Is it "wrong" to not like other systems?

[Kanegrundar]

I've always thought the d20 concept was kind of a crock. Two claims are made: 1) It can cover almost anything (levelless, no hit-points, modern settings, and so on), and 2) It's easy to play the various games because you use basicaly the same rules for every game. The problem is that you can't have it both ways. If you're making significant changes to the game you're going to have to learn a lot of new rules just like if you were using a different system. Sure you can do d20 without levels, without hit points, in the Traveller setting, or whatever, but the game is so different you might as well be learning a new system.

I play M&M. It makes some changes to how the rules handle different things, but it's still D20. The only thing I had to actually learn to play M&M was the Damage Save system. That's it. So I'd have to say that you CAN have it both ways and quite easily.

There also seems to be an implicit assumption that rules are modular, that you can mix and match various sets and swap things out which I don't think is justified. Even if you can partition rules into various sets covering specific aspects of gameplay, the interaction between the influence of the different sets of rules on gameplay is such that one set of rules can be swapped out without changing every other set of rules to compensate for the effects of the change.

The rules are very modular. I play D&D with a host of alternate rules from AE, IK, UA, and so forth. I play D20 Modern/Future with VP/WP rules, Armor as DR, The Force, racial classes, and so on. I mix and match the rules I want to use and chuck out the stuff I don't. Y'know what, the system didn't break down. It runs fine. That sounds like the very definition of modular to me.

I really don't see what the big deal is anyway. As a player I have yet to see a game I couldn't get a decent grasp of in one session of play.

Getting a grasp on the rules and knowing the rules well enough to not have to double check the rules every so often are two different things. I play several different styles of D20 games, and I know the core system well enough that I don't have to check the rules. However, I just started playing the new edition of WHFRP, and while I have a good grasp of the rules, I still have to check some things upon occasion. Every time I check a rule that's a pause in the game that breaks up the flow. It may only be a brief respite, but it's annoying nonetheless.

Kane

 

[Henry]

I really don't see what the big deal is anyway. As a player I have yet to see a game I couldn't get a decent grasp of in one session of play.

I'm willing to bet it's because you are, just by virtue of being on this and other internet forums, are an RPG fan, as opposed to an RPG player. For the fan, people like you, me, and most others here, picking up a new system in theory is not hard at all. I have no doubt that if "The_Universe" wanted, he could pick up most any other system and learn it with minimum of fuss in a reasonable span of time. However, not every player has the drive or desire, and in many cases, the time to "waste" by learning a new system from the ground up, and then familiarizing ones self with all nuances, when that time is preferably spent playing with almost full comprehension and enjoyment.

If I'm playing d20, I KNOW that the game will have six attributes, three or four saves, skill points, and feats/class abilities/talents (same thing on the surface). I know that capability is level-dependent. I know that combat will consist of a d20 initiative, rolled one or more times, usually once, that attacks of opportunity may be an issue, and that I have some form of hit points / vitality / endurance as a tally to measure whether I'm in fighting form or not. These are almost never up for debate in a d20 game. The nuances are, but the basics aren't.

The way all these things are handled with Storyteller, GURPS, Shadowrun, Contiuum, Earthdawn, Mechwarrior, Unisystem, FUDGE, Savage Worlds, etc. are anywhere from minorly to completely different (try mapping a GURPS character to the Mind/Body/Quick system of Continuum, for instance) and while fans of different systems may not mind the learning curve (there's always a curve, the shallowness depends on the person learning of course) people who just want to play on a Saturday afternoon aren't up to learning all the assumptions from scratch. When I tell my group that I'd like to try Unearthed Arcana, or Black Company, or d20 Modern, or Star Wars, or D&D, or Gamma World, they are much more willing to dig in than another game completely, unless the game is like Feng Shui which doesn't even have provisions for character generation, and has all of one mechanic to determine most things.

Small Aside: In Feng Shui, want to shoot somebody? Guns skill. Want to pick out the local black market arms dealer in your area? Guns Skill? Want to know what the best round for low-visible conditions are? Guns Skill. I love that game.

Now, this is coming from a game addict - I've once said, if you've got Old Maid the RPG, I'm up for it. But the average RPG player feels much more comfortable when there are some base assumptions that are shared between games, and it's what part of Ryan Dancey's original streategy for d20 was based on.

 

[Arnwyn]

Fans can claim anything. (But even the fans who think that it can handle anything equally well seem to be in the vast minority.)

Really? I guess that all such related posts here at ENWorld has colored my view about the majority/minority, in this particular case.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Wrong again. Thanks for playing.

Only minor changes to the rules can have a significant impact on the feel of the game. The rest of the rules are familiar and unchanged.

