. How do you escape? Um. Damn, the MM got vague, bastards. Let's treat it like regular grappling) It's much worse to realize that you have to make some far-reaching decisions 3 hours into a game you drove 2 hours to get to.

Oh, and to wrap up... coming in saying that a bunch of people suck and the game you're writing for is kinda crappy and so forth is probably not a recipe for positive thread. Getting huffy because the thread is then not positive is, well, fishing for drama.

Game designers have enough negative crap thrown at them for no reason whatsoever. Seeking it out is a little bizarre.


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 18, 2004)

Just for the record, the choice to to tack on any ability to any creature is well within the written rules...

Revised (v3.5) System Reference Document, Improving Monsters



> ADDING SPECIAL ABILITIES
> 
> You can add any sort of spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary ability to a creature. As with a class level, you should determine how much, or how little, this ability adds to the creature’s existing repertoire. A suite of abilities that work together should be treated as a single modifier for this purpose. If the ability (or combination of abilities) significantly increases the monster’s combat effectiveness, increase its CR by 2. Minor abilities increase the creature’s CR by 1, and truly trivial abilities may not increase CR at all. If the special abilities a monster gains are not tied to a class or Hit Die increase, this CR increase stacks.
> 
> ...




For example...

*Skills:* A polar bear has a +8 racial bonus on any Swim check to perform some special action or avoid a hazard. It can always choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered. It can use the run action while swimming, provided it swims in a straight line. *A polar bear’s white coat bestows a +12 racial bonus on Hide checks in snowy areas.


This Imp could simply have...

*Skills:* Mxyzptlk the Imp gains a +4 competence bonus to bluff checks when impersonating cute little girls.

Consider it a 'truly trivial' ability and don't worry about incresing the CR.

I, personally, don't think the D20 rules are nearly as restricting and story-strangling as you might think...  Use the rules to help build the story, instead of considering them as a barrier to the story.


----------



## Uller (Jul 18, 2004)

DB:  I don't think the problem is the rules.  _Any_ system will have some players who want to to put everything within the framework of the rules.  That's what some people like to do.   They play the game because the interaction of the players and the rules is what interests them and what is important to them.  These people seem "louder" not because of the system but because d20 has something previous versions of D&D didn't have:  ENWorld and other forums where they can express their opinions.    These people were around with 1e and 2e...I know...I played with many of them.  

If anything, d20 should cramp your style LESS than previous versions.  With previous versions of the game, there was no way, other than DM fiat, to say that the imp would be better at fooling the players.  In d20, there is a simple and concise set of rules for skills that you can use and stay within the rules.   Of course, some situations are outside the rules.  So what?  There is no system that covers every possible scenario and d20 doesn't try.  If you wrote in your encounter description that the imp had a +4 circumstance bonus to bluff checks because of all the supporting evidence in the immediate area, that'd be fine.  DMs have to do that sort of thing all the time, no matter what system they are running.  You seem to be complaining more about the nature of RPGs than d20.


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 18, 2004)

I'm sorry to hear that you may not write your adventure, Drifter Bob.  I never wanted yo attack you.  My point was ONLY that when simple methods exist whithin the rules to increase the skills of a creature, you should follow the rules.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

This isn't so much about me and my personal experience as whether the apparent necessity to make everything conform to the rules, to balance everything so that players have every ability king arthur does etc., is tending to change the game.  I was only describing my own situation to shed light on what I see as a problem.

Don't worry about me, I'll be fine.  I  really appreciate all the friendly comments though, and for what it's worth the ideas on how to fix the little problem I had.

I realise my tone was rather cranky on this.  Maybe I'll float a few more examples out as I run across them and let y'all think about how they can be brought into the rules system.

The point though is really this:

A) do the rules as currently written encourage this tendancy to try to make everything fit into the rules even when it doesn't

B) does this tendancy in the D20 audience contribute to a "smoothing over of corners" in the literary side of adventures and other game material.

The only reason I brought this up is because I think it is threatening to the ultimate future of D&D.  I'm not the only person who sees this, it's widely held opinion among a lot of people.  I hope it's not true, but if it is, I hope something can be done about it.  I don't want to see D&D nose dive again.

DB


----------



## James Heard (Jul 18, 2004)

My point is that coming into a situation where you're asking for criticism and then choosing to claim that such criticism is somehow an assault on one's creative process is ten times less admirable than any error you might make on your own. Whining about the process, the fans, and the industry in general isn't up there on a list of 'good things to do if you want sales'. Actually _making a statement_ accusing people of somehow engendering some impulse to not buy  something though? That's just sorry. Considering the trivial matter of fixing the 'problem' though, combined with the attitude? Let's see, general lack of professionalism and what seems to be a truly dismal understanding of the rules...why should anyone bother buying from someone like that?


----------



## Will (Jul 18, 2004)

'I don't want to see D&D nosedive again'
  Er, when did it do that? And based on your comments in this thread, I find your concern a bit ... hard to believe.

I will again point out that whether players and DMs cleave to the rules is a completely separate issue than _writers_ cleaving to the rules. The first is a matter of discussion and 'what makes a fun game.' The other is a matter of appealing to a wide audience and giving them what they expect and can _use_ with a certain degree of surety.


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 18, 2004)

The thing about rules is that they help predictabilty.  Predictablity allows you to make decisions.  If you can't predict stuff, you can't make meaningful decisions.

(Note that I'm not talking "your adventure plotline has no surprises" predictable, I'm talking "a large truck takes a longer time to stop than a small car" predictable.)

I think something that DMs forget is that players have a extremely limited view of the world their characters inhabit.  They are restricted to only what the DM tells them, and due to the sheer volume of information, the DM cannot tell them everything.  To a player, the environment is only partially observable.

So how does a player make decisions with only partial information?  They rely on rules to generate a larger view of the world, a view which they can use to make meaningful decisions.  So if a DM changes the rules arbitrarily, the players cannot rely on the rules to predict stuff, and thus it makes it harder to make meaningful decisions.

For example, in combat, a player knows that a goblin only does about X damage unless there a special circumstances (that the player can look for).  So maybe a player will take actions that leave her character open to attack because she knows she probably will survive the attack. If one specific goblin does 10X damage, but in all other respects behaves and looks like like a normal goblin and there is no special reason for the extra damage, the player can no longer predict how a goblin will behave.  And this means that next time the player fights a goblin, her reaction will be skewed, because she has no idea what to expect from the goblin.  She can't fight strategically, because strategies rely on being able to predict how the enemy will behave.

That's why it's not a good idea to change rules arbitrarily.  It breaks prediction, and prediction is important in determining the suitability of decisions.


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I  really appreciate all the friendly comments though, and for what it's worth the ideas on how to fix the little problem I had.




Hey, thanks...  Glad to be of help.

You might want to take a look at the Rat Bastard DM forums (follow the link in my sig)...  Most of them would be really interested in some of your ideas, and could provide you with some really novel solutions to your problems.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The point though is really this:
> 
> A) do the rules as currently written encourage this tendancy to try to make everything fit into the rules even when it doesn't
> 
> B) does this tendancy in the D20 audience contribute to a "smoothing over of corners" in the literary side of adventures and other game material.




A) I think you, and perhaps great many other people, are looking at it a little backwards.  Instead of making what you want to do fit the rules, find the rules that fit what you want to do.  In my experience, if you look a little, D20 covers most situations pretty well, and if there is something that doesn't fit, you can almost always find something that's similar and adapt it to the new situation.  For example, while you were saying, "This encounter doesn't work right because Imps can't bluff very well," everyone else was saying, "Well then, how can we make Imps bluff better without otherwise significantly changing the encounter?"

B) I don't think so.  I think that's only a problem for the people who aren't looking at the rules closely enough.  Not to mention the fact that there are a great many 3rd party publishers that are creating optional rules to make that 'literary' side work within the rules.  That is, what I think, the great thing about the D20 rules...  It a growing, evolving ruleset that is expanding to cover all those situations the original rules miss or gloss over.  I don't think I've ever seen so many plot-oriented adventures out and about for D&D as I do now.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> 'I don't want to see D&D nosedive again'
> Er, when did it do that?




D&D had become pretty unpopular before the release of 3E... I think it had died out quite a bit before 2E as well.  You don't think that could ever happen again?



> And based on your comments in this thread, I find your concern a bit ... hard to believe.




So its love it or leave it, eh?  Either D&D is perfect or you are a "hater".  I run into this attitude quite often . I bet it was very prevalent toward the end of the era of 2E as well....



> I will again point out that whether players and DMs cleave to the rules is a completely separate issue than _writers_ cleaving to the rules. The first is a matter of discussion and 'what makes a fun game.' The other is a matter of appealing to a wide audience and giving them what they expect and can _use_ with a certain degree of surety.




Well, if people wonder why published adventures aren't as much fun or as interesting as some of the adventures made up by good DM's at home, maybe they should think about the imoplications of this expectation. 

The question isn't whether the DM / adventure writer should stick to and know the rules.  The question is in gray areas, whether the audience gives them enough leeway to interpret or make a judgement call within the spirit of the rules, or would instead prefer to take them to task over any and every percieved violation of any number of minor and trivial issues.

DB


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The question is in gray areas, whether the audience gives them enough leeway to interpret or make a judgement call within the spirit of the rules, or would instead prefer to take them to task over any and every percieved violation of any number of minor and trivial issues.




And that, unfortunately for the publishers, is something that will vary widely, depending on which gamer/DM you ask.

So, all you can do, if you are a game designer/writer, is pick the subset of gamers you would most like to placate.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Hey, thanks...  Glad to be of help.
> 
> You might want to take a look at the Rat Bastard DM forums (follow the link in my sig)...  Most of them would be really interested in some of your ideas, and could provide you with some really novel solutions to your problems.




I probably will do that, thanks.



> For example, while you were saying, "This encounter doesn't work right because Imps can't bluff very well," everyone else was saying, "Well then, how can we make Imps bluff better without otherwise significantly changing the encounter?"




The thing was, I just wasn't sure in this particular case which approach would be considered "legal".  You can know most of the rules system but there are always areas which aren't necessarily clear from the books, or which are ambigious so there is a certain degree of interpretation necessary.  Sometimes, there can be a consensus in the online community which is almost like a religious dogma.  Which of the several methods listed would be least offensive to the most people?  I'm still not certain.  Looked like int boost or skill point swapping was the best, but some people aren't going to like even that.



> B) I don't think so.  I think that's only a problem for the people who aren't looking at the rules closely enough.  Not to mention the fact that there are a great many 3rd party publishers that are creating optional rules to make that 'literary' side work within the rules.




But don't forget, thats another avenue open to DM's but closed to writers, you cannot use most 3rd party material or even expanded materail from WOTC.  Most publishers insist that anything you use is from the core book rulesset.




> I don't think I've ever seen so many plot-oriented adventures out and about for D&D as I do now.




Well, that is encouraging certainly.  Can you reccomend a few good ones?

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And to me, I wouldn't want to play as a mook in the Legend of Arthur...
> 
> ....now tell me I can play as Arthur, and you might've got me....




Thanks for poting this.  It illustrates my point very well, I think.

So, here are two issus.  #1 is that the players should be the center of the story.  Well, just because king arthur, or say, merlin have special abilities, doesn't mean that they are the center of the story.  They can be minor NPC's who live far away somewhere, perhaps hire the characters to do somehting.  What is so different from that as having distant gods which effect the plot.

On the other hand, #2, why can't you have a fun game in which the players are not necessarily the center of all things?  I can think of a lot of lower level adventures where the characters are say, apprentices involved in relatively petty intrigues while not matching the power of their masters.  Why should that be excluded from the range of possible adventures?  

Cant you see how silly it is to insist that the players can do everything every NPC can do?



> But it seems that your main problem is one that is relatively simple, and not all that uncommon, and, yes, it has a name for those who view it as an inferior style of gaming too: Drama Queening. Or perhaps Invincible DMing. You're really "just" a fictionist.




Hmm... I've been called many things, but...



> d20 is not a forum for telling a story, and if you try to make it such, there are situations where the rules will dissapoint you. It's not just a story.
> 
> It's a *GAME*. It has *TEAM ASPECTS*. *RANDOM CHANCE*. And it has *RULES*. And if you want to *PLAY* the *GAME*, you need to realize these, accept these, and work within them.
> 
> ...




Ok, since you don't seem to realise this, I'll point out what seems obvious to me: the difference between D&D and say, poker, Axis and Allies, and Chutes and Ladders, is that the latter are all direct competitions between players, with no referee or, storyteller involved.  There isn't one guy in Axis and Allies drawing the map for you as you play, or someone inventing new poker cards in the middle of that game. 

The DM is not just another player compadre.  I know some people really, really want this to be the case, but it just isn't, so forget about it.  Play magic the gathering if you don't like it.

As for video games, I've written a few of those myself.  You as a player have NO IDEA what is going on in the background.  In most cases, it's nothing like what you think.  More "cheating" goes on in video games than in any RPG.



> I mean, to each their own, but that's almost 100% backwards from what I actually enjoy doing on a weekly basis, which is playing a game in which a story takes place. Not telling a story with a d20 roll or two in between monolgoues.




Whatever gave you the impression that I do monologues in my games?  Thats a straw dog if I ever heard one.  Along the same lines, If you want to play D&D like it's Risk with wizads, go ahead, just don't try to force everyone else in the RPG community to do it the same way.

DB


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The thing was, I just wasn't sure in this particular case which approach would be considered "legal".  You can know most of the rules system but there are always areas which aren't necessarily clear from the books, or which are ambigious so there is a certain degree of interpretation necessary.  Sometimes, there can be a consensus in the online community which is almost like a religious dogma.  Which of the several methods listed would be least offensive to the most people?  I'm still not certain.  Looked like int boost or skill point swapping was the best, but some people aren't going to like even that.




Oh certainly, which is why it never hurts to ask about it on messageboards like these.  But I think people got a little tripped up and side-tracked by the 'downfall of D&D' aspect of your post.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> But don't forget, thats another avenue open to DM's but closed to writers, you cannot use most 3rd party material or even expanded materail from WOTC.  Most publishers insist that anything you use is from the core book rulesset.




How interesting.  I normally wouldn't think it was a problem, if the material was OGC and you credited it properly... Especially if you were using material from a source being published by the publisher who is publishing you.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Well, that is encouraging certainly.  Can you reccomend a few good ones?




I'm very fond of the Green Ronin's Freeport series...  A bit of cthulhu-esque mystery in a piratey port town.  My group found WotC's Speaker in Dreams a lot of fun...  It was designed as an event-based adventure (something they should have done more of), rather than a site-based adventure.

Try looking through WotC's free downloadable adventures on their web-site... http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030530b&page=2  They aren't all great, but some of them are quite good...  Some of my personal favorites: Wreck Ashore, Something's Cooking, The Ettin's Riddle, The Alchemist's Eyrie and The Ghosts of Aniel are just a few that come to mind.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 18, 2004)

> But isn't an airplane the exact same thing as a horse-drawn cart? Mustn't an airplane be expected and required to perform exactly as does a horse-drawn cart in all things and in all capacities?



An airplane has a lot in common with a horse-drawn cart, and in the respects that it is similar to a horse-drawn cart, it should be expected to adhere to the same functions as a horse-drawn cart....namely, that it's a mode of transportation, and should transport you somewhere with minimal physical effort on your part. If it fails to do that, it's just walking.

What all those things (videogames, Risk, Axis and Allies, Chutes and Ladders, D&D) have in common is that they are all games, and must adhere to the same functions as games. Namely, that as a game, they should have a ruleset. If you're breaking that ruleset for story reasons, you're looking at the game backwards, IMHO. And while that's perfectly fine when I'm hanging around with my friends in my apartment (Rule 0), it's NOT fine when you're writing an adventure for publication.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> D&D had become pretty unpopular before the release of 3E... I think it had died out quite a bit before 2E as well.  You don't think that could ever happen again?




And that had nothing at all to do with insufficient railroading on the part of published adventures.  It had a great deal more to do with TSR deciding that they knew what gamers wanted better than the gamers knew.  They decided that they, as "authors" were much better qualified to tell gamers what they would enjoy than the gamers were qualified to know what they enjoy.  This was the era of the Great Adventure Railroad school of design.  The players were to be mere passive observers of the "story", thankful to be granted the privilige of taking part as elaborate props in the all-holy plot.

What on earth is wrong with "Mongo is an unusually tricky imp and gains a +X Bluff bonus."?  Heck, the rules even explicitly permit one to do this sort of thing.  Or make up an entirely "new" monster that is exactly like an imp but gets a +X Bluff bonus, if you're going to be so anal-retentive about the letter of the SRD.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 18, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> An airplane has a lot in common with a horse-drawn cart, and in the respects that it is similar to a horse-drawn cart, it should be expected to adhere to the same functions as a horse-drawn cart....namely, that it's a mode of transportation, and should transport you somewhere with minimal physical effort on your part. If it fails to do that, it's just walking.




Are you trying not to get my point?  I was giving an example of the "Roleplaying games are storytelling." rubbish, just transposed to airplanes and horse-drawn carts.


----------



## Berandor (Jul 18, 2004)

Well, having just plowed through seven pages of this thread I feel I must add my 2 cents, too.

IMC, I have given all my players 4 additional skill points. I gave them a free feat. I nixed cross-classing restrictions, and they may buy feats they're not eligible to (but can't use it until they are). That doesn't mean I change all monsters the PCs meet to adhere to the same rules.
Likewise, I might use opponents with abilities taken from books the players don't have access to (like, for example, a creature from Monte Cook's Legacy of Dragons using an Arcana Unearthed spell).
Plus, I would really much rather play Storyteller than D&D.
ETA: I am also a staff reviewer for the German dnd-gate, and I have had two instances where I deliberately looked for adherence to the game rules, one was a book of NPCs, and the other a monster book (both with about 50% of its worth, or more, in rules materials), and EVEN THEN I did not check the skill points of the write-ups except for a few randow checks to see whether they were "generally correct".

All this I just wrote to illustrate that I am in no way a rules-lawyer. In fact, I have a "whatever works"-policy.

BUT I get annoyed when the rules of the game are nixed for no reason whatsoever, in a product I payed for. You cannot possible explain every case of not adhering to the rules in a manner that I understand where you are coming from, because you have a word count limit and must use this limit to put as much adventure into the book as possible. So I don't know why your imp has bluff.
Now, likely, this example is silly, because 90% of all GMs would probably not even notice that this imp has bluff and the standard version doesn't, let alone complain about it. Despite what you say, even this thread doesn't have that many people complaining about changing the imp to have bluff in a reasonable manner, but only some people who think this should be done within the context of the rules.

Now, why don't have imps bluff skills? Or as you put it, "shouldn't they have the ability to lie?". The thing is, an imp can lie all day if it wants to, it just isn't very good at bluffing. It might think it is smarter than it thinks, or it might use more cunning methods of betrayal, like telling half-truths (as long as you regard bluffing as lying, which is an issue that can be, and has been, argued about). I won't retread the myriad of methods open to anyone in achieving the effect you desired that are not only within the rules, but really quite painless. 
In fact, I haven't read my core rulebooks faithfully since the advent of 3e, I have just playing the game, and I knew all about these rules.

But that still isn't why I am posting. I am posting because I sincerely hope that you are Jeanry Chandler. Why? Because your signature link to his "manual" has given me the impression that you are. Why is that important?

Really, your stance towards the game you want to write game materials for professionally, and your reaction to your consumer base (even if it is a small minority) has put me back. You start off by belittling the game you are trying to write for, posting an example that does not illustrate your point very well (no matter ho often you claim it does), but rather throws a doubt at your knowledge of the basic rules you are aiming to support with your product. Then, you jump to conclusion regarding the intentions and gaming styles preferred by posters, showing more than a little predisposition to put negative labels on anyone disagreeing with or critizising you. You continue with posting exaggerations, cynical remarks and either severe misunderstaninds caused by the predisposition I already remarked on, or blatant lies concerning the general response and nature of this thread. And after you have stated that you dislike the game you write for, after you have hand-waived even minuscule changes to your design that would lie perfectly in the rules on the basism of some assumed behaviour that has not been proven right in any way in my experience, and after you have belittled or name-called many of your potential customers while keeping a somewhat aloof tone, in short after you have acted childish in a thread started by yourself in reaction to posts requested by yourself, you still expect me you buy this product, should it ever see the light of day?

I am sorry, but I must echo James Heard here. You are not going to get my money, or more precisely, Jeanry Chandler is not going to get my money, and I am glad you stopped that project. I am sorry, and I am sure your home campaign is great fun, but there are a lot of writers out there that need my money as bad as you do, and who don't profess their dislike for their own choice of game system that publicly as well as don't act as immature as you did here. I really don't care whether your imp has bluff, changes into a girl (which I find to be a far, far bigger change to the standard imp), or whether Kind Arthur can only draw the sword out of the stone after drinking a mug of virgin's blood. It's your way of dealing with people trying to help you (in a civil manner, mostly) that has caused this.

