My beefs with D20

[tbitonti]

I'm not posting this to the rules (or house rules) boards because I
don't have particular rules questions.

This is mildly a rant, but I hope that you will bear with me. Do my
reflections, below, resonate with others in the role playing community?

Here are some beefs that I have with D20 as I have seen it presented:

C1: The focus is too much on rules over ideas, and that really takes
away from the core ideas of role playing (imagination!!!)

C2: The non-simultaneous and non-faced combat takes
away a lot of the grit and verisimilitude from encounters.

The basic problem that I am having is that I cannot imagine what
is happening during an encounter, nor can I use imagination to
decide what to do. Instead, I need to concentrate on what
particular feats I have and troublesome issues of matching my
movement to a grid, and square edged fireballs.

And here is a third:

C3: Feats can be a real pain, and seem to be poorly designed.
What I mean is this: A number of feats (for example, tumbling
and spring attack) provide automatic success with little regard
for the circumstance, and don't provide very well for untrained
use. I would argue that all players can attempt any feat, with
a greater or lesser degress of success. That is, feats should
be more like skills, with feat selection more likeing getting a +4
bonus to that skill.

Thx,

T Bitonti

 

[Mark]

welcome to the boards!



(...duck and cover, my new friend. Duck and cover... )

 

[BiggusGeekus]

First, opinions are like eyebrows: everyone has a couple. I personally love 3e but I realize it's not for everyone. So, bearing that in mind .....

C1: The focus is too much on rules over ideas, and that really takes away from the core ideas of role playing (imagination!!!)

I believe the rules enhance the imagination. I haven't encountered a single example of an imagination-hindering concept that I couldn't respond with the phrase "sounds like you might enjoy starting your next game at a higher level".

C2: The non-simultaneous and non-faced combat takes
away a lot of the grit and verisimilitude from encounters.

I agree. D&D combat is very much meant to be a game. Hit points are abstract. A sword does as much damage against a guy in plate armor as a guy in a robe. The mechanics work but they are vague concepts. I happen to like this. Others don't.

Instead, I need to concentrate on what particular feats I have and troublesome issues of matching my movement to a grid, and square edged fireballs.

Ugh.

Yeah, I can see how this could make things hard for you. Conversely I happen to like it. Instead of a square edged fireball in 1/2e we had fireballs where the DM would say "you miss the guy in the blast radius" and then it could devolve into "did not" and "did too". I realize that most of this depends on the nature of your group, but I think that's a strength of 3e. 3e can acommidate a lot of different gamers. Power gamers, roleplayers, tacticians, and thespians can all play under one ruleset and ... personally ... I think it does a good job.

C3: Feats can be a real pain, and seem to be poorly designed. What I mean is this: A number of feats (for example, tumbling and spring attack) provide automatic success with little regard for the circumstance, and don't provide very well for untrained use. I would argue that all players can attempt any feat, with a greater or lesser degress of success. That is, feats should be more like skills, with feat selection more likeing getting a +4 bonus to that skill.

Yeah, but the feat system adds some distinctiveness to each character. I agree that many game designers and DMs rely too much on feats and not enough on skills. But I happen to like the feat system in general.

It really doesn't sound like 3e is your game. Sorry, bro. Have you looked at Big Eyes, Small Mouth? Its a great roleplay system that I think you might have more fun with.

Happy gaming!

 

[Wippit Guud]

Well, I'll just start with a small match, someone else will open up with the flamethrower. Note it's not a good idea to go to a pro-(any topic) forums, and post an anti-(that topic) post...

Anyways....

C1: Before d20, number of publishers other than WOTC who could publish their own ideas - 0
After d20, number of publishgers other than WOTC who can publish their own ideas - too many to count.

Plus see Creature Catalog, Homebrews, Rogue Gallery for stuff just on this board for 'ideas'

C2: Well, I just got involved in a 200,000+ person combat at my game last night, we never did anything in any way on a grid... In fact we've only started to use the grid in the last couple of months, and only use it for the big climatic battle scenes in each adventure.

