Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gallowglass" data-source="post: 444847" data-attributes="member: 5284">Each to their own of course, but the problem with expecting that high degree of "plug and play compatibility" between SF d20 games is that SF settings are too different from each other. D&D leads people to believe that all worlds are the same; they aren't IMO and straight 3e does a lousy job of simulating anything other than a 3e world. d20 Publishers are now beginning to realise that, but there are an awful lot a weak worlds out there because they all have the same D&D'isms (AC, Hit Points by level, "Vancian" magic etc). Faithful adaptations of most literary settings to d20 will involve changing at least some of these to some degree, requiring some conversion work between them and other d20 games. With SF settings, it gets even more extreme: covering something as fundementally comic book as Star Wars and Arthur C Clarke's Rendevous With Rama with the same rule set would be foolish to the point of lunacy IMO, it involves such a huge disservice to both.And what really puzzles me is that this is what I thought the point of d20 / OGL was: to give designers and gamers a common framework to allow the maximum number of people to play whilst being flexible enough to cover any genre. But that flexibility does mean that things cannot be obsolutely identical...And I suspect that WotC will NOT touch a "Future d20" until their license with Lucasfilm expires...</blockquote>