I know that d20 is good in D&D, but what about other settings?

[woodelf]

And as someone mentioned on page 1, I actually don't particularly like D&D these days; I think it's one of the worst implementations of d20 that I own, out of half a dozen or more d20 games.

So, out of curiosity, which do you think are the best implementations of D20 System? What 2nd-generation D20 System game should the 3rd-generation instantiations be jumping off from?

Mine are Spycraft, M&MM, and the whole Horizon line. Arcana Unearthed is great, but hasn't done anything to streamline combat, and i'm not familiar with enough fantasy versions of D20 System to have an opinion on those--anybody who is?

 

[Desdichado]

So, out of curiosity, which do you think are the best implementations of D20 System? What 2nd-generation D20 System game should the 3rd-generation instantiations be jumping off from?

Mine are Spycraft, M&MM, and the whole Horizon line. Arcana Unearthed is great, but hasn't done anything to streamline combat, and i'm not familiar with enough fantasy versions of D20 System to have an opinion on those--anybody who is?

I think d20 Call of Cthulhu is my favorite RPG, actually. And I think d20 Modern, Star Wars (Revised) and the Conan RPG are all better implementations of the d20 rules than D&D as well. Although 3.5, which I haven't bought, picked up some of the improvements of those games, so the gap is narrower.

D&D is still very narrow in scope, though, in terms of how things play. The magic system, the classes, alignment, etc. are all so uniquely D&D that it keeps the game from expanding in other directions.

For those who really love D&D, that's not a problem, but if you want to try something different, there are better iterations of d20 to build from than D&D, IMO.

 

[Morgenstern]

For those who like Spycraft and mecha, I'm a huge anime/Battletech/Front Mission fan and am looking forward to releasing a semi-gritty mecha setting and rules product next year . For an interesting discussion of the mecha gene and its implimentation in RPGs and the real world, check out~

http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5019

Lets just say I think it can be done in d20 and not suck .

 

[Desdichado]

Sorry, I caught arnwyn's reply to my question, but I missed this post specifically targetted at my reply! Didn't mean to leave you out of the fun...

I don't know about "blows", but d20 as defined by the STL pretty much requires a game system in which combat power and survivability are closely linked to experience (and hence level), and skills and abilities are closely linked to class. Many modern and future-type settings - and heck, even a bunch of medieval settings - aren't modelled well by that kind of system, and shoehorning them in can be awkward. For example, you can easily end up with a brilliant physicist who has better combat stats than the soldiers sent to guard him, just because he's a 10th level important NPC and they're 1st level grunt NPCs.

I agree that that's a problem, but that's a style problem inherent in d20 across the board, and it doesn't have anything to do with futuristic, modern, past or fantasy. It is equally a problem across all those arena's unless you simply accept that d20 works that way.

Or do you believe that futuristic and modern settings are more likely to require a level-less system? I'm not saying that's impossible, but based on the science fiction and action movies/books/comics/TV shows that I'm familiar with, I'd say that's unlikely. And, for that matter, in my initial post which you quoted, I did call that out as a specific weakness of d20. Or rather, it's the one aspect of d20 that I wish there was an easier way around. However, with systems like Ken Hood's Grim and Gritty Hit Points system, or the very similar system in Darkness & Dread I'd say a great workaround for those who's tastes prefer an approach that doesn't bring levelling baggage with it is already in print.

That can all be avoided by going OGL, but then the game is no longer necessarily d20, and tends to depart a fair ways from the D&D paradigm (which is usually what people have in mind when they talk about d20). So IMHO, d20 has to pick its spots when it comes to non-D&D settings - d20 Modern isn't too bad at the action movie genre (and is a rules set that I really like), but it tends to creak and eventually fall apart when asked to produce more realistic results. YMMV.

Since when is d20 = D&D? I think in the context of the original question of this thread, that was never implied, and it certainly isn't to me, or any other gamer who's relatively "aware" of the RPG market. It probably is to some hypothetical (but very numerous) Joe Blow gamer who only buys what's put out by Wizards of the Coast and is unaware of the larger d20 movement, but that seems beside the point anyway. Who cares if the workaraounds come from OGC material? I interpreted the initial question to specifically be looking into OGC material for a solution to the game he wanted to run anyway.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm not following your lines of reasoning ('cept, of course, about autofire but that's completely independent of the rest of d20.) What do you mean by "severly limited"?

By the "severely limited class-based systems", I mean that I dislike the class-based structure that d20 modern/futuristic games use. Classes are a specific niche/role that is shoehorned onto the character, for example: Pilot. I don't think that it's all that appropriate in a futuristic setting, because IMO people can do so much more than just being a "pilot" or "commando". Due to modern education systems, people can have many more skills and abilities than what the classes seem to be designed for. The "base attack bonus" makes it even worse.

There's a specific level of granularity that I think is necessary for a futuristic setting, and d20 (at this moment) doesn't have it, yet. For example, I think a character could be good at many different things that defy the "class" concept (someone who is good at hacking, pilot power armor, demolations, and journalism).