Sorry, this was overlong and rantish, but that really riled me up.

P.S.: And if you want to have any chance of succeeding as an author, imo you should read this post, think about it, and then disregard whatever it is I wrote you think doesn't apply to you.


----------



## D+1 (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> So the adventure hinges on the fact that the players do not necessarily know the "little girl" is an Imp right away.  They can of course attempt a sense motive roll, if they get suspcious, but here comes the problem.  As listed in the SRD, the Imp has no bluff skill.
> [snip]
> Why shouldn't there be variant Imps?



You tell me - YOU'RE the one writing the game world.  If you want or need variant Imps in this world who's stopping you from putting them in?


> But this is for an official publication.  If I put in a skill which isn't listed in the SRD for that particular monster, I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.
> 
> or the publisher, fearing just such a reaction, might take me to task for it.



Nonsense.  At the very worst this imp is an INDIVIDUAL NPC and need not conform exactly to the stats for others of its kind.  All imps in the world need not be identical clones.  Any publisher worth writing for will know this.


> First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)



Give it a template, or class levels, or simply REMAKE the imp as a creature for your setting given what you want imps to be able to do in your setting.  It IS possible to do what you want within the existing framework of rules if you want.  If you don't want to be limited by what the "rules" will allow why the paranoia about taking creative license?

This actually is an example of... what would you call it?  Fear of Rules Enforcement over Roleplaying?  But it isn't the rules that _cause_ it anymore than they would have with earlier editions so far as I can see.  Yes, obsession with anal, precise adherence to rules IS a problem these days but danged if I know where it comes from.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Lets think about the reactions I got here.  Some people suggested adding a rogue level.  That would actually increase the power of the Imp quite a bit more than I wanted.  It doesn't need a sneak attack, for example.  Others suggested adding intelligence.  This would cause complaints, even if I put in a note explaining why I did it.  I guarantee that someone in this thread would be  offended by that.  Others pointed out swapping points from one skill to build a bluff skill.  That sounds like a good idea, it's the one I'll probably actually use, but some people won't even like that.
> 
> The point is, this requires quite a bit of second guessing.  Maybe I should have known the rule about swapping skill points on monsters, but I didn't know it, and even that is't going to please a segment of the D20 audience who demand strict canonical adherence to the "letter of the rules" and do not approve of those parts of the rules which reccomend flexibility, like rule zero.



And obviously, here's your problem. You seem to lack a certain grasp on reality, and that is: "someone is going to complain about something". As another poster mentioned, you're trying to please all of the people all of the time. Sadly, you're never going to do that. Thus, it has _absolutely nothing_ to do with D&D and d20 - nothing at all. It's simply human nature. (Thus, you're completely wasting your time worrying about what one possible internet wonk might say.)

Rule 0 is a perfectly viable option. However, it is _not_ an option at all when money becomes involved (ie. purchasing a product). Nor should it be. If you're writing a product for a game system for money, then it behooves you to know the game system. Period.


----------



## Will (Jul 18, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> So its love it or leave it, eh?  Either D&D is perfect or you are a "hater".  I run into this attitude quite often . I bet it was very prevalent toward the end of the era of 2E as well....




No, but based on the histrionics and the wording of your posts, I genuinely don't believe you like D&D, its fans, and would prefer to be writing for other systems. You probably regard it as a cross to bear that D&D is so prevalent.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

There are a host of things I don't like about D&D, and if anyone cares to hear them, I'll start up a thread on the subject. There are also entire styles of games that I don't think suit D20 without negating the point of using the OGL.

I don't couch such comments in terms of how unpleasant the fans are related to the system.

Oh, I also have some diatribes about how obnoxious a lot of fans are, and how they aren't entitled to 'professional' and calm responses if they are being bastards on online fora. I don't generally open threads with such comments, though.


----------



## Will (Jul 18, 2004)

Oh, I'll also point out that if what you want to do is write an adventure that doesn't actually even -use- a system (in the hopes of telling the true story), you are perfectly free to. If you can't find a publisher (which is likely), publish it yourself as a PDF! If it's very good, maybe you can start your own movement.

It's not like adventures sell tremendously well, anyway, so what the heck.


----------



## swrushing (Jul 18, 2004)

Was my comment a threat? if you want to see it as that, fine. It was a request. I spend my money where i wish for many reasons. The obvious contempt for the fanbase you are exuding here is very much a reason i would not purchase a product i know you were involved with, barring some other incredibly good reason.

the fact that you do not want your comments and attitudes and expressed opinions to be tied to your work in the very field and products you are talking about says something to me.

In my experience, especially in creative endeavors, enjoyment of the designer is a major thing in determining its quality, its richness and its value to me. i would not dream of buying a product from a writewr who really seems so afraid about what i consider to be bare minimum Gm decisions.

also, as stated before, the little girl left over thing doesn't exactly inspire me as its, IMO, rather over done and obvious. 



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> By the way, this should please you, for a variety of reasons including the negative attention brought about by this thread, I'm probably not going to continue with this project.
> DB




Thats ok, as i said i think you will indeed be better off writing for a group you do not hold in such obvious contempt. That would probably be better for everyone.

What game system would you find more suited to your tastes of writing? If you could instead get some other game publisher to publish your module/campaign instead of being stuck with d20 and their wrong-headed fans... which would you choose? 

is HERo more your cup of tea? 

FUDGE? 

GURPS? 

d6 fantasy?


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 18, 2004)

I never said I didn't like D&D, I play D&D every two weeks.  I like it a lot.  It is a fun part of my life and a great source of amusement and intellectual diversion.

I do think as many other people do, that there are some things which need changing about D&D.  As I have pointed out in other threads, D&D will in fact change, like it or not.   The question is how and based on what kind of stimulus.

I do not like some small, loud factions of the culture of D&D who react with hostility and bitterness toward any attempt to discuss any percieved problems with the game.  

That makes me makes me wonder if people think this might be a trend which is harmful to the game.  

I've said my piece.  I don't think many people understood what I was getting at, it is basically impossible to get my point across now that this conversation has regressed, as most reform oriented discussions of D&D seem to do, into a "D&D lovers versus D&D haters" debate.  If I wanted to have that debate, I could do it elsewhere.  

At this point I can only conclude that very few if any people agree with me, that is ok!  For those of you who seriously attempted to address the issue, thanks, and I agree with those who pointed out that you cannot please everybody.  I really appreciate all the technical advice on the bluff problem.




			
				drifter bob said:
			
		

> I did this because I love role playing games, including D&D, which I played since I was a kid and have endured a lot of flak for sticking with over the years.





			
				drifter bob said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, though I may be cranky and a bit of a curmudgeon, I am not a D&D hater.





			
				berandor said:
			
		

> after you have stated that you dislike the game you write for, after you have hand-waived even minuscule changes to your design that would lie perfectly in the rules





			
				drifter bob said:
			
		

> I really appreciate all the friendly comments though, and for what it's worth the ideas on how to fix the little problem I had.





			
				drifter bob said:
			
		

> Thanks a lot for your comments.





			
				drifter bob said:
			
		

> I probably will do that, thanks.





> Ok first off let me ask Drifter Bob "please tell us what module/campaign/source book this is or at least who will be publishing ti so those of us who are either inspired or replused by your tone, opinions or arguments here can make an informed purchase decision.





			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> Let me be the first to make it explicit. Better keep that info to yourself if you want even a chance of a sale with me.





			
				berandor said:
			
		

> I must echo James Heard here. You are not going to get my money, or more precisely, Jeanry Chandler is not going to get my money, and I am glad you stopped that project.




As for those of you who are hostile, and those who seem to be dishonestly attributing things to me that I have not said, there is obviously nothing further for us to discuss.  I think that some of you might understand my perspective better if you actually read my posts and did not attribue those of other people in the thread, or even intentionally sarcastic "anti d&D" rants brought out for irony, to me.  If you relaxed a litle you might find that I'm not attacking D&D.

I do play other rpg games, in the last year I've played: shadowrun, d20 modern, gurps, universalis, feng shuay, riddle of steel, dying earth rpg, sorcerer, burning wheel, the old call of cthulhu and even a really old game called "paranoia".  I play these mostly among other people, mostly hard core gamers, who are into them.  When I have choice of games it's usually D&D.

As for D&D, I think the combat sytem could stand some tinkering, the skills are hard in character generation, levels go up too fast, and there are a few things with the spells I'd like to tinker with if I could figure a good way to do it, but I still think it's one of the funnest games particulalry for people who aren't traditional gamers.  It's the one I know the best and love the best.  

As a result of my writing and getting moe into the community of D&D, I've become honestly worried about the future of it.  Maybe it's my non D&D playing friends bending my ear, maybe there really is something wrong.  either way I have said my piece.  I apologize to anyone I have offended by my tone, I never was a diplomat.  I hope some of you have gotten something good out of the thread, I did.  This will be my last post in the thread though because now it's really gotten nasty, and I think the subject I wanted to discuss has been overshadowed.  I'm not being "meladramatic", I'm sorry if this is long winded, I'm just trying to make myself as clear as possible, because some people seem to keep misunderstanding me or misrepresenting what I have said in this thread.

DB


----------



## Will (Jul 19, 2004)

Man. Talk about melodrama.

I doubt anyone here hates you, DB. And, honestly, if you have a big trouble communicating your point effectively in a text medium...

I'd suggest perhaps seriously thinking about your approach, rather than talking out both sides of your mouth. 'I had some trouble communicating my point and, of course, people are apes and hate any complaints directed at D&D, so they started ranting and raving.'

I've had quite civil discussions about the failings and strengths of D&D. Clear communication and avoiding snide comments do wonders. Sure, some people don't respond right, but here's a hint: I bet a lot of people who have responded don't disagree with some of your basic points. They just aren't sure what those points are.


----------



## swrushing (Jul 19, 2004)

Well, after this "they hate me" rant, i gotta say my "are being trolled" light just went from flashing yellow to constant red.

pretty good execution. i would give it about a 7 of 10.


----------



## Destil (Jul 19, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The thing was, I just wasn't sure in this particular case which approach would be considered "legal".  You can know most of the rules system but there are always areas which aren't necessarily clear from the books, or which are ambigious so there is a certain degree of interpretation necessary.  Sometimes, there can be a consensus in the online community which is almost like a religious dogma.  Which of the several methods listed would be least offensive to the most people?  I'm still not certain.  Looked like int boost or skill point swapping was the best, but some people aren't going to like even that.



Some people won't even like your stpry, let alone the rules you use to make it work (and there's certinaly a lot more grey area with that than with something like randomly giving a monster a +30 to bluff with no explination). That's part of writing modules...



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> it's risky because you don't know how your interpretatoin should be recieved.  People don't agree on the rules.  When it's close to a gray area, you can get in serious trouble unless you have a signed affidavit from WOTC saying it's ok...



This part made me laugh. Spend some time in the rules forum. Look at how people treat the opinion of Skip Williams (official unoffical answers!). Look at how prople will slam WotC when they make big mistakes (4 ranks of bluff will slide under almost everyone's radar, but look at the halfling outrider).


----------



## ajanders (Jul 19, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> This seems like a thinly veiled threat to boycott my work or that of any publisher who hires me because I dare to point out what I see as a problem.  Cute.
> DB



And I'm obligated to buy your work why, exactly?
You have demonstrated an ignorance of the d20 system.
You have demonstrated you prefer your own set of wonderful rules that only work like the SRD when it's convenient for you.
As a DM talking over beers, that's fine.
As an author, it's not something I care to buy.  I keep versimilitude in my game by making sure things work the same way for the PC's and the 
NPC's.
You break that rule, I've got lots of other stuff  to spend my money on...as does everyone else in the world.
Let me make myself perfectly clear here: your sloppy mechanics will keep me from using your products.
Your sloppy mechanics will be noticed by good reviewers: the fact that you see poor mechanics mentioned so rarely speaks to how easy it is to get it right.  
Your moral stance won't even enter into it: I want the adventure, not petulant whining about the system keeping down the story.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 19, 2004)

Well, this thread looks almost done, which means it's about time for me to chip in .

My view is, as a purchaser of a game module, I would expect the writer to pay as much attention to the rules of the game as he does to the rules of spelling and grammer.

It doesn't mean that rules exceptions (or bad spelling and poor grammer) cannot be used. It just has to be done in a way that advances rather than takes away from the module. For example, just as bad spelling and grammer can be used to emphasize a character's lack of education or intelligence, rules exceptions can be used to cover special and unique situations.

However, I would expect it to be used sparingly and only when necessary. Most of the time, the desired effect can be achieved without breaking the rules (and as a number of posters have pointed out, Drifter Bob's bluffing imp is one such example).


----------



## Will (Jul 19, 2004)

Just to be clear, my melodrama comment doesn't follow DB's 'I am not being melodramatic' comment, at least not temporally. Note the edit timestamp on his post.

No accusation of intention, just realized people might not realize.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 19, 2004)

db said:
			
		

> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the players aren't the center of the story, it's just not fun to play.

Yeah, you can have a story where the main characters aren't the center of the story (there's a few that people enjoy), but I wouldn't want to pretend to be that character, no matter how good the "story" is, because I don't come to a D&D to revel in the creativity of the DM, I come to Play a Game.

This is because D&D is not an exercise in collaborative fiction, it's a game with a plot. 



			
				db said:
			
		

> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe that's because calling people names (be it Munchkin or Fictionalist) isn't exactly conducive to a discussion?



			
				db said:
			
		

> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



D&D contains no player vs. player (or player vs. DM) antagonism.

How does this prove your point? Just because neither side is trying to 'win' doesn't mean that you can cheat. Not every game has competition (who are you 'competing against' when you play Solitaire?), but every one has some semblance of challenge, and cheating destroys that challenge (however subtly) unless everyone can cheat.

The DM's position in D&D is that of a judge. A judge doesn't take sides, he just is the arbiter between them. A judge doesn't break the rules, he interprets and enforces them. As a tool, one of the rules is "the DM makes the rules," but that is still one of the rules. 

But just because a DM can decide to hand out points willy-nilly doesn't mean you as a writer can, either. I'm not taking you to task for anything related to antagonism or challenge or competition, I'm taking you to task because you seem to think cheating is OK when done in the interest of the "story."

This is backwards in my opinion. The story should come out of D&D, you shouldn't try to shoehorn your narrative into the structure of a game. It ain't gonna work, because D&D isn't an exercise in collaborative fiction. It's a game.



			
				db said:
			
		

> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



d00d, I was over-stating for effect. It's a literary convention that stretches back to the Bible and before, mang.

Speaking of straw dogs, I'm not trying to force anyone to play my way, nor am I stating that my way of play is better than anyone elses'. I'm saying that I will not buy a product whose author is so infatuated with their own imagination that they will cheat just to get a certain effect, ESPECIALLY when they could've done it in 400 different legit ways.

That's not the same as saying you can't accomplish the story, or even that you can't break rules once in a while. James Joyce can violate the rules of writing and still come up with a work that recieves critical accalaim. I'm gonna go out on a limb, here, and presume that you ain't the d20 equivalent of Joyce. Maybe I'm wrong. But obsessing over how The Man is Keeping You Down isn't helping your case much...


----------



## S'mon (Jul 19, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I do not like some small, loud factions of the culture of D&D who react with hostility and bitterness toward any attempt to discuss any percieved problems with the game.




Well, these people are certainly annoying, and very vociferous (here in this thread - normally on ENW they hang out in the Rules Forum); I'm not sure what proportion of modern D&D players they are.  Judging by WotC's boards there is a lot of support for treating D&D as Magic-the-Gathering with minis & battleboard; ie a tightly defined skirmish fantasy wargame.  This is anathema to me, you, and plenty of other players, it results in a lot of bland and uninteresting (but rules compliant!) product.  Still, it doesn't really do you or me any harm, I can play the game I like and you can always write product aimed at a different segment of the market, I'd think.  Eg IMC I don't _need_ a stat block for Imps - ATT, Dmg, AC, Init, saves & any skills & powers to be actually used in play would be plenty.  I hate those giant unnecessary stat blocks using up valuable ink!


----------



## Numion (Jul 19, 2004)

Man, this thread didn't go as well as it could've. 

Just a little addition: you do realize that WotC itself has kinda "OKed" modifying stat blocks? The SRD quote proves this, but even the WotC adventures have "Monster X, as MM page YY except: blah blah". I didn't really understand why that's not good enough for Drifter Bob, because it really is for everyone else, despite him claiming otherwise. 

(Yeah, I really mean _everyone_)


----------



## Bagpuss (Jul 19, 2004)

We've gone for 8 pages just to say move a few skill points from skill X to skill Y. 

It's allowed by the rules, its been done before, even by WotC and everybody knows the MM only has examples of creatures they aren't all genetic clones of each other.

I guess it's a slow news day or something.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 19, 2004)

*re*

I think it went on 8 pages because there really are players who try to hold the DM to the rules. They will moan and complain if the DM doesn't follow some specific rule until they get their way. I know more than one person has complained about such players. Luckily I haven't had to deal with players of this kind. 

My buddy faces this kind of thing on occasion as a DM. He usually caves allowing the players to do as they want to avoid the confrontation. I think there are more than a few DM's who don't like confrontation and cave in the face of the player pressure whether it be over rules, allowing Prc's, or other aspects of the game.


----------



## National Acrobat (Jul 19, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I think it went on 8 pages because there really are players who try to hold the DM to the rules. They will moan and complain if the DM doesn't follow some specific rule until they get their way. I know more than one person has complained about such players. Luckily I haven't had to deal with players of this kind.
> 
> My buddy faces this kind of thing on occasion as a DM. He usually caves allowing the players to do as they want to avoid the confrontation. I think there are more than a few DM's who don't like confrontation and cave in the face of the player pressure whether it be over rules, allowing Prc's, or other aspects of the game.




Hmm, I always nip that in the bud on the first night of a new, starting campaign. Each player gets a hand out entitled "Rules of the Road" which tells them all they need to know about the beginning campaign in terms of what is allowed, what rules will be changed, etc. That way, it's there in black and white and they are free to ask my why I've chosen to do what I have, and I answer them. We take care of that before character creation. It seems to help quite a bit.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jul 19, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I think it went on 8 pages because there really are players who try to hold the DM to the rules.




Yes but modifiy the monsters is within the rules anyway.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 19, 2004)

Well, 8 pages later, the Bluff thing is really a non-issue.  It's been addressed several times in different ways how it could legitmately be done.  I think that horse has been flogged enough, personally.

 The issue that I think Drifter Bob intended to be his central point, and the Bluff question as an example of it, was that he percieves D&D having gone down a road to railroading everything to adhere to the rules, and that the rules are ill-suited to the task.  In short, he is worried that the 'tail is wagging the dog', which is to say that the story is being driven by the tenets of the rules, and thus stifling creativity.  Further, he believes that this mentality will lead to D&D becoming unpopular once more, and the game and hobby as a whole will suffer.

 I couldn't disagree more, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable stance to take.  It merely runs counter to everything I've experienced in the last four years.

 The d20 system has yet to provide me with a situation that I couldn't model reasonably well, with a little reflection.  Does it do everything well?  It certainly does not.  But it is, by and large, the best D&D system committed to paper, as far as I'm concerned.  I am continually impressed by how thorough the design of the game was, with a level of consistency, accessability and mechanical forethought that was largely unmatched prior to its release.  D&D is compromise between solid mechanics and verisimilitude, and sometimes the former has to be favored over the latter to make a good game.  But the game is highly mutable, by design, since the creators _knew_ that individual DMs and players like to tinker with the system.

 Were these concerns new ones, I might be more concerned....but I heard these kind of discussions twenty years ago.  What level fighter was Gilgamesh? Fafhrd? Conan?  What class and level was Merlin?  Gandalf? Ged?

 The problem, of course, is the way that Drifter Bob framed his question, IMHO.

 While I mentioned that the system is mutable, it was generally assumed that this would be done by individual DMs and players.  In a campaign setting, providing a DM with alternate rules is wonderful.  But in a published module, which is meant to save a DM time, it's appreciated if you follow the RAW, and leave the choice to the individual DM...OR highlight any deviance from the rules, so they can make an informed decision.  WotC has published plenty of material where they have altered creatures up and down, as befits the individual situation.

 Creating an encoutner against a wounded and dying owlbear, for example, where it only has half of it's normal hit points, is a different EL than a fully healthy one.  Giving the imp a bonus as opposed to changing his spent skill points?  That's a judgement call, based on the situation.  If he's luring them over a pit-trap, you need to consider that a higher bluff is going to be a more dangerous ability...but that you should probably modify the EL, instead.  The fact that there are several ways to address an issue within the system is a strength, IMHO.

