If you were able to design your own version of D&D, how would you do it?

[5ekyu]

HP Redux

Heroism Points not Hit Points - not wounds but heroic avoidance.
Return full at long rest.

Cure Wounds turns into Comeback and restores HP as it foes now.

At 0 HP you are exposed and every new attack that hits or effect that damages cost a HD. If you run out of HD, next attack kills/ko you. Crits cost 2HD.

Various racial, class, sub-class and feats allow you to do stuff when you take or do HD dmg.

As with the above proposal, turns HD into the key long term resource covering multiple long rests in most cases.

 

[Argyle King]

why?

Why not?

because d20 is an easy system with convinient maths and a built in probability scale

Over time, I've come to prefer a bell curve. I find that more conducive to goals such as "bounded accuracy" and goals such as avoiding the problem that a more-skilled fighter increases his/her chances of catastrophic failure.

However, I understand that there is some element of excitement born of the swingy nature of a d20, so I wouldn't want to deviate too far.

I would replace the d20 with 2d10 -percentage dice. From there, I would build around the idea of "bounded accuracy" (something which I feel 5e failed to advertise correctly or deliver upon) and some of the design ideals behind how building encounters and using monsters changed between 3rd edition and 4th edition, but without the wahzoo super-hero nature of 4e.

I loved the 4th edition Points of Life fluff; I was disappointed that the crunch didn't match the feel I wanted to get from that. (I agreed with some of the mentality behind the design; I strongly disagreed with the execution and direction taken.)

 

[5ekyu]

Over time, I've come to prefer a bell curve. I find that more conducive to goals such as "bounded accuracy" and goals such as avoiding the problem that a more-skilled fighter increases his/her chances of catastrophic failure.

However, I understand that there is some element of excitement born of the swingy nature of a d20, so I wouldn't want to deviate too far.

I would replace the d20 with 2d10 -percentage dice. From there, I would build around the idea of "bounded accuracy" (something which I feel 5e failed to advertise correctly or deliver upon) and some of the design ideals behind how building encounters and using monsters changed between 3rd edition and 4th edition, but without the wahzoo super-hero nature of 4e.

I loved the 4th edition Points of Life fluff; I was disappointed that the crunch didn't match the feel I wanted to get from that. (I agreed with some of the mentality behind the design; I strongly disagreed with the execution and direction taken.)

FWIW 5e design agrees with you on removing the d20 odds of catastrophic failure since a 1 is only a miss not any crit fumble for attacks and is just normal for all other rolls.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Consistent and transparent odds - yup!!!

I think the aversion many have for the d20 is actually more correctly aimed at the DCs and peripherally at the modifier scale - not the d20 itself.

No. It's all pointed at the d20. You can't do much with it. Roll a single die and compare it to a predetermined value. That`s it. It's not a good mechanic; it just happens to be a convenient one that everyone is familiar with. Even though it has the greatest potential for undermining player choices by rolling too low. It reduces actions to a simple game of chance.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd probably merge multiple editions. I'd want some sort of multiclassing option like in 2e, The bounded accuracy of 5e, and the level 1 hit point buffer and healing surges of 4e.

If I kept classes and subclasses like in 5e, I'd change it so that each class gains subclass levels at the same rate allowing for some general cross-class subclasses that can be picked up by any class.

Backgrounds would be kept but expanded out like the kits and themes of 2e and 4e.

The more I write the more I think I'm describing shadow of the demon lord... so, shadow of the demon lord but DnD.

 

[5ekyu]

No. It's all pointed at the d20. You can't do much with it. Roll a single die and compare it to a predetermined value. That`s it. It's not a good mechanic; it just happens to be a convenient one that everyone is familiar with. Even though it has the greatest potential for undermining player choices by rolling too low. It reduces actions to a simple game of chance.

While I get that preferences are a matter of taste, when one lists specific claims those are subject to "huh".

"You can't do much with it. Roll a single die and compare it to a predetermined value. That`s it. "
In 5e straight up... pre-determined DC
The DC is set solely by the GM based on the situation at the moment, so the d20 allows an instant assessment of odds based on the situation and the campaign, so, yes, its determined before the roll by the GM but it as that allows the GM to have the roll reflect the odds down to 5% differences that expresses his decisions about the task. (Msybe dome want it yo 1% or .03%, but for me I dont think I assess and dexcribe scenes to that precise a degree.)

In 5e straight up... things you can do with it...
Advantage and disadvantage
Quite a few character features that allowed added dice or added modifiers and their ilk chosen before it after the roll



". Even though it has the greatest potential for undermining player choices by rolling too low. It reduces actions to a simple game of chance."

