• Welcome to The Campaign Builder's Guild.
 

New Mechanics...Why?

Started by Soup Nazi, March 22, 2006, 03:12:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Soup Nazi

My point was that many people start writing new mechanics without any significant reason. I completely understand making up new mechanics to support a unique aspect of a particular setting...that's not my issue.

What I'm confounded by is the desire to alter the rules just because you want to, and building a new setting around the new rules. I think people are too quick to jump on the amateur game-designer bandwagon without ever playtesting their ideas. House rules are fine (in your house), but changing huge aspects of the d20 rules system (like spellcasting, or the skill system) is pointless without thorough R&D.

When a homebrew opens up with new mechanics, before I even get a chance to read about the setting or understand the fundimental purpose of the new rules, I don't bother reading at all. Mechanical obsession is bad. We should be the authors of good fluff first and foremost, and mechancis should be a secondary focus. A tweak here and there is refreshing, a whole new revision of the system just turns me off. The core SRD is quite sound, and the universal building block upon which we all should begin constructing any d20 based setting.

-Nasty-

P.S. Sure there are things within the d20 system that aren't perfect. I won't refute that. But there is far more good than bad.  
The spoon is mightier than the sword


brainface

Quotebut changing huge aspects of the d20 rules system (like spellcasting, or the skill system) is pointless without thorough R&D.
still[/i] has problems. someone's built-from-scratch magic system, while maybe getting rid of the dreaded spell-memorization in a unique way, is bound to have a lot more, possibly game-breaking, problems while in play.

i'm particularly dubious when i get the feeling that new, sweeping reforms to the system not only haven't been tested thoroughly, but haven't been tested at all. i'm fine with beta-testing a new base class while playing, but not a new magic system, a new skill system, AND all new base classes. at least not without the upfront understanding that there's gonna BUGS ;)
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

Xeviat

I'm in favor of thematic changes. In my games, I've switched over to Mana Point spellcasting with augmentations, I've added three ability scores and taken some points away from others, I've made magic subscribe to a little MAD to reduce spellcaster power (partially to balance Mana Point casting which has actually increased the power of casters), I've switched to a VP/WP system, I've switched to Weapon/Armor Proficiency groups, I'm making new feats (and altering a few others), and I'm adding a little to the skill system.

All of my changes were done for two reasons: world flavor and personal preference (my only preference changes have been switching to proficiency groups, adding and altering feats, and the little addition to the skill system).

But these changes have all been added one by one over several years of gaming, and playtested rather thouroughly. I've done enough varient playing to have learned a thing or two about balance. I see house rules breaking apart when a DM doesn't keep reign over alternate material that comes into the game; PrCs, for instance, can completely break house rules since they weren't designed with house rules in mind.
Endless Horizons: Action and adventure set in a grand world ripe for exploration.

Proud recipient of the Silver Tortoise Award for extra Krunchyness.

CYMRO

Quote from: nastynateMy point was that many people start writing new mechanics without any significant reason. I completely understand making up new mechanics to support a unique aspect of a particular setting...that's not my issue.

What I'm confounded by is the desire to alter the rules just because you want to, and building a new setting around the new rules. I think people are too quick to jump on the amateur game-designer bandwagon without ever playtesting their ideas. House rules are fine (in your house), but changing huge aspects of the d20 rules system (like spellcasting, or the skill system) is pointless without thorough R&D.

When a homebrew opens up with new mechanics, before I even get a chance to read about the setting or understand the fundimental purpose of the new rules, I don't bother reading at all. Mechanical obsession is bad. We should be the authors of good fluff first and foremost, and mechancis should be a secondary focus. A tweak here and there is refreshing, a whole new revision of the system just turns me off. The core SRD is quite sound, and the universal building block upon which we all should begin constructing any d20 based setting.

-Nasty-

P.S. Sure there are things within the d20 system that aren't perfect. I won't refute that. But there is far more good than bad.  

I completely disagree.  I do not know anyone who changes rulesets just to "game-designer bandwagon".  
The rules are not perfect and many peoples' fixes are not perfect either, but I think you are just being a bit of a humbug here.