Sure, minor changes can have a big impact on the feel of the game, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to people that claim you take away levels and calsses and still have a game that is close enough to D&D to eliminate the learning curve.

I can state quite categorically from loads of experience that you are completely dead wrong on that point. The rules are modular, and most of them were even designed as such. Extra classes, races and feats are nothing if not modular, and even major changes like nixing hps in favor of something else have given no problem whatsoever in games I've been playing for years now.

D&D's huge focus on balance says otherwise. So do other posters on this site (like Psion did above, unless I'm mis-reading his post)

 

[Psion]

Really?

Yes.

I know lots of people who primarily play d20 but think one or more other games are really cool for certain things.

But I only know one person who unabashedly claims "D20 can do it all and can do it as well as a system written for a particular genre/setting does it." If you know more, I'd love to hear some names so I can ask them for themselves if they really beleive it. Because this strikes me as one of the claims that the d20 bashers claims lots of people saying, but I don't see many people actually making the claim.

(Okay, there might be more than one, just less vocal than Bradford. But I do tend to hear a lot more "I like D&D, but this game is real cool to..." than "D20 does EVERYTHING...")

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I don't see much of that at all (non actually). I'm sure it happens. I simply haven't wished it. This does beg the question though. Is D20 the dominant system because it is what the overwhelming majority of gamers want from a game or is it simply dominant due to D&D being the historically dominant RPG?

From my standpoint, D20 is my system of choice because it does all that I look for in a game system (at least 95% of what I look for). I would hope that's why the majority of gamers that play D20 play D20, and not just because it's attached to D&D. After all, if someone could be happier playing a less popular system, why not play that game instead?

Kane

I've seen it, and just as frequently as the converse.

As Psion mentioned above, network effects are probably the major determinant of success for an RPG. Brand and learning curve are probably a close second and third. I think D&D's a pretty good game, but that has little to do with why it's dominant. There are a lot of other good games too.

 

[Psion]

Sure, minor changes can have a big impact on the feel of the game, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to people that claim you take away levels and calsses and still have a game that is close enough to D&D to eliminate the learning curve.

So, are you suggesting that knowing how things like skill checks, saves, initiative, cover and concealment, what feats are, and so forth, do nothing to assist a D&D player in learning M&M fasters than (say) Hero or Marvel Universe or DC Heroes? I rather think they do.

Eliminate the learning curve? No. But those are a few less things I have to explain to players, and few less "doh" moments during the game.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm willing to bet it's because you are, just by virtue of being on this and other internet forums, are an RPG fan, as opposed to an RPG player.

True. I still don't think it's all that hard for anyone to pick up a new game, but you're certainly right that a lot of people won't make the effort.

Small Aside: In Feng Shui, want to shoot somebody? Guns skill. Want to pick out the local black market arms dealer in your area? Guns Skill? Want to know what the best round for low-visible conditions are? Guns Skill. I love that game.

Cool. I'm going to have to try that game.

 

[The_Universe]

Yes.

I know lots of people who primarily play d20 but think one or more other games are really cool for certain things.

But I only know one person who unabashedly claims "D20 can do it all and can do it as well as a system written for a particular genre/setting does it." If you know more, I'd love to hear some names so I can ask them for themselves if they really beleive it. Because this strikes me as one of the claims that the d20 bashers claims lots of people saying, but I don't see many people actually making the claim.

I think that's some excellent reasoning.

Even I'm willing to admit the shortcomings of the system. I don't think (BESM nonwithstanding) that D20 does crazy anime/manga fantasy all that well. On the other hand, I also happen to have no desire to play in a game based around crazy anime fantasy, so it's a no-cost limitation for me. Even BESM were the best game in the world (I know at least someone thinks it is), I still wouldn't play it, because I don't care for the aforementioned crazy-anime-fantasy.

 

[Arnwyn]

But I only know one person who unabashedly claims "D20 can do it all and can do it as well as a system written for a particular genre/setting does it." If you know more, I'd love to hear some names so I can ask them for themselves if they really beleive it. Because this strikes me as one of the claims that the d20 bashers claims lots of people saying, but I don't see many people actually making the claim.

Indeed, I've never seen anyone claim such a thing in such an extremist manner (though, truthfully, I pretty much see very few people claiming absolutes on messageboards these days, because it'll get people jumping down their throats immediately even when those people do agree...).

But, in my eyes at least, I've seen people in this very thread who are close to claiming that d20 'does it all, and does it just as well'. (Though I don't think you'll hear anyone say that "d20 does WoD just as well as WoD", I do think that many people will/have claimed that "d20 does angsty gun-toting vampire clans in a modern society as well as anything else".) [Note I'm not claiming a for or against stance with this entirely hypothetical example.]

(Close enough for me, though it probably wasn't what you meant.) Now I'm just babbling.