Needless Variation

[KDLadage]

(cross posting to the Rules Forum, d20 Modern forum and House Rules forum)

Something that has been bothering me: the d20 system is supposed to be a rules set that can be tailored to various genres in such a way that it can server as a solid foundation, thus keeping you from having to learn a new system all the time, as you play things like d20 Star Wars, d20 Dungeons and Dragons and d20 Modern. (1)

For the most part, the theory holds true. However, in playing the d20 system in various genres, I a noticing some needless variation. By this, I mean that sometimes the rules are changed from one area to another with no good reason. For example:

• Dying Characters: Quick! In the d20 system, how do you stabalize when you are a dying character (i.e.: when you have -1 to -9 hit points)? Well, in Dungeons and Dragons, you lose one point per round with a flat 10% chance to stabalize each round. Now, when you shift to Star Wars, since they use the Wounds/Vitality system, I understand that some changes needed to be made, so it uses a DC 10 Fort Check to do it. But in d20 Modern, you shift to a DC 20 Fort Check. Now, d20 Modern is supposed to be very close to the Dungeons and Dragons system -- so why this change? Is there a reason anyone can think of for the d20 and d20 Modern rules not being unified in this area? Especially with the release of 3.5? The only thing I can think of is because of the Threshold Rules, but still...
• Threshold: In Dungeons and Dragons you have Hit Points; in Star Wars you have Wounds and Vitality; in d20 Modern, they went back to Hit Points but added the Threshold to make things a bit more realistic -- i.e.: any wound could be the one that does you in. Is there any reason anyone can think of for the Thrshold rules not being used in D&D 3.5 (most likely not as a standard rule, but it could have been in the DMG as an optional rule)?
• Skills, and Feats galore!: There appear to be a multitude of skills and feats that operate differently (sometimes subtle differences, sometimes significant differences) from one version of the d20 system to the next. Can anyone explain to me why these variations exist? Again, especially after the release of 3.5, when much opf this could have been made uniform?
• And so on...

I ask this because each of these things makes for a difficult environment. A player learns (let us say...) Dungeons asnd Dragons. He then goes into an Urban Arcana game. Now, the rules are close enough that he feels comfortable to begin play, but different enough that it becomes frustrating trying to explain to the player how the rules are ever-so-slightly (but when combined, are effectively quite significantly) different now.

Just curious.

Also, have any of you modified one d20 rules set with the rules from another one? IE: has anyone used the threshold rules in D&D? Has anyone used the Wound/Vitality system in d20 Modern? And so on...

==========
(1) As well as many others... Call of Cthulu, Wheel of Time, etc and so on.

 

[Merova]

Needed Variation

I ask this because each of these things makes for a difficult environment. A player learns (let us say...) Dungeons asnd Dragons. He then goes into an Urban Arcana game. Now, the rules are close enough that he feels comfortable to begin play, but different enough that it becomes frustrating trying to explain to the player how the rules are ever-so-slightly (but when combined, are effectively quite significantly) different now.

Hi all!

I agree that there is a little bit of difficulty in jumping from one d20 implementation to another. However, I feel that this is needed to match the different premise of the game; it is a necessary variation for the purposes of simulation and resource allocation.

Frustrating? Perhaps, but let's put it into perspective. Let's say that I want to play a cinematic "spy" game, but my players only know D&D. What is easier to implement, Spycraft or GURPS Black Ops with the "cinematic" rules variant? How about a pulpy Cthulhu game, CoC d20 or CoC BRP? How about "supers," Mutants & Masterminds or Hero 5th? Space Opera, Star Wars d20 or WEG's d6? Western, Sidewinder or Boot Hill?

I feel that in each case, it's easier to learn the d20 (or OGL) version than the alternatives. That's not to say that the d20 version is necessarily a better game, but that a group familiar with D&D will have an easier time learning it.

Yes, there are still little particulars to learn, but the learning threshold is significantly less than the alternatives. The other option would be to keep everything identical to baseline D&D, which would end up ruining the sense of simulation and unique resource allocation that these alternate genres and games offer.

YMMV. Thanks for reading.

---Merova

 

[KDLadage]

It should come as no surprise that I disagree.

