Rant on d20

[Nightfall]

Psion, Yuan-Ti,

I think I'd better explain myself. No I don't like space-fantasy. Spelljammer was okay...but after all while it got VERY dull. Same with Alternity's setting. The rules were alright...but everything else was not so good. But as you guys say, to each his own. Dragonstar SOUNDS good...but not my thing. Anyway guys I won't knock Alternity's SYSTEM but I didn't go much for the setting.

 

[TiQuinn]

Rant of d20

vturlough -

Much of what you dislike about the system is what makes it d20 (or D&D)! Take them away and make the radical changes you suggest, and you're playing a totally different system. Based on what you said, why play it when there are other alternative systems? Is it just that you want to play D&D for the sake of playing D&D? I'm not trying to be a smart-arse here either. The most severe critics of D&D and loudest anti-D&D gamers pound the same issues you state....which makes it puzzling to me that still play the system!

Hmmmm.....let me put it this way: What's to stop you from taking Tomb of Horrors or Vault of the Drow and converting it to another system? D&D, at its heart, is comprised of two portions: it's distinctive ruleset (class-based, AC and hit points, etc.) and the adventures that are published for it. If you don't like the one, the other is modifiable to suit your desire to play D&D.

 

[Psion]

Re: For further discussion

Cinematic combat? Since when is calling out numbers cinematic? Cinematic is being able to describe the combat and translate that into damage.

Uh, no. Cinematic is being able to persevere against great odds. I have tried many systems that use body hits, etc., and their impact on the pace of the game is not cinematic. Further, such systems typically cause a death spiral, which is rather anti-cinematic.

As you seemed to agree with me that HPs have no meaning, how can you translate anything into game terms?

It's really not that complicated. I picture damage as somewhat proportional. Taking half of your HP is a pretty grevious hit. Taking 1/20th of your HP is a scratch, nothing more.

For example, translate, "The orc barbarian swings with his axe and manages to hit you in the side. You feel the breath slammed out of you and the beginnings of nasty bruise but fortunately your armor stops it from breaking ribs or slicing through you." into HP damage.

Why? That's backwards. It's roll hit and roll damage THEN decide what it means. The translation would depend upon how many HP compared to the total that the blow did.

But if I was looking at it backwards like you are, I would say that would be a hit that does 1/4 - 1/2 of the character's HP. Simple.

The DMG talks a little about this.

I do want a heroic game. I am not advocating that it should be easy for characters to die. I am just arguing for realistic heroism, which does exist. Babylon 5 was realistic heroism. The heroes went through a lot and lost people but were triumphant in the end. Buffy is another good example of that. X-Files. STar Wars. Dragon Heart. Dragon Slayer. All of these are great examples of that. Yet these movies, and the novels, never translate well to DND (d20?) because of the level of heroism that the DND system has.

I'll get back to this in a second. For now, suffice it to say that I think your analysis of DND's ability to represent many of those novels is off.

I am NOT arguing against heroic role playing. What I am saying is that DND doesn't do it as well as it could have. Alternity does do it much better.

Au contraire. Alternity is rather gritty compared to D&D.

If there is no chance of a person dying, what is the point?

What's the point? Character continuity! Look at the list of novels and movies you cited above. Now tell me: in those, how many of them have important and talented characters that die halfway through the movies? That's right, damn few. That's what cinematic is about, and that's the sort of thing HP represent.

Alternity (and games like it) are not so much aimed at that style of play. It is much more suited to the sort of fiction where there is a real chance that a certral character will die if a conflict arrises, like A Mote in God's Eye or The Reality Dysfunction.

 

[Uller]

In redesigning DND, since they created a new system anyway, they should have gotten rid of the wargaming roots of DND. The whole progression of characters and monsters is based in wargaming and should be done away with. Why? IMO (as all of this is), the wargaming roots is what keeps the focus away from the individual.

I couldn't really get past this paragraph. WHY would you want to get rid of the wargaming roots of D&D? Why would you want to take focus from the team and put it on the individual? That's what the game is about in my mind: A _team_ of heros working together to overcome the challenges before them. The challenges must be exciting and dangerous or else the game would be (IMO) boring. So combat SHOULD be the focus. I fear if you had gotten your way, I'd not be playing D&D anymore...

