Why we love D&D but hate d20

[d4]

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.

i doubt any serious military RPG would be stupid enough to equate rank with level, so i don't think you have anything to worry about.

the perfect example of why rank != level: i doubt anyone here with any military service would seriously consider a butterbar right out of OCS (an O-1) as being "higher level" than a sergeant-major (an E-9), although the lieutenant outranks him completely.

edit: and on a completely different note, as another example of how far d20 can be pushed away from D&D, Mutants & Masterminds (which already lacks classes) as an option to do away with levels too.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Hmm - I kinda wonder about your argument regarding rules familiarty - why doesn't this argument apply for d20? If you are playing rpg's for the first time, then d20 would be just as unfamiliar as any other system out there. Sorry, your argument doesn't wash.

But once you have played one d20 Game, you know the rules - at least partially. Sure, you'll have to learn the differences when you start to play another d20 game, but you'll know a great deal already. Like "a roll is usually d20 plus bonuses and has to be bigger than DC). Also, you'll know about races, classes, skills, feats and ability scores.

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.

It makes a huge difference. While AD&D had some rolls where large numbers were better or you had to roll high, it had also some cases where small numbers (even negative numbers) were to be desired and you had to roll low. D&D/d20 did away with this nonsense

 

[Psion]

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.

To determine if you hit in 2e:

Player rolls to hit. Adds modifiers (from strength, magic, specialization, whatever).

Reports total and THAC0 to DM.

DM subtracts AC from THAC0 to get target number.

Compares total to target number.

Total operations: 1 addition, 1 subtraction, 1 comparison.

To determine if you hit in 3e:

Player rolls to hit. Adds modifiers (including strength, magic, BAB, and other bonuses.)

Gives total to DM.

DM compares numner to AC.

Total operations: 1 addition, one comparison.

So, you have one more operation, and subtraction is typically less easily handled by the human brain.

Also, if you want to keep ACs "private" you are also forced to track an additional number between player and GM, and the GM has to do the subraction for every player, which makes the GM into a bottleneck.


Under 3e, there are less math operations at play time, the operations are simpler, and are better distributed so the GM doesn't become a bottleneck.

This is why the 3e method is better than THAC0 and more manageable, IME.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

OK, I'll bite. Even though I know I'm dealing with a troll, I'll post (but I'll use fire so he won't stand up)

*Casts flaming post

*Casted flaming post

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

Yes, of course. The name wouldn't make sense for an accounting simulation where you take charge of a sports club's profits and expanses.

It was never the ?perfect? system.

There is no such thing as a perfect system.

Back in it?s heyday it was full of mistakes but, in its crusty imperfection, it was released in the right place at the right time to become a classic.

And then they invented AD&D, where the A stood for advanced. Advanced were only the restrictions you had with your character, and the expanses you had to endure to get books that worked around said restrictions

Now we have a new edition which is much cleaner (but still favours power gaming -- levels, experience points, combat focus, etc.)

So you can't be a power gamer without levels or XP? No, as long as D&D is D&D, it will have levels, classes, XP.

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

Yet, the system can be adapted to the RPG, which has been done.

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.

No, they used d20 - They choose to use a wide-spread, easy and well-balanced system which is given away for free by the creator.

D&D is big swords and big spells, it is hit points being sloughed off in waves by fire, acid and lightning. It is not a system that lends itself well to science fiction, nor is it a generic system -- only worlds built on the system can truly benefit (ie. Greyhawk, Dragonlance).

And it is used for nothing else.

P.S. Please note that I have not mentioned ?d20? at all! ?d20? is a sly form of branding that disguises its true origins and creates the myth that the D&D system is generic.

d20 Doesn't disguise its origins, they don't deny that d20 originates from OD&D and AD&D, just as the current D&D is based on d20. D&D isn't generic. d20 is.

I used to know people who scorned AD&D; now I see them happily playing d20. Do they know they're playing AD&D 3rd Edition?

I am one of the people who scorn AD&D. I play d20 and D&D happily. And that's because they got rid of all the nonsense that was the A in AD&D.

I'm playing both D&D 3.5e and d20 (d20 Modern and Star Wars d20).

And note that there is no such thing as AD&D 3rd Edition. It's D&D again, now.

 

[3catcircus]

But once you have played one d20 Game, you know the rules - at least partially. Sure, you'll have to learn the differences when you start to play another d20 game, but you'll know a great deal already. Like "a roll is usually d20 plus bonuses and has to be bigger than DC). Also, you'll know about races, classes, skills, feats and ability scores.

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?

It makes a huge difference. While AD&D had some rolls where large numbers were better or you had to roll high, it had also some cases where small numbers (even negative numbers) were to be desired and you had to roll low. D&D/d20 did away with this nonsense

No offense, but it sounds like you are complaining about the math, not the mechanic of die roll vs. target number. 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. 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. I hate to break the news to everyone, but d20 is *not* a new system - 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.)

 

[Psion]

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?

Do you really think those are the fundamentals of the game? Those are details. What the player will know is things like how to roll for attack and damage, how to make a skill check or save, how to calculate saves, how to select feats, how to roll statistics, how to take 10 or take 20, and so forth. Are you really denying that knowing D&D gives you a leg up when learning Spycraft?

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

For someone who in another thread complained about not being able to manage the burden of all the supplements, you sure seem eager to judge and condemn others for a task you find easy that others don't. I could just as easily suggest that those who can't track all the feats associated with a game shouldn't be playing the game and should instead be working on their reading comprehension and memorization skills. (But I don't beleive that so I'm not...)

