Why Convert to d20?

[Psion]

The simpler the system, the easier it is to translate between systems.

And HERO and GURPS (which he mentioned in the statement you replied to here) are simpler than 3e? I think not.

I play hero. I love hero. It's very flexible. What it is not is very accessible. It is just over the head of some players.

Uh, why do people who are playing other RPGs want to go to the d20 RPG? Why should they have to leave their games for d20 just because D&D happens to be popular?

Because gaming is a group activity and having players is more important than esoteric considerations of RPG superiority.

No, what they are catering too is the "preceived" majority of gamers who play ONLY D&D or d20 because they either don't have time, desire, knowledge of, or have been mass-marketed to death not to experience other systems.

Not IME. My experience is that a majority of D&D players who have been in the hobby for any legth of time HAS tried different systems.

But here's the rub, though. There are a lot of different systems out there, and once you get outside of D&D, the commonality between the gaming experiences of any two gamers goes down. Further, some gamers get sick of learning new systems that do the same thing; not all gamers like learning new systems. It's not because they are LAZY. It's because gaming is supposed to be FUN and learning a new game every few weeks is a chore, and some people prefer to spend more time playing and less time learning the game.

Saying d20/D&D is the best system out there is like saying that because currently Ford sells the most SUVs that they are the best SUVs ever made.

Perhaps. But I invite you to stop thinking in terms of which game system is the best and start to ask yourself: is learning a new game system to do game type X or Y worth the effort?

In some cases it is. I still do not use d20 for some things and there are still other things I would play. But it is a good game, better put together than many on the market. Not the best. But many.

But if you add to that the avialability of players and the fact that it will take me less time to learn the foibles of the game that usually only comes with several sessions of play, that is a pretty strong plus on top of the quality of the system itself, enough so to put it above many competitors for many purposes.

 

[Psion]

double post.

 

[Psion]

Some people get stuck on one system and they don't really want to learn another.

And I don't blame them. Unless the system offers me a lot of advantages, I see little reason I should take the time and effort to learn a new system when I could be gaming (and I mean gaming proficiently, vice the "testing the waters" gaming that follows the introduction of a new game.)

I went through the "new system treadmill" in the 90s. No more for me, thanks.

 

[evildmguy]

Good discussion!

Greetings!

As I indirectly started this post, as it was based on a quote from a post of mine, I thought I should chime in.

I like d20. d20 greatest strength is that it is simple and it appeals to the more casual gamer. By casual, I am specifically speaking about my wife and some other friends who didn't want to play a rules intensive game set. d20 is perfect for them. The core mechanic of roll d20, add modifiers, get really high, is very simple to understand. That works. For this reason, I like d20.

I also like DND 3E. I think it is the best version of DND. If a player can come up with a concept, 3E does a good job of being able to represent that character. It won't be perfect but it is closer than previous editions. There is also a TON of variety between two classes of the same level and perhaps race compared to previous versions of DND. That alone has been wonderful to see.

For that reason, I like d20 because it promotes RPGs and gets new people into the fold.

Now, here is where the rest is my own experiences and wants in a game system. I am not going for a flame or a troll, but talking about myself and my own preferences. Yes, you can disagree. It is your right. I hope you do because if I can still think what I think in light of criticism or complaint, it helps me reaffirm those ideas. This is all personal to me and I am not asking any of you to change your ideas.

The reason I like variety in games is their ability to simulate books/tv/movies. I am NOT looking for a perfect life simulation from my role playing game. I do think it would be nice to be able to run a game where the best scenes from book/tv/movie can be replicated.

I am personally thinking of the example where a person is wounded and it is a struggle to do whatever it is they need to do.

d20 doesn't do this situation because it only imposes penalties under certain conditions. For this particular example, it is because of hit points and the definition of hit points that this situation can't be done. Since Hit points are an abstraction, having 1 or 10 hit points left has no difference IN GAME MECHANICS. (I do understand that some people will role play this but I will get to that in a minute.) Without tacking on a status, such as fatigued or stunned, a character can still operate fine. Without such a status, they don't even have a penalty under the d20 rules.

In contrast, there are system out there that have levels of wounds. (d6 Star Wars, White Wolf, Alternity) In these systems, not only did you have a certain amount of damage, but it was a type as well. (Fatigue, stun, mortal, wound, incapacitated, etc.)

