True 20 - Is it really Simpler?

[buzz]

So, I'm an Iron Heroes fan. I really love playing with all the fiddly bits it provides.

Sadly, I look at my players and they already are overwhelmed by regular 3.5 D&D. So I shudder at what will happen if I actually try to make them play something even more complex. Just the though of them using token pools will probably lead to me managing that for them as well. :\

I have nothing to say about True20, but I wanted to interject.

iwatt, IME, IH is actually easier to run/play than D&D. The biggest source of complexity in D&D is magic and managing your (mostly magic) equipment. IH removes all of that. On top of this, it has villain classes to make the DM's job easier.

As for tracking tokens, it's cake. If anything, it gets the players invested in using their class abilities. As does the fact that even low-level IH PCs are incredibly competent and enjoyable to play.

Oh, and the skills chapter is worth its weight in gold.

Anyway... back to the True20 love.

 

[ValhallaGH]

iwatt, IME, IH is actually easier to run/play than D&D. The biggest source of complexity in D&D is magic and managing your (mostly magic) equipment. IH removes all of that. On top of this, it has villain classes to make the DM's job easier.

As for tracking tokens, it's cake. If anything, it gets the players invested in using their class abilities. As does the fact that even low-level IH PCs are incredibly competent and enjoyable to play.

Oh, and the skills chapter is worth its weight in gold.

You obviously don't spend much time on the IH boards. Iwatt is quite the regular.

For some folks, any complexity is too much. I'm simply impressed by his ability to tolerate gaming with such morons. I mean fine, upstanding gamers... yeah, that's the ticket.

Back to talking about True20!

 

[JohnSnow]

For some folks, any complexity is too much. I'm simply impressed by his ability to tolerate gaming with such morons.

It's called "beggars can't be choosers."

So, umm...iwatt, you planning to use stunts, challenges, or zones in True 20? I personally don't think I'll be able to game without 'em again...ever.

 

[Jack Morgan]

You obviously don't spend much time on the IH boards. Iwatt is quite the regular.

For some folks, any complexity is too much. I'm simply impressed by his ability to tolerate gaming with such morons. I mean fine, upstanding gamers... yeah, that's the ticket.

Back to talking about True20!

As a True20 fan I plead guilty to moronism. I'm just not interested in complexity. I can understand it's allure, though; it just isn't for me, although, i did play Champions once- for about a half an hour.

 

[king_ghidorah]

As a True20 fan I plead guilty to moronism. I'm just not interested in complexity. I can understand it's allure, though; it just isn't for me, although, i did play Champions once- for about a half an hour.

IME, that's hardly enough time for a single decent combat in Champions!

 

[Jack Morgan]

IME, that's hardly enough time for a single decent combat in Champions!

We got through at least one round, i swear it!

 

[JohnSnow]

I'm just not interested in complexity. I can understand it's allure, though; it just isn't for me, although, i did play Champions once- for about a half an hour.

*LAUGH*

That's about how long I lasted as a Champions player. Actually, I think I made it through one fight sequence. The memory still haunts me. Right beside my 1e Shadowrun games...

The thing is, I don't find 3e THAT complicated to play. Statting up characters is another separate issue, and one I grant is annoying. But that's true in anything that uses Core Rules magic - which is why C&C does nothing for me.

Things in D&D that I think need work:

Magic System
Skill System
Magic System
Combat System
Magic System
Class Roles thing

And did I mention the magic system?

I like what I've seen of True 20's attempt to simplify combat without dumbing it down completely. I'm also thrilled that it ditches standard magic and its efforts at the skill system.

I personally don't get the big deal with attacks of opportunity, but then, I do combat in real life, so I can visualize it pretty well. I find the mats handy, but not necessary.

Give me classes based on what they do, challenges and stunts (a la Iron Heroes), simplify skills just a little more to make statting characters even easier, figure out a way for the characters to do interesting things that are covered by the rules, and then fix the magic system and I'll be a happy panda. I'm agnostic on damage saves vs. hit points. AoO's I can take, leave, or add in at will.

From what I hear, Star Wars Saga Edition may just provide the still-missing elements.

Just curious, what's the big deal with iterative attacks? I've loved them since I first encountered them in Palladium and WEG d6 Star Wars. Although I guess Palladium's dodge, parry and roll rules were kinda annoying...

 

[Quickleaf]

Give me classes based on what they do, challenges and stunts (a la Iron Heroes), simplify skills just a little more to make statting characters even easier, figure out a way for the characters to do interesting things that are covered by the rules, and then fix the magic system and I'll be a happy panda.

Hey, I've got a few questions about your ideas to improve True20.

