Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1459536" data-attributes="member: 151">Maybe I missed when it was stated that the thread's orientation was changed, but SSquirell started the thread thusly: Of course, I didn't see anything in Buzz's post that said 'don't talk about it'...merely 'if you're going to criticize it, at least criticize it for what it is, not what someone ascribes it to be'.  Buzz has repeated multiple times that d20 was never intended to be a universal system in the fashion of a GURPS or FUDGE system.   What I find odd is how many people consider that the various systems using d20 as a negative, in and of itself.  That is to say, that somehow a common bedrock ruleset is a bad thing, by simple virtue of their similarity.  I found this to be GURPS singularly greatest strength, in that over the course of 15 years, I merely had to give my players slight variances in the rules to accomadate wildly different genres and settings.  Having similar core mechanics is not, IMHO, a disadvantage. Now, I heartily agree that d20 is not the best at some genres, and that some systems are particularly good at echoing certain styles or 'feels'.  But I've also encountered games whose mechanics were in direct conflict with ease of use or enjoyability.  I haven't played Deadlands, but it's conflict resolution using some poker variant reminds me too much of Castle Falkenstein's whist-like card resolution bidding system...a system we promptly dropped when we moved the game over to GURPS (a few years ahead of the conversion, sadly).  It was not a sound mechanical system, to me, and ended up feeling much more like a gimmick than an actual well-designed system.</blockquote>

Verification