So, getting back to what I was saying before, these disctinctions allow a merging of role playing AND game mechanics. And that, my friends, is what I like to see and why I like Alternity so much. In my humble opinion, that system manages to do that merge of role playing and game mechanics by allowing the game mechanics to help role playing without strangling or forcing role playing. A player knows what it means if they are "incapacitated", compared to down to 15 hit points.

(There is another level of argument here based on levels. In d20, being down to 15 hit points means something different if a characters max is 20 and they took 5 one point hits, compared to a max of 120 hit points.)

Now, while I really like what I have read in d20 Modern, I am not thrilled with the new MDT (massive damage threshold) rules. While it does make guns more realistic, and I am all for that based on my favorite system, I think that if they have VP/WP or HPs, why not use them? I think Spycraft did an excellent job of using an existing system and allowing high hit points (my players like that) and still having guns lethal.

[I personally might go so far as to not use WPs for criticals, although that does change the other mechanics as Monte Cook said in an LOS, and just use hit points because that is what d20 seems to be written for. That's fine and if that is the case, I would rather use what it was written for than try and tack on something else that changes a lot. As Monte said, it is a big change to go even from hit points to WP/VPs or to use armor as damage reduction. I can't wait to read what he came up with!]

Regardless of the above paragraphs, my point is that even with the new MDT rules, without a special status, being at 5 hit points still allows a character to act as if they had full hit points. There are no penalties.

I understand why d20 Modern did what they did. At least, I think so. It keeps it simple, which is the point of d20 systems. Again, with regards to my wife and her not wanting heavy rule systems, that's great.

For myself, though, I like seeing systems with a bit more realism in them. Nothing will be perfect. Each person will have to find that system that they like and stick with it as best they can. I personally like Alternity. I think that system has heroic elements while still having realism in it as well. (I also find that it is very easy to make Alternity heroic without having to do much, if any, work. I do think d20 isn't that easy to change again as Monte said. Many of the elements are too closely inter-related now to easily make changes to d20, specifically DND. THIS ISN'T BAD. It doesn't make the system less fun, just less realistic as *I* define and want realism.) There are other systems that also have this ability. Buffy, White Wolf, SW d6 and I am sure others do as well. (Did GURPS? I don't think so but I don't remember off hand.)

Therefore, in conclusion, when I say that I don't want to see everything "blindly" converted to d20, it is because I would like to see other supported systems out there with different options than what d20 has. I am NOT negating d20. I just like different options. Isn't that what d20 is all about?

Again, this is based on my experience that game mechanics influence role playing. I like it when my group plays DND by the rules, then we play another game system and the players realize that the other game had some cool elements that d20 didn't. When we go back to d20, as we always do and probably always will, it is neat to see them bring back those elements in the others system in their role playing, even if/when the game mechanics don't show that.

In part, that's what I am saying. I just like to broaden my mind and role playing experience by playing different systems.

I think that as long as people play the game, whatever game, and have fun, GREAT! I am just saying that sometimes, I long for something (a style, substance, flavor, whatever you want to say) that d20 doesn't have.

Thanks for reading! Good discussion!

edg

 

[evildmguy]

Psion - good points! Thanks. I agree and hope that was clear that d20 is good for a lot of things. It is weighing of whether doing X and Y is worth it.

And, in the end, the point is to have fun with a group of people, as both Psion and I said. I come back because of the people!

edg

Psion - btw, thanks for the great reviews! Please keep it up as I like reading what you have to say. Thanks!

 

[Psion]

d20 doesn't do this situation because it only imposes penalties under certain conditions. For this particular example, it is because of hit points and the definition of hit points that this situation can't be done.

The thing here is that people complain about the HP system and talk about how well X or Y system does damage realistically, but never really stop to consider that HP, in many ways, emulate what really happens in heroic shows or literature than more "realistic" games do. Heroes don't die (or spend months in the hospital, or get crippled) every few chapters or every few shows in those media, but some people come to the conclusion that that is what you need out of a system. But the end result often results in less heroic results than the genre you were hoping to emulate.

having 1 or 10 hit points left has no difference IN GAME MECHANICS.

Now that I agree with.

However...

I house rule my game so large hits can have telling effects. I find it far easier to get my players to accept my house rule to fix that one point and take advantage of their familiarity with the system (and the support it has) than to throw that all away so I can show obescience to that one point.

