True20 is the ONLY 20 for me!

[Jack Morgan]

Well, the original post is somewhat deceptive IMO.

Much of the "simplicity" of T20 is that there is currently very little material to support conversions. .

This is only a problem if you are trying to convert. Personally, I didn't buy the game to emulate another game.
One of the main ideas behind the game is that you are supposed to customize it. as far as spell casting goes, it is suggested in the rules that GMs limit the powers available to adepts to fit their campaign. Also when I say that i like the spell casting system or the damge track better than what is in other games- that is what i am saying, not something else.

Your experience is very different from what my group has had. keep in mind one persons "lack of options" is another persons "elegant simplicity".

 

[LordEther]

Well, the original post is somewhat deceptive IMO.

Much of the "simplicity" of T20 is that there is currently very little material to support conversions. Simplicity's easy to achive if you skimp on options (q.v. Castles & Crusades). We are trying a Star Wars T20 campaign, and we basically had no guidelines to work from. Eventually, someone published their homebrew T20 Living Force rules, and that's what we worked from, but even then much is ad hoc. You have to make up rules for any kind of specialized gear, and things like protocol droids that speak 6 million languages are house-ruled against the way that T20 handles languages. Note that I'm not saying this stuff is particularly hard to house rule, just that once you're doing it's kind of a cheat to give the system credit for all the great stuff you came up with.

On the subject of languages, however, I would like to note that one would be hard pressed to find a system that could handle characters' ability to speak 6 million languages as anything other than an exception or special advantage. Whatever mechanic is referred to in these Living Force rules, it's not True20's method of handling languages that's problematic so much as it is d20's (and the undertandable, general trend in RPGs to give minimal focus to languages). The simplicity, in my opinion, lies less in a daerth of material than in the presence of a unified, streamlined system (using one die type, for example, and lessened redundancy in not using both ability scores and ability bonuses or class abilities and feats).

However, my biggest beef is that the core classes--warrior, expert, and adept--are pretty skewed. Bear in mind tthat when someone praises the loss of a vancian magic system, what they're really praising is allowing spellcasters greater liberty in tossing out lots of spells. Slots (a "hard" control) are replaced with fatigue (a "soft" control; i.e. it's easier to mitigate) in some cases, while non-fatiguing powers are usable at will.

This is possible. But there are other facets of this, too... consider that when groups want to emulate a particular genre or setting, those "hard" controls become difficult to justify and potentially damaging to immersion. Outside of Vancian works, systems inspired by Vancian works (D&D's magic system), and literature inspired by such systems inspired by Vancian works (D&D novels), there's really not much evidence for "hard" controls on characters' abilities. That non-fatiguing powers are usable at will only makes sense... since they're not fatiguing. The idea that they should be limited in some way, regardless of their utility, is very evocative of everything I don't much care for in D&D (although even that game gives some "at will" abilities to certain races or, more often, as a package deal with some equipment).

Likewise, when someone praises the loss of a hit-point-based damage system for a toughness save, what they're really praising is the effective removal of the "meat shield" role as a character (or rather, if not removal, then certainly a major demotion). Warriors have access to a feat called Tough that adds +1 to their toughness save, but that's kind of a slap in the face because it's such a small bonus that it basically requires a warrior to cash in several feats to get a decent bonus--and remember, all a character gets in terms of class features is one feat per level.

Hmmm... I have to disagree. A lot of the differences of opinion on this game stem from different perceptions of its mechanics. I've found that Tough can be one of the most powerful feats available, considering the relative rarity of damage and Tough increases (Warriors have access to the most damage/Toughness bonuses with the least conditions... which suits their role fine). I don't feel this benefit is by any means a "slap in the face." Everyone else has to rely on just armor (although some Experts can get a Toughness bonus, though they lose it when caught flat-footed). It's significant. Even one level of Tough can increase a character's survivability significantly... now, if a group has introduced a scaling Toughness rule, as is found in Blue Rose (where all characters' Toughness increases every level), the value of Tough decreases drastically as characters advance in level... this ties in to something I'm going to say later.

So, put the two paragraphs together, and you might start to get the picture. But let me make it even more clear. As previously stated, all classes gain one feat per level. However, adepts get to cash in their feats to buy powers. This is a pretty sweet deal since a typical T20 power is wonderfully potent numerous applications, and easily better than a single feat that's available to other classes, even taking fatigue into account (I provide some examples a couple of paragraphs down).

Not quite true, in my opinion. Adepts receive powers, granted, but as to whether or not they are "better" than feats available to other roles is definitely arguable. Many of the powers have additional limitations (aside from fatigue, which is significant, considering the slowly increasing resistance difficulty)... they might require mental contact (establishing mental contact requires a separate power use and the target can make a saving throw to resist that, even before the desired additional power is attempted...), for example.

