SAS D20 -- A disappointed view
- Thread starter Lizard
- Start date
teitan
Legend
D20 Game?
So why does a game that uses the D20 system have to conform to DnD rules? I personally think it is a great idea to step away from the standards of D20 and actually wish GOO had done it a little more with SAS D20, maybe dropping levels or something, but from what I have seen they did an excellent job on SAS D20. Stepping away from the conventions of D20 and creating a new niche was an excellent way to open the game up and introduce gamers to new types of play.
I honestly can not wait for Mutants & Masterminds though I wouldn't mind getting SAS D20.
Jason
So why does a game that uses the D20 system have to conform to DnD rules? I personally think it is a great idea to step away from the standards of D20 and actually wish GOO had done it a little more with SAS D20, maybe dropping levels or something, but from what I have seen they did an excellent job on SAS D20. Stepping away from the conventions of D20 and creating a new niche was an excellent way to open the game up and introduce gamers to new types of play.
I honestly can not wait for Mutants & Masterminds though I wouldn't mind getting SAS D20.
Jason
Arcane Runes Press
First Post
Corinth said:
Which competition is that?
The competition to remain closest to the mechanical implementation of the 3 core D&D books? I'm not really sure that that's a competition that Green Ronin or Guardians of Order even entered.
Or do you mean the competition to fatten the company bank account? The winner of that particular competition is far from determined.
Personally, I think SAS d20 and M&M are early examples of what will become a strong trend over the next couple of years. By which I mean companies tearing d20 down into its component bits and rearranging and discarding pieces as they see fit.
I think the whole process will be rather invigorating for the industry, leading to more innovation and a more diverse and strengthened d20 market share.
Honestly, this is ENWorld. This website was founded to be, and continues to function as, a clearinghouse and gathering point for D&D fans. It attracts people of a likeminded gaming mindset. The fact that most people here want a superhero game that hews closely to the mechanical conventions of baseline d20 (ala D&D and Spycraft) is to be expected. I don't think, however, that the opinions expressed here are indicative of the rpg community as a whole.
In other words, before people start decrying the "failure" of SAS or M&M, they should wait to see how the market as a whole react to the games. If they bomb, you can say "I told you so". If they thrive, then ........
-wait for the evidence Patrick Y.
Vigilance
Explorer
Re: D20 Game?
I dont recall anyone saying it *had* to. I see a lot of people saying they wish it hadn't.
When you slap a tag on something that says "d20", that's a brand association, which carries with it certain expectations by your customers.
As a rule, customers are pleased when a product meets their expectations. After all, their *expectations* are a big factor leading them to purchase it.
I also feel, as a game designer myself, that d20 games should meet a minimum standard to increase compatibility between product lines, because this increases value and flexibility for the consumer.
As a recent example, I had a customer tell me he preferred Spycraft's Martial Arts system to that presented in Vigilance, but otherwise enjoyed Vigilance. That's great!
However, since Vigilance, DNW, and M&M all use feats, and SAS doesnt, to me that means a consumer of one of those three games, say M&M, would get more value out of buying Vigilance or DNW than SAS.
teitan said:
I dont recall anyone saying it *had* to. I see a lot of people saying they wish it hadn't.
When you slap a tag on something that says "d20", that's a brand association, which carries with it certain expectations by your customers.
As a rule, customers are pleased when a product meets their expectations. After all, their *expectations* are a big factor leading them to purchase it.
I also feel, as a game designer myself, that d20 games should meet a minimum standard to increase compatibility between product lines, because this increases value and flexibility for the consumer.
As a recent example, I had a customer tell me he preferred Spycraft's Martial Arts system to that presented in Vigilance, but otherwise enjoyed Vigilance. That's great!
However, since Vigilance, DNW, and M&M all use feats, and SAS doesnt, to me that means a consumer of one of those three games, say M&M, would get more value out of buying Vigilance or DNW than SAS.
whisper_jeff
First Post
Meeting Demand
New SAS d20 Attribute
-----
Feats
Cost: 1 point/rank
Type: Characteristic
Relevant Ability: Varies
Power Modifier Values: None
Progression: Linear starting at 1 Feat (rank 1) increasing to 10 Feats (rank 10)
Reduction: None
restrictions: None
The character may select any d20 system feat. GMs should not allow players to select the Leadership Feat with this attribute - players should use the Sidekick and Henchmen attributes to mimic this Feat. Players must meet all Feat requirements as normal.
