Is it "wrong" to not like other systems?

[Desdichado]

Yep, and those are hardly able to cover a wide range of games.

I dunno; d20 Modern arguably covers a very wide range of games. Unearthed Arcana was also released as totally open content, making all kinds of modifications part of the core "d20 system."

Of course, I just wouldn't call the ability of a system to "drop 90+% of its content and recreate it" being able to handle that.

Every system can do that.

Uh, yeah, except that even Blue Rose and M&M, which are probably among the most radical of d20 alterations really only change, what, 15-20% of the core rules? Or even less?

So when someone says "the d20 system can handle this or that genre totally fine", then what is "the d20 system" in that context?

Some variant of d20. Your question still isn't parsing with me. Do you ask the same thing about the Storyteller system? Pretty much everyone's familiar with the Storyteller system (unless you only play D&D, of course! ) but there's not master document for it. There are variants of it in the various oWoD games, nWoD, Exalted, and various other games that have come out over the years.

The same is true of Decipher's CODA system. It's in Star Trek and Lord of the Rings, but there's no "CODA System" book. I don't recall ever seeing a BRP book that wasn't already a BRP variant like Stormbringer, or Cthulhu or Runequest. I don't recall seeing a book for AEG's house system, just games that used it like 7th Sea and Legend of the Five Rings.

It seems to me you're saying that without a basic book like GURPS, you don't want to admit to a system actually existing. I don't understand what you're driving at.

If it's the SRD (the fantasy one), then it can handle exactly one game: D&D.

There is absolutely nothing generic about it.

I don't see how that's relevent, though.

d20 is great, especially D&D (and a few others), but I've yet to see a d20 game, which handles any non-heroic genre in a (to me) sufficient way, that is comparable to some of the other game systems out there.

Have you ever seen Darkness & Dread? Have you ever seen d20 Call of Cthulhu? Have you ever seen Ken Hood's Grim N Gritty modular add-on? I think there's some objectivity to comparing how well a system accomplishes certain things, and those variants are among the "least heroic" I've seen in any system.

 

[MonsterMash]

One thing that amuses me a bit is that though I have read GURPS rules (GURPS LITE download and the rules in the Discworld book) and found that the system does not really appeal to me, I check out the GURPS sourcebooks with much more enthusiasm than the D20 products area. Though this may be more to do with SJG editorial control and quality of writers compared to some D20 publishers*.

* Not all by any means, but there are some who will remain nameless whose sourcebooks were only fit to prop up the leg of a table.

 

[Kanegrundar]

And I own flavor books from other games. However, I play maybe twice a month. I had not the time nor inclination to "try" other systems just to be a well-rounded gamer.

That's pretty much why I've stuck with D20. D20 may not be perfect and it may not do every genre as well as some other systems that are specifically designed for one particular area or another, but it does everything well enough that I don't see the need to play a new system for every genre. It saves time, and that time saved means more gaming goodness for me and my group.

That said, I have found pdf's my gateway to new games. I don't feel like plunking down $40 for the Exalted or Savage World core rules, but I did pick each up as a pdf for a LOT less (free in the case of Exalted). I don't plan on playing any new system any time soon (except for WHFRP 2E), but I am interested in seeing what all the fuss is about.

Kane

 

[Psion]

To me, sticking primarily with d20 has little to do with loyalty. In part it to do with preferences -- the scourge of dice pool happy Shadowrun/Storyteller knock offs did more than anything to drive me from the broader market. Happily, that glut seems to be dying down, but not before it claimed Greg Porter. Unfortunately, the rules-light scourge seems to be living on.

But more, it has to do with convenience. D20 is not the ultimate game for all uses (indeed, there are some things that I feel it is ill suited for). But if I expect a game to be a diversion more than a long term thing, it makes much more sense to me to play d20, because there is a significant investment in learning time (actually learning, as well as wasted sessions while you are still tripping) that I don't so much need if players understand the basics. And more players understand the basics of d20 than any other system.

At one time, the novelty of new systems was something of an entertainment factor. But spending a while in a group who rarely played the same game, much less campaign, for more than a month, I no longer get excited by some author's great new experiment. And I have become disillusioned on the notion that every new "innovation" in gaming is going to improve my gaming experience. My experience has shown me otherwise.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Those saying that preferring d20 primarily or exclusively makes one hidebound or uninformed are, IME/O, just looking for a way to make themselves feel superior, trying to reconcile their cognitive dissonance over the fact that a system that isn't their favorite is continuing to dominate the industry.

And they're just as silly as the people who say that D20 is the best because its the current dominant system. (Just like Microsoft fanatics)

 

[Desdichado]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Psion]

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),

I've seen people mention this "claim" a lot but a don't remember too many people behind its inception make such a broad claim. Even Ryan Dancey made no such claims. His primary claim was that systems aren't as important as networks. And I think history bore him out on that one.

I think you misaprehend... or are strawmanning... what the d20 concept is.

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

There also seems to be an implicit assumption that rules are modular, that you can mix and match various sets and swap things out

This assumption I have seen from time to time, but it's mostly wishful thinking amongst those who like mixing things up. Still, it is easier to massage away the differences between two systems written to the same baseline (whether that baseline be d20, BRP, FUDGE, or what have you) than two entirely different systems, so the notion isn't totally unjustifiable. But to expect it to provide passable support for wildly different genres AND to expect adaptation to be easy would be a little much. (Though there are some systems that pull this off better.)

 

[Kanegrundar]

And they're just as silly as the people who say that D20 is the best because its the current dominant system. (Just like Microsoft fanatics)

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

 

[Psion]

And they're just as silly as the people who say that D20 is the best because its the current dominant system.

I never suggested otherwise. But then, I think it's silly for a Role Playing Gamer to disdain people who like something less popular than them. It sort of lacks perspective if you consider how small the RPG market as a whole is.

But some folks who don't like D&D seem rather torn up that this supposedly horrible system is outselling their supposedly superior system. When you consider how subjective the quality of systems is, you realize that there is no reason to feel upset that you are in the minority. But validation is a strong urge in many humans nonetheless.