[revolution] Exactly WHY is d20 so great, comparing?

[Storm Gorm]

First of all, I'm curious as to why a verbal based game would translate better than numerical mechanics. I mean, numbers don't need any translating, right?

The verbal point and the numerical point are unrelated. Let me explain again: Because of the many "artificial" central concepts - english words that are almost untranslatable - a game for me (being Norwegian) is VERY artificial. The game seldom flows on the verbal, like it should. It SHOULD be a story being told, "live" if you wish. But this is impossible because of the mass of concepts in DnD. This is a minor point, as i realise it necesarily works this way in general, but Fudge has very few concepts, so its just a great relief for me finally to get to storytell.

About numbers, i think of course that there is too much, me being in love with Fudge and all (oh yes). And using adjectives serves the same important purpose as "the verbal point", roleplaying becomes more of a dialogue, not "computing... computing... Balance check failed... You die... -4 to all traits."

Second, it could be that neither you or d20 is wrong. Different people have different tastes. Just because I don't like rap music, Chinese food, or rules light games doesn't mean that those are bad. It just means that I don't like them.

Yes, of course - that is - to a certain degree. If we mean the same thing with the word "roleplaying" then i believe we can work out one mechanic that serves our prioritations in better ways than others. However, i think many people like DnD d20 just for the system, that they like collecting books and having lots of dice etc. But i dont! DnD d20 is the means to an end, not the end in-it-self!

 

[Merova]

Mechanics and Techniques

Hi all!

There are three modes of task resolution: karma, drama, and fortune. Each game relies on one or more of these modes in game implementation.

FUDGE utilizes "drama" as an explicit means of setting a task difficulty level. Then it uses "fortune," statistically weighed towards a "zero" shift, to create a sense of uncertainty in resolution. "Karma" is really vague in PC gen, depending on the "crunch" level of the design. For instance, in Gatecrasher the "karmic" designations are high in "crunch" but in Heart Quest "karma" is almost nonexistant. "Crunch" level varies due to genre simulation concerns. So a wacky Science Fantasy game need write up of magic and tech and other goofy abilities to put into play, while shoujo romance doesn't need much hard designation.

You with me?

In D20 the game models ability with hard "crunch" in "karmic" designation. For example, skills are tightly designated in sphere of ability. For instance there is no "athletics" skill or even a "acrobatics" skill; rather these are broken up into distinct abilities like balance, climb, jump, and tumble. So "karma" is very high in "crunch." Then the task is resolved through "fortune" which varies highly based upon character ability as designated through the "karmic" modeling of level. At low level, fortune plays a huge part in resolution, while at higher levels, karma can usually carry the day.

"Drama" isn't explicitly discussed in d20 but shows up in careful adjudication of task situation. Setting circumstancial modifiers or altering the difficulty number to represent "story" elements are the primary modes of "dramatic" incorporation within the system.

So, does that make it clear? Like any system, d20 has strengths and weaknesses, but once the underlying working are understood it works just as well as any other well-designed game.

Thanks for reading.

---Merova

 

[Sir Whiskers]

A couple strengths of d20 are (IMHO):

1. As others have said, the OGL. While WOTC has taken a step backwards concerning the d20 logo (at least many people have complained about their stand on content approval), we can't forget the huge amount of quality material available specifically because WOTC allowed others to publish using the new rules.

2. It's D&D. For many gamers, D&D (whatever version) was our first introduction into roleplaying and there's a lot of nostalgia involved. I quit playing before 2E because it stopped being fun. 3E got me to try it again and I'm enjoying the new version much more than the old.

That said, a few weaknesses of d20 (IMHO):

1. Yeah, it's rules-heavy. I'm reminded of this every time I try to teach someone new. Sure, it's better than some, but worse than others in this respect. And telling us that DM's can always Rule Zero problems reminds me too much of Microsoft telling me "It's a feature, not a bug". I'd really like to see rules-lite version.

2. The experience system (as published) promotes hack-and-slash. Yes, I know any DM can change how experience is awarded, but I'm talking about the published rules. Characters get experience primarily for defeating opponents, which usually means killing them. If a DM wants to encourage non-combat play by his players, he has to not only provide the option, but create a system of rewards for it. Unfortunately, eliminating experience for killing opponents and moving strictly to story awards would break one of the main ties the system has to D&D. Which leads me to...