Thorough R&D? I used to game with the guy who introduced Baba Yaga's Hut into D&D.  His ideas and those of many others went straight from the brain to the gaming table.  Some ideas went straight to print, never having appeared more than once in a game, if that.

While he fits your idea of fluff before mechanics, not every game or CS needs to fit that.

I do not feel the need to be a good author of fluff "first and foremost".  I feel the need to balance all aspects of my campaign to suit me and my players.  If my CS does not sell well, so be it.  I had fun creating.  My players love it.  What else matters?

The Core SRD is only sound until someone comes up with a more elegant solution to its problem mechanics.  THACO was considered sound until  opposed rolls.  Vancian magic has never been sound, but now their is my Resource Point system and dozens of other alternatives, each better than Core.

Don't be so reactionary and quick to dismiss what is new and different.  Some might not be any good, but a lot will be excellent.  Remember, some bad ideas have been thoroughly playtested, and still not changed/

Soup Nazi

Quote from: CYMRO
Quote from: nastynateMy point was that many people start writing new mechanics without any significant reason. I completely understand making up new mechanics to support a unique aspect of a particular setting...that's not my issue.

What I'm confounded by is the desire to alter the rules just because you want to, and building a new setting around the new rules. I think people are too quick to jump on the amateur game-designer bandwagon without ever playtesting their ideas. House rules are fine (in your house), but changing huge aspects of the d20 rules system (like spellcasting, or the skill system) is pointless without thorough R&D.

When a homebrew opens up with new mechanics, before I even get a chance to read about the setting or understand the fundimental purpose of the new rules, I don't bother reading at all. Mechanical obsession is bad. We should be the authors of good fluff first and foremost, and mechancis should be a secondary focus. A tweak here and there is refreshing, a whole new revision of the system just turns me off. The core SRD is quite sound, and the universal building block upon which we all should begin constructing any d20 based setting.

-Nasty-

P.S. Sure there are things within the d20 system that aren't perfect. I won't refute that. But there is far more good than bad.  

I completely disagree.  I do not know anyone who changes rulesets just to "game-designer bandwagon".  
The rules are not perfect and many peoples' fixes are not perfect either, but I think you are just being a bit of a humbug here.

Thorough R&D? I used to game with the guy who introduced Baba Yaga's Hut into D&D.  His ideas and those of many others went straight from the brain to the gaming table.  Some ideas went straight to print, never having appeared more than once in a game, if that.

While he fits your idea of fluff before mechanics, not every game or CS needs to fit that.

I do not feel the need to be a good author of fluff "first and foremost".  I feel the need to balance all aspects of my campaign to suit me and my players.  If my CS does not sell well, so be it.  I had fun creating.  My players love it.  What else matters?

The Core SRD is only sound until someone comes up with a more elegant solution to its problem mechanics.  THACO was considered sound until  opposed rolls.  Vancian magic has never been sound, but now their is my Resource Point system and dozens of other alternatives, each better than Core.

Don't be so reactionary and quick to dismiss what is new and different.  Some might not be any good, but a lot will be excellent.  Remember, some bad ideas have been thoroughly playtested, and still not changed/

Well put, but not everybody who designs these new rules has your experience, or intuitive design sense. As I mentioned before, I've played numerous game systems, so it's not new rules that I oppose. It's clumsy new rules with no real purpose.

Xev has been working on his system very thoroughly, and I think it will be both balanced and effective when all is said and done. My interest there however has been purely academic, I know next to nothing about his setting, just tiny a bit about the three worlds. Orden's Mysteries on the other hand has been a pure joy to read, without any significant rules changes.  

I don't need rules changes to draw me in. The setting itself has nothing to do with rules, and I'm reading for the setting. Others may not be, but I can't speak for them.

-Nasty-
The spoon is mightier than the sword


Arnkel

I tend to deviate from the core rules because at times, they seem to hinder the game I want to play. I've got different ideas than what the original designers had, and I hold my ideas just as valid and worthy as anything WotC can churn out.

I've been playing for 16 years just 2 years shy of you nastynate, and while I could use everything with only a minor tweak or two, but it's not what I want the settings to be like.

We could concievably make up our own new systems, and I have done so many times. Think of D&D and most RPGs like cars. Some people are happy to just let it have all the standard factory parts, but some of us want to do some work on it, and we want to do it ourselves. To many of these people, creating the homebrew rules is just as fun as playing.

