[revolution] Exactly WHY is d20 so great, comparing?

[Hammerhead]

It isn't a matter of a person with Str 1 outjumping a Str 21 person; most people take 10 on ordinary, mundane skill roll...like jumping a small fence or over a puddle. I generally know how far I can jump, and don't bother trying to jump things that I know I usually I won't make. The interesting facet of d20 is the randomness in the Jump...occasionally the character with a 20 Str might fail, or the Str 1 character succeed (although if you're playing a 1 Str character, you have bigger problems than making the jump).

What is this vast dichotomy? You claim this to be true, yet provide absolutely no evidence. A 1st level Barbarian with a +5 Fortitude fails his save against a DC 15 poison half the time; a 15th level Barbarian with a +20 Fortitude save fails his save against a DC 30 poison half the time. Although I picked these numbers for simplicity's sake, these numbers aren't unusual at the given levels.

Why would it matter if spellcasting, saving throws, and BA were all in the same system as skills? Is that important to you? Skills are generally less important than base attack, saves, or spellcasting ability, and don't relate to most combat activities (with the exception of Tumble...don't get me started about that). Although you could

I challenge you to find a system better or more fun than d20...heck, let the fans decide...oh wait, they have.

I agree that the system is very important and can define the world. Obviously, a game with hit points and levels, legendary heroes can do mighty, powerful things that ordinary men couldn't hope to accomplish, like routing an army singlehandedly...in a game like GURPS, such feats wouldn't even be tried, no matter how skilled the fighter.

Although honesty, if you don't believe system matters, d20 makes more sense than any other system because of the popularity and availability of supplements and information.

 

[d4]

All too often, when I hear someone say that a system works better than d20, I see a d20 advocate type "The system doesn't matter!"

When I see people say that, I wonder why they're here. A system matters because it works as a guide to a different world - this is especially true in the case of magic - how does a Vancian system versus a system like Ars Magica not affect the story in any way?

the system doesn't matter!

sure, using the Vancian magic system of D&D is going to result in a different story than using the Ars Magica system. they'll be different stories, but one is not inherently better than the other. that's why the system doesn't matter.

d20 gives out experience for fighting monsters... And that's the only real hard, obvious rule for experience available.

d20 gives out experience for overcoming challenges. fighting monsters is one way; it's not the only way. even the 3.0 DMG says that you don't have to kill the challenge to overcome it. there are examples given on how to give out experience based on other criteria.

 

[Psion]

I'm not talking about modifiers, I'm talking about the entire issue with the way the skill system works.

I thought we were talking about roleplaying and the encouragement thereof, but you seem to have shifted into a linearity argument.

Center weightedness seems to be a big issue for you. Play tri-stat or something then. No skin off my back. That's your preference. I just think these sort of analyses are niggly and think that in the sort of wild environment we try to represent in a game, such apparently extreme randomness is not only tolerable, but appropriate.

Or, as another problem, the vast dichtomy between chances at low and high levels.

Dude, that is so a feature, not a bug. This is a heroic fantasy game.

Or that BAB, saves and caster level are level based, but everything else is in skills. Why not have it all skills?

Your maxed out skills are level based. But there is no principle that says all skills much vary linearly with level, and I am a little surprised that someone as critical of d20 as you apparently are would argue that we should go back to 1980 when everything was doled out by level.

I refer you back to me previous reply re: using both methodologies.

I believe we have missed eachother's point here.

All too often, when I hear someone say that a system works better than d20, I see a d20 advocate type "The system doesn't matter!"

When I see people say that, I wonder why they're here. A system matters because it works as a guide to a different world - this is especially true in the case of magic - how does a Vancian system versus a system like Ars Magica not affect the story in any way?

The difference is more pronounced there, I beleive, because what they strive to model is somewhat different. But still, I don't beleive it matters as much as you make it out to be. As evidence, I will point out that Atlas game has dual statted adventure for Ars Magica and d20 (as well as dual statted modules featuring Feng Shui, Unknown Armies, etc.)

Now of course, there are ways in which system affects setting details and those become the focus of a story.

But you want to know my take on this whole system matters thing?

It matters, but mostly inasmuch as the players make it matter. What one person tolerates, the other will find intolerable.

The primary reason to use d20 is not because it is some shining example of perfection when it comes to gaming. It's pretty good -- it has a lot of solid mechanics, is a fairly clean system, and it games well. About the 90th percentile, I'd say. But really, there are other systems out there that you could get to work just as well, albeit with their own strengths and weaknesses (which you may find significant or not.)

But here's the rub. What makes d20 a superior choice is not the system... there are a number of systems you could chose that would do just as good a job. It's the network and the support. You can find people who know it and will play it, and there are supplements, adventures, and whole games for it for a variety of topics.

It is MHO that those who hate d20 because of niggly reasons or emotional commitment do so at their own loss to their gaming happiness.

 

[Psion]

d20 gives out experience for fighting monsters... And that's the only real hard, obvious rule for experience available.

I (and now, others) have already demonstrated this is not true.