The problem is degree of shift. Suppose I take the example you are speaking of in shifting from a d20-based game and (say...) GURPS. When I shift to GURPS, I have _no_ assumptions that the game will work like Spycraft, or Dungeons and Dragons or what-have-you.

When I shift from d20 to d20 Modern, there are very subtle shifts that, unless I specifically search for them I can miss, and which can cause some real confusion from game to game.

Now, I am all for the idea of tweaking the game to meet the genre conventions. But both Dungeons and Dragons (i.e.: d20 Fantasy) and d20 Modern should (for example) be relatively generic in their implementation. Star Wars, on the other hand, is Star Wars, and should ahve the rules that make sense in Star Wars.

The example of the shift in how recovery is handled. Where is the advantage in having two seperate systems of recovery? Is one "more realistic" adn the other "more cenimatic?" If this is teh case, simple offer one as the baseline, and the other as an optional rule in BOTH SYSTEMS! Now, granted, which one is the "baseline" and which one is the "option" could certainly shift from game to game... but the rules should offer the flexibility of this built in.

In my opinion.

YMMV.

 

[nsruf]

For the most part, the theory holds true. However, in playing the d20 system in various genres, I a noticing some needless variation. By this, I mean that sometimes the rules are changed from one area to another with no good reason.

Of the three examples you give, only changing the "dying save" seems pointless to me (and I prefer the Fort save - fixed percentile chances which do not depend on character ability are sort of a "dark legacy" of earlier editions, IMO).

As for the threshold, it is supposed to make combat - especially with firearms - more deadly. CoC does the same with a massive damage save for 10+ hp with a single blow. While d20 Modern is still a cinematic game that allows some over-the-top action, its heroes are definitely less powerful than for standard D&D, and this is reflected in the threshold. I admit that it would be more consequential to include an optional "lethality level" rule in the SRD that allows you to choose the massive damage threshold as appropriate for your genre/campaign.

So yes, the changes could be presented in a more unified manner, but they don't seem unnecessary to me as such.

And for skills and feats, I don't mind if a stand-alone game like d20 Modern has a different take on some to emphasize different aspects of each genre (e.g. use Double Tap or Burst Fire to replace Rapid Shot because firearms work different than bows). While a single unified system could in theory cover all this with consistent mechanics, I don't think we can really expect the designers to come up with such an approach.

Ok, maybe 4th edition D&D can do that for d20, provided it is designed with more than just a classical fantasy background in mind.

I ask this because each of these things makes for a difficult environment. A player learns (let us say...) Dungeons asnd Dragons. He then goes into an Urban Arcana game. Now, the rules are close enough that he feels comfortable to begin play, but different enough that it becomes frustrating...

I share your concerns regarding new players (heck, I've felt the same getting to grips with 3.5 - although I tend to enjoy dealing with the "finer points" of rules), but I wonder whether it is possible to integrate all the games without losing too much flavor. Or whether anybody, WotC or another publisher, is up to the task.

Also, have any of you modified one d20 rules set with the rules from another one? IE: has anyone used the threshold rules in D&D? Has anyone used the Wound/Vitality system in d20 Modern? And so on...

Hardly. I prefer having a single rulebook for reference. I started my first Umbragia campaign with a lot of houserules, mostly because I felt uncomfortable with some of the D&D/d20 mechanics after playing GURPS for so long, and gradually removed them. This was mainly due to the realization that it just wasn't worth it. And this is even more true for the different incarnations of d20, i.e. I'd rather "relearn" some minor rules than bring a list of houserules and my PHB to a d20 Modern game.

Now I have to wonder whether we, that is Jagged Edge Games, are innocent of such behaviour. Don't get me wrong, I think that the variant magic system we are developing for Umbragia is a welcome change from "Vancian" magic (I put it in quotation marks, since I never read a book by Vance) of standard D&D. But is it strictly necessary? Some people, especially new players trying to master at least one set of the rules, might disagree.

Finally, I believe that variations are a good thing in case the "standard rule" is not good enough. They can eventually make it into a revision of the game and become "official" for all genres. Again, I think that a 4th edition can benefit from that, if they design it as d20 first and D&D second.

