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

[rgard]

So I'm in this debate over at the privateer press forums. For some reason there are these d20 haters that hang out there and regularly post about how much they hate d20. Anyhow there is this call put out on the forums by the haters for PP to ditch d20 and develop their own system.

Now to me this would be a very bad move on PP's part. And we've been going back and forth as to why this is or isn't a bad idea.

the main point of the hater is how Pinnacle press ditched d20 and developed savage worlds and how this was a good move.

Anyhow, the question is...Is it a good move for a publisher to ditch d20 and develop their own system? And if so, when?

Never unless the IP you are using is extremely well know like LotR and Star Trek. Oh wait, not then either. Stick with D20 or OGL.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[GlassJaw]

The Pirate's Guide to Freeport is a 256-page hardback detailing the City of Adventure and containing no game stats for any system. We are then publishing a series of companion books that give rules info and stats for many different systems. First on deck are the True20 Freeport Companion and the d20 Freeport Companion, but there will be others as well. This should allow us to broaden Freeport's appeal to fans of fantasy gaming in general, while providing good support for the city's original fanbase as well.

I think this is an awesome idea. If the setting and writing are good enough to stand on thier own (which Freeport and IK are), then I can see almost no disadvantage to keeping the core releases as fluff only and then offering rules options so the players can use the setting as they see fit.

Chris - you need more info on your Freeport page!

 

[Crothian]

Wasn't Serenity just the Unisystem from Buffy? Wasn't that game just gushed and gushed over?

No, Serenity does not use the Unisystem as it is published by a different company. And Serenity was not gushed over at all.

 

[Glyfair]

I think this is an awesome idea. If the setting and writing are good enough to stand on thier own (which Freeport and IK are), then I can see almost no disadvantage to keeping the core releases as fluff only and then offering rules options so the players can use the setting as they see fit.

The disadvantage is you'll lose a lot of customers who see they need to buy two books to get the function they expect out of one.

What I think would be the best thing here would be to find a way to sell the background book at one price, and throw in a free system book for that price. Still, that requires a large number of system books at launch (or close to launch) and finding some sort of delivery system for delivering the system books that most customers can access (I'm not convinced most potential customers are interested in e-books yet).

 

[Glyfair]

To give you an idea of how things have changed since 2002, Shadowspawn's Guide to Sanctuary--a 256 page hardback detailing one of the most famous cities in fantasy fiction--sold about 25% of what Freeport: The City of Adventure did and Freeport did not have 20 years of fiction and famous authors behind it. Despite the name recognition and the pedigree, Shadowspawn's Guide to Sanctuary was viewed as "just another d20 book" by distributors and retailers..

Out of curiosity, Chris, can you give comparison numbers for two similar books, one d20, one some other system? The numbers given sound like they make a point. However, if the same Sanctuary book would have sold only 25% of what it actually sold with a different system, than a different point is made. Comparing a Trued20 adventure and a d20 adventure you released about the same time might be a more fair comparison to the virtue of different systems.

 

[buzz]

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.

Well, neither can I, but it all depends on what the author is trying to do with the game. For most mainstream games, I think d20 covers the basics.

 

[Psion]

Well, neither can I, but it all depends on what the author is trying to do with the game.

That's a good point. While I think d20 can be modified to cover a lot of ground, I think that a lot of authors don't have what it takes to do so and deliver a suitable end product.

 

[Umbran]

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.

To say that it could be modified to fit every genre does not say that it can be modified to supply every flavor of play. Consider, for example, the original Marvel Superheroes Game, and compare to, say, Mutants and Masterminds. Same genre, but thoroughly different feel in play.

There is more to being a "system" than just the base task resolution mechanic. By the time I've changed all the things I might want to change, I may well have a different system on my hands.

Say I make new stats, a different advancement system, a different magic/special effects system, change AC and Hit Points.... It will now have as much a learning curve as any other new system, because players will have to figure out where their standard d20 assumptions don't apply. At this point, I'm not really gaining from using d20, expecially when I can certainly no longer put a d20 logo on the thing.

And that's assuming I want the d20 task resolution in the first place, which I may not.

d20 is good. I like d20. But it isn't everything. And d20 exists in large part because people learned things from other systems, and brought some of that design philosophy back to D&D. To say that new and different systems shouldn't be written is rather like saying we can make do with only one breed of dog. Multiple systems means greater hybrid vigor.

 

[Sigurd]

20 years ago - or from now

I don't think any game company is going to break into Role Playing with the luck and impetus that TSR did. Anything you set up will be a long haul but your customers will really be your customers.

Business sense to me would dictate that for now D20 is a necessary publishing element. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have your own system as well.

Its a lot of work but my guess is that if I had a game company I'd write for Osric and my own game. Build cross game loyalty with good products and then let the fanbase decide. If they're big enough ....


Thats my .02 talking off the top of my head.


Sigurd

 

[RyanD]

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.

That is an inaccurate statement. D20 games do not de facto require levels, or even character advancement to tap the D20 player network.

When the bonus is so large that the die roll becomes virtually unimportant, there is a problem to me.

I suspect what you mean here is "when the DC is so high that characters without enough bonus to the die roll to be able to successfully complete the action without taking 20 don't bother with attempting those actions, that is a problem for me." (because even in D&D, for example, the AC usually scales upwards with the target party level so that the d20 roll is the determining factor between success and failure). The DCs of skill-based challenges (especially for stuff Rogues are expected to do in D&D) often create situations that make D&D a nearly diceless sysetm for anything other than combat & saving throws. I'm not sure if that's a feature or not. I suspect it is a negative more than a positive. That's a development, not a design problem though. Change the rules so that there's always a negative consequence for failure, and remove the ability to Take 10 at will, and the Rogues have to start rolling dice again...

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.

It would be easy to implement the character advancement system in WHFB into D&D (or any reasonably similiar D20 varient). Making "class levels" represent lump sum improvements in a PC is a development, not a design choice.

Ryan