Why we love D&D but hate d20

[J Lloyd]

All these RPGs deserve their OWN system because, like it or not, a system is never “invisible” -- it colours the campaign world itself.

I completely agree with this statement.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It's good that a day has gone by, for I have only prepared that spell once per day

So - in a game like Spycraft, without cracking open the book, what are the base classes and races? What are Style Feats? What are Advanced Feats? What is a Department?

Splitting hairs once again?

I might not know about the particular classes and races, or about the types of feats. But I have a general Idea what a class is, what it does, what the difference between class end race is (there are games that don't make the distinction, even D&D was like that once upon a time), I know the purpose of Feats in general.
So you don't have to tell me the difference between class, race, and "Hero Type", or what a Proficiency is opposed to a Skill or Feat.

No offense, but it sounds like you are complaining about the math, not the mechanic of die roll vs. target number.

Yes. I'm complaining about the math. Sure, it is not not unsolvable to mentally reverse gears twice in the process of determining success or failure, but it isn't necessary, for we can have it far easier.

But you are a genius, of course. You laugh at us mere mortals who use calculators or programs like Excel or Maple for difficult calculations. If you had you way, the attack roll would be (1d%) * sin THAC0 against the integral of the target's Defense Funcion

I'm not directing this at you particularly, but if someone can't do basic math, they should be spending their time studying, not playing an rpg.

Yes, we bow our heads in shame, great Master. We won't return until we are Professor of Mathematics and if I see another Powergamer who hasn't studied Theory of Probabilities, I'll smite him in Your Name.


No, seriously, the "It's not an insult, but you're a (insert expletive here)" routine always fails. Trolls use it so often that everyone has seen behind it by now.

Making something easier is a good thing if it was unnecessarily compicated. And the ups-and-downs of AD&D were just that.

My point is this - other than feats, the *only* thing that 3.x/d20 did to D&D was make the math become all positive numbers.

Now, Skills and Feats are a significant change. As is the improvement of the bonus system. And don't forget that Multiclassing was changed. The way ability scores work were changed (from those unnecessary tables to a formula that can easily be calculated ). XP Awards and XP needed were changed (and unified, so you don't have several XP tables, only one). Classes were changed, the spell system was tweaked. Saving Throws were changed (they depend on your ability scores now, and they now have different difficulties, so a archmage's fireball is harder to resist than a apprentice's) and are are more logical now.

In fact, a lot of unnecessarily complicated things were done away with

I hate to break the news to everyone,

I doubt you hate it.

but d20 is *not* a new system

It is redone from scratch, we didn't say that. But it was massively reworked and on first look, AD&D and d20 are two different systems, albeit related ones.

- it is simply a reworking of the math to make it easier for stupid people to play (and buy products, increasing Wotc/Hasbro shareholder profit.)

Yea, this is the thing that made it clear for me. You're a troll. Not a droll one, though, but you're not a complete beginner. I like it how you build up the post count so it isn't clear at once, and you refrain from using gross spelling errors or "1337 script". With a little experience, you could be one of the big ones. Cheers

 

[3catcircus]

It's good that a day has gone by, for I have only prepared that spell once per day


Splitting hairs once again?

I might not know about the particular classes and races, or about the types of feats. But I have a general Idea what a class is, what it does, what the difference between class end race is (there are games that don't make the distinction, even D&D was like that once upon a time), I know the purpose of Feats in general.
So you don't have to tell me the difference between class, race, and "Hero Type", or what a Proficiency is opposed to a Skill or Feat.

But you implied that if you are able to play one d20 game, you could play them all with very little work. What happens when, as others have pointed out, you run across M&M, which is a d20 game that did away with classes? Or a game like Midnight where clerical magic has taken on a distinct twist?

Yes. I'm complaining about the math. Sure, it is not not unsolvable to mentally reverse gears twice in the process of determining success or failure, but it isn't necessary, for we can have it far easier.

But you are a genius, of course. You laugh at us mere mortals who use calculators or programs like Excel or Maple for difficult calculations. If you had you way, the attack roll would be (1d%) * sin THAC0 against the integral of the target's Defense Funcion

Yes, we bow our heads in shame, great Master. We won't return until we are Professor of Mathematics and if I see another Powergamer who hasn't studied Theory of Probabilities, I'll smite him in Your Name.

I never said or implied that one had to be a math whiz - only that a game once touted as aiding in the learning of math skills can't claim that distinction anymore. Adding and Subtracting (which, other than inequalities, are really the only two math skills needed for AD&D) are not a hard thing to do - no need to solve partial differential equations. Simply add/subtract and compare to a target number.

No, seriously, the "It's not an insult, but you're a (insert expletive here)" routine always fails. Trolls use it so often that everyone has seen behind it by now.

