Why we love D&D but hate d20

[Piratecat]

Stay polite, please. Phrases like "so your point was?" are just rude, and that's something that should be avoided.

 

[3catcircus]

The mistake was yours, not his. He was pretty clearly stating that it was YOU who would prefer a psionics like mechanic, because you insist on 'exceptional' mechanics being used to denote 'flavor'.

But as has been established, the reality the Star Wars mechanics and those of your stated ideal (Spycraft) are very similar, so your point was?

What mistake? I never said anyone made a mistake - I simply stated that my response to him was not as pointed and direct as it could have been.

I'm sorry that you failed to grasp that. Let me try and make it clearer for you - SHADOWFORCE ARCHER'S PSIONICS SYSTEM IS SIMILAR TO STAR WARS D20'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FORCE. I was merely using the Shadowforce Archer psionics mechanic to directly refute his stating that I wanted psionics "work like magic" like the Psionics Handbooks to model the force. I was pointing out that not all of the d20 psionics systems work like the Psionics Handbook version. Could I have used Star Wars d20 as an example of itself? That's why I used Shadowforce Archer - because it uses the same mechanic as Star Wars, *is* a psionics system, and *isn't* like the Psionics Handbooks.

Oh, and BTW, you incorrectly stated that I think that Spycraft's mechanic was ideal - the SEH doesn't have any mechanics for psionics...

 

[Desdichado]

If, over the course of the campaign, everyone is the protagonist equally, then it doesn't add much value, I believe, to even bother labelling anyone as the protagonist, or worrying about who the protagonist is.

Like I said, there are some clear parallels to fiction writing. But there are a number of things that are different. Pacing isn't always the same, for instance. Side treks, asides, all kinds of wierd things that would make for a horrible novel-writing actually make for great RPG sessions.

Like barsoomcore, I think it's great to understand some literary theory, but at the end of the day, something like an RPG is much more visceral and instinctive than rule-oriented and categorizable. I know what makes a good session for me from experience and trial-and-error of many years, not from narrative theory of any kind. While I can use some narrative theory to enhance my GMing, some of the things you specifically mention rub against the grain of my experience, and I trust my experience more.

Then again, it's entirely possible, and I suspect from reading Bendris' more recent posts, that are differences are more about terminology and semantics rather than truly substantial in terms of style, but that's hard to tell in this kind of medium.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

The only real problem I have with D&D D20 is that the franchise has become a long series of MinMax Prestige Classes loosely wrapped in a series of 'supplements'.

I agree with RobberBaron on this assessment.
IMO, D20 works fine for D+D, though, by and large, I ignore 90% of what's out there for the system.

My primary beef is that not everything needs to be D20. Particularly systems that are "Skill-Based" rather than "Level-Based." (I do understand the desire to attract more customers and attract a larger fan base, but c'mon! What's next? Ars Magica D20?)

Deadlands certainly didn't benefit, IMO: their original card/chip based system worked excellently, and, speaking for myself, it took away from my enjoyment of the game to see the Blessed basically be devolved to "Wild West Clerics."

Ditto for Cthulhu: having characters advance in levels, gain HP and abilities, etc., takes away some of the stark horror that is integral to any CoC campaign.

And the Aeonverse D20?
Pass. I'll stick with the White-Wolf D10 version.

 

[Corinth]

I agree with RobberBaron on this assessment.
IMO, D20 works fine for D+D, though, by and large, I ignore 90% of what's out there for the system.

My primary beef is that not everything needs to be D20. Particularly systems that are "Skill-Based" rather than "Level-Based." (I do understand the desire to attract more customers and attract a larger fan base, but c'mon! What's next? Ars Magica D20?)[/b]

Why not? There are only three classes: Grog, Companion & Magus. Levels are irrelevant; using BESM d20 as a development model is a good idea here.

Deadlands certainly didn't benefit, IMO: their original card/chip based system worked excellently, and, speaking for myself, it took away from my enjoyment of the game to see the Blessed basically be devolved to "Wild West Clerics."

