True 20 - Who here has played it, and what was your experience?

[Thomas5251212]

I played in a one-shot event, but have not read the rules cover-to-cover, so there's a caveat for ya. We were playing 1st-level heroes in a PA setting.

I found the Damage Save kind of klunky (as I did with M&M), the rolling for attack and defense felt kind of random/whiff-factor-y, the lack of AoOs made combat less interesting for me, and Conviction felt kind prone to the "trained monkey" effect. I.e., if you play to your Virtue/Vice, and if the GM notices, and if they think you did a good job of it, then you might earn a Conviction point.

Well, some of this wouldn't concern me; I'm an M&M GM, so the damage save seems fine to me, and the rolls don't seem any more random than with any linear resolution system (and you'll note I'm also an old RQ fan). I can understand the issues with Conviction, as I've done some extensive discussion of M&M Hero Points on some of the same issues, but if it bothered me it'd be easy to modify Conviction gain and recovery to suit. I can see the AoO issue, but then, Tr20 seems designed to be a bit less combat focused than some games in the first place, and where it is so focused it appears the interest is supposed to be on application and choice of combat feats.

One funny comment another player made was the "be heroic before bedtime" effect. I.e., since your PC will refresh one Conviction point each morning, they might as well do something heroic (i.e., spend Conviction) before the day ends.

I did like the mook rules, though. For a more drama-focused RPG, their existence made sense.

Anyway, it was a fun game, but I wasn't sold on it. I grabbed the PDF when it was offered free so I can take a closer look at some point. Overall, I'm waiting to see a second edition before I consider actually buying it.

I'd be pretty suprised if there's a major change if they do a new edition, since in a sense Tr20 is already a second edition, using the lessons they learned from Blue Rose.

 

[Thomas5251212]

I love the conviction rules because they actually encourage the players to play within their character...unlike D&D's weak alignment system does.

Well, honestly, like social-engineering experience rules, what they do is encourage the player to play in character as the GM sees it, which isn't necessarily the best basis for that.

 

[Pbartender]

the rolling for attack and defense felt kind of random/whiff-factor-y

I should point out, Buzz, that was my mistake as the Narrator... By the rules, Defense is a static 10 + Bonuses, not 1d20 + bonuses. For some reason, I had only the Defense bonuses written down in the stat blocks, and for some reason I mistakenly believed that meant a d20 roll for Defense.

 

[Hjorimir]

Well, honestly, like social-engineering experience rules, what they do is encourage the player to play in character as the GM sees it, which isn't necessarily the best basis for that.

Is that any different than what D&D does? (Except of course D&D doesn't actually provide any reward whatsoever for the effort.)

 

[The_Gut]

Is that any different than what D&D does? (Except of course D&D doesn't actually provide any reward whatsoever for the effort.)

Yes, D&D alignment is highly subjective. I have long arguments with folks about Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly - the guy is a poster child for the Chaotic Good Alignment. The people who disagree stick on the scene where he kicks a bound opponent into, and through, a spacecraft engine, killing him. They maintain thats not a good act - totally ignoring that Captain Reynolds had just offered the guy a deal, which resulted in no net loss to him (the bad guy - it did result in a loss to the Captain). Instead of either accepting the offer, or attempting to negotiate, the chap threatened Captain Reynolds with death - and so chose his fate, of his own free will. Chaotic good is a very practical good.....

So...... D&D alignment is just as dependent upon the GM's will, as conviction. (That said, Conviction does have the "trained monkey" syndrome, but I don't think its a drawback, myself)

 

[Hjorimir]

Yes, D&D alignment is highly subjective. I have long arguments with folks about Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly - the guy is a poster child for the Chaotic Good Alignment. The people who disagree stick on the scene where he kicks a bound opponent into, and through, a spacecraft engine, killing him. They maintain thats not a good act - totally ignoring that Captain Reynolds had just offered the guy a deal, which resulted in no net loss to him (the bad guy - it did result in a loss to the Captain). Instead of either accepting the offer, or attempting to negotiate, the chap threatened Captain Reynolds with death - and so chose his fate, of his own free will. Chaotic good is a very practical good.....

So...... D&D alignment is just as dependent upon the GM's will, as conviction. (That said, Conviction does have the "trained monkey" syndrome, but I don't think its a drawback, myself)

My point was that both systems require the GM to make judgement calls, so to decry one while ignoring the other seems flawed.

 

[buzz]

I should point out, Buzz, that was my mistake as the Narrator... By the rules, Defense is a static 10 + Bonuses, not 1d20 + bonuses. For some reason, I had only the Defense bonuses written down in the stat blocks, and for some reason I mistakenly believed that meant a d20 roll for Defense.

Ah! Gotcha. I'd retract that comment, then.

(And, really, my POV is probably less useful than those who've run multiple campaigns. I'm just providing my demo experience as a data-point.)

 

[buzz]

My point was that both systems require the GM to make judgement calls, so to decry one while ignoring the other seems flawed.

First off, I'd hope we could steer clear of an alignment discussion.

Second, I wasn't intending to compare Conviction to Alignment. A closer analog in my mind as I wrote the comment was the Aspect mechanic in SotC/FATE. I.e., I have no issue with a mechanic that encourages players to have their PCs act in accordance with their idiom or background. I just typically prefer it when things are a bit more explicit than "when the GM thinks you roleplayed well."

A d20 example of this would be Subplots in SC2.0 or Complications in M&M. In both cases, there's an explicit exchange of currency, as it were. "I, the GM, am about to make your PC's life more complicated. In exchange, here's a Hero Point/Action Die." In FATE, we'd be talking about a GM- or a player-initiated compel.

 

[buzz]

I'd be pretty suprised if there's a major change if they do a new edition, since in a sense Tr20 is already a second edition, using the lessons they learned from Blue Rose.

I got the impression that there's some errata and other things that could use a little cleaning up. Not to mention, an edition sans all the sample campaign settings would probably appeal to me more, a la the pocket version.

I'm in no rush.

 

[Hjorimir]

First off, I'd hope we could steer clear of an alignment discussion.

I never thought we were having an alignment discussion; I thought we were talking about the system around alignment. You make it sound like we're arguing a paladin's code.

Second, I wasn't intending to compare Conviction to Alignment. A closer analog in my mind as I wrote the comment was the Aspect mechanic in SotC/FATE. I.e., I have no issue with a mechanic that encourages players to have their PCs act in accordance with their idiom or background. I just typically prefer it when things are a bit more explicit than "when the GM thinks you roleplayed well."

I've never played FATE and I don't even know what SotC is. My point is unless there is a die involved, irrespective of system, it is always going to come down to GM judgement.

A d20 example of this would be Subplots in SC2.0 or Complications in M&M. In both cases, there's an explicit exchange of currency, as it were. "I, the GM, am about to make your PC's life more complicated. In exchange, here's a Hero Point/Action Die." In FATE, we'd be talking about a GM- or a player-initiated compel.

I've never played SC2.0 (or any other version). I do have M&M though and I tend to think along those lines more often than not. I am happy to award a Conviction point for what I feel was a good roleplaying moment within a character's nature. I am more likely, however, to award Conviction when a character stays within their nature to their own detriment.