Why we love D&D but hate d20

[Zappo]

Ah, nothing like getting the last (or first) post in a page to have attention...

I also agree that D20's lack of strict realism is a feature, and a good one. It prevents it from modeling certain genres well, but it allows it to model certain other genres better. 3catcircus says - among other things - that D20 can't model all genres, and I get the impression that he thinks this is a flaw of the system. Not so. This is what the system was designed for. D20 adheres brilliantly to its specifications. As a software engineer, I appreciate that. People who dislike those specifications are simply looking for the wrong system.

You can make D20 a bit more realistic for grim'n'gritty fantasy if you want. It is flexible enough. Though more than flexible I should say undetermined... there isn't a "D20 rulebook" after all, containing all the default "D20 rules".

Maybe this is what leads people to wrongly equate D20 with D&D.

 

[3catcircus]

Okay, let's start over. Why not?

Sounds good to me.

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.

I guess it is a question of speaking the same language - while I agree that there can be varying degrees of realism (style) - I actually did mean genre - that is - different kinds of games (sci-fi, fantasy, horror, anime, etc.) I just don't think that d20 works as well for some genre as for others. It works great for D&D, and is pretty good for Spycraft. But, (as I'll explain below, regarding exponential system), there are scaling issues - both in abilities/skills and in levels (why did they stop at 20 and present a separate Epic Level Handbook in D&D? Did they revamp this is d20 Modern? Spycraft says something to the effect that at level 20, agents retire from the field and become desk jockeys or political movers-n-shakers.)

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.

An exponential system is one in which a small difference in ability grants a large difference in effect. D20 is a linear system (but not completely): in a completely linear system, the abilities wouldn't require a jump of two to effect a change in the the bonus (i.e. a STR of 11 would be +1 while a STR of 12 would be +2, 13 would be +3, etc.) In D20, abilities gain in power for every 2 jumps in the ability score (i.e. INT 15, 16 = +3, INT 17, 18 = +4).

In an exponential system, by contrast, a STR of 18 would be *twice* as good as a STR of 17 (equivalent to a bonus of +4 at 17, +8 at 18, etc.)

The reason I feel it is important for a superheroes-type of game is that it (and I know I'll sound like a hypocrite here...) makes the math simple. You won't have Joe Cop with a STR of 10 (average) and Superman with a STR of 10000 or so.

I haven't played M&M, but I do own the book and it *does* capture a comic book feel, but I don't think it does it as well as some other superheroes games do. This may rile some people up, but I don't particularly care for HERO. I think Mayfair Games' version of DC Heroes was brilliant, and the TSR Marvel Superheroes (original Basic & Advanced sets) were also pretty good - TSR's system used a linear (%-based) system up to a certain point, then it went exponential.

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.

True enough - I'd agree that it is middle of the road - maybe if it were tailored a bit more when applied to different genre, it might make some difference - just because someone is 15th level with an attack bonus of +15 doesn't mean they should be able to instantly kill "normal" NPCs.

As far as "guns kill everyone..." - I'm definitely not looking for that. Gunfire is actually a pretty random event, after the bullet actually hits. There was a pretty good article somewhere regarding complaints about a different rpg's lack of lethality. The article compiled reports from about a dozen US Border Patrol incidents - in every one, bullets flew everywhere and people took several hits and still lived - the only definite kills were a point-blank shot to the back of the head, and IIRC, a shot to the chest. Think of it this way - remember the scene in Pulp Fiction where they got shot at and didn't receive a scratch? That's closer to real-life than many would believe.

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.

I think we've solved our difference on the subject of d20!

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.

The only danger from such an approach is, as has been discussed elsewhere - the possibility that the game could turn into roll-playing - "I bluff the guard, my roll was a 27!" rather than "'Well, officer, you see, it was like this...' Do I succeed, my Bluff roll was a 27."

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?

Spycraft is based off of the 3.0 D&D incarnation of d20, more d20 than M&M. But, it makes some strides in the areas of classes and feats. Could D&D's glut of similar prestige classes and feats not be a symptom of d20, but instead may be a symptom of writers with tight deadlines? I don't know - but Spycraft has made sure that, with few exceptions, all of the classes, prestige classes, and feats are very distinct, and in many cases, complementary (such as two feats titled, IIRC, "One hand on the wheel..." and "...a Gun in the Other.")