But wait, there's more. Every class gets a core ability at first level--this is your reward for taking your first level in that particular class. Experts can spend a Conviction point to gain 4 ranks in any skill. Warriros can spend a Conviction point to remove minor wounds from their character. Adepts? Adepts can spend a Conviction point to emulate any power. Oh, and they get a second ability that allows them to remove all fatigue penalties from their character (remember how I referred to fatigue as a soft control earlier?). Bearing in mind that there are few skills that can't be outright trumped by powers, and that there are powers that can heal your wounds (even the not-so-minor ones), who has the better deal?

And this is where Adepts fail. While there has been discussion as to the possibly dubious value of the Expert role's core ability (it's fairly decent, as it lasts for an entire scene, but... more skill ranks?), the Warrior's core ability is possibly the most useful of the bunch. The ability to remove those "minor" wounds in True20 in combat is very powerful. Those who remember the "meat shield" statement earlier should note that this is how it's managed. Warriors who've taken nicks and minor wounds can shake them off, repeatedly if necessary, to continue on. Granted, if a Warrior has taken more serious damage, that damage and its negative effects remain...

On the subject of the Adept's core ability... it's fairly powerful... but overpowered? That's questionable. Consider that emulating powers using this ability costs Conviction. Conviction that might be better spent rerolling a save (like a damage save, since Adepts don't benefit from Warriors' core ability)... and these powers might be fatiguing, too. And while there are powers to heal damage, if I remember correctly, none aid in fatigue. Also, all roles can emulate feats of their type by spending Conviction (so Experts can spent Conv. to get an Expert feat for a round, Warriors can spend Conv. to get a Warrior feat for a round, and Adepts can spend Conv. to get an Adept feat for a round); the Adept feat list is significantly shorter than that of the other two roles, and the feats are much less useful or tied to supernatural power use.

Also, Adepts' core ability doesn't remove penalties for fatigue; rather, it removes penalties to saving throws made to resist fatigue, and that's a significant difference (Normally, as Adepts use powers, it becomes successively more difficult to resist fatigue... essentially the save decreases by 1 per previous spell cast in a certain period of time, usually either an hour or a day, depending on the GM... the core ability sets the penalty back to 0. In this way, it's a limited version of the Warrior core ability. The Adept's current levels of fatigue remain.). Adepts really don't have it all that good.

Now, one can argue that Experts get shafted... but with the ridiculous number of skills they get, making a couple of characters will quash that argument fairly quickly.

I played briefly in a T20 fantasy session. The adept could Teleport home whenever he felt endangered or needed something or was just bored, could blast mobs with a variety of artillery, could use Object Reading and Mind Reading to solve mysteries, could detect ambushes with Sense Minds, and could fix his boo-boos with Cure. Oh, and whenever it seemed like a warrior's superior combat bonuses gave that class an edge, the adept could dispel that illusion by revving up Combat Sense.

I'd hire him! Really, though... hmmm... the Adept was at least at 6th level then, right (I'm counting nine necessary feats, all prereqs included)? Is that so terrible, considering that every one of those actions, save Sense Minds, is fatiguing (A 6th-level adept has a Will save of +5... how long before he gets fatigued?)? Consider that this character can perform no special skill without risking winding himself. Also, can the character actually hit with those elemental blasts (with an attack bonus that's half an equivalent level Warrior's Defense) or fight at all (remember, the Combat Sense bonus tops out at +5... that's a DC 35 power roll for a +5 bonus that then has to be divided between attack and Defense scores that are each roughly half a Warrrior's)?

I think the idea of the Adept as overpowered tends to be less a result of holes in the rules (and oh, there are holes, make no mistake... look close at two-weapon fighting ) than preconceptions tied to other d20 games. The removal of the "hard limit" on Adept powers alone will not, in my opinion, invalidate other characters. Pure Adepts cannot fight as well as pure Warriors, and pure Experts can perform very effective social-fu on par with many Adept powers (without worrying about fatigue, and in addition to having a vastly superior skill set and a much more impressive feat list, to boot).

 

[Felon]

This is only a problem if you are trying to convert. Personally, I didn't buy the game to emulate another game.

Perhaps not, but you probably did it to try and emulate a certain genre, or combination of genres. In which case, rules for converting elements of that genre into game mechanics would be handy. It would be nice to have rules for things like starship combat.

This is possible. But there are other facets of this, too... consider that when groups want to emulate a particular genre or setting, those "hard" controls become difficult to justify and potentially damaging to immersion. Outside of Vancian works, systems inspired by Vancian works (D&D's magic system), and literature inspired by such systems inspired by Vancian works (D&D novels), there's really not much evidence for "hard" controls on characters' abilities.