New rules aren't always better, sometimes they slow things down too much, but other times they work like a charm and do exactly what the creator intended.
"I like the vans without the windows"
-Killfrog

Soup Nazi

Quote from: ArnkelI tend to deviate from the core rules because at times, they seem to hinder the game I want to play. I've got different ideas than what the original designers had, and I hold my ideas just as valid and worthy as anything WotC can churn out.

I've been playing for 16 years just 2 years shy of you nastynate, and while I could use everything with only a minor tweak or two, but it's not what I want the settings to be like.

We could concievably make up our own new systems, and I have done so many times. Think of D&D and most RPGs like cars. Some people are happy to just let it have all the standard factory parts, but some of us want to do some work on it, and we want to do it ourselves. To many of these people, creating the homebrew rules is just as fun as playing.

New rules aren't always better, sometimes they slow things down too much, but other times they work like a charm and do exactly what the creator intended.

If the setting demands new rules to accomodate new directions then so be it. That's what I like.

If you make new rules first, and then contrive a setting to make use of them, it feels force fed. I do not like that approach.

Apparently some people still don't grasp what I've been saying. New mechanics should come into play only after the setting itself requires them. We're a campaign builders' guild. We write campaign settings. We're not a d20 designers' guild, and if we were I wouldn't have even joined the site.

I don't even need rules at all, to enjoy reading about a campaign setting. The mechanics do not have to be any different to make the setting interesting; they should be an afterthought to help facilitate game play. I stay away from settings that have more crunch than fluff, because frankly I'm not that interested.

I have no issues with people designing new mechanics as either setting enablers, or house rules. I do not like to be force fed mechanics that may or may not actually do anything for the setting.

I don't disagree with anything you said Arnkel. I just felt obligated to point out that a new setting doesn't always need new mechanics, and we should consider why it is that we choose to impliment them, before we cram crunch into our worlds.

-Nasty-

P.S. I have a few altered mechanics in my setting too. But I wrote them well after I had already written about the people, power groups, cultures, nations, and so on. Most of mine were simple tweaks to change things I didn't like, or fix things that didn't fit too well. Some were flavor based changes, others were deviations away from mechanics I didn't like. The point is of course, that I didn't even need to mention mechanics at all to write my world; only after it was close to completion did I begin to address them.
The spoon is mightier than the sword


CYMRO

Quote from: ArnkelI tend to deviate from the core rules because at times, they seem to hinder the game I want to play. I've got different ideas than what the original designers had, and I hold my ideas just as valid and worthy as anything WotC can churn out.

I've been playing for 16 years just 2 years shy of you nastynate, and while I could use everything with only a minor tweak or two, but it's not what I want the settings to be like.

We could concievably make up our own new systems, and I have done so many times. Think of D&D and most RPGs like cars. Some people are happy to just let it have all the standard factory parts, but some of us want to do some work on it, and we want to do it ourselves. To many of these people, creating the homebrew rules is just as fun as playing.

New rules aren't always better, sometimes they slow things down too much, but other times they work like a charm and do exactly what the creator intended.

And sometimes new rules bypass age-old problems (Vancian magic).

I think the saving grace of d20 is the fact you can rewire it completely to suit your own taste.

Velox

QuoteI think the saving grace of d20 is the fact you can rewire it completely to suit your own taste.

Agreed

Túrin

I second nastynate (again). We're all looking for good fluff here first and foremost aren't we? To me, changing crunch is an inconvenience that comes up once you find that the flavour of the setting requires the rules to change. This came up most prominently when I decided to remove alignment from my game, and I'm STILL not completely satisfied about the way I fixed the paladin.

There's also a big difference between the campaign builder and the DM here. What I described above gives my experience as a campaign builder. Back when I DMed an actual campaign, me and some of the players had great fun finetuning rules here and there wherever we thought it could improve the play experience. The difference is that as a DM, you make any rules change that makes the game more fun (for us, a prominent example I remember was toying around with tables for special effects on critical hits), while as a campaign builder you are (IMO) only entitled to SUGGEST rules changes to the DM, specifically where the flavour of the setting seems to require such a thing. Saying "in this setting, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously rather than getting an extra slot per day for them" just because that's a variant rule you like makes no sense, while saying (as a DM) "in this campaign, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously" just because you like that variant rule makes perfect sense (assuming the players agree).

