Needless Variation

[Wulf Ratbane]

So, again, I ask: why two separate mechanics, when one mechanic and a 'dial' setting the level of lethality would be easier to deal with, would not make assumptions about the game I decide to run, and would make it evident -- via the fact that the rules would tell you to set this 'dial' for your campaign...

Ahem... Not to keep shamelessly pimpin', but that's precisely how I've arranged the rules in Grim Tales: Very dial-able-- usually 3 settings for any given ruleset.

Back on topic-- I guess I don't really see the difference in Stabilization as two entirely different mechanics. I find the differences relevant, but really extremely superficial, and definitely not so different that it would cause a huge headache to use one or the other...


Wulf

 

[KDLadage]

Ahem... Not to keep shamelessly pimpin', but that's precisely how I've arranged the rules in Grim Tales: Very dial-able-- usually 3 settings for any given ruleset.

Back on topic-- I guess I don't really see the difference in Stabilization as two entirely different mechanics. I find the differences relevant, but really extremely superficial, and definitely not so different that it would cause a huge headache to use one or the other...

Wulf

Good. Cannot wait to see these rules, then.

And "one way or the other" would not be a problem at all... having both ways of handling this simple concept did, in fact, disrupt our game last week for 30-45 minutes...

 

[buzz]

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.

I think the key here is that your basic theory, imho, is somewhat off the mark. The point, as I understand it, of the OGL and d20 was not to have a single, unified system that you could "learn once, play anywhere". It was to have an open system that third-party companies *could use if they wanted to* and take advantage of network externalities, i.e., that D&D has the biggest fanbase in the hobby. It also was a nice way to pawn off the unprofitable (for WotC) types of products (modules, most campaign settings, splats) on smaller companies who could actually produce tham at a profit.

That various companies (WotC included) have used the core d20 system as a springboard for producing RPGs focused on other genres, and thus with different systemic needs, is really a byproduct of this, as is the side benefit of players being able to use what they've learned from one game in another.

That is, d20 was never intended as a generic system; it's merely an *open* system. The very nature of d20 being class/level and effect-based as opposed to a power-based meta-system like HERO demands that it's going to have to be massaged a bit to work in any genre other than the one for which it was originally designed. BRP works similarly; the BRP in Stormbringer is not the BRP of Call of Cthulhu.

Ergo, when you start to deviate from D&D-style assumptions, some changes are going to have to be made, e.g. the stabilization rules that you've been talking about. Standardizing these changes, or including the variants in every d20 game, sort of goes against the "tailor-made" design of d20. D&D does not include, for example, the Massive Damage variants because, most likely, the designers don't see D&D PCs as being the kind that need to save or die from only 10 points of damage. Call of Cthulhu d20 PCs, otoh, obviously are, and thus they have the 10-point MDT, with no variants. d20M, being more of a toolkit and supporting wildly different campaign types, starts with the MDT set at CON, but offers variants based on how "heroic" the GM wants their game to be.

Thus, I take issue with the contention of changes existing "for no good reason." For the most part, the changes I've encountered made sense for the given game's stated purpose.

In the grand scheme of things, though, the various d20 games, for the most part, tend to be more similar than they are different. Players can at least come to the table knowing that most of the basic assumptions and mechanics are going to be what they already know. If you need to double-check or look stuff up, well, too bad. Heck, straight-up D&D has so many darn rules that even experienced players have to look stuff up fairly regularly.

And it's got to be easier than starting from scratch (i.e., learning a new system for each genre) each time.

My opinion is basically that since d20 never claimed to be a "do-it-all" system, I'm not expecting 100% continuity in all d20-based games. I much prefer that changes are made as necessary in order to best emulate a game's chosen genre or setting. And, heck, all the variations give me more stuff to rip off for use elsewhere.

 

[Vigilance]

And "one way or the other" would not be a problem at all... having both ways of handling this simple concept did, in fact, disrupt our game last week for 30-45 minutes...

Now that's just silly.

The GM should say "we're doing it this way for now, we can discuss it after the game is over", and move on.

That's what I do.

Chuck

BTW- there are three levels of realism in my Blood and Guts book as well, Modern, Grit, and True Grit.

 

[KDLadage]

I think the key here is that your basic theory, imho, is somewhat off the mark. The point, as I understand it, of the OGL and d20 was not to have a single, unified system that you could "learn once, play anywhere". It was to have an open system that third-party companies *could use if they wanted to* and take advantage of network externalities, i.e., that D&D has the biggest fanbase in the hobby. It also was a nice way to pawn off the unprofitable (for WotC) types of products (modules, most campaign settings, splats) on smaller companies who could actually produce tham at a profit.

Agreed. But the term "system" implies a level of internal consistancy that, from genre to genre, is not there (in my opinion).

