catsclaw227
First Post
He meant Pinnacle Press, and was responding to a comment about Pinnacle Press' Savage Worlds RPG. The are now called Pinnacle Entertainment Group (I believe).BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
So when should a publisher ditch d20 and develop their own system?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
Gothmog
First Post
I say yes, it is a good idea, depending on the type of game you want to play/run.
D&D/D20 does a good job at cinematic/high fantasy game play, but for less magic intensive settings, its a sub-optimal choice. Iron Kingdoms is definitely low magic and brutal, and characters with ablative hit points and who are magic item dependent for their powerz don't fit the fluff of the setting at all. Also, D20 assumes a steady increase in character power (BAB, saves, feats, abilities) that is linear over levels which GREATLY affects probability curves and the chances of character success. D20 characters start out inept, and quickly progress into superheroes. This isn't in keeping with the IK setting- in the wargame (which the world IS based on) even a unit of low-power troops is dangerous to a warcaster (as elite as you get in IK)- and this isn't modeled in D&D well. In addition, the vancian magic system doesn't have the right feel for the IK setting, and talk has been thrown around of redoing the magic system completely- however this also means a revision of the D&D/D20 rules so extensive that there wouldn't be a point to using D&D/D20 anymore.
I think IK would benefit greatly from an in-house system that better modeled the flavor of their world. WHFRP simply wouldn't work with D&D rules, and I"M EXTREMELY happy they didn't jump on the D20 bandwagon and go that route. Likewise, Pinnacle Entertainment Group (which publishes the excellent Deadlands setting and Savage Worlds) tried their hand at D20 with Deadlands, and Deadlands lost all its appeal in the D20 conversion, while the original and the SW version are excellent games that retain the flavor of the world.
So while D&D/D20 works fine for cinematic/heroic games with high power levels, it doesn't work well for lower-powered/less magic intensive games. The probablity curves and heroic assumptions built into the system undermine trying to establish a different feel in the world. So while D20 is a fine choice for some games (D&D, Spycraft), its not a universal system, nor was it ever intended to be. Nobody is saying making another system would be trying to "topple D20" as the 800 lb gorilla, but why try pounding the square D20 peg into a round hole when another system might do the job much better? The D20 market also isn't what it used to be, and several systems (WW, Savage Worlds, WHFRP to name a few) have become pretty popular- enough so that they are consistent money makers and while not top of the heap, still very profitable for their parent companies, and are supported very well by fan support.
D&D/D20 does a good job at cinematic/high fantasy game play, but for less magic intensive settings, its a sub-optimal choice. Iron Kingdoms is definitely low magic and brutal, and characters with ablative hit points and who are magic item dependent for their powerz don't fit the fluff of the setting at all. Also, D20 assumes a steady increase in character power (BAB, saves, feats, abilities) that is linear over levels which GREATLY affects probability curves and the chances of character success. D20 characters start out inept, and quickly progress into superheroes. This isn't in keeping with the IK setting- in the wargame (which the world IS based on) even a unit of low-power troops is dangerous to a warcaster (as elite as you get in IK)- and this isn't modeled in D&D well. In addition, the vancian magic system doesn't have the right feel for the IK setting, and talk has been thrown around of redoing the magic system completely- however this also means a revision of the D&D/D20 rules so extensive that there wouldn't be a point to using D&D/D20 anymore.
I think IK would benefit greatly from an in-house system that better modeled the flavor of their world. WHFRP simply wouldn't work with D&D rules, and I"M EXTREMELY happy they didn't jump on the D20 bandwagon and go that route. Likewise, Pinnacle Entertainment Group (which publishes the excellent Deadlands setting and Savage Worlds) tried their hand at D20 with Deadlands, and Deadlands lost all its appeal in the D20 conversion, while the original and the SW version are excellent games that retain the flavor of the world.
So while D&D/D20 works fine for cinematic/heroic games with high power levels, it doesn't work well for lower-powered/less magic intensive games. The probablity curves and heroic assumptions built into the system undermine trying to establish a different feel in the world. So while D20 is a fine choice for some games (D&D, Spycraft), its not a universal system, nor was it ever intended to be. Nobody is saying making another system would be trying to "topple D20" as the 800 lb gorilla, but why try pounding the square D20 peg into a round hole when another system might do the job much better? The D20 market also isn't what it used to be, and several systems (WW, Savage Worlds, WHFRP to name a few) have become pretty popular- enough so that they are consistent money makers and while not top of the heap, still very profitable for their parent companies, and are supported very well by fan support.
Last edited:
buzz
Adventurer
a) When the design has something so unique to say that it cannot do so with d20 as a framework.Gundark said:
b) When the game is based on a brand so strong that, even if it does nothing unique, will sell tons of product.
IMO, the vast majority of mainstream stuff out there fails to meet condition a, and gamers are all too willing to facilitate b.
As for IK... I can't see what the heck would be gained by moving to a house system, though there's enough momentum in the brand that they might be able pull off b.