The d20 is rolled when there is a chance of failure *and* a chance of success (or a degree difference that matters) so that single resolution is a game of chance but whether or not the chances require the roll or loss will undermine player choice varies with the degree the players/characters take those chances. Even then the GM (possibly players) can choose the results of failure - straight up GM for ability checks (failure or progress with setback not unlike fail forward or if using DMG options players Success at cost for saves and attacks.

This seems little different from the actions reduced to game of chance than a 3d6, 2d10 or dice pool mechanic when the action is assessed to have both fail and succeed outcomes.

Now, it's not diceless resolution to be sure, outside of the circumstances, choices, approaches reducing the failure chance to zero, which depends on the circumstances and tasks.

"It's not a good mechanic; it just happens to be a convenient one that everyone is familiar with"
I started with dnd, but then spent more campaigns in travellers 2d6 and Hero 3d6 eith VtM dicepools coming in like 4th... even a few stints in ficeless... so, nah, my choice to choose d20s has to do with the performance and benefits in play not just convenience and familiarity.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] Thank you for your assessment, and apologies if what I say is going to upset you.

There is nothing wrong with the d20. It's simple, easy to use, and easy to learn. But being identifiable as the core mechanic for the most popular game system in the world for almost 50 years (regardless of which version or edition) does not make it as great as many people make it out to be. It simply works on a basic, fundamental level, and that is enough for the majority. And in truth, very few other alternate systems do anything different or better. That said, the d20 system has always had flaws that I personally found very annoying and detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. Others may agree or not, but this conversation is about personal preference and what we would do individually for our ideal version of the game. Another version of the game using the same mechanic flawed mechanic is of no interest to me, and frankly, that is part of the reason I could not get on board for 5e (or Pathfinder 2e for that matter).

Now, as someone who has dabbled with alternative mechanics and game design, I can tell you what I don't like about the d20, and what I do like. The good is that it is very simple. Roll a die, add or subtract appropriate modifiers, and compare it to a target number. This produces a pass or fail state to determine if a particular action or ability succeeds or not. Very straightforward, very easy to adjudicate, and very quick for determining results. And except for a natural 1 or natural or 20, there are no other interactions to consider. Did you hit the orc? Yes, roll for damage. Did you find the secret door? No, keep moving as if nothing happened. Did you negotiate a peaceful arrangement with the king? No, but your half-orc ally with no charisma and no training or investment in diplomacy skills and abilities just rolled a natural 20 and was offered a marriage proposal for the princess.

Alright, so that could happen in any system. But a better system would have less probability for something like that to happen in the first place. Not that it wouldn't be entertaining if it did, or that it never should. But that entire scenario was based solely on the roll of a wildly fickle die result that ignores everything about the character choices.

So the question is: what's better than a d20? I don't think one has been made for D&D specifically, but we really haven't seen many variations that try anything different. And I think it is largely because many of us equate the d20 specifically to that kind of game. Could a D&D game be popular or accepted without the d20 at its core? Probably not. That doesn't mean a better system couldn't be made, but I would love to see it tried. But I suspect many changes to the rules themselves would be needed since you can't just change the core mechanic and not change how everything else works in the game. It would mean a lot of work, and that is something most people these days are not interested in doing.

 

[5ekyu]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] Thank you for your assessment, and apologies if what I say is going to upset you.

There is nothing wrong with the d20. It's simple, easy to use, and easy to learn. But being identifiable as the core mechanic for the most popular game system in the world for almost 50 years (regardless of which version or edition) does not make it as great as many people make it out to be. It simply works on a basic, fundamental level, and that is enough for the majority. And in truth, very few other alternate systems do anything different or better. That said, the d20 system has always had flaws that I personally found very annoying and detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. Others may agree or not, but this conversation is about personal preference and what we would do individually for our ideal version of the game. Another version of the game using the same mechanic flawed mechanic is of no interest to me, and frankly, that is part of the reason I could not get on board for 5e (or Pathfinder 2e for that matter).

Now, as someone who has dabbled with alternative mechanics and game design, I can tell you what I don't like about the d20, and what I do like. The good is that it is very simple. Roll a die, add or subtract appropriate modifiers, and compare it to a target number. This produces a pass or fail state to determine if a particular action or ability succeeds or not. Very straightforward, very easy to adjudicate, and very quick for determining results. And except for a natural 1 or natural or 20, there are no other interactions to consider. Did you hit the orc? Yes, roll for damage. Did you find the secret door? No, keep moving as if nothing happened. Did you negotiate a peaceful arrangement with the king? No, but your half-orc ally with no charisma and no training or investment in diplomacy skills and abilities just rolled a natural 20 and was offered a marriage proposal for the princess.

