Where else can the d20 "core" mechanic stretch / drift?

[pemerton]

I don't think anyone can argue against the idea that D20 makes things fiddly and technical (of course, there are other systems even more so). Consistent?....perhaps, I would say less from PC build choices and more from unified DC charts and resolution mechanics. Balanced?...the system that gave us terms like CoDzilla? Diplomancer? I don't think so. 4e manages something close to balance, but does so by wrapping the D20 core with the AEDU system and Skill Challenges that create a mathematical "corral" by which they restrained the earlier system in order to contain its natural imbalance tendencies!

CoDzilla isn't an outcome of d20 as such, though - it's an outcome of pre-d20 remnants (mostly AD&D spells and spell-by-level charts). I think those parts of 4e often criticised for "blandness" - AEDU, monster build rules, magic items etc - are more in the spirit of d20 than CoDzilla, as they further move away from the crazy AD&D lists and in the direction of technical consistency characteristic of d20.

I think that 4e shows, in general terms, the limits of taking d20 in a more story/narrativist direction - how can that be done, whilst staying true to the technical fiddliness of the underlying engine. Reading 13th Age, I think it relies more on non-d20 elements (eg OUT, icons) to achieve that goal - though the escalation die is an interesting technical device for injecting pacing into d20.

the permissions-based remainder works against it. The naive "I want to <heroic stunt>!" is so often met with "You can't until/unless you have <a feat, spell, magic item, power, class ability, racial ability, sufficient skill ranks, etc.>" 4e (I think) tries to ameliorate this a bit with p42, but it still seems a bit like "permission-with-an-escape-clause." I contrast this with games like FATE or MHRP, which aren't so much about permission as they are about definition/description (IMO).

I can't comment on 3E, but I don't think this is an entirely fair contrast for 4e.

In MHRP, genre/character constraints on framing are in place - so permissible declarations are limited by those considerations. But with XP gain, and adding new powers or specialties, that can change.

In 4e, the parameters of the fiction change with level-up - things become more gonzo - but the constraints at lower-level are in my view better seen as occupying the same space as genre constraints in a free-descriptor game like HeroWars/Quest or MHRP, than as occupying the "permissions" space that they would in a rules-tight version of AD&D.

The tight conflation of power and concept makes it "unfair" for a GM to allow Player A to have more build units (character points, levels etc.) than Player B.

Agreed. Every PC is at roughly the same degree of "gonzo-osity". I think that as long as you have non-abstract resolution (in d20, I'm thinking of combat) you can't achieve rough balance of effectiveness across players while allowing variations of gonzo-osity across PCs.

Overall, I would say that the issues you see in d20 are some of the reasons that 3E doesn't appeal to me, but I think I see a much bigger difference between 3E and 4e than you do - similar fiddly techniques, but deployed to quite different ends.

 

[Ratskinner]

CoDzilla isn't an outcome of d20 as such, though - it's an outcome of pre-d20 remnants (mostly AD&D spells and spell-by-level charts). I think those parts of 4e often criticised for "blandness" - AEDU, monster build rules, magic items etc - are more in the spirit of d20 than CoDzilla, as they further move away from the crazy AD&D lists and in the direction of technical consistency characteristic of d20.

For CoDzilla, maybe, but many things like the Diplomancer didn't exist previously. I mean, spend a day perusing old CharOp builds. I would suggest that such technical consistency doesn't really exist outside the 4e additional framework. Without a presumed numerical progression (like 4e had), there's really no good way to balance all the little fiddly bits against each other. What seems like a reasonable boost or ability for the second level of prestige class intended to be your 7th level, might be wildly over or under powered when you dip that prestige class (the fourth one, BTW) just to get said ability. Don't forget, this works the other way, too. It's not just overpowered combos, its underpowered under-optimized "traps" as well (I suspect there a great many more of these than we are even aware.) Note the changes that 4e made (e.g. paragons vs. prestige). I mean, there's a lot of reasons people think 4e is more balanced than 3e, and I don't see a lot of them as rooted in the core d20 mechanics.

Otherwise, I think we may be crossing wires on what counts as the "core" of d20. (Which is perfectly understandable as it wasn't clearly defined, AFAICT) First, there is the mechanic (d20 + modifiers vs. AC/DC possibly with damage/effect roll). The rest is the source of those modifiers: Attribute Scores (and modifiers), Feats, Class & Class abilities, Spells & Effects, Skill points, Conditions, a few situational modifiers. That's about where I'd draw my line for "core" d20 mechanics.