 

[Merova]

Slaine

The problem is degree of shift. Suppose I take the example you are speaking of in shifting from a d20-based game and (say...) GURPS. When I shift to GURPS, I have _no_ assumptions that the game will work like Spycraft, or Dungeons and Dragons or what-have-you.

Hi all!

I can understand your point, but I think that it's a rather minor frustration when compared to overall issues of implementing a totally different system, like GURPS or Hero. To take an extreme example, which would be easier to implement for Celtic Myth for a group used to playing D&D, Slaine or GURPS?


Slaine: Same task resolution, similar resource allocation, and requires only one extra book. (Assuming that the players have the three core D&D books.)


GURPS: Different task resolution, vastly different resource allocation, and requires the Basic Set, at least one Compendium, GURPS Celtic Myth, and GURPS Magic to emulate a "Celtic" style of magic.


The choice is obvious to me. All the basic mechanics are familiar to the players in Slaine, while GURPS requires a whole bunch of new systems to learn. Unless your group consists of "system" enthusiasts, I'd say you'd be better off going with Slaine.

BTW, just imagine the headache of implementing this Celtic campaign in Hero 5th. Yes, the end result would probably be very satisfying, but the work involved in constructing "Celtic Hero" would be considerable. Again, Slaine is an easily accessible game to the core D&D audience; the particular simulations may be a bit frustrating at first, but they'll become familiar through play.

However, sometimes design decisions are made in the name of simulation which are unnecessary. This is regretable, but it's all part of the process of developing systematic flexibility. It doesn't really bother me; I can always "house rule" it if it proves to be disruptive.

YMMV. Thanks for reading.


---Merova

 

[kreynolds]

(There appear to be a multitude of skills and feats that operate differently (sometimes subtle differences, sometimes significant differences) from one version of the d20 system to the next. Can anyone explain to me why these variations exist?

Because the force doesn't belong in D&D and Lich-Loved doesn't belong in Star Wars. Seriously, sometimes you simply can't have uniformity among feats.

 

[KDLadage]

Of the three examples you give, only changing the "dying save" seems pointless to me (and I prefer the Fort save - fixed percentile chances which do not depend on character ability are sort of a "dark legacy" of earlier editions, IMO).

Agreed on the Fort Save. But see below.

As for the threshold, it is supposed to make combat - especially with firearms - more deadly. CoC does the same with a massive damage save for 10+ hp with a single blow. While d20 Modern is still a cinematic game that allows some over-the-top action, its heroes are definitely less powerful than for standard D&D, and this is reflected in the threshold. I admit that it would be more consequential to include an optional "lethality level" rule in the SRD that allows you to choose the massive damage threshold as appropriate for your genre/campaign.

And here is my problem with the Threshold rule... How difficult would it have been to simply have the Threashold rule written consistantly such that the deadliness of any given campaign can be set like a dial on a piece of machinery? Seems like the sort of thing that should have been in the DMG under the heading of running campaigns; in d20 Modern also! After all, D&D and d20 Modern are _not_ supposed to be setting specific -- so making this a flexible setting seems like the obvious choice.

So yes, the changes could be presented in a more unified manner, but they don't seem unnecessary to me as such.

Why not? Why wouldn;t you want to do this in such a way that the players of any game simply need to be told where the dials for a given campaign are set?

And for skills and feats, I don't mind if a stand-alone game like d20 Modern has a different take on some to emphasize different aspects of each genre (e.g. use Double Tap or Burst Fire to replace Rapid Shot because firearms work different than bows). While a single unified system could in theory cover all this with consistent mechanics, I don't think we can really expect the designers to come up with such an approach.

The examples here make sense -- simply note that Rapid Shot is a feat for "archaic" weapons, the others are for modern firearms. It is things like JUMP that stand out as just plain odd...

Ok, maybe 4th edition D&D can do that for d20, provided it is designed with more than just a classical fantasy background in mind.

And that is the odd thing about it. D&D does not have a classicle fantasy backround in mind. This has been debated to death on a lot of boards and such (not just here). D&D feels like D&D -- it does not have a feel like classic fantasy literature or even modern fantasy literature. It feels like itself and that is about it.

