Quickleaf said:
Hey, I've got a few questions about your ideas to improve True20.
* Aren't the 3 roles based upon what the character can do? What would you prefer?
* Would 3 "levels" of skill be simpler for you? For example: Amateur ([level+3]/2), Proficiency (level +3), and Mastery ([level +3]*1.5)
* What do you mean by "figure out a way for the character to do interesting things that are covered by the rules"? Do you mean more rules for non-combat conflicts?
* What are your problems with the True20 power system and do you have ideas of what you'd like to see improved on?
Those were actually more "suggestions to improve D&D" as I haven't actually played
True 20.
On the roles: I dislike balancing classes on the whole "warrior, expert, spellcaster" model. It strikes me as a bad model that lends itself to cliche characters. I agree that, with open, and encouraged, multiclassing,
True 20 does it better than standard D&D. However, you can still end up with a character that's a combat monkey with no appreciable skills, or a skill monkey who sucks at combat.
Three levels of skill? Ick, no. Simplify the skills enough that characters can do things. I don't know precisely how skills work in
True 20. I know that I dislike the "prime-based skills" of C&C. Generic skills equals generic characters.
"Interesting Options covered by the rules" - I have a basic dislike of on-the-fly DM ruling - as a DM! I like having rules to cover unusual situations so that I don't end up having to create them myself. For example,
Iron Heroes allows characters to perform stunts for extra bonuses, or accept a penalty to one thing for a benefit to something else, or whatever. I find it makes combat and task resolution more interesting.
Power System - From what I understand, a lot of the magical abilities in
True 20 are kinda..."handwavey" in their effects. Basically, they do something...GM judgement call.
Twitch.
If there's a phrase that makes me wince, it's "GM judgement call." I've usually had good DMs, so this isn't fear of a bad call. It's twofold. As a DM, I see players not trying things because they have no idea how I'll rule. As a player, I often won't try anything "creative" because I have no way of gauging my chance of success in advance.
Some people call that metagaming. I call it "weighing tactical options." It's something the character would do, and something, as a player, that I find entertaining.
If I've unfairly maligned the
True 20 power system by this characterization, I apologize. But that was my impression based on what I've seen so far.