 Ultimately, this is an RPG.  It is a social game, based around a rule set whose original version was designed to facilitate killing monsters and taking their stuff.  It has evolved far beyond that, of course, and can accomdate a wide variety of playstyles.  Since it is a purely mental exercise, the rules are often up to interpetation, and much of it is discussed, sometimes heatedly, on the rules forum.  The popularity and existence of the rules forum merely reinforces the vitality and flexibility of the rules, as well as the fact that there are many different interpetations on how to play.  A printed module best serves its audience by hewing close to the rules, to allow those who wish to play the RAW with what they want, and allowing those who tinker to apply their changes against the base assumptions of the existing system.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 19, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> If I put in a skill which isn't listed in the SRD for that particular monster, I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.




I apologize. I usually try to read an entire thread before posting but...8 pages!

Anywho, some ideas...

1. Don't sweat the nitpickers. People are smart enough to ignore those comments when reading reviews.

2. Explicitly state that you know it isn't by the book. Take the wind out of their "obviously hasn't read or understood the rules" complaint.

3. Find some loophole within the system to add it.

4. Make up a new name for the monster. If you don't call it an "Imp", you can't be accused of it being a non-standard imp.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 20, 2004)

Why all the fuss?  The DM, and thus the designer of the module is tantamount to god, so slap on some extra skill points.  If the players bitch, call 'em on metagaming, dock them exp and move on.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 20, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> The issue that I think Drifter Bob intended to be his central point, and the Bluff question as an example of it, was that he percieves D&D having gone down a road to railroading everything to adhere to the rules, and that the rules are ill-suited to the task.  In short, he is worried that the 'tail is wagging the dog', which is to say that the story is being driven by the tenets of the rules, and thus stifling creativity.  Further, he believes that this mentality will lead to D&D becoming unpopular once more, and the game and hobby as a whole will suffer.



Well said, WizarDru.

We have a number of very different, yet related, issues:

_I have an imp, and I want him to lie, but imps don't have ranks in Bluff. What do I do?_

There are a number of options: rule-zero that the imp simply has those ranks or has some arbitrary bonus, trade out ranks from another skill the imp won't need, give the imp a magic item, make the imp a quasit, give the imp a few levels of Rogue, etc.

_There's a creature/character I'd like to use, but I want to add a skill/feat/spell/special ability -- without breaking the rules, and without going through any rigamarole._

Of course, there is no way to _just_ add a skill/feat/spell/special ability within the class-level system -- although you can always arbitrarily "rule zero" whatever you'd like.  What you typically can do, within the system, is to swap something else out, but if you don't want to do that, there's no way to _just_ add that one skill/feat/spell/special ability (and increase the character's CR by less than one full point) -- which is something people do _all the time_ in point-based systems.

Because D&D classes always grant hit dice, improved BAB and Saves, etc., "simply" adding a level or two of, say, Rogue means adjusting almost every number in the creature/character's stat block.  If you don't like fiddling with the numbers for the sake of fiddling with the numbers, that's a hassle.  (Granted, we're at a site full of people who do like fiddling with the numbers.)

_Back when everything wasn't in the rules, I could just make common-sense judgments.  Now everything's quantified -- and has to be quantified within the rules, ahead of time._

This, I think, is the core of Drifter Bob's complaint.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 20, 2004)

*Kriegspiel*

In my previous post, I mentioned what I thought was Drifter Bob's core complaint:

_Back when everything wasn't in the rules, I could just make common-sense judgments.  Now everything's quantified -- and has to be quantified within the rules, ahead of time._

This isn't a new problem.  In fact, the Prussian military faced a similar problem with its Kriegspiel (lit. _wargame_) in the 19th century:
The nineteenth-century Prussian game started life with a rigid structure and copious formal rules. The two sides were each placed in a separate room with a model of the terrain or a map. The umpires moved from one room to another collecting orders from the players, and then retired to a third room to consult the rules and find the results of combat. A great deal of their time was consumed in leafing through voluminous sets of rules, consulting tables and giving rulings on fine legal points. By about 1870, however, this rigid system was starting to be thought rather clumsy and time-consuming. Quite apart from the many defects and loopholes in the rules themselves, it reduced the umpires, who were often very senior officers, to the role of mere clerks and office boys. clearly, such a state of affairs was intolerable.

It was General von verdy du Vernois who finally broke with this system, and abolished the rule book altogether. His approach to the wargame was the free kriegspiel, in which the umpire had a totally free hand to decide the result of moves and combats. He did not do this according to any set of written rules, but just on his own military knowledge and experience. He would collect the players' moves in exactly the same way as before; but he would then simply give a considered professional opinion on the outcome. This speeded up the game a very great deal, and ensured that there was always a well thought-out reason for everything that happened. This was a great help in the debrief after the game, and it allowed players to learn by their mistakes very quickly.​(This ties in with the "I hate math" thread.)


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 20, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> _Back when everything wasn't in the rules, I could just make common-sense judgments.  Now everything's quantified -- and has to be quantified within the rules, ahead of time._




The problem is 'common-sense'.  Those Prussian officers spent 20+ years, full-time, gaining the common-sense necessary to judge military matters.  

I'm not entirely sure if I trust the 'common-sense' of the vast majority of DMs out there.  Heck, I'm not even sure I trust _my_ common-sense.  Especially when we're dealing with a game that includes obviously 'un-real' elements.


----------



## cdsaint (Jul 20, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> _There's a creature/character I'd like to use, but I want to add a skill/feat/spell/special ability -- without breaking the rules, and without going through any rigamarole._
> 
> (Granted, we're at a site full of people who do like fiddling with the numbers.)
> 
> _Back when everything wasn't in the rules, I could just make common-sense judgments.  Now everything's quantified -- and has to be quantified within the rules, ahead of time._




  I suppose I can understand this point, though I am one of those who likes fiddling with the numbers. Not only don't I mind advancing creatures by the rules, but actually enjoy said fiddling. If you don't want to change the imp by swapping skills, adding intelligence, or one of the other methods then I guess you could just re-name it a "Lying Imp" or "Bluff Imp" or something and just give it a racial +4 modifier to bluff. This isn't a horrendous flouting of the rules, and at least you took the time to note that your non standard Imp is non standard. 

  I guess what is difficult for me to understand is why it is such a bad thing that there are rules for advancing creatures that are pretty comprehensive and allow a DM to be able to advance creatures in a fairly predictable way. one of the reasons I stopped playing AD&D was the fact that most creature advancement in AD&D was GM whim as much as anything else. Also left to GM whim and interpretation was almost anything that happened outside of combat. Depending on the GM's style lying to an NPC was almost entirely a matter of whether he /she wanted you to succeed or not. If the new 3x ruleset were not as comprehensive as it is I would never have come back to D&D at all. So to me, the reliance on the rules, as a DM or a PC is a positive.

  I suppose that to some people I'll always be a rules lawyer, but my players know (and appriciate the fact) that if the creature they're fighting has 100 hit points, or the NPC they're trying to lie to has a +20 sense motive, that those numbers are arrived at by the same basic methods that they have to use when creating their characters. As a player (or DM) that just makes things seem more part of a coherent whole to me. 

Chris


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 20, 2004)

cdsaint said:
			
		

> I guess what is difficult for me to understand is why it is such a bad thing that there are rules for advancing creatures that are pretty comprehensive and allow a DM to be able to advance creatures in a fairly predictable way.



I don't think anyone has said that it's a bad thing to have clear rules for advancing creatures, just that the rules could be more flexible and require less work.

For instance, if the Expert NPC class didn't grant hit dice, improved BAB and Saves, etc., you could add Expert levels without changing a creature's combat stats.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jul 20, 2004)

I think my major problem with requiring this level of conformity to the rules is that it takes far too much time.  The week (as a guess) that DB would need to make sure that every tiny thing in his adventure conforms to the rules would be better spent adding new areas to the adventure, refining the plot, looking for logical errors, or fleshing out the NPCs.  These are things that would actually contribute to my enjoyment of the game, as opposed to following game conventions for monster generation, which I could not possibly care less about.


----------



## TOWER (Jul 20, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone has said that it's a bad thing to have clear rules for advancing creatures, just that the rules could be more flexible and require less work.
> 
> For instance, if the Expert NPC class didn't grant hit dice, improved BAB and Saves, etc., you could add Expert levels without changing a creature's combat stats.




And that's what templates can do.

New template "Lair Lair, Pants on Fire"
All stats same as base creature.
Skills: Bluff is always a class skill.  Creature gains a +4 racial bonus to Bluff checks (unless the creature already has a racial bonus to Bluff checks in which case use which ever is higher).
Feats: Creature gains Skill Focus (Bluff) as a bonus feat.
CR: +1/2.  If the creature has a CR of 1 or more then this template does increase its CR in a major way.

Or something similar.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 20, 2004)

templates are the way of the future....


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 20, 2004)

And that's where the complaint really really rings hollow. To change four skill points on an imp requires maybe 10 seconds of thought and 10 seconds of typing then another 20-30 seconds of copy/paste or delete to get the SRD layout into proper statblock format.

If Drifter Bob were talking about statting out a 12th level wizard and her hell-hound familiar or advancing a CR 7 chimera to challenge a 14th level party, I'd be sympathetic. Those things take a significant amount of time. However, he's not complaining about that. He's complaining about the supposed difficulty of adding some bluff skill to an imp--something that is not difficult or time-consuming at all.

I've written a number of modules using the 3.x ruleset and generally it's creating the statblock in the first place that takes time, not moving a couple skill points from here to there. The level of conformity to the rules that's being discussed really doesn't take much more time than ignoring them.



			
				Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> I think my major problem with requiring this level of conformity to the rules is that it takes far too much time.  The week (as a guess) that DB would need to make sure that every tiny thing in his adventure conforms to the rules would be better spent adding new areas to the adventure, refining the plot, looking for logical errors, or fleshing out the NPCs.  These are things that would actually contribute to my enjoyment of the game, as opposed to following game conventions for monster generation, which I could not possibly care less about.


----------



## d4 (Jul 20, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> He's complaining about the supposed difficulty of adding some bluff skill to an imp--something that is not difficult or time-consuming at all.



actually, it sounded more like he was complaining about readers complaining that he added some bluff skill to an imp.

i don't think that's anything to worry about. i can't imagine too many people who'd get worked up by that... i think his belief that hordes of d20 fanboys will rain abuse and criticism on him for modifying a stat block is totally unfounded.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 20, 2004)

Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> I think my major problem with requiring this level of conformity to the rules is that it takes far too much time. The week (as a guess) that DB would need to make sure that every tiny thing in his adventure conforms to the rules would be better spent adding new areas to the adventure, refining the plot, looking for logical errors, or fleshing out the NPCs. These are things that would actually contribute to my enjoyment of the game, as opposed to following game conventions for monster generation, which I could not possibly care less about.



 I find it odd that you view looking for logical errors, fleshing out NPCs and refining the plot to be wholly separate from making sure the module is correct with the RAW.  Is it time-consuming?  Certainly....but so is making sure that when you gave that Imp 4 levels of bluff, that you didn't create inconsistincies elsewhere.  All the details are intimately tied together for module creation, and this is what critical readers, an editor and playtesters are for.  Without their efforts, you get results like the first "Rappan Athuk" module, with undead that have an incorrect hit die and a Con score and bonus.  Too many errors can lead to an undermining of confidence in the module.  If there are too many factual errors, then I wonder about other aspects of the module.

 It should also go without saying that different folks enjoy different aspects of the game, of course, and writing to please the greatest amount of readers is a good thing.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 20, 2004)

Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> I think my major problem with requiring this level of conformity to the rules is that it takes far too much time.



Darn right. And that time better be taken if the author wishes for me to buy the product. (Thankfully, as others have noted, that wasn't really the original poster's complaint.)


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 20, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Darn right. And that time better be taken if the author wishes for me to buy the product. (Thankfully, as others have noted, that wasn't really the original poster's complaint.)



Certainly, _if_ that time has to be taken at all, the author should take the time -- but do we want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters?  (Let's assume we're talking about "statting out a 12th level wizard and her hell-hound familiar or advancing a CR 7 chimera to challenge a 14th level party," rather than swapping out one of an imp's skills for Bluff.)


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 20, 2004)

*Drifter Bob has no dignity*

Alright, I know I promised to stay out of the thread, but it keeps going on and on, and people are debating what I meant.  I couldn't resist the probably unwise temptation to add a few more comments.



			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> Rule 0 is a perfectly viable option. However, it is not an option at all when money becomes involved (ie. purchasing a product). Nor should it be.






> I'm not entirely sure if I trust the 'common-sense' of the vast majority of DMs out there.




But why isn't rule 0 (or other flexible rules) still viable when "money is involved"?  Can't we give the DM / writer just a little credit to use their common sense?  My point is this, of course you should adhere to the rules.  In a large document though, you are going to inevitably have a number of gray areas.  Maybe this bluff thing wasn't a good example.  I cited it simply because it was one small case that I wasn't sure of a legal way to handle.  A small one I could mention without giving away a huge amount of the campaign, but just one of many, many.

With a bit of research, I could have found one or more of the many excellent solutions which have been suggested here, or some other solution.  But thats not a guarantee it won't make somebody irate. Maybe even a lot of people.

My question is, why can't we give DM's and writers a bit more leeway so that they can make a FEW rational judgements within the spirit of the rules without getting  pounced on.  (If they violate the spirit of the rules, or if they really make gross violations of the letter of it, pounce away)



			
				numion said:
			
		

> Just a little addition: you do realize that WotC itself has kinda "OKed" modifying stat blocks? The SRD quote proves this, but even the WotC adventures have "Monster X, as MM page YY except: blah blah". I didn't really understand why that's not good enough for Drifter Bob, because it really is for everyone else, despite him claiming otherwise.




Of course that is good enough for me.  I think you might find that many other people would not accept that though.  Try running a poll.  

Basically what I was frankly hoping to encourage by my post was for this exact level of flexibility to perhaps be made a bit more clear so that it is better understood by more of the gaming community.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Back when everything wasn't in the rules, I could just make common-sense judgments. Now everything's quantified -- and has to be quantified within the rules, ahead of time.
> 
> This, I think, is the core of Drifter Bob's complaint.




That is a big part of it.  The other part has to do with time, and the fact that in my opinion, you can run into many, many cases where there are multiple possible interpretations on how to handle something, and you will get attacked no matter what decision you make.  This is much more prevalent with crunchier projects like sourcebooks, when creating new monsters, classes, spells, items etc.



> This isn't a new problem. In fact, the Prussian military faced a similar problem with its Kriegspiel (lit. wargame) in the 19th century:




fascinating example



			
				mishihari lord said:
			
		

> I think my major problem with requiring this level of conformity to the rules is that it takes far too much time.




Yes, the problem can be boiled down to too much time, ultimately, because if I had time to float every single minor rules issue I run into in an excellent forum like ENworld I could get the answers I need, but that would add months to the process.  By that time a new version of D&D will come out and I'll have to start all over again!

Meanwhile, if I make what seems to be reasonable judgement call, I can expect to get massacred.  Read 5 random reviews of D20 products at RPG.net and see if you can see what I mean.



			
				elder-basilisk said:
			
		

> If Drifter Bob were talking about statting out a 12th level wizard and her hell-hound familiar or advancing a CR...




Needless to say, there are dozens and dozens of higher level NPC's and monsters in the campaign in question.  I think I mentioned there are 37 major NPC's in the town alone.  There are two major dungeons and 3 large wilderness adventures full of monsters, and a couple of score of these little mini adventures such as with the imp, not to mention random encounters.  

I thought that was clear.

Somebody else also mentioned spending time playtesting.  This campaign was playtested, for a year.  It went fantastically well, it was one of the most successful campaigns I have ever run, something of a legend now among my friends.  In fact it was because it went so well that I decided it might be a good idea to try to share it with the d20 community.

Here is some math:
I probably spent 60-80 hours writing the original adventure.  I later spent another 40 hours or so fleshing it out with an eye toward selling it: double checking logic, cleaning up the prose, improving maps, writing more hand outs and some read aloud text.  

A few months later, once that looked like I had a serious opportunity to sell it, I started working on it again to make sure it was rules compliant enough for the D20 market.  That has so far taken me about four hours a day almost every day for a month, well over 100 hours, and I'm not even 1/3 of the way through.

I would say this is a typical ratio for a D20 adventure, at least 60-70% of the time spent is on rules cross checking.  For a sourcebook with more mechanics that would go up to as much as 90%.  I always felt that was why the WOTC class sourcebooks I had bought like their druid ranger book or their rogue book seemed so dry.

Adventures I've written for some other modules require as little as 5-10% of the time working on rules compliance.  The audience seems a lot more forgiving, of course most of the independent RPG's I've written for are rules lite so that does make sense, but I also wrote at least one very crunchy suppliment for a rules heavy system with the same result.  That doesn't mean I don't like D&D!!!!!  I'm just pointing out the effect that I was seeing.  

I would also be interested to hear what other writers consider the ratio to be for them.

DB

P.S. I really like the template idea


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 21, 2004)

> but do we want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters?



From raw ideas last night I created three brand new monsters (a flying evil eye, a wicked plant, and a violent fey), two towns, and four feats.

In 2e, without these rules, I was able to spend an entire night on one monster.

The rules make things more expedient and more consistent, and that's worth whatever initial investment in time is needed to be able to tweak the rules.



> Can't we give the DM / writer just a little credit to use their common sense?...My question is, why can't we give DM's and writers a bit more leeway so that they can make a FEW rational judgements within the spirit of the rules without getting pounced on.



No, we can't. Countless products have *proved* to the d20 audience that countless authors lack common sense. That d20 authors are not some special breed -- just DM's who happen to be published. Neither are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. They must earn trust. They must show that they're worthwhile. Obeying the RAW is one way in which they do that.



> But thats not a guarantee it won't make somebody irate. Maybe even a lot of people.



So? Nothing pleases everyone. People have ripped into the Beatles. People have calle Shakespeare cliche. People _revile_ James Joyce. Even assuming you are the d20 equivalent, people will not like it. Maybe even a lot of people. Publish what you feel you need to, not what you feel will please people.



> Basically what I was frankly hoping to encourage by my post was for this exact level of flexibility to perhaps be made a bit more clear so that it is better understood by more of the gaming community....Meanwhile, if I make what seems to be reasonable judgement call, I can expect to get massacred. Read 5 random reviews of D20 products at RPG.net and see if you can see what I mean.



You're taking nit-picky reviews far too seriously. Do you think Picasso took to heart every art critic that said "I don't know what this is supposed to mean, you pretentious poop-chute"?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> But why isn't rule 0 (or other flexible rules) still viable when "money is involved"?  Can't we give the DM / writer just a little credit to use their common sense?  My point is this, of course you should adhere to the rules.  In a large document though, you are going to inevitably have a number of gray areas.  Maybe this bluff thing wasn't a good example.  I cited it simply because it was one small case that I wasn't sure of a legal way to handle.  A small one I could mention without giving away a huge amount of the campaign, but just one of many, many.




I'm not quite sure how you get "many, many" such gray areas. In the stuff I've written (which is admittedly not perfect), I only came across a couple of "gray areas" in the rules and those were really places where I hadn't looked up the rule in question.

Anyway, IMO, DM's can be forgiven for not knowing the rules because their job is to create a game that is fun for both them and the players. I am a lot less forgiving toward authors of published material--especially non-free material--because their job is not simply to create a story. Their job is to create a story and NPCs and challenges etc that fit within the framework of the rules set and setting for which they are writing. They look up the rules so that DMs don't have to. Not knowing what kind of things you think to be gray areas, I'm not sure what to use as an example but if, for instance, you put some non-standard environmental effects rules in a module, they'd better be called out as non-standard alternate rules. Otherwise, the players who end up playing the mod when I run it are going to say, "how come this cold weather is so different from the last cold weather that got the same (or perhaps a worse) description?" If the core rules have them saving every hour and your rules have them making saves every ten minutes, they will notice the difference.



> My question is, why can't we give DM's and writers a bit more leeway so that they can make a FEW rational judgements within the spirit of the rules without getting  pounced on.  (If they violate the spirit of the rules, or if they really make gross violations of the letter of it, pounce away)




Well, see above for answers to that. To use the example of a violation of the letter of the rules (but perhaps not the spirit), let's take the mummy fighter I cited earlier. He had imp unarmed strike and the author maintained that this let him make iterative slam attacks. (It doesn't really work that way). All well and good. Now, that's a fairly obscure section of the rules so imagine a DM who takes his cue from that module interpreting the following situation:

"Cool, I cast polymorph on the monk and turn him into a troll. He's going to flurry and make some claw attacks--that should be +14(claw 1)/+14 (flurry)/+14(claw 2)/+9 (claw 1 iterative) with a bite at +9 right?" By the standard set by the mummy fighter (natural attacks=unarmed strikes) it would be.

To use another example, let's take a grayer area: do attack bonusses and penalties apply to grapple checks? If the PC doesn't get to apply bless to grapple checks, it's not a big deal. On the other hand, if the PC figures out that "attack penalties don't apply to grapple checks" means that he can power attack for full without reducing his grapple check (b/c attack penalties don't apply) but still get the bonus damage (b/c grapple damage=unarmed strike damage which is affected by power attack) then it does make a big difference.

