SAS D20 -- A disappointed view

[Samurai]

If rolling for damage is the main sticking point for Tri-stat, just roll a number of d10s equal to the max damage/10. So a max damage of 60 = 6d10. The average damage will work out nearly identical to the chart. Another option that I use is 1d10x 10% of max damage. This is sort of a compromise with more than just the 4 default damage levels but not as many dice to roll as the pool method.

SAS very strongly advocates changing the game to make it your own. Something as minor as the damage chart is so easily changed, don't let it stop you from enjoying the game!

 

[Unseelie]

SAS d20 was made to conform more closely to SAS than D&D. That may bother some people, but the end result means that the supplements will include a bare minimum of wasted space. Instead of requiring a complete seperate page of stats for the d20 version of each character, item, etc (which would make fully half the book useless to players of each game!), only a small 3-line box with stats, attack and defense info, etc) needs to be altered for each character. The powers, skills, and defects boxes, which take up 90% of each character, are usable by players of both versions. Had they not done it this way, there is no way I'd buy a half-useless supplement, and I'm sure the d20 players would feel the same way. If SAS (both versions) wants to sell its dual-statted Rogue's Gallery-type books (which are always the most popular kind of superhero supplement!), it HAD to maintain maximum compatability between the 2 systems or else it would just not work.

I think that those gamers who are willing to give it a try and keep an open mind will be quite pleased with the results.

But why would I buy the D20 version when I can buy the Tri-Stat version. Either way I'm effectively learning a new game system?

 

[Pyske]

I will agree with the people here who have said that brands and trademarks are very clearly about expectations and product differentiation. This is the value to the consumer of the brand.

The issue does not seem to get fuzzy until you try to define exactly what that set of expectations is.

Whisper_jeff seems to feel that the expectation is "Task resolution using D20+mods vs. a difficulty number." Advantages to the consumer: you never have to ask which dice to roll, and given your DC and mods you generally know your probability of success.

Others think that the basic character components should be in place and consistent. Advantages: cross-product character portability with minimal conversion.

Still others think that the task resolution system should be generally compatible, with the addition and subtraction of components which confict with the intended feel of the game. Advantages: Any rule which IS used functions as expected, decreasing need for rulebook lookup and reducing learning curve. Rules lookup / system learning may be required for new options or components.

A fourth group think that the task resolution system should remain in full, with additions to provide extra options, but not new components. Advantages: cross-product character portability with NO conversion required.

I submit that there are D20 consumers in all 4 camps. I don't feel qualified to speak tot he size of these demographics, but feel it is definitely worth investigation.

I also submit that customers lower on the scale than the product they buy are likely to be dissatisfied, while those higher on the scale than the product may be unfulfilled (if they feel that a variant mechanic would have better represented the "reality" they were trying to model).

Lastly, I submit that dissatisfaction is damaging to a company, and thus it becomes critical that products which are high on the scale be able to communicate this to their potential customers.

. . . . . . . -- Eric

 

[whisper_jeff]

Any product that puts d20 on the cover and then proceeds to change every convention that consumers have come to expect when they see d20, without advertising that fact, will fail.
-----
Quoted from the back cover text of SAS d20:
"Silver Age Sentinels pushes the boundaries of the d20 system with exciting and innovative new rules."

I really don't know how I could have made it any clearer that SAS d20 pushed the boundaries and attempted an innovative approach to d20...

-----
d20 is not just a die type in the consumers mind, it is a game design framework. This framework includes levels, feats, skills, and the like.
-----
That is your opinion.

My opinion is that a game system is about the task resolution mechanic. BESM, SAS (Tri-Stat), HKAT!, and Heaven & Earth are all Tri-Stat games though each one uses a slightly different method of the same basic task resolution mechanic (Heaven & Earth being the most divergent). If you know Tri-Stat, learning each of those games is incredibly easy.

The d20 system mechanic is "roll a d20, add modifiers, attempt to achieve a result equal to or greater than the Difficult Class of the task." Everything beyond that is fluff on top of the base mechanic. If you know D&D, for example, learning SAS d20 is incredibly easy. Some may disagree, but the basic mechanics of the games are identical.

You're certainly welcome to disagree with me, as many others seem to, but it is my belief that a game system is about the core mechanic, not the flourishes.

-----
Removing these traits and replacing them with other stuff that you think is 'kewl' will frustrate consumers looking to use your product with OTHER d20 material.
-----
As I've said, SAS d20 is useable with other d20 material. Easily. Again, people are welcome to disagree with me, but in my experience the effort needed to drop a red dragon into SAS or Sentinel into your traditional fantasy d20 game is incredidbly minimal.

 

[Samurai]

In this era of Dual-statted books, there is a big difference between "changing/adding stuff you think is kewl" and "changing/adding stuff which will GREATLY aid the dual-statting process." Everyone knows that one of the most popular types of superhero sourcebooks is Rogues Galleries. Books full of villains and characters to populate the setting and adventures with. Whether you look at DC Heroes, Marvel SH/ SAGA, Champions, whatever, these are always the most common and most useful books for a superhero game. But NONE of them has ever been dual-statted before...

If the games are so far apart that each character requires an entirely seperate page of stats, you are literally wasting half the book. Imagine a dual-statted Champions and DC Heroes/MEGs character book... every character would need totally seperate stats for each system, and chances are the character would not be very balanced between the 2 systems.

I initially feared that Tri-stat and d20 SAS would be like that, and as much as I love the game, if it were that different, every Roster book would contain 50% useless information. Considering that they already have at least 3 of these types of books on their burners, I feared a disaster... But then I saw how similar the systems were. Only a small box with stats, attack/Defense values, Health, etc needed to be changed for each character. The powers, skills, and defects remained the same. This meant a bare minimum of wasted space, and it made Roster books a viable possibility.

If GoO wanted to just print a d20 Supers game and then not support it (as many small d20 publishers do with their core books), I'd agree that staying as close to D&D as possible would have been a smart move. (Everyone knows D&D players are totally unwilling to learn another system, right? That was sarcasm, by the way) If they had planned to support the line with a series of NON-dual-satted books, this still would have been the smart way to go, maybe. But if they planned to support the game with dual-stat books as they are, it would have been suicide to TOTALLY change the system over to D&D, instead of just doing a d20 varient as they did. D20 gamers would have been pissed that 50% of the book was taken up with Tri-stat powers, skills, defects, etc, and Tri-stat players would have been pissed at page after page wastyed on descriptions of Feats, different skills, etc. I submit that this is THE ONLY WAY a company that wants to support a game with dual-stat sourcebooks focusing on Villains and Characters can possibly do it.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Im glad this discussion came up! I was pumped about SAS D20, but now I see it will not suit my wants in a D20 version of this wonderful game! Ill stick with the old school rules. Thanks all

 

[whisper_jeff]

Im glad this discussion came up! I was pumped about SAS D20, but now I see it will not suit my wants in a D20 version of this wonderful game!
-----
Believe me - I'm glad it came up too. I do not want people to buy any of our products if I don't think it is a product that they will completely enjoy. Yes, having everyone buy our stuff increases sales which is always nice, but I want people who buy our books to enjoy them. If you won't enjoy a given book, I don't want you to buy it - I want you to hold out and buy a different book that you will enjoy.

As I've said before, I knew SAS d20 was not going to appeal to some d20 fans and was going to completely floor other d20 players. If this thread can ensure that the former group takes a pass on SAS d20 while encouraging the second group to pick it up, that's fantastic! It increases the odds that the people buying the book will enjoy it which is always one of my prime goals.

Also, I'm confident that we will publish books down the road (Slayers d20, for example) that will appeal to the former group who are looking for something more traditional (yes, Slayers d20 will look and feel like your traditional d20 game, complete with cool (and powerful!) feats, spells, prestige classes, and all that other goodness! <grin>).

Anyhow, I too am glad this thread happened.