I think that 4e shows, in general terms, the limits of taking d20 in a more story/narrativist direction - how can that be done, whilst staying true to the technical fiddliness of the underlying engine. Reading 13th Age, I think it relies more on non-d20 elements (eg OUT, icons) to achieve that goal - though the escalation die is an interesting technical device for injecting pacing into d20.

Possibly, if we strip d20 down to just the "roll d20 + mods vs. DC" we could easily substitute that in for "roll+Stat" in Dungeon World's mechanics (change the numbers to reflect the new method). Although, that does chuck out most of the fiddly business in the d20 thing...I dunno if that still counts, or if that could all be re-worked somehow to make sense in the broader Dungeon World way of doing things. (Maybe Power Attack adds a line to "Hack-n-Slash?") I just got 13th Age a few days ago, and I can't yet tell if I'm disappointed or overjoyed. Either way, its still a bunch of neat stuff to steal for other D&D games.

I can't comment on 3E, but I don't think this is an entirely fair contrast for 4e.

In MHRP, genre/character constraints on framing are in place - so permissible declarations are limited by those considerations. But with XP gain, and adding new powers or specialties, that can change.

In 4e, the parameters of the fiction change with level-up - things become more gonzo - but the constraints at lower-level are in my view better seen as occupying the same space as genre constraints in a free-descriptor game like HeroWars/Quest or MHRP, than as occupying the "permissions" space that they would in a rules-tight version of AD&D.

I think 4e does a much better job of making concept accessible than most d20 implementations, to be sure. That extra layer of numerical control gives a way to have, say, an effective dual-weapon fighter at first level. All one needs to do is write up a series of appropriate powers. However, there's limits to how "easy" that actually is for a novel concept, and compared to a free-descriptor system like FATE, or even MHRP with all its vagaries, its incomparably harder.

Overall, I would say that the issues you see in d20 are some of the reasons that 3E doesn't appeal to me, but I think I see a much bigger difference between 3E and 4e than you do - similar fiddly techniques, but deployed to quite different ends.

Probably. Although I see 4e's architectural changes as primarily a containment system for 3e's "core". Which, I think, is overall probably a good idea. Trailblazer stands out in my mind, as a product that tries to retrofit some of those changes into the 3.5/PF core system a little more closely. I haven't gotten to try it out.

 

[pemerton]

many things like the Diplomancer didn't exist previously. I mean, spend a day perusing old CharOp builds. I would suggest that such technical consistency doesn't really exist outside the 4e additional framework. Without a presumed numerical progression (like 4e had), there's really no good way to balance all the little fiddly bits against each other.

I agree with this.

I see the 4e-style presumed progression as a natural development of the "technicalisation" inherent in d20 - extending it from pure character build into consideratins of action resolution.

I think we may be crossing wires on what counts as the "core" of d20.

Probably. I don't think I have that strong a handle on d20 as distinct from 3E and 4e. (Eg I see OGL Conan and Arcana Unearthed/Evolved as bascially 3E variants; and I don't know M&M, True20, Spycraft et al other than by reputation.)

You hopefully can work out roughly what I think of as d20 from my comments above and upthread about "technicalisation" and associated fiddliness.

I think 4e does a much better job of making concept accessible than most d20 implementations, to be sure. That extra layer of numerical control gives a way to have, say, an effective dual-weapon fighter at first level. All one needs to do is write up a series of appropriate powers. However, there's limits to how "easy" that actually is for a novel concept, and compared to a free-descriptor system like FATE, or even MHRP with all its vagaries, its incomparably harder.

Agreed. It's "free descriptor" via long, fiddly lists that you have to pay professional designers to get right! ie it's a game design merged with a marketing strategy (which to me is pretty consistent with your opening post that I replied to upthread, about d20 being a way of dripfeeding PC elements - more than a side effect, I would say, but still not sure it's the whole purpose on the game side - it probably is the whole purpose on the marketing side, though miniatures and battlemaps are another marketing purpose).

I see 4e's architectural changes as primarily a containment system for 3e's "core". Which, I think, is overall probably a good idea. Trailblazer stands out in my mind, as a product that tries to retrofit some of those changes into the 3.5/PF core system a little more closely. I haven't gotten to try it out.

Although I see 4e more as a rational development than a containment device, I'm sure you're right that Trailblazer is closer to the 3E ethos.

 

[Ratskinner]

Agreed. It's "free descriptor" via long, fiddly lists that you have to pay professional designers to get right! ie it's a game design merged with a marketing strategy (which to me is pretty consistent with your opening post that I replied to upthread, about d20 being a way of dripfeeding PC elements - more than a side effect, I would say, but still not sure it's the whole purpose on the game side - it probably is the whole purpose on the marketing side, though miniatures and battlemaps are another marketing purpose).