Deadlands was a deliberately bad effort done as a propaganda move because Shane hates d20 and wanted to "prove" it by "showing" that Deadlands isn't suitable. Put Deadlands in the hands of a man that knows d20 and you'll get a damn fine translation, much like the new Adventure! book or d20 CoC.

Ditto for Cthulhu: having characters advance in levels, gain HP and abilities, etc., takes away some of the stark horror that is integral to any CoC campaign.

Play the game. Low-level d20 CoC characters are weaker than their BRP counterparts, making the game more horrifying--not less--and level advancement is entirely arbitrary by default- your PC advances when the GM says that he does, and no sooner. Again, a loss of control that makes the game more horrifying. High-level PCs never get out of from under because the Massive Damage Threshold is fixed at 10, so failing those saves are only a matter of time (either you blow a check or you run out of your small HP total; the effect is still that your PCs aren't more prone to fight it out).

And the Aeonverse D20?
Pass. I'll stick with the White-Wolf D10 version.

It's not for you. As Andrew Bates just stated at RPG Net, it's aimed at the majority of folks that passed on the Storyteller versions. That said, the one published book--Adventure!--is one hell of a faithful and competant transfer from Storyteller to d20; the WWGS/S&SS folks know their stuff.

Over the last three and a half years, we've seen people take the d20 System and make it do--successfully--things that nay-sayers proclaimed that it can't do this or that: CoC, T20, BESM d20, M&M (w/o the d20 logo) and the line of Mongoose's OGL books prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is not so- it can do anything. Past this point, the continued insistance of saying that d20 can't do a thing is more demonstrative of the sayer's disconnection to reality than anything else.

 

[Desdichado]

Over the last three and a half years, we've seen people take the d20 System and make it do--successfully--things that nay-sayers proclaimed that it can't do this or that: CoC, T20, BESM d20, M&M (w/o the d20 logo) and the line of Mongoose's OGL books prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is not so- it can do anything. Past this point, the continued insistance of saying that d20 can't do a thing is more demonstrative of the sayer's disconnection to reality than anything else.

I agree with this. I've gone over the last three years or so from being somewhat of a "d20 as anything" skeptic to one that has little interest in other systems anymore, because I can do anything I want easily -- usually more easily than learning a new sysetm -- in d20 as it is. The folks who typically don't agree with me make sweeping, nonsensical generalizations like "d20 is suited to CoC, despite the fact that d20 CoC is one of the best RPG books ever printed" or "d20 doesn't work for sci-fi." When asked to explain, all we get is stony silence.

I'm well aware that it's a taste issue, and if you prefer other systems for certain games, that's absolutely fine. But if that's the case, you should say that instead of something that's falsely authoritative about what d20 "can't" do. Then again, that's a bit of a hot button for me after slumming occasionally on the rpg.net boards and seeing a lot of "my hat of d20 know no limit!!!!!1111!!" kind of ignorant posts.

 

[Ranger REG]

What mistake? I never said anyone made a mistake - I simply stated that my response to him was not as pointed and direct as it could have been.

I'm sorry that you failed to grasp that. Let me try and make it clearer for you - SHADOWFORCE ARCHER'S PSIONICS SYSTEM IS SIMILAR TO STAR WARS D20'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FORCE. I was merely using the Shadowforce Archer psionics mechanic to directly refute his stating that I wanted psionics "work like magic" like the Psionics Handbooks to model the force. I was pointing out that not all of the d20 psionics systems work like the Psionics Handbook version. Could I have used Star Wars d20 as an example of itself? That's why I used Shadowforce Archer - because it uses the same mechanic as Star Wars, *is* a psionics system, and *isn't* like the Psionics Handbooks.

Oh, and BTW, you incorrectly stated that I think that Spycraft's mechanic was ideal - the SEH doesn't have any mechanics for psionics...

Of course, there is a cheaper alternative, the $17 Psychic's Handbook (written by Steve Kenson, published by Green Ronin). Not only does it have rules (a skill-n-feat mechanics) for use in any d20 fantasy game like D&D, but also offers a Psychic advanced class for d20 Modern. Not bad if you play one or the other, or both.

