d20 Hatred near you?

[Orius]

Yeah, I ran a game at my FLGS and a woman asked me what it was -- I said, "Pirates and undead horrors and TALKING MONKEYS!" She said, "Is it d20?" And I said, "Yup!" And she said, "Oh. No, thank you."

You can't please everyone, I guess. Not even with TALKING MONKEYS. Weird.

Maybe it's because you forgot ninjas.

 

[reiella]

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

Not always true either.

In 1st -> 2nd revamp, there was at least one sourcebook that was labeled as compatibile with both editions. Greyhawk Adventures comes to mind.

Interesting sidenote at least, AD&D 1e and 2e license is now being supported by Kenzer and Co through the HackMaster line (sorta-kinda).

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.

Also, at least a character improvement point and possibly some free disciplines, depending on which diablerie ruleset used (and if you were diablerizing folks with a certain discipline).

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.

Actually, by the rules, the monk gets the nice advantage of dealing subdual damage with their unarmed attacks without penatly. Ah, it was worded oddly (and internally inconsistant), which can be frustrating (in 3.0, in 3.5 it's a bit clearer). BoED would have been fun for said monk though, Vow of Peace!

"His need to declare subdual damage" is just the DM being forgetful of a base player concept.

 

[barsoomcore]

Maybe it's because you forgot ninjas.

Doh! Nobody can resist ninjae.

 

[El Ravager]

On Levels vs. generations/advancement

I do not think that critics of d20 who cite levels as a problem so much with the indicator of power so much as they really dislike 'pre-packaged' advancement. They don't like the 'sudden advancement' of different skills at the same time. To be sure that other games have indicators of 'level' of power, such as generation in V:tM, but it isn't anywhere as concrete as d20 nor is it as correlated with this periodic jump in unassociated power as d20 is.

To me, the leveling in d20 is not a problem and is pretty abstract for the most part. The life of an the character in game would probably not notice it very much. Would a fighter with BAB 12 be that much different than one with BAB 13? Would anyone be able to notice? To me, the progress the character makes is gradual and it cumlinates at the point that you actually change the numbers on the sheet. Some people dislike this abstract method, or refuse to try and see it that way. d20 is not for everyone, but I like it.

 

[reiella]

I do not think that critics of d20 who cite levels as a problem so much with the indicator of power so much as they really dislike 'pre-packaged' advancement. They don't like the 'sudden advancement' of different skills at the same time. To be sure that other games have indicators of 'level' of power, such as generation in V:tM, but it isn't anywhere as concrete as d20 nor is it as correlated with this periodic jump in unassociated power as d20 is.

To me, the leveling in d20 is not a problem and is pretty abstract for the most part. The life of an the character in game would probably not notice it very much. Would a fighter with BAB 12 be that much different than one with BAB 13? Would anyone be able to notice? To me, the progress the character makes is gradual and it cumlinates at the point that you actually change the numbers on the sheet. Some people dislike this abstract method, or refuse to try and see it that way. d20 is not for everyone, but I like it.

More or less, they perfer 'I improve ONE thing at a time' (Improvement Points) for terms of character advancement rather than 'I improve in a set of things over time' (levels). Even if said 'time' taken for a specific 'improvement set' can be equivilant for either medium. Specific and directed advancement is perfered.

Remember, the justification for unassociated/unused powers improved is done due to a persumed continued character development into those fields 'Off-Screen', but that in itself is a different issue (Specific Training for advancement versus General Training). Where training can be something as solitary as practice or not .

Anycase, both are valid design theories and are better suited to some games.

 

[evildmguy]

Thanks for the replies!

Okay, first of all, for my own clarification. Can I say that OGL = d20 but d20 != OGL?

I ask because I thought that CoC was OGL, not d20, the same as Mutants and Masterminds, because both of them had rules on character creation, which isn't allowed under d20. And don't those have different rules?

Second, does DND = d20? If so, where does the SRD fit? I mean, the SRD does list spells, so if DND = d20, doesn't that mean that the spells are d20? Even if they don't have to be included, aren't they a part of it?

I could be wrong on these points, IANAL, nor do I claim to understand OGL or d20 licensing.