* Aren't the 3 roles based upon what the character can do? What would you prefer?

* Would 3 "levels" of skill be simpler for you? For example: Amateur ([level+3]/2), Proficiency (level +3), and Mastery ([level +3]*1.5)

* What do you mean by "figure out a way for the character to do interesting things that are covered by the rules"? Do you mean more rules for non-combat conflicts?

* What are your problems with the True20 power system and do you have ideas of what you'd like to see improved on?

 

[JohnSnow]

Hey, I've got a few questions about your ideas to improve True20.

* Aren't the 3 roles based upon what the character can do? What would you prefer?

* Would 3 "levels" of skill be simpler for you? For example: Amateur ([level+3]/2), Proficiency (level +3), and Mastery ([level +3]*1.5)

* What do you mean by "figure out a way for the character to do interesting things that are covered by the rules"? Do you mean more rules for non-combat conflicts?

* What are your problems with the True20 power system and do you have ideas of what you'd like to see improved on?

Those were actually more "suggestions to improve D&D" as I haven't actually played True 20.

On the roles: I dislike balancing classes on the whole "warrior, expert, spellcaster" model. It strikes me as a bad model that lends itself to cliche characters. I agree that, with open, and encouraged, multiclassing, True 20 does it better than standard D&D. However, you can still end up with a character that's a combat monkey with no appreciable skills, or a skill monkey who sucks at combat.

Three levels of skill? Ick, no. Simplify the skills enough that characters can do things. I don't know precisely how skills work in True 20. I know that I dislike the "prime-based skills" of C&C. Generic skills equals generic characters.

"Interesting Options covered by the rules" - I have a basic dislike of on-the-fly DM ruling - as a DM! I like having rules to cover unusual situations so that I don't end up having to create them myself. For example, Iron Heroes allows characters to perform stunts for extra bonuses, or accept a penalty to one thing for a benefit to something else, or whatever. I find it makes combat and task resolution more interesting.

Power System - From what I understand, a lot of the magical abilities in True 20 are kinda..."handwavey" in their effects. Basically, they do something...GM judgement call.

Twitch.

If there's a phrase that makes me wince, it's "GM judgement call." I've usually had good DMs, so this isn't fear of a bad call. It's twofold. As a DM, I see players not trying things because they have no idea how I'll rule. As a player, I often won't try anything "creative" because I have no way of gauging my chance of success in advance.

Some people call that metagaming. I call it "weighing tactical options." It's something the character would do, and something, as a player, that I find entertaining.

If I've unfairly maligned the True 20 power system by this characterization, I apologize. But that was my impression based on what I've seen so far.

 

[Strithe]

Power System - From what I understand, a lot of the magical abilities in True 20 are kinda..."handwavey" in their effects. Basically, they do something...GM judgement call.

Twitch.

If there's a phrase that makes me wince, it's "GM judgement call." I've usually had good DMs, so this isn't fear of a bad call. It's twofold. As a DM, I see players not trying things because they have no idea how I'll rule. As a player, I often won't try anything "creative" because I have no way of gauging my chance of success in advance.

Some people call that metagaming. I call it "weighing tactical options." It's something the character would do, and something, as a player, that I find entertaining.

If I've unfairly maligned the True 20 power system by this characterization, I apologize. But that was my impression based on what I've seen so far.

Well about the only powers that have any "handwavey" aspects might be the divination type powers. Object Reading, for instance, is a power that allows the Adept to read psychic impressions from objects, and it can be triggered spontaneously (if the object or area happens to have a very strong impression). Other than that, every power has specific effects.

The "vagueness" comes from the fact that many powers have a multiple uses. Earth Shaping has, for instance, multiple uses (Move Earth, Soften Earth, Stonecrafting, Earthquake). Each use has specific rules for it (area of affect, time, difficulty, what it dies, etc). This may be why some criticize True20 for not having "vague powers", especially if they are used to D&D style magic where each specific effect requires learning a different spell.


As far as overall complexity, I think that the system should play faster in combat than standard d20 IF the players are pretty familiar with the system. You don't have AoO's to worry about, and the lack of multiple attacks means there's fewer die rolls to bog things down.

The damage track is something I'm thinking of simplyfing, mainly having to record bruised & Hurt conditions. My idea is to have a single condition for them (with a set -2 or -5 penalty), or do away with it altogether (like what was mentioned earlier). Index cards with a rules summary & poker chips aren't a bad idea either.

I've been toying with the idea of either going to a damage roll vs a fixed toughness score (to eliminate the possibility of "conviction hoarding") or to eliminate damage/toughness rolls altogether. The latter option would have a fixed amount damage with extra bonuses based on how much the attack roll beats the target's defense.