My beefs with D20

[Dogbrain]

A sword does as much damage against a guy in plate armor as a guy in a robe.

That is more false than it is true.

Ten rounds of combat, same attacker. Defender in plate armor, defender in robe. Sword does less damage against guy in plate armor so long as total attack bonus is not so high as to render plate armor meaningless.


If you disagree, play it out 100,000 times and get back to me.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Does your hate of d02 know no limit?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

That is more false than it is true.

Ten rounds of combat, same attacker. Defender in plate armor, defender in robe. Sword does less damage against guy in plate armor so long as total attack bonus is not so high as to render plate armor meaningless.


If you disagree, play it out 100,000 times and get back to me.

OK, Mr. Smartypants I will!

I think it's fair to say that Keep on the Borderlands is a fair module where such an encounter might happen. Say it takes three sessions to run through the whole thing (we're going to skip the bandits camp and minotaur). We'll play once a night and restart when we complete the module. I figure that we'll finish up in December of 2825 and we'll see who has the last laugh then!

 

[Ron]

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!!!)

No game will ever please everyone. Sometimes it's necessary to make compromisses, both the designer and the individual players, like ourself. I will not comment yours C2-3 rants, as I agree with you. Unfortunely, the designers had different opinions.

Concerning C1, I think you're right. The reason? Apparently, crunchy bits sells! A couple years ago Sean Reynolds discussed that upper management at Hasbro thought it would be a good idea to concentrate in D&D's crunchy products, as they sold better than others. I think it's a fact. Since then, I have noticed that many posters believe that a good product should have a high content of crunch to be worthy. Although there is nothing wrong with that, it's an opinion, it isn't necessarily shared by all other players. If you're looking for games less focused in rules, perhaps it's time to concentrate outside the d20 realm. If, by some reason, you would rather stick with d20, then it's time to adjust yourself to the reality of the d20 market.

That said, there are a lot of imaginative d20 products available. There is nothing written anywhere that you should focus in the rules section of the sourcebooks. Although you may have to pay more than most (as the books will have lesser contents to you than most d20 players), one can be very pleased with d20 books disregarding the crunchy aspects.

 

[ichabod]

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

The core idea of roleplaying games is not imagination. It is having fun. Furthermore, how would a rule book teach imagination? A rulebook can only teach rules, so it does so. One benefit with the rules in d20 is that they are clear and consistent. That makes them easy to apply to new situations, which to my mind facilitates imagination more than unclear or inconsistent rule systems.

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

Them's the breaks. This is the classic balance of non-abstract game design. It is nigh impossible to design simple rules that take into account everything. Therefore, the more you take into account, the more rules you have. If you want to keep the rules simple, you have to leave things out. Since you already decry the emphasis on the rules, would you really like more rules to account for simultaneity and facing? And most solutions to simultaneous combat involve phase systems, which imply other constraints on action.

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 the game part of the whole equation. If you don't want to play a game, don't. But d20 is a game.

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.

That is one possible design philosophy, with other problems of its own. If that is not the style of gaming you like, that is not a problem with the game, it is a problem with the choice you made about which game you want to play. As has been pointed out, D&D is not a grim game, it is a heroic game. If you want a grim game with facing where anyone can do anything, why not try GURPS?

 

[mmadsen]

In his opening post, tbitonti complains that the D&D combat system manages to be both complex and abstract. "The focus is too much on rules over ideas," yet "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.

BiggusGeekus more-or-less agrees that D&D combat is a game unto itself, abstracting away most real-world concerns:

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.

Dogbrain grabs one line -- "A sword does as much damage against a guy in plate armor as a guy in a robe" -- and, in my opinion, misses the point:

That is more false than it is true.

Ten rounds of combat, same attacker. Defender in plate armor, defender in robe. Sword does less damage against guy in plate armor so long as total attack bonus is not so high as to render plate armor meaningless.

If you disagree, play it out 100,000 times and get back to me.

