Why we love D&D but hate d20

[3catcircus]

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.


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".

While I'll concede that subtraction is slower to do, that shouldn't be the be-all-end-all of whether or not an rpg system is better or worse than another. Other questions have to be asked - 1. does the system model things as realistically as required? 2. Does the system scale properly (or, why an exponential or % system may be better than other systems for superhero games.)? 3. Is the system adaptable? I'd say d20 satisfies that last question, but needs work to answer the first two.

 

[Zappo]

Is realism a requirement? For many genres, that's debatable. I doubt that lacking realism is a failure of the D20 system. Considering what it's supposed to model - heroic action - I'd call it more a feature.

 

[francisca]

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.

And in 1E AD&D and Basic/Expert:

Roll d20, add strength, magic weapon bonus, etc

Report total to DM

DM cross refs you total against a target number on a chart, based upon target's AC and your class/level.

1 addition and one lookup/comparison.

I was out of gaming from shortly before 2E to about 2000, when I started playing 1E again, and started my own 3E game in 2001. When I found out about THAC0, after the factm, I thought it was a horrible mess. I never had any trouble looking at a chart to figure out if an attack was a hit or miss, and just don't get why THAC0 was introduced in the first place.

I find my 3E group spends far too much time figuring out how to apply feat/skill/situational modifiers and how they apply to certain situations. And I don't mean arguing about stuff, I mean working together to come to a consensus about what the hell a rule means, and if it applies to the current situation. The mechanic may be streamlined and elegant, but figuring out that "misc modifier" takes way too long.

A year ago, I thought it was lack of familiarity and being set in my ways that made me feel this way. Today, I am certain that though the dicing is simpler, and a "higher number is always better" is a good thing, I find d20 to be way more complicated than 1E and Basic/Expert. I don't buy the idea that it is easier to learn, at all, as there are just too many situational modifiers (see below *). I think in the big hurry to minimize the fun-wrecking effect of crappy DMs, they went a bit too far. And you guys who grouse about class level limits in the previous editions, here's an idea: Rule 0. Toss them out. I have in some games, kept them in others. It's fun either way.

Now, having ranted, overall, I like 3E/3.5E quite a bit. I wouldn't be running a 3.5 game if I didn't. I could happilly be living in the past with all my 1E and Basic/Expert material for as long as I game. And I have my gripes about the older versions of the game as well, but no system is perfect.

* We had a complete newbie at the table last night, just observing. He was amazed at all of the stuff that had to be accounted for. Have any of you ever played a slimmed down version of 3E, where maybe you toss out AOO, flanking, trip attacks, or other things? How did it pan out?

 

[evildmguy]

In the FWIW category

Greetings!

An interesting discussion that I decided to add my own coppers worth.

I agree with the OPs ideas. However, I have been very impressed with what I have seen d20 do, in CoC and Stargate specifically. This is because of my own experiences with players and (A)DND.

When I started DMing, I had one player who was a very strong rules lawyer in my group. As I DMed him for the next ten years, his style of play influenced my style of DMing. Yes, this is me allowing someone to influence my own decisions. I was young and didn't know what I wanted from RPGs as I do now but I know I liked the creativity of coming up with adventures as well as the role playing.

What I still see in the 2E version of DND is its wargaming roots. (A broken record from me, to be sure.) The rule books could have been a wargaming book, except for a very few chapters here and there that talked about role playing. Most of the books were about rules and judging the rules of the game. While I am sure they had something about role playing, none of that sticks out in my mind. (I haven't read 2E books in a long time, so please give me a break on that. I will gladly read about places where they talked about role playing, though.)

What I see in 3E is a little more talking about role playing. However, most of the books still talk about the rules of gaming, specifically with regards to combat and spells.

THIS ISN'T BAD.

However, this does set the tone of the game. There is an emphasis on using these rules while playing, for whatever reason. Yes, the DMG does say that the DM should use these as guidelines. However, I don't think it is mentioned enough to offset how many times they see the rules they are supposed to use, compared to the rule that says these are guidelines. In other words, it does mention two or three times that the rules are guidelines. However, compared to the chapters and chapters on rules, I think the books show an emphasis on the rules.

Again I say, THIS ISN'T BAD. I do think it sets up or suggests a style of game play, though.

Why do I mention all of this? Well, I am talking about my own evolution of gaming. While I loved role playing and creating adventures, I always did so within the framework of the rules. I did have house rules, yes. I did change a few things here and there, more as I got older. However, for the most part, anyone playing in my DND games would recognize it as a DND game.

