I think what some people take exception to with D20 is that they come into it believing what it claims- that it can be ported into any genre, any style of play.
I'm just curious who claims this. It
can be ported to any style, I imagine, but how much work it takes and the suitability of the final result is another question. I would generally agree it is better suited as-is for more cinematic/heroic play, taking more adaptations to go outside it.
I would NEVER try to run a horror game under D20- the mechanics of the system are simply not conducive to the feelings of isolation, helplessness, and terror- the characters are too empowered.
Horror games aren't really about advancement and progression, so I am not sure why this is a problem. Just why, for example, would you think that d20 CoC with low level characters is not suited to this? (I know why
I wouldn't use it, but it has nothing to do with the characters being too empowered...)
I've played D20 now since it came out, and there are a few big faults/holes in the system as I see it.
1. Huge power disparities between low and high level characters. This one is particularly irksome, becasue by the time a character hits 5th level or so, he has nothing to worry about from being mobbed by half a dozen 1st level characters- they are simply so much cannon fodder.
I refer you to a point I troubled to emphasize in an earlier post: you are conflating the conventions of D&D with d20. Do you really think a high level Traveller or B5 character is going to shrug off weapons fire like a high level D&D character? They would be so much goo. This is mostly a function of the damage system and the damage system can be changed.
Referring to D&D, I'll grant you this. It is, as you say, part of the design.
2. Complete randomness dominates at low levels, while randomness plays almost no part at high levels. Rolling a D20 and adding a bonus is simple in play, but produces diametrically opposed results at low and high levels. At low level, everything the character does depends on chance, he's at the mercy of fate. At high levels, the die roll often becomes completely irrelevelent- the bonus is either so high that success is guaranteed, or so low that success is impossible.
I'm not seeing this problem.
Will characters have many tasks that become trivial for them as they advance levels? Yes. As the DMG says, the world should not level up with the character, and I wholeheartedly concur. That being the case, there still remain guards to be snuck past, chasms to be lept over. And they are the same ones that were there when you were at low levels. And now they will be trivial. But now you have bigger tasks ahead of you, like sneaking past the famed Guardian Hounds of the Dark Temple [TM].
Will characters bumble into tasks beyond them? Yes. But this was also true at low levels. A fire trap that you might plop in a low level encounter could easily be beyond the abilities of a low level rogue to detect and disarm.
There is nothing about the proabilities of the dice mechanic itself that causes more or less randomness at a given level. You have a 50% chance of succeeding at a task with a DC of your modifiers + 11. This is true at low levels, it is true at high levels. The conditions around you might cause DCs to vary, and they will vary more widely between party members as you advance, but that is to be expected.
3. D&D (and most D20 games to some extent) DO encourage hack-n-slash over roleplaying. I know I'll get in a heap of trouble over this one, but IME its true. Experience in D&D is given for overcoming challenges (aka, killing things), they simply used the "overcoming challenges" lingo in an attempt to take some fire out of the D&D=hack-n-slash crowd's arguements.
It takes the fire out of such arguments because it
invalidates them. When rules text dictates that no matter how you overcome the challenge and meet the goal, you get the XP, it's pretty vapid to try and wave that off as so much prattle.
Experience in most D20 games is NOT given for good roleplaying,
Of course, you have statistics for this right?
That said, while I would say this matches my experience, I am not sure why this is a problem. Rewarding people XP for good roleplaying is in no way the objectively correct thing to do. Many people have a real hard spot making the wizard learn magic faster or the fighter swing his sword better because the player is a good thespian. Just like single characters taking on armies kills your SOD, this kills the SOD of other players.
Which is why these sorts of rules are optional.
and the sad ad hoc experience paragraph in the DMG is basically useless to a less experienced DM wanting to reward XP for things other than killing.
Why is it useless? It describes the magnitude of awards that should be granted so you don't vary much from the existing XP scale, and describes situations you would use it. Sounds useful to me.
