Would you be satisifed with d20 as your only RPG? [Ties into RyanD's blog entry.]

My answer is multi-part!

Dungeons & Dragons? No. As much as I enjoy D&D and love Eberron (as well as my own settings), heroic fantasy adventure is not the only thing I'm interested in.

d20? No, but we're getting closer.

OGL? Probably. As much as I enjoy games like World of Darkness and GURPS, the specifics of the systems don't matter that much to me; I'm more interested in the World of Darkness setting than the Storyteller system, and the flexibility of GURPS can be replicated by OGL games such as Mutants & Masterminds.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JVisgaitis said:
I think its reasonable to assume d20 = OGL since the mechanics are so close.
Technically, ALMOST.

OGL is just a content license. Yes, to Joe Gamers it will always be linked to WotC's SRD, but there are other rulesystems that contains OGC and therefore attached with the OGL. The Action! System is one such example.
 


howandwhy99 said:
CoC d20 was a major failure in my view.
1) Just curious: Why do you think that? I've played it, and it was great.
2) And you have to admit that CoC d20 was one of the very first non-D&D d20 games. Developers have grown wiser since that time.
 


If I were asked to chose one game to play for the rest of my life, it'd be WFRP. The list would be something like this:

(preferred games have low numbers):

1. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
2. Call of Cthulhu
3. Dungeons & Dragons 3.5
4. Classic Traveller
5. Drakar och Demoner v2 (the swedish rpg that trounced D&D in scandinavia)

Hmmm ... and the rest are also swedish games no one has heard of, so I'll just stop there. This list might change when I get to my shelf, since I have a nagging feeling I've left a significant game out.

/M
 

No, I'd be decidedly unhappy not to keep playing Runequest2, Paranoia and Warhammer FRP. In fact I'm more likely to abandon D20/OGL games though I do like Castles & Crusades and Conan RPG and probably am keener on D20 Modern than 3e D&D.
 


No way- I play almost no D20 now, and I like a variety of systems. D20 does the heroic genre pretty well (albeit with substantial rules bloat and metagaming), but its not good at all IME and IMO for grittier or darker kinds of games (especially horror)- and I prefer to run and play in a grittier, darker kind of game where the characters aren't superheroes.

Another main consideration for me is prep time and complexity when running a game. At one point in time (when 3E was released) I loved it- you could modify a character any number of ways, and the player had a lot of control. As time went on however, I began to see this as a drawback, rather than a feature of D20- it went overboard with the modifications in a way that wasn't user friendly to me or my group. In addition, the amount of metagaming in a D20 game got ridiculous- planning out each level advancement and feat trees from the beginning. Players felt they HAD to do it to have effective characters, but bemoaned the fact they couldn't let their character grow as he adventured and take advancements that made sense without character effectiveness suffering. Game prep became a labor and something I dreaded, until eventually my games suffered for it- I just couldn't get motivated.

However, once we started playing Savage Worlds, WHFRP2, BRP CoC, NWOD (using normals, not supernaturals), and to a lesser extent True 20, I got my love of gaming back. Those games fit my gaming and GMing style better, and my group LOVES Savage Worlds and WHFRP2- both for the atmosphere, and ease of play. So if I were to rank the top 5 games we play now, it would be:

1. WHFRP2
2. Savage Worlds (have run Deadlands, Fading Suns, Victorian Horror, and Post-apocalyptic)
3. BRP CoC
4. NWOD
5. True 20

I don't see myself ever going back to core D&D/D20- its just not what fits my group's style. I can't say for sure since its thankfully not the case, but if D20 were all there was, I'd likely drop gaming entirely. I still play D&D 3.5 once every month or so (mostly to see friends and game in a lighthearted way), but I'll never run it again- it by no means is my preferred game.
 
Last edited:

JVisgaitis said:
What I really was curious about was in one of his comments Ryan said that about 80% of the player base isn't concerned with the system at all and they just want to play in a game. I never thought about that before. I've always been content with d20 being my only outlet for roleplaying, but I thought I was the exception and not the norm.

So after all my babbling, the big question is are you satisifed enough with d20 that you never need to play another RPG again? (I would have made this a poll, but I wanted more then a yes or no answer.)

Well, considering it took nearly 3 years [from the original publication of D&D3E PH] for someone to publish a D20 System that i would willingly play, and it wasn't until the 3rd(?) generation of D20 System games (Blue Rose) that i found one i really love, no, i don't think i'd be content with D20 System as my only game system.

On top of that, i find that the mechanics of an RPG have a significant impact on the play of the RPG, and i like variety, so i don't think i'd be content with any single system for the long haul. Any more than i'd be content with a single genre or single setting indefinitely.

----
Oh, and regarding the 80% number, until i see a well-supported citation for that, i'm gonna remain skeptical. First, he doesn't say what you quote him as saying--he says that "at most 20%" want different games to have different systems (and even me saying that is interpolating a little bit, based on who he's responding to). So, first problem is that the only thing we can definitely conclude from that statement is that the other 80% don't specifically want different systems for different games--whether they are indifferent, or have a specific different preference is unknown. But, even given that claim's converse (or is it inverse?)--that 80% of people want just one system--there are still a number of problems.

First of all, it's judging people's state of mind, not their actions--he's not claiming that they do any particular thing, he's claiming they hold an opinion, which can really only be figured out by asking them. AFAIK, nobody's done any sort of large, much less comprehensive, statistically-sound study of RPers in over a decade--and certainly not since D20 System came out. So the number itself is, at best, based on anecdotal observations. If there have been such, as Ryan speculates, he admits that he isn't privy to them, so, again, just anecdotal.

Secondly, if Ryan's assertion is correct, it's just as reasonable to conclude that 80% of players don't mind using multiple systems, as it is to assert they prefer one system. After all, he implied they don't care what rules they use.

Thirdly, he's taking a reasonable, plausible (if not provable) assumption (people want to spend more time playing, less time preparing to play), and implying (he's outright asserted in other places) that the only sensible solution to that is a very complex system with potentially lots of pre-game prep involved, but the same system for whatever you're playing. Ditto for the issue of finding a play group. Yes, if your only choices are a complex system requiring lots of time required to learn, and to prep on an ongoing basis; or a complex system you already know, requiring lots of time to prep on an ongoing basis, obviously sticking with the current system is the easier choice. But it completely ignores the possibility of a system that involves less learning/prep time even than the currently-familiar system. And completely ignores the learning curve for that first complex system. I've played RPGs that we learned the rules to, created characters, and prepared a session, in less time than it takes me to stat up a single mid-level D20 System NPC. IOW, we saved time, and got to playing faster by switching to a whole new game, than we would've by playing the next session of our D&D game.

Finally, it's not something Ryan says, but something you read into it: It is quite plausible to me that a large portion of RPG players might only have exposure to one system--how would they know whether or not they might have system preferences? Somebody who's only tried one system can't possibly make an informed decision that the system doesn't matter. Heck, even someone who's tried several systems might have only tried variations on a theme (most commercially-visible RPGs are pretty much the same, mechanically, with just different number ranges and slightly different names for things), and see them as all basically interchangeable--because they basically are--yet discover, given the opportunity, an active like or dislike for other, more significantly different, systems. Not to say that if you've only tried one system you're fooling yourself if you think you're having fun--that's not what i'm saying at all. Just that you can't possible claim that you know you wouldn't have more fun with a different system. Now, mind you, i'm a strong advocate of "good enough". It doesn't matter if a system is the most-fun one for you, so long as it's fun enough that you're not driven to look for another one. Just like i don't look for the very cheapest price on something, i stop looking as soon as i find a price that is cheap enough.
 

Remove ads

Top