My beefs with D20

[Ranger REG]

I don't know if the original poster wants a conversation, or confirmation to his statements (just to see if others agree with him).

 

[mmadsen]

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

Are there any particular rules you find nit-picky, more hassle then reward? Maybe Attacks of Opportunity? Just drop those rules. Are you trying to use every new book that comes out? If that has become a pain, just stop adding 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.

I don't necessarily agree with your specific complaints, but I think switching to a system like Mutants & Masterminds might help you match game mechanics to mental movie. M&M uses Defense rather than Armor Class and a Damage Save rather than Hit Points, so a hit's a hit, damage is physical damage, and so on.

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.

The nit-picky grid movement issues go away if you streamline the Attack-of-Opportunity rules and get rid of "free" 5' steps, etc.

And, seriously, how is mapping a fireball onto a grid a problem?

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.

Many feats already work that way. (Most people consider those the "boring" feats, of course...)

 

[Nightfall]

My only comment for this thread is I agree with tbitonti that I never cared that much for mini, facing and the other stuff that has been incorporated into 3.5.

That being said I agree with everyone else!

 

[diaglo]

I don't know if the original poster wants a conversation, or confirmation to his statements (just to see if others agree with him).

i agree.

 

[RFisher]

C1: I have mixed feelings on this one. (a) It's easy enough to ignore the bulk of the rules, especially since d20 has a good metarule. (b) As a DM, it's comforting to have all those rules to teach you how the designers meant the game to be played. (I guess I see the bulk of the rules as examples rather than rules.) (c) The rules lawyers can make life a tough with so much ammunition. (As a probably-not-completely-reformed rules lawyer myself, please don't assume any negative connotation with my use of the term.) Even people who aren't rules lawyers have more of a tendency to get bent out of shape if you ignore or are ignorant of a particular rule.

C2: I dunno. I don't have this problem. I will admit that I sometimes--maybe often--prefer a more abstract combat system. I also enjoy good simulationist, microtactical GURPS style combat, though even having one person that doesn't enjoy that style can make it impractical for a group.

C3: In theory, I like the feat system. (a) Having a subsystem for adding boolean (you have it or you don't) abilities to characters is a good thing. (b) Keeping the core combat system relatively simple and adding complexities through the feat system is a pretty cool idea.

In practice, though, I find the feats in the game too combat oriented. Sure, you can add lots of non-combat feats, but since only Fighters get a decent number of feats, they won't have a lot of effect. (Imagine a class like the Fighter but built around non-combat feats...hmm...)

Also, in the end, I'd rather the combat system be more complex than require feats for so many things. (Well, it'd still be cool to have a few feats for really impressive special combat...er...feats.)

 

[Turjan]

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: [snip]

Hello and welcome! I don't want to reiterate any of the answers you got from the other posters, and I generally agree with them. But on the other hand, I can imagine your frustration as a player when you are just starting out into the d20 experience. Although the rules of D&D are clearer and more balanced than they ever were, it's a rough time for someone new to the system to understand them fullheartedly.

Someone else already pointed out that you have to have a profound knowledge of the rules in order to get to the roleplaying and fun part of the game. First games with all new players and maybe even new DM tend to be rules-heavy, because everybody has questions, and then there are these odd breaks of looking things up in the rules. There's not much room for roleplaying then, but thing's will get much better soon. As soon as you know what to roll the dice for, you can concentrate on fleshing out the situation in your mind, and then the "real" roleplaying experience sets on .

Therefore, I see only two solutions:

1) If you are new to d20 games, just keep it to the very core of the rules. During combat, just roll for hit and damage and let the special options be special options. As soon as everybody knows this by heart, you can look into bull rushes or other special moves. Only the spellcaster has to show a bit more devotion to the rulebook from the beginning on .

2) If your concerns regarding d20 games are more general, try something different. You can play, e.g., Talislanta with a d20 and the action table which you will know by heart within about 10 minutes . If this style of game suits you you will be happy there .

 

[Tom Cashel]

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

A role-playing game does not have to be "full" of rules. D20, however, is chock full of them. Count the number of mechanics in the spell chapter lately?

Therefore, I think it's reasonable to claim that the focus of D20 is on the rules. There's so many of them...how can they be ignored?

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.

You know what? To say that the D20 rules "encourage" role-playing is just as absurd as saying they "discourage" role-playing. Either statement is a value judgment, and does not gain validity when used as a checkmate.

As a DM, I feel that the D20 system--especially in its most recent incarnations--reduces the role of the DM to arbiter. Overseeing an arbitration between the rules and the players, that is.

"I am not a PC engine! I am a free man!"

I like Chaosium's BRP the best.

 

[Numion]

A role-playing game does not have to be "full" of rules. D20, however, is chock full of them. Count the number of mechanics in the spell chapter lately?

Therefore, I think it's reasonable to claim that the focus of D20 is on the rules. There's so many of them...how can they be ignored?

Just saying that 'd20' is in essence the SRDs. Of course the focus of d20 is on the rules. It's a rules system. All rule systems are full of rules.

That D&D is only rules is a statement that has more value. It's supposed to be a complete RPG.

As a DM, I feel that the D20 system--especially in its most recent incarnations--reduces the role of the DM to arbiter. Overseeing an arbitration between the rules and the players, that is.

You say it like it's a bad thing. Others will argue that it lets the DM to concentrate on the important things - making cool NPCs, intresting plots, good adventures and a consistent campaign.

Not spending time 'winging it' and designing rules for this and that.

 

[Tom Cashel]

All rule systems are full of rules.

I disagree with the word FULL. A rule-system does not have to be FULL of rules. A rules system can be a framework in which the DM does his thing. Or a rules system can be full of rules that tell players what to do with every situation, every event, every combination of eventualities--or at least, as many as they can foresee.

With 25+ years of experience, the D&D/D20 designers can foresee a LOT of eventualities. Hence, a hella-load of rules.

"Winging it" and "designing rules" are the opposite ends of an off-the-cuff-DMing spectrum, I think. I prefer the former, and I've found that D20 takes a lot of that away from me.

Just my opinion.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm hoping Castles & Crusades will cure the problems I have with 3.xe