d20 or Bust?

[d4]

Is it just me, or does it seem that many people who play 3.x D&D refuse to play any game that doesn't use the d20 rules? If so, why? Why refuse to try something different?

don't make the supposition that d20 gamer haven't tried other systems. i could probably rattle off close to two dozen or more systems i've played over the years (i've been gaming since 1982), but as it stands now, all the games i play are d20. i honestly prefer d20 to other systems, and i say that from a wealth of first-hand experience.

one nit-pick re: superhero systems... my two favorite systems for supers are HERO (which uses a bell-curve for die rules and a mainly linear progression for powers and stat costs) and M&M (which is pretty much purely linear).

i agree that a rules engine can provide some of the flavor of a setting. but i like cinematic games and d20 is at some level inherently cinematic. on the other hand, i don't like rules-light games, and d20 is one of the few non-rules-light cinematic game systems on the market.

others have already pointed out the familiarity angle, and it's another thing i agree with. i'm pretty much past my "experimentation" stage in gaming -- i don't want to pick up a new rules system every month now, though i used to like looking at new systems in the past. now that i've found something i'm comfortable with, i plan on sticking with it. like Psion said, now the onus is on the non-d20 systems to prove to me that they are worth my time to learn. and as the Gneech said, d20 is a perfect "middle ground" for my group -- it's the system we can all agree on.

as far as skill- vs. level-based systems go, i prefer something that is a hybrid of the two. like, oh i don't know... d20.

i like having most of the character's abilities be skill- and feat-based, because it provides more distinctions between characters than going purely class-based. it allows the player to control the growth of the character in a particular direction.

on the other hand, i like having levels because it provides some framework as well -- i've noticed a lot of players get overwhelmed when there are too many choices.

the other major thing i like about level-based systems is because growth is punctuated and the change is significant when it happens. with purely skill-based systes (like GURPS, HERO, and BRP), change is almost so gradual that it becomes undetectable. i don't get the feeling that my character is actually improving all that much. (even though over the long run he is.) in a level-based system like d20, when you level up... BAM! new class abilities, skills, feats, BAB, saves, hit points, etc. it's a large and noticeable improvement. it feels like a reward. getting 3 xp after a good GURPS session so that i can bump my Broadsword skill from 12 to 13 doesn't feel like a reward.

 

[Etan Moonstar]

Is it just me, or does it seem that many people who play 3.x D&D refuse to play any game that doesn't use the d20 rules? If so, why? Why refuse to try something different?

There are many reasons why I don't generally play non-d20 games--as a grad student I don't have time to learn a ton of new systems (and as a music theorist, I like to learn the system thoroughly when I do); it is difficult to persuade my players to give up something comfortable (heck, I sometimes have a difficult time getting them to switch campaigns when one has wrapped up); I haven't found many systems I personally enjoy as much as I do d20 (again, as a music theorist I get annoyed with systems that lack coherence and consistency); and I, for one, do not feel the apparently common need to try something different just for the sake of trying something different (this applies to my life in general, not just to gaming systems--if there's a good reason to try something new, I will try it for that reason, not just because it's new).

I wonder if a ruleset gives a game as much (or more) of it's feel than the campaign setting?

In my experience, it's the DM and players that give the game most of its feel, with the remainder coming from the campaign setting. A ruleset provides nothing more to me than either a smooth framework to hang the campaign on or a constant struggle with an idiosyncratic mess of conflicting rules.

What about dice-pool systems like Shadowrun or Vampire?

I despise dice pools. Other people are free to enjoy them if they wise, but they aren't for me.

Do you find that you prefer "skill-based" systems or "level-based" systems?

My GMing experience has led me to prefer level-based systems as they seem to not lend themselves as easily to player twinking. It is also considerably easier/faster to judge whether or not an encounter/challenge is balanced to the PCs' capabilities in a level-based system (again, remember that as a grad student I do not have a large amount of free time).