There are distinctions between what makes for good literature and what makes for a good game. A game has its own version of what "makes sense" for a character to be able to do. In literature, one cool character can overshadow his comrades. He can either be the focal point of events, or he can wait in the wings serving in an avuncular role while the reader waits eagerly for him to step forward and do something super-badass. In a game, you have a group of players, and most folks don't want to feel like second bananas.

I'd hire him! Really, though... hmmm... the Adept was at least at 6th level then, right (I'm counting nine necessary feats, all prereqs included)? Is that so terrible, considering that every one of those actions, save Sense Minds, is fatiguing (A 6th-level adept has a Will save of +5... how long before he gets fatigued?)?

6th level on the nose. To answer your question, yes it was terrible. Terribly exasperating. No, fatigue did not seem like a strong deterent. He made his fatigue saves when he needed to and was content to take a load off after single-handedly elementally smiting foes or solving a mystery or teleporting back to the safety of his home. The simple truth is, most adventures aren't geared around an overwhelming quantity of encounters.

And let's face it, by your own rationale how can it be argued that fatigue is all that restrictive? After all, if it wasn't a very soft control, then it would constitute the same kind of anti-immersive, "unjustifiable" control that vancian slots represent, eh?

 

[Mercule]

There is also a quick start PDF at the Green Roain True20 wed site that will give you a bit more feel of the game system.

LINK: http://true20.com/support/

Thanks for the link.

Definitely doesn't look like it's for me. While I'm all for a skills-based magic system, there are a lot of other things there that just don't sit right with me.

 

[Treebore]

Felon,

Don't use C&C as an example when you don't know enough to know what your talking about. Limited on options? Yeah, WRONG!! Stick with what you know, enough people disagree with you on that front as it is.

 

[LordEther]

There are distinctions between what makes for good literature and what makes for a good game. A game has its own version of what "makes sense" for a character to be able to do. In literature, one cool character can overshadow his comrades. He can either be the focal point of events, or he can wait in the wings serving in an avuncular role while the reader waits eagerly for him to step forward and do something super-badass. In a game, you have a group of players, and most folks don't want to feel like second bananas.

Granted, that's possible. I agree that no one wants to play "B team" characters. And it seems you've experienced this in True20 play. My experience differs, however. I would contend that good game mechanics can make for a good game reminiscent of good literature (if desired); I feel the Vancian thing fails in both regards (mechanic doesn't reflect many genres and while it is a hard limit, it's extremely restrictive). I've seen little potential for the Adept to grow into a story "focal point," but again, you may have experienced differently.

6th level on the nose. To answer your question, yes it was terrible. Terribly exasperating. No, fatigue did not seem like a strong deterent. He made his fatigue saves when he needed to and was content to take a load off after single-handedly elementally smiting foes or solving a mystery or teleporting back to the safety of his home. The simple truth is, most adventures aren't geared around an overwhelming quantity of encounters.

And honestly, how can you argure that fatigue is all that restrictive? After all, if it wasn't liberal, then it would constitute the same kind of anti-immersive, "unjustifiable" control that vancian slots represent, eh?

Not at all. While I would agree a fatigue mechanic is less restrictive than Vancian slots, the idea that fatigue is not "all that restrictive" assumes that I feel Vancian slots are acceptably restrictive. I don't. I feel they're unnecessarily restrictive and perform poorly at balancing magic users in that they require "tiering" powers according to levels of utility, and established tiers may not always be appropriate to the setting, genre, or situation (for example, a Cat's Grace spell takes up a whole "slot," whether used for a round or the full duration... if she casts the wrong spell in the wrong circumstance, a caster pretty much loses out). But that's just me.

Glad I got that level right.

Again, though, I think there are ways around Adepts making their saves consistently; this balance problem you had does not seem, in my opinion, tied too tightly to the system. Did fatigue saves suffer penalties on an hourly or daily basis? If the former, using the latter method might have solved your entire balance problem, as at a certain point, the character would have just been taking fatigue with each casting. The thing I like about fatigue as a control is that, unlike slots, fatigue does affect other areas (take enough and it affects combat, movement, etc.).

As to the powers you mention and the problems that come with them... that seems much more a story problem than a system problem...

Elemental Blast - You indicate that the character was rolling well, so I'm assuming that that's how this became such a threat... it is a massive damage effect. Massive. But, I don't see Adepts hitting very often (and even with Widened Power, a readied move action or the Evasion/Improved Evasion feats, either purchased or emulated by an Expert with a Conviction point can go far in area effect defense)... except on those "high roller" days (I'm still waiting for mine ), and what can one do about that, eh?