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.

True enough - but you would probably have to have people completely new to rpg's since gamers would still exhibit some bias due to prior experiences (i.e. - the fact that you played Traveller will bias you when it comes to playing d20 Star Wars vs. d6 Star Wars.)

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 think the problem I have with d20 Star Wars is an intangible - it just doesn't feel right to me (see my comments on the previous quote, above, regarding gamer bias.) Maybe it feels like they've taken an iconic part of that particular game and made it "generic" - should stuff having to do with The Force be handled like any other feats, skills, or classes, or does it deserve it's own specialized mechanic? The reason I ask is because the movies make it pretty clear that there may be dozens of smugglers or rebel commanders, and a seemingly-infinite number of nameless, faceless stormtroopers, but the Jedi (and the Sith) are pretty special - anyone could become a smuggler or join the Imperial Army, but not everyone can manipulate the force...

 

[ph0rk]

Math nit-picking follows.

An exponential system is one in which a small difference in ability grants a large difference in effect. D20 is a linear system (but not completely): in a completely linear system, the abilities wouldn't require a jump of two to effect a change in the the bonus (i.e. a STR of 11 would be +1 while a STR of 12 would be +2, 13 would be +3, etc.) In D20, abilities gain in power for every 2 jumps in the ability score (i.e. INT 15, 16 = +3, INT 17, 18 = +4).

No, thats still a linear progression, as modifiers have to be whole numbers. It wouldn't have a slope of 1, but that doesn't make it nonlinear.

In an exponential system, by contrast, a STR of 18 would be *twice* as good as a STR of 17 (equivalent to a bonus of +4 at 17, +8 at 18, etc.)

Not necessarily, but that is a good example. 18 could be 3 times as good as 17. (or, to be really wacky, 3 times as good as 16. or 10 times as good as 17, etc)

Math geekery over.

-----

I haven't played M&M, but I do own the book and it *does* capture a comic book feel, but I don't think it does it as well as some other superheroes games do. This may rile some people up, but I don't particularly care for HERO. I think Mayfair Games' version of DC Heroes was brilliant, and the TSR Marvel Superheroes (original Basic & Advanced sets) were also pretty good - TSR's system used a linear (%-based) system up to a certain point, then it went exponential.

At the risk of using forbidden terminology (and my group knows I love to) whether or not a rules book captures this or that 'feel' is just the fluff. The deep down crunchy goodness under all that nougat doesn't matter much. (As per the 'feel', anyway. i love my crunchies.)


spells of 5th level and lower manifestable at will make for pretty decent superhero powers, imho. If the DM is doing a good job, and the players are having fun, no one will care if they're all fighters and rogues with spell like abilities.

The system is a tool for enjoying the game; not the game itself.

 

[Olive]

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.

Oooooohhhhh, well said!

That said, I think that CoC d20 is no more cinematic that BRP CoC, and I've played both. Guns are leathal, the feats are toned down, and generally the GM sets the mood.

 

[Sir Elton]

Oooooohhhhh, well said!

That said, I think that CoC d20 is no more cinematic that BRP CoC, and I've played both. Guns are leathal, the feats are toned down, and generally the GM sets the mood.

Yep! Feng Shui done d20 has a light, over the top active mood you can achieve: everyone starts at 7th level and you start playing in over the top action and stunts. (GO FENG SHUI!) Meanwhile, the D20 adventure combining Unknown Armies has a darker, heavier mood. It pits the player characters against powerful foes, and it has a TimeLock.

Style maybe dictated by the game system, but the GM is generally free to create any game he wants to create any mood he wants for his game. Victorian Gothic Horror can be done easily with the D20 System. Vintage Science Fiction can be achieved with the d20 system. I still have plans to do a science fiction campaign setting in the tradition of Origin Systems'
Privateer computer game. Even their Savage World can be turned into a campaign setting easily.

But you can use other systems as well. D20 is a means to an end. GURPS is a means to an end. How you use the means to achieve that end is pretty much up to you.

Although in morality, the ends never justifies the means.

