So when should a publisher ditch d20 and develop their own system?

[Jürgen Hubert]

Ryan Dancey sez

" You feel that Hit Points, Armor Class, Vancian spellcasting, classes, levels, etc. restrict or limit, or in some other way restrict you from expressing your “vision” (all those things are designer options, not features of the system, and can be discarded, modified, or ignored once you understand how to use the whole D20 toolbox)."

I guess that I feel different. The strength of d20 is that you can modify it. I can't think of a genre that d20 couldn't be modified to fit.

Read again - he says that these are not valid reasons to avoid d20.

That being said, I have my doubts if d20 can do Transhumanist SF well - at least without a lot of changes.

 

[buzz]

That being said, I have my doubts if d20 can do Transhumanist SF well - at least without a lot of changes.

Why not, IYO?

I think any talk of genre w/r/t what d20 (or any system) can "do" is sort of tangential, because there's a lot to genre that's often really just color, in RPG terms. E.g., I'm prepping the original Gamma World module Legion of Gold for a Gameday event. The adventure is basically a dungeon crawl with some wilderness encounters; it even begins with, "You all meet up in a tavern," though it uses the term "saloon." But, it's post-apoc sci-fi, not high fantasy. Why? Because you fight mutants, not goblins. I'd point to Mearls comment above about the Serenity dungeon-crawl, too.

Ergo, I think the bigger question is whether d20's framework will allow your game to do what you want it to do, not just whether it will fit the genre trappings. We know d20 is great for a game focused on tactics and resource-management, but what about a game focused on thematic play? Or "reality simulator" games like GURPS or HERO? (d20 Modern and SC2.0 start getting into the latter territory a bit, IMO.)

I'm not sure I have an easy answer to this question, because it brings into discussion, "When is a game no longer d20?", i.e., how much modification can you make while still calling a game d20 (touched on by the Dancey quote upthread).

For me, a game is d20 if my existing knowledge of systems like D&D and d20M are still useful. So, M&M is d20 in my book, as despite the classless, level-less, power-based system, it still feels d20 mechanically to me. And, it's largely doing the tactics + resources thing.

But, if you took, say, HeroQuest's roll-under d20 mechanic and made it roll-over, and then switched character traits to bonuses instead of target numbers, that'd basically be the core d20 mechanic... but I don't think that would be enough, as the rest of the system wouldn't build much on my existing d20 knowledge, and doesn't really focus on tactics (AFAIK; I could be wrong).

So, back to transhumanist SF... Having read the first Transhuman Space book (which rawks, BTW), I don't really see anything about it that you couldn't do with a d20 framework. A lot of the SF material published for d20M already does it, in fact.

 

[tx7321]

Hmmn, let me take a crack at this.
I think the simplest reason to make a new system rather than relying on D20 or the OGL is when you need your system to do something that is genuinely different than what you see in a D20/OGL game. That's about the only reason.
--Steve

As for marketers, this is simple: what will sell (if they want D20 than thats what you provide). As SteveC mentions, the public will tolerate something other then D20 when they percieve a markedly different reason.

The general differences between say D20 and using TABLES (1E, OD&D) probably don't register to most players, cert. not enough to go back to them.

 

[Bagpuss]

But we hear from publisher all the time about the d20 market is a shadow of its former self.

Yeah but a shadow of the D20 market is still bigger than most 'new' RPGs.

 

[tensen]

No.
But you have to be quite arrogant to believe that you can do better.

Of course, sometimes arrogance is justified.....

Arrogance is sometimes a required component of an innovative designer.

 

[BryonD]

Arrogance is sometimes a required component of an innovative designer.

Right.

And your point is....... ?

 

[Psion]

Arrogance is sometimes a required component of an innovative designer.

But not a sufficient component.

 

[Gundark]

Read again - he says that these are not valid reasons to avoid d20.

.

Agreed. I think you misread my post

 

[SteveC]

As for marketers, this is simple: what will sell (if they want D20 than thats what you provide). As SteveC mentions, the public will tolerate something other then D20 when they percieve a markedly different reason.

The general differences between say D20 and using TABLES (1E, OD&D) probably don't register to most players, cert. not enough to go back to them.

Let me make an addendum to this: you can also use a totally different system and be successful if you're bringing a large number of new people into the market that don't have preconceived notions of what a popular system is.

However, in these cases, I think it's still a good idea to use the OGL if you can, because you can get your new blood in, and also attract your existing market.

--Steve

 

[SteveC]

But not a sufficient component.

If it were, we'd all be talking about the World of Synnibar or Senzar as the big players in the market.

--Steve