It's quite easy for an incorrect interpretation that is minor in one instance to become massively significant in another. Thus, it's important for authors to get their rules right and to specifically call out new, optional, or variant rules they use in their adventures. (I would even encourage authors who use significant variant rules to include some kind of appendix: "Running this adventure by the core rules" to help DMs adapt the mod to whatever specific rules variation they happen to be using).



> That is a big part of it.  The other part has to do with time, and the fact that in my opinion, you can run into many, many cases where there are multiple possible interpretations on how to handle something, and you will get attacked no matter what decision you make.  This is much more prevalent with crunchier projects like sourcebooks, when creating new monsters, classes, spells, items etc.




Well, some methods of handling things are better than others. For instance, I don't think anyone will dispute that the 3.5 grappling rules are FAR better than 1e's grappling and overbearing rules. Nor do I think people will debate that 3.x's Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive rules are significantly better than 1/2e's reaction adjustment rules for charisma and are better than simply using charisma and wisdom checks under 3.x rules. It's a part of an author's job to choose the best mechanics to accomplish task resolution in the module. If you pick a poor task resolution system, you will justifiably be excoriated. If you create a new and innovative way to handle a situation that works well and is consistent with the core rules (for instance, creating a new use for the appraise skill or a complex skill check to accompany negotiating over the price of an item) then I would expect that reviewers would make that a point in favor of your writing.


> Needless to say, there are dozens and dozens of higher level NPC's and monsters in the campaign in question.  I think I mentioned there are 37 major NPC's in the town alone.  There are two major dungeons and 3 large wilderness adventures full of monsters, and a couple of score of these little mini adventures such as with the imp, not to mention random encounters.
> 
> I thought that was clear.




It was clear. It's also clear that you were not complaining about the amount of time it takes to make a statblock for a high level spellcaster.

For NPCs I don't expect to have serious interaction with the PCs, something like:
"Ibalan Redsteel: LN Female Dwarf Exp 5"
would be sufficient.
If there's one relevant stat, I would be satisfied with
"Ibalan Redsteel: LN Female Dwarf Exp 5; Craft (Armorsmith) +13 (+15 metal),  Craft (Weaponsmith) +13 (+15 metal)."

Only if the PCs will have significant interaction with the NPC (like they will likely have with the imp or might have with a merchant who is the center of the investigation, or with Col Mustard, Professor Plum, Miss Scarlet, et al in Clue the d20 adventure, or will have with the orc chief in his 10x10 room) do the NPCs need full statblocks.

Full statblocks do take a fair amount of time but that's the price we pay for having a system that knows how long it will take each foe to get out of a Maze, how good they are at wrestling, how hard they can hit (and whether they hit harder when they sacrifice accuracy), and how easy they are to trip, that lets them cast spells, and determines which spells they can cast, that gives them different chances to save against Hold Person, Fireball, and Poison, and that affects them differently with Holy Smite depending upon how often they kick puppies. Personally, I think that time is well worth spending since it's a lot more fun DMing combat in 3.x than it was in 1e or 2e (and, on the opposite end of the scale, it seems a lot more fun than it would be to run Rolemaster).



> Somebody else also mentioned spending time playtesting.  This campaign was playtested, for a year.  It went fantastically well, it was one of the most successful campaigns I have ever run, something of a legend now among my friends.  In fact it was because it went so well that I decided it might be a good idea to try to share it with the d20 community.




FWIW, this is probably not the best method of playtesting. In my experience, it's very different running a module you've written yourself and having it run by someone else. When you run your own module, it's very easy to miss vital missing plot points that you know because you wrote the story and know what's going on but you never told anyone else. It's also easy to present a character somewhat differently than the way you've written him because you have a specific idea of the NPC but haven't communicated it as effectively as  you might otherwise have done.

At least that's what I'm told. The one time I had someone else run a playtest of one of my modules, I was rather shocked at how he ran it and spent a lot of the time thinking "that's not what I wrote!" And it usually wasn't but sometimes it actually was what I'd written and I needed to write something else.



> Here is some math:
> I probably spent 60-80 hours writing the original adventure.  I later spent another 40 hours or so fleshing it out with an eye toward selling it: double checking logic, cleaning up the prose, improving maps, writing more hand outs and some read aloud text.
> 
> A few months later, once that looked like I had a serious opportunity to sell it, I started working on it again to make sure it was rules compliant enough for the D20 market.  That has so far taken me about four hours a day almost every day for a month, well over 100 hours, and I'm not even 1/3 of the way through.




My goodness, what was the original state of the mod then? I'm pretty sure that, if I were to put stuff from my home campaigns into a mod, making it rules compliant wouldn't be that much of an issue. Either the NPCs are already rules compliant (based upon the statblocks I made up for them when prepping for a session), or they just plain don't yet exist because I made them up on the fly. But I'd hardly call statting out Hallbjorn the innkeeper who turned out to be vitally important to the scenario but whom I'd never conceived of before the session and never statted out before writing for publication to be checking for rules compliance.



> I would say this is a typical ratio for a D20 adventure, at least 60-70% of the time spent is on rules cross checking.  For a sourcebook with more mechanics that would go up to as much as 90%.  I always felt that was why the WOTC class sourcebooks I had bought like their druid ranger book or their rogue book seemed so dry.
> 
> Adventures I've written for some other modules require as little as 5-10% of the time working on rules compliance.  The audience seems a lot more forgiving, of course most of the independent RPG's I've written for are rules lite so that does make sense, but I also wrote at least one very crunchy suppliment for a rules heavy system with the same result.  That doesn't mean I don't like D&D!!!!!  I'm just pointing out the effect that I was seeing.
> 
> I would also be interested to hear what other writers consider the ratio to be for them.




I find it somewhat difficult to pin down how much time I've spent crosschecking rules, but I would guess it's something like 5-10% of my writing time. The majority of writing time has been coming up with the story, writing it out, creating and editing statblocks, and then playtesting and negotiating with the editors. 

I like to think I know the rules pretty well though. Maybe people who spend less time with the rules will have more spend more time looking them up.



> P.S. I really like the template idea




I don't think I'd treat the template idea any better in a review than I'd treat just adding skillpoints arbitrarily. (Actually, I'd probably treat it worse because I'd notice a "+4 to bluff" template and I might well miss some added skillpoints--I wouldn't add them up unless I either used the imp as a base for some imp of my own and noticed it had too many skillpoints or noticed several other errors in the statblock and started reverse engineering it). Giving skill bonusses "legally" is not what templates are for. Templates are for representing monsters that are somehow different from the others. Fiendish, Celestial, Fire Elemental, Wood Elemental, Half-Fiend, Half-Dragon, Paragon, Corrupted, etc are templates. Monte Cook's Magical Construct is a template. They represent a specific effect, planar taint, or descent that could be applied to a creature. Monte Cook's template is a mechanic to create golems that function differently depending upon what they look like not just what they're made out of. The hypothetical "deceptive" template doesn't represent anything in game. It's just a method of avoiding switching skill points for bluff skill or switching a feat for skill focus: Bluff. Some mechanics are inappropriate for some goals. The template suggestion is an inappropriate mechanic even if it is "legal."


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The problem can be boiled down to too much time, ultimately, because if I had time to float every single minor rules issue I run into in an excellent forum like ENworld I could get the answers I need, but that would add months to the process.



I guess the solution that you LEARN THE RULES is just completely out of the question, is that it?


			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> If I make what seems to be reasonable judgement call, I can expect to get massacred.



Only if you don't LEARN THE RULES.


			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I would also be interested to hear what other writers consider the ratio to be for them.



Well, since I bothered to LEARN THE RULES my numbers will naturally be quite different from yours. Since I don't have to go to some discussion board to find out that I can swap skill points, it doesn't take me nearly as long.

Good grief.

Yes, it takes a long time to make complex d20 statblocks. If you're not up for it, don't write for d20. There are a number of tools and methods that make it easier, but the fact is that d20 is a reasonably complex system. That doesn't make it better or worse than any other system. That doesn't point up some deep cultural tendency we all need to be alarmed about. It is simply an fact about the rules. Learning the rules and especially the advancement and progression rules is really really really important if you want to do this on a regular basis (never mind professionally).

What I'd like to hear are the companies that refuse to allow any non-SRD open content. I haven't run into such a demand anywhere.

Finally, you've just GOT to stop caring what simple-minded morons think of your work. And by "simple-minded morons" I mean "everyone who doesn't like it." You'll never get anywhere in life if you listen to other people.


----------



## BruceB (Jul 21, 2004)

Ahh, this is a subject I have very strong feelings about.

When I offer someone a book (or PDF or whatever) for sale, I feel that I'm telling them implicitly "This works with the rules for the game I say it's for." You may have all kinds of house rules, but they are _your_ choice, and you as a customer have the right to expect that the commercial stuff works within the standard framework.

There are times when I find d20 writing tricky. It's not my "native language" in the way that a simpler, more purely descriptive system with less quantification is. But that's my problem. You as a customer shouldn't have to worry about whether I'm bothering to pay as much attention as it takes for me to get it right. If it's too much work for me, then I should step down and hand it over to someone else.

I believe very strongly that people who aren't enjoying their gaming work for publication should stop. Now. The pay isn't great. The treatment is often bad. The rewards to be had are the personal joy of creation and the fun of seeing what people do with it, and if it's not a joy and you don't like what people are going to do with it, there's no point to it at all. Go do something else more rewarding.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

BruceB said:
			
		

> if it's not a joy and you don't like what people are going to do with it, there's no point to it at all. Go do something else more rewarding.




I want to be clear about something.  I didn't start this thread to complain about my experiences writing for d20.  I can complain to my friends and my wife.  There is no point in complaining to strangers on a pro-D&D forum.  My intent was to use my situation as an example of what I believe is a systemic problem, in the hopes of improving the situation.  If you don't agree that it's a problem or that my example is valid, or even if you think that I don't make any sense, fine.  This love it or leave it stuff though is really getting a bit tiresome, as are the boycott threats.

Also, incidentally, I do know the rules, quite well.  I bet even Monte Cook has to look one up once in a while.  The point I was making is, when you have to make judements whether a lot of little things like the bluff example, and / or "bigger" calls like when you are introducing a new monster or a new spell or race or class, or just trying to emulate some kind of magical or situational effect that's going on wihch isn't already clearly mapped in the rules, then you really will find yourself on dangerous ground with some folks.  This, in turn, may lead some writers to just skip things, smooth over the corners etc.  

Whether that matters, whether this  is a significant part of the fanbase, who effect writers enough to shape the future of the game (or even at all), that is up for debate, certainly.

I was just pointing out that you can find something which fits in the technical parameters of the rules and probably lies easily within the spirit of the game, and get reacitons like ....



> Some mechanics are inappropriate for some goals. The template suggestion is an inappropriate mechanic even if it is "legal."




I think this is the kind of thing which many writers find especially challenging.  It's not enough to be techincally legal, and within the spirit, you have to follow peoples concepts of the underlying 'philosophy' of the rules, which is much harder to know.

DB

P.S. I will also grant that some areas of the rules have to be dealt with more strictly than others, combat being one excellent example.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 21, 2004)

> The point I was making is, if it's a more significant judement call like if you are introducing a new monster or a new spell or race or class, or just trying to emulate some kind of magical or situational effect that's going on wihch isn't already clearly mapped in the rules, then you really will find yourself on dangerous ground with some people. This, in turn, may lead some writers to just skip things, smooth over the corners etc.



Obnoxious critics are no reason for sloppy rules, IMHO. 



> I was just pointing out that you can find something which fits in the technical parameters of the rules and probably lies easily within the spirit of the game, and get reacitons like ....
> I think this is the kind of thing which many writers find difficult to cope with.



I don't think it should be difficult to deal with, as a writer of more than just d20 material. No matter how kickass an idea may be, there will be people who don't like it -- a significant number of people. You can't please everyone, just yourself. If pleasing yourself doesn't please anyone else, either ignore the attacks, or keep it to yourself. Either way, it's never gonna please everyone else.

If you're happy with just slapping points onto monsters, who cares if Kamikaze Midget isn't? It's your product, it's your vision, if it's important to you, it doesn't matter. If you argue passionately for it, and ardenly believe it to be the best approach, your conviction will win hearts. Or, if it doesn't, you will at least have stuck to your principles. It may not convince everyone -- hell, it may not convince ANYONE. But if you believe in it, the only person it needs to convince is you. And if you don't believe in it that strongly, that refine the idea until you do. You need to stand behind your arguments not because other people need to recognize them and accept them, but because _you_ believe them.

As for the example, simpler is always better. What's easier in this case, introducing a new template, or just changing skill selection and a feat? I'd argue that the template is valid, but it's not the best way to go about it, because it's needlessly complex. Just switch out Dodge for Skill Focus (Bluff), and switch it's Diplomacy points in to Bluff points. *Infinately* easier than introducing a template.

I mean, compare and contrast...a template to make you a good liar is not on the same par as a template that turns you into a frickin' vampire, mang. Meanwhile, switching skill for skill, feat for feat, are definately in the same league.


----------



## BruceB (Jul 21, 2004)

Briefly, then: No, d20 writing is not as a whole getting stupider. Just the opposite, in fact. This year has seen a serious boom in cleverly conceived and artistically implemented work that tunes the raw mechanics to all kinds of interesting specific effects, like Conan and OGL Steampunk and Blood & Fists and a bunch of others. But the thing is that all this particularly neat work is coming from people very comfortable with the basics.

It is no crime to say "I just don't think in those terms." I've passed up at least one d20 project for precisely that reason - I could have slogged through and done an okay job, but it was better handled by someone with fire in the belly for it. Despite your protestations, every time you get specific at all, it's with complaints about the brokenness of the system, the obsessions of the fans, and like that. Everything positive you say is in vague generalities lacking any sort of detail. If this is not the impression you intend, the useful response to people pointing it out is not to berate them, but to provide the detail that's missing. If we saw one-quarter the words about d20 stuff you like and can do well that we've seen in complaints, it would add up to a very different impression. You are not providing substance to match your claimed intent, essentially, while you are providing substance to match your initial tirade.

I presume this is going to get me denounced as well.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

BruceB said:
			
		

> impression. You are not providing substance to match your claimed intent, essentially, while you are providing substance to match your initial tirade.




That would probably be because the "initial tirade" was the point of this thread.  This was not a "things I love about D&D" thread any more than it's about being 'anti D&D'.  You are basically just trying to insist that I don't "love" D&D, which is something I see happen in every single reform oriented thread about D&D.   

If you want to see me saying nicer and more substantial things about D&D, you could start by reading through some of the other threads I have posted to on this very board, or in other places including historical martial arts boards where I have been put down for defending D&D.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You need to stand behind your arguments not because other people need to recognize them and accept them, but because _you_ believe them.
> .




point taken


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

BruceB said:
			
		

> This year has seen a serious boom in cleverly conceived and artistically implemented work that tunes the raw mechanics to all kinds of interesting specific effects, like Conan




Conan was slaughtered in many if not all the reviews I've seen, which no doubt affected sales, and the carreers of the writers...

DB


----------



## S'mon (Jul 21, 2004)

What reviews are those?  The ones I've seen loved it (except for the execrable proofreading).


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> What reviews are those?  The ones I've seen loved it (except for the execrable proofreading).




I was interested in buying this the other day.  Seems like about 2/3rds of the reviews I googled were negative to mixed.  Most of the complaints did seem to center around the editing.

http://consumerinfo.tultur.com/-/1904577695/Conan-Rpg/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1904577695/104-0063603-5356740?_encoding=UTF8

One Rpg.net review gave it a 3 for style and a 5 for substance I think

Not that bad reviews mean it's a bad product!

DB


----------



## hong (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Also, incidentally, I do know the rules, quite well.




But Bob, that's what they ALL say.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> But Bob, that's what they ALL say.




You are right.  Maybe MSB should chime in with his opinion.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

I'm also "not a crook", by theway


----------



## HolyFlame (Jul 21, 2004)

*D20 vs point based systems*

When comparing the rather static race/class/level concept of D20 with point based systems people often seem to forget that the latter's flexibility has its price: Of course, in such a system it would be very easy to improve Drifter Bob's now infamous imp (I probably will buy the module just to see this guy  ) with a few skill points. But it is much, much more difficult to create balanced encounters. In a point based system, if you give an NPC just the skills she needs for a given situation, she will handle that situation much better than a player character with an equal amount of points. So, just judging from points spent the difficulty of an encounter is difficult to estimate. In my experience this leads to a lot of dissatisfying and unfair encounters, plus to a lot of one-trick-pony NPC's which make the world seem less consistent. What's even worse, is that players also have the 'option' of totally screwing up their chars, which makes co-existence of min-maxers with rulebook ignorants much more difficult. In essence, what I'd like to point out is that the obsession with balance Drifter Bob criticized may make RPG life difficult in some respects, but much more easy in others.


----------



## Will (Jul 21, 2004)

On average, I'd say 'rules' are 30% of my time in writing.

This can vary from 80% to 10% or so, depending, of course, on what I'm writing. Modules tend to take a little more, encounter charts... fruk. Encounter charts, I can spend an hour writing 100 words. I hate them with a burning passion, though I like to think I'm pretty good at them (Blood Sea encounter charts are, I think, entirely mine)

I vastly prefer projects where rules stuff is the least of my work. But I also like to invent rules... working on a project of variant classes and 'houserules' thing.

As someone stated, though, I find the amount of time on rules stuff drops with experience. You see it many times, it gets easier. Oh, and automated NPC makers on the internet are a godsend. 

The other truth is that every product will contain a number of errors. The time and speed needed to make a game product simply demand it. People will bitch, people will offer 'hey, let me edit it, jokers!' They can all kiss my heiny. Bruce is very wise, listen to him. He has a lot of experience with writing and writers in this industry, and he's not being facetious with 'if you don't like it, do something else.' If you are in the industry for any length of time, you will realize that a lot of people become very very very bitter. He's actually trying to be helpful.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I was interested in buying this the other day. Seems like about 2/3rds of the reviews I googled were negative to mixed. Most of the complaints did seem to center around the editing.



  No offense, Bob, but your google fu is weak.

  Here's what the ENWorld Reviewers thought: 2 averages (3), 1 Good (4) and 2 Superbs (5).

  On RPG.net, it was given a 3|5, 4|3 and a 2|4.  Or an average of 3 on Style and 4 on Substance.

Amazon's reviewers, a notorious lot known for posting self-promoting and intentionally sabotaging reviews, still managed to give it an average of 3.5 stars.

  The Dark Spiral's users gave it an average of 3.67.
Silven Crossroad's reviewer gave it good to high marks everywhere except the editing.


 If anything though, that should drive home the point that weak editing and glazing over rules material is a weak spot in a product that will be considered when weighing it's quality. Minor nitpicks over small rules mistakes can be ignored, but if you place rules review and editing as the low man on the totem pole, it will come back to haunt you, in many cases.  I don't frankly care much about minor mistakes, misapplied skill points or even a small typo hither and thither.  I've helped edit large manuscripts, and even on 3rd and 4th passes, you see things you missed on previous runs.  It happens.  I don't think anyone is implying that a minor mistake like that will derail a good supplement.  Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is riddled with mistakes and typos in the stat-blocks...but you don't notice that in any of the reviews.  As long as the effort is made, and the mistakes are minor ones, it's less of an issue...and I think you need to have the courage of your convictions to do the product as you see fit.  But be prepared to fight for your work, be it with an editor, reviewer or your own inner voice.


----------



## Zelgadas (Jul 21, 2004)

Mishihari Lord II said:
			
		

> DB:  When I read your initial post, I thought you were way off base.  After reading the rest of the thread, I stand corrected.  While using a circumstance bonus or adding a level of rogue would work, I see no real reason to make the extra effort.  As a DM, if I want a nonstandard monster, I simply shange its characteristics.  If this were a wargame, me against my players, this would be cheating.  Since it's a roleplaying game, and I am just facilitating everyone's enjoyment by using something a little different than what they've seen before, I am not cheating.  I see no reason why a module could not use the same tactic.  The argument could be made that this will unfairly throw off the players' tactics since they have a right to expect some consitency between the imps they encounter.  However, in this case they don't know they're facing an imp, and more tellingly, adding class levels or switching skill points would also change the imp unexpectedly and is allowed by the rules.  The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.




I agree with this assessment, to a point.  As the DM, it's your perogative to fudge the rules in order to facilitate good gameplay.  However, I'd argue that, in a published adventure, simply fudging the rules is somewhat lazy.  At least, that's how I'd see it, if I were reading the adventure.  I mean, if I read an adventure that said, "this imp has a +8 to bluff because I say so", or something to that effect, I'd probably stop reading the adventure.  I have certain expectations of published products, and one of those expectations is that they adhere to the rules.  If they just make stuff up, and add bonuses for no apparent reason, it makes everything seem sort of arbitrary.  It seems sort of like railroading.  I have no problem with DMs fudging the rules on the fly in order to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.  However, I do have a problem with published products giving arbitrary modifiers with no explanation.  If it's a circumstance modifier to Bluff, and it's explained that way with a good reason, then fine.  But if it's just a +x to Bluff, then no.  A DM should always be able to tell where elements of a published adventure are coming from, and fudging the rules makes this difficult.  

