Why we love D&D but hate d20

[Pants]

Actually, it isn't... Oh, I see Merric already corrected you.

Never mind.

Bah. My post was just a blatant excuse to link to a picture of a hat.

I mean... who doesn't want a picture of a hat?

 

[Henry]

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.

The funny thing is that I always saw it as a positive feature of the game. You know in the movies when a fighter pilot or starship pilot is trying to get his target in the crosshairs, and the target is jinking up and down or side to side being evasive? That's for some reason the feeling I get when I'm adding up all the totals to figure out if I hit or not. It kind of heightens the mood, in a weird way.

 

[rgard]

I bet that there's also a conspiracy to market it in Dragon magazine.

Too funny!!!

 

[Aaron2]

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.

I disagree with the assertion that -every- setting should have it's own custom system used only by it and for settings to share systems have somehow "prostituted themselves". Since D&D is the most popular game, having settings use a similar rules system is an advantage. You could probably say the same for other popular systems such as GURPS or Storyteller, etc.


Aaron

 

[rgard]

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

It was never the “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.

Now we have a new edition which is much cleaner (but still favours power gaming -- levels, experience points, combat focus, etc.) and the Open Game License (OGL). The OGL has spawned many strange RPGs using the D&D system. We have:

D&D Stargate
D&D Buffy
D&D Traveller
D&D Cthulhu
D&D Deadlands
D&D Conan

. . . and the list goes on.

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.

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, Unearthed Arcana). A system is like its bones and will shape what the body looks/feels like. If the body happened to come first (eg. Cthulhu, Conan etc.), you can't shove D&D bones into it because they'll never "perfectly" fit. The best you can do is create a unique system especially tailored to the body.

Just some food for thought.

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. 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?

You know, we play Traveller T20 (D20), CoC d20 and SW D20. I played original and interim versions of all three and can tell you the D20 system in no way hurts or hampers the RPG experience.

You are just making some sweeping statements (without any substantiation) that are echoed elsewhere by folks who have their own favorite or pet system they really like while having an axe to grind with respect to WotC. I don't begrudge somebody having his or her favorite system (mine will always be Dragonquest), but it's somewhat silly to state that D20 can't handle the milieus you mention when the designers have created very usable games with D20 as the frame.

Much of the success of any campaign is not what rules system you are using, but rather the work the DM/GM puts into the campaign and how well the players engage and relate to what the GM/DM provides.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Ranger REG]

This is a very interesting thread, even though it borders on trolling and flaming, but still within a safe parameter.

I've often wonder what is it for a hardcore D&D gamer to not want to try other WotC's d20 products, especially when they used the same core rules engine, more or less, or try third-party products that can supplement or fill the gaps in the D&D core ruleset, preferring instead to wait until WotC come around to it?

Granted, d20 -- a spawn of the previous editions OD&D/AD&D ruleset -- is not the perfect system, but it is, in its current incarnation, a very playable system. WotC made great improvement not for the sole purpose of improving the D&D game, but already looking ahead into the profitable future of having a multi-genre modular rules system. IOW, they're taking notes from Steve Jackson Games, Palladium, and White Wolf of using one in-house system for all of their RPG product lines ... and take it one step further by making it an open rules system that is flexible, not rigid (especially if you intend NOT to use the d20 System trademarked logo).

I also like the fact many (not most nor all) game designer can take this system and build the rules to accomodate the setting, not the other way around. Again, it is not perfect, but it is better than turning something like SG-1 into "D&D Stargate" feel.

As for firearms, there will be a neverending debate on their lethal nature. But at least you're discussing it, rather than being a "sponge." I hope that you also question their lethal adaptation to other non-d20 game systems and not take their for what it is.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Every day, I like D&D a little less and d20 a little more...

 

[Ranger REG]

Every day, I like D&D a little less and d20 a little more...

Please don't give WotC any more reasons to make another D&D revision too soon?

I still haven't gotten onboard with 3.5e (that is, I have not replaced my 3e books, just using the current SRD for discussion reference).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I still haven't gotten onboard with 3.5e (that is, I have not replaced my 3e books, just using the current SRD for discussion reference).

Please don't give WotC any more reasons not to make their OGC freely available.

 

[takyris]

Ditto Psion and JD in all meaningful ways. As a GM whose PCs just got run down by an Acura in last night's session, I can safely say that a d20 game feels a bit different when you're using different systems. After going back to D&D after d20 Modern, I was astounded at how relatively little skills could do, and how hard it was to get those skills into really high ranks. My sixth level PCs all have some skill of +11 or +12, often with additional circumstance bonuses (+3 when used after a minute of observation, +4 when used against members of the opposite gender, etc.). In D&D, skills simply aren't as important. Not "Not Important", not by a long stretch, but not as important. And this is just one difference between two d20 systems -- every d20 game is going to have a wide range of these differences from D&D, unless it was specifically designed not to do so.

Fights in M&M are less deadly than fights in D&D are less deadly than fights in d20M are less deadly than fights in CoC. Rewards are handled differently. The idea of what makes a character good at what he does (In D&D, primarily his class; in M&M, primarily his powers; in d20M, primarily his feats and skills) is different. The experience that the players are supposed to have is different -- and yes, that varies from GM to GM, and yes, you can have a D&D game played like a CoC game without any house rules, but the games are designed for fundamentally different reasons.

Anyone who says otherwise either played games with the same mediocre or inexperienced GM, or is a mediocre or inexperienced player.