 

[takyris]

Sounds good to me.
...I actually did mean genre - that is - different kinds of games (sci-fi, fantasy, horror, anime, etc.) I just don't think that d20 works as well for some genre as for others.

Interesting. While I think that the d20 system has some issues (or at least, has some things that I want improved or made canon), I haven't run into any issues with it. Actually, check that. Haven't seen wonderful aerial or vehicle stuff. But I see that as something that keeps getting left out, not something that doesn't make it (and I haven't seen enough Spycraft to know whether I like the chase system). But beyond the vehicle stuff, I haven't run into any genre issues. Maybe it's because I stick with a few specific genres, or maybe it's because I almost always have the same style, no matter what genre I'm playing (Victorian, Modern, Fantasy, etc.).

In an exponential system, by contrast, a STR of 18 would be *twice* as good as a STR of 17 (equivalent to a bonus of +4 at 17, +8 at 18, etc.)

Which M&M does, in specific comic-book-handling ways -- Flying, Sprinting, and Lifting are all handled exponentially. For every rank of Super-Speed you have, your Sprint Speed doubles, so that at Super-Speed +10, you're moving fast enough to circle the globe in a round or so (he says without doing math or looking at the book). The exponential stuff isn't applied to, say, attack rolls because, regardless of what should realistically work, M&M is intended to replicate combat stuff -- and even though Spider-Man is strong enough to pick up a car, his punches don't splatter bad guys, either because he's subconsciously holding back or because his proportional spider-strength only adds linearly to damage.

If a PL10 hero gets attacked by PL2 hoodlums, it's every bit as overwhelming, powerwise, as it is in the comics. The hoodlums don't stand a chance, and it's really just a question of whether the hero wants to finish them quickly or try out some of his cooler powers.

I haven't played M&M, but I do own the book and it *does* capture a comic book feel, but I don't think it does it as well as some other superheroes games do.

It's the best I've seen, but I fully admit I haven't seen much. And if I ever get my players to play a superhero game, it'll be one that uses, for the most part, the system they already know. I can explain damage to them in three minutes, give them pregenerated characters with their powers explained in D&D terms, and be ready to go. So, ease-wise, it's great for me, and, as I said, it works great for me. But YMMV.

True enough - I'd agree that it is middle of the road - maybe if it were tailored a bit more when applied to different genre, it might make some difference - just because someone is 15th level with an attack bonus of +15 doesn't mean they should be able to instantly kill "normal" NPCs.

In my d20 Modern Action Game, 4 Str1/Fast1 ordinaries with assault rifles killed a 12th-level, Defense-Optimized PC. It depends on the game (and doesn't work this way in D&D itself), but a crowd full of bad guys can still take out high level characters in many d20 systems.

The only danger from such an approach is, as has been discussed elsewhere - the possibility that the game could turn into roll-playing - "I bluff the guard, my roll was a 27!" rather than "'Well, officer, you see, it was like this...' Do I succeed, my Bluff roll was a 27."

Totally. But that's an entirely different argument, and not one that I've found limited to the d20 system. As soon as Charisma is a stat or an ability, you've got that problem.

I think the problem I have with d20 Star Wars is an intangible - it just doesn't feel right to me (see my comments on the previous quote, above, regarding gamer bias.) Maybe it feels like they've taken an iconic part of that particular game and made it "generic" - should stuff having to do with The Force be handled like any other feats, skills, or classes, or does it deserve it's own specialized mechanic? The reason I ask is because the movies make it pretty clear that there may be dozens of smugglers or rebel commanders, and a seemingly-infinite number of nameless, faceless stormtroopers, but the Jedi (and the Sith) are pretty special - anyone could become a smuggler or join the Imperial Army, but not everyone can manipulate the force...

Interesting. The problem I have with that is that what you've described sounds pretty intangible and VERY powerful, and everyone in the game would want to play a Jedi. I can understand your point of view, but I can also see why they did it that way -- you've gotta have some reason for other classes to exist and be equally attractive.

More in morning -- I'm sure this thread will still be around...

 

[Sir Elton]

Interesting. The problem I have with that is that what you've described sounds pretty intangible and VERY powerful, and everyone in the game would want to play a Jedi. I can understand your point of view, but I can also see why they did it that way -- you've gotta have some reason for other classes to exist and be equally attractive.