Oh yeah, definitely on the market side. I'm not sure it has a big motivation on the game side, although some might find virtue in it. Several of my OSR friends look at anything WotC produces very skeptically, because they figure its all about promulgating the splat.

 

[pemerton]

Oh yeah, definitely on the market side. I'm not sure it has a big motivation on the game side, although some might find virtue in it. Several of my OSR friends look at anything WotC produces very skeptically, because they figure its all about promulgating the splat.

I think it's pretty obviously about promulgating the splat! But on the game side, if you want something that combines some virtues of free descriptor play, with some virtues (whatever exactly they might be) of technical fiddly play, it's hard for me to see another way of doing it. Expecting people to come up with their own technical fiddly stuff seems a bit of a tall order.

Hence my view that there is a game rationale as well as a marketing rationale. (Again I'm talking about 4e. I'm not the person to try and explain the game rationale of 3E, as it doesn't seem to me to exhibit free descriptor virtues in the way 4e does, because it lacks the assumed numerical progression and the relatively uniform resource allocation, and so just seems like an underdone technical system - I personally think Rolemaster and HARP do that sort of thing better.)

 

[pemerton]

I just got 13th Age a few days ago, and I can't yet tell if I'm disappointed or overjoyed. Either way, its still a bunch of neat stuff to steal for other D&D games.

I think when you compare it to the latest Next package, you'll be overjoyed!

 

[Ratskinner]

I think it's pretty obviously about promulgating the splat! But on the game side, if you want something that combines some virtues of free descriptor play, with some virtues (whatever exactly they might be) of technical fiddly play, it's hard for me to see another way of doing it. Expecting people to come up with their own technical fiddly stuff seems a bit of a tall order.

Within the confines of d20...sure.

I mean, one could theoretically recreate FATE with a d20 resolution. Give a (relatively brief) list of pre-defined aspects and stunts, and call it a day. Because of the mechanical differences, you really don't have the same kind of need for that delicate balancing in FATE. (dunno whether the die mechanic might change that a bit) The technical fiddly bits are all pretty standardized, even if the "descriptor" parts aren't. Most of the recent versions of FATE have sections that spell out what exactly a typical stunt can do right in the core rules. So if, for your game, you need to develop the "Blood Wizard", doing so is very transparent and often fairly trivial. Of course, that capability relies on a certain amount of "meta" mechanical function, which D&D and its audience are not really keen on (in spite of it appearing in the game in other places).

Now, there is also the argument from legacy. D&D has a number of sacred cows. Which, IIRC, was a very long fairly specific list during the pre-3e development ("a fifth level wizard can cast a 5d6 Fireball"), a shorter and more abstract list for 4e ("Characters of different iconic abilities fighting battles in dungeons"), and a very nebulous "core experience" for 5e (?). At this point, I don't know what mechanics pass the "core experience" muster or why. I think the fuss about Dungeon World's OSR street cred kinda highlights this sort of confusion of mechanical and narrative sacred cows.

Hence my view that there is a game rationale as well as a marketing rationale. (Again I'm talking about 4e. I'm not the person to try and explain the game rationale of 3E, as it doesn't seem to me to exhibit free descriptor virtues in the way 4e does, because it lacks the assumed numerical progression and the relatively uniform resource allocation, and so just seems like an underdone technical system - I personally think Rolemaster and HARP do that sort of thing better.)

I suspect that by the time 4e was in development, they felt a bit confined by expectations of the d20 engine. That is, they had created new mechanical sacred cows of things like feats, skills, etc. and wanted to give some sort of nod to 3e's massive fiddly-bit customization menus.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think when you compare it to the latest Next package, you'll be overjoyed!

I haven't really commented on the latest package yet, because I haven't thoroughly dug into it....but its looking that way.

So far, I only have a few quibbles with 13th Age. First, I have trouble seeing how all classes couldn't have more closely approached the simplicity of the Barbarian, Paladin, or Ranger. I don't really see a rationale as to why you have to play a complicated class with spell lists to be a magical person.* Secondly, I have difficulty seeing where a good, simple and solid multiclassing strategy will fit in. Which isn't a deal-breaker, but still a bit problematic.

* I have supplemental Dungeon World alternative playbook called "The Mage" by Jacob Randolph. It seems to encapsulate a lot of spellcasting in just a few "Moves" rather than a spell list. Its quite clever.