If you want to put words in my mouth, go right ahead - I never said "...you're a (insert expletive here)..." nor did I imply it either. Since you seem to have taken a general observation and applied it to yourself as a personal attack - if the shoe fits...

Making something easier is a good thing if it was unnecessarily compicated. And the ups-and-downs of AD&D were just that.

Well - was AD&D (or any system before d20) unnecessarily complicated? What do you say to that if I were to state that d20 is overly complex and FUDGE is the be-all, end-all of rpg systems?

Now, Skills and Feats are a significant change. As is the improvement of the bonus system. And don't forget that Multiclassing was changed. The way ability scores work were changed (from those unnecessary tables to a formula that can easily be calculated ). XP Awards and XP needed were changed (and unified, so you don't have several XP tables, only one). Classes were changed, the spell system was tweaked. Saving Throws were changed (they depend on your ability scores now, and they now have different difficulties, so a archmage's fireball is harder to resist than a apprentice's) and are are more logical now.

In fact, a lot of unnecessarily complicated things were done away with

Well - how are skills significantly changed, other than allowing you to improve them more than you could with the limited number of NWP points you were allotted in AD&D? Once again, dice roll vs. target number. I'll concede that multi-classing was changed, but how many people house-ruled that in AD&D? Many of the changes that came with 3.0 were as a result of house rules that many people adopted over and over again. How did ability scores change? The tables are nothing more than a graphical layout of whatever formulas were used to come up with ability score bonuses... As far as XP charts - well - that is something I didn't mind them making uniform for all classes - but the fact that the amount of xp needed is so much less is another thing altogether and I don't agree with that. One can hardly argue that the classes were significantly changed beyond the addition of feats. Fighters still fight, rogues still steal and sneak, paladins still run around like Dudley Do-Right, etc. Saving throws changed - agreed - but they should have gone all the way and made saving throws based on all 6 abilities. As far as making the saves harder depending on the caster - good idea, but could use some work.

What are the other unnecessarily complicated things of which you speak?

It is redone from scratch, we didn't say that. But it was massively reworked and on first look, AD&D and d20 are two different systems, albeit related ones.

Well - on second look - is it or isn't it a different system. Fundamentally, the answer is no.

Yea, this is the thing that made it clear for me. You're a troll. Not a droll one, though, but you're not a complete beginner. I like it how you build up the post count so it isn't clear at once, and you refrain from using gross spelling errors or "1337 script". With a little experience, you could be one of the big ones. Cheers

Funny - you seem to think I was trolling. How could I be trolling if I've stayed on topic (Why We Love D&D But Hate D20)? I've not personally insulted anyone, nor did I want anyone to angrily lash out as you seem to have done - I've been happily debating the virtues of d20 vs. other systems the entire time. Additionally, how could I "...refrain from using gross spelling erroes or "1337 script?" I happen to be fairly well-educated and despise looking like an uneducated cretin by the display of gross errors in grammar or spelling. Frankly, "1337 script" makes the person using it look like a complete moron in the eyes of those not involved in their subculture.

 

[Psion]

Technically M&M isn't a d20 game.

Still, I think I could fairly say my players would step into it a lot quicker than they would HERO or DC Heroes, since concepts like saves, feats, and the d20 core mechanic are still there. (That said, I like the latter two systems and see the advantage of them.)

 

[takyris]

But you implied that if you are able to play one d20 game, you could play them all with very little work. What happens when, as others have pointed out, you run across M&M, which is a d20 game that did away with classes? Or a game like Midnight where clerical magic has taken on a distinct twist?

Haven't played Midnight, but M&M took me all of ten minutes to learn. Character creation in M&M is one of those "minute to learn, lifetime to master" deals, but as a player, I could take the archetypes from the book, tweak 'em for flavor, and have a character ready to go inside of fifteen minutes -- and if I had the book open to the "damage" section, I'd be in good shape to play. The fundamental concept of "d20+X" is pretty much unchangd.

If you want to put words in my mouth, go right ahead - I never said "...you're a (insert expletive here)..." nor did I imply it either. Since you seem to have taken a general observation and applied it to yourself as a personal attack - if the shoe fits...

Don't be obtuse. You strongly implied that anyone complaining about the math was an ineffectual product of our poor beleagured educational system. If you don't see that you implied that, then perhaps you should take a break from math and take a few English classes.

Well - was AD&D (or any system before d20) unnecessarily complicated? What do you say to that if I were to state that d20 is overly complex and FUDGE is the be-all, end-all of rpg systems?

I'd say "Best of luck to you." I wouldn't head over to a FUDGE messageboard and use my first hundred posts to talk about what a lame system FUDGE is and how we should all play GURPS instead.

