Why we love D&D but hate d20

[Desdichado]

Dungeons & Dragons was designed for one thing: medieval swords and sorcery.

Uh, sort of. I actually really like d20 but am pretty jaded on D&D. As to your implication that all d20 is just 3rd edition AD&D, I think that's complete bogus. d20 works fine as a fairly generic system. Call of Cthulhu was the make or break game for me in terms of whether or not d20 could concievably be generic. Since d20 Call of Cthulhu is so brilliant, I jumped headfirst into the deep-end of d20.

By the way, you do know that original Call of Cthulhu is actually Runequest warmed over, right? The idea of each genre/game needs a unique system is a conceit I hear often, but it's never really been explained satisfactorily to me.

 

[3catcircus]

Humm...

Theory: 3E D&D = evolution of AD&D.
Agree. So what? 3E is still a better game than AD&D under any point of view that I've been able to rationally conceive. I don't see why scorning AD&D and happily playing 3E should be strange.

Well - there are thousands who would beg to differ. Many of us like AD&D for the fact that it *wasn't* dumbed-down, "balanced," white-bread like 3.x is.

If you are talking about the mechanics - how is d20 *any* different than AD&D? Whether you roll against a THAC0 with negative armor classes or add Atk Bonus to your roll vs. a positive armor class, the mechanic is the same. After all - adding a negative is subtracting a positive, and vice versa. The difference is in the math manipulation, not in the "roll dice and beat a target number" mechanic.

Theory: making d20 games makes them D&D-like, and thus worse because each game must have its own system.
Disagree. GURPS has lots of fans and it is not made for any setting at all, and several d20 games are considered very, very good. There are some that flunked, but isn't that true of anything?

Sorry, but I think the hole in your argument is the fact that GURPS was *designed,* from the ground up, to be generic and multi-genre. d20 games use a ruleset that was *designed,* from the ground up, to be D&D (or some fascimile thereof.)

It is true that the system and the setting are heavily correlated, but not so much that any two given games must have completely different systems down to the dice type. That notion stinks of blind anticonformism, which is pretty stupid if you ask me. The changes between two variants of d20 are more than enough to support their respective settings. The "core" d20 mechanics are very generic and while they do have their flavor, that flavor is a part of a great many genres.

Which makes them generic. Universal? No. No system is. Not even GURPS, despite the title. But generic? Hell yeah.

I don't think anyone will argue that just because it uses a twenty-sider, a game is contaminated by D&D, right?

I'll refute your argument - try applying d20's level/class system to a realistic military simulation like Twilight:2000. You can't do it as well as TW2K's own rules since you can't realistically model the fact that skills may not necessarily improve with an increase in "rank." For example - I've been in the military (navy - submarine reactor operator) and I've seen plenty of E-4's who were more competent than some E-6's. In a d20-based simulation of such a situation, the E-6 would be better at his job than the E-4, just because he'd have more level's in his "class."

So - once you stray far enough away from any commonality between genre, you *do* have to use different systems.

 

[Maggan]

Levels and ranks

I'll refute your argument - try applying d20's level/class system to a realistic military simulation like Twilight:2000. You can't do it as well as TW2K's own rules since you can't realistically model the fact that skills may not necessarily improve with an increase in "rank." For example - I've been in the military (navy - submarine reactor operator) and I've seen plenty of E-4's who were more competent than some E-6's. In a d20-based simulation of such a situation, the E-6 would be better at his job than the E-4, just because he'd have more level's in his "class."

Why would "rank" follow "level"?

You would avoid this problem by saying that level equals experience and skill, and not military ranks. That can be done with d20. In fact, isn't that already implied, as we might have kings who are level 1 ruling subjects of higher levels? If you don't want rank to be a function of level, you wouldn't have to let it be so.