That said, there are plenty of viable ways to customize your imp listed above.


----------



## Berandor (Jul 21, 2004)

Wow. I know I fell for it, too, but I just have to say:
Best.
Troll.
Ever.



Now, in case you're not a troll, and just to feed the flames a little more, here's why I think you are: Because you started with a rantish notion and a bad example, and have not yet moved your stance one iota either way. YOu disregard all and any helpful/friendly advice with gems like these:



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> That would probably be because the "initial tirade" was the point of this thread.  This was not a "things I love about D&D" thread any more than it's about being 'anti D&D'.  You are basically just trying to insist that I don't "love" D&D, which is something I see happen in every single reform oriented thread about D&D.
> 
> If you want to see me saying nicer and more substantial things about D&D, you could start by reading through some of the other threads I have posted to on this very board, or in other places including historical martial arts boards where I have been put down for defending D&D.



And if you don't know why I like this quote so much, go read what I wrote on  a Buffy board.

Now, this was your original question


			
				DrifterBob said:
			
		

> First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)



Let's pretend you're serious.


> First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head



This relates to the notion that people will rip your head off for giving the imp 4 skill points in bluff. Basically, here you say that you doubt yourself for that notion (and the difficulty of changing the stat block itself), a doubt that is quickly thrown overboard in your later statements.


> (since I know nobody will agree with me)



 Which has already been disproved, since people agreed with you in virtually every thing oyu said. There were people agreeing about DM fiat, people agreeing about the problem with changing rules and vicious reviews, people agreeing about a rules bias in D&D - name it, there have been agreements.


> second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)



Which has been done almost countless times.



			
				DrifterBob said:
			
		

> Of course that is good enough for me. I think you might find that many other people would not accept that though. Try running a poll.



Why don't you try running one? Oh, because you *know* the results already. Well, judging from this thread alone, there would be a small minority not accepting any reasonable change. But why look at actual results, eh?


			
				DrifterBob said:
			
		

> Also, incidentally, I do know the rules, quite well.



Well, if you do, why didn't you think of any one way to improve the imp's bluff skill? I mean, you don't have to know all possibilities, but one?


			
				DrifterBob said:
			
		

> The point I was making is, when you have to make judements whether a lot of little things like the bluff example, and / or "bigger" calls like when you are introducing a new monster or a new spell or race or class, or just trying to emulate some kind of magical or situational effect that's going on wihch isn't already clearly mapped in the rules, then you really will find yourself on dangerous ground with some folks.



Well, this has really to be addressed in three ways:
1. You cannot satisfy everbody, always. Nobody can. You have to learn whom to listen to and who to disregard. Conquer your fears, Carpe D&D! 

2. The majority in this thread alone has stated that it wouldn't be concerned with an imp with bluff or similar small changes.

and most importantly 3. this is in no way a rules- or D&D-related issue. Note how some people have questioned your imp's action in the adventure proposal? The fact is, when you publish something (no matter whether it is free or not), people are going to critisize it. "Players should be rewarded for discovering the ruse, not penalized", "why should only Arthur be able to pull the sword out", "AD&D adventures were railroading examples", etc. 
This has nothing to do with D&D or the rules.

But you know this, I am sure, since it has been said already numerous times. I just wanted to restate that because you've earned it with your relentlessness.

Oh, and Finally


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Finally, you've just GOT to stop caring what simple-minded morons think of your work. And by "simple-minded morons" I mean "everyone who doesn't like it." You'll never get anywhere in life if you listen to other people.



...says the Ceramic DM contest judge


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Oh, and automated NPC makers on the internet are a godsend.




I have been searching for something like that without success.  I tried role playing master which actually caused fairly serious errors (incorrect armor class) and PCgen which I use but find way to clunky and inflexible.  Could you reccomend something specific?

DB


----------



## Crothian (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Conan was slaughtered in many if not all the reviews I've seen, which no doubt affected sales, and the carreers of the writers...
> 
> DB




Conan has been a huge success dispite the problems it had.


----------



## apsuman (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The point though is really this:
> 
> A) do the rules as currently written encourage this tendancy to try to make everything fit into the rules even when it doesn't
> 
> ...




You gave the Bluff as an example, then several people pointed out possible solutions and then some other bodies pointed out that the bluff was just an example of a larger problem.

I will come on out and say it: I think the rules as written allow for *SOOOOOOO* much creativity that I insist *when possible* that the author stick to the rules.

So, can you (or anyone) give an example of how the system fails?  Another, better, example perhaps?

DB, it sounds to me that you did a real bang up job creating an adventure campaign.  It also sounds to me that you need a rules geek to edit your work and offer up suggestions within the rules to do what you want to do.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 21, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Certainly, _if_ that time has to be taken at all, the author should take the time -- but do we want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters?



You responded to one of my posts with the above, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Simply put - it's too late. We already do have that game system... now aspiring authors must live within its confines if they hope to sell products. Further, based on the clear popularity of d20, it looks like "we" _do_ "want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters" - because people have decided that getting the detail is worth the time. 'High detail' and 'less time' really are mutually exclusive options, I'm afraid. And for fans of d20, the people have chosen. 

Thus, the above quote isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> My question is, why can't we give DM's and writers a bit more leeway so that they can make a FEW rational judgements within the spirit of the rules without getting  pounced on.  (If they violate the spirit of the rules, or if they really make gross violations of the letter of it, pounce away)




It's not a question of giving the DMs the leeway. They already have it and will make plenty of judgements in the spirit of if not always the letter of the rules. But they're doing it for their own personal games and not putting it out as a general offering for all groups to consider and buy. I may be able to write a letter in "family code" with all sorts of inside references that family members might get. But that doesn't mean I should write in that style for general publication and expect good reviews.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Somebody else also mentioned spending time playtesting.  This campaign was playtested, for a year.  It went fantastically well, it was one of the most successful campaigns I have ever run, something of a legend now among my friends.  In fact it was because it went so well that I decided it might be a good idea to try to share it with the d20 community.




This has been pointed out before, but this is definitely not the best way to play test for publication. You should have another DM run it based on what you've written. That's the real acid test of your ability to write an adventure, whether someone can take your text and implement it successfully. 



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> A few months later, once that looked like I had a serious opportunity to sell it, I started working on it again to make sure it was rules compliant enough for the D20 market.  That has so far taken me about four hours a day almost every day for a month, well over 100 hours, and I'm not even 1/3 of the way through.
> 
> I would say this is a typical ratio for a D20 adventure, at least 60-70% of the time spent is on rules cross checking.  For a sourcebook with more mechanics that would go up to as much as 90%.  I always felt that was why the WOTC class sourcebooks I had bought like their druid ranger book or their rogue book seemed so dry.
> 
> ...




It doesn't really surprise me that a substantial amount of time is spent in careful editing. That's often what good quality control takes (it sure does in the software industry where I work). But if you were spending as little as 5-10% of the time on other modules you've written, you obviously weren't writing for Hero. Hero is notoriously more nit-picky than D&D. Or you're looking back on things through the filter of nostalgia since I doubt you have really hard data on time spent compared to now.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> But why isn't rule 0 (or other flexible rules) still viable when "money is involved"?  Can't we give the DM / writer just a little credit to use their common sense?  My point is this, of course you should adhere to the rules.



Well good, then our problem is solved.

My point was that it isn't viable to use Rule 0 when there is a rule already in place to cover a situation when "money is involved", for the many reasons already given in this thread. When people spend their money on a product, they have expectations that the product is going to conform with the rules system it says it's written for. When money is involved, it's all about expectations, and the fulfillment of those expectations.


> In a large document though, you are going to inevitably have a number of gray areas.  Maybe this bluff thing wasn't a good example.



It wasn't.


> My question is, why can't we give DM's and writers a bit more leeway so that they can make a FEW rational judgements within the spirit of the rules without getting  pounced on.  (If they violate the spirit of the rules, or if they really make gross violations of the letter of it, pounce away)



I'm not sure what you're talking about. To be honest - I really do think it's _you_ and your perceptions that are getting in the way, here. I have seen no evidence of anyone not allowing DMs and writers "leeway so that they can make a FEW rational judgements within the spirit of the rules without getting  pounced on". 

If it's a product for money, you follow the rules to meet the expectations of the consumer. Period. If the rules are there, use 'em. If not, then you really do get all the leeway in the world to come up with something new (heck, all those d20 sourcebooks out there _are doing just that_).


> But thats not a guarantee it won't make somebody irate.



Oh, for crying out loud - are back to this again? I thought I made it clear before (and others have posted the same thing), but it looks like you missed it all.

Where do you get off thinking that there is some sort of "guarantee" that people won't complain? Face it - someone, somewhere, is going to complain about something. This problem _has nothing to do with d20, D&D, or gaming in general. Nothing at all. It's human nature, and it's just going to happen. Therefore, that complaint is neither relevant nor valuable to this discussion.



			Meanwhile, if I make what seems to be reasonable judgement call, I can expect to get massacred.  Read 5 random reviews of D20 products at RPG.net and see if you can see what I mean.
		
Click to expand...


Did so. Don't see what you're talking about. You need to be very VERY clear here if you want to adequately get your point across. What, specifically, is considered a "reasonable judgement call" that one can "expect to get massacred" for? Is it working outside of the rules when you can work within them and achieve the same result? Not sure if that's can be considered "reasonable" when it comes to a paid-for product...

I really want to understand what you're trying to say, and what this systemic failing is, becasue this subject is fascinating. But it looks like it's pretty hard to articulate because I'm still not entirely following you._


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> If you don't agree that it's a problem or that my example is valid, or even if you think that I don't make any sense, fine.



You have failed to demonstrate (or indeed offer any evidence at all or otherwise convince anyone) that it's a problem. It's not a problem.

Your example only proves that you don't know the rules very well. It is not a valid example of the problem you have failed to convince anyone exists.

You don't make sense because you insist that a thread called "d20 philosophy cramping my style" wasn't started in order to complain about d20.


----------



## BruceB (Jul 21, 2004)

I'm going to engage in a little self-promotion while providing an example. 

My first independent d20 project, Monstrous Advanced Classes: The Vampire, is now on sale at RPG Now. I took the vampire template and reworked it into a d20M advanced class with a mess of options for customizing the mix of qualities. I had knowledgeable friends look it over, and made several modifications - I removed "enthralled" in a description of the effects of vampiric domination, for instance, since "enthralled" has a technical meaning elsewhere, and I corrected a glitch in the BAB progression. (I repeated at 4 rather than 3 and multiples of 3, which is the correct thing for a combat-y class.) And so forth and so on.

None of these are big changes. None of them would like matter very much at all in play. Likely, few readers would have twigged to problems with any of them. But the fact that the writeup is that much more compliant means that a GM who makes individual modifications won't get nailed by the interaction of GM preference with not-quite-standard rules. I've stumbled on that myself while running games, and hate it. I see this as, essentially, playing fair with the customer: someone who buys my product will get (I hope) no undeclared surprises. Where I made a specific change, like having vampires default to being susceptible to mind-affecting effects (so that the immunity to it is an option, and so that hypothetical vampire PCs are vulnerable to to the stuff), I've declared it as clearly as I could. As a customer myself, this kind of thing is important to my confidence in a product, and I like to give folks credit for being as sensibly concerned as I am.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I have been searching for something like that without success. I tried role playing master which actually caused fairly serious errors (incorrect armor class) and PCgen which I use but find way to clunky and inflexible. Could you reccomend something specific?



 For Free: Andragor's 3.5 version of Jamis Buck's NPC Generator  - this is the standard against which all others are judged.  Jamis was the first and many would argue, the best.

 Also for Free: Redblade's 3.5 NPC Generator.

 Also Also Free: An Excel-based character sheet from Jon & The Burgher.

 Also Also Also Free: Shannon Greene's outstanding updates to Hero Forge, an excel based character generator originally created by Lone Paladin.

 And finally, my personal favorite NOT-free tool for PC, NPC and monster generation: DM Genie.  Updated often, it's an all around DM tool par excellence.  Combat tracking is why I bought it.  Monster generation and spell references just made me happy-happy.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 21, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Certainly, if that time has to be taken at all, the author should take the time -- but do we want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters?





			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> You responded to one of my posts with the above, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.



Drifter Bob's complaint is that the obsession with rules canon affects the way the game is played and the way supplements are written --  it "tends to push you toward making it more 'dumbed down' and mechanical." 

Older editions of D&D had plenty of overly complicated rules, but they often stayed remarkably hands-off -- if only because they didn't provide any framework for designing new monsters, handling social interactions, etc.

With the move to 3E, a lot of things got spelled out.  That's often good, but it means that everything has to be quantified within the rules, ahead of time -- which is time-consuming and error-prone.  Do we want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters?  Do we want a system where a knight, a high-level Fighter, arguably can't answer questions about the local lords and ladies because he doesn't have sufficient ranks in knowledge (nobility)?


			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> Simply put - it's too late. We already do have that game system... now aspiring authors must live within its confines if they hope to sell products.



Obviously.  As I said before, _if_ that time [to work out all the mechanics] has to be taken at all, the author should take the time -- but we're discussing the philosophy of 3E/3.5E/d20 and how it has changed from earlier editions.  In what direction do we want the game to go?


			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> Further, based on the clear popularity of d20, it looks like "we" _do_ "want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters"...



The popularity of d20 does not imply that it's flawless.  Obviously many, many people enjoyed 1E and 2E but enjoyed 3E even more.  There's no reason a fourth edition couldn't improve the game still more.


			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> ...because people have decided that getting the detail is worth the time. 'High detail' and 'less time' really are mutually exclusive options, I'm afraid.



"High detail" and "less time" may not typically go together, but a better design can yield both.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

apsuman said:
			
		

> DB, it sounds to me that you did a real bang up job creating an adventure campaign.  It also sounds to me that you need a rules geek to edit your work and offer up suggestions within the rules to do what you want to do.




Yeah, maybe you are right.

I actually had a friend like that who used to play in my campaign that I had collaborated with on some things last year, but we had a falling out partially due to our different beliefs about RPG's!  

Basically he hated the house rules that we constantly put in the game (mostly combat rules as several people in our group have fencing, martial arts and / or military backgrounds) The other players were always pushing for greater and greater verisimilitude and more combat options, and liked experimenting with the rules.  This guy hated the very idea of house rules on principle though, especially when we played D&D.  In the end no compromise seemed possible and he quit the game.  I think he still thinks of me as a blasphemer on that tip.

He also used to rather untactfully yell at and criticise a couple of the girls in our group who were new to RPG's and not really up on the rules.  It's a shame because he is a nice guy, very smart and a good role player.  Just real uptight.  We had other problems though which were my fault.

There is another guy in our current gaming group who is our resident rules lawyer, who is a very laid back guy and easy to get along with.  He does a good job of finding loopholes in plot or house rules if such exist, though not to the degree that derails the game or anything.  Unfortunately he is in the middle of renovating a house, I've tried to float some things out to him to look at but he never has time.

I need to find a new rules geek, that's definately the case.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You have failed to demonstrate (or indeed offer any evidence at all or otherwise convince anyone) that it's a problem. It's not a problem.




Fair enough



> Your example only proves that you don't know the rules very well. It is not a valid example of the problem you have failed to convince anyone exists.




I did a good job of proving one thing at least.



> You don't make sense because you insist that a thread called "d20 philosophy cramping my style" wasn't started in order to complain about d20.




Admittedly, not the wisest choice, in retrospect.

DB


----------



## Crothian (Jul 21, 2004)

DB, I think you had some good points along the way but the thread sdid get sidetracked a little and went off focus some.  Have you considered starting a new thread, possibltyy with a better title and example?


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> DB, I think you had some good points along the way but the thread sdid get sidetracked a little and went off focus some.  Have you considered starting a new thread, possibltyy with a better title and example?





Yeah, I was thinking of a few other threads to start.  I think my point is made here.  I'll probably start a 'things I like about D&D" thread and another one with examples of things that are hard to convert in the rules, just so see interesting ways to convert them.  

I think making a reform argument is a little too difficult and invokes too much hostility, even with a nice title.  Anyway, I think I've made my point, I guess I keep getting sucked back into the discussion as people keep making this or that assertion that I don't know the rules or whatever.   I guess I wouldn't mind if the thread were ended.

DB


----------



## swrushing (Jul 21, 2004)

[/QUOTE]



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Drifter Bob's complaint is that the obsession with rules canon affects the way the game is played and the way supplements are written --  it "tends to push you toward making it more 'dumbed down' and mechanical."



frankly, i would call it his troll but...

its just not true. In the last cpouple of years i have seen more significant, well thought out radical departures from the core DND/D20 than in the years before and they are intersting and well recieved and worth the money. if the writers of Midnight, MnM, Conan, and the lot were writing with the same "but what if some people dont like the changes..." attitude/delusion shown here, we would never have seen them. 



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Older editions of D&D had plenty of overly complicated rules, but they often stayed remarkably hands-off -- if only because they didn't provide any framework for designing new monsters, handling social interactions, etc.



Lack of rules does not mean greater freedom. it usually tends to mean greater inconsistency. 


			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> With the move to 3E, a lot of things got spelled out.  That's often good, but it means that everything has to be quantified within the rules, ahead of time -- which is time-consuming and error-prone.  Do we want a game system where it takes that much time and effort to stat up customized creatures/characters?



if by "we" you mean the customers, it looks like the answer is a resounding cash-onm-the-dollar "yes." 


			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Do we want a system where a knight, a high-level Fighter, arguably can't answer questions about the local lords and ladies because he doesn't have sufficient ranks in knowledge (nobility)?



No, which is why we would EXPECT the writer of such a character to spend skill points on knowledge nobility IF THE VISION OF THE CHARACTER SAYS " he would know these things." To get to a 15 result off a take 10 a 10th level fighter would need (assuming no INT bonus) to have spent 10 skill ranks to get +5. Thats very doable. of course, 1oth level is not high, so we are really talking 15.

The onus is on the writer to build the characters to do what he is wrting them to be able to do. 

or would you prefer he just write up the fighter, spend all his skills on the combat stuff, arr arr arr mo' power, and then go "gosh darn, he needs to be able to answer nobility questions too, letds add the "noble template" to represent all the time he spent doing courtly stuff"?


			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Obviously.  As I said before, _if_ that time [to work out all the mechanics] has to be taken at all, the author should take the time -- but we're discussing the philosophy of 3E/3.5E/d20 and how it has changed from earlier editions.  In what direction do we want the game to go?



The game has went already.


			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> The popularity of d20 does not imply that it's flawless.



Nope and no one is saying that, but when it comes to questions of "do we want..." where "we" is "us" (the consumers) the popularity does speak volumes.


			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Obviously many, many people enjoyed 1E and 2E but enjoyed 3E even more.  There's no reason a fourth edition couldn't improve the game still more.



and in a discussion of "what we would like to see in DND 4?" thats a subject.


			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> "High detail" and "less time" may not typically go together, but a better design can yield both.



and it can do the laundry and wash the car too... in theory.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 21, 2004)

> No, which is why we would EXPECT the writer of such a character to spend skill points on knowledge nobility IF THE VISION OF THE CHARACTER SAYS " he would know these things." To get to a 15 result off a take 10 a 10th level fighter would need (assuming no INT bonus) to have spent 10 skill ranks to get +5. Thats very doable. of course, 1oth level is not high, so we are really talking 15.
> 
> The onus is on the writer to build the characters to do what he is wrting them to be able to do.




Exactly. If an author is creating an NPC, there are plenty of ways to give them the abilities you want them to have. They may not all automatically fit with your preconceived ideas of the NPC--for instance, the "knight" in question might actually be better served by a multiclass Aristocrat/Fighter, a Fighter/Rogue, a Fighter/Bard, a Paladin, a Fighter/Expert, or a straight classed Aristocrat than a single-classed fighter--however, an author will be able to simulate the NPC's abilities.

Heck, the Aristocrat class EXISTS to simulate nobles who are skilled combatants (though not as skilled as a full-time mercenary fighter or barbarian who does nothing but fight) and who also have the skills necessary to succeed in the intrigues of court. That's what it's in the DMG for. If you need more combat power, it multiclasses with fighter very well (An Ari 4/Ftr 8 makes a very convincing scheming noble who is also an exceptional combatant in his own right). If it doesn't have enough skill points for you, Expert works just fine too. And if the noble is sneaky and dishonorable, Rogue is the way to go. If he's charming and seductive, try multiclassing a fighter/bard.