C3: If you want to use feats untrained, then you need to implement something for what happens when you fail. I personally cannot tumble, and if I try, I'm gonna land on my head and just lay there in pain, letting anyone walk over and hit me.

 

[Greatwyrm]

I can see where you're coming from on these points, but not all of them are inherent problems with the rules. I'm not trying to be mean in any of this, just arguing the other side.

C1: The amount of focus placed on the rules is a function of the players, not the game. This is true regardless of what you're playing. For example, tons of people play Monopoly, but it's rare to find two people who play it exactly the same way. If you want to focus on story and character interaction, the core rules do cover it. Of course, you can throw out whatever rules you don't like.

C2: Facing rules are a matter of personal preference. Most simultaneous initiative systems I've dealt with are a pain, but again, that's a preference. The key here is nothing in the rules should limit what you choose to do in combat. If you choose to view the system as an abstract miniatures wargame rather than an rpg, that will affect how you make decisions for your character.

C3: Some feats are poorly designed. Can't argue that. On the other hand, feats need to be different from skills. Feats are sort of like minor class abilities; they need to be more than skills. Sure, every wizard can cast magic missile, but not all of them can do it as a free action. Every fighter can hit hard, but not every one can chop through you and still hit your buddy in one swing.

 

[Crothian]

my biggest problem is d20 has been that after about 20 years of use they become rounded and hard to use.

Tumbling is a skill, spring attack is a feat. And why should any player be able to have a chance to do something? I never liked that idea. Sure, people can try, but there are some things that just can't be done with out the proper training. It also lessons the need to have the feat if anyonew has a chance to do it.

THe focus might seem to be rules over role playing, but perhaps you just aren't geting the right books. For instance there's a new pdf called Dice and Dramtics that is all about role playing. I did a little review on it over in the review section.

Remember, it's your game. If you don't like something change it. I can't advise you on C2 becasue I'm not sure how the first has to do with the second

 

[MarauderX]

I am guessing you are more a player than a DM by your commentary. My thoughts are somewhat the same, and as a DM I use house rules that bring back the flavor of imagination.

As far as feats, I kinda agree, in the way that it provides more for the unimaginative and rules lawyers to use. Big deal, it's more or less a gimmick for a PC that might otherwise be like everyone else. As a DM, fine, good for you if it makes you happy and you don't take forever to re-calculate everything each round, such as AC with dodge, expertise and total defense. The trick is to keep it moving so battles will take less than an hour.

 

[Remathilis]

C1: Rules are there to keep the collective imagination fair. Without rules, I could declare my PC flies around the room shooting lightning bolts and frying the other PCs. I win. d20 has more rules than previous versions to keep said imagination consistant and fair.

C2: Simultaneous combat (everyone goes at once?) is confusing, hard to simulate, and never been a part of the D&D rules (rounds USED to be a minute, chew on that). Facing removes a uneeded complication, deciding where a PC has line of sight and and how much area they can cover by turning.

C3: Feats add an element of customization to otherwise static classes. Some can be overpowered, and not all feats are automatic.

Welcome to the boards, hope you survive the process.

 

[Desdichado]

C1: The focus is too much on rules over ideas, and that really takes away from the core ideas of role playing (imagination!!!)

Who's focus? Frankly, I tend to find this is a group-specific problem, not a problem with d20 per se. I find d20 to be clear and transparent as a system, thus encouraging roleplaying and imagination rather than discouraging it.

C2: The non-simultaneous and non-faced combat takes
away a lot of the grit and verisimilitude from encounters.

The basic problem that I am having is that I cannot imagine what
is happening during an encounter, nor can I use imagination to
decide what to do. Instead, I need to concentrate on what
particular feats I have and troublesome issues of matching my
movement to a grid, and square edged fireballs.

That's a fair criticism, and one that if anything, only seems to be worse with the newest edition of the rules (not that I've updated to 3.5 myself.) However, although I use a battlemat fairly commonly, I don't have a problem envisioning what's going on in combat; quite the opposite. I find the battlemat keeps things clearer than it otherwise would be. Not only that, there's lots of anecdotal evidence here on the boards of folks that play combat completely narrativist and have no problem whatsoever.