 

[Storm Gorm]

The system does not matter, i agree in theory. On the other hand (that is: the pragmatic left hand) THE only thing that matters is inspiration. I think of this not only valid when it comes to story and the flesh of play, but also the skeleton, the system upon which the play rests. I would never have been able to play if i did not see potential for other types of games than bloodlust in d20 - potential to revolve the games focus entirely - which lead me to other systems instead, DnD scared me away for a while (before you people rescued me from this path of wretchedness, and i thank you again).

This is my point (to do this systematic - i tend to talk myself off to the ocean of nonsense, in english this is more nonsensical than in norwegian... i apologize, i cant help it): Since d20 DnD has an obvious focus on the "hack n' slash in the door" it is not good enough that d20 has room for much much more. If i were a real experienced player (steep learning curve in roleplaying i would say, and i have begun to see the light of what experience has to offer of insights), then this focus in DnD wouldnt matter, because i would understand that 1. it is merely a focus, and 2. i would have gathered enough inspiration for other types of gaming elsewhere.

But to newcomers, as i have been for two years now (gradually becoming more and more involved) - this has the most terrible of effects! It scares them off the scene, because they think- as so heartstabberingly many (people i know, at least) do - that DnD is/has ALL that there could be to offer in roleplaying.

I dont know of any way to solve this perfectly. However - it would help if the core books had (DONT arrest me with quotes!, damn you, then ill have to resist your arrest with counterquotes, and then the philosphical discourse is lit, and we're all doomed) more extreme variances of game types, it is, after all, NOT only made for Greyhawk, its supposed to be the rules core + a wardrobe of supplemental rules (pick what goes well together, and remember - dark in the fall, festive in the spring). Where Wizards have made a grand mistake, is when they stuck to one type of gaming, even when they tried to cover the spectrum of possibilities on so many other fronts (damnit, i wish i had DMG right now).

Ill stop now, still a bit dizzy from waking up.

"If you close the door, the night can last forever. Leave the sun shine out, and say hello to never. If you close the door, id never have to see the day again. Oh, someday i know someone'll look into my eyes, and say 'hellooo... youre my very special one'" - There, now im not the only one not having a cool "signature"

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. It's not been demonstrated to me that D&D has a "hack and slash focus" certainly, and I bet you the designers of 3e would disagree with that assessment as well. Certainly it's a game that works well for that kind of game, but the system itself isn't focused on that kind of game and other types of games work well also.

In fact, with the skill system in place, D&D has much less of a hack and slash focus than it's ever had in the past from a mechanics perspective. Despite that, 2e actually probably had less of a focus from a fluff standpoint, near as I can tell.

 

[Luddite]

But to newcomers, as i have been for two years now (gradually becoming more and more involved) - this has the most terrible of effects! It scares them off the scene, because they think- as so heartstabberingly many (people i know, at least) do - that DnD is/has ALL that there could be to offer in roleplaying.

Not to take you out of context too much . But, this idea of "Role Playing is all about Dungeons and Dragons" is not limited to the past two years and the advent of d20. I have seen (and been in) arguments many moons ago on the old news groups. (rec.games.frpg.*) I don't realy see it as a fault of DnD. Just that alot more people enjoy playing Hack 'n Slash type games.

What should hope for is that, for every 10 new people that DnD/d20 brings in to Roleplaying, 2 or 3 of them will want to explore the whole gammut of RPGs. Regaurdless of the "Greatness" of d20, it has done one very important thing. It has brought more people in to RPGs. Sure most stay with DnD. But more are playing other games as well.

-The Luddite

 

[Psion]

Just that alot more people enjoy playing Hack 'n Slash type games.

IME, this is not true, except perhaps in the teenage crowd. IRL (and when running online games) with random assortments of players, it was frequently the case that only 1 or 2 people I would have to screen out because they were just about hacking.

 

[Desdichado]

Not to take you out of context too much . But, this idea of "Role Playing is all about Dungeons and Dragons" is not limited to the past two years and the advent of d20. I have seen (and been in) arguments many moons ago on the old news groups. (rec.games.frpg.*) I don't realy see it as a fault of DnD. Just that alot more people enjoy playing Hack 'n Slash type games.

There's a logic flaw here that I tried to point out in my last post. D&D is not equal to hack and slash. I'd agree with everything in your paragraph quoted above except the last sentence, which I'd revise to "Just that a lot more people enjoy playing D&D." I've actually seen very few games, at least since junior high, of D&D played as hack n slash.

 

[d4]

"If you close the door, the night can last forever. Leave the sun shine out, and say hello to never. If you close the door, id never have to see the day again. Oh, someday i know someone'll look into my eyes, and say 'hellooo... youre my very special one'"

well, anyone who quotes the Velvet Underground is OK by me.

otherwise, i pretty much agree with what JD and Psion said above. D&D isn't purely (or even mostly) a hack n' slash game, even given the designers' "back to the dungeon" philosophy. if it were, it'd probably look a lot more like 1e...