My beefs with D20

[Storm Raven]

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.

That's a problem with the player, not the rules. You set the DCs, you make the decisions. They have a right to expect that certain things will work in a predictable way, but they don't have the right to set DCs or other things like that.

 

[d4]

Players prefer their DM to follow the rules as stated in the books (don't tell me my players are the only ones--threads pop up all the time about DMs supposedly drunk on their own power and playing havoc with the rules).

i'd amend that to most players prefer the GM to be consistent in his rulings, irrespective of whether he actually follows "the books" or not. of course, completely following the letter of the books is one way to maintain consistency. but it doesn't preclude the GM house-ruling things differently.

one of the reasons why i prefer d20 to more "rules-light" systems like BRP is because those other systems require the GM to "wing" rulesy situations more often, which can lead to greater inconsistency. i'd much prefer to spend my improvisational energy "winging" up new situations, NPCs, events, and so forth than have to come up with new rules to cover situations the books are light on.

Players have more time to study rules than DMs--DMs are expected to come up with a scenario and NPCs, consider the possible results of PC actions, and possibly other chores (such as painting miniatures, readying the gaming space, etc.)--hence players are in a prime position to "correct" their DM.

hmmm. in my experience, i've noticed that it's usually only the GM who spends any time "out-of-game" thinking about the game at all. most of the players i've ever gamed with rarely crack a rulebook's cover during the rest of the week. you must have some very dedicated rules lawyers...

D20 is a player friendly, but not DM-friendly, game. IN MY OPINION.

i agree that d20 is more player-friendly than a lot of other systems, but what do you mean by "not DM-friendly"? is it because the rules are so thorough that you feel you can't improvise situations the way you want? do you find that you don't wish to house-rule something that the books already have a rule for? or is it that your players won't let you house-rule? i'm having trouble understanding your position, because i haven't found d20 to be GM-unfriendly. in fact, i'd say a rules-light system like BRP or BESM is more unfriendly to the GM (in my opinion) because it forces him to create rules to cover situations that the rules don't address.

 

[takyris]

Hey Tom,

Well, I thought I was agreeing with you for part of my above post. Ah,well.

I find the d20 system to be complex mainly in terms of creation-time, rather than ruling time. If, as a DM, I have time to prepare for a scenario, I can give the villain NPC all kinds of skills and feats and really make him great at what he does.

But if the players pick a plot path I didn't see coming and I have to wing it, I pretty much have to use something out of the book, mentally change two feats, and bluff his skills as best I can. I imagine that my players know the difference by now.

I would guess that this is partially explained by designers thinking that most DMs would just use a Monster Manual monster if they had to wing it. d20 Modern tries to address the issue by having ready-made (non-heroic) NPCs of low, medium, and high-level right in the book for you to use. And many supplements exist to give you something to use while winging it. My completely off-the-cuff guess is that just about any setting different enough to make it impossible to use generic NPCs has released a book full of NPCs -- even M&M has Crooks...

So yes, I agree with you that as a DM, I have a harder time winging the nitty-gritty bits. I can wing the flavor of an aristocratic courtier with a rapier that creates shadow-substance henchmen to do his dirty work, but I'd be hard pressed to make him on the fly with the rules. There'd be a bit of "Okay, I'm going to just assume he's a bard, and that he's got around a +10 on any skill check he makes, but instead of singing, he'll summon these henchmen... yeah... that oughta work..." It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd get me through that night, and then I'd have until next session to stat him up if it looked like he'd be a recurring character.

So I agree with you that coming up with full rules for complex things (altered monsters, skill-intensive environments like the cliff-and-tightrope-centric lair of evil monk/shadowdancers, or NPCs that are defined by skills or spellcasting ability) is a pain to do on the fly in the d20 system. I'd argue, though, that your players should a) Not know enough about everything they meet to be sure that you're winging it and b) Cut you some freakin' slack if you are winging it.

 

[RFisher]

I had a thought as to one reason--perhaps--that I find DMing D&D3e more difficult than many other RPGs...

As DM, I want to make an effort to give the players a chance to use their characters' individual abilities. So many of the character abilities in 3e are so specific, though, that it seems like I have to work harder to make sure the players don't feel like their choices of skills/feat/&c. were wasted.

I dunno...maybe.

 

[Psion]

Two notes on this thread.

1 - Generally, a lot of the dispute here seems to be that of "too many rules" or "not enough imagination in the rules."

The latter has me going "huh", but more generally, I think this dispute revolves around the nature of the "rules power balance" between GM and player.

Of RPGs, d20/D&D tends to be on the "lots of power in the player's hand" end of the spectrum. Play is more driven as a result of the player's actions as translated by the rules than strictly a GM narration or interperetation.

Now, what the debate comes down to is really: do you like the "player empowered" approach to play, or do you not. Personally, I prefer it. To me, if I wanted heavy GM control, I'd be better off writing a novel. Gaming creates a different experience than literature to me and it does not disappoint me that it is so. I feel that I have more than enough control at the situation level so I don't feel I need a lot of extra control at the resolution level. Further, if I were a PC in such a game, I feel as if extra GM control at that level robs me of some "control."

Further, I think that offloading some decision making to the rules adds consistency and gives the players more of a feel of verisimilitude in teh game world, and gives me time to worry about plot and NPCs instead of hemming and hawing on how to run something.

