D20 taking over?

[Psion]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using them where they are appropriate. I think a lot of games would be better off in d20. But I was specifically talkin about places where they weren't appropriate.

That I can agree with. My defense is mostly hedged against those who allege "classes only work for fantasy" or suchnot.

Different strokes. I happen to enjoy GURPS and HERO a lot. Other people don't - that's great.

Note the sig. There is no "one true way."

That doesn't mean that the market is going to suffer if a lot of these slipshod game systems get the boot.

Oh, and I like HERO too (needless to say, I use packages.) I just am very consciouis that many math anxious players are put off by it.

As for these baggage items being mutable points - sure. I talked about that. If you change all of them, is it still d20? Or is it a system that happens to use a 20-sided die for resolution?

If I remove classes and levels...and I add in flaws/disadvantages (because I think they're a neat concept)...and then I decide that I'd rather have advantages as well...and I make everything a point-buy system...and I completely redo the magic system to one that's skill-based...

...am I still playing d20?

First off, you can't go that far under the d20 liscence. Advancing and distribution of skill points are things you can't define under the D20 license.

That said, so long as you are using a d20, you will have one thing on most dice pool systems IMO.

Even if you do that, are you using the same 6 stats? That's one thing you won't have to redefine for players. How about the effects of "paralyzed", "shaken", "stunned" etc.? Those will be points of commonality.

...am I still making a d20 game from a legal standpoint? Am I even allowed to publish these alternate classless/levelless character creation and advancement rules? I'm foggy on that part of the OGL.

It's not in the OGL... the OGL says nothing about d20. But per the d20 system license, I think you are "stuck" with classes and levels, though there are ways you can jimmy around them. I would question why you would want to, but there you go.

 

[Umbran]

I personally don't see gaming heading in the "All systems will be d20, you will be assimilated" direction. However, there are a couple of other things that ought to be addressed...

The fact that any one person, as an individual, preferrs d20 is not sufficient excuse to sday that it would be better for all games to be d20. That would be akin to saying that because you like pop music, or vanilla ice cream, then all classical music and pistachio fans should go hang.

Game systems are not hardware. They are software. There is great gain to be had in standardizing hardware. There is less gain to be had in standardizing software, and in fact some loss. Innovation often comes out of variety, rather than unity. The d20 system came about in part because D&D was being constantly compared and contrasted with other systems. If there had been nothing else, innovation would have come more slowly.

So, having gotten a good thing, you'd be willing to throw away a large portion of the mechanism that could help make it even better? That's... short sighted.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm a pro d20 guy. Why? Because I don't feel that mechanics reflects that big a flavor change. d20 != d&d

d20 is basically -> roll a d20 + mods to reach a difficulty number to resolve tasks, use skills for stuff you get better in, use feats for stuff you can just do. All the rest, hit points, armor class, levels, and classes can and have been altered to fit different games while still maintaining this basic familiarity.

What flavor do you get by picking up and rolling a handful of dice instead of a d20? Or using quirks and advantages instead of feats?

And most importantly, do they bring enough to the game to get me to read 200 pages on a new way to roll dice? I seriously doubt it.

Someone would be hard pressed to get me to learn a non d20 game at this point.

I am a strong believer that experienced gamers can run any general style of game with any system, usually without a need for an epic reworking of that system.

However, two grim n gritty campaigns, using the same setting, mood, even DM and players, can have a different feel with different systems. Characters are capable of different things, are affected in different ways by magic, the world, etc...

A good example is thus:

In d20, the focus of a character's ability is on learned knowledge and equipment. There is no real measurement or affect of raw, natural talent on most tasks; at high levels a character's natural stat bonus (natural talent) is virtually insignificant next to magical enhancments and training (skill ranks, feats, BAB et al).

In the Silhouette System, OTOH, the effect of both natural talent and training are clearly modelled. A character with a high stat has a good chance of performing a skill relating to that stat exceptionally and vice versa, while a character who has trained will perform more consistently at a given level, as appropriate to that training.

Now, to many people, this differentiation is irrelevant. But it is one example of where a system other than d20 offers something different than d20, and which is not easily modelled by d20. Is one intrinsically better than the other? No. But the simple elegance of Silhouette is something I appreciate very much, and in many other ways as well, silhouette provides a different gaming experience than d20.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've never had a problem learning a new system, and I like playing with different systems for different genres, which is why I'd much rather play d6 SW instead of d20 SW, the fact that d6 modeled the SW feel a lot better doesn't hurt though. Like I said, I don't think that you could model the DC Universe very good under a d20 system, but it would be easy under Hero, or the old Mayfair DC system worked great IMO.

 

[Eryx]

I still feel that the system you use has to fit the setting. Even if that means you have to build a system for it or modify an existing system to do so, like with WoT and SW.

With regards to Star Wars, I have found that the SW D20 manages to capture the feel of the setting just as well as the old D6 system.
However, some systems don't work all round. Try running a Sci-Fi game using the Storyteller system (and I have tried). It doesn't feel right, from either a DM/ST position nor a players view.

I'm not sure that CoC D20 will work very well but I'll give it a damn good read when it shows up at my local shop. I hope to be proved wrong.


Anyway, this is proving to be an interesting discussion, so I'll sit back again and listen.

 

[drnuncheon]

It's not in the OGL... the OGL says nothing about d20. But per the d20 system license, I think you are "stuck" with classes and levels, though there are ways you can jimmy around them. I would question why you would want to, but there you go.

I can think of a lot of reasons to get rid of classes and levels - most of them boil down to "there are more elegant ways of doing it".