 

[TiQuinn]

Rant of d20

This seems to be the good time to ask this:

Why does anyone care what a hit point represents?

or

Why Armor Class prevents the loss of hit points?

For realism?

Is it not enough for the DM to describe that if you did not hit AC 16 on some orc, that what your character actually sees is his blow swinging wide as the orc ducks, or your sword glances off the orc's shoulder barely knicking him?

I'd argue that the desire to have a "realistic" system supplants the DM and the Player's imagination. Everything would be accounted for or categorized and every action has a recognizable cause and effect........and can be looked up on Pages 234 thru 245 of the DMG. But is that really what a player OR a DM wants?

 

[Uller]

Re: Rant of d20

Is it not enough for the DM to describe that if you did not hit AC 16 on some orc, that what your character actually sees is his blow swinging wide as the orc ducks, or your sword glances off the orc's shoulder barely knicking him?

Or if it does hit AC 16, but does not kill or incapicitate him(because he has 20 hitpoints left), describe him twisting out of the way or rolling with the blow or whatever...

I agree. I've never had a problem reconciling HP and AC in my imagination. Realistic? No. Do I care? Not really.

I also don't get the desire to move away from wargaming roots yet the demand for more "realistic" rules for determining hits and damage...do you want more focus on rules(and therefore more wargaming) or less?

 

[evileeyore]

I have to agree with almost every point vturlough makes.

I too hate the d20 system. I have disliked it since I encountered it. Way back in the day when I first played D&D, I felt it was limiting and stiffling.

The Solution Then: I was allowed to play elves without magic. I was even allowed to play *gasp* Clerical Elves of unbefore mentioned Elven Gods (unmentioned because they didn't exist in D&D). This solution sufficed for the time being, because frankly no other systems were anybetter (okay Rolemaster might have been slightly better... but the DM couldn't really get into it *shrug*)

Now you may ask why do I continue to play D&D, if I hate the system so?

I'll spell it out: It - is - what - my - DM - runs. So if I wish to hang out and game, D&D is the game I must play.

Your second question, why not find an new group?

1) These are my friends. 2) I'll put up with a lot from a system for a good game. These guys have excellent game.

I have however (after years whining, pleading, and crying like a little bitch) convinced one of them to run a non d20 system. It goes well (he is a little off his game as it is GURPSTraveller, and we are still a little unsure of our characters, but I see it tightening up.)

Now to that point I strongly disagree with. TEAMWORK.

I really like games that focus on the team. I also like games that focus on the individual. I don't think fantasy is a good genre for individualism. Atleast not my fantasy. I feel that focus on teamwork, and team identity is keen. Following belonging in something greater than the indivicual, be it the team, county, country, religion, Order, etc is even keener. In the fantasy I like to read (and play) respect is rarely given to the lonewolf. He is the guy noone trusts, flitting from town to town, never making friends, never leaving his mark (eh I can see that being a cool fantasy setup...).

Anyay TTFN

 

[Mahiro Satsu]

I love DND. I love playing its sister game Wheel of Time. But, i think that the DND classes, while nessissary to the game being DND, detract a lot of people from making characters, instead they make a human fighter and leave it at that.

Thats my only gripe about DND. Some of the people who play it.

 

[hong]

Now you may ask why do I continue to play D&D, if I hate the system so?

I'll spell it out: It - is - what - my - DM - runs. So if I wish to hang out and game, D&D is the game I must play.

Your second question, why not find an new group?

1) These are my friends. 2) I'll put up with a lot from a system for a good game. These guys have excellent game.

I have however (after years whining, pleading, and crying like a little bitch) convinced one of them to run a non d20 system. It goes well (he is a little off his game as it is GURPSTraveller, and we are still a little unsure of our characters, but I see it tightening up.)

Consider the possibility of GMing your own campaign, where you would be free to use any ruleset that you liked, and make any tweaks that you desired. Unless, of course, whining, pleading and crying like a little bitch is more your style.

 

[Vaxalon]

I love DND. I love playing its sister game Wheel of Time. But, i think that the DND classes, while nessissary to the game being DND, detract a lot of people from making characters, instead they make a human fighter and leave it at that.

Speaking as a veteran of a thousand non-D20 wars, I can tell you that classless systems produce no less of the effect that you are talking about (that is, cardboard PC's) than class-based systems do. The quality of the player makes the difference.