Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetsujin28" data-source="post: 1113728" data-attributes="member: 1478">I would certainly say that there's a comfort level in using a system you're already familiar with, especially if the feel you're going for is very 'D&D'. Going to a system like, say, Hero, requires a tremendous amount of effort to make it like D&D. A friend of mine ran a very fun and successful Birthright Hero game for years, but the amount of documentation for just the players was like a whole new Player's Handbook.Some things just feel neat using the d20 system. It's very heroic, and it fits certain genres very well. I like GURPS, and I like d20 Modern, but running the same campaign under those two rules sets would feel very different. The more cinematic the game, the more I would lean towards d20M, and the more gritty, the more towards GURPS.I don't feel that the class system is an integral part of what makes d20, any more than changing that AC is based on armour worn (Star Wars), removing 'fire and forget' spellcasting (Midnight), &c. Certainly the success of d20M, with its much more generic classes, and d20 CoC, which doesn't really have classes at all, have shown that d20 is flexible enough to cover a lot of bases. And I believe that 3.0/3.5's relaxation of the formerly constricting and contradictory multi-classing/dual-classing rules are a step in that direction. At what point does a game "stop being D&D"? I guess that's up to the individual. But does it really matter, as long as those concerned are having fun?</blockquote>

Verification