d20 or Bust?

[Psion]

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.

You are getting off track here. It's not just me who would be doing the training, but that's not the point. Return to my original post in this thread. It's the fact that we, collectively, will have to get up to speed on any new system, and part of that time will be spent in less that optimal playtime at the gaming table.

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.

Please do not attribute new motives to me, especially when my motives have already been plainly stated. Learning new systems takes away quality playtime. If the system is not better than d20, I have no motivation to "give another system a chance." It's a negative tradeoff I am unwilling to make. I mean, unless a system appears to offer me a net benefit, why should I?

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.

Absolutely incorrect. The granularity is, to me, not only one of the least important aspects of the dice system, it is almost irrelevant.

Of much more importance to me:

• I do not agree that, in play, the treatment of a target number is the same. Theoretically, mathematically, if the GM uses modifiers, it is the same. In actual play, it is not. Varying DCs are far more an implicit element of the d20 task system than modifiers are to CoC, and in "skill level as target" systems, the GM tends to use no modifier by default. Call it human nature vice anything inherent to the rules, but I don't think it's ignorable.
• More importantly, the handling of opposed checks is much superior to CoC/BRP. The "successful defensive roll wins" gives the defender an implicit advantage. The "generating a target number" technique works better to match off opponents of differing skill. It doesn't matter what your skill is in BRP or how good you roll; if the "defender" succeeds at his roll, you lose.
  And again, its use is more implicit than an exception as in BRP.
• Finally, innovations like take 10 and take 20 are timesavers for "roll again" rolls, and make a more practical cuttoff for when rolling shouldn't be necessary.

IMO/E, the d20 skill system is much easier to use in play and produces more sensible results with less brain sweat than CoC/BRP. The granularity, so long as it is sufficient (and I consider anything finer than d10 to be sufficient), hardly enters into the equation at all.

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

But nobody but me in my group has the Traveller books. They don't have a history with it. They do not have a common shared history of games, and many of the games they do have a history with I am not interested in or I feel are clearly inferior to d20.

My players buy what we play, typically. Many won't buy it unless they know we are going to be playing it for the long haul. And that's pretty sensible, I think.

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.

When I have a steak, I don't set out to eat a whole cow. Just the cuts I need.

I must admit, more products out there than I know what to do with. I still never got as much use out of Requiem for a God as I wanted to, and am pining to fit things from Spells & Magic and Second World Sourcebook into my game. It's a strange sort of annoyance, having more material than time.

But given a little perspective and reflecting back on games that would have been great if they had more support, I have to make the case that too much support is better than not enough. Anything I don't use today, I can make use of another day. In the end, I see the availability of material to be a boon, not a curse. There are many games that WISH they could enjoy as much support as D&D/d20.

After 3 years of d20, I am being more selective in my purchases, and try to only buy things that I think have a real good place in my game. I think I am close to a happy equilibrium. If I buy everything that comes out, you have nobody to blame for getting the chaff with the wheat but myself.

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.

I could bring up some non-D&D games that would really break this theory. Frex, I find HERO 4e->5e much more drastic a change than 3e->3.5e. And don't get me started on CT/MT to TNE/T4/GT. It's enough to make me cry.

 

[Psion]

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+?

Then don't buy those. Really.

The joy of having so many options is that you can just stick to the ones that appeal to you and still have enough to play with.

 

[diaglo]

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...

which is what almost everyone learns in the end. However, Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[d4]

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.

it always amazes me when people complain about having too many choices. like Psion said, use what you like, don't use what you don't like. when you have enough stuff, stop buying more. IMO it's better to have a lot of variety to choose from than having a dearth of choices available.

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.

and this is different from D&D how? many, many people (myself included) have run very successful campaigns using just the three core rulebooks. everything beyond that is optional.

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.

the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion is relatively painless IMO. certainly more compatible than some revisions to non-d20 games i could mention.

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

yes, because the fans requested it. WOTC was initially planning just a reprint because the new movie came out. but due to all of the feedback they received from fans of the game on what they would like to see improved and clarified, WOTC made the decision to do a revision.

and you know what? i still use every supplement for the original edition of Star Wars d20 with my revised core rulebook in my campaign. the changes aren't enough to hurt compatibility.