Well - how are skills significantly changed, other than allowing you to improve them more than you could with the limited number of NWP points you were allotted in AD&D? Once again, dice roll vs. target number. I'll concede that multi-classing was changed, but how many people house-ruled that in AD&D? Many of the changes that came with 3.0 were as a result of house rules that many people adopted over and over again. How did ability scores change? The tables are nothing more than a graphical layout of whatever formulas were used to come up with ability score bonuses... As far as XP charts - well - that is something I didn't mind them making uniform for all classes - but the fact that the amount of xp needed is so much less is another thing altogether and I don't agree with that. One can hardly argue that the classes were significantly changed beyond the addition of feats. Fighters still fight, rogues still steal and sneak, paladins still run around like Dudley Do-Right, etc. Saving throws changed - agreed - but they should have gone all the way and made saving throws based on all 6 abilities. As far as making the saves harder depending on the caster - good idea, but could use some work.

Your point being...? You were arguing that 3.x D&D was too far removed from AD&D, and then you were arguing that 3.x D&D is not that far removed from AD&D, and now you're nitpicking about individual aspects of 3.x D&D.

Skills are significantly different in that they're actually useful now, and in that rogue abilities have been integrated into skills. Any class can now use any skill (with cross-class limitations, of course), allowing greater flexibility. Ability scores now have a consistent modifier across the board. At this point, you head off into nitpick territory, which is not invalid as a board discussion, but which is also not particularly relevant to this conversation.

Funny - you seem to think I was trolling. How could I be trolling if I've stayed on topic (Why We Love D&D But Hate D20)? I've not personally insulted anyone, nor did I want anyone to angrily lash out as you seem to have done - I've been happily debating the virtues of d20 vs. other systems the entire time.

That's not actually what trolling means. Trolling is walking into the International House of Pancakes and saying, "Man, don't you just hate pancakes? Pancakes used to be good, but nowadays, they've been turned into this gutter-trash food that only lower-class idiots would ever want to eat. I can't understand why anyone would eat pancakes when they could be having quiche. I don't mean to offend anyone eating pancakes, but it just seems like they're a bunch of in-bred mouth-breathers who keep mindlessly shoveling slab after mushy slab of bland pancake into their gluttonous maws." Which, give or take a few lines about the inadequacy of maple syrup, is what you've done.

And no, your education doesn't actually mean squat here on the Net. Telling people how educated you are will almost never result in people going, "Oh, sorry, we thought you were full of it, but now that we see that you have a very advanced degree, we're going to respect you," firstly because you could be lying, secondly because you could have gotten your very advanced degree by mail order, thirdly because it doesn't really have anything to do with the conversation (unless your degree is in game design), and fourthly because there are a whole lotta folks with degrees of all stripes.

 

[3catcircus]

Don't be obtuse. You strongly implied that anyone complaining about the math was an ineffectual product of our poor beleagured educational system. If you don't see that you implied that, then perhaps you should take a break from math and take a few English classes.

While I did imply that was the case, I never referred to him (or anyone) in terms of any expletive.

[QUOTE
I'd say "Best of luck to you." I wouldn't head over to a FUDGE messageboard and use my first hundred posts to talk about what a lame system FUDGE is and how we should all play GURPS instead.[/QUOTE]

No, but if the topic were raised (as this one was), why wouldn't I discuss it? You may not agree with anything I say, but it doesn't mean that my opinion is any less valid than anyone else's.

And no, your education doesn't actually mean squat here on the Net. Telling people how educated you are will almost never result in people going, "Oh, sorry, we thought you were full of it, but now that we see that you have a very advanced degree, we're going to respect you," firstly because you could be lying, secondly because you could have gotten your very advanced degree by mail order, thirdly because it doesn't really have anything to do with the conversation (unless your degree is in game design), and fourthly because there are a whole lotta folks with degrees of all stripes.

The fact that I don't use poor grammar or "1337 speak" was raised and it was implied that, somehow, being educated (regardless of whether you have a college degree, a high school diploma, home-schooled by a pack of wolves, whatever...) is no longer considered something important - and, I felt that the poster's tone was somehow one of "education is for losers." While it may not be entirely relevant to the topic at hand, I felt it was intended as a personal insult. Fact of the matter is that at no time have I ever stated anything regarding my educational credentials, beyond the fact that I am at least able to perform the "three R's." Don't like that I am proud that I was educated before the emphasis on the education system producing an ignorant afterbirth instead of a competent, ready for the real-world, well-rounded individual? Too bad.

 

[3catcircus]

Technically M&M isn't a d20 game.

