SAS D20 -- A disappointed view

[Samurai]

I wanted to thank Jeff for adding the Feats power, which is a simple and elegant solution to the problem! But where is my Tri-stat version? People seemed to have skipped right over your post and kept on debating...

Personally, I think the "problem" of not being D&Dish enough only comes up for those who are unwilling to use/learn any other game system. Those of us who regularly use 20+ different systems find the minor changes easy to understand. But I have said this before... I think in many ways, all the variations and alternate 3rd party rules for d20 will end up choking it. There are a half-dozen different ways to do ANYTHING, even just for D&D! From mass combat to ship rules to spells/spellcasting to PrCs, races, and feats, NO ONE can use all of it at once, and more and more things directly conflict with one another. If a bunch of people show up at a con to play a D&D game, and each player brings a 5th level character made with rules/feats/PrCs/spells from the core books plus 2d6 random 3rd party books, the characters probably won't be fully compatable!

If just 1 company (WotC) were making official D&D books, there would be far less product, but at least it would be consistant and compatable and not give 6 different rules for the same thing. As it is, everyone has to ask "Can I use this spell, this feat, this PrC, etc from these books?", to which the GM probably says "I don't know, I don't have those books, I happen to have/use other 3rd party books." In many cases, it ends up being "Ok, only core book stuff is available unless I approve things on a case by case basis.", which ends up in a swarm of requests for approvals for stuff. Our last D&D GM ended up approving 3 PrCs, a few feats, and a few magic items, disallowing pretty much everything else....


Edit: Ironically enough, there is a thread about "Which supplenents do you use for D&D here: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21005

Although there are some common books, like Relics and Rituals, nearly everyone has a few unique ones too. One guy admitted he has used 7 books to create his current character...

 

[Blacksad]

to whisper_jeff: if the goal was to do the best superheo game using the d20 system mechanic, why did you use the d20 license which restrict you on advancement and caracter creation rules?

Isn't character creation the core of a good superhero game?

to Bamphalas: the d20 license doesn't require that you use the defined terms, it requires that you don't alter or extend the defined terms. So you can get rid of level, class, etc...

 

[spacecrime.com]

My two cents, FWIW:

I think GOO has taken a risk in making SAS D20 the way they did. What makes the D20 logo useful is that it increases sales by promising products that feel familiar and have a minimal learning curve. I think a significant number of potential customers are going to think that SAS D20 is too different for their tastes, and it may be difficult for the game to succeed in what's going to be a very crowded market.

However, that concern doesn't change the fact that SAS D20 is a damn good design. It takes the D20 engine in some very interesting directions, and I know I'm going to be swiping some of its ideas over the next year or two. The high level of cross-compatibility with Tri-Stat SAS is also very nice -- it'll make managing the line much easier. I think they made the right decision from a design standpoint; whether it'll succeed in the marketplace is ultimately going to be decided by who buys it.

yours,

 

[whisper_jeff]

to whisper_jeff: if the goal was to do the best superheo game using the d20 system mechanic, why did you use the d20 license which restrict you on advancement and caracter creation rules?
-----
Because we didn't feel either restriction was a restriction to the game. I feel that the character creation method presented provides an incredibly amount of freedom and choice and does not limit the player in any way. As to the advancement rules, again, I don't think they restrict the game in any way. Many people will jump forward and stating that few characters in superhero comics get significantly more powerful over time. I agree. There are enough examples to prove it isn't a statement of fact, but most characters maintain roughly the same power level. BUT. They do increase in experience and ability. I feel that the advancement rules in SAS reflect that.

So, in short, we used the d20 license because we didn't feel that it restricted our development of the game in any way.

 

[Scott814thmpco]

Hi-
Is there a chance we will see the whole BESM system being sold in d20 form? I for one would spend my hard earned military pay on such products! Oh ya, SAS d20 is awesome.



Scott

 

[Marion Poliquin]

Re: Re: Meeting Demand

This is becoming an interesting thread regarding how "true" a game should try to be to the published d20 System rulesets.

As in all things, there is no single answer. A lot depends on the design goal.

If a designer's main reason for using D20 is to use a good, proven engine without having to do everything from the ground up and tapping on the main D20 audience is an afterthought, then I guess that a designer might feel free to tweak the system as much as he wants.

If, on the other hand, your want to tap the main D20 audience, your design goal should be to remain as close as possible to D3D, Star Wars D20, Call of Cthulhu D20, etc. The two main selling points is minimal hassle in learning the rules and mix and matching resources. Apparently, lots of people buy D20 products looking for stuff to use in an ongoing D20 campaign - A DESIGNER WHO WISHES TO TAP THIS AUDIENCE SHOULD MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR THOSE GAMERS.

