d20 Hatred near you?

[SSquirrel]

Nintendo an inferior product? That is silly. Download a SEGA emulator and a NES one and tell me which one's games look the best.

As for D20: The problem I have with it is simple. It it used as a universal system even though it was clearly designed for high powered fantasy.
It simply is not designed as a universal system.
It does not fit my style of playing in it's basic form.

From gamefaqs.com:

[1.3] WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE SMS(Sega Master System)?

The following has been reprinted from the rec.games.video FAQ (statistics
by Corey Kirk):

Bits (CPU): 8
Bits (Gx): 8
CPU: Z80
MHz: 3.6
Graphics: 240 x 226
Colors: 52/256
Sprites: 16
Sprite size: 8 x 8
Audio: mono
RAM: ?

The following has been contributed by Matt Kasdorf:

From SMS I packaging:
ROM: 1024K Bits
RAM: 64K Bits
Video RAM: 128K Bits
Colors: 64
Resolution: 256x192 Dots
Screen Scroll: Horizontally, Diagonally, Vertically, Partial
Audio: 3 Sound Generators, Each Four Octaves, 1 White Noise
Characters: 8x8 Pixels, Max 488
Sprites: 8x8 Pixels, Max 256
NES:

Processor : 6502 (using a custom Motorola 6502 class)
Processor speed : 1.79 Mhz
Display : 256x240
Colors : 52
Colors on screen : 16
Max sprites : 64
Max sprites pr. line : 8
Sprites size : 8x8 or 8x16
Picture Scroll : 2 h.v
RAM : 2 kb
Video RAM : 2 kb
Technically speaking the SMS is the far superior product, however, the NES was the more popular for many reasons and ended up winning big and bad. I personally agree that fewer SMS games look better but some in fact do as well they should as the hardware was better.

On the d20 for any but fantasy angle, I think your last line is the most important. I personally feel it works just fine for the other situations you mention, but our experiences are not the same.

Hagen

 

[Garlak]

D20 as been used by some companies in a stupid way.
I think that is one of the reason why some people hate it.
It is not good as is for some games and yet some companies used it as is for their products to milk the D20 cow.

It requires some changes to work for most genres because it is genre specific.

 

[woodelf]

As for D20: The problem I have with it is simple. It it used as a universal system even though it was clearly designed for high powered fantasy.
It simply is not designed as a universal system.

It is good if you like high powered fantasy where humans can kill a dragon.
It sucks if you want big monsters (ogres or trolls) to be rare and scary things.
It does not fit my style of playing in it's basic form.

Then check out Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty rules (some portion of them were reproduced in one of Mongoose's books). Your PCs will be ogre food.

Which is part of the problem in this sort of discussion: "D20 System" is a moving target. At it's base, it's pretty D&D-like. I'd say D20 Modern is still pretty D&D-like. But it doesn't have to be--there are D20 System games, like M&MM, that are pretty un-D&D-like. And, depending on who you ask, you only have to stick with d20+mods≥DC and the 6 stats 3-18 to be "D20 System," which leaves alot of leeway for modification. And, personally, i'd argue that you can change what the stats are and still qualify. This is good, because it's precisely through innovation that RPGs get better. But it's also bad in that it's pretty much impossible to definitively say anything about the system, good or bad. You can only really talk about specific instantiations of it, such as D&D3E, Spycraft, or M&MM. Making a blanket statement about "D20 System" is almost bound to make you look foolish or parochial.

 

[Malacoda]

I disagree. In the context of RPG design, a "level" is a very specific beast--it is a unit of advancement that increments "all" of your abilities at once, regardless of usage or preference. 'All' is in quotes because some of yoru abilities may increment by 0, and because there may be some discretion in how they increment (such as skill point spending in D&D3E). Nonetheless, it is distinct from a non-leveled system, where you increase abilities individually, as chosen.

I think you are being a bit overly specific here. Mutants and Masterminds has levels, for example, but they don't advance your abilities. Instead, advancing your abilities raises your level, and level determines your maximum abilities.

 

[Malacoda]

It requires some changes to work for most genres because it is genre specific.

There really isn't such a thing as truly generic or universal, but I do think people take those terms far too literally most of the time.

Overall, I do think d20 is a workable generic and universal system. It's biggest hurdle, as far as I am concerned, is that in most iterations, it is class-based. To switch genres you need a new set of classes. Getting rid of classes for character creation, and providing a system for obtaining non-skill, non-feat special abilities would make d20 much more capable of being generic and universal. M&M does this, though it is weighted towards a particular style of play.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Right, and in D&D you can't do that. You could pretty easily construct a d20 system that does allow that, however. Mutants and Masterminds already did.

Henry: Thanks for the very clear delineation of D&D, d20 and OGL. I tend to use "d20" to refer to any system that derives from the D&D or Modern SRD's, regardless of trademark application. Sorry to anyone if my usage has been confusing.

actually I beleive you could create a OGL system that could do that not a d20 system, since it would contain rules for character creation. And in the case of M&M its OGL is a stretch, its so far removed from d20 its basically an entirely different game with a d20 facade to get more sales.

 

[Garlak]

Then check out Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty rules (some portion of them were reproduced in one of Mongoose's books). Your PCs will be ogre food.

I do not like those, they are too complicated IMO.

I also hate D&D'S BAB, The difference between a weapon master and a generic fighter is just too thin. +2 to hit and +4 to damage? That does not favour skill in any way. If a character specialises, I think they should dominate non specialists.

I know there are few universal systems. But D&D is not built as one. It's built for High Powered Fantasy. HP per level does not work well for Low Powered Fantasy. I just find 4 200 lbs guys killing a 100 ton dragon very silly.

 

[buzz]

As for D20: The problem I have with it is simple. It it used as a universal system even though it was clearly designed for high powered fantasy.

Problem solved! As I mentioned above, d20 isn't marketed as a universal system, never has been, nor is it actually used as one! By anybody! You can rest easy now!

Univeraslly adopted != universal RPG.

 

[buzz]

Um, that's not at all what i'm talking about. D20 System products aren't "disparate" IMHO, by definition--they're all working from the same mechanical base.

Your post was in a d20 context, so I had thought you were saying something about d20 products specifically. If you're saying that d20 prevents people from homebrewing games out of products from different systems, then I'll tell you that you're just as utterly wrong, as I've been in multiple groups that have done just that.

d20 didn't kill your dog, it doesn't cause cancer, and it's not taking away your civil liberties. If you don't enjoy it, then don't enjoy it. Simple.

 

[jessemock]

d20 didn't kill your dog, it doesn't cause cancer, and it's not taking away your civil liberties. If you don't enjoy it, then don't enjoy it. Simple.

No; not simple: the thread is about why people may hate d20. The notion that people hate it just because they don't like it and, therefore, we shouldn't talk about it, doesn't advance the discussion.

It makes sense to counter a particular point; it doesn't make any sense to ascribe the whole situation to arbitrary taste.

In other words, crying 'tomayto, tomahto' doesn't help.