-----
There you go, d20 system Feats in SAS d20. Enjoy. And how is that for an ENWorld exclusive? <grin>
Yes, really, it is that easy. <grin>
New SAS d20 Attribute
-----
Feats
Cost: 1 point/rank
Type: Characteristic
Relevant Ability: Varies
Power Modifier Values: None
Progression: Linear starting at 1 Feat (rank 1) increasing to 10 Feats (rank 10)
Reduction: None
restrictions: None
The character may select any d20 system feat. GMs should not allow players to select the Leadership Feat with this attribute - players should use the Sidekick and Henchmen attributes to mimic this Feat. Players must meet all Feat requirements as normal.
-----
There you go, d20 system Feats in SAS d20. Enjoy. And how is that for an ENWorld exclusive? <grin>
Yes, really, it is that easy. <grin>
Last edited:
Kenson
Explorer
Re: Meeting Demand
Ha! That's excellent, Jeff. You really should put that in a product somewhere
This is becoming an interesting thread regarding how "true" a game should try to be to the published d20 System rulesets. I think that we're going to be seeing more and more diversity in what constitutes a "d20" game. Swords and Sorcery has broken the OGL barrier by doing the first major, independent OGL game (Everquest), although their system is almost identical to D&D (for obvious reasons). Odds are good that other OGL games will follow and they may or may not use the same systems. The question of at what point a d20-based game has been altered enough that it no longer has the benefit of d20's familiarity is one that will no doubt come up for many publishers.
Personally, I tend to think that game rules should support the look and feel of the genre, and that when it comes down to a question of compatibility versus playability (i.e. "does a variant system work better or just feel better?") then I favor playability. That said, I think that much of the core d20 engine works for pretty much everything, so it's not hard to retain that familiarity factor while changing a few rules systems here and there. It's going to be interesting to see if those small rules changes are easy for players to handle or troublesome. For example, if armor is damage reduction in Star Wars and d20 Modern, but an Armor Class bonus in D&D, is that going to cause confusion for players moving from one game to another? Time will tell.
Since Guardians of Order wants to be able to support both Tri-Stat and d20 SAS, it clearly behooves them to make the two systems as compatible as possible, to minimize the amount of conversion and dual-statting necessary. I think they did a fine job of making 90% of the Tri-Stat information useful and meaningful to SAS d20 players as well.
Lastly, if anyone wants to discuss Mutants & Masterminds or its implementation of the d20 rules, feel free to drop by the Green Ronin message boards, where there's a whole section dedicated to the topic, or to start a new thread on here. I'll be happy to answer whatever questions I can.
-----
Steve Kenson
Author, Mutants & Masterminds Superhero Roleplaying Game
Coming in October from Green Ronin Publishing!
www.greenronin.com
whisper_jeff said:
Ha! That's excellent, Jeff. You really should put that in a product somewhere
This is becoming an interesting thread regarding how "true" a game should try to be to the published d20 System rulesets. I think that we're going to be seeing more and more diversity in what constitutes a "d20" game. Swords and Sorcery has broken the OGL barrier by doing the first major, independent OGL game (Everquest), although their system is almost identical to D&D (for obvious reasons). Odds are good that other OGL games will follow and they may or may not use the same systems. The question of at what point a d20-based game has been altered enough that it no longer has the benefit of d20's familiarity is one that will no doubt come up for many publishers.
Personally, I tend to think that game rules should support the look and feel of the genre, and that when it comes down to a question of compatibility versus playability (i.e. "does a variant system work better or just feel better?") then I favor playability. That said, I think that much of the core d20 engine works for pretty much everything, so it's not hard to retain that familiarity factor while changing a few rules systems here and there. It's going to be interesting to see if those small rules changes are easy for players to handle or troublesome. For example, if armor is damage reduction in Star Wars and d20 Modern, but an Armor Class bonus in D&D, is that going to cause confusion for players moving from one game to another? Time will tell.
Since Guardians of Order wants to be able to support both Tri-Stat and d20 SAS, it clearly behooves them to make the two systems as compatible as possible, to minimize the amount of conversion and dual-statting necessary. I think they did a fine job of making 90% of the Tri-Stat information useful and meaningful to SAS d20 players as well.
Lastly, if anyone wants to discuss Mutants & Masterminds or its implementation of the d20 rules, feel free to drop by the Green Ronin message boards, where there's a whole section dedicated to the topic, or to start a new thread on here. I'll be happy to answer whatever questions I can.
-----
Steve Kenson
Author, Mutants & Masterminds Superhero Roleplaying Game
Coming in October from Green Ronin Publishing!
www.greenronin.com
teitan
Legend
Re: Re: D20 Game?
Well, I agree with what you are saying but the fact is people are really not allowing the system to evolve by lashing out at innovative products that use variations on the D20 System. I am a designer myself (though I have yet to get something out, it is in the works and WILL be published) and when I see threads like this, just bashing a game because it wasn't D20 enough, I think that it misses the spirit of the OGL.
The D20 games I am designing ditch level based advancement in favor of point based etc. but it still conforms to the D20 system. D20 isn't classes and levels, it is using a D20 to determine the results of actions, etc, and is defined as such in the OGL. The D20 System Trademark is what uses classes etc as laid out in the Player's Handbook and the majority of the D20 products. I use just the most basic aspects for Wahoo (my cinematic steam/scifi/pulp game) because some of the D20 conventions like AOO and levels etc just break the flavor apart. This doesn't mean my product won't be D20 compliant etc and I will present an appendix that will explain a level based advancement system etc for the nitpickers.
Jason
Vigilance said:
Well, I agree with what you are saying but the fact is people are really not allowing the system to evolve by lashing out at innovative products that use variations on the D20 System. I am a designer myself (though I have yet to get something out, it is in the works and WILL be published) and when I see threads like this, just bashing a game because it wasn't D20 enough, I think that it misses the spirit of the OGL.
The D20 games I am designing ditch level based advancement in favor of point based etc. but it still conforms to the D20 system. D20 isn't classes and levels, it is using a D20 to determine the results of actions, etc, and is defined as such in the OGL. The D20 System Trademark is what uses classes etc as laid out in the Player's Handbook and the majority of the D20 products. I use just the most basic aspects for Wahoo (my cinematic steam/scifi/pulp game) because some of the D20 conventions like AOO and levels etc just break the flavor apart. This doesn't mean my product won't be D20 compliant etc and I will present an appendix that will explain a level based advancement system etc for the nitpickers.
Jason
Vigilance
Explorer
Re: Re: Re: D20 Game?
I was not bashing the game. I did not attack the game at all. I'm sure it's a very *good* game because of the interest it has generated thug far.
What I was saying was, I think the reason d20 is so popular is becuase of many of its core mechanics, such as classes, levels and feats, and that any system that strays too far away from what makes the game popular will not tend to be well received by fans.
I also think that any game that strays too far from these core facets of the system decreases compatibility of that game with other d20 games, which lessens its value to the GM who likes some facets of the game, but not all of them.
That's your perogative to ditch classes, levels and whatever you wish. It's also my perogative to express that I think losing any of the core elements that I feel make d20 the best system out right now (classes and levels and feats being the foremost) would be a mistake.
When I point this out, I am not nitpicking.
Nor am I bashing.
Im just expressing my opinion as a games designer and consumer.
teitan said:
I was not bashing the game. I did not attack the game at all. I'm sure it's a very *good* game because of the interest it has generated thug far.
What I was saying was, I think the reason d20 is so popular is becuase of many of its core mechanics, such as classes, levels and feats, and that any system that strays too far away from what makes the game popular will not tend to be well received by fans.
I also think that any game that strays too far from these core facets of the system decreases compatibility of that game with other d20 games, which lessens its value to the GM who likes some facets of the game, but not all of them.
That's your perogative to ditch classes, levels and whatever you wish. It's also my perogative to express that I think losing any of the core elements that I feel make d20 the best system out right now (classes and levels and feats being the foremost) would be a mistake.
When I point this out, I am not nitpicking.
Nor am I bashing.
Im just expressing my opinion as a games designer and consumer.
Psion
Adventurer
Re: Re: Re: M&M is in a lot of trouble
We ENWorld staff reviewers have been asked not to review Natural20 products to prevent any perceived conflict of interest due to it being an ENWorld organ.
My short take is that it is a really nice book if you need it... which is a qualifier I could use when speaking of lots of books I give a good review, BID. But when would you need it? You need it if you want to add superpowers (or some near equivalent) to another d20 system game without altering the base system too much. If you have specific ideas for a d20 Modern or Spycraft (or even D&D) game that requires these things, the book does a good job of presenting a functional and non-intrusive powers add-on with lots of flexibility.
Like I said, I wouldn't use it for straight up four-colors supers. I would use it for another d20 system game that I want to add supers elements to.
Levekius said:
We ENWorld staff reviewers have been asked not to review Natural20 products to prevent any perceived conflict of interest due to it being an ENWorld organ.
My short take is that it is a really nice book if you need it... which is a qualifier I could use when speaking of lots of books I give a good review, BID. But when would you need it? You need it if you want to add superpowers (or some near equivalent) to another d20 system game without altering the base system too much. If you have specific ideas for a d20 Modern or Spycraft (or even D&D) game that requires these things, the book does a good job of presenting a functional and non-intrusive powers add-on with lots of flexibility.
Like I said, I wouldn't use it for straight up four-colors supers. I would use it for another d20 system game that I want to add supers elements to.
OGL vs D20
There seems to be some confusion among some of the replies here. According to OGL, you can pick and choose what aspects you want to implement from the SRD. This is all well and good if you like some of the mechanics but wish to change certain things to fit your system. However, there are some specific requirements to be able to call your product a D20 system product. Read the D20 System guide at: http://www.wizards.com/D20/
Levels, classes, and a variety of game terms are listed. There is a long list of things you cannot alter and cannot say in order to be a D20 product and bear the logo. You cannot have a different way to create characters and cannot have a different way to advance characters. It also has several other requirements like Copyright disclaimers, a message indicating the Player's Handbook is required and the prevention of using the term, "core book" in relation to your D20 product.
If anyone is creating an RPG and are considering using the SRD, you need to evaluate how you plan to proceed. If you want to just use the 20-sided die mechanic, or actually create a D20 System product, each way involves a different method of proceeding and a different set of rules for compliance.
For example: Everquest uses OGC but does not comply with the D20 System license, so it does not bear the name "Everquest D20". This lets people know that some of the familiar rules are there, but it is not a true D20 game.
This is a simplified summary, but it looks like some people need to doublecheck their products for license compliance.
There seems to be some confusion among some of the replies here. According to OGL, you can pick and choose what aspects you want to implement from the SRD. This is all well and good if you like some of the mechanics but wish to change certain things to fit your system. However, there are some specific requirements to be able to call your product a D20 system product. Read the D20 System guide at: http://www.wizards.com/D20/
Levels, classes, and a variety of game terms are listed. There is a long list of things you cannot alter and cannot say in order to be a D20 product and bear the logo. You cannot have a different way to create characters and cannot have a different way to advance characters. It also has several other requirements like Copyright disclaimers, a message indicating the Player's Handbook is required and the prevention of using the term, "core book" in relation to your D20 product.
If anyone is creating an RPG and are considering using the SRD, you need to evaluate how you plan to proceed. If you want to just use the 20-sided die mechanic, or actually create a D20 System product, each way involves a different method of proceeding and a different set of rules for compliance.
For example: Everquest uses OGC but does not comply with the D20 System license, so it does not bear the name "Everquest D20". This lets people know that some of the familiar rules are there, but it is not a true D20 game.
This is a simplified summary, but it looks like some people need to doublecheck their products for license compliance.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
