d20 or Bust?

[3catcircus]

I do play other games on occasion, but I feel the burden is on the non-20 games here, not the d20 games, to show some quality that makes it worthwhile. Why? I know d20 and my players know d20. Learning a new systems, going through the mistakes and less-than-optimal play that occurs when you are just learning a system, and so forth, are time invested that I would rather be doing quality gaming. These days I only have one 4-6 hour block a week to spend with my players, and if I am going to be squandering one or more of those learning a new system, there had better be a good reason.

Hmm - what about those games that were (and are still) around *before* d20? Games such as Call of Cthulhu and Traveller? Would you say that they have to "...show some quality that makes it worthwhile?" It seems that certain games have *already* proven that they have what it takes, while some d20-based games still have to prove themselves.

In some of your listed games, I can see the point. I don't feel d20 is especially well suited to supers play, and would rather use HERO or DC Heroes for those. But of others you are listed, I gotta say I actively prefer d20, even if my players knew the system. d6 WEG and Shadowrun and WoD Storyteller (and moce dice pool style systems, for that matter) I really dislike.

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 I've played it for years, but really feel the skill system is outdated, but I still think chargen is better than the d20 version.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.

I have both BRP and d20 versions of CoC and I find that the d20 version seems a little too watered down in terms of details. I'd rather not have to go buy d20 Modern supplements to play d20 CoC, especially since d20 CoC was a one-shot with no follow-on support.

 

[Chupacabra]

Amen to that. D20 CoC felt like it was lacking soul compared to the original BRP version. I just can't wrap my little pea-brain around the concept of "leveling up" in a CoC campaign. If played in the classic style no PC is going to be around long enough to qualify for all the cool feats, etc. that you have to be level 6 or so to get to. No way in hell are you even going to GET to level 6, unless your Keeper / GM waters the campaign way down.

As was said previously, some rules-sets lend themselves better to different genres of play.

But hey, if I can cajole my group into laying aside the longswords for a bit (read: abandon D&D for a few months or so) and get them to even try a CoC campaign, I'm sure they would feel much more comfortable with the d20 version. I won't force a new system down their throats, even if its my preference as GM.

 

[thundershot]

d20 all the way baby! Why? Because if you know one game, you know 'em all. With my wife and I working full time, our gaming time is very limited, so I simply don't have TIME to learn another system. Hell, I can't even seem to get 2E back in my head for some reason, mostly because 3E was so much user-friendly.



Chris

 

[JoAT]

I play multiple systems on a regular basis - I don't know of anyone in my IRl group who doesn't; BESM, Tri-stat DX, Fuzion, BRP CoC, Marvel Superheros (and now Marvel Universe), Shadowrun, WoD (very occasionally), even Palladium (not that we're going to touch it with a 10 foot pole until someone in the group either does their own re-vamp, or the company gives the system some major renovations) - we play what seems fun, and pick up the systems fairly quickly.

On-line, I thinkk most of my group plays one or two other games, but it's actually entirely done with Tri-stat dX - the GM likes it because it's cheap (or free), easy to use, rules lite where it needs to be, and easy to learn. I try to put together a d20 game once in a while, but normally don't have the time...

 

[Psion]

Hmm - what about those games that were (and are still) around *before* d20? Games such as Call of Cthulhu and Traveller? Would you say that they have to "...show some quality that makes it worthwhile?"[/b]

If all my players don't know it, yes.

That they were already around is a moot point; if I have to teach my players the ins and outs of a new system, then I have to invest extra time to make it happen.

It seems that certain games have *already* proven that they have what it takes, while some d20-based games still have to prove themselves.

"Having what it takes" is not good enough. It has to be enough BETTER than d20 at the task at hand to justify it as worth the time I waste training my players in it.

And as I said, I feel that CoC has an inferior skill resolution system to d20, so it's dead right out of the starting gates. It does not "have what it takes", so to speak, much less head and shoulders over d20.

Traveller, I'd be tempted, because I feel some variants (to be explicit, MegaTraveller) are still competitive today. (In fact, that d20's skill system resembles MT's is a major reason I like d20) But I would still have to consider if it gave me a reason to use it over T20. As the T20 folks have pained to make sure I can use most of my existing material as-is, I am having a hard time seeing it being that much more clearly better than T20 to be worth my time.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm a rabid, evangelical d20 enthusiast. I love the system and can recite even the most obscure d20 arcana in my sleep. It's my favorite game system and the one I'm most proficient in.

Since August 2000, I've been playing (and enjoying) the d20 system, whether it's D&D, d20 Modern, or half-a-dozen d20 variants of my own creation.

But I've still found time for the occasional game of Shadowrun, Mage Revised, BRP Call of Cthulhu, Fading Suns, Marvel Universe RPG, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, and Witchcraft/Armaggedon.

It's all good.

 

[diaglo]

some of the older gamers i know have played or tried many systems... even the d02 stuff.

give the d02 crowd a chance, eventually they will try other stuff too.

that's what college, high school, etc... is for...