As for vampire, well, I don't know it well. I thought that diablerie only lowered effective generation, nothing else. That's all I have ever seen it described as doing. I might have to look more, not that it matters.

Again, the following points are in relation to me, no one else.

CoC was a very good game. They did a good job getting rid of classes and I liked it for that. (I actually like what d20 Modern did, especially in terms of MDT. I would consider using d20 Modern instead of DND for a Fantasy game, to also decrease the amount of magic.) However, for me, CoC still has hit points, which I don't prefer. I know that they are less and combat can still be deadly quick. I don't like the fact that the character is okay up until 0 hit points as far as ability to fight, use skills, etc.

Rules - Well, this is going to be subjective. And unfair. Having played DND, I know the rules and so learning a few more here and there as new rule books came out was not a big deal. However, I had a heck of a time explaining 2E to my wife, a non gamer who agreed to play. Same for some friends who agreed to play. 3E simplified die rolls and characters, imo, to a very nice degree. No more explaining 5 saving throw categories! And they make more sense, imo! I also think there are more rules with regards to combat than were mentioned, such as AoO, grapple, modifiers, etc. but again, perhaps that isn't d20. My point here is that trying to explain what there was in d20 to new, very casual players, was still a lot.

Spells - Again, I don't know if they are d20 or DND. It seems to me that they are d20 because they can be used and fit in with any d20 game. Also, they are in the SRD but I might not understand the SRD, as I said. In any case, besides the Vancian system, which I haven't liked for a long time, I prefer mana point systems, I don't like the "right spell for the right job". I have yet to see a more free form system in d20, which would allow more creativity and less need for more spells in every new d20 book. Please, don't take this the wrong way. As a DM of newbie players, I do everything I can to help them. I am fine with them explaining what they want to do and then I will translate that for them into game terms. However, when the players never want to learn the spells because it is too much, and I agree, then what happens is I am always translating things into game terms. At that point, it feels like me versus me! Therefore, at that point, that's when I realized that d20/DND wasn't the best ruleset for me. I think it can and does work in certain areas but things such as class, level, leveling, hit points, and the spells have always irked me in all my years of gaming. (Well, maybe not the first two or three . . . )

btw, I didn't penalize the player of the monk. I gave him crap that he didn't say it, but I knew it was exactly in line with his character. My point, though, was that if it is in the rules, it was lost where it said that the character concept is more important than the rules. And I think it does say that to do subdual damage with an attack must be declared for every attack. Again, that is what a DM is for, to make those calls. However, I really respect games like Buffy and White Wolf for saying that in the rules, usually more than once, that the character concept is the most important part.

Again, I probably appear to be d20 bashing but I am not. It is a fine system. It is not the end all be all system for me. I don't know that any system, core rules, is such a system for me. I tend to tinker, though, and usually have some house rules.

That's all! Thanks for the discussion!

Have a good one!

edg

 

[evildmguy]

More or less, they perfer 'I improve ONE thing at a time' (Improvement Points) for terms of character advancement rather than 'I improve in a set of things over time' (levels). Even if said 'time' taken for a specific 'improvement set' can be equivilant for either medium. Specific and directed advancement is perfered. Emphasis mine. edg

Remember, the justification for unassociated/unused powers improved is done due to a persumed continued character development into those fields 'Off-Screen', but that in itself is a different issue (Specific Training for advancement versus General Training). Where training can be something as solitary as practice or not .

Anycase, both are valid design theories and are better suited to some games.

First of all, what I bolded above is one reason why DND IS a very good system. If I want to play a rogue, I advance in the rogue class, instead of worrying about all of the rogue skills that I might need to improve. If I want to fight, I advance as fighter. etc. I find that non directed advancement does confuse new players, until they can get a handle on their character or what they want to do.

Second, I also agree that both can be done over the same time period. What I like, though, is the incremental increases over time, to show how the skills are being improved. Also, I like the option of increasing my character's skill in something, rather than having certain things automatically improve. It is the old argument of the mid to high level SW Noble, never having fired a shot, that can take out a squad of stormtroopers.

