My beefs with D20

[WayneLigon]

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.

I never assumed D&D was ever intended to model real combat; it's more like the combats you find in a book or movie. In other words, combat where the hero has a fair chance of winning against superior odds and still being unwounded enough to move and run. I'm pretty sure that most people have no illusions about D&D being any sort of realistic simulator of combat.

However, it's almost perfect for what it does: create a sense of combat that's real enough without being totally abstract or totally realistic. I've played some very 'realistic' systems and universally so far they have two major faults. (1) THey play too slowly, even for people who know the rules, (2) and you die too quickly and easily with (because that, too, is 'unrealistic') no chance of any substancial healing or ressurection.

 

[mmadsen]

D20 has a lot of rules. The fact that the DM sets a DC for skill checks is true (and a simple, straightforward mechanic at that), but does not change the fact that there are individual rules for half-a-billion Feats, Skills, Spells, Magic Items, etc.

Definitely. D&D has a pretty simple d20 core with an enormous volume of special cases added on: feats, spells, magic items, etc. Also, many of the "interesting" combat options -- the ones that do something concrete, like knocking someone down the stairs -- feel tacked on; they're exceptions to the general combat rules.

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).

Absolutely. The rules are the rules for a reason.

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.

I wouldn't say that the players have more time so much as more incenctive. The DM wants to have a fun game and tell a fun story. The players, on some level, want to succeed.

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

What, specifically, would make the game more DM-friendly?

 

[diaglo]

What, specifically, would make the game more DM-friendly?

taking many of the rules out of the PHB.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

And if I may amend your amendment, I suspect that most mature players who know and trust their DM prefer the DM to be consistent in his rulings, whether he follows "the books" or not.

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.

I agree with you, but I think we need to realize that there are many ways to be "rules light" (or "rules heavy"). AD&D might leave many, many things undefined, yet dive into ludicrously baroque detail in the areas it does cover, while d20 might lightly define a wide range of activities (d20 vs. DC) with very little detail -- and still provide baroque detail in spell lists, etc.

 

[Desdichado]

All right, let's try this once again for people who are conflating what I've said with what others have said, or just haven't bothered to understand what I've said because I'm yanking on the ears of D20 Bessie, their sacred cow.

Now you're just getting snarky. What you said isn't hard to understand, it's just unsupported. You've failed to establish any causality between one thing you don't like (lots of rules) and something else you don't like (the playstyle of your players.) In fact, I'd go so far as to state that it's fairly easy to read between the lines and see that your big problem really is with your players and you're inappropriately blaming the rules. But reading between the lines is always dangerous, of course, in that I don't have the full story.

D20 has a lot of rules. The fact that the DM sets a DC for skill checks is true (and a simple, straightforward mechanic at that), but does not change the fact that there are individual rules for half-a-billion Feats, Skills, Spells, Magic Items, etc. etc. etc. 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). 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.

But I don't see how that's even a problem. So what? I expect my players to know the rules associated with their character better than I do. If my characters use a feat, cast a spell, etc.; I expect them to tell me how it works. That's their job. That's what makes the game DM friendly; you shouldn't have to know all the rules to run a game, you should know the rules associated with the NPCs and the situations you put in front of the players. And frankly, those rules are easily "winged" on the spot.

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

Just asking here, but does your opinion also include an adversarial relationship between player and DM? Or does it include DM fiat as a primary driver of the game?

So stop trying to change my mind by pointing out why I'm "wrong." I'm pretty sure I know what my own opinion is, and the fact that I'm entitled to it is beyond doubt.

'Kay, Sparky?

Has anyone said you're wrong? I think it's more like your opinion is fairly weakly propped up by bad assumptions. That's not "wrong", but it doesn't make it any easier to take your opinion seriously either.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

As you just said yourself, in D&D, BAB is combat skill. It's a bit of a hiccup that it follows it's own progression ,but that progression isn't too far off from the normal skill progression: for Fighters BAB = Level rather than BAB = Level + 3.

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.

Certainly it's odd that D&D characters don't improve defensively by default. In other d20 games they do, and I strongly suspect that when we finally see a fourth edition, D&D characters will get a defense bonus too.

If you want a quick house rule, add in the character's Ref bonus to AC, not just Dex. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily interact well with the default hit point inflation the system currently relies on...)

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.

Plenty of people will say that D&D combat shouldn't reflect real combat. I do think it should reflect cinematic combat though, and it doesn't necessarily do that either.

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.

Those meta-game concepts keep D&D playable as a game. The goal is to find a solution that maintains the balance and simplicity of D&D while offering more "realism" too.

One strength it does have is that it's the only game where you can mow down an army of demons or giants.

Just about any system can allow that with very little tweaking.

 

[Desdichado]

Certainly it's odd that D&D characters don't improve defensively by default. In other d20 games they do, and I strongly suspect that when we finally see a fourth edition, D&D characters will get a defense bonus too.

If you want a quick house rule, add in the character's Ref bonus to AC, not just Dex. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily interact well with the default hit point inflation the system currently relies on...)

There's already a house rule in the DMG for a level-based AC progression. Also, other d20 games (Star Wars, Wheel of Time, d20 Modern) have that as a feature as well. It's perhaps unfortunate that in D&D per se only the Monk has such a feature, but it's really, really easy to add it in.

 

[RFisher]

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.

This reminds me of Stephen Chenault's editorial "Liberating the Game Master" from The Seeker (Troll Lord Games' house e-zine.) When I first read it, it struck me as an odd take on the difference between OAD&D and D&D3e.

The thing is that as referee, I often empower (IMHO ) the players no matter what ruleset we're using. I do want the game to be player driven. I strive to create a world instead of a story and avoid railroading. When players come up with clever things to do, I often give it a decent chance of working even though I may not think it'd really work. (Creativity is--up to a point--more important than verisimilitude.) I even let players name countries and NPCs. Stuff players make up for their character backgrounds usually becomes part of the world.

None of this can really be dictated by mechanics. (Although, from what I hear, Donjon sort of does that.) The kind of mechanical player enabling that D&D3e provides, while fun, is much less important to me.

(We're going to be using the Dork20 cards in our next campaign, which should add another layer of mechanical player enabling. It looks like it'll be great fun.)

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

What you want above is great, but even that kind of mechanics can have a drawback. The more details you put into resolving combat, the more time in a game session it is spent resolving combat. At least with a computer, it can calculate your maneuvers, your defense and offensive skill, the situation, and other many tiny factors (extracting from real life in real-time) to determine success or failure in an instant.

 

[mmadsen]

What you want above is great, but even that kind of mechanics can have a drawback. The more details you put into resolving combat, the more time in a game session it is spent resolving combat. At least with a computer, it can calculate your maneuvers, your defense and offensive skill, the situation, and other many tiny factors (extracting from real life in real-time) to determine success or failure in an instant.

What Celtavian wants, a more "realistic" combat system, does not have to be more complex and more detailed. D&D's combat system is simple, abstract, and decidedly unrealistic, but you can make it more realistic without adding any complexity or detail -- or less realistic while adding lots of complexity and detail. As I said earlier, the goal is to find a solution that maintains the balance and simplicity of D&D while offering more "realism" too.

Certainly a system that replaced AC and Hit Points with a Reflex Save (to avoid an attack) and a Fort Save (to avoid a "telling" blow) would be at least as simple but arguably more realistic -- or at least more concrete, with a hit being a hit, etc.