Alright, so that could happen in any system. But a better system would have less probability for something like that to happen in the first place. Not that it wouldn't be entertaining if it did, or that it never should. But that entire scenario was based solely on the roll of a wildly fickle die result that ignores everything about the character choices.

So the question is: what's better than a d20? I don't think one has been made for D&D specifically, but we really haven't seen many variations that try anything different. And I think it is largely because many of us equate the d20 specifically to that kind of game. Could a D&D game be popular or accepted without the d20 at its core? Probably not. That doesn't mean a better system couldn't be made, but I would love to see it tried. But I suspect many changes to the rules themselves would be needed since you can't just change the core mechanic and not change how everything else works in the game. It would mean a lot of work, and that is something most people these days are not interested in doing.

Upset - nope. Amuse - certainly. So thx for that.

Few points that stand out to me...

First, You keep referring to "the d20" but it seems like its more "the system" or rather your imagining of a system applied around a d20 that is what you bring up as examples. Would a system which rolled 3d6 uet assigned a 5% chance to queen marriage silly stuff be any different? Nope. Bet not. What if it were a d10 based dicepool that also resulted in a 5% royal wedding orc bash outcome? Nope. Bet not.

So, methink thou dost protest a perception of a rules system, possibly not even a real one, and its results and not its randomizer.

Second, "the d20 system" (now that we know we are talking rules not randomizer at all) has only been around sine 3.x not 50 years - doesnt include 1e 2e or really even 5e afaik. Moreover, i dont know of any game system published under that baileywick where a rule stated that a single die roll by an untrained orc gets you acmaga win on a marriage quest - but i am sure you must have a rules cite for us since thats the case you chose to illustrate your point, right?

For actual "d20 system" games i have run (D&D 3.5, T20, Midnight, Stargate SG-1, MnM and others) not one of themhad social mechanics that by rule or by example showed anything like that as a "by the book outcome" so its almost reads like a parody of d20 systems being used to prop up a position.

Third, any GM can mis-apply any mechanic. Just because survival rolls are used to resolve navigating in the wilds - that doesnt mean the rule requires a single d20 to resolve a thousand mile trek with 1 and 20 bounding "died lost in the woods" and "became rulers of all that land" anymore than they require a GM to rule a single d20 roll by an untrained orc gets you from hi to honeymoon.

In 5e before a d20 is needed the basic choice by the gm has been "is this posibble" and the rules dont give it as an example and no GM i ever saw would rule so - except maybe a Toon game.

I have not encounted any ruleset that did not have issues or that everyone should like, but at least we could be at a ground level fair enough to use examples from actual rules.

 

[Argyle King]

For me, the issue with the d20 is the same thing is the strength of the d20: too much randomness.

Sure, it's cool and exciting that there is a 5% chance of virtually anything being possible. However, sometimes it's nice to have a little bit of a curve so as to make a character's skill and a player's choice a little bit more meaningful than flat random chance. (Yes, I'm aware that's a statistical oversimplification, but that's the core of the issue.)

Though, it's not a mechanic which exists in a vacuum; the heavily-linear (and vertical) nature of D&D levels (and their associated numbers and maths) also contribute to some of what bugs me the most about D&D. Despite being quite a bit more super-heroic in feel, I think 4th Edition actually did the best at mitigating this; the power curve between levels was less drastic than 3rd Edition. I rarely ran into issues (as I occasionally did with 3rd Edition -or Pathfinder) where I suddenly needed to do a significant rewrite of my campaign because gaining one or two levels meant that the PCs went from struggling against a type of creature to being able to steamroll an encounter. (To be fair, I think some of the ways that 4E "fixed" this created arguably worse problems in other areas of the game, but that's a matter which I've slogged through in various other threads already.)