I think this goes back to DNDs wargaming roots. Wargaming is about fighting so each "level" that a squad gained increased their fighting ability, which was the point. Now, though, we are seeing an evolution in role playing games where it isn't about fighting but the conflict and conflict can be more than fighting. Other skills are being emphasized and are as valid as fighting skills. Don't misunderstand me, though! I understand the value of a good fight! Most of the time, it is even better, and potentially more defining, when that noble can't defend herself!

In any case, I completely agree that both are valid designs. It is up to the consumer to choose what they want to use based on what they find the most fun! And fun is what it is all about to me!

Good discussion! Thanks!

edg

 

[reiella]

Thanks for the replies!

Okay, first of all, for my own clarification. Can I say that OGL = d20 but d20 != OGL?

I ask because I thought that CoC was OGL, not d20, the same as Mutants and Masterminds, because both of them had rules on character creation, which isn't allowed under d20. And don't those have different rules?

You're correct about Mutants and Masterminds being OGL.

However, CoC d20 was published by Wizards of the Coast, and they own the d20 trademark. Hence, they can include what they want in a d20 book. It is not bound by the STL or the OGL in those regards. In fact, that's why Sanity rules, and such, have just now appeared as Open Rules Content through Unearthed Arcana.

Second, does DND = d20? If so, where does the SRD fit? I mean, the SRD does list spells, so if DND = d20, doesn't that mean that the spells are d20? Even if they don't have to be included, aren't they a part of it?

I could be wrong on these points, IANAL, nor do I claim to understand OGL or d20 licensing.

D&D is d20, but all of D&D is not necessarily Open Gaming Content.

The spells in the core books are (I believe) all in the SRD, with any PI stripped from them (ie, Disjunction instead of Mordenkainen's Disjunction).

However, for other WotC books in the D&D 'franchise' (like, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Magic of Faerun, etc), the spells listed in those books are still closed content, despite the book having the d20 logo on it. Those books are closed as Wizards doesn't -have- to follow the OGL for their books.

Two instances come to mind of Open Gaming books being published by Wizards (outside of the core). Unearthed Arcana (which is explictly defined as Open Content, and contains the OGL license). And Monster Manual II (which only contains two OGL monsters, but also contains the ogl license and properly identifies them).

Further, just because a game is 'd20' does not mean it has to follow all the rules of D&D. d20 is a "mechanics logo" (often used interchangably with compatibility with D&D, because it often carries that result for third party publishers). Wheel of Time d20 and Call of Cthulhu d20 both contain their own magic systems which are independant of D&D's system of magic. While it is possible to use the D&D magic systems in those settings, it usually isn't too appropiate and is more akin to kit-bashing . GURPS may be the best counterpoint to this, consider how the rules in the different setting/flavor books don't always apply well to other settings.

As for vampire, well, I don't know it well. I thought that diablerie only lowered effective generation, nothing else. That's all I have ever seen it described as doing. I might have to look more, not that it matters.

Vicissitude ... doesn't follow many of the rules because it's more of a disease with game benefits that simulates a discipline than a true discipline. And I'm thinking I may have been confused between parts of the diablerie system presented in Dirty Secrets and the Viccissitude trurth.

Spells - Again, I don't know if they are d20 or DND. It seems to me that they are d20 because they can be used and fit in with any d20 game. Also, they are in the SRD but I might not understand the SRD, as I said. In any case, besides the Vancian system, which I haven't liked for a long time, I prefer mana point systems, I don't like the "right spell for the right job". I have yet to see a more free form system in d20, which would allow more creativity and less need for more spells in every new d20 book. Please, don't take this the wrong way. As a DM of newbie players, I do everything I can to help them. I am fine with them explaining what they want to do and then I will translate that for them into game terms. However, when the players never want to learn the spells because it is too much, and I agree, then what happens is I am always translating things into game terms. At that point, it feels like me versus me! Therefore, at that point, that's when I realized that d20/DND wasn't the best ruleset for me. I think it can and does work in certain areas but things such as class, level, leveling, hit points, and the spells have always irked me in all my years of gaming. (Well, maybe not the first two or three . . . )

Pleasant sidenote, Mana-Point system for magic is now OGL and valid d20 thanks to Unearthed Arcana . The spell issue looks/feels like you were migrating from Mage, which can be difficult for pretty much any game where spells are defined rather than created .