Last time I checked, gaming was a leisure activity. Hardly the basis to judge a person's educational worth. I beleive you should design the game to fit the players, not "design the players to fit the game". D&D is not just a game for the math elite, or at least it shouldn't be. I know we ex-navy reactor operators are clearly of superior intellect, but we can't expect everyone to live up to our standards.

In college most of our group where engineering or physical sciences majors who were familiar with the system and had not problem remembering attack rolls were d20 high, proficiencies d20 low, thief skills d% low, initiative d10 low, and so forth. But it was not exactly intuitive and we also had non-numbersy players who did have to ask what they needed to roll all the time.

Now I play with military folks mostly without degrees. Should I expect people who don't juggle numbers daily to be up to my level on numbers-juggling? That would be preposterous.

If the dice systems associated with the major mechanics of the game can be fairly unified and made more consistent without compromising the system, then there is no real reason that they shouldn't be.

 

[Zappo]

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.

I'll repeat myself: you are dead right when you say that 3E is just an evolution of AD&D. I agree with that 110%. Where I disagree is that this fact diminishes the value of 3E in any way.

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.)

D20 was designed so that it would fit D&D. Again, I agree on that 110%. But this doesn't mean that it won't fit (and fit well) any other heroic action RPG just as well with some degree of alteration. I have my doubts on CoC d20, but Star Wars for example works wonderfully. Generic, not universal.

Does it carry some of D&D with it? Yes. And it's a good thing. It carries with it the part of D&D that is common to all heroic action gaming.

I'll refute your argument - try applying d20's level/class system to a realistic military simulation like Twilight:2000.

I'm starting to get the impression that you haven't even read my post. Here, I'll repost the relevant bit:

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.

In case I wasn't clear, this means that D20 doesn't work for every setting under the sun and it isn't meant to (check some of the early Ryan Dancey articles for that, D20 was never meant to become the one system, not even by the guys who made it).

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

Yup. Agree 110%. So what? That doesn't mean that D20 can't work for a lot of games.

There's a lot of stuff between one and infinity, you know.

 

[BSF]

No offense, but it sounds like you are complaining about the math, not the mechanic of die roll vs. target number. 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. 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. I hate to break the news to everyone, but d20 is *not* a new system - 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.)

No, D20 is not a new system. Actually, it is like a lot of systems that came before it. Many systems had twigged to keeping a reasonably consistent success/fail determination long before D20. How many times have you heard somebody in an AD&D game roll the die and then say "Do I need to get high or low?"

As for the wonders of THAC0 ... Sure, it was just a target number. But, it wasn't a consistent target number. If you are still at THAC0 = 20, the next -5 ac ranks were also 20. Oh, and low level magic users, illusiionists, thieves and assassins had a THAC0 and a THAC1 of 20. Once everyone got up to 5th level, then you could apply THAC0 a little more universally. But, a lot of casual players found it easier to just copy down the charts from pages 74 & 75 of the DMG.

As for your egotism that D20 is simply a reworking for the system for stupid people, then I suppose a lot of mechanics that set a target number and expected you to only roll above that number to accomplish something were designed for stupid people?

 

[d4]

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

oh please.

i'm a mathematician by trade, and even i'd rather be playing an RPG than studying math.

subtraction takes longer than addition for the brain to process. more operations take longer than less for the brain to process. d20's task resolution system is faster than previous editions. IMO i'd rather spend more time role-playing than doing arithmetic during a game session.

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. I hate to break the news to everyone, but d20 is *not* a new system - 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.)

of course it's not new. it is easier to handle and use in play, however, and that makes it a much better system in my book.

removing unneeded complications and subtractions in RPG math is a good thing, and not dumbing down the system to allow "stupid people to play".

 

[3catcircus]

Do you really think those are the fundamentals of the game? Those are details. What the player will know is things like how to roll for attack and damage, how to make a skill check or save, how to calculate saves, how to select feats, how to roll statistics, how to take 10 or take 20, and so forth. Are you really denying that knowing D&D gives you a leg up when learning Spycraft?

No - I was just splitting hairs.

For someone who in another thread complained about not being able to manage the burden of all the supplements, you sure seem eager to judge and condemn others for a task you find easy that others don't. I could just as easily suggest that those who can't track all the feats associated with a game shouldn't be playing the game and should instead be working on their reading comprehension and memorization skills. (But I don't beleive that so I'm not...)

Last time I checked, gaming was a leisure activity. Hardly the basis to judge a person's educational worth. I beleive you should design the game to fit the players, not "design the players to fit the game". D&D is not just a game for the math elite, or at least it shouldn't be. I know we ex-navy reactor operators are clearly of superior intellect, but we can't expect everyone to live up to our standards.

In college most of our group where engineering or physical sciences majors who were familiar with the system and had not problem remembering attack rolls were d20 high, proficiencies d20 low, thief skills d% low, initiative d10 low, and so forth. But it was not exactly intuitive and we also had non-numbersy players who did have to ask what they needed to roll all the time.

Now I play with military folks mostly without degrees. Should I expect people who don't juggle numbers daily to be up to my level on numbers-juggling? That would be preposterous.

If the dice systems associated with the major mechanics of the game can be fairly unified and made more consistent without compromising the system, then there is no real reason that they shouldn't be.

Oh - another ex-nuke - somebody worthy to debate with... Seriously, though, maybe I should cut people some slack - I just find it hard to do when I see on a daily basis the sad state of the US education system (my wifes a teacher). Too many students going on to high school who can't read or write. Too many students wanting to go to college who can't do a little simple algebra or geometry and are completely oblivious to the fact that they aren't prepared for college. Heck - these people can't even balance a checkbook... Unfortunately, that carries over to the subset that plays rpgs - I see too many people at my FLGS who are in this boat - which is a shame really since the FLGS tries to promote education by awarding scholarships every year to the winners of various game tournaments.