The question isn't whether the armored fellow wins over the unarmored fellow often enough, in some statistical sense, but whether the players can "imagine what is happening during an encounter" and whether they can "use [their] imagination to decide what to do."

Under the rules as written, there is a lot of detail and a lot of rules complexity, but very little of it corresponds one-to-one with anything happening in the mind's eye.

Did he hit me? Am I injured? Is anything broken? Did he knock me down the stairs? When a hit isn't a hit, and damage isn't physical damage, the system doesn't lend itself to vivid descriptions of what's happening.

 

[Numion]

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!!!)

Well, d20 is just a rules system. It's supposed to be full of rules. Now, you might want to check any of the 100's of products that are out there for really great ideas. You can actually get both, if you bother to do it: ideas and rules.

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.

Square edged fireballs? Fireballs aren't square edged .. their representation on the combat grid is, but at least my PHB states that they actually are a 'ball' shaped effects. Similarly, normal people in D&D world don't watch in every direction at the same time or walk in straight lines with 90 degree turns. Combat grid isn't required (in 3.0E) and we don't use it. Maybe you shouldn't either.

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.

As others have pointed, tumbling is a skill, not a feat. IMO feats shouldn't be like skills. They've got skills for abilities that should work like skills, duh. Feats are nice way to differentiate between characters. All-skills systems are prone to having jack-of-all-trades characters - types who know / can do a bit of everything, because skills aren't limited like feats (which have prerequisites for the more advanced stuff). Needless to note, jack-of-all-trades characters aren't a part of the D&D experience, which mostly concentrates on different archetypes of characters.

BTW, you picked the right place for bashing d20. You might find more sympathic, albeit tired, crowd at RPG.net forums.

 

[BryonD]

Well, d20 is just a rules system. It's supposed to be full of rules.

Exactly.

Show me a game system that tells me how to imagine and I'll show you a game system that I will never play.

 

[Ranger REG]

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?

Which roleplaying community? Anyone who does not play the latest D&D edition? Anyone who just bashes D&D out of jealousy because what they're playing is not being played by the majority of roleplayers?

Or are you just talking about the D&D community at large?

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!!!)

Imaginations, like rules, comes from the minds of the gamer. Imaginations does not need written instructions. While the game is based on stats being interacted (roll die, determine hit, roll damage if any), it is up to the gamer to "imagine" and narrates his action while the GM narrates the consequences or result of the player's action.

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

Unless you're a computer, you really cannot adjudicate a combat encounter in real-time. While abstract, the system allows a much easier method of resolving this encounter with less confusion.

As for facing, I doubt anyone is going to stand in one direction for the entire six seconds. One would constantly moves around, especially if he feels that danger is coming not just in front of him, but his flanks and rear.

One should note that the two aforementioned methods takes it roots in classic wargames.

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.

Unfortunately, it is with real life. Can you honestly gauge the distance or area you need to cast a fireball or make a charge attack? That's why I don't let my players physically count the squares (I swatted their hands with a bamboo), they have to do it in their heads. Tactical imagination is just as good as creative imagination.

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.

As a whole, or just some things in particular?

Well, tumbling is a skill, so that is a moot point.

Feats like Spring Attack allow "bending" of the normal rules. It does not guarantee automatic success, you still need to hit your target.

Granted, some feats are questionable but others, depending on their prerequisites and benefit, are good. That's up to the GM to decide if he wants it in his game.

While you have a core d20 system, the OGL allows you to take the ruleset and spawn off into many different variants, to tailor it especially for certain games, like d20 Modern, Spycraft, BESM d20, and Mutants & Masterminds. The system is constantly evolving, at the whim of the game designers. I suggest you find one that is most suitable for you.

You can either view the ruleset as definitive or, as many veteran gamers tend to look at them, you can view it as a set of guidelines.

 

[takyris]

What I am beginning to sense is not an actual desire for conversation.