Still, I think I could fairly say my players would step into it a lot quicker than they would HERO or DC Heroes, since concepts like saves, feats, and the d20 core mechanic are still there. (That said, I like the latter two systems and see the advantage of them.)

Well - I don't know exactly what you'd call M&M, but it is a pretty good game. I agree that it would be a lot easier to grasp than HERO or DC Heroes, but then again, I wonder if maybe the old Marvel Superheroes wouldn't be even easier to understand? It's %-system worked pretty well, but the designers had the good sense to recognize that they needed some exponential growth, hence all of those extra categories (+X, +Y, +Z, IIRC)

 

[Desdichado]

3cc had it right the first time. In every case that you pointed out it is still a roll against a difficulty number. In 2E when you made a proficiency check the basic DC was determined by a modifier to one of your stats. You still knew the difficulty and knew what you had to roll. Whether you had to roll high or low doesn't change the mechanic. In 2E when you wanted to make a Saving Throw you checked for the DC on a chart and tried to roll higher than that. The only difference really is that there is now a term and an acronym (DC) for what you are rolling against and now every roll is for a high number. I never minded rolling high for some rolls and low for others but to read all the griping you'd think it was a mechanic that ruined the entire game.

Edit: To head a rebuttal off at the pass you may say that 2E didn't take stat differences into account. That is wrong. Take two PCs, one with a Dex 18 and the other with a Dex 10. Whatever proficiency they want to use has a -2 modifier. Guess what, the Dex 18 PC still only has to roll under a 16 to succeed while the Dex 10 guy has to roll under 8. I will agree though that it didn't come into play all that much with saves and perhaps it should have.

I can't actually comment on what 2e allowed you to do or not, since I never had any interest in that game in the least. I got turned off of D&D in the 1e and boxed set days and peregrinated through all kinds of other systems until 3e came out.

3e impressed me with its flexibility and robustness in general so that I dropped my wanderings in Storyteller, Traveller and even artsy-fartsy games like The Window and started playing it exclusively (also I actually started playing again after armchair gaming, although the fact that I finished grad school and entered a normal life may have had as much to do with that as the coincidental release of 3e).

Where I am today is the exact opposite of 3catcircus and dead's position. I'm disillusioned again with the D&Disms that disillusioned me in the first place with D&D, but in the meantime I've become enamoured of the d20 system as a flexible, suitably robust yet not overly arcane and cryptic system that can do just about anything I want it to. My interest in just about any other system is at an all-time low.

So, yeah, I can't compare 2e specifically to 3e, but to say that 3e is essentially the same game as 2e, which in turn is essentially the same game as 1e, which in turn is the same game as OD&D -- all with only minor refreshenings (something I know a thing or to about in the auto industry, I might add ) is pretty disingenious. Of course there are similarities, as almost all RPGs bear many of the same similarities, probably as a shared heritage type of thing. There are also many significant changes, and to handwave those aside and pretend like all the differences between 1e, 2e or 3e are minor and inconsequential isn't going to convince me.

 

[takyris]

While I did imply that was the case, I never referred to him (or anyone) in terms of any expletive.

So I say, "You're saying this," and you say, "Well, yes, but I didn't use expletives," as your defense. I'm sensing a fundamental disconnect of some sort, here. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I don't care if you swear or not. I don't care if you use leet-speak. All I care about is whether or not you're being insulting. If you're being insulting, it doesn't matter to me whether it's in gamer-language, street-language, or a Shakespearian sonnet. You're still being insulting. If that's the only backing you have for your arguments, then... best of luck to you. Enjoy FUDGE.

The fact that I don't use poor grammar or "1337 speak" was raised and it was implied that, somehow, being educated (regardless of whether you have a college degree, a high school diploma, home-schooled by a pack of wolves, whatever...) is no longer considered something important - and, I felt that the poster's tone was somehow one of "education is for losers."

Hunted back, didn't see it. Quote, please?

Fact of the matter is that at no time have I ever stated anything regarding my educational credentials, beyond the fact that I am at least able to perform the "three R's." Don't like that I am proud that I was educated before the emphasis on the education system producing an ignorant afterbirth instead of a competent, ready for the real-world, well-rounded individual? Too bad.

It would be difficult for me to care less about your level of pride without suffering a severe head injury. I care about whether you're rude. And now that I can see that you lack either the ability or the desire to post in a respectful way, I can safely say... enjoy FUDGE.

 

[Zappo]

I try hard to make constructive posts and not to insult anyone, and I get thoroughly ignored. And then... meh.

Throw a cover on the flames, everyone.

I'm more interested in your opinion on whether the (rather objective) lack of realism can be considered a flaw of D20 or a feature.
Same for several of the other complaints shown in this thread, actually.