 

[innerdude]

D&D has a number of sacred cows. Which, IIRC, was a very long fairly specific list during the pre-3e development ("a fifth level wizard can cast a 5d6 Fireball"), a shorter and more abstract list for 4e ("Characters of different iconic abilities fighting battles in dungeons"), and a very nebulous "core experience" for 5e (?)

... snip ...

I suspect that by the time 4e was in development, they felt a bit confined by expectations of the d20 engine. That is, they had created new mechanical sacred cows of things like feats, skills, etc. and wanted to give some sort of nod to 3e's massive fiddly-bit customization menus.

I think perhaps this is more in line with the intent of my original question--is there something about the core d20 resolution mechanic, some sort of inherent bias towards a particular type of game construction, that pretty much limits it from ever straying outside the D&D "genus" of games?

It's interesting that you bring up FATE, just because the entire d20 mechanic seems to run counter to the 2d6 + / - concept of FATE, which is designed to totally emphasize what the character is. It's not so much if a character is "capable" or "allowed" to do something mechanically in FATE---it's a question of whether the character "is the type of person" who'd be making the attempt in the first place?

This is one of the things I think pemerton has vocalized very well over the last year about the dichotomy between 3.x's "simulationist" intentions wrapped in what is in reality a "gonzo" set of fantasy genre conceits. In D&D, characters don't roll the dice on many checks simply because there's "no chance of realistic success."

I've never played FATE, so if someone out there can correct me on this please feel free, but in FATE it seems that you may or may not make a check based on "success probability," but it's MORE likely that you'd choose to make a check based on how the character is interacting with the world / NPC (tagging or compelling). It's more about the character's "place" in the game world, and how the character perceives their own "nature" than it is about the mechanics underpinning success probability.

I guess what I'm saying is that to this point, the core d20 mechanic has never really looked into changing that basic input / output strucure.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think perhaps this is more in line with the intent of my original question--is there something about the core d20 resolution mechanic, some sort of inherent bias towards a particular type of game construction, that pretty much limits it from ever straying outside the D&D "genus" of games?

Well, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I usually manage to make what we talk about relevant to thread topics.....eventually .

It's interesting that you bring up FATE, just because the entire d20 mechanic seems to run counter to the 2d6 + / - concept of FATE, which is designed to totally emphasize what the character is. It's not so much if a character is "capable" or "allowed" to do something mechanically in FATE---it's a question of whether the character "is the type of person" who'd be making the attempt in the first place?

I think there's a lot to this. Fundamentally, I think it comes down the the presumption of playing a character/story/narrative, rather than a combat-which-may-be-story. In FATE, combat takes up much less development space, and more importantly combat and non-combat abilities work on the same basis and within each other's realms as well. A "social" character can use his abilities in combat as well, dealing stress and creating advantages just like a "combat" character mechanically (but not narratively).

This is one of the things I think pemerton has vocalized very well over the last year about the dichotomy between 3.x's "simulationist" intentions wrapped in what is in reality a "gonzo" set of fantasy genre conceits. In D&D, characters don't roll the dice on many checks simply because there's "no chance of realistic success."

I've never played FATE, so if someone out there can correct me on this please feel free, but in FATE it seems that you may or may not make a check based on "success probability," but it's MORE likely that you'd choose to make a check based on how the character is interacting with the world / NPC (tagging or compelling). It's more about the character's "place" in the game world, and how the character perceives their own "nature" than it is about the mechanics underpinning success probability.

Definitely, at least IME.

I've never tried my little experiment of running FATE with a d20, but I don't suspect it would go well.. Bell or peaked curve mechanics like FATE's default 4dF or d6-d6 tend to emphasize small differences in modifier's more, but de-emphasize large ones. Which has two effects (I think): first, FATE character mechanics don't need very many "points" to make a character "good" at something. (Conversely, FATE seems to have a bit more trouble handling D&D-style incremental advancement.) Secondly, its easy to have a situational modifiers get really important. As a result, a climactic FATE scene involving a combat or conflict with a BBEG will usually take the form of the heroes building up temporary aspects until someone can invoke a few of them for a "kill shot." In play, it generates a very stark contrast with D&D's typical (anticlimactic) battle modes of either insta-kill scry-and-fry or anvil-chorus slog-fest.

I do not know if a "flat" mechanic like a d20. (I suppose the reverse experiment would be to run a "d20" game with a 2d10 or 3d6 or something.)

I guess what I'm saying is that to this point, the core d20 mechanic has never really looked into changing that basic input / output strucure.

I think I'd have to agree.