Mind Reading - The problems invovled with mind reading actually transcend gaming system. In just about every system I can think of, mind reading powers can be dangerous to campaigns. Baseline D&D has Mind Reading (and since, as you noted, many adventures aren't based on numerous encounters, the slot system is really questionable as a control on this, since in many cases, you only need to use this power once to learn a given secret). Again, since similar abilities are available in D&D, I'm not seeing where the balance concern might lie... except possibly in D&D's (or d20's) leveled spell system (where such spells/powers aren't available until x level); unfortunately, this tiered system isn't balanced for a generic game and the power is still much more useful for discerning secrets than any ability other characters, such as Fighters and Rogues, ever receive.

Also, I just have problems with the idea of a character having to wait until x level to do things that may be central to a reasonably common setting (Mind Reading would be pretty important in a psychic-centered game, for example, which a generic system should be able to handle; vanilla d20 Modern's performance in this area is somewhat subpar, IMO, for precisely this reason), especially as abstract as levels are and as many character aspects as they affect. It wouldn't make sense, in my opinion, for a system that claims to be generic to require characters to be at x level before being able to read minds. I'm not sure what True20 does wrong with Mind Reading that isn't present in other games. Look at D&D or d20 Modern... it's still easy to use and arguably even more readily available (if you're a wizard, in which case you just find it and copy it into your book), only it's limited by character level (again, a variable and somewhat arbitrary limitation, though you'll note some Tr20 powers curiously have level prereqs... more rules flaws, in my opinion ).

Object Reading - See above. It's in d20. In my experience, there's equal potential for trouble in games ranging from d20 to GURPS to Hero.

Teleport - Again... is there an actual problem with the Teleport ability that renders other characters somehow weaker? Who does it really hurt, and why? I can see how the ability can be useful, even irritating, but I do not understand how it's unbalanced for a character to be able to teleport, even if it's "only" fatigue. A "hard limit" slot system control on the number of times per day the ability can be used is questionable as a limitation, as for those times, there is *no* opportunity for consequences. And how many times a day will a character need to teleport for an in-character reason? A character might escape from danger... or play courier... or steal something and hide it away... but I'm still not coming up with anything that significantly intrudes on the Expert or Warrior's respective niches (although it can be used to circumvent Climb checks, I'm not sure that's terribly unbalanced outside of an arboreal hidden Martian utopia setting).

All Together, Now - Now, arguably, there might be a problem with a character who can do all of these things... but I'm not seeing it. I don't see how Teleportation outshines other, non-mage characters; transportation isn't an Expert or Warrior niche. I don't see how Mind Reading powers or Object Reading powers or both powers together eclipse other players any more in True20 than in any other game. A D&D Wizard or Sorcerer could have access to both abilities, if at a later level (but the nature of the problem means that the level at which it arises is irrevelent, right? A character could still "break" investigative adventures, which have little to do with level, if the GM doesn't have her countermeasures readied).

The problems you mention don't seem to be system faults, to me (and again, I'm not arguing that there aren't any... there are).

 

[Psion]

Don't use C&C as an example when you don't know enough to know what your talking about. Limited on options? Yeah, WRONG!!

I have to back felon up on that one. C&C's "bragging points" include stripping out feats and reducing skills to an abstract system. Compared to the likes of True20 and core d20, that is "limited options."

We can all have our favorites, but let us not misrepresent.

 

[Kesh]

True20 is much more of a toolbox (in the vein of GURPS) than standard d20. Out of the box, it can be made into anything you want. By default, it doesn't really have much outside the example settings given. So, yes, if you really want to get into the fine details of making, say, a Battlestar Galactica game, you're going to get mired in working out specific stats and such.

However, for a more generic "space adventure" game, it's a lot more open to play right away.

 

[Nomad4life]

True20 is much more of a toolbox (in the vein of GURPS) than standard d20. Out of the box, it can be made into anything you want. By default, it doesn't really have much outside the example settings given. So, yes, if you really want to get into the fine details of making, say, a Battlestar Galactica game, you're going to get mired in working out specific stats and such.

And this, perhaps, is the making or breaking selling point of True20 in general. It is, above all else, a toolkit rather than a complete RPG game. If you love tinkering around and making your own settings (as I do) True20 is very good for that.

If, on the other hand, you just want to open the box and dive right into a game- the system might have too much of a “generic” feel for some.

 

[Odhanan]

Yep. Generic, tasteless, bland. I don't mean to say there's anything wrong with liking True20. There isn't!

I just don't understand what people like so much about it. The three generic, oversimplified classes completely throw me off. I guess I just don't connect with the ruleset.