The only reasons I can see for putting out a D20 version of an existing game is:
a) to tap the D20 audience and bring its attention on your existing game line, and
b) to tap the D20 audience and drop the old game line as soon as D20 becomes more profitable.
Both of these reasons require the D20 version to be as faithful as possible to the other core D20 games (D3D, CoC, WoT, SW) to get maximum effect. This doesn't garantee success - any half-assed attempts like Deadlands D20 will probably fail - but the success of both Spycraft and Rokugan, seem to indicate that this is the case. Personally, I can't see why the designers would choose to make major, sweeping changes and lose most of the system familiarity - because if your efforts don't attract the main D20 crowd all your left with is two near-twin game lines that compete with each other.

 

[Psion]

Personally, I think the "problem" of not being D&Dish enough only comes up for those who are unwilling to use/learn any other game system. Those of us who regularly use 20+ different systems find the minor changes easy to understand.

Uh, sorry Samurai. I have played numerous games over 20+ years, and that is not the not the only issue. Sure it is an issue... sometimes players get tired of overcoming the "break-in" period and learning the foibles of a new system. But that is time spent gaming better -- it's not just laziness as you seem to imply. That's a fair consideration, IMO. But the other major issue is compatability.

When you put the d20 logo on a product, you are implying a certain level of compatability and/or familiarity with it. If you don't deliver that, what is really going on? You are just milking the d20 customer base in the hopes that the d20 logo will sell the "toe in the SRD" version of your game where your own version of the game didn't sell. The way I see it, if you didn't want the compatability and familiarity that the logo implies, there was no reason not to buy the TriStat version in the first place... unless you hate TriStat or something.

 

[Samurai]

Well, I have no idea how d20 SAS will do, but GoO said the Tri-stat version sold out in 2 weeks flat! They were a bit surprised at just how well it did, and moved up the printing of the standard Tri-stat version by a month to try and refill orders ASAP. It is quite possible that the Tri-stat version will outsell the d20...

 

[Bamphalas]

to Bamphalas: the d20 license doesn't require that you use the defined terms, it requires that you don't alter or extend the defined terms. So you can get rid of level, class, etc...

I didn't say you had to use ALL the defined terms. However, there are specific things listed as mandatory.
You cannot describe a process for creating a character.
You cannot describe a process for applying the effects of experience to a character.
You cannot change or extend the definition of any defined game term.

"Character creation means a description of the process of assigning initial scores to abilities, selecting a race, selecting a starting class, assigning initial skill points, selecting initial feats, and picking an initial alignment."

If you change how characters are created, you have to describe the changes. Not only is that changing a definition, that is presenting a description of character creation. You can't completely get rid of classes since your consumer must be able to create their character using the defined process in the PHB.

You can't eliminate levels since you would be changing how you apply the effects of experience. And unless your game is stagnant, you'd have to describe a new process for applying the experience.

Again, the confusion seems to be whether you are creating an OGL product or a D20 one. If you are creating OGL, you can eliminate and recreate anything you want. But if it's D20 you are limited. For some this appears as if you are stuck with D&D in a different setting. But this is the price you pay to be able to market your product as D20 compatible and gain the benefits from that.

 

[whisper_jeff]

Is there a chance we will see the whole BESM system being sold in d20 form? I for one would spend my hard earned military pay on such products! Oh ya, SAS d20 is awesome.
-----
Currently there are no plans to do one but we are still firmly in the "evaluating the results" stage of SAS d20. We do have plans to do some more d20 products but for lines that make sense as traditional d20 products (it'll all become clear when we announce them - sorry I'm being so cryptic...) but BESM is not one that automatically screams out for d20 treatment. That said, if SAS d20 does very well, we would be foolish to not deliver what the fans want. For now, however, we are watching and evaluating.

-----
When you put the d20 logo on a product, you are implying a certain level of compatability and/or familiarity with it. If you don't deliver that, what is really going on? You are just milking the d20 customer base in the hopes that the d20 logo will sell the "toe in the SRD" version of your game where your own version of the game didn't sell. The way I see it, if you didn't want the compatability and familiarity that the logo implies, there was no reason not to buy the TriStat version in the first place... unless you hate TriStat or something.
-----
That iplies that SAS d20 is not compatible with other d20 products. I would say that it is compatible. It isn't _effortlessly_ compatible - it does require a smidge of work and the book points out how to make the adjustments in virtually every instance that the GM/player needs to think about such things, but it most certainly is compatible. Heck, with about ten minutes of work (if that) I could drop Sentinel or Red Phoenix into a traditional d20 game. They wouldn't be "D&D" characters (they still wouldn't have Feats or spell-like abilities), but I could easily use them without any problem or issue. SAS d20 _is_ compatible with other d20 products. Some may wish to disagree (and some surely will), but I feel the amount of work required to use SAS with a traditional d20 game is so insignificant that it is not worth considering.