;) Túrin
Proud owner of a Golden Dorito Award
My setting Orden's Mysteries is no longer being updated


"Then shall the last battle be gathered on the fields of Valinor. In that day Tulkas shall strive with Melko, and on his right shall stand Fionwe and on his left Turin Turambar, son of Hurin, Conqueror of Fate; and it shall be the black sword of Turin that deals unto Melko his death and final end; and so shall the Children of Hurin and all men be avenged." - J.R.R. Tolkien, The Shaping of Middle-Earth

Xathan

Quote from: TúrinSaying "in this setting, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously rather than getting an extra slot per day for them" just because that's a variant rule you like makes no sense, while saying (as a DM) "in this campaign, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously" just because you like that variant rule makes perfect sense (assuming the players agree).

;) Túrin

However, what about saying "In this setting, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously because every god focuses on embodying his ideals and powers, and wants to further them in the world, because in this setting dieties take as active a role in the world as possible due to a war where mortals tried overthrow the gods." In my opinion, a campaign builder is allowed to make any rules he wants (here's the kicker) as long as the rules are for a fluffy reason in the setting. If their is a good, in setting reason to make the changes mechanically, it should be made. For example, in Datrik, I am making a new skill tied to using The Mirrored Paths, or a least a new branch of the knowledge and survival skills, because the setting requires it to show how able someone is to use The Mirrored Paths. There is a reason behind my mechanical changes: I don't see why I shouldn't make them if they enchance the setting.

EDIT: really should read rest of the tread before I post...

That being said, I agree with nasty that changes made because 'you like them' or whatever are not good and, as Turin said, should be up to the DM to use if he wants to.
AnIndex of My Work

Quote from: Sparkletwist
It's llitul and the brain, llitul and the brain, one is a genius and the other's insane
Proud Receiver of a Golden Dorito
[spoiler=SRD AND OGC AND LEGAL JUNK]UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE POST, NONE OF THE ABOVE CONTENT IS CONSIDERED OGC, EXCEPT FOR MATERIALS ALREADY MADE OGC BY PRIOR PUBLISHERS
Appendix I: Open Game License Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.
1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5. Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6. Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.
12 Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Fudge 10th Anniversary Edition Copyright 2005, Grey Ghost Press, Inc.; Authors Steffan O'Sullivan and Ann Dupuis, with additional material by Jonathan Benn, Peter Bonney, Deird'Re Brooks, Reimer Behrends, Don Bisdorf, Carl Cravens, Shawn Garbett, Steven Hammond, Ed Heil, Bernard Hsiung, J.M. "Thijs" Krijger, Sedge Lewis, Shawn Lockard, Gordon McCormick, Kent Matthewson, Peter Mikelsons, Robb Neumann, Anthony Roberson, Andy Skinner, William Stoddard, Stephan Szabo, John Ughrin, Alex Weldon, Duke York, Dmitri Zagidulin
System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

Modern System Reference Doument Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Walker.

Unearthed Arcana Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, Rich Redman.

Mutants and Masterminds Second Edition Copyright 2005, Green Ronin Publishing; Steve Kenson
Fate (Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment) Copyright 2003 by Evil Hat Productions, LLC. Authors Robert Donoghue and Fred Hicks.
Spirit of the Century Copyright 2006 by Evil Hat Productions, LLC. Authors Robert Donoghue, Fred Hicks, and Leonard Balsera
Xathan's forum posts at http://www.thecbg.org Copyright 2006-2011, J.A. Raizman.
[/spoiler]

Velox

New Mechanics... Why? Because the old ones suck.

To put it in a gentle and reasonable tone... because some may find the core rules unsatisfying, and departure from them is desired without resorting to an entirely different game or system.

It's what popped into my head when I looked at the name of the thread...

