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

[woodelf]

Wrong! The original quote, and the one I made that you responded to, said d20, not D&D. d20 is not a three book, 960 page mass of rules. d20 fits neatly along with the setting in one book in the case of Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Call of Cthulhu and (sorta) d20 Modern. d20 is not empirically more complex than lots of other games, in fact, I've seen few (at least that had any kind of mass appeal or distribution) that were really any less complex at the end of the day.

Now, a question (probably for another thread) is why is it that D&D has so many rules if d20 Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu, Modern and Wheel of Time can make do with the same system in much less space?

My bad-- i thought you were just being sloppy with your nomenclature. You're right, D&D3E is one of the most complex instantiations of D20 System--and, IMHO, one of the poorest ones. Nonetheless, i stand by my claim that any version of D20 System with which i'm familiar is at least on the heavy side of the median, if not outright "rules heavy". I don't think any of those i lsted as lighter than D&D3E wouldnt also be considered lighter than any other D20 System game. A few of the unlisted "close" ones might shift over when compared to more streamlined D20 System games.

And, of course, part of this is a matter of perspective--rating the complexity of RPGs is a highly subjective affair, ranking them even moreso, and drawing the dividing lines on the spectrum of complexity is pretty much arbitrary. IMHO, you've got to be noticably simpler than Storyteller before you're "light" as a ruleset, which means that even the slimmest versions of D20 System haven't even made it to the middle of the spectrum yet.

It's not that a rules light version of D20 System coludn't be written, but that it hasn't been yet. (and i think i've at least looked through every D20 game out there, except for perhaps the newest couple--but feel free to point out a contender.) So long as every instantiation of D20 System is on the heavy side fo medium, if not outright heavy, i consider it reasonable to generalize that D20 System is rules-heavy. I hope that changes soon, 'cause the underpinnings are no worse than any other game out there, and could be really great with all the cruft stripped away. (M&MM strips out a lot of cruft, but of necessity adds a bunch of new complexity to support the genre; BESM D20 likewise streamlines a lot, but complexifies it in new ways.)

 

[woodelf]

Places like ENWorld make you forget about this- ENWorld is a bastion of reason and maturity in the gaming community compared to places such as the WotC boards and RPG.net.

You've hit a hot button of mine: i find the "ohmigod, they're fighting--stop it!" moderation standard here to be much less mature than on RPGNet. IMHO, closing a thread when tempers flare, rather than letting the people actually deal with the consequences of their flaming and possibly work it out is immature--it smacks of babysitting. People here are mostly adults, and can walk away if they don't want to participate--there's no need to protect us from ourselves when it's only words. Sure, RPGNet has more drawn-out flamewars as a result. Sure RPGNet also sometimes closes down threads when they get to heated--but their standard of "too heated" is a lot hotter. And i'm regularly frustrated by threads on EnWorld that get closed just as the interesting parts begin to get debated. It's no coincidence--usually, the really interesting bits are also the ones that push people's buttons, so a thread that generates controversial discussion is likely to also have at least a few participants go over the edge. Doesn't mean the rest of us can't ignore them and continue our discussion.

OK, venting over. I've been meaning to say something about this for some time--every time a thread is closed just as i finally find it getting really interesting--because that seems to be when almost inevitably a few participants forget to play nice.

 

[woodelf]

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.

Sure, D&D3E is in some ways less combat-oriented [hopefully that's a more-neutral term?] than previous editions of the game. That wouldn't invalidate a claim that it's more combat-oriented than lots of other (most?) RPGs out there.

Anyway, how combat-oriented is D&D3E? Well, it spends 25pp on combat rules, and, generously, 5pp on social interaction (and no real rules for that). The classes are explicitly balanced assuming a combat-heavy campaign model, and can easily be demonstrated to need significant tweaking for, say, a politics-heavy campaign model. The skills are obviously designed with conflict, mostly physical, as the central point (looking at which skills are broken down and which are lumped together; not to mention the specific uses for the skills). The spells are also designed with violent conflict in mind. Look at some of the spells that were dropped or level-changed from AD&D2, and you'll note that a noticable fraction of them were very cool spells with absolutely *no* applicability to adventuring. Similarly, the underlying logic of what magic can accomplish owes more to the game balance of conflict resolution than to internal logic. (Extreme example: Brain Lock paralyzes a swimming or flying creature sufficiently that they can not swim or fly, but does not eliminate the Dex bonus to AC--presumably because rendering targets flatfooted would be too powerful for that level of power, which is only true if your most likely course of action is to attack targets.)

On challenges: 250pp devoted to monsters, a dozen or two devoted to traps, and, what, 10pp devoted to social/political challenges?

Shall i go on?

Now, i'm trying to be non-pejorative about this and i'm not intending to say that it's bad. But to claim that D&D3E isn't combat-focused seems silly. "Combat-focused" is *not* the same as "combat only"--i'm not saying you can't support other playstyles with D&D3E. I'm saying that it has a *lot* more support for one playstyle than any other. This is not the same as saying that those who play it play it in that manner--but i do suspect, from observations of players of many RPGs, that what the game supports most heavily gets played most heavily.

If you see a shade of distinction between "hack-n-slash" and "combat-focused", that's fine--i think they're synonyms, one pejorative, one neutral.

 

[woodelf]

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.)

That's not an argument against "system matters". First, the fact that a scenario can work in multiple systems doesn't preclude the possibility that it works very differently, or even just feels very different, depending on which system you actually use. Second, those systems happen to be mostly fairly similar--the "system matters" crowd is often talking about fairly base elements, like narrativism vs. gamism, and the systems you've mentioned mostly are fairly close in those sorts of ways, differing only in the specific numbers involved.

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.

I can get on board with that. Provided you acknowledge that some of the differences are actual--even if they don't matter to some players. Frex, claiming that there is no objective meaningful difference between D&D3E and Everway is, IMHO, absurd--it's not just different stats and scores, it's a whole different way of modeling characters and resolving actions. [Not saying you claimed this, just using an example.]

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.

What if you really don't find gaming happiness with D20 System? I can't make that as a blanket statement, but i do know it'll take a fair bit of tweaking to keep me from being frustrated. Frex, the whims of fate drive me batty when RPing. I don't mind my character failing--even failing a lot. What i mind is not having any clue when it will occur. So the wide, flat randomizer bugs me. Give me a wider skill range, or narrower randomizer, or bell curve, or more-widely-spaced DCs--anything that makes it possible to have a fair predictive power on actions. I'd say i've given D20 System a fair chance (2+ year D&D3E game with a group i really enjoyed), and continue to give it a chance (it's a rare new D20 System game i don't read, or at least skim, and i look at a fair number of the supplements), but some of the elements that are all-but-inherent to the system still really cut into my fun. Would i choose D&D3E over not gaming? I hope i never have to decide. I went through a period of a couple years of not gaming, 'cause the only groups i knew about weren't a good fit. It sucked. So far, i've had no problem drumming up gamers for non-D20 System games, and i don't expect that to change.

 

[woodelf]

Can you not acquiesce to the fact that Storyteller games describe everything in terms of theme, mood, scene, characterization, motivation, flaws, allegory, flashbacks, etc. while d20 games do not? I'm not talking about what people do with the books, I'm just talking about the terminology used and what it points toward.

You mean like:
Subterfuge
This talent allows you tobend, mangle, or break the truth and get away with it. In addition, you also can sense when others are doing teh same or trying to hide their motives. At your best you could dissect a dissembling witness on the stand;at yoru orst you could make a fortune selling used cars. [Wraith: the Oblivion, 2nd ed., p121, all typos mine]

(And that was literally grab a random WoD book and open to the first page i found with rules on it.) Yes, Storyteller System games always have a whole lot about the story, and speak in literary terms in an effort to encourage this. But, mechanically, they are mostly just like most other RPGs out there--they rely on a bunch of numbers which rate the capabilities of the characters. This has nothing to do with theme, mood, or any of that stuff. It's pure simulation [small 's'--not going into the GNS/GDS stuff]. Storyteller does do better than most D20 System in promoting RPing, by including things like Nature/Demeanor, and copious social skills. But those are yet another beast, neither world simulation nor story creation--more akin to acting.

Now, let's contrast that with an excerpt from Trollbabe:
It all depends on clarifying the Goal for a stated conflict. When the player says, "Retta's watching out for skulking thugs," th GM must say, "OK, we have a conflict. What's your goal?" If the player says, "To make sure nothing's there," then success will mean no one's there, but if the player says, "To see if anyone's trying to bushwhack me," then success means that they are indeed doing so, but the trollbabe spotted them in time. Or if th player says, "To avoid anyone who's trying to bushwhach me," then success means they're there, but she gives them the slip.[p12, again, all typos mine]

Here, the mechanics are all about how the story unfolds, much moreso than about the capabilities of the character. *That* is an example of mechanics that are "all about theme, mood, scene, characterization, motivation," because they actually take them into consideration. Very few of the mechanics in Storyteller actually take the story into consideration--the game relies on the group to promote those things, rather than promoting them with the system itself.

