Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 1065624" data-attributes="member: 6777">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification