• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

d20 Hatred near you?

SSquirrel said:
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


That's why Monte kept the SAN system, because it worked so well. Low or high level, that investigator is still going cuckoo when a pair of jaws manifests from the ceiling and tries to eat him.

As for the BAB increase, keep in mind that formerly ;) pacifist researcher has done more than just read books, especially by the time he or she is high level; they've uncovered conspiracies, and likely punched out or shot cultists or deep ones on more than one occasion, so he's much more experienced than the green library science major who just started finding out the truth of the world. Just as I know more about fighting than I did 10 years ago (and I have been in very few fights in my life), the green investigator, no matter how focused, will learn more as well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SSquirrel said:
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

Definitely: d20 has been designed (and re-designed) to support combat-heavy campaigns; it modifies characters in accord with this principle.

I think that one of the main purposes of d20 CoC was to make the game 'campaignable'--that's John Tynes' term, from a '92 article in the Unspeakable Oath, which presented CoC 5 1/2 (not 5.5--isn't that quaint?) to this end. But I don't think that it entirely works, unless by 'campaignable' one means "more easily resolvable as a series of tactical challenges".
 

diaglo said:
well, if you agree with me...then why did you make up some fallacious statement... about "very few".... :confused:
Pick nits much? Here's my words "Very few companies out there abandon their original systems when they port over to d20"

d20 had to be created as a rules set before other systems could be ported to it. D&D was the system d20 was made for and thus it was not ported to it. Heck, many people feel it was a natural change from the 2.1 stuff with the Options material.

It's not a fallacious statement. VERY FEW companies do abandon their original system when they port over. D&D did not port over. D&D had a new system designed for it which it became. I view porting as more of if say White Wolf were to convert Vampire over. CoC, Deadlands, Traveller, etc....these are ports. 3E was just another edition of D&D. d20 happens to be a distillation of said new edition. You had to have teh new edition before you had d20 as an SRD. TSR didn't produce more 1E stuff when 2E was released. Same when 3E came out. Same with 3.5. Evolution my friend.

Hagen
 


SSquirrel said:
Pick nits much?...

all the time on the internet. i'm bored what else should i do?

TSR didn't produce more 1E stuff when 2E was released. Same when 3E came out. Same with 3.5.


TSR did produce D&D still for many years after 2edADnD came out. as they did for OD&D when 1edADnD and BD&D were released. OD&D didn't go out of production until 1979. ;)

Evolution my friend.

History. learn it before you try and change it. :p

give it more time before you start calling it evolution. looks like a lethal mutation to me.
 

kengar said:
Speaking as someone who played d20 for a couple years then left it, I will say that I know several people like myself who don't "hate" d20, but find it's not the system for them. My primary beef with d20 as a part of the gaming community is that I run into too many people who are unwilling to play anything other than d20, because they don't want to learn another game system.
That's me, but it has nothing to do with d20 - I've always been like that.

One system for medieval-type fantasy, one system for futuristic sci-fi. Period.
 

*Henry meanders up to diaglo, starts searching through his head for nits*

diaglo said:
TSR did produce D&D still for many years after 2edADnD came out. as they did for OD&D when 1edADnD and BD&D were released. OD&D didn't go out of production until 1979. ;)

That produced the boxed BECM version during the AD&D reign, but they stopped with 1st edition when 2nd appeared, and so on. Basic was its own line, and pretty much a different game at that.

And OD&D went out of print when the last book was released and the new rules were complete (PHB in '79), hence your smiley.

*finds nit*
*munch*
*munch*


Evolution? Deadly Mutation? IMO, one man's polydactyl appendage is another man's extra trigger finger. :)

TC,

HL
 

diaglo said:
TSR did produce D&D still for many years after 2edADnD came out. as they did for OD&D when 1edADnD and BD&D were released. OD&D didn't go out of production until 1979. ;)
Yes that was the Rules Cyclopedia, which was a revival of D&D....there was a long span of time where no Dungeons & Dragons (non advanced) was published.

diaglo said:
History. learn it before you try and change it. :p

give it more time before you start calling it evolution. looks like a lethal mutation to me.
Already know it. 1979...2 years after the AD&D Players Handbook. Really just a small transition period. I know that the Basic-Immortal sets were still selling throughout the 80s (as that's when I started playing) but the market of D&D was MUCH smaller than that of the 1E products. It always felt like if they kept it around for anything it was just so people didn't accuse them of totally abandoning their roots. Now they don't worry about that so much thankfully.