Preferred systems: d20, Alternity

Systems I've enjoyed, but would not play if I could play a d20 game instead: Shadowrun (modified to get rid of dice pools), LUG Trek (one of the few dice pool systems I don't mind for some reason), SAGA, D&D (B/E/C/M/I boxes and Rules Cyclopedia), AD&D (wouldn't touch this one again with a 10-foot pole now that I've played d20 D&D), 7th Sea (now that there's a d20 version, I'd rather play the d20), BRP Cthulhu (ditto), TOON; I have d20 conversions for Shadowrun and LUG Trek (done during the summer when I was an undergrad and had free time)

Systems I'm not fond of, but could tolerate if I had to: White Wolf WoD, GURPS, Hero, Traveller

Systems I absolutely hate: WEG buckets of d6

Systems I haven't tried, but would like to some day as I've heard good things about them: CODA (LotR), Savage Worlds

Systems I have zero desire to ever try: Palladium, Rolemaster, Harn

I know there are other systems I've encountered briefly over the years, but they didn't leave a strong enough impression on me to make any of my above categories. *shrug*

 

[Zappo]

I don't really care what the system is, as long as it gets the job done. I play for the setting.

Since D20 started, the only new nonD20 game I've learnt is the last incarnation of the Star Trek RPG (which btw, would work better as D20 IMO). However, that has more to do with the fact that I already know most major systems and I already don't have time to play as much D&D as I'd like to.

Edit: it might be worth precising that the first statement also means that I don't like systems that don't get the job done, regardless of the setting.

 

[Caspian Moon Prince]

Systems

IMO, if it isn't D&D I wouldn't really use d20. It basically has to do with the level-based system. It has a flavor that fits D&D, and pretty much that is it. I'm sure there could be criticism on this, but oh well.

Adding to that, I have played numerous different systems and will continue to do so(happens right now I'm on a D&D high and must have my fix). Main systems I use are BESM (for anime), Fuzion(for anything not covered by the other three), and DC Heroes(the old exponential system from Mayfair games). There have been plenty of others, but they were just not to my style.

 

[RangerWickett]

CoC is an unusual case. I've played it for years, but really feel the skill system is outdated, but I still think chargen is better than the d20 version. I think if I had a hankering to run Cthulhu mythos, I'd use the d20 version, but yank out the chargen and use a toned down version of d20 modern instead.

Any idea what sorts of changes you'd made? I'm interested in trying my hand at subtly working in horror into a modern game I might run this summer.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

I owe very little system-loyalty.

Ditto, just for my 2 cp.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Well for one with the OGL for D20 there is so many niche books being made that you can virtually find anything you want and mix and match to create your own game to suite your taste much more closely than most other games.

Also in our group for example there is 4 of us. All 4 of us know how to play D20, 3 know WoD, 2 Deadlands, 2 Rolemaster, 1 torg, 2 Gurps, ect. Of the 4 of us the only game we all know how to play is D20. Which makes it easier, the last group i was in had 6 players with pretty much the same situation(though in that group everyone did know how to play WoD games too)

 

[JoeGKushner]

I know players and GMs like this and it usually boils down to one element: Time.

I've played many games over time and I usually come back to D&D although Hero, Warhammer, and Rolemaster have all kept me for campaigns at four to twenty-four months at a time in between other games.

But that was when I was younger.

Now it's easy to put together some simple ideas, add some NPCs, some exotic locations, some great monsters and magic items and bam, a quick campaign.

D&D has always been easy for me to judge challenges. Hero is pretty good about that too. Warhammer and Roelmaster can quickly kill players due to the nature of dice. I've seen one elf take 42 points of damage from a regular bow in Warhammer due to 6s popping up on the dice and I've seen a 15th level character get his head cut off by a kobold due to an open ended roll.

 

[Psion]

Any idea what sorts of changes you'd made? I'm interested in trying my hand at subtly working in horror into a modern game I might run this summer.

Probably opt for a slightly more deadly massive damage variant. Might even make the players play ordinaries instead of heroes if I really want to strip out the action-movie feel.

 

[Ron]

Actually I think I've played more non-d20 games than anything else. First of all, I am not very found of any d20, except D&D. Second, I love to try different rules. I believe that D&D is the one game I played most, but it was not the majority of my gaming time. GURPS and DC Heroes certainly came close, with Traveller not far behind.

Right now I am not playing anything.