No. The real problem is everyone wants to play a Protagonist. That's natural. We all want to be heroes. The problem is that no body wants to play the other types = Guardians, Contagonists, Antagonists (although the DM is supposed to play these), Emotion, Logic, Sidekicks, and Skeptics. All eight characters are needed to play through an interesting, real story.

Despite the system used, what we are doing is collectively telling a story. When two people are playing protagonists, it could result in chaos. My last game, I had to sacrifice game mechanics in order to keep up with the two player characters. They separated, forcing me to divide my attention. It sucked big time since I couldn't maintain game mechanics. So I reverted to real world physics to keep the game going.

Believe me, if you have more than one protagonist in the group, you'd better have a DM for each of them to play the other seven characters they need.

 

[The_Gneech]

I think the problem I have with d20 Star Wars is an intangible - it just doesn't feel right to me (see my comments on the previous quote, above, regarding gamer bias.) Maybe it feels like they've taken an iconic part of that particular game and made it "generic" - should stuff having to do with The Force be handled like any other feats, skills, or classes, or does it deserve it's own specialized mechanic? The reason I ask is because the movies make it pretty clear that there may be dozens of smugglers or rebel commanders, and a seemingly-infinite number of nameless, faceless stormtroopers, but the Jedi (and the Sith) are pretty special - anyone could become a smuggler or join the Imperial Army, but not everyone can manipulate the force...

Interesting. The problem I have with that is that what you've described sounds pretty intangible and VERY powerful, and everyone in the game would want to play a Jedi. I can understand your point of view, but I can also see why they did it that way -- you've gotta have some reason for other classes to exist and be equally attractive.

The force feats & skills in SWd20 do make force-users special, they just do it within the already-existing structure of the game. You need to spend a feat to gain access to force powers at all, and additional feats to make force skills class skills ... so while your smuggler buddy is buying fast draw and rapid shot, all your Jedi has done is given himself access to his own class abilities!

-The Gneech

 

[Desdichado]

No. The real problem is everyone wants to play a Protagonist. That's natural. We all want to be heroes. The problem is that no body wants to play the other types = Guardians, Contagonists, Antagonists (although the DM is supposed to play these), Emotion, Logic, Sidekicks, and Skeptics. All eight characters are needed to play through an interesting, real story.

Despite the system used, what we are doing is collectively telling a story. When two people are playing protagonists, it could result in chaos. My last game, I had to sacrifice game mechanics in order to keep up with the two player characters. They separated, forcing me to divide my attention. It sucked big time since I couldn't maintain game mechanics. So I reverted to real world physics to keep the game going.

Believe me, if you have more than one protagonist in the group, you'd better have a DM for each of them to play the other seven characters they need.

That seems an odd position to take. By default, in a roleplaying game, the PCs are all the protagonists. You seem to be saying that either one PC gets to be the hero and the rest have to be his sidekicks, or that only 1x1 play is possible.

I don't think that's really what you're saying, but it sure seems like it. Can you elaborate?

I certainly think it's possible to have an "ensemble" story. Even without the confines of RPGs, there are plenty of books, movies, TV shows, etc. that are ensemble in nature and don't feature a single protagonist.

 

[Sir Elton]

That seems an odd position to take. By default, in a roleplaying game, the PCs are all the protagonists. You seem to be saying that either one PC gets to be the hero and the rest have to be his sidekicks, or that only 1x1 play is possible.

I don't think that's really what you're saying, but it sure seems like it. Can you elaborate?

I certainly think it's possible to have an "ensemble" story.

Yes, it is possible to have an ensemble story. Take a look at any Ensemble Adventure T.V. Series, and every character plays eight basic roles.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Buffy is the protagonist. Her role is to drive the plot forward, she considers and persues her goals.

Merrick is the Guardian. His role is to act as Buffy's conscience and to help Buffy.

Willow is a Complex character. She feels emotions and she has logic, and is mostly in control of herself (like a reason character), although at times she acted uncontrolled as an Emotion character will.

Angel and Willow's lover are Contagonists. They act as tempters and they seek to hinder Buffy's goal of destroying evil, or Willow's goal to use her occult powers for the good of others.

The Vampires and Monsters are Antagonists. They try to get Buffy to reconsider and represent avoidance of her goals.