C3: Feats can be a real pain, and seem to be poorly designed.
What I mean is this: A number of feats (for example, tumbling
and spring attack) provide automatic success with little regard
for the circumstance, and don't provide very well for untrained
use. I would argue that all players can attempt any feat, with
a greater or lesser degress of success. That is, feats should
be more like skills, with feat selection more likeing getting a +4
bonus to that skill.

Hmmm... not a bad idea. It wouldn't work for some feats, though -- it depends on the feat.

 

[takyris]

Welcome! Glad to see a new face!

C1: The focus is too much on rules over ideas, and that really takes
away from the core ideas of role playing (imagination!!!)

It depends on what order you go in. I've found good luck in D&D, d20 Modern, and Mutants & Masterminds (which is almost d20) by coming up with my concept and then building the character to meet that concept. If you start with the rules and try to build a character out of them, you might be uninspired. So do it my way.

C2: The non-simultaneous and non-faced combat takes
away a lot of the grit and verisimilitude from encounters.

There are enough tactical options to make it just as gritty as you like. And while you're referring to d20 in general, I sense that you mean D&D. D&D isn't, by nature, designed to be gritty. I just took out a 12th level Defense master in d20 Modern using a 2nd level character who had an assault rifle. Some games are very clear about the "Yes, no matter how powerful you are, you can still die if your opponent rolls very well a few times and then you roll badly."

So there are mechanics out there that can make it as gritty as you want, and with the options for flanking, disarming, grappling, and so forth, tactics are not really a problem. (From my experience)

The basic problem that I am having is that I cannot imagine what
is happening during an encounter, nor can I use imagination to
decide what to do. Instead, I need to concentrate on what
particular feats I have and troublesome issues of matching my
movement to a grid, and square edged fireballs.

Then the problem is that you don't yet know the rules. I'm not trying to euphemistically say that you're bad or anything. The d20 ruleset does have a learning curve.

I'm running a Modern action movie game with a bunch of D&D veterans. We keep coming up with cool action movie moves and seeing how we can replicate them in d20. One guy recently defeated his opponent by holding onto a chain that hurled him up into the air and kicking his opponent off a ledge as he whizzed by. He told me he wanted to do that, we glanced at the rules, and I said, "Okay, Climb is holding onto things. Gimme a Climb Check, DC15, and if you succed, you hold onto the chain as it flies up there, and you can treat your attack as a charge attack with an additional +2 bonus." Easy as pie, and the player loved the image of soaring up from the ground and knocking his opponent off the ledge (into lava, as it turned out -- it was all special-effect, since his charging kick finished off the bad guy anyway, hp-wise).

C3: Feats can be a real pain, and seem to be poorly designed.
What I mean is this: A number of feats (for example, tumbling
and spring attack) provide automatic success with little regard
for the circumstance, and don't provide very well for untrained
use. I would argue that all players can attempt any feat, with
a greater or lesser degress of success. That is, feats should
be more like skills, with feat selection more likeing getting a +4
bonus to that skill.

Tumbling isn't an automatic success. You have to invest the points in the skill to get an auto-success on DC15 or 25. And even if you have invested the points, there are penalties for tumbling on not-great surfaces in not-great conditions.

Spring Attack is powerful, sure, but you invested three feats to get it. For a non-human non-fighter, that means that you've said, "Hey, the power-increase options I had for levels 1,3, and 6? I want those to let me do this. That's the big power I want to get." That's nowhere near as powerful as spells or other class abilities, and it is something they paid for.

I had a talk with a former gamer, and I realized that I love the d20 system. Talking to him about it, I realize how often I worry about whether one item in one game in one situation is unbalanced, but generally speaking, the idea of options, not restrictions has been carried out really really well. In D&D and d20 Modern, I can make almost any character concept I can imagine. The only limitation is power. I can't be the strongest AND the fastest AND the smartest. I have to choose. I love that balance, and I love how the game works.

Hope this helps.