SA

If it were entirely up to me, I'd never write a single rule for any aspect of my campaign setting.  I'd never make a stat block for an original monster, I'd never explain the mechanics for new spells, feats or skill uses, because everything the players could never need to know would be supplied in the fluff.  I'd say: "this is D&D because there are dungeons and there are dragons, not because it has anything to do with Hasbro or D20".  Yes, ideally I'd go diceless, because for me the story and the artistic beauty of my creation (and my players' interaction therewith) always takes preference over any need for mechanical accuracy, and individualising my setting's rules is simply too much effort in the wrong places.

So when I make a setting, I don't have any rules in mind.  I don't think about fighters and rogues and paladins, because these are ultimately unrealistic representations of human experience (not every accomplished thief knows how to deliver lethal blows to the unwary).  The problem here is that when all of the fluff is sorted out, I often find that the existing mechanics simply do not suit my vision.  I like gritty realism with visceral and lethal combat, where even the heroes can be felled by a single well-placed blow.  In standard d20 this simply doesn't happen; a renowned warrior can endure many direct blows without noticeable impediment.  The Vitality/Wound variant solves this to an extent, but it still doesn't account for the fact that most combatants avoid attacks rather than endure them.  The Class Defence system accounts for this, thankfully, but coupled with the Wound system this means that I am alrady using two variants, the reliability of which is questionable.

To top that off we have the Vancian Magic system, which really shits me, and in its absence the only readily available (and purportedly thoroughly tested) alternative is the spell point/mana system, which also fails to supply me with an appropriate representation of magic (both systems are overly rigid; I perceive magic as somewhat fickle while generally reliable, and a given individual's arcane potential is in a constant state of flux).  The only satisfactory solution requires an entirely new magic system, but for a seventeen year old who has been playing for a little over two years, that is overly ambitious to say the least.

So far, in order to satisfactorily express the idiosyncrasies of my setting, I've had to dispense with the current classes, magic system, hit point and armour class mechanics, among other things.  Basically, It's a total revision of the D&D mechanics, and that's just crazy.  For the time being I'm using GURPS, as that is the only system that can realistically accommodate my needs (although magic is still posing a bother), but only one of my three groups uses it, so I'll inevitably have to somehow convert to D20.

So ultimately, I'd like to dispense altogether with rules and rely purely on the decisions of myself and my players, but the arbitration of one's own players is a shaky bet, and they often distrust the decisions of a DM who makes no use of distinctly and definitively presented rules, so for now I'm basically stuck with the status quo, and that is not enough.

CYMRO

Quote from: Velox121New Mechanics... Why? Because the old ones suck.

To put it in a gentle and reasonable tone... because some may find the core rules unsatisfying, and departure from them is desired without resorting to an entirely different game or system.

It's what popped into my head when I looked at the name of the thread...

True.  So very true.

The popularity of D&D/d20 is a direct result of its adaptability.  I do not know anyone who plays strictly by the Core.
Hell, the Core has actually changed with the release of the errata.  

Jester

Understandably having everyone and their brother with house ruled stuff can be kind of confusing and overwhelming (yet another Magic-system replacement / variant caster class?). At the same time the point of the rules is to support your playstyle. Personally, I would never want to run a game that D&D's standard ruleset wants you to run -- A game where good guys face off against bad guys, and one of the parties wins and takes the other one's stuff.

There's nothing wrong with that game, it's just not the one I want to run as a DM. I'm a stickler for consistency and realism of the setting, so the wacky economy and power structure of your average D&D world doesn't appeal to me. I don't care for PCs foolishly risking their lives to run some stupid errand either. In my games ideally the winners are the ones who play the political game and only rarely resort to combat -- As such I think it's important to simplify and increase the deadliness of combat and to give a finer system of handling diplomatic relations than the core rules define.

One of my many gripes about d20 settings is that they don't do enough changes to the rules. Look at Eberron -- I fail to see how this setting is any different from any other D&D setting. Talk about noir moral ambiguity and pulp-action is just talk, the setting is exactly the same as standard D&D, the only change is that you've got action points and that's so insignificant -- I've yet to see them used in a way that actually changes the play experience. I'm not saying that Eberron is no different from standard D&D -- It's got some interesting things going on, it's just that the play it supposedly favors isn't meaningfully handled via the mechanics. More games need to sit down and say, "Look, Using Rope is not going to be a significant part of any game in this setting, so we don't need to have a skill to govern it."