> or would you prefer he just write up the fighter, spend all his skills on the combat stuff, arr arr arr mo' power, and then go "gosh darn, he needs to be able to answer nobility questions too, letds add the "noble template" to represent all the time he spent doing courtly stuff"?




This kind of suggestion (not intended seriously, of course), highlights exactly why I objected to the suggestion of applying a template to give the imp more bluff skill. When treated like that, templates simply become a way of ignoring the rules rather than using them.

I would be completely unsympathetic to a PC rogue, who after spending all his skill points on tumble, escape artist, just enough jump to get a synergy on tumble, etc and spent his feats on TWF and then turned around and complained "I don't have any ranks in bluff and my _character concept_ is a smooth-talking face man." Well if you want to play a smooth-talking face man, take some of those points out of tumble and put them into bluff and take some of the points out of dexterity and put them into charisma. A smooth-talking face man doesn't need tumble and he doesn't have to be the quickest sword in the kingdom. But he does need ranks of bluff and a charisma higher than 8. The hypothetical fighter complaint seems to be the DM version of that.

If your NPC is a cultured and refined warrior, aristocrat levels won't hurt him. If he's supposed to be a boorish man who lives only for combat and killing, then single classed fighter with no social skills is the way to go. (There is a tendency in fantasy literature that the most personally skilled combatants among the nobles tend to be somewhat crude and uncultured, so either way won't be without precedent). If you find those classes too limiting, then create or adapt a PC power level "Noble" or "Knight" class. (See the Wheel of Time RPG for an example of the former and Hong's D&D page for an example of the latter).


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> PCgen which I use but find way to clunky and inflexible.



I've heard the clunky complaint before. But how do you find it inflexible?


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 21, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I think making a reform argument is a little too difficult and invokes too much hostility, even with a nice title.



I hope you don't think I'm being _hostile_. I'm trying very hard to be _dismissive_. Completely different. If I were hostile it would imply I took your arguments seriously.

If you want to suggest reforms to d20, have at it. There's lots of reforms getting suggested that I LOVE and support -- but they're all backed by actual knowledge of the rules.

See Badaxe Games' _Grim Tales_ for an example -- it's a complete revision of lots of d20 rules, and it ROCKS. Hard. On toast. Or check Green Ronin's _Mutants and Masterminds_. Frickin' brilliant. And I HATE superhero games. But that one's sitting on my shelf.

There's lots of people out there revamping d20 even as we speak. I'm not hostile to any of them.

There's lots of people who say, "d20's not for me. I prefer HERO." One of them plays in my Barsoom game. No hostility there.

It's not that I'm offended by your point of view, Drifter Bob. You're just demonstratably, painfully WRONG. You've got no evidence and you keep exposing how little you know about the rules you're complaining about. You are wrong to suggest that your inability to learn the basic rules points out some terrible direction in the market trends of RPGs. You are wrong to suggest that your ignorance of the rules means that the rules are too complicated or restrictive. You are wrong to suggest that your thin-skinned inability to accept criticism is an indicator of market trends of RPGs.


			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Anyway, I think I've made my point, I guess I keep getting sucked back into the discussion as people keep making this or that assertion that I don't know the rules or whatever.



Your first post demonstrated a lack of basic rules knowledge. If you don't want people to make the assertion that you don't know the rules, I guess you should stop posting threads that demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the rules.

That's what I do. Works pretty well, I find.


			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I guess I wouldn't mind if the thread were ended.



Yeah, I guess you wouldn't.

Look, DB, obviously you're very thin-skinned and you take people disagreeing with you very personally, so presumably you're going to think I'm all hostile and out to get you and "love it or leave it!" and all that nonsense.

Nobody would be happier than I if you presented a better way to do things. Or even if you pointed out a real, significant issue with d20 rules that nobody had noticed before.

Okay, some people would be happier than me. But I'd still be up in the top ranks of "people made happy."

So go for it. Take a stand. What's wrong with d20, Drifter Bob? That hasn't been already pointed out (because we all know that "What's wrong with d20" is a question with a million good answers), please.

But if you're going to make assertions that you have no evidence to support, I'm going to call you on it. If you're going to demonstrate a lack of rules knowledge, don't expect me to take your ideas on the rules very seriously. That's the way debate works, I'm afraid.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 21, 2004)

I'm lookin' forward to that "ways to handle things within the rules" thread, db.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Jul 21, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> So go for it. Take a stand. What's wrong with d20, Drifter Bob?




Ok, here we go:

People like you.

DB


----------



## billd91 (Jul 22, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Ok, here we go:
> 
> People like you.
> 
> DB




Dude, you just aren't winning any friends for yourself with ad hominem attacks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 22, 2004)

People like Barsoom exist in all games, in all walks of life. He's not a d20-specific phenomena. 

But with the creativity I've seen in Barsoomcore, he's definately *not* limited by the rules.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> People like Barsoom exist in all games, in all walks of life.



Hey, wait a minute...

People like ME? As if. I'm one-of-a-kind, baby.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 26, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> This proves, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you have NEVER read the rules.  Consult Rule Zero.




The fact that many people hate rule zero or don't consider it to be a real rule is rather part of the point.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 26, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You have failed to demonstrate (or indeed offer any evidence at all or otherwise convince anyone) that it's a problem. It's not a problem.
> 
> Your example only proves that you don't know the rules very well. It is not a valid example of the problem you have failed to convince anyone exists.
> 
> You don't make sense because you insist that a thread called "d20 philosophy cramping my style" wasn't started in order to complain about d20.




Seems pretty simple to me. DrifterBob wants to add a few ranks of Bluff to an Imp. He didn't come into this thread wanting to add a Rogue level or wanting to redistribute skill points or anything like that. He wanted to add some ranks of Bluff to an Imp.

The responses so far have either been insults or workarounds. For those of you have have never doen tech support, a workaround is not a solution. A workaround is a way off keeping something working without getting exactly what you want.

DB's complaint is that he can't get exactly what he wants and appeal to folks who care about nonstandard stat blocks for monsters. He's right about that.

(This is ignoring Rule Zero. Nobody ever treats Rule Zero like it's a real rule and few D20-heads would ever use Rule Zero as an actual design element.)

Now, the real question is whether this problem is a systemic problem. I don't think it really is. When you get into a system, you take its limitations as a given unless you want to make fairly fundamental changes. The fact that those changes are possible isn't really a valid for or against argument about the system. I can fool with D20 however I want, but that doesn't say anything good or bad about the system's virtues so much as the quality of my design.

If there's anything to be said about D20 itself here, it's this: Someone should insert a single sentence in a WotC book/SRD entry about how you may change standard skill allotments for monsters if you wish. That's it. In fact, here you go:



> ADDENDUM TO MONTER ENTRIES AND STAT BLOCKS
> 
> You may change standard a monster's skill allotments. Total all the skill ranks possessed by a monster that have not been granted by any class levels the monster may possess. You may spend these ranks on any skill you wish, but it may not exceed the maximum rank of any skill listed in the monster's standard skill selection. In addition you may add up to 4 extra skill points to a monster. 1 skill ranks costs 1 skill point. This does not apply to skill gained through class levels.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sir Elton (Sep 26, 2004)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> (This is ignoring Rule Zero. Nobody ever treats Rule Zero like it's a real rule and few D20-heads would ever use Rule Zero as an actual design element.)



 Strangely enough, I love Rule 0 and I use it extensively.  DM FIAT RULES!


----------



## Philip (Sep 26, 2004)

I have read about half the thread, but haven't seen the core issue touched. I see DB attempting to solve a potential story problem (characters discovering the little girl is actually an Imp) by using a rules mechanic (and an arbitrarily one at that).

If you are a authoring a module and desire a certain result, just say so in the module text.

"It would make for a better story if you the Imp's disguise is not discovered."

And then the additional rules text:

"You could rule that it has rolled a 20 on his bluff check, or give it a +X circumstance bonus to his bluff roll."

This gives the DM the option and the explanation and is rules legal. If you want direct your 'story' using the 'rules', then by all means the rules you use legal.

I think there is nothing wrong with saying: this adventure/campaign is not suited for barbarians and paladins (I wouldn't buy it though). But I would frown upon a campaign that arbitrarily changed the rules for paladins and barbarians to achieve the same effect.

Arbitrarily making up rules was a big problem with 2e, and such solutions tended to break down when the PCs didn't do what the author expected. The rules of 3e actually give the PCs more freedom to do what the DM has not anticipated and thus participate in the story. Simultaneously it makes life harder for those who write adventures. And I can understand you complaining about that, but that's not a complaint about the system, I think its about you needing more time to achieve the same results. Yeah, sometimes that justs s*cks bigtime.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 26, 2004)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Seems pretty simple to me. DrifterBob wants to add a few ranks of Bluff to an Imp. He didn't come into this thread wanting to add a Rogue level or wanting to redistribute skill points or anything like that. He wanted to add some ranks of Bluff to an Imp.



 Actually, he was given several solutions, _within the rules_.  He merely didn't like them.  Some of the solutions merely required moving the existing skill points already spent on the basic Imp.  This wasn't a workaround.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> If there's anything to be said about D20 itself here, it's this: Someone should insert a single sentence in a WotC book/SRD entry about how you may change standard skill allotments for monsters if you wish. That's it. In fact, here you go:



 I suggest you read the DMG, pages 6 and the first paragraph of page 8.  *They did*.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 26, 2004)

Wow. ::blinks:: 
Ok, my two coppers:

1.) There is a difference between DM and writer. If I'm a DM and want to allow all my PC's to fly (and my goblins to have 1,000 hp) thats fine, but if a module forces that on me, its never getting played.

2.) That being said, I'd probably never notice a +4 to bluff. 

3.) Rule Zero isn't a rule, its an Excuse to let the DM do what he needs to keep his game running. Designing things using Rule Zero is kinda defeating the point of having a "In case of poop hitting fan, break glass" rule.

4.) Be wary of good intentions for story. I'll leave you with my favorite example: the Pirate's Cove by AEG. You sneak into a pirates holdout. IF you do it at night, you can bypass/kill 30 pirates as they sleep and only tackle the weak guards. If you go during the day, you face 30 level-3 warriors in addition to the normal traps. Module Level: 3rd. 

I never ran it, but I've seen Paladins who don't sneak around at night and this module is a TPK otherwise.

5.) There is no number 5.

6.) All in all, I must say that when you DM, what you do with your group is fine, but be wary of waiving the magic wand of change when you are being published.


----------



## knitnerd (Sep 26, 2004)

Can you give it a magic item that will give it a bonus to bluff? Then you raise the possibility of the item being destroyed or stolen.


----------



## Nisarg (Sep 26, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The point is though, this isn't a card game or even an xbox game.  It's basically a story.  This is what is supposed to have happened.  When armed investigators show up, the Imp, which isn't a really big thinker, and has been winging it up to this point, decides to return to the manse.
> The point of this whole thread is that this mentality, which I think is encouraged by the rules set, is tending to push storytellers away from writing material for the game, and people who are rules lawyers into it.




My god, where do I even begin with this thread?

I guess I'll start here: Adventures written as "stories" are usually crappy adventures.  This is a problem because many people who want to write adventures are actually frustrated novelists or storytellers, and fail to realise that if you create a "story" with a metaplot so fixed that a simple detect evil spell will make the entire adventure worthless, the problem isn't with the system its with you as a game designer.
In a less rules-heavy system (and to me D20 is pretty rules-heavy, the rules-heaviest I'd play anyways) you would STILL end up with this problem, because rather than casting a specific spell the free-form rules players would just think one up, or think up something else, or do something you didn't expect.

If you want a "story" go write fanfiction, or try your luck at getting your novel about a young imp coming to terms with his sexuality published. Don't write adventures, which are really modules for a game. They aren't stories, they have to be designed DIFFERENTLY from a story.

Now that this design critique is cleared up, let me also say that anyone who's going to scream bloody murder because you give +6 bluff to an Imp is also pretty much a cretin.  However, the easy way to fix this is not to call it an Imp. Make it a new monster that is statistically identical to the Imp in every way, but with a +6 in bluff. This is something that will no doubt piss off the rules-lawyers to no end because it makes them impotent to complain (you aren't breaking the "rules" of the official published imp because its not an imp anymore) and at the same time it highlites just how anal they really are.

Nisarg


----------



## Christian (Sep 26, 2004)

Ol' Monte Cook ranted about this over a year ago ...


----------



## Nisarg (Sep 26, 2004)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> I think we'd all agree that it would be wrong for a player to "magically" add 4 ranks in Bluff to his character.
> 
> So why then would it be okay for a DM to do the same?  Especially when there are so many options to get the same effect legally (circumstance bonuses, higher intelligence, class levels, etc.).




Because the DM is god. If you don't like, don't play his game. He doesn't have to answer to you.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the RPG food chain: players are at the bottom, along with publishers, distributors, the rules themselves, mountain dew salesmen, and the pope. The DM is at the top. Its not so much a chain really, I guess, as it is a really big pile with the DM at the top. 

Now, that said, the DM does have certain responisibilities. However, his responsibility is NOT to play by the rules. He IS the rules.
The DM's main responsibility is to make sure the players enjoy themselves, which is matched by the player's responsibility to be abjectly and totally obedient to his absolute power. If both sides of that social contract live up to their responsibilities, you will see that a really good time is had by all.

Occasionally, this social contract is broken by a DM who thinks the adventure is supposed to be about him, or that its a chance for him to showcase his "storytelling" abilities, making the NPCs or the plot of the adventure more important than the PCs.  That's bad.
Just as often, however, the social contract is broken by pissant little rules lawyers who have clearly not been introduced to the RPG food chain.  In MY version  of the food chain, those particular players are very quickly eliminated by what I like to call "natural selection".   

DMs: Remember that the game is about your player's characters, not about you!
Players: remember that what you know about the rules is worth NOTHING, if the DM doesn't wish it!

Follow these simple rules, and a fine time you will have a-roleplaying the live-long day.   

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Sep 26, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> As for video games, I've written a few of those myself.  You as a player have NO IDEA what is going on in the background.  In most cases, it's nothing like what you think.  More "cheating" goes on in video games than in any RPG.
> 
> DB




Ok, that's it.. sorry if later on this question already got answered, but I'm up to page 7 and so far Drifter Bob has claimed that he's designed video games, written "various" rpg materials (and sometimes got paid up to 15 cents an hour for it!) and that this imp question is for a "project" he's working on for a publisher that is going to be a massive campaign with various dungeons taking players from levels 1 to 6...

..and yet he refuses to name the product, or the publisher, and he has yet to name a SINGLE published product of his.

So please, Drifter Bob, now that you've made all these claims to fame, you surely couldn't have any problem telling us the name of the "various" RPGs/adventures/sourcebooks you've ALREADY PUBLISHED?  Just, you know, so we don't think you might have lied about that.

Nisarg


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I never ran it, but I've seen Paladins who don't sneak around at night and this module is a TPK otherwise.




Why the HELL would a paladin refuse to sneak around at night?  Due to 'fair play?  Any paladin who did that in my campaign would die very quickly, thus improving the gene pool of paladins to come.  Just becaue you are lawful good doesn't mean you eschew basic common sense tactics.



> 6.) All in all, I must say that when you DM, what you do with your group is fine, but be wary of waiving the magic wand of change when you are being published.




The problem is that the rules do not encompass every situation, and in the subset of circumstances they do cover, they do some much better than others.  Some they actually tend to distort into absurd "Hanna Barbaric" directions.  Add to this the fact that fanatic canonical devotion to every 4 bluff points worth of rules is demanded by a significant proportion of the D20 audience, a proportion which is pandered to by all the publishing companies especially WOTC, you end up with a situation where childish, or more accurately teenagerish geek stereotypes which were the foundation of the assumptions of a lot of the finer points of th rules get perpetuated.  

So you get lame, phony seeming sophomoric adventures that nobody likes, and they then blame the publishers.  A vicious circle.  I don't care what anybody says, I've played DnD in various forms for 25 years, with hundreds of different groups of people literally all over the world (well, Europe, Latin America, Canada and USA) and I can categorically say that the rules DO shape the game, and this DOES prevent nuance and realism and verisimilitude from reaching adult levels.

I have ha da lot of fun playing DnD, but _invariably_ that was in heavily house ruled, (generally low magic) campaigns run and played by people who didn't give a rats ass about what the offical version was and could think for themselves.

This is also, IMO, why a lot of the better novels were never able to succesffuly be converted to D20.  It's a large part of why I vastly preferred the original cthulhu game, for all it's faults, to the D20 version for example.


DB

P.S. and no, I will not cite examples of what I'm talking about, if you don't know already you are in denial and will never get it.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 26, 2004)

Drifter Bob & Nisarg, I'd just like to say I think you two write some of the most entertaining (and opinionated) posts on EN World, it hurts me when you fight...  
(Actually, I find it kinda amusing.  You two seem very much alike, just one is more Britishy and the other more Louisiany)


----------



## S'mon (Sep 26, 2004)

Or should I say New Orleansy... the rest of Louisiana is much more Conservative.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Ok, that's it.. sorry if later on this question already got answered, but I'm up to page 7 and so far Drifter Bob has claimed that he's designed video games, written "various" rpg materials (and sometimes got paid up to 15 cents an hour for it!) and that this imp question is for a "project" he's working on for a publisher that is going to be a massive campaign with various dungeons taking players from levels 1 to 6...
> 
> ..and yet he refuses to name the product, or the publisher, and he has yet to name a SINGLE published product of his.
> 
> ...




I don't claim to be the most prolific writer since Stephen King, I just draw heavily upon my own experiences to make points, as I trust myself as a source more than I do most other people.

For the record, I never published the video game I was discussing in this thread, in fact I haven't done much in the way of computer games in a long time, though I did publish two in a book for Atari back in the 80's, for their new QLOGO language.  One was a D&D game which you could design your own dungeons in, albiet limited to 3 rooms per adventure (Hey, you can't do all that much with 48K)

I've only got one D20 book under my belt, though several chapters of other books including one which is being released this fall, and numerous articles.  I've also written a lot for other industries, including software manuals and several articles for the Aquarium industry, and a couple on on Spathology/Hoplology, (morer hobbies of mine).  Add to that a few short stories, and a lot of underground satire 'zines from back in my radical days, and you have the gamut of my published work.  My entire portfolio if you will.  Not exactly a pulitzer prize winner, but I have enough experience to have learned something from it.

Seeing as how there were several direct boycott threats in this thread alone, I will not name any publishers, and I will in fact stick with my nom de guerre.  If you are really determined to find out who I am and what I have published, you can find out for yourself with a little bit of effort, but the bottom line is, I will not confirm or deny my association with any specific publishing house, becuase I like to be able to write in the industry AND I like to voice my opinions despite the fact that they may ruffle some feathers.  Scratch that, I have to be honest, I enjoy ruffling feathers, though it's far more satisfiying in person than over the internet.

Along those lines, anyone who would boycott a company because some free lance author voiced an opinion about D&D that you didn't like, should be buried up to their neck in pig vomit.

Just my humble $.02.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Or should I say New Orleansy... the rest of Louisiana is much more Conservative.




Ha!

Technically, southeast Louisiana, being predominantly Cajun and Catholic, and full of immigrants, is a lot more 'liberal' in some ways than the rest of the state, which is bible belt.  But more accurately, down here we tend toward Libertarian and Libertine, not so much liberal.  We may not be nice, but the climate is too miserable, the crime to ferocious, and the economy to lousy to abstain from any form of having fun, and having existed under several foreign governments, we tend to ignore most rules from whatever distant nation has technical dominion over us at any particular moment.

I just can't wait until they try to outlaw smoking in Emergency Rooms here or curtail our right to carry automatic weapons at school...

DB


----------



## Nisarg (Sep 26, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Seeing as how there were several direct boycott threats in this thread alone, I will not name any publishers, and I will in fact stick with my nom de guerre.  If you are really determined to find out who I am and what I have published, you can find out for yourself with a little bit of effort, but the bottom line is, I will not confirm or deny my association with any specific publishing house, becuase I like to be able to write in the industry AND I like to voice my opinions despite the fact that they may ruffle some feathers.  Scratch that, I have to be honest, I enjoy ruffling feathers, though it's far more satisfiying in person than over the internet.
> 
> Along those lines, anyone who would boycott a company because some free lance author voiced an opinion about D&D that you didn't like, should be buried up to their neck in pig vomit.




Um, sorry, but this doesn't cut it to me. I'm going to sadly have to assume you're a liar who doesn't want to be caught in his own lie... the fact is that there's a number of professionals on this site, including some who are very unafraid to be confrontational in their statements, and seem to have none of the "fear" you have shown.  Others, who are genuinely desirous of privacy, simply never ever mention that they are RPG writers.

But, see, saying multiple times that you're a published RPG writer, expecting us to believe you, and then refusing to mention a single title or even your real name, that's a bit much.  That's the sign of a faker to me. 

But please, feel free to prove me wrong by citing a single rpg book where you've been published.