Now, while I really like what I have read in d20 Modern, I am not thrilled with the new MDT (massive damage threshold) rules. While it does make guns more realistic, and I am all for that based on my favorite system, I think that if they have VP/WP or HPs, why not use them? I think Spycraft did an excellent job of using an existing system and allowing high hit points (my players like that) and still having guns lethal.

I agree. The way I see it, there are four major conceptual glitches to the hp system. The VP/WP system handles all four of them. The MDT system only handles ONE. I think they made a big mistake by not putting VP/WP in d20 modern.

That said, if you like such systems, check out the Second World Sourcebook. It has some add ons for d20 modern and D&D along these lines.

 

[Hollywood]

Than HERO and GURPS? Lay off the pipe...

I guess you first since I never said anything about GURPS or HERO being simple, heck I never even once mentioned them in that sense.

But here's the rub, though. There are a lot of different systems out there, and once you get outside of D&D, the commonality between the gaming experiences of any two gamers goes down.

Hogwash, the commonality between D&D gamers is not all that large either. Go check out some of the posts about minis and 3.1/3.5/whateveryouwanttocall it. There is quite a diversity in how people play D&D, let alone what rules they use, etc.

Further, some gamers get sick of learning new systems that do the same thing; not all gamers like learning new systems. It's not because they are LAZY. It's because gaming is supposed to be FUN and learning a new game every few weeks is a chore, and some people prefer to spend more time playing and less time learning the game.

And by the same token, not all gamers get sick of learning new systems either. Or enjoy exploring new ideas, new ways of doing things.

But if you are playing a new game every week, I'd have to wonder at the amount of time you are actually playing as opposed to creating new characters, armies, or what not.

Perhaps. But I invite you to stop thinking in terms of which game system is the best and start to ask yourself: is learning a new game system to do game type X or Y worth the effort?

Of course, if the system is fun to play its always worth the effort... doesn't matter if its superior or not to another system. There is no one "right" system, and even if there was d20 is not it.

Not the best. But if you add to that the avialability of players and the fact that it will take me less time to learn the foibles of the game that usually only comes with several sessions of play, that is a pretty strong plus on top of the quality of the system itself, enough so to put it above many competitors for many purposes.

Quality of the system is debatable as even you note that its "not the best". But it shouldn't matter whats the best, but rather what system the game designer feels work best to describe his/her game and genre and world. Things should not just be converted to d20 "just because". Then again, if the system the game designer comes up with is convoluted and hard to understand, then thats a case of perhaps the game would have done better to have used a more commonly used system such as d20 to begin with.

d20 greatest strength is that it is simple and it appeals to the more casual gamer. By casual, I am specifically speaking about my wife and some other friends who didn't want to play a rules intensive game set.

Evildmguy, yes, the core mechanic is simple. So is the core mechanic for WEG's d6, i.e. roll X number of d6s and if they are over a certain amount you succeed. Cores of systems are usually quite simple, its when you start adding to them to that it gets complex.

Ask any "casual" gamer if they understand AoO, how partial actions work, what core feats do what to give more attacks and whether these extra attacks can be used on a partial, standard or full action, etc. Or maybe what's a critical hit? A double move? Can you turn while you run? And on and on. You can ask the same questions about any gaming system once you go beyond the "core mechanic".

d20 as a game system is actually fairly complex. If you take the OGL'd part of it and trim out the "fat", sorta like say M&M [ignore the super powers and gadgets] does with removing class, AoO, streamlining critical hits, ditching of hit points, etc. the core system gets easier. Ditch Saving Throws and just have skills and feats to represent your character where it all uses the same d20 core mechanic you mentioned, the system gets even easier to use.

If a player can come up with a concept, 3E does a good job of being able to represent that character. It won't be perfect but it is closer than previous editions.

Yes, it is closer than previous editions. But no, it doesn't do all that good of job of it either. Take a level of Rogue and you still get the Traps ability and exclusive skills, yet not all rogues are thieves. Take a level of cleric and you can turn undead, take a level of ranger and you are a two-weapon wielding master. Outside of use of Rule Zero, which makes any game extremely complex, there are certain things that are always the same. In a sense, its like Legos. The more pieces you use to build something the more your vision can be fleshed out, i.e. if you use 100 pieces to build a fighter miniature, its very bare bones. If you use a million pieces you can create quite the fighter miniature, although its no longer really I miniature I suppose.

