d20 Hatred near you?

[Sir Elton]

To me, d20 is just a system. I can tell the same stories with Palladium, GURPS, Rolemaster, Warhammer, or any of the earlier editions of D&D. D20 is just more supported than any of the other systems and so offers more options to me and my players. In the cases of systems that have been converted over I have my own opinions. I prefer the Chaosim Call of Cthulhu to the d20 version and (prepares to be pelted with tomatoes) I prefer GURPS Traveller to Traveller T20 or even the original Traveller. D20 gives flexibility almost as great as GURPS and almost everyone knows the basic rules from D&D whereas I've met plenty of people who have never picked up a GURPS book. They all have their good points and bad points and obviously you can't please everyone. No system is perfect yet, otherwise everybody would be playing it.

Everyone is playing Real Life(tm), so it must be the most perfect roleplaying game ever devised.

That being said, I'll play anything: D20, GURPS, or CORPS!

 

[diaglo]

Anyway, there seem to be far less iced tea hatters out there than d02 hatters...

i disagree. i just don't think they are so vocal about it. or maybe they aren't so net savy.

 

[Psion]

That is why I refuse to buy the Revised book. The original just wasn't that broken in my opinion. Watch, when the last movie comes out they'll put out a new edition to coincide with it.

Well, I beleive (bet) that they have an agreement with LucasFilm to release something to support the new film. Whether it will be a supplement or revised game is a matter of conjecture. But I think with all the "new film" hate that is going on, a new rules book would be the financially wise choice if not the wise choice for a rules-need standpoint.

But then, I thought that about 3.5.

 

[SSquirrel]

except the creator of the d20 system did just that. they no longer support the Original Systems. heck, they don't even support the 2000ed.

Uhm...duh Diaglo. It's called they made a new edition (and then revised it). D&D isn't still the basic set anymore. They've always broken off support of the previous edition as soon as a new edition comes out.

Hagen

 

[Henry]

Let's take the worst offender I can think of...Deadlands d20... Classic Deadlands was a brilliant piece of work. The mechanics, which included poker cards, poker hands and poker chips in addition to dice, made it have a sort of "Old West" feel.

Agreed, though the mechanics involving poker hands didn't necessarily HAVE to change; I just think it was not implemented as well as it could have been; it was made purely to introduce d20 players to Deadlands, rather than as a long-term effort, I think. Besides, PEG has a bigger hit now with savage worlds, and I'm glad they do.

Level systems are great for some games (like D&D or d20 Modern, or even Palladium), but for some games they'd just feel goofy, especially after playing the "pure" version of the game.

The funny thing is, a lot of games that claim to be levelless DO have leveling mechanics in them. In Vampire the Masquerade, they're called "generations", and diablerie is something any Vampire character who hungers for power longs to do. In Continuum, they're called "Span" and getting higher span, like getting higher levels in the old Basic D&D, means getting more prestige and more responsibilities. They're called different names, but they're still "levels," and they're gained through successful play.

I have seen some games done better in d20; in my opinion, Call of Cthulhu is one of them, because beginning characters are more discouraged from combat in the d20 version than beginning characters in the original game ever were. In the original, you could start off with an 89% dodge and firearms and be the proverbial Billy Badass, but in the d20 version a 1st or even second level investigator starts with no more than +3 or +4 to attack, and usually an AC of somewhere around 14 or less - the equivalent of the 20% skills in these two categories. A 1st level weenie in CoC is truly a weenie, not a combat or research god. That's just my take on what it does better.

As the years go on, the "d02 hate" is dying out as people are either (A) getting tired of arguing or (B) actually trying versions of the systems and finding them not so bad. It's a matter of helping to clarify to these people what d20 is -- and what it's not.

 

[jessemock]

6. People who think that a system which is obviously tailored for a very specific kind of gaming experience should not be presented as a universal gaming system.

I certainly can sympathize with that point of view.

Word. And the example presented in the initial post is one of the best: d20 CoC is miles away from providing the experience of BRP CoC.

 

[SSquirrel]

I have seen some games done better in d20; in my opinion, Call of Cthulhu is one of them, because beginning characters are more discouraged from combat in the d20 version than beginning characters in the original game ever were. In the original, you could start off with an 89% dodge and firearms and be the proverbial Billy Badass, but in the d20 version a 1st or even second level investigator starts with no more than +3 or +4 to attack, and usually an AC of somewhere around 14 or less - the equivalent of the 20% skills in these two categories. A 1st level weenie in CoC is truly a weenie, not a combat or research god. That's just my take on what it does better.

Yeah BIlly can kill cultists left and right, but when he fails his SAN check after the Shoggoth eats his friends, he'll be pissing himself in a corner *grin* I think both systems are going to have you get aced (as well they should), but the main problem people had with the conversion seems to be that you get so much better as you level. They don't want to see a BAB increase (I'm a pacifist researcher WHY would my combat skills improve? I just read books!!)

Hagen

 

[diaglo]

Uhm...duh Diaglo. It's called they made a new edition (and then revised it). D&D isn't still the basic set anymore. They've always broken off support of the previous edition as soon as a new edition comes out.

well, if you agree with me...then why did you make up some fallacious statement... about "very few"....

 

[SSquirrel]

One of my old players who was a CoC fan did repeat "he had heard" that d20 CoC was basically a high power munchkin version of CoC. I had the pleasure of informing him otherwise.

Heh hard to be an uber twinkie when a Shoggoth eats you.

Hagen

 

[Wombat]

I remember the initial love/hate relation with D&D (the Diaglo version ). It was the Only Game On The Block for a while, but soon there was Traveller, Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, and RuneQuest. A lot of the folks who changed to other systems (or even began with them) felt a strong need to slam D&D ... and admittedly D&D had a lot against it, both prior to AD&D and after the shift.

But were other games that much better?

Matter of taste.

I prefer games without hit points, without levels, without the "armour class" system, without character classes. None of these really feel that great to me. OTOH D20 has done much to change my mind in this direction since the character classes are nowhere near so restrictive compared to what they were in the past and the system is far more streamlined than the AD&D versions.

Nope, D&D/D20 is not my fave system, but it is the most generally popular simply because it is the most available, best branded, and has the longest heritage. And 3e is much better than its predecessors. It is easy to set up a D&D game, whereas setting up other games can be a bit more problematic, again due to its widespread nature; this means I can always game. Realistically I prefer gaming to not-gaming.

Are there problems with other systems? Yep. Each system has its own problems, its own limitations, its own bizarre quirks. Are there systems I prefer to D20? Yep. Am I willing to give up all gaming in general because I cannot find enough people to play in the system I prefer? Not anymore.