Zander and Dawn act as sidekicks. They lend their faith and support to Buffy in her time in need.

Spike is the Skeptic. He represents disbelief and he opposes Zander's and Dawn's support.

At least, that was what the characters were like in the beginning. That is an Ensemble cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. According to Dramatica theory, these eight archetypes are all that are needed to run a story effectively.

What you are suggesting is to run a campaign like an American T.V. Series. I have nothing against that, as there are episodes where the camera turns it's attention on them. So, lets use Dramatica theory on a typical D&D party that a DM can run. Suppose there are eight players: seven player character players and one DM.

A typical D&D party consisting of eight player characters to roleplay through the problems or issues the DM presents would consist of:

1. The Paladin. The Paladin represents the archetypical protagonist. He considers the goals the group takes and persues them.

2. The Dungeon. The Dungeon represents the archetypical Antagonist, as the DM plays all the denizens of the Dungeon.

3. The Sorcerer or Druid. The Sorcerer or the Druid can represent the Guardian, so he has to be typically of a higher level than the Paladin so that they can act as the Paladin's help and conscience. This typically the same relationship that Luke Skywalker and Ben Kenobi had.

4. The Rogue or Ranger. Both classes are contagonistic. The Ranger suffers from overwhelming hate (favored enemies anyone?), and the Rogue is either an outlaw or a para-legal. Both hinder and tempt the Paladin. One to give in to his hate, and the other to present a Machiavellian way of doing things.

5. The Barbarian or Bard. The Barbarian and the bard are classically emotive. They feel strong emotions and are uncontroled. The Barbarian expresses this through overwhelming rage (RAAAWGGH!) and the Bard creates emotions through song. Both are typically uncontrolled, the Barbarian beats doors down and the bard can't contain the ironic or satirous songs he usually sings.

6. The Wizard. Having the Guardian's place taken over by the Sorcerer or Druid, the Wizard is relegated the role of Reason. His scientific approach to magic allows for control and logic to exist in the party. So he gives balance to the Barbarian or Bard.

7. The Cleric. The cleric is archetypically predisposed to being the Sidekick. She lends faith and support to the Palladin and the rest of the group through her healing spells.

8. The Fighter. The Fighter can act the Skeptic of the party. He balances the Cleric's faith and support with Disbelief and Opposition.

And there is your typical D&D party.

OF course, anyone can create a complex character.

Conan the Barbarian combines the Persuit of the Protagonist with the Uncontrol of the Emotional.

Gandalf combines Conscience, Help, and Reason together.

Aragorn acts the part of Sidekick, but when he separates from Frodo, he becomes the Protagonist to Oppose Sauron's Antagonism.

The One Ring acts blatantly as the Contagonist. The One Ring tempts and hinders Frodo from his goal of destroying it. However, due to a soul link to Sauron, the One Ring represents the true Antagonist. Every time Frodo puts the ring on, he distracts Sauron's attention towards him.

Samwise is the Sidekick all the way.

Gollum is an Emotion character, but he also represents hindrance.

Gimli is pure Emotion. He feels strongly and no one can completely control him.

Isamu Dyson from Macross Plus combines Emotion, Uncontrolability, and Pursuit.
Guld Boa Bowman also from Macross Plus combines Control with Reconsider.
Sharon Apple Combines avoidance with Temptation.


The point is, not everyone in an RPG group can play the Protagonist. All of them are Main Characters and they act like Impact Characters toward each other, but if everyone tries to consider and persue what they percieve as the main goal of the campaign, you will have chaos and the DM's problem will never get solved. The idea is for the group to lend support and help to each other. They act as a team, so this means that some characters can't play the protagonist, they have to play one of the other characters in order to jointly solve the problem the DM presents.

IN short, everyone acts together in the Storymind to solve a certain problem. They are creating their own myth with them as the principle actors. Game groups that work together have solved these relationships and have fun. Everyone will get their chance to have the camera shine on them in a Character Focus episode.

However, in Ensemble, Change of Pace, and Continuity episodes, the camera collectively shines on all of them and everyone has to work together to solve the problem. That's how it works. That is how it is supposed to work in a roleplaying game.

Check this link out: Storymind Theory.