I hope I'm explaining myself at least semi-adequately - I've never been great at explaining the nuances between game systems.

What "effect" should technology have on a character? This last one I'm not even close to understanding. How (and why) should a character's abilities change if confronted with new (or old) technology?

Indeed - this one is tough to explain, and may just be a nebulous concept that I have...

I think that technology can (is, in fact, *designed* to) supplement and enhance and add to a character's abilities (much like the skill-enhancing items of D&D, but taken further). It was tied in with the autofire "feat" (in d20) and kind of ballooned from there - if you are skilled with a gun, then the gun is taking care of the autofire, not the character having to take a feat (which are very limited in the number available)... much like that. The technology is more important, not necessarily the character's abilities - thus, a lot of skills and feats in d20 may not be necessary, because the technology will take care of it.

This suggestion of mine is more appropriate for futuristic games than modern ones (and my suggestion of d20's inadequacies is focused on the futuristic genre, not so much the modern one).

 

[Arnwyn]

You're a real piece of work, there arnwyn.

I know! It's what makes messageboards fun.

And I think what you said falls spectactularly. What you said, in the context that the question was asked, can only be construed as "d20 as a broad system is unsuited to anything futuristic." That's absurd.

Sorry I didn't expain myself very well. I'm saying something different: that d20 based on what has been released is unsuited to anything futuristic (not "as a broad system"). But, if releases continue to look much the same, then I'll extend what I'm saying to "the broad system". In any case, I'll try to get into some detail, below.

And it's quite something, the little coup you pulled off; "see, when he blows apart my ridiculous statements, it's just because he's an arrogant ass that ignores stuff he doesn't like!"

Well, it's true... (greatest coup ever!)

Severely limited? Uh, have you read the d20 Modern classes? They are as open and generic as you can get, and you can multiclass freely and without penalty, and are in fact, encouraged to do so! Not only that, you can use (or create) any class that you want -- if you don't like the Modern ones, you've got the T20 classes, for instance, you could use instead. How in the world is this a future specific limitation? If it's a limitation at all (which I don't at all believe it to be) it's true for fantasy, modern, horror, Renaissance, or whatever other "time period" you claim to want to play in, not just for future.

Well, yes, it is severely limited, compared to the system(s) that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Absolutely. Of course I've read the d20 Modern classes (and Spycraft classes, and Judge Dredd classes, and SG-1 classes), and yes, they are a very good step in the right direction - they are about as open and generic you can get... for a class-based sytem. Of course, that's the problem. (See my other response above for what I said about class-based systems and the futuristic genre.)

And yet further, the d20 Modern classes only go up to Level 10, and some expectations to go to those prestige-like classes (that are even more severely limited).

Are you serious? That doesn't even have anything to do whatsoever with your claim that d20 is fundamentally unsuitable for futuristic gaming. That's a complete non sequiter and has no business even being in the discussion. Disregarding for the moment how easy it is to use some other d20 variant of that, or house rule it yourself.

Yes, I am serious. I'm not entirely sure why that argument has no business being here... in other threads, it's been mentioned many times that the autofire rules are inadequate... I don't understand you objection.

The fact that you said I should "house rule it myself" kind of shows what I'm talking about.

Well, actually, no, you didn't. I mean, you did throw out the little (IMO)'s, but you made a categorical value statement nevertheless. You didn't say, "I don't like the way d20 works for future, because I think the future should be modelled such and such a way, which is not conducive to a d20 interpretation."

Well, actually, yes, I did. But I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

But to make a blanket accusation about how d20 doesn't work for an extremly broad, vast set of genres, the only thing in common between them that they are futuristic, is gonna get some "WTF?" responses, especially on a message board full of d20 fans.

Of course. Sorry my time constraints didn't allow me to get into any detail. I do expect to be called out onto the carpet for such comments, especially on a d20 site. However, some "WTF" responses can be phrased well... or very poorly.

 

[Arnwyn]

I agree that that's a problem, but that's a style problem inherent in d20 across the board, and it doesn't have anything to do with futuristic, modern, past or fantasy. It is equally a problem across all those arena's unless you simply accept that d20 works that way.

Actually, I don't think it's the levels that are a problem - it's the classes. For me, I don't have a problem with the fantasy genre having classes, because based on the movies/books/comics/TV shows that I'm familiar with, "classes" have always been a staple of the fantasy genre (not a D&Dism that others try to make it out to be). When first entering the hobby, classes made sense for fantasy because that's how I envisioned the characters from other media (Merlin the "wizard", Lancelot the "fighter", Aragorn the "ranger", etc etc).

I don't see this in the futuristic stories I know of.

Thus, it isn't the "levels" that I'm focusing on in DMScott's post above - it's the classes.

Or do you believe that futuristic and modern settings are more likely to require a level-less system? I'm not saying that's impossible, but based on the science fiction and action movies/books/comics/TV shows that I'm familiar with, I'd say that's unlikely.

