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

[iwatt]

With respect to ease of Conversion:

It get's easier the longer you stay away from D&D vancian magic.

The first time I tried converting some of my D&D PCs to True20, I ran into trouble because vancian magic is probably the worst match when compared to the True20 power system. My best advice, is to "forget" about Vancian magic and go for power choices that keep the flavor of what you're trying to convert.

Personally, I've converted the following:

Rippers (Savage Worlds)---->Since I'm not really familiar with SW, this conversion has mostly meant finding/developing crunch to match the fluff. It's been extremely easy using True20 Core book, the Bestiary and the the Companion.

Dark Harbor (Iron Heroes)---->It's been a breeze to convert. To keep the pace of adventures without including magical Healing, I've increased the speed of recovery checks.

Year of the Zombie(d20 Modern)-----> Very easy. I had to slow down Conviction Recovery somewhat to keep the game grittier, though.

Rise of the Runelords (D&D)-----> Just getting started together with a friend from the True20 boards. Pretty much have the different deities statted out, and a pretty good magci system to repersent Sorcerors, Mages and Clerics.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I like True20 a lot. It is probably my favorite system, at the moment. It has many flaws, though.

A couple notes about this thread:

1. I don't see True20 fans as being offensive, but some have come across as very defensive.

2. I agree that conversion is not that easy...which is why I don't convert.


A couple positive things about True20:

1. Conviction...it rocks. Unlike some, in the thread, I run True20 as combat heavy and find that recovery times are too fast and combat isn't very deadly at all. I point at Conviction as the main factor (that and the recovery times are fairly fast). The damage track is a bit clunky, but I found it fun once I got the hang of it.

2. I like the generic classes and the skill/feat setup, which allows for a lot of variance between characters of the same class.


A couple negative things about True20:

1. I hate the Wealth system. It's similar to D20 Modern, which I have never used, but it doesn't appeal to me at all.

2. I'm not real pleased with the power system. It isn't terrible and is certainly usable, but I find it somewhat flavorless and inconsistent.



Overall, I give True20 the thumbs up. Aside from some defensiveness, all the guys that have posted in support of True20 here, have also shown themselves to be very helpful chaps on the True20 boards.

Later...

 

[buzz]

My point is unless there is a die involved, irrespective of system, it is always going to come down to GM judgement.

Well, there are no dice involved in the Aspect mechanic from SotC/FATE, fwiw. Not that it's free of GM judgement, either; the real point is that it is, however, overt. There is generally no question that you're about to earn/spend Fate Points.

So, all I'm saying is that if True20's Conviction mechanics were more overt in this manner, on both the earning and spending sides, I'd have been more sold on it.

 

[Thomas5251212]

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

Well, for most classes even in D&D these days, alignment is largely irrrelevant except in regard to what magic items you can use, so the GM can call your alignment whatever he likes and it won't make any real difference to you. There's no mechanical price to be paid, so if you don't agree with his assessment, you can ignore it.

That said, Tr20 is also intended as a broader game than D&D, so what's tolerable within D&D's rather narrow ethical paradigm doesn't have much to do with what's a virtue or flaw in a broader game.

 

[Hjorimir]

So, all I'm saying is that if True20's Conviction mechanics were more overt in this manner, on both the earning and spending sides, I'd have been more sold on it.

It seems that it would be pretty easy to modify the rules to your own tastes (I personally love tinkering with rules irrespective of the game I'm playing/running).

 

[Father of Dragons]

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." ... In FATE, we'd be talking about a GM- or a player-initiated compel.

But even in FATE it often comes down to the GM's call:

This isn’t just the GM’s show; players can trigger compels as well either by explicitly indicating that an aspect may be complicating things, or by playing to their aspects from the get-go and reminding the GM after the fact that they already behaved as if compelled. The GM isn’t always obligated to agree that a compel is appropriate, but it’s important that players participate here.

IMO, FATE doesn't so much remove GM arbitrariness from character nature as provide a clean and above board mechanism for it. (Mind you, this is a real valuable contribution and I suspect FATE's aspect mechanism is going to strongly color my interpretation of True20's nature rules in the future. Ever since I've gotten a copy of SotC (after playing in a convention game), I've been wondering about porting aspects to True20 to replace virtues and vices. Maybe one of these days.)

 

[Hjorimir]

Well, for most classes even in D&D these days, alignment is largely irrrelevant except in regard to what magic items you can use, so the GM can call your alignment whatever he likes and it won't make any real difference to you. There's no mechanical price to be paid, so if you don't agree with his assessment, you can ignore it.

Which is why I'm not a fan of D&D's alignment system.

That said, Tr20 is also intended as a broader game than D&D, so what's tolerable within D&D's rather narrow ethical paradigm doesn't have much to do with what's a virtue or flaw in a broader game.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but I've read this sentance three times now and I still can't get what you're driving at. Is your point that because True20 is more adaptable to different kinds of genres that is has to have a different system for alignment?

I feel that True20's Conviction is far more likely to enhance characterization than D&D's Alignment. As you say, alignment is largely irrevelant and players can often ignore it altogether. At least with Conviction there is some amount of encouragement from the system for the player to roleplay within his or her character's nature.

For me, that scores big points.

 

[Hjorimir]

Ever since I've gotten a copy of SotC (after playing in a convention game), I've been wondering about porting aspects to True20 to replace virtues and vices. Maybe one of these days.)

Okay, what is SotC?

 

[Father of Dragons]

Okay, what is SotC?

Spirit of the Century. It's a pulp RPG using the FATE system (which in turn is a development of the FUDGE system). FATE has a website at http://www.faterpg.com. It's a sort of rules light system (can something with a 400+ page rulebook really be called "rules light"?) based around a single roll mechanism (basically 4d3-8). It is a significant step more abstract than True20, which can be good or bad depending on what you are doing. FATE's biggest break with most other RPGs (and from FUDGE, of which it is a descendent) is that instead of ability scores, you have these character tags called aspects. Aspects are sort of like virtues and vices, except more so, and are used with fate points, which are a lot like conviction. The mechanisms for using aspects is one of the system's strong points and very elegant.

SotC/FATE is one of a handful of games I would recommend for anyone interested general RPG design (True20 is another).

 

[Thomas5251212]

Which is why I'm not a fan of D&D's alignment system.

I consider that kind of a virtue, to be honest; the old version with the experience penalties had exactly the objection I'm having here; that it ended up being a club for what the GM judged should be the PC's behavior.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but I've read this sentance three times now and I still can't get what you're driving at. Is your point that because True20 is more adaptable to different kinds of genres that is has to have a different system for alignment?

I feel that True20's Conviction is far more likely to enhance characterization than D&D's Alignment. As you say, alignment is largely irrevelant and players can often ignore it altogether. At least with Conviction there is some amount of encouragement from the system for the player to roleplay within his or her character's nature.

For me, that scores big points.

But see, I'm not sure something to mechancially prod players on characterization _belongs_ in a game; often all it does is give the GM a club to place his view of the character and what it means in the game above the player's, and I no longer consider that a virtue. That's why I compared it to social engineering experience systems (which reward the player for doing things as the GM approves with more in-game power).