Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Staffan]

Not sure exactly, it seems that you weren't exactly clear, but you did know that D20 (Star Wars) actually had it's own separate entry above HERO, GURPS, CoC, and Shadowrun. Right under D20 (Mongoose).

D'oh, my bad. I was looking for d20 Modern, and once I had figured out that it was included in "d20 (WOTC)" I started writing, and then didn't go back to check if d20 (Star Wars) had a separate entry.

 

[Psion]

I think my main problem is that the expectations I get when watching a modern-day/sci-fi movie or TV show jives rather poorly with a class/level-based system.

I disagree.

Luke Skywalker is an excellent pilot, an athlete, a good shot, and a jedi.

How many of these things are classes?

1.

Nothing about a class/level based system prevents this. He is a jedi. He is a decent shot with a blaster (attack bonuses), has decent physical attributes, and has a fair few of his skill ranks devoted to pilot.

Han Solo is a pilot, mechanic, fast-talker, gambler, and a good shot. Sheridan is a diplomat, leader, pilot, tactician, and soldier. Garibaldi is a hacker, soldier, pilot, business-man, and a decent leader. Sydney Bristow is an athlete, great with disguises, a great shot, an actress, an infiltrator, and so on. Malcolm Reynolds is a leader, planner, good shot, and throws a mean punch (not so good with a sword though). Rupert Giles is a librarian, researcher, fighter, trainer, and sometime sorcerer.

Again, count the classes.

Classes are not skills/talents.

I think you should re-evaluate your stance on this. What you argue against is not prevented by d20's class based system. In fact, several of the T20 characters I handed out for the con games I ran could just as easily be ran off in skill clusters like you cite. "Jen is a doctor, traveller, navigator, and sensors operator. Ja'sen is a grav pilot, sharp shot, and investigator." Etc.

Most modern takes on d20 leverage the (underutilized in D&D) skill system more, which makes this possible. Most IME also kick the multiclassing penalty to the curb.

Some games leverage the archetype aspect of the d20 system as D&D has it to some degree. For example, Spycraft tends to model its classes as "team roles". Other takes on the system less so. But even spycraft doesn't use the multiclassing penalty.

At the same time, there is plenty of archetyping that goes on in SF and modern gaming. Depending on what you are after, strong archetyping might be the way to go.

 

[RyanD]

My preferred game for doing modern/future gaming is still Alternity

Can you name a mechanical advantage that Alternity has that D20 (not D&D - D20) does not?

 

[Gentlegamer]

* Since most smaller companies can't compete in terms of playtesting, some of them actively push the idea that rules are bad for RPGs. This bleeds into the design community.

More digs at "rules lite" and other companies . . .

 

[Henry]

Can you name a mechanical advantage that Alternity has that D20 (not D&D - D20) does not?

Remember your article "Hit Points suck?" Alternity has a diverse wounds system that is simple to use and has it over hit points in spades, when you're seeking something that allows dramatic wounds as well as accounting for body armor. Even aimed shots have a concrete and positive benefit in this system that is more difficult to pull off, but worthwhile enough to try once in a while on the battlefield.

 

[Henry]

More digs at "rules lite" and other companies . . .

I don't see it as that, so much as an admittal that some companies DO push the idea that more rules are always a bad thing, and there are companies out there (Monte Cook has written that he's familiar with some, but not by names) who DON'T playtest their products before sending them into production. Again, he said "some", not all.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

More digs at "rules lite" and other companies . . .

Honestly? I don't even see it that way anymore. I think I see where they're coming from.

That comment, and the one by Ryan on the last page, makes me think they're talking about "the roleplaying industry" as "stuff that's like D20". And I'll even grant that if you want to produce your own system for a commercial roleplaying game that does everything D20 does, has the same design goals, and plays basically the same, then you should probably make your product D20 instead of coming up with your own system. I dig it; don't reinvent the wheel.

I think the disconnect is coming from the fact that some of us are talking about play styles that aren't supported by D20. They're explicitly saying that that stuff's outside the scope of the discussion.

But then again, it's almost a tautology -- if you believe that D20 can do whatever you want, and you have a preference for it, then it's a great big "duh" to use it. If you don't, then you don't use it. That doesn't prove that a non-D20 system that plays specifically differently than D20 can't be commercially successful, or fun to play.

 

[buzz]

More digs at "rules lite" and other companies . . .

Pfft. It's an observation about bad designers. Ease up.

 

[buzz]

It would be very easy to make a D20 game where high level characters are not demigods.

T20, d20M (especiaclly a no/low-FX game), and CoCd20, for starters.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Pfft. It's an observation about bad designers. Ease up.

I can't agree with that. Isn't it possible to believe your game should have a given level of rules complexity for its own sake, rather than because "Gee, I wanted it to be as thick as D20, but we didn't have time to test all that?" I think the latter qualifies as a "dig".