On the surface, 5th Edition appears to do well (and for a portion of the game it kinda does), but there are areas in which the idea of "bounded accuracy" apparently meant something very different to the designers of the game than what I thought they had meant during the previews. Somehow it simultaneously manages to be both too easy and too difficult, which brings us full circle to the "swingy" nature of the d20. In many instances, the randomness can be fun, and there is certainly a level of excitement which comes from rolling a lucky crit or surviving because the DM rolled garbage for the BBEG's attack. It can be fun, and I've often enjoyed it myself. However, it can also be somewhat bothersome in that it's difficult to make decisions from the perspective of the player or the character. There is little consistency to what constitutes a viable threat and what doesn't; similarly, there is little consistency to whether I can count on my skills and abilities to work or not work. Sure, I can objectively know that the barbarian is strong or that the wizard is smart or that the bard is charismatic, but the baseline from which I can build an expectation of the game world and how the pieces within it (generally) work is a touch more flimsy than I would prefer; on occasion, this serves to create more hindrance than benefit. Anecdotally, I've most often encountered this when trying to teach D&D to new players, in contrast with teaching other games. (Though HP and damage resolution is often the harder thing to reconcile with preconceived notions of how a scene should play out.)

For the most part, it's simple enough to understand from the standpoint of math and fast enough from the standpoint of making play easily expedient that I think little of it during a session. It's when I spend time with other games that I realize my preference for other methods.

 

[5ekyu]

For me, the issue with the d20 is the same thing is the strength of the d20: too much randomness.

Sure, it's cool and exciting that there is a 5% chance of virtually anything being possible. However, sometimes it's nice to have a little bit of a curve so as to make a character's skill and a player's choice a little bit more meaningful than flat random chance. (Yes, I'm aware that's a statistical oversimplification, but that's the core of the issue.)

Though, it's not a mechanic which exists in a vacuum; the heavily-linear (and vertical) nature of D&D levels (and their associated numbers and maths) also contribute to some of what bugs me the most about D&D. Despite being quite a bit more super-heroic in feel, I think 4th Edition actually did the best at mitigating this; the power curve between levels was less drastic than 3rd Edition. I rarely ran into issues (as I occasionally did with 3rd Edition -or Pathfinder) where I suddenly needed to do a significant rewrite of my campaign because gaining one or two levels meant that the PCs went from struggling against a type of creature to being able to steamroll an encounter. (To be fair, I think some of the ways that 4E "fixed" this created arguably worse problems in other areas of the game, but that's a matter which I've slogged through in various other threads already.)

On the surface, 5th Edition appears to do well (and for a portion of the game it kinda does), but there are areas in which the idea of "bounded accuracy" apparently meant something very different to the designers of the game than what I thought they had meant during the previews. Somehow it simultaneously manages to be both too easy and too difficult, which brings us full circle to the "swingy" nature of the d20. In many instances, the randomness can be fun, and there is certainly a level of excitement which comes from rolling a lucky crit or surviving because the DM rolled garbage for the BBEG's attack. It can be fun, and I've often enjoyed it myself. However, it can also be somewhat bothersome in that it's difficult to make decisions from the perspective of the player or the character. There is little consistency to what constitutes a viable threat and what doesn't; similarly, there is little consistency to whether I can count on my skills and abilities to work or not work. Sure, I can objectively know that the barbarian is strong or that the wizard is smart or that the bard is charismatic, but the baseline from which I can build an expectation of the game world and how the pieces within it (generally) work is a touch more flimsy than I would prefer; on occasion, this serves to create more hindrance than benefit. Anecdotally, I've most often encountered this when trying to teach D&D to new players, in contrast with teaching other games. (Though HP and damage resolution is often the harder thing to reconcile with preconceived notions of how a scene should play out.)

For the most part, it's simple enough to understand from the standpoint of math and fast enough from the standpoint of making play easily expedient that I think little of it during a session. It's when I spend time with other games that I realize my preference for other methods.

"For me, the issue with the d20 is the same thing is the strength of the d20: too much randomness."

The d20 creates odds that range between 0% and 100%, same pretty much as any other resolution system.

What you seem to be talking about here are the odds of success and failure which is THE DC, chosen by GM in 5e. If you like 14- being 90% after +3 modifiers in 3d6, you need to just assign DC6+ with +3 modifier in 5e for instance.



"Sure, it's cool and exciting that there is a 5% chance of virtually anything being possible. "

Please, which ruleset for d20 says this?

5e for instance makes it clear that before the die is called for the GM says it's possible to succeed and fail - so this constant cry that its basically hope for 20 miracles is a bit unfounded.

I did not recall that idea from 3.x, any d20 system game set I played it e and 2e.

The 20 auto-hit applies sure, but only for shots that are possible not "shoot the moon" on a 20.

That said, for GMs eho try to run their systems with precision calculations down to the fraction of a percent odds, 3d6 might be better cuz there you do get micro-fraction shifts.

I honestly would be fine with 10% myself, but 5% is flexible enough and transparent.

Even liked a single d6 system I tried once.