It is evolution. With the product roadmap they gave recently, there's no way they're truning the clock back and regressing back to previous versions of the game. Ok they are doing a new Basic D&D set, I'll give you that. But that's more to push the new minis than anything else I think, plus to give a nice nod to the 30th anniversary of the game and its roots.

Self correction:1E PHB in 78, DMG in 79.

Hagen
 
Last edited:

Henry said:
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 respectfully disagree. I can't speak for Continuum, as I haven't played that but V:tM doesn't have levels.

"Levels" in d20, imo, are the point when a character has gained enough experience and have improved their skills. When "leveling" happens, it usually includes automatic increases in character abilities, even if those abilities were not used or are not emphasized by the character.

If a vampire commits diablerie, they gain nothing from it except the potential to be more powerful. However, at the point that they diablerize another vampire, they gain the blood but nothing else.

So, imo, at least one of those games mentioned doesn't have "levels" in the sense that d20 has levels.

Good discussion!

edg
 

My own coppers worth

Greetings!

I admit it. After 23 years of playing DND, I "left" it to play another game. (Alternity - in fact, a Fantasy version of Alternity.) I have had problems for years with the wargaming roots of DND (d20). I specifically don't like levels, classes, "upping the numbers" and hit points. I also don't like the magic system but that isn't based on wargaming.

Having said that, d20 can be a fun game. Like ANY game, it isn't the "end all, be all" of RPGs, imo. Levels, for example, can serve as a way to show progress. It is a quick and easy way for a player to see progress in their character. For many players, that is enough to keep them playing. And if they are having fun with it, that's great! That, to me, is the point.

However, d20 can also be a source of frustration, again, as can ANY game. The trick is not letting the rules get in the way of fun. d20, though, has so many rules on so many different areas that it can be tricky for the GM to decide which to drop or not because of how they effect other aspects of the game. Again, I think this goes back to its wargaming roots that there are so many rules. THAT ISN'T BAD. It also isn't everyone's preferred gaming style.

After a long hiatus, I again DMed this past weekend for a group of friends. For the most part it was fun. I set the character levels, told the group not to worry about xp or leveling, and concentrated on telling an interesting story. Again, for the most part it worked. At the same time, it failed for several players.

One player, in trying to play an effective character (and getting a lot of crap from the group over the years) spent hours at the game table reading spells so that he would be prepared to play his cleric. Even having played for over twenty years, this player felt this need, in part due to the new version but also because of how the spell system works. There is a complexity to the spells (each spell does one or two things and that is it. Therefore, there are hundreds of spells to cover the most common situations an adventurer might encounter.) that makes it difficult to learn and remember them all. That style is a fine style for people who want it. I am not one of those people. I don't prefer having specialized spells for each situation.

Another player, in trying to play a pacifist monk, had the base rules work against him. (We played 3.0, not 3.5 and I don't know if that would have made a difference.) He wanted to do subdual damage not to kill the enemies, instead of "real" hit point damage. I think, by the rules, I could have penalized him in several places, such as his need to declare subdual damage for every attack, as well as potentially having some penalties for attacking in a non lethal way. I didn't do that, I wanted him to have fun. I am not sure the rules support what I did, though. Yes, it is my perogative to change what I want. Every time I have to change the rules, it tells me the d20 rules are not for me.

And that's why I don't play it anymore, except on a few occassions with my old group. It is more the excuse we use to get together and see each other.

Again, I think d20 is a valid system. There are a lot of good things about it. In fact, I think the Stargate d20 system, using Spycraft, in what I have read is an excellent system! I would certainly give this a chance as d20. I think d20 SW is pretty good as well and wouldn't mind playing that as well, outside of good computer games like KOTOR.

All I am saying is that DND (d20) isn't for me.

It is for this reason that I find it too bad that d20 has become popular because for as many casual players that d20 has attracted, and I think that's great to see our hobby expanding, I am sure it has turned off people as well. I am equally sure, though, that the latest version turns off less people in terms of introducing new people to an RPG. And, again, that's good news for all of us!

Good discussion! Thanks!

edg
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top