That various companies (WotC included) have used the core d20 system as a springboard for producing RPGs focused on other genres, and thus with different systemic needs, is really a byproduct of this, as is the side benefit of players being able to use what they've learned from one game in another.

Sure.

That is, d20 was never intended as a generic system; it's merely an *open* system. The very nature of d20 being class/level and effect-based as opposed to a power-based meta-system like HERO demands that it's going to have to be massaged a bit to work in any genre other than the one for which it was originally designed. BRP works similarly; the BRP in Stormbringer is not the BRP of Call of Cthulhu.

And I have no trouble -- and in fact, invite, such massaging to meet the needs of a given genre. Please! If a rule simply does not work for a given genre's conventions, change it. But in this one case -- the case of how you make a check for stabalization -- seems an odd place to start making changes.

Let us assume that the people above are correct, and that the need to encourage the survival of established characters mandated the change from a flat percent to a fort save. If this mechanic works, and works well, why maintain the percentage chance of stabalization once the update for the original rules was made? Would not a simple DC20 Fort Save have been just as effective there? If you feel it is too high a chance (hardly, since this baselines at 5%), then make it a DC25. If this is too low a chance, drop it to DC 15, or even 10 (a la Star Wars). But this mechanic seems straight-forward enough that it would work, and work well, in all of the genres involved... thus eliminating one very odd, and (in my opinion) needless variation.

Besides... doesn;t Stabalization seem like ti should be a saving throw of some sort?

Ergo, when you start to deviate from D&D-style assumptions, some changes are going to have to be made, e.g. the stabilization rules that you've been talking about. Standardizing these changes, or including the variants in every d20 game, sort of goes against the "tailor-made" design of d20. D&D does not include, for example, the Massive Damage variants because, most likely, the designers don't see D&D PCs as being the kind that need to save or die from only 10 points of damage.

But D&D does have a massive damage rule. 50 points is a massive damage save-or-die. So... my question there becomes, why could the massive damage rule not have been made consistant from genre to genre (even as an optional rule, as it is in D&D)? For example, in d20 Modern, the Massive Damage Threshold is equal to CON. In D&D it is equal to 50. In d20 Modern, it is save or be disabled. In D&D it is save or die.

I would say that the best of both worlds would be to set the Massive Damage Threshold as a multiple of CON. In d20 Modern, the default assumption would be a multiple of x1. In D&D the default assumption would be in the range of x4 or x5. Thus, if I am playing in a relatively gritty game, I can set the threshold to x2 or x3 in a D&D game. But in both cases, I would say that Save of be disabled (i.e.: -1 HP) makes the most sense.

In my opinion.

But of course, a simple sidebar saying that for more deadly games, the save could easilly be set to a Save or Die idea as well.

Now where is the downfall of having the rule consistant to this degree? Am I missing something here?

Call of Cthulhu d20 PCs, otoh, obviously are, and thus they have the 10-point MDT, with no variants. d20M, being more of a toolkit and supporting wildly different campaign types, starts with the MDT set at CON, but offers variants based on how "heroic" the GM wants their game to be.

Agreed whole-heartedly. I believe that in a setting book (i.e.: Call of Cthulhu) that having less flexible sets of rules is fine. In Genre-books, however, the rules should be a toolkit of options for establishing how you want to play this. Take Mutants and Masterminds, for example. Look at the Hit-Points/Damage system they use. Wonderful. Yet, the rules for how to use a standard HP system are there, in case you like that better. This is one of the best Genre books I have ever seen (despite the increadible amount of errata due to poor editing...)

Thus, I take issue with the contention of changes existing "for no good reason." For the most part, the changes I've encountered made sense for the given game's stated purpose.

I am sure that someone had a reason for the changes, and I am sorry if saying "for no good reason" causes problem with you. But I simply have yet to be able to wrap my head around why there needs to be two seperate mechanics for this one very simple thing. One mechanic with variable DCs or Percentages would be fine. Changing mechanics here seems like an un-needed complication.

• Want to use a Fort Save? Fine, set the DC as appropriate for the Genre+Setting combo and go on.
• Want to use a percentage chance? Fine, set the percent appropriate for the Genre+Setting combo and go on. Hell, have the Percentage chance of stabalization equal to character level times 5 for all I care...

But it seems like they could have picked and stuck with one mechanic.

In the grand scheme of things, though, the various d20 games, for the most part, tend to be more similar than they are different.

Agreed.

Players can at least come to the table knowing that most of the basic assumptions and mechanics are going to be what they already know.

Most of them, yes.

If you need to double-check or look stuff up, well, too bad.

Great attitude. :rollseyes: I have no trouble having to look things up. What I do not like it having to look things up that have no good reason to change from genre to genre, but have changed non-the-less. You might disagree that they had or hadn't a good reason... but I never claimed that I wanted a game where nothing had to be looked up.