Or if any of the other KNOWN published writers on this board can confirm that you are actually who you say you are.  If Bruce Baugh or Eyebeams or Monte cook or any of the admins or Gary Gygax or the rest come forward after you emailed them privately and say "yes I can confirm that this guy is legit" I'll believe it (since I doubt any of the people I mentioned above would publically lie about that kind of thing).  So there you go, you must be friends with some of those people, if you're an industry dude, just email them privately and ask them to publically confirm you are who you say you are, so you don't look like a liar.

Somehow, I'm betting you can't.

Nisarg


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> This is a problem because many people who want to write adventures are actually frustrated novelists or storytellers, and fail to realise that if you create a "story" with a metaplot so fixed that a simple detect evil spell will make the entire adventure worthless, the problem isn't with the system its with you as a game designer.




The problem here Nisarg, is that unless you are playing a _ computer _ rpg, rpg adventures are communicted to DM, and indirectly to the players, through a form of communication known as _writing_.  Not semaphore, not hymns, nor sung verse or odorama, but writing.  And good writing requires good _ writers_.  

And it may be news to you, but the problem of railroading is well understood by most anybody who writes in the industry now.  The problem of having to write around overly klunky rules to a fanatic degree unfortunately does not seem to be as widely recognized or understood.

If you want a game which adheres wonderfully to the rules, and doesn't require players to follow any plot at all, I reccomend Grand Theft Auto.  You can 'kick their ass and take their gas' all you like, the computer software will rigorously follow the rules, and no uppity writer is going to try to stick his nose in your fun.

The thing is, many of us who play RPG's were inspired to do so by these great fantasy writers, like Jack Vance, Robert E Howad, HP Lovecraft, Leiber, Moorcock, and etc.  Some of us actualy liked those stories and wanted to recreate a similar experience in game form.  Assuming that we can manage to carry our pretentions to write well over the insurmonutable hurdle of railroading, (since we are all such egomaniacs) then we should actually be able to do this and have fun with it.  



> If you want a "story" go write fanfiction, or try your luck at getting your novel about a young imp coming to terms with his sexuality published. Don't write adventures, which are really modules for a game. They aren't stories, they have to be designed DIFFERENTLY from a story.




When I say and RPG is a story, I don't mean the DM is reading a story to the players.  I mean the DM and the players are making up a story together.  I know some people hate this idea, but even in the lamest hack and slash sessoin, that is essentially what you are doing, you are playing 'lets pretend' and the rules and the dice are merely there to assist the DM as the arbiter of the story, to keep it moving along.

As to the sexuality of my imp which you seem so concerned about, numerous suggestions leap to mind, but I am trying to stay relatively civil.  For a fact, I agree with your rant about DM's, and a few other things you have said, so perhaps it's best I bite my tongue here.


DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Um, sorry, but this doesn't cut it to me.




With all due respect my friend, why on earth should I care what you think?

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> 4.) Be wary of good intentions for story. I'll leave you with my favorite example: the Pirate's Cove by AEG. You sneak into a pirates holdout. IF you do it at night, you can bypass/kill 30 pirates as they sleep and only tackle the weak guards. If you go during the day, you face 30 level-3 warriors in addition to the normal traps. Module Level: 3rd.




See, I have a problem with this.  Just because you are trying to balance an adventure so that players can get through it and survive it, doesn't mean that you have to make the whole thing infant safe, with every corner padded and every dangerous chemical locked away.  Players should be smart enough to know to avoid danger.  

Assuming in this adventure the players have a good opportunity to find out some basic facts about the bad guys, (like how many they are, that they are mean, don't like tresspassers, etc.) they should know you don't attack a pirate stronghold of 30 pirates in broad daylight.  If you do, you better be taking some elaborate precautions (invisibility spells perhaps?)

I mean, if I was making an adventure in d20 modern, I wouldn't make all the cars on the highway stay under 15 mph and have foam rubber bodies just so that players couldn't be killed by running into the traffic.

DnD adventures seem to shift from wildly murderous (Tomb of Horrors) to ludicrously milque toaste (like some I've bought recently that I won't name)
To me, this is another sign of what is wrong with the system.  I want a module that has a 'grown up' feel, less "A-Team" more "LA confidential".


DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Or if any of the other KNOWN published writers on this board can confirm that




If anybody does do that, please do not name any publishers or RpG companies specifically in this thread.

DB


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Sep 26, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Seeing as how there were several direct boycott threats in this thread alone, I will not name any publishers, and I will in fact stick with my nom de guerre.  If you are really determined to find out who I am and what I have published, you can find out for yourself with a little bit of effort, but the bottom line is, I will not confirm or deny my association with any specific publishing house, becuase I like to be able to write in the industry AND I like to voice my opinions despite the fact that they may ruffle some feathers.  Scratch that, I have to be honest, I enjoy ruffling feathers, though it's far more satisfiying in person than over the internet.
> 
> DB




I work full time in the industry, feel free to voice my opinion whenever I feel it's necessary, and put my name at the bottom of almost every post. 

Publishers purchase work from dependable writers - short of linking to the Turner Diaries in your sig file, I think you'd be hard pressed to post something so offensive publishers would blacklist you.

And the only threat more toothless than an internet boycott is an online challenge to a fight. 

Your credibility would be better served if you said who you were - "industry-guy incognito" is one of the most common messageboard fakes going, so it isn't surprising people are suspicious.

If you like "ruffling feathers" so much, the least you could do is own up to it. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## Nisarg (Sep 26, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> With all due respect my friend, why on earth should I care what you think?
> 
> DB




Not at all, except you seem to be overly concerned with people taking you seriously on here.
You mention things like your "vast experience" with writing for RPGs; well, on a forum like this you are using that in an attempt to justify yourself, to give weight to your arguments, to make it clear that you aren't just a bozo.
If you want me to accept that as giving you some kind of authority, then you need to be able to back up that claim with some kind evidence that you ARE in fact an industry writer with experience.
If you don't do that, you look like a much bigger bozo than you would have otherwise.

Its like if you went onto a board about physics, claimed you'd been published in various Scientific Journals so people should believe your theory about neutrinos, but then refuse to give your name or the name of the articles you were published in. 

Guess what? Just saying that you are published isn't enough. This is the internet, anyone can do that. 
I bet you don't know that I'm secretly the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani, right? 
Well I am. 
I'm also a small mexican fruit bat.

See? Its ridiculously easy to lie on the internet.
So if you make any claim about just about anything relating to your identity and then conspicuously fail to back it up with at least some names, I will relegate you to the default category of "faker", as will many people on this kind of forum. Something that will actually weaken your arguments far more than if you hadn't made absurd claims in the first place.

Nisarg


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> I work full time in the industry, feel free to voice my opinion whenever I feel it's necessary, and put my name at the bottom of almost every post.




I'm sorry to be rude, but I really don't care what you think.  There are people here who know work I have done, a book I wrote this year was reviewed on ENworld.   I am not going to name any names, including my on (not that again, it's that hard to find out) because I have had very negative experiences in the past, including people writing hate mail to publishing companies I worked for, and people stalking me and even trying to get my internet account yanked (for posting a 9k picture of a samurai to a text only newsgroup, in response to a bogus argument which turned out to be a troll/ trap).

So, with all due respect, as I'm fond of saying, love it or lump it.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> N
> See? Its ridiculously easy to lie on the internet.




Again, I'm sorry to be rude, but iIt's also ridiculously easy to make a fool of yourself on the internet, which you have also simultaneously demonstrated.  You are going to look a little silly if your theory turns out to be not only wrong, but under the circumstances, stupid.


DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Christian said:
			
		

> Ol' Monte Cook ranted about this over a year ago ...




Surprisingly, I found mr. Cook and I are in nearly 100% agreement.

DB


----------



## Nisarg (Sep 26, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Again, I'm sorry to be rude, but iIt's also ridiculously easy to make a fool of yourself on the internet, which you have also simultaneously demonstrated.  You are going to look a little silly if your theory turns out to be not only wrong, but under the circumstances, stupid.
> 
> 
> DB




No, I won't. 
If you choose to actually give me your name, it turns out that you're a real rpg writer, then I will simply be satisfied, and you will stop looking like a faker.

As it stands, you are the one who currently looks at worse like a liar and a fake, and at best extremely naive to expect everyone on here to just believe you're an industry prof because you said so.

Nisarg

p.s. Its like Patrick Y. said; it doesn't seem particularly heroic or righteous to crow on about liking to "ruffle feathers" when you don't have the guts to sign your name to what you're saying


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> p.s. Its like Patrick Y. said; it doesn't seem particularly heroic or righteous to crow on about liking to "ruffle feathers" when you don't have the guts to sign your name to what you're saying




Seeing as how literally anybody can be reading this stuff, it is only common sense not to sign your real name.  If you voice any of the kind of opions I regularly have as Drifter Bob, I would be stupid to do so.  It doesn't mean you have guts, it just means you are reckless.  I cannot retaliate against anonymous worms on the internet who take any number of contemptable underhanded steps to try to harm me.  Meet me one day in real life, and I'll be glad to tell you my name.

It also incidentally doesn't take a lot of guts to insinuate that someone is a coward over the internet either, when you reside thousands of miles away.  Anyway, I've had enough of this sub-thread.  Like the man said, "arguing over the internet is like entering the special olympics... even if you win, you are still retarded."

DB


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 26, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> p.s. Its like Patrick Y. said; it doesn't seem particularly heroic or righteous to crow on about liking to "ruffle feathers" when you don't have the guts to sign your name to what you're saying




That reminds me of a part from a fantasy novel I read a while back where an apprentice wizard suggests sorting the books in a library according to subject because many of them are by anonymous authors, and the elder wizard states "Hmmmfph.  Never trust anything that a man will not set his reputation and name upon."

The novel itself was only okay, but that line stuck with me.


----------



## Mark (Sep 26, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Seeing as how literally anybody can be reading this stuff, it is only common sense not to sign your real name.  If you voice any of the kind of opions I regularly have as Drifter Bob, I would be stupid to do so.  It doesn't mean you have guts, it just means you are reckless.  I cannot retaliate against anonymous worms on the internet who take any number of contemptable underhanded steps to try to harm me.  Meet me one day in real life, and I'll be glad to tell you my name.
> 
> It also incidentally doesn't take a lot of guts to insinuate that someone is a coward over the internet either, when you reside thousands of miles away.  Anyway, I've had enough of this sub-thread.  Like the man said, "arguing over the internet is like entering the special olympics... even if you win, you are still retarded."
> 
> DB




Wow.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> That reminds me of a part from a fantasy novel I read a while back where an apprentice wizard suggests sorting the books in a library according to subject because many of them are by anonymous authors, and the elder wizard states "Hmmmfph.  Never trust anything that a man will not set his reputation and name upon."
> 
> The novel itself was only okay, but that line stuck with me.




So what is your real name, address, and home phone number then, "Dark Jester"?

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> you don't have the guts to sign your name to what you're saying




And lets see your name, address, home phone number, and work number, in case I want to talk to your boss, since so many people in this thread evinced a desire to speak to mine....

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 26, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> No, I won't.
> If you choose to actually give me your name, it turns out that you're a real rpg writer, then I will simply be satisfied, and you will stop looking like a faker.




Exactly.  I would be exposing myself to god knows what kind of mischief (and I have already been threatened with boycotts _in this thread _) just to please you, and maybe two or three other people who can't be bothered to find out who I am on their own.  

Since I am not a faker, I don't care if a small number of people think I am.  For that matter, hardly anybody agrees with any of my opinions, in fact many find them wrongheaded, to put it politely, that doesn't daunt me either.

DB


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 26, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> So what is your real name, address, and home phone number then, "Dark Jester"?
> 
> DB



 Rest assured that if I ever publish a thesis, book, or article, I'll be publishing it under my name rather than anonymously.  You can also rest assured that if I ever start claiming that I'm an RPG industry insider who has published products, I'll mention exactly which ones they were.


----------



## Gnarlo (Sep 26, 2004)

This catfight has started back up? Oh, KEWL!!! Things have been WAY too quiet and civil around here lately.


----------



## Nisarg (Sep 26, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Rest assured that if I ever publish a thesis, book, or article, I'll be publishing it under my name rather than anonymously.  You can also rest assured that if I ever start claiming that I'm an RPG industry insider who has published products, I'll mention exactly which ones they were.




What he said.

Nisarg


----------



## dreaded_beast (Sep 27, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> So what is your real name, address, and home phone number then...




Must fight...must fight...must....ah, the hell with it...

It's easy DB! (heh, those are my intials too)

Mac Ferrer
Honolulu, HI 96818

I live in Foster Village, right next to Radford High School. The area is known as either Salt Lake or Aliamanu. Pearl Harbor is just down the road, next to the Arizona Memorial. If you know where Aloha Stadium or Ice Palace is, I'm right up the road from there too.

Won't give me street address or telephone number though, that would just be silly!

Now you try it DB!


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 27, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Must fight...must fight...must....ah, the hell with it...
> 
> It's easy DB! (heh, those are my intials too)
> 
> ...




Lucky you.  I've never been to Hawaii, but I'd sure like to.  I hear the climate is a lot nicer than it is here.



> Won't give me street address or telephone number though, that would just be silly!




Now you know how I feel about my name and (especially) those of companies I have worked for and may plan to again in the future.

DB


----------



## dreaded_beast (Sep 27, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Now you know how I feel about my name and (especially) those of companies I have worked for and may plan to again in the future.




Heh, but your product got 4.00 Stars here at EN World.

You should be proud!


----------



## Kashell (Sep 27, 2004)

You are the DM. If you say that rolling a 1 blows up the world, then it does.


For goodness sake..


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 27, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Actually, he was given several solutions, _within the rules_.  He merely didn't like them.  Some of the solutions merely required moving the existing skill points already spent on the basic Imp.  This wasn't a workaround.
> 
> . . . .
> 
> I suggest you read the DMG, pages 6 and the first paragraph of page 8.  *They did*.




1) No. He was given a couple of workarounds. A workaround is not a solution. Sometimes a workaround is nearly as good as a solution, but it's not the same thing. This is the dynamic DB is actually talking about.

2) Design is not the same thing as DMing advice. For example, DMing tells you how to use CR and ECL. Design tells you what those actually represent in terms of the capabilities of the challenge.

That said, if there's a satisfactory workaround in the rules (as there appears to be with the Imp), then it's probably best to use it. But the useless pedantry involved in objecting to chucking a measely 4 skill ranks on top of a creature's profile is a perfect example of the negativbe side of D20's System Mastery design goal.

Looking forward, it looks to me like nonsense like this can be vanquished once and for all by coming out with another book like Unearthed Arcana that talks about the "wiggle room" in various game concepts as elements of design, instead of just DMing. Then it can go into SRD canon and everyone will agree with it, just as they did when the legions of folks who, for example, defended to death the idea that monks should be crappy with a staff all changed their tune once the 3.5 SRD said otherwise. Such is the flexible spine of a pedant.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Sep 27, 2004)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> 1) No. He was given a couple of workarounds. A workaround is not a solution. Sometimes a workaround is nearly as good as a solution, but it's not the same thing. This is the dynamic DB is actually talking about.




Ok, define workaround and define solution.

Whenever I've seen it done, a workaround is something that is not a full-blown solution, because it involves some sort of shortcut with ugly side-effects or otherwise onerous task which makes the solution painful to implement.

Something which none of the solutions were.

What you have here is, apparently, someone who's a professional module author, who doesn't like having to use the rules to the game, or know the rules to the game, and hates those who do.

Which seems analogous to someone who's working as an electrician who doesn't like using the various electrical laws, doesn't know the electrical laws, and hates those who do.

The second would be declared incompetent and ignorant to boot. The first is apparently some sort of visionary. What gives?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 27, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> P.S. and no, I will not cite examples of what I'm talking about, if you don't know already you are in denial and will never get it.




Drifter Bob, I'm not a professional writer, but I believe that this could have been said much simpler.  Try 'Neener, neener, neener,' next time; it would be more succinct.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 27, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Heh, but your product got 4.00 Stars here at EN World.
> 
> You should be proud!




Thanks, but 'shhhhhhhh'.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 27, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> What you have here is, apparently, someone who's a professional module author, who doesn't like having to use the rules to the game, or know the rules to the game, and hates those who do.




Please, I know the rules, I don't hate those who do.  If you don't like the way I worded my argument, (which was admittedly obnoxious, I wrote some of that originally several weeks ago after drining too much Jamesons) read the first couple of paragraphs and the last few lines of what Monte Cook Wrote in this link.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 27, 2004)

Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> Drifter Bob, I'm not a professional writer, but I believe that this could have been said much simpler.  Try 'Neener, neener, neener,' next time; it would be more succinct.




I'll add that to my collection, thank you.

DB


----------



## FireLance (Sep 27, 2004)

Okay, I consider myself pretty much of a pedant where the rules of the game are concerned. I am no RPG industry insider, just a player and DM who happens to like the game and (I think) know it fairly well.

I went and re-read DB's first post. I think he presents a fair point. For reasons of plot or story, DMs and designers of modules and games may want to introduce creatures with unique and special abilities. However, if these abilities go against the rules as written, does it mean that they cannot be used? No, only that they have to be used carefully.

Here's an rough analogy. Let's say I go to see a movie called "Vampire". The protagonist faces a humanoid creature with prominent fangs that drains blood from its victims, changes into a bat and a cloud of gas at various points in the story, does not reflect in a mirror, and summons a pack of wolves to attack the protagonist. In the climactic encounter, the protagonist presents a holy symbol, and the creature knocks it aside with a sneer. He produces a clove of garlic, and the creature only laughs. He stabs it in the heart with a stake, but it plucks it out and continues attacking. The sun rises, but the creature is unaffected. Finally, the protagonist manages to trap the creature in a cave and sets off an avalanche that buries it, and the movie ends.

Such a movie will not be satisfying to me. You see, the use of the word "vampire" in the title of the movie creates an expectation in my mind of a creature with certain characteristics that I commonly associate with vampires. Instead, what I find is a creature that has some of the characteristics, but not others. What is worse, there is no explanation given why this so-called "vampire" differs so greatly from my expectations. Perhaps it was the intent of the film-maker to challenge our pre-conceived assumptions about vampires. Perhaps he just wanted to portray a vampire as an almost unstoppable force. Regardless of his intent, it ruined my enjoyment of the film.

So, how can a film-maker remain true to his vision while still helping me to enjoy the movie? Simply by acknowledging my pre-existing expectations and telling me that they do not apply in this case. Perhaps the protagonist has the same expectations that I have, but is warned that they are wrong. Perhaps this creature is a vampire that has managed to overcome the typical weaknesses, or perhaps the vampires themselves lie about their weaknesses to mislead those who seek to kill them.

Like movie-goers, DMs who buy a module or players who play in one have certain expectations. One of them is that the rules will be followed, and an explanation will be given if they are not. I don't think that's a lot to ask.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 27, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Like movie-goers, DMs who buy a module or players who play in one have certain expectations. One of them is that the rules will be followed, and an explanation will be given if they are not. I don't think that's a lot to ask.





I think that is a reasonable expectation, but I also think when the critter in question is a much more minor, and less thoroughly ingrained critter as an Imp, and the modification itself is so minor, then the audience should cut us a little slack there.  I mean, frankly, I think an Imp should have a few bluff points.  It's not that "out of character" like a vampire immune to sunlight.  Nor does it make him immensely powerful.

If the publishers don't mind taking up the space I'd certainly be willing to put a short list at the beginning of a module warning DM's of a few minor tweaks to this or that standard rules convention.  I just want to be able to have that wiggle room without making a federal case out if it, as Monte himself pointed out in his little rant, in which he was dealing with an almost identical situation.

Again, I'm not talking about major arbitrary rules changes here, just being able to push the envelope a little teensy bit at the outer boundaries thereof.


DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 27, 2004)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That said, if there's a satisfactory workaround in the rules (as there appears to be with the Imp), then it's probably best to use it. But the useless pedantry involved in objecting to chucking a measely 4 skill ranks on top of a creature's profile is a perfect example of the negativbe side of D20's System Mastery design goal.
> 
> Looking forward, it looks to me like nonsense like this can be vanquished once and for all by coming out with another book like Unearthed Arcana that talks about the "wiggle room" in various game concepts as elements of design, instead of just DMing. Then it can go into SRD canon and everyone will agree with it, just as they did when the legions of folks who, for example, defended to death the idea that monks should be crappy with a staff all changed their tune once the 3.5 SRD said otherwise. Such is the flexible spine of a pedant.




I agree, this would probably fix the problem.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 27, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The second would be declared incompetent and ignorant to boot. The first is apparently some sort of visionary. What gives?




Seeing as how 99% of the people in this thread disagreed with me, I am probably incompetent and ignorant, and apparently a quack rather than a visionary.  I appreciate the indirect complement though.

