Is it "wrong" to not like other systems?

[3catcircus]

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.

Do you mean "D&D the trademarked game" or "D&D, a fantasy game of swords and sorcery?"

Fact of the matter is that many other systems do medieval fantasy just as well as, if not better than, 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)

3.x's focus on powergamey anti-DM munchkinism says otherwise.

 

[3catcircus]

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.

That may be misinterpretation on your part for *some* of those who don't like 3.x. Not D&D in general, but 3.x.

I think that the game genre should be a huge influence on the mechanics that are used. While I don't doubt that d20 could, say, do Twilight:2000, it can't do it nearly as well as the TW:2K mechanics already out there.

 

[Ranger REG]

I think that the game genre should be a huge influence on the mechanics that are used. While I don't doubt that d20 could, say, do Twilight:2000, it can't do it nearly as well as the TW:2K mechanics already out there.

Meh. As someone say, it's a matter of personal taste. To that I would add, it's how you enjoy spending your free time roleplaying.

It's okay to like other systems, as long it allows you to enjoy your RPG hobby, and not worry too much about how the game mechanics is true to real life. As long it is plausible, that's good enough for me. Otherwise, I might as well play simulation games, not RPGs.