My beefs with D20

[Numion]

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

Actually 3E system is a step to the opposite direction from that. Former editions tended to have different rules for different situations - thief does something on a percentage roll, dwarf rolls a d6, and all that. Different rules for different eventualities.

3E is mostly d20 + modifiers. Much simpler imo. Even though there's lot of material in the books, I've noticed I have to consult the rulebook less often than in other games. DMG I usually just consult for the exp table, for example (once or twice a session).

And that was about D&D. D&D != d20. d20 is supposed to be full of rules to make it versatile. All do not have to be used for a specific RPG using d20. (Like Cthulhu d20, which is mostly fluff.) But because people generally don't know the difference between d20, D&D and other RPGs using d20 system this will probably fall to deaf ears.

 

[barsoomcore]

This will probably fall to deaf ears.

Huh? What?



If you define a rules system as "the rules by which the game is played" then it's obvious that all rules systems are, in fact, "full" of rules. That is, everything in the rules system is a rule, ergo, the rules system contains nothing but rules, which is a pretty fair definition of "full of rules". They aren't, for example, full of cashews. Rules systems are made of rules, so pretty much by definition they're full of rules.

I think the issue is really -- how big does a rules system need to be? How many rules does it need to contain?

Or the issue is -- how should rules be presented? Should rules systems always be presented in the context of a great deal of fluff, or should fluff be kept to a minimum (fluff being distinct from the rules system, you see)?

In both cases, neither method creates objectively superior GAMES (which are the combination of a rules system with some degree of fluff).

All that aside I find D&D very easy to "wing it" in. I always did, and it's one of the things I like best about 3E -- it reminds me of that aspect of 1E.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Numion--look at the spells. Varying mechanics abound. When there are spellcasters at work, books are consulted again and again.

Barsoom--You've done it. You've used the word "fluff." It's such a value judgment. Rules vs. fluff. Rules being the things that constitute a game and fluff being all that useless flavory stuff that just isn't necessary.

I hate that word..."fluff."

Call of Cthulhu (BRP), IMO, is a very good balance of rules and flavor.

As for D&D being easy to "wing," well...okay. I envy you for having a group of players that will let you do that.

 

[Crothian]

As for D&D being easy to "wing," well...okay. I envy you for having a group of players that will let you do that.

How do the players make it difficult for you to "wing" it?

 

[barsoomcore]

Barsoom--You've done it. You've used the word "fluff." It's such a value judgment. Rules vs. fluff. Rules being the things that constitute a game and fluff being all that useless flavory stuff that just isn't necessary.

I hate that word..."fluff."

I don't consider fluff a value judgement and certainly wasn't using it to render any sort of judgement. Is "flavour" better? I didn't mean to make any sort of value judgement of rules vs "that other stuff whatever we call it". Both are NECESSARY for ALL games. What sorts of percentages you find most appropriate is of course up to you and your tastes, but neither is useless, unnecessary or unimportant.

Take a great game like Toon, or Hijinks from the recent Polyhedron. Neither offer much rules -- mostly "that stuff" -- and yet I think both are GREAT games. On the other hand, the D&D has lots of rules per "other stuff" and I think that's a great game too.

So maybe I'm just a system slut. That's okay. Sluts are always popular, at least!

 

[Tom Cashel]

So maybe I'm just a system slut. That's okay. Sluts are always popular, at least!

Hey, uh...can I buy you a beer?

 

[Numion]

Numion--look at the spells. Varying mechanics abound. When there are spellcasters at work, books are consulted again and again.

Not sure what you mean. Spells are presented in a standardized format.

If you don't remember the effects of a particular spell, of course you'll have to dig them up. Same if you don't remember some NPCs name, you'll have to check your notes. But varying mechanics? Are there some spells that don't have a spell level assigned to them? Saving throw is something other than Will, Fort or Ref? I think you're confused about what are mechanics and what are the spells effects.

It's similar to the case of BRP Cthulhu, which you were fond of. The monsters (or horrors) there are presented in a mechanically standard fashion, but you still might want to check what the stats are, or check the description when one is used. That doesn't make the BRP monster sections mechanically varied. It's just a varied selection of monsters. (A notable exception is the part where it says that Great Cthulhu just scoops 1d4 investigators to it's mouth with the tentacles every round .. now thats not consistent. Cthulhu should be required to roll for an attack or something )

 

[barsoomcore]

Hey, uh...can I buy you a beer?

Why sir! What do you think I am? A slut?

Good guess. Make it a Granville Island Hotel Brewery Pilsner.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Not at all -- rules that are simple, make sense logically, are consistent with each other, are easy to predict even if you don't actually bother to look them up everytime you need them, etc. certainly do encourage roleplaying, because the rules become very transparent, and you don't have focus on them during the play session. That's not absurd, that's self-evident, in my opinion.

Now whether or not you see d20 in that light is probably the real question here. I do. I think 3e is easy. I've read through the PHB once, I brush up on the combat options if I haven't played in a while, and I don't particularly care for playing spellcasters. I never have to spend time consulting the books during play, either as a player or a DM (except for the rare occasions when I am playing a spellcaster, 'coz I don't know jack about casting spells.) You wanna try something in my game? OK, make a xxx check (DC on the fly) and off you go. It's so easy to wing it in 3e that it's not even funny. We never get bogged down in rules discussions, except with new players, or players who are playing character classes that they don't very often (said spellcasters being a notable example), we never have to put much thought into the rules, they support our roleplaying rather than hindering it.

The same could not be said of prior editions of D&D, certainly. I've also found the system much more elegant than the dice pool mechanics of systems like Storyteller, which bog you down as you try to figure out what you're actually capable of, to say nothing of couting up all those freakin' dice.

3e facilitates roleplaying more than most systems that I've played for any length of time at all.

 

[Tom Cashel]

You wanna try something in my game? OK, make a xxx check (DC on the fly) and off you go. It's so easy to wing it in 3e that it's not even funny.

No, it's not funny, because you've apparently never had players who do nothing but read, re-read, and re-re-read the rules between every game session. (And then re-re-re-read the rules and chack the Rules Forum at EN World before the game.)

They won't let you do things like that. You have to study enough rules to keep up with them.

Now...where's the time to concentrate on other things, like NPCs and role-playing?

I had to destroy my entire D&D campaign, and switch to CoC, to stop them.