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
Iron Kingdoms is one of a handful of mainstream RPGs (Warhammer and Warcraft are two others, although the specific way WHFR diverges isn't necessarily the way I think would have been most helpful) that would, IMO, actually benefit by switching to a different system.
In the case of the Iron Kingdoms, it would entail losing a fair chunk of their RPG market. But, as with the vast majority of RPG products, the dirty little secret is... losing 'a fair chunk of your RPG market' is like losing '$10...' to gain '$50.'
Warmachine is a smash hit as a wargame, and it has a system that's actually usable for RPG play. Extrapolated ove, say, 3-5 years, the number of crossover players attracted to the RPG because its rules are familiar and compatible (and good, see below) would, IMO, outweigh the number of RPG players turned off by the switch to a house system.
Also, Privateer is... not terribly good with the d20 system. Their d20 crunch is badly templated at best, incoherent and broken (usually toward the weak side, sometimes worryingly strong) at worst.
By contrast, their Warmachine rules are tightly written, concise and well balanced, considering the mechanical complexity of the game and the relatively small scale (and thus, small margin of error). Compare the balance in Warmachine to the balance in, say, Star Wars or D&D Minis; despite the latter having less complex systems, they are much less balanced across factions and individual pieces - even at the same rarity level - than Warmachine's characters, 'jacks, units, etc.
Now, I personally am much more likely to get use out of PP RPG products if they stay d20. For one, it's a system I know where to find groups for at the drop of a hat. For another, it makes what good crunch there is portable. Most importantly, it makes the Iron Kingdoms compatible with Spelljammer.
I do think, however, that PP would benefit in the long term from exploring an in-house system based on, and probably compatible with, their much, much more successful game line.
In the case of the Iron Kingdoms, it would entail losing a fair chunk of their RPG market. But, as with the vast majority of RPG products, the dirty little secret is... losing 'a fair chunk of your RPG market' is like losing '$10...' to gain '$50.'
Warmachine is a smash hit as a wargame, and it has a system that's actually usable for RPG play. Extrapolated ove, say, 3-5 years, the number of crossover players attracted to the RPG because its rules are familiar and compatible (and good, see below) would, IMO, outweigh the number of RPG players turned off by the switch to a house system.
Also, Privateer is... not terribly good with the d20 system. Their d20 crunch is badly templated at best, incoherent and broken (usually toward the weak side, sometimes worryingly strong) at worst.
By contrast, their Warmachine rules are tightly written, concise and well balanced, considering the mechanical complexity of the game and the relatively small scale (and thus, small margin of error). Compare the balance in Warmachine to the balance in, say, Star Wars or D&D Minis; despite the latter having less complex systems, they are much less balanced across factions and individual pieces - even at the same rarity level - than Warmachine's characters, 'jacks, units, etc.
Now, I personally am much more likely to get use out of PP RPG products if they stay d20. For one, it's a system I know where to find groups for at the drop of a hat. For another, it makes what good crunch there is portable. Most importantly, it makes the Iron Kingdoms compatible with Spelljammer.
I do think, however, that PP would benefit in the long term from exploring an in-house system based on, and probably compatible with, their much, much more successful game line.
buzz
Adventurer
I can't speak to Shadowrun one way or the other. However, I'm not saying d20 is a "do it all" system by any means. I'm just saying that I see a lot of systems that, IMO, aren't doing anything much differently. For me, a new game needs to be doing something seriously cool to justify not using an established system, be it d20, FUDGE/FATE, or something else.GlassJaw said:
Gothmog
First Post
GlassJaw said:
Thats true, BUT with any D20 game, you still have linear advancement of BAB, Saves, etc which do skew the probability curve more to the heroic scale. When the bonus is so large that the die roll becomes virtually unimportant, there is a problem to me. Games like WHFRP2 avoid continuous linear increases in character ability, and while still allowing characters to be competent and skilled, they are still mortal and can be in serious trouble from a lucky shot. While Grim Tales, True 20, and Conan all have this to a limited degree as well, its based on a Fort save, which again increases linearly with level, so its not that dangerous all things considered. So while GT, True20 and Conan CAN do a decent job of modeling lower-powered and gritty games, they don't do it as well as a system designed for it, IMO. I guess it mostly depends on if you and your group are hidebound to sticking to D20 only. I personally like a change of pace and enjoy exploring systems, as does my group.
Last edited:
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Gundark said:
With the evergreen nature of ePublishing, I do not think one ever has to "ditch" publishing under one system to shift primarily to another, whether it is your own or someone else's open system. One might want to shift most resources toward another system if their own d20 efforts aren't, in the main, sustainable and having an in-house system can certainly be satisfying from an artistic level but it would be difficult, at best, to achieve the same level of success. I think there will always be some market for d20 materials, just as there is for older versions of D&D (and it is clear that's still a very viable market). Keeping up a quarterly online presence with some d20 offerings would seem to be a good idea even if one pursues others avenues.
Similar Threads
