In a vein similar to this post http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205494 (including not starting a flame war), who's tried Green Ronin's True20 system and discovered it was not for them an why. Thanks!
True20 -- Who has tried and it not stuck with it?
- Thread starter joela
- Start date
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
I tried it and didn't stick with it because I was expecting a simplified d20 and didn't really get that. Ultimately, for me, it ended up being just as complex as Standard d20, merely in different areas. I ended up sticking with Standard d20 because, while it lacked the more flexible nature of True 20, it also lacked much of the fiddly math (i.e., highly mutable mechanics) that True 20 relies on to gain said edge.
Galethorn
First Post
I tried it, and loved it, and ran it for two years, but eventually had to put it aside because my group wanted some plain old 3.5e.
They essentially said that the powers system was both too vague and limiting at the same time.
They also said that the Warrior/Adept/Expert dichotomy didn't give them enough structure, and ended up giving too few choices for characters.
What they liked was the damage system--we've all disliked HP and AC for quite some time--and Conviction.
Since the move back to 3.5, I've been missing conviction, and not minding HP or AC as much as I thought I would. I'm also disliking the amount of prep time to stat up the three or four classed NPCs I use in a session, as well as making sure that the treasure I come up with isn't too powerful; in True20, I could pretty much just eyeball it.
On the other hand, the 'problems' inherent in running a lower-magic setting in 3.5 have proven to be much less worrisome in practice than they seem to be on paper.
Overall, my feelings are that True20 is perfect for me as a GM or player, but what my group wants to play is what's ultimately most important.
They essentially said that the powers system was both too vague and limiting at the same time.
They also said that the Warrior/Adept/Expert dichotomy didn't give them enough structure, and ended up giving too few choices for characters.
What they liked was the damage system--we've all disliked HP and AC for quite some time--and Conviction.
Since the move back to 3.5, I've been missing conviction, and not minding HP or AC as much as I thought I would. I'm also disliking the amount of prep time to stat up the three or four classed NPCs I use in a session, as well as making sure that the treasure I come up with isn't too powerful; in True20, I could pretty much just eyeball it.
On the other hand, the 'problems' inherent in running a lower-magic setting in 3.5 have proven to be much less worrisome in practice than they seem to be on paper.
Overall, my feelings are that True20 is perfect for me as a GM or player, but what my group wants to play is what's ultimately most important.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Tried it, liked aspects of it - as did almost everyone - and so used it for a while. Fun was had.
But I decided (well, re-re-remembered) that I can always modify D&D/d20/OGL to be more to my tastes, and more to those of the people I GM for. In the end, I can do a better job of that - for our purposes - than any group of strangers (e.g., people in a RPG company) out there.
So that's what I went back to doing. There are a couple of things I took from True20 and injected into my 'd20' hybrid from hell, and I believe it's been better since then. But there are also bits and pieces from all over the place, for example my own mind, and those of a few of the other localnutcases gamers.
It isn't quite how I'd do a fast-playing 3-role or classless d20 system, anyway. It works fine, and suits some styles of play really well, but I can be terribly particular and stubborn when it comes to game design, so I'm probably better off just doing my own thing, in all honesty.
But I decided (well, re-re-remembered) that I can always modify D&D/d20/OGL to be more to my tastes, and more to those of the people I GM for. In the end, I can do a better job of that - for our purposes - than any group of strangers (e.g., people in a RPG company) out there.
So that's what I went back to doing. There are a couple of things I took from True20 and injected into my 'd20' hybrid from hell, and I believe it's been better since then. But there are also bits and pieces from all over the place, for example my own mind, and those of a few of the other local
It isn't quite how I'd do a fast-playing 3-role or classless d20 system, anyway. It works fine, and suits some styles of play really well, but I can be terribly particular and stubborn when it comes to game design, so I'm probably better off just doing my own thing, in all honesty.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
tried it. Found there wasn't enough meat in the core book.
if they released a deluxe edition with more game mechanics and less setting material, I'd probably give it another look.
if they released a deluxe edition with more game mechanics and less setting material, I'd probably give it another look.
dpmcalister
Explorer
Had the book and the PDF, read through it once but didn't like it (there were still levels there for a start) so sold it.
GreatLemur
Explorer
Could you elaborate on the fiddly math? I haven't played it yet myself, and I'd love to know what to watch out for if I ever get a chance to pitch it to my group. Is it the whole multi-threshold DC thing? As in, "Fail the save and this happens, but fail the save by X points, and this happens", etc. I know one player in particular would probably not dig that.jdrakeh said:
