What's the difference between D20 Fantasy and D&D?

BroccoliRage said:
Now, hold on one second there, Stu. :D This one isn't going to slide.

You don't even have to leave the subject of cars. "Boot" and "bonnet" instead of "trunk" and "hood"? I can at least understand ones like "Rotor arm" instead of "Rotor", but most British ones are sillier than the American. I'd hate to see what they call a stick shift. :p
 

log in or register to remove this ad

PapersAndPaychecks said:
No intention to ridicule you, but US English does make me laugh sometimes. :)

Let's see if I can figure this out... "stick" = "stick shift" = "manual transmission", yes?


British english gets me sometimes, too. Like how you pronounce the word botulism as "steak and kidney pie".

:D :D :D
 

Gentlegamer said:
What I've found very perplexing is why those who left (A)D&D in the past for "being such a bad system" are so adamant that the game they are currently playing "really" be D&D.

Easy - I never left (A)D&D for "being such a bad system."

I left (A)D&D because D&D 3E is "such a better system."

It's like, I really, really like good vanilla ice cream. I will, however, pass it up every time for cookies and cream from the Somerset Creamery. Some things are good, but others are awesome. :)
 


Storm Raven said:
They aren't an exponential progression. You should go back and look at them.
No need, I've seen them many times. Doubling (or approximately doubling) the XP needed for each level is exponential. Two raised to the power of x is the exponential function with base 2 -- 2^x = e^(x * ln 2) where e is the base of the natural logarithm. Now the base isn't 2 for all of the experience-point tables; for some it is less.

Yes, thieves were introduced as a supplement, but weren't in the OD&D rules. They were optional. Hence, they cannot be part of what makes D&D "real D&D". The same with nonhumans, class limits, and level limits.
One might classify thieves as "optional" in the strict sense, but as far as class- and level-limits are concerned, they were only "optional" in the broad sense, that is, they are optional under "Rule Zero."

However, TSR regarded the Thief class as standard enough to introduce a sub-class of the Thief (the Assassin) in the Blackmoor Supplement.
 

Storm Raven said:
When I'm playing GURPS, I say "I'm playing GURPS". When I'm playing BESM, I say "I'm playing BESM".

When I say I'm playing D&D, I mean, I am playing D&D.
So I guess maybe the rules do matter after all? :p ;)
 


Geron Raveneye said:
My D&D and your D&D
Sitting by the fire
My D&D says to your D&D
I'm gonna set your d20 on fire
hey now
hey now

there isn't any need to harm the dice. can't we all just get along


diaglo "a dicefreak" Ooi
 

trancejeremy said:
You don't even have to leave the subject of cars. "Boot" and "bonnet" instead of "trunk" and "hood"? I can at least understand ones like "Rotor arm" instead of "Rotor", but most British ones are sillier than the American. I'd hate to see what they call a stick shift. :p

Yes, d20 players and groggies everywhere have finally found a reason to unite: Our hatred of British English!

British English is teh suxxors! AE&G R0xxorz mY B0xx0RZ!!!




Kidding! Put the gun down, P&P! ;)
 

dcas said:
No need, I've seen them many times. Doubling (or approximately doubling) the XP needed for each level is exponential. Two raised to the power of x is the exponential function with base 2 -- 2^x = e^(x * ln 2) where e is the base of the natural logarithm. Now the base isn't 2 for all of the experience-point tables; for some it is less.

No, the tables are a geometric progression.

One might classify thieves as "optional" in the strict sense, but as far as class- and level-limits are concerned, they were only "optional" in the broad sense, that is, they are optional under "Rule Zero."

They were optional in the same sense thieves were. And since OD&D without supplements is clearly D&D, none of them are needed for a game to be D&D.
 

Remove ads

Top