Tired of d20 yet?
- Thread starter Driddle
- Start date
Driddle said:
D&D - Yes. desperately. I don't like what it does to players. Its more akin to Magic The Gathering than a roleplaying game these days. When it first came out it had a lot of promise, but then pretty much turned into MTG. More a shame than a surprise, really. I like AE as an alternative to D&D. It still has about the same amount of rules, but all the changes, subtle and otherwise, all culminate in a much different gaming goal than D&D. I've seen the stark difference it can make in a switch from a D&D game to a AE game in the players, the way they play, and how they look at their characters.
D20 - Kinda. Not like i now despise D&D, but D20 games are still quite the same thing, but usually wrapped in a different package. D20 Star Wars, etc. The change of a slick veneer can do a lot, at least for a while. Those games that use the D20 trademark are generally not that different than D&D in terms of all the "sacred cows", though.
OGL - Definitely not. This is the category where Mutants & Masterminds, Black Company, and the other truly visionary offspring of D20 lies. The difference between D20 games and OGL games is both subtle AND huge. In OGL, for the most part (the nature of OGL makes it difficult to generalize), the basic rule components are the Stats, Saves, and Skills. They generally provide the qualifying connector to determne if a game is still a OGL/D20 derivative. Every other part of the standard D&D rules are up for grabs and usually seriously changed or chucked out the window. Happily so.
PJ-Mason said:
And that would be the understatment of the thread: "OGL" is not a system, it's a license. Any system could be released under that license, and at least half a dozen have been so far. Some of them don't even have freakin' numbers, much less saving throws or armor class. Referring to "OGL games" as though they are a reasonable collective, in any context except legalities or open-content development, is just silly.
You want a term for games that use the D20 System, in some permutation, but not the D20 System Logo? Call them "D20 System games"--that's what they are. If you need to distinguish between those and games that do carry the logo, it's pretty trivial: "D20 System logoed games". Ta-da! Clear, descriptive, accurate usage of language to mean what you say, rather than twisting perfectly good terms to mean something they aren't, and causing confusion.[/rant]
Psion said:Whoa. Well obviously opinions still differ, at least I finally feel like I am communicating with Akrasia (and Woodelf). I fully expected this thread never to come to closure until someone got tired of it and walked away. My hat's off to you gentlemen for the friendly discourse.
[rant]And, as an aside, is a perfect example of why the relatively heavy hand of moderation around here often drives me batty: it seems like more than half the interesting discussions i'm involved in get shut down just as they're starting to reach productive, fertile ground. We're mostly adults around here--we can resolve our own arguments or, at worst, leave. As the continued viability of the r.g.f.* newsgroups can amply demonstrate, moderation is very rarely needed. [/rant]
buzz said:
No, you're right--i mis-spoke. I didn't mean to say that it was inevitable in crunchy systems, but rather that it seems to happen more often than not. In fact, the only exception i can immediately recall is HERO--and that's also the only one that hasn't "replaced" the underlying principles with the pre-calced and compiled rules instantiations. In fact, it's the only heavy system i'm aware of that definitely has a consistent set of underlying principles--because they're laid bare for you. IOW, if the problem is either slightly unclear foundational principles, or exceptions, HERO would naturally side-step them because the former are spelled out and the latter avoided.
In fact, i don't even think it's D20 System, or even D&D3E, per se--i think it's the D&D3E rulebooks. I find the D20SRD documents clear and easy to read, and it was those that finally cleared up all our problems. If the D&D3E PH had been written with the level of clarity and organization of the D20SRD files, i probably wouldn't be complaining nearly as much.
Yes, structure is good. But, IME, the areas where structure are needed are precisely those that most RPGs don't address at all: how to run a game, not how to adjudicate the rules. That is, while most RPGs have some stuff about how to run a game, it has nothing to do with their mechanics--it's separate from the game proper. I'm not sure i'd suggest a newbie GM run, say, Trollbabe. But i know i wouldn't suggent a newbie GM run D&D3E, either--i've seen the results. Obviously, tons of people manage to muddle through and get better, but i've seen the frustration on both sides of the screen from a new GM trying to both juggle all the crunch of D&D3E and the demands of GMing. Best first-time GM experience i've ever run into? Ars Magica. Followed by Big Eyes, Small Mouth.
warlord said:
No way. I got rid of all my prior edition stuff except for the Player's Handbooks and a basic booklet for nostalgia's sake. Even if I were to quit d20 D&D, I'm not going back to an earlier D&D system. As I ponder it now, I find that I have to keep at least my 3.0 core books to run the other cool, non-D&D games that I love.
Kanegrundar
Explorer
ACK! NEVER!!! I left 2E a few years before the advent of 3E, so there's no way that I'd ever go back to that system.warlord said:
Kane
woodelf said:
1. Insulting the moderators' style of enforcement is one of the three best ways to win negative brownie points.
2. I have yet to see a so-called "interesting discussion" -- specifically, a fiery exchange that requires page upon page of explanation to clarify one's own position and pick apart another person's posts sentence by sentence -- ever reach the mythical "productive, fertile ground" of which you speak.
The_Universe
First Post
Nope. In fact....
My hat of non-D02 know no limit!!!!!1111ONE111!!!!!
Similar Threads