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I've (explicitly) noticed how "levels" work in any such media.

I have noticed, on the other hand, how inappropriate classes are for futuristic settings (eg. Ghost in the Shell, Dirty Pair, BGC).

And, for that matter, in my initial post which you quoted, I did call that out as a specific weakness of d20. Or rather, it's the one aspect of d20 that I wish there was an easier way around.

Levels are what I like - it gives an easy method for determining "skill" between the PCs and their antagonists.

I'd dump classes and keep levels in the futuristic genre.

Edit: Whew! That's enough burbling from me on this thread!

 

[Desdichado]

Sorry I didn't expain myself very well. I'm saying something different: that d20 based on what has been released is unsuited to anything futuristic (not "as a broad system"). But, if releases continue to look much the same, then I'll extend what I'm saying to "the broad system". In any case, I'll try to get into some detail, below.

Ah, well that does change things. I'd agree that there's not been any particularly great translations of d20 into certain futuristic genres. But that's a separate question.

Well, it's true... (greatest coup ever!)

Whether it is or isn't, I still think your position should stand or fall on it's own merits, not based on who said it.

Well, yes, it is severely limited, compared to the system(s) that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Absolutely. Of course I've read the d20 Modern classes (and Spycraft classes, and Judge Dredd classes, and SG-1 classes), and yes, they are a very good step in the right direction - they are about as open and generic you can get... for a class-based sytem. Of course, that's the problem. (See my other response above for what I said about class-based systems and the futuristic genre.)

The thing I'm struggling with is how is that limitation worse for modern/futuristic genres than for any others? It's a limitation that crosses all categories, regardless of the time frame of the game. Are you saying that you are more willing to accept that limitation in a fantasy game? If so, I'm actually kinda curious about that.

And yet further, the d20 Modern classes only go up to Level 10, and some expectations to go to those prestige-like classes (that are even more severely limited).

But with free multiclassing, it's not expected that you'll take ten levels of, say, Strong hero and that's that. You still get to 20 levels if half of them are strong, half of them are fast, and a few of them are in the advanced class Soldier, for instance. But I can see how that is technically a limitation, but the workarounds are so easy it doesn't really seem like a severe one. Not only that, Grim Tales expands the 10-level Modern classes up to 20 levels.

Yes, I am serious. I'm not entirely sure why that argument has no business being here... in other threads, it's been mentioned many times that the autofire rules are inadequate... I don't understand you objection.

It's a single combat maneuver. It's a paltry rule. I've never played any system that was perfect, and house ruling something as minor as autofire has been abour on par for any system I've ever used. If it were a fundamental part of the way d20 worked, I'd understand where you're coming from, but where it's a single action that can be done in combat, I think that it's a level of detail that doesn't make sense based on the rest of the discussion. Unless autofire really plays hugely into your game, and it completely doesn't work without a different autofire rule, and maybe that's true, but it seems inherently unlikely.

 

[Desdichado]

D'oh! I was typing up a reply at the same time as you, so some of my questions were answered already in that one.

I'd say levels are appropriate in many futuristic/modern genres, because you have characters that are clearly more capable across the board than other people around them; i.e., higher level. Everything from Total Recall to Buckaroo Bonzai to Mack Bolan novels, to Tron... I can easily see how some characters are best "built" by being higher level than some of the other characters around them.

As for classes, I guess I see what you're saying, but with the generic classes, free multiclassing and occupation templates, I bet I could reasonably convincingly construct any character from literature or movies that I could imagine. It's a little bit more complicated than creating custom characters with a system like, say, GURPS or BRP, but I don't think it's any less flexible in terms of the output you can get.

What I can't do, though, is construct them at any level. Clearly, some characters will need a few levels of this and a few levels of that to be convincingly created, and it'd be difficult to create low level versions of these characters that still have all the requisite abilities. But I'd argue that it'd be unlikely that any such characters were truly low level at the time they make their appearance, then.

 

[Aaron2]

Many modern and future-type settings - and heck, even a bunch of medieval settings - aren't modelled well by that kind of system, and shoehorning them in can be awkward. For example, you can easily end up with a brilliant physicist who has better combat stats than the soldiers sent to guard him, just because he's a 10th level important NPC and they're 1st level grunt NPCs.

Most of this really depends on how you define "brilliant." Is +10 brilliant? +15? +20? It seems to be generally be: "as high as I need to make it so that d20 looks like it sucks." The "+23 Diplomacy at third level thread" shows how easy it is to make a low level super focused skilled character even without rules mods. The question is, do you really want to play a 10th level character that is totally incompetent outside his area of expertise? I wouldn't. Take Geordi form ST:TNG, he's the super wiz at warp tech but he's also good in a fight and in a wide variety of other tasks. Same with Marshall from Alias; he performed ok on that field mission and even held up under torture. These are the kinds of character d20 classes create because they are intended for the players, not just as plot-device NPCs.

The simple expedient of making Skill Emphasis stack with itself can go along way to lowering the required level for any arbitrarily high skill value.


Aaron