For those hardcore D&D gamers, I recommend you take a look-see.

 

[Ranger REG]

I agree with RobberBaron on this assessment.
IMO, D20 works fine for D+D, though, by and large, I ignore 90% of what's out there for the system.

My primary beef is that not everything needs to be D20. Particularly systems that are "Skill-Based" rather than "Level-Based." (I do understand the desire to attract more customers and attract a larger fan base, but c'mon! What's next? Ars Magica D20?)

Deadlands certainly didn't benefit, IMO: their original card/chip based system worked excellently, and, speaking for myself, it took away from my enjoyment of the game to see the Blessed basically be devolved to "Wild West Clerics."

Ditto for Cthulhu: having characters advance in levels, gain HP and abilities, etc., takes away some of the stark horror that is integral to any CoC campaign.

And the Aeonverse D20?
Pass. I'll stick with the White-Wolf D10 version.

Well, d20 is not a get-rich-quick scheme. Just an avenue to plug your game to the largest RPG fanbase. While WotC provide you the tools and material, you still have to do the work of building it into a game that will appeal to anyone. Of course, adapting original games or games that uses different rules systems will always be scrutinized and concerned by an already established fanbase. One should tread carefully if one choose this approach, because unless you're good at game design, something will be lost in the translation or adaptation. Granted, some games should not be d20 at all, like Call of Cthulhu, especially if you have a fanbase ready to tear you apart that you wasted your company's time and energy calming them down and then decided not to aggressively support the d20 line. (Trust me, even their dual-stat books is not enough.)

On a personal note, I'm not a fan of the Storyteller System. Oh, I've tried so many times, and while the WoD universe is a cool place to game in, the rules mechanics is not so easily embraced by yours truly. Still I am skeptical as to what Sword & Sorcery Studio going to do with the Trinity Universe line, that will offer d20 Adventures! RPG (the first of such line). The preview is not enough for me to appeal to it ... yet. So, I'll have to wait for the final product.

 

[dead]

I never said d20 systems all "felt like D&D". No, some d20 systems have bastardized the core rules so much that they don't feel like D&D and all you've got left is the thin thread: roll a d20 against DC that makes them "d20".

But that's the point. d20 fails as a "generic" system because you have to change it so much to get it to work (specifically science fiction).

A good "generic" system allows you to use the rules in any genre without changing them. You can take a PC from one campaign and it could conceivably work in another.

With d20 you can't do this because everyone changes the core rules so much to work with whatever genre . . . sci-fi, Cthulhu horror, etc.

I mean, just take a look at the statistics. Probably 80% of d20 products are "sword & sorcery" type worlds while 20% are sci-fi/modern. I think this is telling us that d20 (err . . . D&D) is only "truly" suitable for medieval fantasy.

On the other hand, take a look at GURPs. About 20% is medieval fantasy; 20% sci-fi; 20% modern; and 20% misc. These stats show that it is a good "generic" system because there is an even spread of genres. I mean, this makes sense too because GURPs was specifically designed to be generic. As opposed to d20 that was designed from a fantasy medieval system.

Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the fantasy medieval d20 products on the market (Malhavoc Press is great). But d20 that is not fantasy medieval? No thanks! Non-fantasy medieval d20 has to bastardize the core rules too much to work -- I'd rather play GURPs! (I'm glad that it works for a lot of you out there, though.)

P.S. I'm not a troll, I'm a bullywug (and no racism on EnWorld please).

 

[Zappo]

I mean, just take a look at the statistics. Probably 80% of d20 products are "sword & sorcery" type worlds while 20% are sci-fi/modern. I think this is telling us that d20 (err . . . D&D) is only "truly" suitable for medieval fantasy.

They say that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Seriously though, that has probably much, much more to do with the fact that the first d20 game is D&D. Which is at the same time the largest source of open content, and the most important d20 game. It would be very, very surprising if publishers didn't take advantage of this by making fantasy stuff that can therefore be used with the massive OGC of D&D.