 

[woodelf]

But Storyteller uses the evil dice, the d10s.

So go buy some real d10s: icosahedrons numbered 1-10 (or 0-9) twice.

 

[woodelf]

I'm just saying that story, and the literary tricks and window dressing that support it, are hardwired into the Storyteller system.

No, they aren't hardwired by any stretch. See my other post for an example of a game where they actually are.

 

[woodelf]

Not to me, perhaps a newbie who is exposed to D&D for the very first time, but we always recommend that he or she join a group who can teach them along the way. I mean, you're not expected to memorize the entire ruleset by the end of the week and be quizzed on it. It's a gradual learning experience. You begin with the basics and when you desire to perform crazy stunts and high-risk actions, you learn the new stuff.

With a complex system, yes. But that isn't the only way to play. With a lot of RPGs, even the newbie can get the whole thing. The learning curve is so short that you *could* quiz them at the end of the week (even if they hadn't looked at the rules in the week since they played them for the first time) and they'd know it all. It is an achievable goal. It is not always desirable.

Also, consider this: would there be more RPers if you *could* learn the rules in an hour or so, and we didn't need to recommend that newbies learn from an existing group?

 

[buzzard]

You mean like:

Now, let's contrast that with an excerpt from Trollbabe:
It all depends on clarifying the Goal for a stated conflict. When the player says, "Retta's watching out for skulking thugs," th GM must say, "OK, we have a conflict. What's your goal?" If the player says, "To make sure nothing's there," then success will mean no one's there, but if the player says, "To see if anyone's trying to bushwhack me," then success means that they are indeed doing so, but the trollbabe spotted them in time. Or if th player says, "To avoid anyone who's trying to bushwhach me," then success means they're there, but she gives them the slip.[p12, again, all typos mine]

Here, the mechanics are all about how the story unfolds, much moreso than about the capabilities of the character. *That* is an example of mechanics that are "all about theme, mood, scene, characterization, motivation," because they actually take them into consideration. Very few of the mechanics in Storyteller actually take the story into consideration--the game relies on the group to promote those things, rather than promoting them with the system itself.

This quote makes Trollbabe sound like a game I wouldn't ever want to play. Resolution is dependent on word games. If I try to make sure nothing is there, then success doesn't mean "nothing is there", it means that I am sure nothing is there (as in I have checked and made sure). If some game master tried to play such idiotic nonsense with me I'd walk out promptly.

Then as for your assertions about rules lite vs. rules heavy, I think you are missing a significant point. Listing off a whole bunch of games and saying they are "rules lighter" than D&D doesn't tell us much if nobody plays those games.

Only a few on the list would I consider significant games (as in ones I have either A) played, B) Seen at cons, or C)known anyone who played). If the majority of your listed "rules light" games have no audience (and a large chunk are out of print at that), then they aren't really of much consequence in the discussion.

By applying some measure of balance as to number of people who actually play the games in question, you would likely have a much different spectrum.

Though truthfully, listing off all the SRD as 'the rules' is disingenuous. Much of even the SRD not really basic rules. There are plenty of magic items and monsters which don't have to be considered 'rules'.

Now the combat section is a touch long. However much of it is about making sure things are clear. In previous editions things generally weren't clarified in this level of specificity.

Now granted, there are certainly issues where things like grappling, AoOs, trip attacks and other details do add significant complication. The amount of combat options has certainly been expanded over earlier editions which is definitely more rules. I guess you might be correct about it being a bit rules intensive at times, but I don't think it's that heavy overall.

buzzard

 

[Desdichado]

buzzard, I agree. Also, I'm not impressed by clever mechanics, really. In my mind, roleplaying games exist to facilitate the shared experience of creating a story in which the players are characters. As in any good story, drama and tension heighten the experience, hence the application of dice and a random factor so few things are "sure things".

As far as I'm concerned, mechanics should be transparent to facilitate the kind of games I like. Mechanics that "facilitate" storytelling are not transparent, they are too full of how clever they are, or how clever the players have to be to implement them well. Terminology of the mechanics, as in Storyteller, has nothing to do with it.

d20 for all it's supposed complexity is an easy system to use. With the possible exception of character building, all you have to do is roll a d20, look at your sheet for the appropriate modifier, and beat a target number in order to play.

And even character building isn't that bad, because a lot of its complexity comes from legacy issues with D&D past. Since most gamers are at least somewhat familiar with building characters in D&D past, this isn't hard either.