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Why would "rank" follow "level"?
You would avoid this problem by saying that level equals experience and skill, and not military ranks. That can be done with d20. In fact, isn't that already implied, as we might have kings who are level 1 ruling subjects of higher levels? If you don't want rank to be a function of level, you wouldn't have to let it be so.

It is kind of abstract. Until you get to E-7 making rank is a test of a person's knowledge of their job and military protocol. Also figured into the formula are points for particular medals as well as the person's Enlisted Performance Reports. The more knowledgable person should be the one that has been in the longest because the military has sent them to more training classes, they've got more experience with the protocols, and they've also been to more places to win more awards and decorations that grant points. However, I've seen E-3's and E-4's who knew more about their jobs than anyone else on base. When I was stationed at Tinker AFB we had an E-3 who at night would go teach an advanced networking class at the local community college and NOBODY knew more than him. It really comes down to where you've applied yourself throughout your whole life. He was already well versed in networking before he came in. Tech school was a joke to him. That is why Twilight:2000 was so great, the character creation system modelled the whole thing perfectly. That's probably why I gave up trying to do a d20 Twilight:2000 game (at least until QLI comes out with the new d20 version) and just bought an old copy of the game on E-Bay.

 

[swrushing]

All these RPGs deserve their OWN system because, like it or not, a system is never “invisible” -- it colours the campaign world itself. The above examples either need a system especially tailored for the world they present or, they once DID have a system of their own but have since prostituted themselves to use the D&D system.

First off... i am a staunch advocate of GENREic games (rules designed for the setting, rules serve the setting not vice versa) as opposed to GENERIC games (where it always feels like the setting and genre are "made to fit" the rules.)

A year ago, maybe 18 months ago, i would have agreed much more with you.

In the early days of D20, all we saw were DND knockoffs... no one daring to make any significant changes to the d20 core.

In the last two years, that has changed and making serious changes to D20/OGL is being done and, in some cases, being done well.

Speaking from my own experience...

Mutants and Masterminds captures superhero genre better than any super hero game i have ever played. It very much does feel like supers and not "dnd with capes." The damage save imo is a beautiful alternative to hit points, creating a muh more dynamic combat and has applications far outside of just MnM. I really think it should be used well in any sort of gunplay d20 over the hit points or wound/vitality systems.

Midnight, while still a fantasy, is very different from DND and the mechanics match the setting. they

Stargate is perhaps the cleanest and best iteration of the d20 engine i have seen. My MAJOR disagreement is in their use of wound/vitality. I feel the wound/vitality does not adequately portray gunplay well, but... it was fairly easy to borrow the damage save from MnM/UA and tweak it to get the "like the show feel" to the gunplay. (Matter of fact, the AEG guys will tell you, the stargate rules are ported almost untouched from spycraft, their james bond spy game... and i think if you look at it, you will see the "setting issues" for stargate stem much more from a difference between "james bond spy films" and the stargate setting... like wanting autofire to be ineffective to simulate the dozen agents trying to shoot bond with machine guns and missing as opposed to the rather effective autofire used by Sg-1 on the show. AEG saw stargate as a toolkit to add "military scifi rpg component" to their spy game... which is great for a product line but, IMO at least, not good for stargate which is definitely not "military scifi" nor is it "a spy show". )

In short, now that designers are willing to step away from the DNDisms and use just the core d20 as modified as they please, the problem of DND -flavored d20 games to me is no longer there.

At its core, D20 is... six attributes, skills, feats, and other abilities defined as necessary with a d20 rolled for success/fail. It may or may not have hit points (vitality points have several systems and there is the damage save.) It may or may not have armor as "harder to hit" (may have armor as reduction in damage by several different methods.) It may be classed or point buy.

So, i gotta admit, i am getting happier and happier with the way i see D20 being morphed to fit the genres and am getting a whoile lot less "generic" feel from d20 games as i am getting "genreic" feel.

 

[3catcircus]

This I agree with...I play 3.5e over 2e and 1e and Original e is because 3.5e does not have THAC0.