Heck, straight-up D&D has so many darn rules that even experienced players have to look stuff up fairly regularly.

OK.

And it's got to be easier than starting from scratch (i.e., learning a new system for each genre) each time.

It can be. But as I stated earlier, if I switch from D&D to GURPS, I have no expectation that anything works the same way. When I switch from D&D to d20 Modern, I _do_ have that assumption. And when things fail to meet that assumption...

My opinion is basically that since d20 never claimed to be a "do-it-all" system, I'm not expecting 100% continuity in all d20-based games.

Sheesh.... niether am I. d20 Fantasy has an extensive and powerful magic system. d20 Modern has a smaller and less potent magic system. d20 Fantasy expects huge amounts of hit points to be a near infallable shield against instant death. d20 Modern assumes that even the toughest guys can go down with a well-placed gunshot. All of these things are fine. But I happen to believe that the rules for handling both of these can be made much more consistant than they are now. Continuity is not what I am asking for here. Not even "more continuity." I am asking for "more consistancy" in the mechaincs involved.

I much prefer that changes are made as necessary in order to best emulate a game's chosen genre or setting. And, heck, all the variations give me more stuff to rip off for use elsewhere.

I want such changes as well... but only if they enhance the game in some way. Having two seperate mechanics for this one very simple concept does not enhance the game in any way, tailor it for that genre in any way, or make things work better for that genre's assumptions in any way.... in my opinion.

 

[KDLadage]

Now that's just silly.

Agreed. It was. But it is what you get when you have three rules lawyers in one group, one who is intimately familliar with the Star Wars d20 book, one intimately familiar with the D&D books and one intimately familiar with the d20 Modern book...

The GM should say "we're doing it this way for now, we can discuss it after the game is over", and move on.

He tried...

That's what I do.

As do I. But Gary has much less backbone than I.

 

[buzz]

If this mechanic works, and works well, why maintain the percentage chance of stabalization once the update for the original rules was made?

It depends on whether using a Fort save for stabilization is an "update" or not. In d20, the designers seem to imply that when the success or failure of something is handled by a d% roll (like stabilization, ASF, or concealment), that means that it's *constant*. d% rolls are never modified in d20. It's quite possible that they view stabilizing in D&D as something that should never be modified by level or ability scores, ergo, they left it a d% roll.

Besides... doesn;t Stabalization seem like ti should be a saving throw of some sort?

It does. Despite that fact that I'm arguing here, I really liked the Fort save rule used in d20M. I was even asking about using it in D&D over on the House Rules forum... and a bunch of poeple didn't agree with me.

Still, I'd like to believe that the designers had a reason for not adopting it in D&D. I mean, I really hope they had a reason. The ones mentioned so far in this thread seem likely candidates.

Now where is the downfall of having the rule consistant to this degree? Am I missing something here?

Oh, there's no downfall. But given the way that systems evolve as designers and fans hammer on them over time, and that books get released at different times, it's hard to achieve parity across game lines. That, and I can see how they might not want to include all of the possible rule+variants in every game, especially if the variants are at odds with what a given game is trying to accomplish. E.g., setting the MDT at 50 for PCs in CoC is just plain wrong.

Take Mutants and Masterminds, for example. Look at the Hit-Points/Damage system they use. Wonderful. Yet, the rules for how to use a standard HP system are there, in case you like that better. This is one of the best Genre books I have ever seen (despite the increadible amount of errata due to poor editing...)

M&M does indeed rock. Still, I think that it's a bit of a special case considering how far it deviated from the d20 norm (M&M is actually not a d20 game, but rather an OGL game). Their damage mechanic is a far cry from HPs or even VP/WP, so I can see why they might want to appease players who wanted something more conventional. Kudos to them.

One mechanic with variable DCs or Percentages would be fine. Changing mechanics here seems like an un-needed complication... But it seems like they could have picked and stuck with one mechanic.

Well, like I've been saying, the designers may not have felt that one mechanic worked for every game.

Anyway, if you can get a handle on the wildly different ways that games like D&D, SW, and M&M handle magic/force/powers or the completely different classes (or lack thereof), why should remembering the Fort save thing be such a big hurdle? Does it simply "fly beneath the radar" as it were?

Continuity is not what I am asking for here. Not even "more continuity." I am asking for "more consistancy" in the mechaincs involved.

I want such changes as well... but only if they enhance the game in some way. Having two seperate mechanics for this one very simple concept does not enhance the game in any way, tailor it for that genre in any way, or make things work better for that genre's assumptions in any way.... in my opinion.

Well, I guess I just don't have as big a problem with this, as it obvious that "does not enhance the game in any way" is somewhat debateable. That, and that the different "core concept" mechanics seem to be in the minority across game lines (at least within WotC's game lines).

A simple solution might be to just pick the variant that your group prefers, and use it regardless of the particular d20 game, unless the game has a good reason not to.