Why Convert to d20?

Darke · Jan 29, 2003

Thank you Psion - I would like to know more so I will open a new thread in the house rule board and ask you there again

das Darke

TheAuldGrump · Jan 30, 2003

The main reason for a setting to be converted to d20 is accessability. No other widely available system allows other companies to create games or settings for their system.

Had GURPS opened up a similar license they might now be the standard. (Not for me, I hate GURPS, but thats personal, not important.) Ditto for Storyteller or many other systems. (In fact I have used Storyteller as a 'generic system'. I like the fact I can get people playing the game in a half an hour from a cold start, something I have yet to do with any other system.)

Because D20 is the 'Lowest Common Denominator' (And yes, I do take that term as an insult, intended as such or not.) and because it is open to so many companies it is becoming the default.

This is not a bad thing. This is not a good thing. This is however a thing that works. I have created 'mini games' using the D20 rules, though I still prefer Storyteller for all-human games.

No, it's not a great system for realism. - It also doesn't claim to be. Its main claim to fame or infamy is the openness of the licenses. More people learn it, more peoople play it. Converting a setting to D20 means more players who will play it. I went through the 'System every few weeks' syndrome, and frankly, got annoyed with learning so many systems. (I was a player in that group, not the GM.) I have in fact cut down the systems I play, and perhaps more importantly, the systems that I consider.

I still love Ars Magica for its magic. I still like Storyteller for its simplicity. I still love Call of Cthulhu, both for setting and the most organic experience system on the market. I still love 7th Sea for Swashbuckling. I still hate GURPS, and Palladium.

I don't need to learn yet more systems. I will not bother with Hero, nor with Fuzion, nor yet with Shadowrun.

I will probably never play again using Cyberpunk, Unknown Armies, Deadlands, or Aftermath. Either because I find the systems cumbersome, or no one else wants to take the time to learn 'yet another system'.

There are just too many systems, something had to give, and it did. If having one system allows more playing in less time then I am for it. If many people are willing to devote their time and energy to allowing other folks to play in settings that they might otherwise never try I am for it. If people want to try out a setting in one system to see if it is fun I am for it.

The Auld Grump, yes I did pick up Baron Munchausen, but it is not so much a rules set as a mind set....

Petrosian · Jan 30, 2003

TeeSeeJay said:
I've got to say that the response to my LCD comment is a bit puzzling. But hey, it's not my fault if you think LCD means "mindless mob." If your image of the LCD is a fat, sweaty, beer-drinking frat boy wholly consumed by the desire for football, date-rape, and brand-name products -- hey, that's not my responsibility.

About the only responsibility you have in communication is to try and have an inkling of the terms you use and their meaning.

TeeSeeJay said:
But I'll say it anyway. Lowest Common Denominator isn't elitist, and it doesn't connote a sheeplike mentality. It just means the largest group with something in common.

That would be true if the term you used was LARGEST common denominator. It wasn't You used LOWEST common denominator which is a wholly different thing. LOWEST does not mean "most common" or largest" at all... it means lowest.

Want an objective opinion? Look at dictionary.com for lowest common denominator.

"The most basic, least sophisticated level of taste, sensibility, or opinion among a group of people.
The group having such taste, sensibility, or opinion: “The press can resist the standard of the lowest common denominator, the rationalization that all news is fit to print that has appeared anywhere else” "

See, the common denominator part covers the "across a group of people" thing you seem to want to pretend was all you said. The LOWEST part has meaning too, no matter how much you now want to pretend you didn't say it.

So, whether you want to accept responsibility is a personal matter for you. LOWEST common denominator is a judgement, and not a favorable one, on the quality of the group, NOT just a description of the size of the group.

Petrosian · Jan 30, 2003

First off, let me clarify, while MnM is not D20 per se it is derived from it an i was considering its OGL game system as part of the breadth of the d20 system. Thats why i mentioned the damage save in my post as one of the alternatives for handling damage.

Hollywood said:
I'd have to disagree by comments made by other members of my group. d20 is neither a simple system nor is it at the core modular, i.e. the hit point, class and level system don't work well for every type of game.

No game has to use all those elemnts. It can draw the good parts of d20/ogl and use them. Dropping AoOs works just hunkey dorey for games which want to devalue "position" in melee games, just as MnM did.

Hollywood said:
Take M&M, its similiar to d20 because its OGL'd but at the same time it plays fairly differently due to its differences. Thankfully M&M is OGL and not d20 so it can do some different things, but in essense once you move away from strict d20 rules set you are learning a new game.

Technically, yes, practically no. In normal play, MnM is at its basic very similar to DND. Character generation is very different. Play is not all that different except for the damage system. The notions of move and attack or double move and skill and task resolution are fundamentally unchanged. The NEW damage mechanics rely on using other D20 mechanics (saving throw) by adding a new save category.

its not that different a game, at least not wholesale in play.

Hollywood said:
d20 is not the end-all-be-all of systems that it needs everything converted to it.

I never said or, IMO, even implied that it was. My first sentence stated i was not in the convert everything crowd. If you want to argue against CONVERT EVERYTHING JUST BECAUSE then you might need to first find someone who would argue that with you.

As i stated in my post, HERo, which is selling a game system and not, IMO, a game should never do a d20 version of their current product.

Hollywood said:
And when you do, you essentially are catering to the "lowest common denominator" since D&D is one of the most recognizable brands and more than likely most gamers have played one or two games of it.

Here is where we get into your clear distatse for DND gamers. I don't see anything "lowest" about d20/OGL gamers. if you believe d20 gamers are the lowest, then your views on conversion seem to be somewhat reflective of that.

Hollywood said:
There is a line here, I mean come on... should Monopoly get revised to use the d20 rules just because some D&D and d20 Modern players don't want to learn new rules?

No. Monopoly is not even an RPG. It would not gain anything from adding RPG rules.

Hollywood said:
Maybe the NFL should think of revising its rules? Extreme examples to be sure, but variety is the spice of life.

While indeed variety is the spice of life, that does not mean at all that any given variety is a good thing. I haver not yet had pineapple chunks topping my mashed potatoes, but i do not think i have missed anything or slipped into your "lowest" category because of it.

Just as it is not true, or as far as i can tell even being seriously argued, that EVERY game should change to d20/ogl "just because", i dont think that it is true that variety ***for its own sake*** is NECESSARILY a good thing.

A variation that produces good results or better results is good, not because variation is good but because of its results.

Hollywood said:
Thankfully companies, like Green Ronin, that have produced a lot of d20 material are still producing new games and material that uses their own systems.

I am personally very glad to see green ronin expanding the scope of d20/ogl games and providing their own take on the d20 system. I think personally that between d20, d20M and GR-OGL i have a conucopia of tools all sharing enough common frameworks to allow me to adapt the system to various genres extremely well. (As opposed to other games which seem to adapt the genre to their house system.)

if that in some peoples eyes makes me "lowest" then that is perhaps indication of a problem... just not with me.