My beefs with D20

[Davelozzi]

There's already a house rule in the DMG for a level-based AC progression.

Really? Where? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just can't recall having seen it and would like to check it out.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't remember because I haven't really cracked open the DMG except to look up something specific in a long time, but I saw it in a sidebar once upon a time. It was real simple - +1 class based AC bonus every four levels, IIRC.

 

[jessemock]

A good number of the responses here have been either: try some other game system or Rule Zero. Both of these amount to an agreement with tbitonti's complaint: "yes; everything you say is true, but you can just go ahead and not follow the rules you're talking about."

An odd apology.

Why not try to see if the rules do what he says they do?

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

1. I don't see that Imagination belongs at the core of Role-Playing--at least, not if we're talking about Invention. Most RPGs (and RPGers) are wholly imitative.

2. I think that most of the massiveness and complexity of the D20 rules-set comes from the Balance Drive, which has as its ultimate goal a system that permits a wide variety of characters--aka, a drive towards "whatever you can imagine", if we need to stick to that line.

The question becomes, then: does the rules-set achieve this or implode? In other words, does the struggle for Balance balance with playability? Again, appeals to Rule Zero have no place here: we're talking about the rules, not whether we may over-rule them.

I'd say D20 veers toward an excess of rules, largely because of the millstone of perpetuating crummy D&D traditions, such as Hit Points.

This may not be a fault: I think a good number of players come to D20 precisely because they enjoy the perverse pleasure of messing with its bizarre rules.

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

There is almost no aspect of the D20 combat system that does not take away from the grit and realism of encounters. Everything from Hit Points to Armor Class to AoOs on down both removes realism and lessens the tension from play--unless, of course, the goal is to play D20, rather than play D20 as a representation of something else.

D20 is, really, just a fairly arbitrary, fairly complicated, self-contained game; it really doesn't have much more meaning beyond itself than, say, Pac-Man.

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.

A perfectly valid point: damage, in D20, occurs exactly as it does in a video game--actually, in older video games: a hit is indicated, the life meter goes down; no other effect. The rules-set offers no remedy for this.

C3: Feats can be a real pain, and seem to be poorly designed.

Better to say: intuitively designed. Feats have no formula. D20 designers have a 'feeling' that tells them when they've hit the upper limit for the effect of a Feat. Players enjoy a similar tingling when they read the description. How to tell whether it is justified? Simple: if an argument over the appropriateness of a Feat goes to five pages on Enworld, the Feat is appropriate.

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.

It has been pointed out that Tumble is not a Feat, nor does it provide automatic success, but your point is, probably, that maneuver Feats should be available to everyone as, well, maneuvers.

That's a good one and a tough call: typically, the Feat system allows a character either to overcome or reduce a disadvantage or to exploit an advantage--while (hopefully) maintaining Balance. Spring Attack would be a good example of a Feat that shouldn't fall under this description, but it does, because of the turn-based combat system you earlier decried.

Feats are almost always an end-run around the rules, which begs the question: why not change the rules? See that bit about the millstone.

In short, I agree with most of your assessment, but I continue to play D20 for two reasons: 1) I enjoy figuring out tactics within the system (arbitrary and pointless as this excercise may be); 2) D20 has inherited from D&D an atmosphere of extreme weirdness, which I also enjoy.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

Well, if you can create such mechanics for the always-evolving d20 System (core and her variant spawns), then I'm ready to listen.

 

[Greatwyrm]

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.

I think adding a defense bonus to the classes is supposed to be covered in Unearthed Arcana next month. After that, it'll most likely be open content as well, since most of UA is planned to be open.

 

[ichabod]

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.

I disagree. In my experience, those players who want to argue about stuff to the advantage of their character will do so regardless. If there are a lot of rules, they argue about the one you forgot. If there are few rules, they argue about your interpretation or extension of them. I've seen this happen when switching from GURPS to Feng Shui.

 

[reiella]

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!!!)

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.

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.

Thx,

T Bitonti

C1: Then you don't need a game system in general. The rulebooks/manuals aren't there to teach you how to be imaginative (a near impossible feat on its own ).

C2: Combat effects do occur simultaneously, just there needs to be an order for it not to be chaos. It's not a larp after all . Square-edging is a reasonable complaint, if you're using the miniboards ('necessary' for 3.5), but it avoids another frustrating problem with abstracted combat ('You were in his radius!' 'No I wasn't!'/'I shot you!' 'No you missed!').

C3: Well, for one thing, tumble is a skill, not a feat, and does provide extremely well for circumstance, in the form of circumstance modifiers . Interestingly enough, the most common feats are those that boost skills. Of course, they typically aren't the most taken. Honestly, it is a 'step-between' being 'class-defined' and being 'class-less'.

Anycase, this is a fun ramble thread, but again *shrug*, if you like another game better, you should play that .

 

[barsoomcore]

Well, if you can create such mechanics for the always-evolving d20 System (core and her variant spawns), then I'm ready to listen.

Mutants and Masterminds, anyone? It uses a "damage save" mechanic that's really cool. You could easily expand it so that tough guys are able to "shake off" damage while "quick guys" are able to dodge blows. One of the cool things about it is that everytime you don't succeed, your ability to resist damage drops. So you get worse at avoiding damage the more damage you take. It's a pretty cool way to model decreasing combat ability with loss of health.

Use the hit points to base combat abilities on -- so that as your hit points drop you become a less effective combatant.

Brilliant design, that is.

 

[Desdichado]

A good number of the responses here have been either: try some other game system or Rule Zero. Both of these amount to an agreement with tbitonti's complaint: "yes; everything you say is true, but you can just go ahead and not follow the rules you're talking about."

An odd apology.

Why not try to see if the rules do what he says they do?

Dude, you think we don't know what the rules do? We play too. That's why we post about D&D on the message boards. Those aren't apologies (and there's very little of that on this thread anyway) that's an attempt to be helpful. Nobody's saying "yeah, we agree, you should change this." Rather, the comments have been along the lines of "I don't agree, but if that's an issue for you, try this."

Geez.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

Not a book or movie, but definitely a cartoon or video game. Try wearing absolutely no armor in a D&D combat, see how well you do as you go up in level.

I'm not saying it can't be fun, but I definitely can't capture a character like the samurai in Yojimbo in D&D. The guy wore only a kimono and wielded a single sword. He would be slain easily in D&D. I captured him perfect in GURPS.

In GURPS, I can't capture the feel of a very powerful wizard or warrior capable of mowing down hordes of orcs and giants unless I use an obscene amount of points.

Its a trade off.

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 agree. It fits well for many campaigns, especially a basic, fun fantasy campaign.

I do find it a poor system for certain types of campaigns such as low magic historical settings. Other systems do a better job of capturing the feel of combat for say a samurai duel between two samurais dressed in kimonos or a medieval battle with knights and pikemen.

That is why I play more than one game system. D20 does not fit all games. Yet it's still a fun system nonetheless.