Luckily, Spycraft didn't fall into this trap...

you do know that Spycraft 2nd edition is coming out later this year, right?

More importantly, unlike d20 Modern, Spycraft doesn't feel like "D&D with gadgets and guns."

i've been playing d20 Modern for some time now, and i think if it feels like "D&D with gadgets and guns" the GM is probably the one responsible. my d20 Modern games aren't like that.

 

[3catcircus]

it always amazes me when people complain about having too many choices. like Psion said, use what you like, don't use what you don't like. when you have enough stuff, stop buying more. IMO it's better to have a lot of variety to choose from than having a dearth of choices available.

I wasn't so much complaining about the amount, so much as the overlap and redundancy between products - similar feats in two different books, for example, or the fact that it took 3 tries for WOTC to finally get Nybor's Gentle Reminder "correct" - it was in MoF, UE, and finally PGtF. No one should be forced to thumb through 3 or 4 different books until they find the latest/corrected/errata'd version of that feat, spell, or class.

the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion is relatively painless IMO. certainly more compatible than some revisions to non-d20 games i could mention.

True, but the 1.x/2.x -> 3.x conversion is a lot more painful than the 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion.

you do know that Spycraft 2nd edition is coming out later this year, right?

Yes - and I'll hold off for a while to see if it is worth it. I've currently got every Spycraft book except for The 1960's and The Agency. And, I'm a little bitter that they are -canning Shadowforce Archer.

 

[Psion]

True, but the 1.x/2.x -> 3.x conversion is a lot more painful than the 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion.

True, but AFIAC, 2e itself was more painful.

Funny looking back how hindsight is 20/20. I look at my houserules to keep my 2e game tooling along. I consider that I have 2 more kids now and think to myself, there is no way I would have been able to keep that much support up.

So yeah, conversion was a pain for me from 2e. But IMO, some of the big changes really need to happen, and resulted in what I feel is a much more playable game.

Have I ever told you the story about how I wasn't going to update to 3e until I got the MM...?

 

[3catcircus]

True, but AFIAC, 2e itself was more painful.

Funny looking back how hindsight is 20/20. I look at my houserules to keep my 2e game tooling along. I consider that I have 2 more kids now and think to myself, there is no way I would have been able to keep that much support up.

So yeah, conversion was a pain for me from 2e. But IMO, some of the big changes really need to happen, and resulted in what I feel is a much more playable game.

Have I ever told you the story about how I wasn't going to update to 3e until I got the MM...?

Don't get me started on the MM - I, like quite a few others, didn't much like the layout of the 3.0 MM.

For me, the single biggest complaint about 3.x is that, since I have no time to home-brew, I use Forgotten Realms and I dislike that I have to thumb through multiple books to find errata and updated versions of different things. I *also* felt that they did a somewhat poor job of not including regional information for *every* known region in the game - nor for all of the languages or coinages. Maybe I want to be overly detailed, but I've had to house-rule my 3.x FR campaign to include regions not included in FRCS or PGtF, and to expand upon the languages and coinages.

 

[Karanov]

I've only really played with the Storyteller system and D20 in the past few years, and before that only AD&D 2nd edition. I am however willing to try any system that is simple enough to get a feel for quickly and doesn't get in the way of the game.

Of D20 and the Storyteller system the later is my favorite. That is just personal taste, nothing more.

I've played CoC D20... and am itching to try out the original version.

 

[MonsterMash]

I currently mainly play d20 for roleplaying, but in the past have played Paranoia, CoC, Runequest, Chivalry and Sourcery, Champions, SuperHero '44, Toon, Traveller, Metamorphosis Alpha, and of course it all started with OD&D (1974).

Main reasons for using the D20 D&D at the moment are lack of gaming time, plenty of support out there for the system. If a bit more time becomes available I'm intending to run Paranoia again and break out of the D20 ghetto. Tempted to run OD&D again as well. Apart from D20 I play a lot of board and card games and its mainly been on the card game side that I've played new stuff.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I think part of my dislike for d20 is the glut of *bad* d20 products on the market.

It kinda sounds like you are saying that D20 fails in your eyes because of its inherant success (the reason that there are so many of those D20 products out there to begin with).