3. It's D&D. Just as MS Windows will always have problems because it tries to be backwards compatible, d20 retains some archaic conventions from D&D that can make the rules a bit clunky, or (as I said in 2. above) can encourage certain styles of play over others. It's a trade-off. If d20 ever completely severs the tie to D&D it's possible the rules would be improved, but at the cost of what many players want: D&D.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I think d20 mechanics does roleplaying a "bear favor", as it is called in norwegian, that is; a favor thats doing the opposite of helping, that d20 is getting in the way of DnD being a good roleplaying game. At what turn did i go wrong?

I hope you don't mind me speculating a bit? Because, at one point or another, I got the same feeling...that d20 is producing more clutter for roleplaying than streamlining it.

My point is that there actually IS a rule for everything by now, and for every genre. This includes prestige classes and whatever else a dozen or more d20 publishers could come up with, up to parallel rules for the same thing.

One consequence is that you constantly have to watch out for either a) the rules being up-to-date or b) not having a rules-lawyer at your table...or a "power-gamer". Because in any other case, you will find yourself discussing any decision for longer than it took to make it, be it about custom-made rules or not-allowed prestige classes or whatever. And using DM's authority all the time will simply sour the game.

 

[jgbrowning]

The main strength of d20 is that more gamers know it than any other system.

joe b.

 

[d4]

One consequence is that you constantly have to watch out for either a) the rules being up-to-date or b) not having a rules-lawyer at your table...or a "power-gamer". Because in any other case, you will find yourself discussing any decision for longer than it took to make it, be it about custom-made rules or not-allowed prestige classes or whatever. And using DM's authority all the time will simply sour the game.

i'd say this is a player complaint and not a system complaint. you only need to be "up-to-date" with what the group allows in the game. you don't really need to know about all the latest supplements to keep up -- you only need to worry about what's germaine to the campaign (this is assuming the DM hasn't opened the floodgates by allowing simply everything).

as for rules arguments in-game, that is a problem of the people doing the arguing, not the system in question. rules arguers will argue rules regardless of system, whether it be d20, FUDGE, or something else altogether.

and i've never seen the DM saying, "This is my decision" sour a game when the players were good players.

 

[Henry]

2. The experience system (as published) promotes hack-and-slash. Yes, I know any DM can change how experience is awarded, but I'm talking about the published rules. Characters get experience primarily for defeating opponents, which usually means killing them. If a DM wants to encourage non-combat play by his players, he has to not only provide the option, but create a system of rewards for it. Unfortunately, eliminating experience for killing opponents and moving strictly to story awards would break one of the main ties the system has to D&D.

Actually, I disagree here, because a closer read reveals that the VERY same system also determines XP rewards for overcoming challenges. The XP system in 3E is no longer tied to the monster, it's tied to the challenge the monster represents. The rules also give suggestions on setting Challenge Ratings for obstacles, not just monsters. An "obstacle" is defined as anything from negotiating a trade agreement to bypassing a trap. A trap, for instance, is not a monster, yet they have CR's set for them all the same.

So the system for roleplaying and puzzle-solving awards are already in place and explained as to their use. It's just that many people continue to associate the monster with the CR, rather than vice-versa.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Storm Gorn, I recommend you try any one of White Wolf's Storyteller games. They place less emphasis on rules, and more emphasis on story and character development.

I think the d20 system involves quite a few rules. In the full RPG spectrum, I'd call it "rules medium," as opposed to rules-light Storyteller games and rules-heavy Rolemaster games, just to give a few examples. Those who don't possess complete and encyclopedic knowledge of the ruleset may find that the time spent figuring them out gets in the way of time that might be spent "role-playing."

 

[d4]

Those who don't possess complete and encyclopedic knowledge of the ruleset may find that the time spent figuring them out gets in the way of time that might be spent "role-playing."

i think the "heaviness" and seeming completeness of the d20 rules make people think this way, but it doesn't have to play out like that.

just because there is a rule written down somewhere that might cover a particular situation doesn't mean you have to use it. however, i've seen many players (who don't act this way in other systems) say things like, "We've got to look up that rule to see what it says." they start to obsess on the rules simply because they are there.

a lot of times when i GM, i don't feel like looking up every single modifier and rule. a lot of times i just wing it. "+2 bonus? that sounds about right. let's move on!" if a player says, "But i want to look it up and find out what it really is...", i'll usually tell them to forget about it for now and look it up after the game.

having a rule should never get in the way of playing the game.

 

[Tom Cashel]

d4, you rule.

I also wanted to add that the "complete and encyclopedic" comment wasn't a dig...it's just that some people gots it and some peoples don't. I admire those who do.