Within this evolution of my own gaming, I see the style of gaming that also relies upon or uses the rules of the game. Therefore, for myself, the big question has become, do the rules support the type of game that I want to play? To answer that, I need to decide what type of game that I want to play.

I want a game where we all have fun. I want to play a game where players have control over their characters actions. If they want to succeed at something, they should because they want it to happen that way. (Or at least get one success, for those systems that have levels of success.) I want a game that allows a good spell caster but they can't fight. I want a system that allows for the effects of damage on the character. I want a system with heroic elements. I want a game that allows for cool special abilities to be had. I want a game that emphasizes the skill of the character over the roll of the die at all times during a campaign. I want a game where the rules serve these purposes as they are written, with little or no house rules needed.

As a system, DND does not do the things that I want. However, I have read some VERY good d20 games that come close. Stargate (Spycraft) is a VERY good d20 system game. I love how they used hit points (okay, they were forced to because VP/WP weren't in the SRD at the time) and allow for good, i.e. skilled, hits doing more damage. From what people have posted about Traveller, that sounds very good as well, at least in how they used armor and hits. (It would be expensive for me to buy, though, in terms of ROI because my groups prefer fantasy, and so I don't see me using Traveller because of that.) CoC is also quite good.

However, none of these exactly fit what I wanted from a game. I would say Exalted comes close, as does the Storytelling game in general, but for my own tastes, which I haven't been able to completely and thoroughly explain, it still didn't work. I ended up using Alternity. In using Alternity, I have found I have made one house rule and I use my own spell system. Otherwise, I use the rest of it as is. I am not saying this game is for everyone, only that it is a good game for me. I would gladly use it for all of my own RPGs but I wouldn't mind trying Exalted or Dark Ages as well.

Do I think that I could have done what I wanted with d20 or DND? Yes I do. However, I think it would have been House Ruled pretty heavily. (I am pretty sure I would use a lot of rules from Unearthed Arcana if I run a DND game.) I think it would work well and satisfy both my needs and the needs of my player and would be an d20 game.

Here is my question. Many people have posted how d20 is not DND and I agree. How many House Rules does it take before a game system, whatever system, is not that system any longer? Is DND still DND if VP/WP are used? What about armor as DR? Is there ever a point when I am not really playing DND anymore? By this, I mean "core" DND where any player could come in, play and understand, for the most part not 100%, all of the elements of the game.

A good discussion! Thanks!

edg

 

[evildmguy]

Continuing the FWIW category

* We had a complete newbie at the table last night, just observing. He was amazed at all of the stuff that had to be accounted for. Have any of you ever played a slimmed down version of 3E, where maybe you toss out AOO, flanking, trip attacks, or other things? How did it pan out?

Something I forgot to mention and a big influence on my "new style", which was moving away from a more blind devotion to the rules, was introducing DND to my wife. As francisca says, I was blown away at seeing how complicated (at the time) ADND 2E was. I couldn't believe how complex it was. When 3E came out, it did help her enjoy the game more due to its simplicity. (And I think 3E cleaned up a lot of things of 2E that were needed. Again, imo.) However, there are still huge areas where it gets complex. Synergy bonuses, combat rules, spells, stacking, etc. are complicated to new players.

What I found happening was players "playing to the rules" instead of role playing. Knowing they could get a bonus to hit if they flank, the player "justifies" flanking as the smart thing to do for their 18 INT character. This is a form of role playing and is valid as any other role playing. It isn't for me, though. I know that I don't always do the thing that gives me the best advantage in every situation. Therefore, I don't like it when the system allows for that kind of role playing. Again I say, it is a valid form of role playing; it isn't a from that I prefer, though.

One of the reasons that Alternity is working out so well IS because it is out of print. There are not a lot of volumes of rules to refer. Again, this is because of the rules lawyer that I had in my group for so long. In fact, until my current group, I have always had a rules lawyer in my group.

Rules lawyers aren't bad. They keep things "fair" within the context of the game. However, rules lawyers are generally min/maxers. What I have found is most of the time, once one person mix/maxes, all must do that or one person will dominate the group. YMMV. However, in my own groups, one min/maxed fighter was so good that the other players didn't like their own characters because of how effected the min/maxed character was. Because this ruined the fun of some of the players, I had an issue with min/maxing. And that's why I wanted a system that didn't allow that, or it wasn't as obvious that it was happening.

Again, all of this is all my opinion and for my own games.

Good discussion! Thanks!

edg

 

[francisca]

Greetings!

Here is my question. Many people have posted how d20 is not DND and I agree. How many House Rules does it take before a game system, whatever system, is not that system any longer? Is DND still DND if VP/WP are used? What about armor as DR? Is there ever a point when I am not really playing DND anymore? By this, I mean "core" DND where any player could come in, play and understand, for the most part not 100%, all of the elements of the game.