For example, the CoC 'classes' are OK - but they seem kind of clunky to me, for a lot of the same reasons that the D&D NPC classes seem clunky to a lot of people. Things like: "why does the world's foremost expert on Pre-Imperial Merithian Pottery (Expert 10) get more attacks per round than my career soldier (Fighter 5)?" If level were removed from the equation - or if combat prowess was a skill rather than being level dependant - then one could separate the Expert's high Knowledge skill from her level.

That kind of thing works in D&D, where higher level = more heroic = better at everything. The farther you get from the cinematic-heroic style of play, though, the less it becomes appropriate. I suppose you could eliminate BAB, save and hit point advancement from all non-martial classes but you're starting to venture away from elegance and into kludginess.

I don't think of superheros as a genre that has the same core assumptions as D&D either. Classes? Well, there are superhero archetypes, certainly, but I would view those as more akin to races as they don't tend to channel a character's development as much as a class does. For that matter, superheros don't show the same advancement patterns as D&D characters - has Mr. Fantastic raised his Knowledge (Physics) or Use Scientific Device skills? Has Batman really gotten that much better at fighting since the 50s? Instead, they tend to stay at the same level, with the occasional power (or new use for a power) being added. So classes & levels don't really match superhero stuff either. (To be honest, this is a thing that most superhero systems don't handle well - I think because of the strong desire for character improvement, which may be because people were used to it from D&D...)

Anyway, I'd hate to see all the diversity go. Sure, RPGs follow Sturgeon's Law - but the 10% has some genuine greats. In fact, the diversity is what came back and strengthened and altered D&D and brought about the evolution to 3e in the first place. So I'm all for it, even if it means there's a lot of crud out there - the good stuff more than makes up for it.

J

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

My group tried these game systems and hated them (this doesn't necessarily mean we didn't like the actual setting, just the mechanics): Warhammer, GURPS, Torg, Palladium (once Rifts came in), Star Wars (WEG), Shadowrun, WoD, Chill, Chaosium/Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Kult.

We loved 1e, 2e, 2.5e (Skills & Powers), 3e and d20.

In the past, we also learned/liked the rules for Top Secret, Top Secret/S.I., Star Frontiers, Gangbusters, Gamma World, Palladium FRPG, Beyond the Supernatural, Heroes Unlimited. We dropped Palladium like a hot potato once 2e came out, only venturing back for a one shot Rifts game (MDC? Ugh!).

We like games we understand. We dislike anything too different from D&D (past, present, future). d20 is a godsend to us, as we can finally play different genres without learning new rule sets (a major problem we had with TSR's non-D&D games. Why couldn't they all use the same system? Now they do!).

New rule sets = bad. Bad = Time spent learning rules instead of gaming, and learning a game system we may not like. d6 or d100 systems quickly break down at mid-high levels from our past experience. We do not want to add up a bunch of dice unless we are throwing a fireball, not for every damn thing we do, LOL.

For us at this point in our lives--after two decades of playing RPGs (95% D&D) if it's not D&D/d20 compatible, it's not worth the headache to learn. We've never had a non-D&D campaign go on for more than three months, so learning another rules set (especially for a non-fantasy game) is a poor use of our time (which is even more limited than before thanks to families and/or careers--damn them!).

Other game systems are fine (especially if 4e/d20 incorporates juicy ideas taken from them!), but my group won't be playing anything that's not D&D/d20. It's what we know best and love and we simply have no desire to try anything else.

 

[Mistwell]

I'd like nothing better than virtually all rpg's to move over to the d20 system.

Someone claimed that game systems were hardware, not software. I disagree, but even if they are software, they are the operating systems, not the applications. I really do think any kind of game can be played with the d20 system. Classless? Just make it one class. Point system? Just make the class high in skill points, and dish your special things into the skills.

During the platform wars between commodore, atari, apple, IBM, Timex, TRS, etc...a lot of people made these same arguments (you can't possibly ever run the same kind of software on an IBM platform, it will never give you the [sound] / [graphics] / [whatever] of the [atari] / [commodore] / [whatever]). Those kinds of cliams were just as false then as they are now. Gaming systems are not the art, not the creativity, and not the game itself. It's just the framework to play a game. Having a common framework is the first step to a LOT more games, a lot more support, and a lot more creativity. Every other industry that has gone through this process has benefitted from it, though they always had people complaining during the transformation. It's difficult, but it's healthy.

 

[SableWyvern]

Kaptain: I'm intrigued.

You say that in your experience d6 and d100 systems break down at mid to high levels.

I can see a point for d100, if, by d100, you refer to games where skill values give a % chance of success, and are thus capped at 100%.

The bulk of my RPing experience is with Rolemaster, which is d100, and has no such problem.

My favourite sci-fi game is Heavy Gear (Silhouette), which uses a very elegant d6 system.

Basically, I'm wondering what exactly makes a d6 or d100 game in the context of your post. (It could be said, on a simplistic level, that d100 is just d20 x 5, or vice versa).

 

[SableWyvern]

Mistwell: Had your ideal world of d20 existed before I began RPing, I would never have discovered my two favourite systems - Rolemaster and Silhouette.

I won't deny that there are some potential benefits of a common system. But there are also many drawbacks.

Whether or not it is possible for one system to cater for all styles is not really relevant to whether that system should become dominant. For a start, the simple fact is that every system attempts to trade off some features for others. Not everyone is looking for the same trades in their ideal game.

How many traditional fantasy games are there out there?

Rolemaster, Palladium, D&D, Earthdawn and a host of others exist not simply to fill a setting niche. All can be used to play a traditional, swords and sorcery fantasy game (whatever that might be). But each appeals to different requirements from it's loyal players. One can argue the merits of each game, but that is a taste issue. To say that Palladium, Earthdawn and Rolemaster are unnecessary for you because d&d can be used to run a fantasy game is fine as a matter of taste. To say that losing Rolemaster, Palladium and Earthdawn would be a good thing is senseless and selfish, at best.