DB


----------



## S'mon (Sep 27, 2004)

The obvious answer Saeviomagy is that RPG rules are not like the immutable laws of nature (electricity), in fact they're not even like wargame rules, though some people here seem to think otherwise.  RPG rules are merely a crutch to help the GM present their world/scenario/plot, and a way to regulate players' interaction with that world (etc).  They _don't define in-game reality_, they merely reflect it, often imperfectly.  So if it's a world/scenario where an imp is a good bluffer, but the rules don't reflect that, the rules need to change, not the world.


----------



## rounser (Sep 27, 2004)

From Monte Cook's essay on rules departure:


> As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, "What have we wrought?"



Judging by this thread, one almighty sea change in how people think about the game and therefore use it, I'd say.  And a bit of a double-edged sword of a change at that.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I mean, frankly, I think an Imp should have a few bluff points.



Wait. You're back? I thought you'd washed your hands of this. 

Oh, and I thought you'd said that the Bluff points issue wasn't ACTUALLY the problem in the first place.


			
				Drifter Bob (many pages ago) said:
			
		

> This bit with the bluff skill is a very minor thing. Lets keep it in perspective. I cited it as an example of a much larger problem.



Yeah, you did say that. So why is it suddenly a problem again? You've got, last time I checked, TEN solutions to this problem. Which isn't a problem, but rather the fact that you don't know the rules.


			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Again, I'm not talking about major arbitrary rules changes here, just being able to push the envelope a little teensy bit at the outer boundaries thereof.



Which you've already received TEN ways of doing that are perfectly within the rules, of varying degrees of complexity (switching skill points or raising the Intelligence both involving almost NO real effort on your part). So why aren't you off writing your massive campaign setting that you're getting 15 cents a word for? Why are you still complaining about all this?

If you had a problem you needed a solution to, you've received that solution ten times over. Now you seem overcome by the urge to say, "Oh yeah?" to people who are calling you on your claims, but without providing any evidence that they're wrong.

Oh, and, want to know who I am? Just so we can be clear on the whole, "I stand by my claims" thing.

Here's me.

Why would anyone make statements they weren't willing to have their name attached to? If you're not willing to stand by your statements, DON'T MAKE THEM. I would be MORE willing to buy your products if you had the courage of your convictions. It's your evasiveness and shifty appearance that makes me suspicious of you, DB. If you just honestly didn't know how to get what you wanted with that Imp, and were looking for some input, that's fine. Nobody knows all the rules, and everybody needs a spot of help now and then. Half of doing a good job is knowing where to get help.

But all this, "I can prove I'm legit -- but I won't," nonsense is just making you look like a phony. So either just drop it and walk away and live with the knowledge that people think you're fake, or put your cards on the table and let's see what you got.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 27, 2004)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> 1) No. He was given a couple of workarounds. A workaround is not a solution. Sometimes a workaround is nearly as good as a solution, but it's not the same thing. This is the dynamic DB is actually talking about.




Perhaps I'm confused about your terminology here.  What is a 'workaround' as opposed to a 'solution'?  Where I come from, a workaround is a kudge...a clumsy but functional way of getting something done as a temporary fix until a more proper method can be used or until the time exists to do things correctly.  All of the proposed answers to DB's question were of varying elegance, but almost all of them were solutions supported under the rules as written.  Consider, for example, that WotC themselves have released modules that tinkered with monsters in exactly the same capacity that DB is suggesting, all stemming from that same design philosophy mentioned on page 6 and page 8 of the MM.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> 2) Design is not the same thing as DMing advice. For example, DMing tells you how to use CR and ECL. Design tells you what those actually represent in terms of the capabilities of the challenge.




This sounds like sophistry, to me.  The DMG goes to great lengths to discuss the effects on a game of the use of CR and EL (ECL is effective character level, which I assume you weren't referring to), specifically with regards to resource usage, relation to party strength and so forth.  Those ARE design principles, and they apply equally to designers as well as DMs.  The former moreso than the latter, in fact.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Then it can go into SRD canon and everyone will agree with it, just as they did when the legions of folks who, for example, defended to death the idea that monks should be crappy with a staff all changed their tune once the 3.5 SRD said otherwise. Such is the flexible spine of a pedant.




Straw man aside, there seems a certain irony in claiming that a person who doesn't agree with you is "_a person who pays more attention to formal rules and book learning than they merit_", while simultaneously claiming that those people are making suggestions that aren't properly defined within the rules as written.  

The SRD is not intended as a design aid to budding authors...it's an enticement for RPG authors to use a tested system that will solve, in WotC's own words: "_the problems of system over-proliferation, and for those consumers to apply pressure to publishers to use standardized systems._"  It needs nor should have no such specific 'design-aid' language.  That would stifle the very innovation that has made the d20 system a success, so far.  The SRD and the OGL are kick-off points, leading to things like Grim Tales, Mutants and Masterminds and the Star Wars RPG....all of which use very different design principles.  Putting such language in the SRD would be pointless, as it only applies to a specific instance of d20, namely D&D...and that language IS in the books already.


----------



## Nisarg (Sep 27, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Here's me.




Well sweet Jebus, you wouldn't happen to be the same Corey R who used to live in Edmonton, was friends with a Brendan Nearey, and later moved to Calgary, would you?

If so, you once played in my Star Wars campaign.

Nisarg


----------



## billd91 (Sep 27, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Ok, define workaround and define solution.
> 
> Whenever I've seen it done, a workaround is something that is not a full-blown solution, because it involves some sort of shortcut with ugly side-effects or otherwise onerous task which makes the solution painful to implement.
> 
> Something which none of the solutions were.




I have to agree that he was given solutions to the problem of imps not having the bluff ability he wanted to include. Plenty of solutions, in fact, were given.
As to the "problem" that 3E gamers are too pedantic about the rules or the rules aren't flexible enough, whether that's really a problem is up for debate. I don't think it's a problem since we were able, in no time at all, to come up with several solutions that addressed the bluffing imp problem, all well within the rules as written.
I think the problem here is one of attitude. Drifter Bob doesn't want to feel limited by the rules in doing what he wants with his story. In reality, the rules  aren't all that limiting. It is, however, a statement that he apparently doesn't like to hear.
Monte Cook's DM's-only article on the rules may say that you shouldn't let the rules get in the way of good design. But there aren't many rules getting in the way of having an imp with a better bluff score. Hell, give him a level of expert and then pick up some skills that will even support his bluffing and what's the difference? An imp vs and imp/expert bluffer who may even have an extra rank or two in sense motive so that he can tell when his bluffing is working or not and 1-6 hp and a slightly better will save. Stuff that can help round out the NPC in general. Problem solved.


----------



## iblis (Sep 27, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Ok, a few days or weeks ago we were discussing the issue of how the rules, and the obsession with rules balance and technical canonical rules interpretation, affect the game, by influencing game play toward munchkinism and in favor of rules lawyering, and away from role playing.
> 
> I chimed in on this because as a writer I think it does effect the way you approach writing material for d20, and tends to push you toward making it more 'dumbed down' and mechanical.  Well, I've run into a fairly classic example.  It's a minor thing but it's something of a stumbling block for me.
> 
> ...




For what it's worth  - not much probably; I'm a player and GM, nothing more of any direct relevance - those are some very strange questions you have there. Firstly to answer I must tell you why you are stupid, and secondly I must tell you how to do your job.

No, I'll pass thanks. 

Moving on, my _terribly_ erudite, nay *omniscient* analysis would be : whatever works.

Seriously. If it suits the module, and makes for a better experience for those going through it, it _is_ better, however it conforms or contravenes.

So let's say you tinker with the Imp. Yeh, and...? OK, worse case scenario, some little greebers jump up and down, pointing at the sacred texts. Same old same old. It's more a perpetual white-noise background thing, than anything remotely influential or progressive. Who really listens to that kind of petty, predictable sniping anyway?

But maybe you want to leave the critter pure to supposedly appease the flock. Well, how about (as others have suggested, I'm fairly certain) using a circumstantial bonus of some kind? Whether it's hardwired, begged, borrowed, stolen, siphoned, transferred, given, conferred from an item (with either a one-use or ongoing effect), or placed upon it as an enchantment / psionic tattoo / whatever, etc...

...or an unexplained (even conventionally inexplicable) one-off for that matter. I've seen stuff like that before in even fairly 'straight' modules/adventures/stuff (but I'd have to dig through memories and/or piles to back this up, sorry) : bizarre, quirky deviations from rules, for the sake of impact / 'believability' - ironically enough, in the case of the latter.

All IMO, and so on.


----------



## Incenjucar (Sep 27, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> The skill point thing has been mentioned above already, but can I make one suggestion?
> 
> 
> Don't make the Imp's alternate form be a little girl - the "innocent 8-10 year old girl is actually evil incarnate" ploy has been so throughly burned into the collective adventurer unconscious that players will automatically be suspiscious of any plot pertinent little girls that show up.  Make her a teenage girl (14-16), or a (very) young woman (17-20).  Those would set off less alarm bells in the minds of your standard party.
> ...




Nah.  Should make it a baby.  With no ranks in Perform (Dance).  Or else your players will kill leave.  But, still, a baby.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 27, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm confused about your terminology here.  What is a 'workaround' as opposed to a 'solution'?  Where I come from, a workaround is a kudge...a clumsy but functional way of getting something done as a temporary fix until a more proper method can be used or until the time exists to do things correctly.  All of the proposed answers to DB's question were of varying elegance, but almost all of them were solutions supported under the rules as written.  Consider, for example, that WotC themselves have released modules that tinkered with monsters in exactly the same capacity that DB is suggesting, all stemming from that same design philosophy mentioned on page 6 and page 8 of the MM.




It's not a "design philosophy." It's DM advice. DM advice has no weight at all when it comes to people talking about how D20-legal something is at all. As for WotC, since it's theirs, they can do anything they want with it. Third party D20 designs don't have that kind of freedom from criticism.

Anyway, adding a rogue level is a clumsy workaround. Making it a "name" creature is a bit better, but still weak legalism instead of an actual fix implicit in the game's design. Regardless of the specific, though, the example and the fact that a fair chunk the immediate responses to DB were stupidly insulting, pedantic drivel go a far way to prove his point, mine and, for that matter, Monte Cook's.



> This sounds like sophistry, to me.  The DMG goes to great lengths to discuss the effects on a game of the use of CR and EL (ECL is effective character level, which I assume you weren't referring to), specifically with regards to resource usage, relation to party strength and so forth.  Those ARE design principles, and they apply equally to designers as well as DMs.  The former moreso than the latter, in fact.




The fact that you don't seem to understand the distinction kind of proves my point about DMing and design being different things. The DMG gives practically no way to determine the CR of an original challenge. The DMG tells you that when canned challenge has a CR of 8, it will have X effect on Y characters. It doesn't go into what a CR of 8 actually represents.



> Straw man aside, there seems a certain irony in claiming that a person who doesn't agree with you is "_a person who pays more attention to formal rules and book learning than they merit_", while simultaneously claiming that those people are making suggestions that aren't properly defined within the rules as written.




The "name" suggestion is most assuredly not properly defined. The pages you're quoting are never considered to be actual rules on the scale of something like save progression and bonus stacking. The rogue workaround is clumsy.

A couple of people have come on hear to eviscerate someone for daring to suggest that just up and adding 4 ranks of Bluff to a goddamn Imp should be OK just because you feel like it. This is not something on the order of mangintude of the 48 HP Orc in Cook's example. It's 4 ranks of a skill. There is no way 4 ranks can really change a creature's CR. It's stupid to fixate on it -- yet, here we are. That's a problem.



> The SRD is not intended as a design aid to budding authors...it's an enticement for RPG authors to use a tested system that will solve, in WotC's own words: "_the problems of system over-proliferation, and for those consumers to apply pressure to publishers to use standardized systems._"  It needs nor should have no such specific 'design-aid' language.




Your statement is self-contradictory and the adjective "buding" is irrelevant to the discussion,



> That would stifle the very innovation that has made the d20 system a success, so far.  The SRD and the OGL are kick-off points, leading to things like Grim Tales, Mutants and Masterminds and the Star Wars RPG....all of which use very different design principles.




Sure, if your definition of "design principles" is some combination of vague and useless. A system has design principles. If you use that system, you adopt those principles to a varying but significant degree. Saying that this isn't true is crazy, and self-evidently false. A definition of design principles that is divorced from the actual design of a game is a defacto incorrect definition, like a definition of "bird" that excludes winged, feathered creatures.



> Putting such language in the SRD would be pointless, as it only applies to a specific instance of d20, namely D&D...and that language IS in the books already.




It applies to a bunch of D20 things, actually. And what's in the books is closed content vague advice, which is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which has to do with being true to the principles of an open content system and its recognized, set rules. The issue (as, among other people, Monte freakin' Cook recognizes), is that the current design guidelines promote a certain rigidity. The SRD could be improved on by including ways that individual elements can be tweaked without violating larger mechanisms like CR.


----------



## Laslo Tremaine (Sep 27, 2004)

It's like a car wreck...

...*and I can't stop watching!!!*


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 27, 2004)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It's not a "design philosophy." It's DM advice. DM advice has no weight at all when it comes to people talking about how D20-legal something is at all. As for WotC, since it's theirs, they can do anything they want with it. Third party D20 designs don't have that kind of freedom from criticism.




WotC is free from that kind of criticism?  You might want to peruse the reviews here before making that assumption.  WotC answers to that criticism as much as anyone: a simple review of the modules "Heart of Nightfang Spire" or "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil" shows that.  From what I gather, you expect an unequivocal statement that says "5.1.2 You can change monsters.  It's OK."



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Anyway, adding a rogue level is a clumsy workaround. Making it a "name" creature is a bit better, but still weak legalism instead of an actual fix implicit in the game's design. Regardless of the specific, though, the example and the fact that a fair chunk the immediate responses to DB were stupidly insulting, pedantic drivel go a far way to prove his point, mine and, for that matter, Monte Cook's.




You're right, it's clumsy.  Moving 4 skill points from one skill to another is not, however.  Even a cursory inspection of pg. 6 in the MM shows that for a monster, all skills are class skills, so movement of their skill points is a trivial matter.  The inclusion of a circumstance modifier, isn't clumsy either.  DB himself admits his post was inflammatory...is it any suprise some people responded poorly?  Again, we return to the question you didn't answer: what are your definitions of "workaround" and "solution"?  At the moment, I still don't see where you draw the distinction other than "what I don't like" and "what I like".  There were quite a few suggestions for the 'imp' problem other than giving him a level of rogue. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> The DMG gives practically no way to determine the CR of an original challenge. The DMG tells you that when canned challenge has a CR of 8, it will have X effect on Y characters. It doesn't go into what a CR of 8 actually represents.




Actually it does, you just don't like the information it provides.  A CR 8 encounter should deplete a fixed percentage of an 8th level party's resources. (IDHTBIFOM...20%? 25%?)  It also makes it clear that CR is not a simple binary equation, due to a horde of mititgating factors (party composition, number of players, distrubtion of levels, 1-3 (i.e. non-standard CR) levels, and so on and so forth.  Could there be more detail?  Certainly.  But there isn't.  Can you extract it from what is present?  Sure you can.  Just ask Upper Krust, creator of the alternate CR system (which many folks feel is more accurate than WotC's).  A DM is given advice (in the DMG, not suprisingly enough) on appropriate CR distribution.  Examples of CR appropriate challenges are presented throughout the DMG and MM (in the form of traps listed by CR level, pre-made NPCs and monsters).  Want to design a new monster?  Compare it against existing, simlilar monsters.  People have been doing it for four years, now.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> It's 4 ranks of a skill. There is no way 4 ranks can really change a creature's CR. It's stupid to fixate on it -- yet, here we are. That's a problem.




No?  Apparently you're unfamiliar with some of the combat-related skills.  An assassin with 4 more ranks in hide or move silently, a monk with 4 more ranks of tumble, a wizard with 4 more ranks of concentration, any spellcaster with 4 more ranks of spellcraft and a handy counterspell are just a few examples of how skill ranks can make a creature more dangerous.  





			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Your statement is self-contradictory and the adjective "buding" is irrelevant to the discussion,




Those were WotC's words, not mine.  Not sure how you see it as self-contradictory, though.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> A system has design principles. If you use that system, you adopt those principles to a varying but significant degree. Saying that this isn't true is crazy, and self-evidently false. A definition of design principles that is divorced from the actual design of a game is a defacto incorrect definition, like a definition of "bird" that excludes winged, feathered creatures.




True, if I had actually said that.  Since I didn't, I'm really not sure what point you're getting at.  The system can be extrapolated.  It HAS been done, several times, now.  DB seems to think he'll be crucified by the d20 standards board if he does anything outside his self-perceived lines, and revoke his license.  I think the last four years worth of products shows that he's wrong.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> The issue (as, among other people, Monte freakin' Cook recognizes), is that the current design guidelines promote a certain rigidity. The SRD could be improved on by including ways that individual elements can be tweaked without violating larger mechanisms like CR.




M&M, Grim Tales, CoC d20, Spycraft and Babylon 5 are examples of rigid design?  I can't say as I agree.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 27, 2004)

This thread should not have been resurrected. I started going through the whole thing again, to "build a case", so to speak, but frankly, I stopped at post #126 because I don't think it's worth it.

DrifterBob, I don't care whether you are an industry insider, or not. I would have wished for you to clarify whether you are Jeanry Chandler or not, but still no biggie. 

In this thread (and in an only thinly related Meta thread), you have used misrepresentation, overly aggressive language, unproven claims (and not regarding your background, but regarding consumer and reviewer reactions), hyperbole, and you have stated again and again (even literally) that you simply don't care what other people say as long as they disagree with you. You have also fallen trap to self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't even know how you can expect people to take you seriously - and that's not taking into account your hesitation to stand behind your claims (and the people here aren't asking you to disclose something unrelated, but to prove claims you made about yourself). You are simply posting here because you enjoy being a pest, of that I am now convinced.

And for what it's worth: my webiste is linked in my sig, with information galore about me, including my real name, and where I live is right in my profile.

(ad hominem attack, though clever, edited out because I've got a lot more common sense than I should have)

Edited in:


			
				DrifterBob said:
			
		

> The problem of having to write around overly klunky rules to a fanatic degree unfortunately does not seem to be as widely recognized or understood.



Where is the imp "problem" overly klunky? Show it to me. Where?


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 27, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> This thread should not have been resurrected.




Perhaps, perhaps not.  I didn't ressurect it, I noticed it was back up again and people were misrepresenting what my point was, and I finally chimed in.  I am personally glad it was brought back though because of the link somebody (Christian?) posted where Monte Cook was ranting about exactly the same thing.  Thank you Christian and thank you enworld!

Monte had a very similar problem that I did, and got a similar reaction.  He explained more elegantly than I did, was that it's stupid to push the fetishiszation of the rules to (and past) the point where it interferes with writing a good adventure.  He appears to have serious concerns about this, and he has a hell of a lot better portfolio in this industry than I do.

As for my little 'imp' problem, well, maybe there was a great workaround, maybe there wasn't.  The issue is bigger than that, it's the point I was making above.  The deal is, in a document the size I was working on, you run into little things like that probably 500 times.  That really impacts how the design turns out.  Frankly, you end up just smoothing over a lot of those sharper corners, and in the process, writing a less interesting document.  

To me this is why I have seen so many D20 suppliments with lots of so called crunch and very little flavor or for that matter anything interesting.

Some folks are more than ok with that, people think that something like a basic murder mystery plot which could be knocked out by a detect evil spell just shouldn't exist in a D&D game.  I'm saying, it might be nice if you could put it in.  maybe.  Or at least be able to talk about it.

For those of you who have expressed your antipathy toward me, you can rest assured, your efforts are wasted.  I am currently having the time of my life, I finished another writing project, I won a fencing competition yesterday, my girlfriend got an A on her test in Nursing School, and my dayjob boss is giving me a raise.  I may even be going on a vacation this fall for the first time in five years.  Angry people on rpg forums just aren't going to get me down.

I am glad though that a few people apparently understood the point I was trying to make.  I'm also pleased that a bunch of other people were entertained by the discussion to some degree and enjoyed reading it or part of it.  Again, I have to thank Enworld because this is the only place this conversation could take place with this level of relatively high civility and intelligence.

For those of you who did get hostile, I reccomend that you relax and have yourself a beer, and try to let things fall into perspective a little bit.  Maybe you should think about how wierd it is that some people can't even discuss problems with a game without losing their cool.

Now that I read the 'creepiest player' threads here and on RPG .net, I have some wonderful new images of some of you angrier posters out there.  I will cherish these, and I thank you for contributing to an amusing stereotype.  I wish you luck with your pooping problems and all of the rest of it.

And to that small group of you who got it, learn from my mistake, do not rile up the angry misshappen masses!  You never know what mischief they may work upon you.  Thanks enworld for hearing me out.

DB


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 27, 2004)

I'm not a big fan of veiled insults, rudeness or snotty superiority. All together now, kids, let's sing in harmony --

Klunk.


----------