I might suggest ya look into Chaos Magic (Quintessential or Encyclopedia Arcana, not sure which is more recent) for the spell composition idea.

My personal opinion is that you don't need to know/memorize all the spells, just know (not even necessarily memorize) the spells you can cast. I can imagine a few hundred spells seeming overwhelming quite easily though.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I find that non directed advancement does confuse new players, until they can get a handle on their character or what they want to do.

Maybe Wizards ought to resurrect the idea of having an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons which is specifically written for experienced players who aren't easily confused.

 

[SSquirrel]

The higher-gen vampires gain abilities that lower 'get' cannot aspire to, including storage of blood and certain other limits (I don't have the book with me, so the chart is escaping me at the moment), but there were several attributes that generation affected. In that sense, there is a levelling mechanic; instead of XP, it's like a prestige class where killing another vampire is what gives you that power.

Actually, ther IS XP in Vampire. XP is earned each session and at the completion of story arcs and campaigns. You spend your XP to increase individual skills/abilities/attributes etc. It's really best to think of generation as level limits from 2E really. vapires start as 13th generation and can buy as far down as 8th generation at character creation. To have an attribute higher than 5, you must commit diablere and become generation 7 or better. For those who haven't played before, Generation 1 is Cain, brother of Abel and the original vampire. The closer to Cain, the more power you (potentially) posess.

Max trait (any purchased attribute/skill/background) rating, blood pool (how much blood you can store) and blood points able to be spent each turn are controlled by generation. Blood fuels some powers like Celerity (think Interview with a Vampire or Queen of the Damned when they move like lightning) and you can't spend more than 1 point ina turn until 9th generation.

So basically if you want to become more powerful (beyond certain beginning maximums which defnitely leave lots of room for character improvement) you MUST commit diablere at some point. Killing the vampire by draining all of their blood, followed by their soul, is what provides you with this decrease...getting closer to the Source as it were.

A d20 version of Vampire I believe could be built that came very close to capturing the spirit of the original, because there are many mechanics that some people think of as essential to d20, but really aren't.

I agree entirely. The Clans of Vampire are just different classes...a friend and I started working on ideas for it once...I may have them around somewhere still...was an interesting afternoon of brainstorming.

In 1st -> 2nd revamp, there was at least one sourcebook that was labeled as compatibile with both editions. Greyhawk Adventures comes to mind.

Also, at least a character improvement point and possibly some free disciplines, depending on which diablerie ruleset used (and if you were diablerizing folks with a certain discipline).

Of course they were compatible, there was really very little difference that mattered between 1E and 2E. 1E-2E was a clarification, compiling various rules from other book and Dragon, fixing some things, etc. 2E-3E was a very different kind of change.

On diablere, in Revised (aka 3rd Ed) Vampire, successful diablere will allow you to lower your generation by 1 (more depending on how far below you the vampire you drained was paired with DM discretion) and give you a temporary boost of your disciplines (nifty Vampiric powers). This boost was temporary only, but for a older vampire, rather impressive boosts could definitely be found. These last for 1 scene only. You would also gain the ability to advance in disciplines that they had known. (this last part may just be older versions, but I'm pretty sure it worked that way in Revised as well). Nothing permanent and free besides the lower generation and expanding your possible improvement in the 3 areas mentioned above, in other words, increasing your character's level limit.

Well, we don't get much of that here. But then this is a d20 fan site - people who don't like d20 are very unlikely to be here in the first place!

Well obviously there's not a whole lot of d20 bashing on these boards...I meant more in other boards you visit, your own gaming group(s), your FLGS, conventions, etc. I mentioned specifically the BBS I've been on b/c it has 200 forums and only 1 of them is dedicated to RPGs....tons of diferent people talking about many idfferent topics in different forums and one for our hobby *grin* Some very good people in there, some I'd like to throttle (myyy preciousss), but you can find fans of most any system in that forum and at least one guy who's actually been playing D&D since 74. He's actually a good friend of mine and he's slowly gotten into 3E. He freely admits to being a bit of a curmudgeon at times tho *grin*

BTW, this has been a great thread, this is exactly what I was hoping to see happen. Keep it up people.


Hagen