Hardly. I prefer having a single rulebook for reference. I started my first Umbragia campaign with a lot of houserules, mostly because I felt uncomfortable with some of the D&D/d20 mechanics after playing GURPS for so long, and gradually removed them.

Same here. Same reasons. I have a long history with GURPS.

This was mainly due to the realization that it just wasn't worth it. And this is even more true for the different incarnations of d20, i.e. I'd rather "relearn" some minor rules than bring a list of houserules and my PHB to a d20 Modern game.

For a setting specific set of rules I agree. For the core rules, I would rather the changes be meaningful -- and the stabalization rules does not seem meaningful to me.

Now I have to wonder whether we, that is Jagged Edge Games, are innocent of such behaviour.

Nope. We are writing rules for a setting -- and when we write them, we are providing the rules for using the core, standard rules, at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the variant magic system we are developing for Umbragia is a welcome change from "Vancian" magic (I put it in quotation marks, since I never read a book by Vance) of standard D&D. But is it strictly necessary?

Necessary as in "must have?" Probably not. But it makes for the feel I was looking for, so in a setting book, that is an acceptable variation, I would say. Like I said of Star Wars -- Star Wars is not a core (i.e.: baseline and generic) set of rules, it is Star Wars and the rules should reflect Star Wars. But d20 Modern is not, for example, Urban Arcana. It is a Modern Roleplaying Rules Set. Now, if Urban Arcana (or Spycraft, or what have you) wants to set some dials a specific way, then that is fine.

Some people, especially new players trying to master at least one set of the rules, might disagree.

And the events of our Friday game this last week panned that theory out...

Finally, I believe that variations are a good thing in case the "standard rule" is not good enough. They can eventually make it into a revision of the game and become "official" for all genres. Again, I think that a 4th edition can benefit from that, if they design it as d20 first and D&D second.

Sure. I do not mind variation. I just want it to be more flexible and obvious I suppose...

 

[KDLadage]

Re: Re: Needless Variation

Because the force doesn't belong in D&D and Lich-Loved doesn't belong in Star Wars. Seriously, sometimes you simply can't have uniformity among feats.

Understood. I am not saying that the Force System needs to be ported over to d20 Modern, nor am I saying that Fantasy-specific elements need to crop into other genre or setting books...

So explain to my how this observation applies to the recovery rules, for example.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Needless Variation

So explain to my how this observation applies to the recovery rules, for example.

Designer's privilege. Each lead designer for each game (i.e. DnD, d20 Modern, 3.5 DnD) added and/or changed some of the rules to suit their design tastes. Basically, they designed their games based upon how _they_ think a game should be designed, and/or simply to add a unique feel to "their" game. In short, they were given far too much decision making power, IMO.

On the flip side of the coin, sometimes it's all about streamlining the system, which is ultimately exactly what Rich Redmond was trying to do with d20 Modern, and for the most part, it worked splendidly.

 

[nsruf]

Why not? Why wouldn;t you want to do this in such a way that the players of any game simply need to be told where the dials for a given campaign are set?

I would prefer it. What I wanted to say is that, since the d20 rules were developed for the classical D&D (maybe not classical fantasy) style of play, there was no need for such a thing as varying the lethality rate. d20 Modern had to add something, but I agree that it could have been more consistent. OTOH, the Con-based threshold is also not a bad rule, e.g. it makes big critters harder to kill with a single shot.

The examples here make sense -- simply note that Rapid Shot is a feat for "archaic" weapons, the others are for modern firearms. It is things like JUMP that stand out as just plain odd...

The 3.0 Jump rules were simply not very comprehensive. Not sure whether Modern and 3.5 use the same rules now.

And that is the odd thing about it. D&D does not have a classicle fantasy backround in mind. This has been debated to death on a lot of boards and such (not just here). D&D feels like D&D -- it does not have a feel like classic fantasy literature or even modern fantasy literature. It feels like itself and that is about it.

Don't forget the growing heap of D&D literature And I don't completely agree: while D&D has its own mindset and quirks, all the elements of classical fantasy are there.

And the events of our Friday game this last week panned that theory out...

Care to tell us more?