A good discussion! Thanks!

edg

It's still D&D to me. I did a poll about this a while ago. To me, D&D is swords and sworcery, archetypes, with definite good and evil. I don't know if VP/WP would make it somethings else, as HP isn't in my way of having fun. Same with DR. AC does not deny me any fun, despite the intelectual side of my brain that says it's unrealistic.

 

[evildmguy]

It's still D&D to me. I did a poll about this a while ago. To me, D&D is swords and sworcery, archetypes, with definite good and evil. I don't know if VP/WP would make it somethings else, as HP isn't in my way of having fun. Same with DR. AC does not deny me any fun, despite the intelectual side of my brain that says it's unrealistic.

Again, I don't think I phrased it well. Let me try again.

If 3.5 were considered a House Ruled set of rules, is it the same as 3.0? Did 3.5 make enough changes that it is still recognizable as DND? Or is it different enough that it is its own set of rules now?

Another way: Does changing the duration of "buff spells" from an hour per level to a minute per level change the game?

Please notice, a very big component of the answer to these questions will be the person's style. If a person "plays to the rules", as I talked about, these will be big changes and it won't take much to change the game for them. For a person who doesn't worry about the rules, this won't matter as much. However, that's my point. At what point, in ignoring the rules, which is a kind of change, is it not the same game?

However, as long as the group is having fun, go for it!

Good discussion! Thanks!

edg

 

[Calico_Jack73]

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.

HEY!!!! No dissing military folks. I was one not so long ago.

A degree does not a educated person make. I've met plenty of people with degrees who's diplomas weren't worth the paper they were printed on in terms of knowledge and application. The best technical folks I knew in the Air Force were the enlisted guys without degrees rather than the officers who had degrees.

I know you weren't taking a shot at military folks Psion. Just using your statement as a platform for my own soapbox.

 

[francisca]

Again, I don't think I phrased it well. Let me try again.

If 3.5 were considered a House Ruled set of rules, is it the same as 3.0? Did 3.5 make enough changes that it is still recognizable as DND? Or is it different enough that it is its own set of rules now?

Another way: Does changing the duration of "buff spells" from an hour per level to a minute per level change the game?

Please notice, a very big component of the answer to these questions will be the person's style. If a person "plays to the rules", as I talked about, these will be big changes and it won't take much to change the game for them. For a person who doesn't worry about the rules, this won't matter as much. However, that's my point. At what point, in ignoring the rules, which is a kind of change, is it not the same game?

However, as long as the group is having fun, go for it!

Good discussion! Thanks!

edg

Change the game? No. Change combat tactics. Hell yes.

And I'm with you. If your group is having, fun, good for you.

The only downside I see to the proliferation of alternate rules like VP/WP, etc.. (as found in UA, and the upcoming advanced books from S&SS and GR) is that there is the potential of joining a new D&D group, and finding the mechanics completely alien. To me, that shoots the whole benefit of using d20 as the core right in the foot. The argument says that by using d20, you learn the core system once, then you can move to other d20/OGL systems, and they will be easier to learn, because you already know one. But I can forsee two groups, both playing d20 based D&D, whose games are completely foreign to each other. One uses straight up 3.5, another uses a point based spell system, has replaced alignment with (whatever d20 modern uses, can't recall), uses Armor as DR, uses WP/VP, and let's say has dumped the core classes for the generic classes from UA. About the only thing in common is "roll d20, add modifers, higher is better". Then the second group goes to 3d6 for resolution. Sounds alot like the fracture that I am told occured in late 2E with skills and power, and loads of house rules. Only now the "house rules" have the d20 logo on them for a stamp of approval. One of the things 3E championed was reigning in all of that chaos.

But anyway, would both of the above hypothetical games be D&D to me? Maybe. The elimination of strong archetypes, alignment, AC, HP, etc.. might put me off, but not others.

I guess I'll just shrug my shoulders at this point.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

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.

Classic Battletech needs to be a required course in US high schools. I personally never played a game that had as much number crunching operations.

"Let's see, I'm at medium range so my base target is a 6 to hit and I am using Large Pulse Lasers which drop that to a 4 but I ran this round so that bumps it back to 6 and I'm firing at that damn Locust that ran 12 hexes so that bumps it up to 10, he's behind half cover so..."

You get the idea. I played in several tournaments and it seemed like over half the game was spent either working up your target number or trying to figure out how to provide the biggest to-hit modifier to your opponent. Most of the time I felt like the Ref was more of a Test Proctor since all he seemed be there for was to check my math.

Good times... Good times...