Most players, when they hear XP is given for killing critters will simply kill the critters in hopes of garnering more XP. If they are rewarded for this, why shouldn't they really? Its built into the system to reward indiscrimintate violence. And if you are slaughtering someone, its awfully hard to roleplay out an interesting dialogue with them- hence, in many cases, D&D discourages roleplaying.
Not this, I will say, does not match my experience. IME, players who have this mentality are in the minority. And those people don't have roleplaying as their primary objective in the first place. This entirely overhyped line of reasoning just doesn't pan out in reality.
Also, I feel that 3E/3.5 encourages hack-n-slash more than previous editions did- the whole "back to the dungeon" thing. It has been explicitly stated when 3E came out that the classes were balanced against each other for USE IN A DUNGEON.
WRT 3.5 as compared to 3.0, I would have to agree. Changes is the Paladin class (pokemounts) and many spell changes I disagree with were conceived with this ill-conceived line of reasoning.
I don't know about everyone else, but every dungeon adventure I have ever played has ALWAYS been about breaking down the doors, killing the monsters,and taking its stuff- and the adventures from WotC bear this out. This can be fun once in a while, but it gets really old, really fast. I have been lucky enough over the last 10 years to play with a group where this isn't the case, but I have also played briefly with 4 other groups over that time- and hack-n-slash is overpoweringly preferred by most of the D&D crowd.
I don't think you are as lucky as you make yourself out to be; I think your perspective is a bit skewed. Sure, there are groups out there that do just this. However, as a counterpoint, of the 4 groups and 6-8 campaigns I have played with since 3.0 came out, none of them were just about killing things and taking their stuff. All involved plots, character development, reasons for things happening in site based encounters when they occured, and more complex goals and MOs.
And funny thing is that coming here, reading story hours and talking about playing the game, I can see that I am not alone.
4. This is the biggie for me- D20 games are a nightmare as far as prepping for them. Yes, I know the D20 rules well, and I try to make interesting and unique NPCs.
That's one I'd have to cede you, in part. I would temper this with the observation that I have learned: only stat what you need to stat, and use your resources (DMG and other publication NPCs, computer generation) and know when it is safe to cut corners. I almost never stat villagers and whatnot beyond what they need to interact with players and do their jobs. A rule of thumb I use is best skill is level +3, assume a stat modifier of +2 for the best stat. Using this thumbrule, I can handle most commoners, experts, and aristocrats without knowing anything more than their name and personality. Spellcasters, their level determines their best spell level predictably, and players seldom require them to cast more than 1 spell per level.
In short, don't obsess over stats, and you will learn that you don't need them more than you did in 1e/2e. But you will learn to appreciate them for what they can do that 1e/2e couldn't.
So my answer to you Storm Gorm, would be that D20 isn't the best system out there. Its good for a heroic, cinematic style game with lots of violence and bigger than life characters, but terrible for other genres or styles.
And I would point out that it does just fine for games without lots of violence. Not that I would recommend against trying other games if you find them too your taste, but don't limit yourself because you only see and hear about some people playing in the style that Gothmog describes here; plenty of us are doing just fine with d20.
My answer was to stop running D20 for the forseeable future, and go with games that are more suited to my tastes- Savage Worlds, Deadlands, and BRP namely. By the way, if you are wanting a game similar to FUDGE in that it can handle multiple genres seamlessly, give Savage Worlds a try- you won't regret it.
SW has an advantage over FUDGE in that it is playable off-the-shelf. FUDGE requires a bit of tinkering. It does have the disadvantage in that it shares the same wonky dice system deadlands uses; FUDGEs dice system is MUCH better IMO (though fudge is flexible enough that you can just rip out the resolution mechanics of SW and put FUDGE in its place, keeping things like edges, etc. A nip here and a tuck there, and I think you would have something superior to SW.) BRP IMO has outlived its usefulness, and has a very outdated skill system; d20 has a better skill system which more inherently handles changes in difficulty and better handles opposed roll type situations.
