Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zappo" data-source="post: 1570523" data-attributes="member: 633">True. I like to say that D&amp;D is &quot;generic, but not universal&quot;. It doesn't do a single setting, but it doesn't do all possible settings either. That is a Good Thing; there is such a thing as being too generic.WotC didn't want D20 to be THE universal system, at least they didn't when 3E was released. I recall one of the early Dancey articles saying that he wanted D20 to do a lot of settings well, but not all of them by a long shot. I don't know if the corporate stance has changed since then. Certainly there are lots of things that D20 just can't do well (just like D&amp;D can't do well certain fantasy settings).But is that a failure of the D20 system itself, or of the designers who are afraid to use D20's full potential? After all, there are plenty of D20 games that have nothing in common with D&amp;D except 'being D20'. Maybe some of those games are similar to D&amp;D by design; uniqueness for uniqueness' sake isn't necessarily a good thing.&nbsp;&nbsp;I think it depends on whether one wants to create a &quot;D&amp;D setting&quot; or a &quot;D20 game&quot;. The first case means starting from D&amp;D and modifying stuff: you're bound to retain most of D&amp;D's flavour. The second means starting from scratch (ie, the bare d20) and building up: if you end up with D&amp;D elements, it's because you actively added them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zappo, post: 1570523, member: 633"] True. I like to say that D&D is "generic, but not universal". It doesn't do a single setting, but it doesn't do all possible settings either. That is a Good Thing; there is such a thing as being too generic.WotC didn't want D20 to be THE universal system, at least they didn't when 3E was released. I recall one of the early Dancey articles saying that he wanted D20 to do a lot of settings well, but not all of them by a long shot. I don't know if the corporate stance has changed since then. Certainly there are lots of things that D20 just can't do well (just like D&D can't do well certain fantasy settings).But is that a failure of the D20 system itself, or of the designers who are afraid to use D20's full potential? After all, there are plenty of D20 games that have nothing in common with D&D except 'being D20'. Maybe some of those games are similar to D&D by design; uniqueness for uniqueness' sake isn't necessarily a good thing. I think it depends on whether one wants to create a "D&D setting" or a "D20 game". The first case means starting from D&D and modifying stuff: you're bound to retain most of D&D's flavour. The second means starting from scratch (ie, the bare d20) and building up: if you end up with D&D elements, it's because you actively added them. [/QUOTE]

Verification