Anyways, I think TeeSeeJay hit it on the head with three solid reasons to convert to d20. Its got a large mass of people playing it in one guise or another and its got Hasbro's money behind it for marketing.

 

[evildmguy]

Good points!

Hollywood: In general, I think we would agree.

What I didn't say, and you bring up a good point, is that casual gamers are also pulled in by the DM doing work for them. This is my wife, which I accept to have her play. She asks what she must do to do x actions and I explain the game rules. It will probably be years (because we only play every month and sometimes only every other month) before she would understand the game mechanics on her own.

You are correct that even d20 DND has some complexity when it comes to combat. I agree. And thanks! I might use this as an argument to play Alternity with my wife, as it is no more complex than what you mentioned for d20. Thanks again!

As for character, I blatantly cheated by saying "compared to previous editions". I actually have few complaints about DND and character concepts in 3E. I think it is pretty good as it is. However, I do agree in d20 Modern and d20 SW that it is too bad that with each level attacks and saves go up. As someone else said when d20 SW first came out, why does the Noble gain ability to take out squads of stormtroopers? Again, this was due to improved attack at each level.

Psion - not so sure I agree with hit points emulating real life only in as much as there is no penalty associated with hit point loss. I understand that it is hard to kill someone with one shot but it seems to me that being shot would hurt and it might impose a penalty! I understand that they do this because it would get complex, then, to track a penalty vs health level.

I agree with your assesment of hit points and the VP/WP system.

Thanks!

edg

 

[Psion]

the commonality between D&D gamers is not all that large either. Go check out some of the posts about minis and 3.1/3.5/whateveryouwanttocall it. There is quite a diversity in how people play D&D, let alone what rules they use, etc.

Diversity in how they play? You consider that significant? I don't. First off, in internet fora, there is a magnification of the extremes. I think it reality, very few people will care whether or not the DM uses minis, buys the new books, or uses third party materials. Second, these differences are trivial compared to the changes between system, and different systems even futher engender style differences depending on the system.

There is no one "right" system, and even if there was d20 is not it.

Feeling contradictory today?

And by the same token, not all gamers get sick of learning new systems either.

Of course not all do. But enough to make it a compelling reason.

Things should not just be converted to d20 "just because".

Of course not. But there are good reasons; I don't think anyone's reason is as simple as "just because."

Anyways, I think TeeSeeJay hit it on the head with three solid reasons to convert to d20.

Unfortunately, he missed the biggest reasons and the most important ones.

 

[Hollywood]

Re: Good points!

What I didn't say, and you bring up a good point, is that casual gamers are also pulled in by the DM doing work for them. This is my wife, which I accept to have her play.

Yeah, thats a good point. And its really an unwritten part of the GMs job. However, by the same token that puts a lot of work on the GM especially if the system is more complex and/or you have many casual gamers.

You are correct that even d20 DND has some complexity when it comes to combat. I agree. And thanks! I might use this as an argument to play Alternity with my wife, as it is no more complex than what you mentioned for d20. Thanks again!

No problem... probably the same arguement can be used for just about any roleplaying system as long as the GM is willing to do some extra work to "shield" players from a particular game system. Evening going as far as having the casual player express what they want to do is X game system terms and the GM translating it into Y game system on the fly.

As for character, I blatantly cheated by saying "compared to previous editions". I actually have few complaints about DND and character concepts in 3E. I think it is pretty good as it is./QUOTE]

Well D&D has traditionally approached things from a class basis, so it feels ok even in 3rd Ed.

However, I do agree in d20 Modern and d20 SW that it is too bad that with each level attacks and saves go up. As someone else said when d20 SW first came out, why does the Noble gain ability to take out squads of stormtroopers? Again, this was due to improved attack at each level.

Or why does a Strong Hero have an affinity for Handling Animals? I played WEG SW for many years since I first ran across the 1st Ed. in 88 or 89, whichever. When I heard that WotC was redoing it at first I was intrigued, but then it said they'd be doing based on D&D and I was immediately turned off. I wasn't about to go and give up the flexibility of being anything I want or creating characters that really have no artificial limits and changing to a class based system. That being said, rolling all the d6s did get to be a nuiscance.

If they'd taken a tack like Green Ronin did with M&M and given optional ways of doing things, I'd be more likely to try it out than occassionally flip through the source material to see if there was anything worth using.