True20 -- Who has tried and it not stuck with it?

[jdrakeh]

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.

It's mainly in regard to attacks and damage where supernatural powers are concerned, with each supernatural power basically containing it own damage/attack subsystem (i.e., damage, degrees of damage, and attack effects in general tend to be calculated differently for different supernatural powers). Some powers weren't an issue (or weren't for me) while others were a furious exercise in on the fly algebra.

 

[VictorC]

Tried it, thought it was no less streamlined then 3.5. It was, however less customizable, and in my opinion less fun.

 

[Desdichado]

I picked it up (IIRC) on pdf when it was a free download from rpgnow as a special of the week or something like that. I also played three sessions using that system at GenCon last year.

I didn't stick with it because although the playtests went fine, I didn't feel that the experience was substantially improved over other d20-based "multigenre" toolkits. I still prefer a d20 Modern based one, for instance, in no small part because it's easier to integrate other d20 material without fiddling with it.

Also, using a pdf rulebook sucks. If I had it in physical form I'd have been more likely to use it. But basically it just isn't so good that it overcomes my inertia with a more "standard" d20 system.

 

[Pinotage]

Tried it, even designed a few paths for it, but found that I just couldn't do with True20 what I could do with standard d20. Complexity has never bothered me that much in a game system (although clunkyness does), so I just stuck with the system that did what I wanted it to do.

Pinotage

 

[jdrakeh]

Complexity has never bothered me that much in a game system (although clunkyness does). . .

That might be what it is. . . the math that I allude to above wasn't so much complex as it was wholly inelegant in implementation.

 

[Greg K]

I still prefer a d20 Modern based one, for instance, in no small part because it's easier to integrate other d20 material without fiddling with it.

Give me d20 Modern with Blood and Fists, Elements of Magic:ME, Psychic's Handbook, and Modern Player's Companion, and I am a pretty happy camper (although I still want to get Skill Focus: Talking and Hot Pursuit). However, I love the Toughness Save and prefer True20 Conviction to Action Points.

Also, using a pdf rulebook sucks. If I had it in physical form I'd have been more likely to use it..

This is why I am holding off trying it until I get a physical copy (well, physical copies of both the core book and the companion as I think the game needs hybrid classes just as I did with the generic classes in Unearthed Arcana).

 

[LoneWolf23]

I felt the magic system lacked some 'oompf!' It's hard to simulate D&D-style settings with just the corebook.

 

[Pinotage]

I felt the magic system lacked some 'oompf!' It's hard to simulate D&D-style settings with just the corebook.

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten about that. It was very limited - for a core system that's fine, but it needed something to boost it a bit further.

Pinotage

 

[Pbartender]

We played it. We liked it. It was a lot of fun.

General preference in our group, however, is for games targetted to a specific genre or setting, rather than generic "try to it it all" games.

 

[Desdichado]

I felt the magic system lacked some 'oompf!' It's hard to simulate D&D-style settings with just the corebook.

Confused. Why not simulate D&D style settings with D&D and use True20 for something else?