Is it "wrong" to not like other systems?

[diaglo]

Now I'm just babbling.

I have yet to see something that d20 cannot do.

is that the quote you meant, arnwyn?

 

[Psion]

You see, Belen's quote there is just another example. It's real easy to read extemism into it... but really, it sounds like he might just be refuting the other extreme. There are folks out there who say things like "D20 doesn't do anything well but fantasy". The above statement seems a valid response to such a claim.

D20 can do lots in a satisfactory manner. Will it handle all genres as well as games made for those genres? I would think not, but I don't think BelenUmeria's statement says that.

As an example, I personally think classes and levels are a somewhat poor model for Supers, because many supers powers are often invariant of training, experience, and expertise, so it doesn't make too much sense to me to associate such things as class skills, attack bonus, etc. with powers, and powers are a central edifice of supers games. So, AFAIAC, you should not try to represent supers with classes and levels as they exist in core d20. Indeed, M&M does not.

I must say, though, I am surprised how far some authors have pushed classes and levels. (Yet in other cases, I am disappointed at how limited in vision some have been.) I don't think BESM d20 pushes classes to supreme flexibility, but they have created a nice compromise between the guideance of classes and the flexibility of point based systems.

 

[Belen]

You see, Belen's quote there is just another example. It's real easy to read extemism into it... but really, it sounds like he might just be refuting the other extreme. There are folks out there who say things like "D20 doesn't do anything well but fantasy". The above statement seems a valid response to such a claim.

Thanks! You are correct. I never said that systems written specifically for one genre or world would not be stronger in the world. Someone playing WoD or used to playing WoD will prefer that system because that is designed for that type of play. However, you cannot really yank out the WoD system and use it to play "Ice Pirates" or "Chronicles of Narnia." The WoD system is meant for WoD.

The strength of d20 is that the rules are general enough to cover a wide variety of genres with few modifications. For instance, I can move from modern to future with feats, skills, and equipment upgrades and then add the occasional alien race. I can pick up Blue Rose and play Chronicles of Narnia or even Harry Potter. And, in most cases, I can be playing these genres with little prep work.

In fact, I have run horro, future, modern apocalypse, and past at the gamedays with the only learning investment being new feats, skills or class abilities.

So, as a dedicated homebrewer, I have yet to discover a genre or concept that I cannot translate with the d20 rules.

Now, if I wanted to play using all the bells and whistles in deadlands, WoD, Traveller etc and be faithful to every niggling piece of those worlds, then I would use the systems designed for those worlds and those worlds alone.

If I wanted to steal some story ideas from those settings and mimic some of their elements without the fuss of buying more books, spending time learning completely new character generation and combat methods and forcing every player in my game to also be proficient in the system, then I will use d20. If something better comes along, then cool, but I enjoy class, levels, abstract combat, and linear progressions while disliking diceless or point-based systems.

 

[Akrasia]

.... It was not until this post that I realized you really do hate d20.
...

I guess this is why I'm itching to GM Mongoose's Conan game, and am playing in a Midnight (3e) campaign. Yeah, I hate d20 so much that I spend, on average, 3-4 hourse every week playing it.

:\

My objection was simply to the claim that d20 can emulate all genres and styles well. I disagree completely with that claim.

 

[Akrasia]

... I don't recall ever seeing a BRP book that wasn't already a BRP variant like Stormbringer, or Cthulhu or Runequest. ...

Quibble:

You can buy the "Basic Role Playing" book for $5-10, IIRC. It is about 30 pages long. It has been available for 20 years now. I think Chaosium is also planning on publishing a "Delux BRP" book (or something like that), but I am not holding my breath.

 

[Henry]

I guess this is why I'm itching to GM Mongoose's Conan game, and am playing in a Midnight (3e) campaign. Yeah, I hate d20 so much that I spend, on average, 3-4 hourse every week playing it.

:\

My objection was simply to the claim that d20 can emulate all genres and styles well. I disagree completely with that claim.

What makes me smile is that BelenUmeria was accused of disliking d20 a few weeks back, and he responded the same way you did, except with d20 Modern and Future references. (I wonder if B. remembers the thread.) There's something about 3E that just rubs some people the wrong way, but for which they have no problem whatsoever with other variations of d20 - and when they make criticisms of 3E, the first thing that comes up is that they must hate d20.

It confuses me, because D&D and d20 are interchangeable to me - if I like one, I like the other for pretty much the same reasons. I'm really at a loss to understand why there is a gulf between the two.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Have you played a variant without classes or levels, for one thing? I have. d20 Call of Cthulhu hasn't any classes, and it's characters are just weak and scared D&D characters, essentially. I've played M&M, and it has an extremely shallow learning curve because -- despite a few differences in chargen to accomodate the lack of levels or classes -- it still plays pretty much like D&D.

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)

D&D's "focus on balance" is largely your perception based on players focus on balance, and even if it were an absolute truth, it still says nothing of the sort. And despite what Psion says, he -- believe it or not -- does not speak scripture just by virtue of... whatever. I'm talking from a lot of experience. I don't even play D&D anymore, and I haven't (much) for two or three years. On the other hand, I've played d20 games that mishmash all kinds of modular rules together. I do know what I'm talking about. Many other posters on these boards will say the same thing. The very existence of Unearthed Arcana also says the same thing. Most of the time the rules are modular. And you certainly cannot claim that rules like new feats, prestige classes, magic weapons, spells, monsters, or even base classes, which is the majority of the new rules published, are anything but modular.

 

[Desdichado]

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 d20, or a variant thereof, does just about everything just about as well as anything else. I'd be hard-pressed to find a genre that it doesn't cover fairly well with stuff that's already in print and well enough that you wouldn't need to play another system unless you wanted to. I realize that's not quite as evangelical as Bradford C. Walker, but there you have it. I think it's a pretty bold claim, but I'd like to have someone find me a genre that d20 can't do, and I'll point to a game that already does it well. I think we've reached the point where the only reason not to play d20 is taste; there aren't any really significant "holes" so to speak.

With the possible exception of a Feng Shui-like game.

 

[Desdichado]

It confuses me, because D&D and d20 are interchangeable to me - if I like one, I like the other for pretty much the same reasons. I'm really at a loss to understand why there is a gulf between the two.

That dpeneds on why you would not like one. I don't like D&D as much because I don't like the "Vancian magic", and reliance on a golf bag of special magical items, 3/4 of the classes including a spellcasting progression, and the specific implementation of most of the races. But those are all specific to D&D, and certainly don't affect me when playing d20 Call of Cthulhu, or d20 Star Wars, or d20 Wheel of Time, or M&M, or Blue Rose, or OGL Conan, or OGL Steampunk, etc. Those are all problems I have with D&D but not with d20.

I'm not horribly fond of hps and levels, although I don't hate them, and most of the time I don't bother with removing them. I'm not horribly fond either of the tactical miniatures combat game that's inherent to d20. Those are a little bit more trouble to pull out as fewer games have tried to, but those are problems that I have with d20 in almost all of its variants; D&D included.

So I can like D&D and d20 for much the same reasons, but at the same time dislike one or the other for comletely different reasons.

 

[Arnwyn]

I think we've reached the point where the only reason not to play d20 is taste; there aren't any really significant "holes" so to speak.

That much I'll agree with. While I personally find d20's covering of the modern (and especially sci-fi) genre to be absolutely dreadful, it is indeed only because of my particular taste. I don't think anyone can say that d20 doesn't at least cover virtually everything.

(But then again, every time I see someone say that "x doesn't do y as well" I've always assumed it was due to taste, as opposed to some wacky measure of objectivity in RPG rules [which IMO only works with extreme cases]... heck, we're at the point that people have said in the past that D&D doesn't do fantasy very well!)