 

[3catcircus]

If all my players don't know it, yes.

That they were already around is a moot point; if I have to teach my players the ins and outs of a new system, then I have to invest extra time to make it happen.

Hmm - since when is it the GM's responsibility to teach the players? I thought it was up to *everyone* to help each other learn a system. I make it a point that if you want to play in my campaign(s), you have to own a copy of the basic rule book and know the rudiments already. Sure, I'll assist with the nuances, but you'd better know the basics.

"Having what it takes" is not good enough. It has to be enough BETTER than d20 at the task at hand to justify it as worth the time I waste training my players in it.

And as I said, I feel that CoC has an inferior skill resolution system to d20, so it's dead right out of the starting gates. It does not "have what it takes", so to speak, much less head and shoulders over d20.

I'm kind of at a loss for words here - you state that you'd be wasting time. It almost seems like you're unwilling to give any other system a chance to begin with. The *only* difference between d20's skill resolution system and a %-based skill resolution system like CoC's or Runequest's is the granularity. Let's face it - whether you roll a d20 or a d%, the intent is the same - beat a target number. Of course, d20's system only has a granularity of 5% vs. a d%'s 1% granularity.

Traveller, I'd be tempted, because I feel some variants (to be explicit, MegaTraveller) are still competitive today. (In fact, that d20's skill system resembles MT's is a major reason I like d20) But I would still have to consider if it gave me a reason to use it over T20. As the T20 folks have pained to make sure I can use most of my existing material as-is, I am having a hard time seeing it being that much more clearly better than T20 to be worth my time.

Hmm - I dunno - maybe the fact that people already own Traveller products makes it better than having to go and buy a T20 book?

I think part of my apathy for d20 products is the fact that, in D&D 3.x alone, there are literally thousands of feats and hundreds of prestige classes, scattered throughout dozens of books. In many cases, you've gotta look up errata and double-check 4 different books to see which is the latest version.

I look at many other rpg systems out there and see conciseness (even if the rules for some systems are cumbersome.) The only reason you would need to buy more than the basic rules would be if you were the GM or if you wanted adventures.

I also look at the fact that other game systems' are pretty compatible among revisions, unlike the AD&D -> 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion process that is required.

Now, that is just D&D - what about Star Wars (they released a revision about a year or so after the 1st)?

Luckily, Spycraft didn't fall into this trap - more importantly, I look at the Errata 1.5 for Spycraft and the majority of it is simply rules clarification, which means that AEG pretty much got the game right to begin with. More importantly, unlike d20 Modern, Spycraft doesn't feel like "D&D with gadgets and guns."

 

[3catcircus]

I'm a rabid, evangelical d20 enthusiast. I love the system and can recite even the most obscure d20 arcana in my sleep. It's my favorite game system and the one I'm most proficient in.

Since August 2000, I've been playing (and enjoying) the d20 system, whether it's D&D, d20 Modern, or half-a-dozen d20 variants of my own creation.

But I've still found time for the occasional game of Shadowrun, Mage Revised, BRP Call of Cthulhu, Fading Suns, Marvel Universe RPG, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, and Witchcraft/Armaggedon.

It's all good.

I've been playing D&D in various forms since the early 80's. While I like the d20 incarnation, and think it improves on 2e AD&D by returning the Barbarian, Assassin, etc., I find that there is some vital essence missing from it that previous versions had - it feels too assembly-line in nature. Given my druthers, I'd choose to play the D&D Cyclopedia version of OD&D.

That said, I do like Spycraft - I think AEG did it right. I don't wanna touch d20 Modern with a 10' pole - too much like "D&D with guns and gadgets." If I wanted that kind of feel, I'd play Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu Delta Green/Nocturnum, Dark Conspiracy, or Spycraft's Shadowforce Archer - especially since I've already made the investment in those games and haven't bought a single d20 Modern book.

I think part of my dislike for d20 is the glut of *bad* d20 products on the market. Even WoTC's own products have tended to not be that good - Savage Species, Epic Level Handbook, etc. come to mind. Not to mention the trashing of some Forgotten Realms canon with the publishing of FRCS and follow-on products (FR cosmology, Shadovar, etc.) I especially dislike the feeling that many of the WoTC books seem to reproduce feats, spells, etc. in multiple books, which seems like a filler. For example - the spell Nybor's Gentle Reminder appears in Magic of Faerun, *and* Unapproachable East, *and* Player's Guide to Faerun. Howzabout simply publishing the corrections in a web errata rather than taking up space in a hardcover book that costs $30+?

 

[3catcircus]

some of the older gamers i know have played or tried many systems... even the d02 stuff.

give the d02 crowd a chance, eventually they will try other stuff too.

that's what college, high school, etc... is for...

With all of the thousands of feats and spells and hundreds of cookie-cutter prestige classes, it makes me want to go back and break out my D&D Cyclopedia...