3catcircus said:
I know my statements regarding math ability may sound elitist, but they were mostly a general observation of the general level of math ability of most people coming out of public schools, and not, as some others may have felt, a personal attack on them.
Elitist != Personal Attacks. The two concepts may overlap, but are not synonymous.
Nevertheless, Elitist != Good, either.
However, all of my posts have been to make the point that d20 isn't (nor should it) try to be applied to all genre.
Okay, let's start over. Why not?
I completely agree that the d20 System isn't designed to be an utterly realistic tactical representation of reality in all aspects -- but that's not a genre. That's a
style. You can play in the fantasy genre and have it be super-realistic (except for the magic), like, what, Harn or GURPS, maybe? Or you can play a less realistic and more abstract version, like D&D. Or you can play something even less realistic and more abstract, like, heck, FUDGE.
Note: I am generally assuming that Abstract and Realistic are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but this is by no means true in all cases. Abstract is the opposite of Granular (in the terminology I'm using), while Realistic is the Opposite of Unrealistic. It's possible to have a game that is Abstract but Realistic, and it's possible to have a game that is intensely granular but very unrealistic -- but these are fairly rare, I think.
I can play a science fiction game that is roughly at the realism level of Flash Gordon -- All power to atomic thrusters, blast, their radiation beams made me grow another head -- or I can play a science fiction game that is completely calculated and realistic, or I can play something in-between. The science fiction
genre in no way inhibits my choice of systems. The
style I want to play limits my choice of systems.
In light of some of my arguments about why (superheroes work better with an exponential system that models normals and supers on the same scale, d20 isn't realistic enough as-is to model a realistic combat-oriented game, etc.) all I've seem to have gotten from most responses is "d20 is easier to learn," rather than specific arguments that would address the specifics I've given.
Please define what you mean by "an exponential system". M&M, while not technically listed as d20, is close enough to d20 that most people lump it in. It has Strength as an ability and Super-Strength as a power. They modify the same skills and rolls (and damage dealt), except that Str (and not Super-Str) modifies your chance to hit, while Super-Str (and not Str) doubles carrying capacity for each rank, instead of using the standard weight chart. This allows you to have someone with amazing strength but who won't hit you very often (average Str, high Super-Str), or a Batman-like guy who is the epitome of human development (high Str but no Super-Str).
If you've played M&M, please tell me in what ways you felt that it didn't capture the feel of a comic-book superhero adventure.
You bring up a realistic combat-oriented game, and I agree -- well, actually, I'm not even
positive that I agree here. As I said, Realistic is the opposite of Unrealistic (or possibly Cinematic), while Granular (detailed) is the opposite of Abstract. d20 is somewhat middle of the road, but compared to what you seem to want, it seems Abstract. However, the Grim & Gritty rules allow you to play a d20 game that is VERY realistic -- if you get hit by a bullet, you will be disabled or dead, most likely.
Side note: I don't think that this is necessarily more realistic; I actually think that this caters more to "guns kill everyone they hit" believers, who watch gun movies. I also think that if you flavor-text "Getting hit for 11 points damage by a gunshot" as "You're hunkered down, and the shot just grazes your shoulder" on a 55-hp character, then that's still realistic. There's nothing unrealistic about missing. The casually proficient but not expert shooter who easily and consistently hits a moving target ten feet away (when said target is trying not to get hit) without having time to carefully line up a shot is just as unrealistic as two martial artists jump-kicking each other in a to-the-death streetfight: You'll only see either in the movies.
So, the d20 system
can be just fine at realism. It's just never going to be great at granularity. If you want a granular style to your game, you're in the wrong arena.
While I use d20, I've also argued that the system colors the game - and 3.x doesn't have the same feel that AD&D had - maybe its nostalgia, maybe there *is* some truth to the idea of a system coloring the game. I'm not sure.
I haven't really seen that. Well, not true. My players can use skills now, and the use of skills -- "Wow, a non-combat way out of this encounter!" -- will color the game. Not to be elitist, but yeah, people who want to do nothing but combat, with no rolls for interpersonal reaction or most non-combat-related abilities (save the occasional thief check) are going to bummed that the d20 system has more non-combat options available. That definitely colors things.
What I do know is that of the different d20 games out there, I've found better alternatives for myself (Spycraft vs. d20 Modern, Star Wars d6 vs. Star Wars d20, CoC vs. d20 CoC, MegaTraveller vs. T20, etc.) Part of that reason is that I've already owned the original game systems, and despite the ease of learning d20, found the d20 translations to be wanting in some regard. But, as always, YMMV.
Is Spycraft not d20? I thought Spycraft was d20. Or is it in the same "Almost d20" boat as M&M, that OGL-but-not-d20 place?
Having not played many of the other games you mentioned, I'm not in a position to comment, except to say that, logically, the true test of a game's ease and appropriateness would be to have a random sampling of people who have never played either d20 or the other system try out both the d20 and non-d20 versions of each game. Given the odds of finding people who want to play such a game but who haven't played either form of it already, much less any other RPG that might color their assumptions, I'd guess that this experiment is unlikely to occur.
All in all, I'd classify this as a question of terminology. You say that d20 isn't good for Star Wars. My response, in short is, "Whose Star Wars? The technical detail of Timothy Zahn? The feel of the three original movies? The feel of the three prequels? The Kevin Anderson stuff?" One of your points was that d20 was not good for "realistic" games, that it's too cinematic. Well, most people who want to play Star Wars want their game to be cinematic. What does the d20 System fail to do that the d6 system did for you?
(I don't think anyone in my group would claim I have issues with math.)