I guess I'm kinda confused by this - how is THAC0 different from 3.x? Not to be sarcastic, but the math is identical - roll dice and beat a target number. Whether you are adding a negative or subtracting a positive makes no difference. THAC0 represents your chance to hit AC0 in AD&D (effectively, it is the number you have to beat, with your BAB factored in) - in terms of 3.x it would represent your chance to hit AC20 (since 3.x uses all positive AC modifiers.)

I just don't see how hard it could be to do simply math (but I suppose that is simply a reflection of this generation's laziness and desire to have instant gratification for little effort.)

 

[Desdichado]

Well - there are thousands who would beg to differ. Many of us like AD&D for the fact that it *wasn't* dumbed-down, "balanced," white-bread like 3.x is.

And there are hundreds of thousands who don't beg to differ. Sorry, but face it; you are very much a minority voice in that opinion. Zappo is certainly justified in claiming 3e is a better game, and I think most people here would agree with him.

If you are talking about the mechanics - how is d20 *any* different than AD&D? Whether you roll against a THAC0 with negative armor classes or add Atk Bonus to your roll vs. a positive armor class, the mechanic is the same. After all - adding a negative is subtracting a positive, and vice versa. The difference is in the math manipulation, not in the "roll dice and beat a target number" mechanic.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that you might want to do something besides try to hit something. Like, I dunno, make a skill check, or a saving throw.

Sorry, but I think the hole in your argument is the fact that GURPS was *designed,* from the ground up, to be generic and multi-genre. d20 games use a ruleset that was *designed,* from the ground up, to be D&D (or some fascimile thereof.)

I fail to see how that really makes a difference, if it's even true at all. It obviously didn't take very long at all for WotC to release three different d20 licensed games that were not intended to be D&D (Star Wars, Wheel of Time and Call of Cthulhu all came out in quick succession behind 3e) and a substantially redesigned version of d20 that is specifically designed to be generic not long after that (d20 Modern.) Since the development of those earlier games likely had to overlap with the development of 3e itself, I don't believe you are even right to begin with. But even if you are, what difference does it make? I refer you again to BRP Call of Cthulhu, often held up as a perfect example of a system designed to fit the genre. By folks who are obviously forgetting that BRP is the Runequest system warmed over.

I'll refute your argument - try applying d20's level/class system to a realistic military simulation like Twilight:2000. You can't do it as well as TW2K's own rules since you can't realistically model the fact that skills may not necessarily improve with an increase in "rank." For example - I've been in the military (navy - submarine reactor operator) and I've seen plenty of E-4's who were more competent than some E-6's. In a d20-based simulation of such a situation, the E-6 would be better at his job than the E-4, just because he'd have more level's in his "class."

So - once you stray far enough away from any commonality between genre, you *do* have to use different systems.

Since there is no correlation between rank and level -- one being an in game social structure and the other being a metagame structure to indicate how competent you are, you've refuted absolutely nothing.

 

[Psion]

Why would "rank" follow "level"?

In two examples I know of that model this (T20 and Blood and Guts), it does not. Ranks and level TEND to increase hand in hand, but it's not necessarily that way. Much like the military in real life, really.

A third example (an article vice a product) uses military rank as shorthand for levels for mook NPCs. But I think for mook NPCs, it's a fair approximation.

 

[3catcircus]

Why would "rank" follow "level"?

You would avoid this problem by saying that level equals experience and skill, and not military ranks. That can be done with d20. In fact, isn't that already implied, as we might have kings who are level 1 ruling subjects of higher levels? If you don't want rank to be a function of level, you wouldn't have to let it be so.

Cheers!

Maggan

Except for the fact that a military-heavy game like TW2K made rank an integral part of the character creation process, and I just shudder to think of a d20-based TW2K that would equate level with rank.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that you might want to do something besides try to hit something. Like, I dunno, make a skill check, or a saving throw.

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.