But these are just my feelings. If your feelings are different, it just means that d20 might not be the best system for you, not that d20 is necessarily "wrong" for coming at it from this angle.

2 - re: creation time. Yes, if you feel the need to obsessively follow the letter of the rules in real time, you will find yourself severely limited in game. But IMO/E, you don't really have to do that. Though some monster and character rules are rather exacting, they are built around some general principles that are very easily winged. Most important of these are:

- Commoners have average scores of 10-11 (+0 modifiers), experts will have correspondingly better modifiers in their better honed stats (I usually assume +2, but +1 to +3 is good.)
- All characters and creatures can have at best skill ranks = level/HD + 3 in a given skills.
- Number of feats are fairly predictable at 1 + 1/3 levels.

With that, it's very easy for me to wing monsters and characters and end up pretty close to the mark; if an exact accounting is needed later, I can pretty easily back the figures in. If there are some innacuracies, it's not usually very significant, considering that players are never directly exposed to the actual numbers, they will rarely notice if you are +/- 1-3 points off on some modifier, or if your NPC ends up a level higher or lower than anticipated.

IOW, don't sweat the small stuff, but do try to get in the ballpark.

 

[AeroDm]

I had a thought as to one reason--perhaps--that I find DMing D&D3e more difficult than many other RPGs...

As DM, I want to make an effort to give the players a chance to use their characters' individual abilities. So many of the character abilities in 3e are so specific, though, that it seems like I have to work harder to make sure the players don't feel like their choices of skills/feat/&c. were wasted.

I dunno...maybe.

Interesting, I find the opposite. Abilities are so general that they are easy to accomodate. If you simply run a diversified adventure opportunities come up in game. Wizards can be creative with their spells to get around physical obstacles, skill characters can use an abundance of skills, fighters like combat, etc. Moreover, although many abilities are specific they are player activated. If a figther has spring attack it isn't your duty to tell them to spring, they do it. The fact that they _choose_ when you use their abilities makes them even more proud of doing it.

Other than that just step back every hour or so and think about who hasn't had a chance to shine yet. Then give it to them.

 

[CRGreathouse]

For C1 (rules over imagination), I've found three general preference groups on buying new materials:

1. Focuses on mechanics -- buys rules-heavy product ("Who needs fluff?")
2. Focuses on gameplay -- bys rules-light product ("I want flavor, so I buy books without too many rules getting in the way.")
3. Focuses on gameplay, comes up with own flavor -- buys rules-heavy product ("I write my own flavor, so I need mechanics that don't depend on someone else's flavor.")

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Well, I would say tbitonti should either find a game system more to his (or her) liking. I've never played it, but a game like Vampire sounds more like what you're looking for to me.

If you really want to play d20 (to be part of the cool crowd) think about house rules. We use a battle grid, but we do not have square spells. My way of judging it is that if you are in a square that the edge of a fireball spell goes through, you roll a reflex save for no damage, half damage if you fail, (and you end up looking like Half & Half). If you have Evasion, then you escape if you are on a partial effect square.

See you can make things the way you want, but you might need to add some more rules (or toss some out). Just be consistent.

 

[Celtavian]

re

The biggest problem I have with the D&D rules at the current time is that there is effectively no combat skill. Combat skill is relatively static with BAB being the primary determinant of skill modified by feats. In other game systems, you can actually parry or perform a variety of defensive maneuvers because it is considered a common part of the training when learning a combat skill. Whereas in D&D, if you do not purchase a feat you are untrained in defending yourself for the most part. You do have the fight defensively and total defense catch all category, but that is hardly an accurate simulation of defensive combat skill. Especially when you take into account that a Fighter and a Wizard defend with the same level of efficiency.

I've been spending alot of time reading about combat, both mass and individual. D&D really does a very poor job of simulating actual combat. D&D combat is more alike to video game or cartoon combat rather than real melee combat with martial weapons. The knowledge that D&D simulates combat so poorly is hurting the verisimiltude of the game for myself.

The only reason I haven't quit is that D&D is nostalgic. I'm loathe to quit or change games because I have so many fond memories of playing with my friends. Overall, the game is still fun, its just no longer believable. I find myself wanting to play a system that better captures the feel of real combat.

The original poster may be feeling alot like I do. Alot of the D20 rules are based on meta-game concepts like balance and simplicity rather than verisimlitude. One strength it does have is that it's the only game where you can mow down an army of demons or giants.

I can definitely relate to you dissatisfaction with the D20 system. It isn't for everyone, and at times it leaves alot to be desired when simulating real combat.

 

[mmadsen]

But the system doesn't cause it. That behavior is a choice on the part of your players, not something that they have to do because of the system.

I see this argument -- and arguments like it -- often: it's not the rules; it's the players (or the DM). I suggest that it's the rules and the players and the DM. Certainly different groups play very differently with the same rules -- just look at the variety of gaming styles here at EN World -- but that hardly means that the rules have no effect on how the game's played.

If you take your exact same gaming group and switch to Basic D&D, GURPS, or Hero, you'll likely see a change in gaming style. Is the new ruleset 100% responsible for your gaming style? No, but, again, that hardly means that the rules have no effect on how the game's played.