Jump to content
Jediphile

Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

Recommended Posts

Just so it's clear from the beginning - I hate d20. So if you love it, then this topic probably isn't for you, since I will argue why I feel that way.

 

When D&D 3e was announced several years ago, I was really looking forward to it. 2e had been out for over a decade without much change, and it's age was really showing. I was looking forward to throwing out all my own house rules in favor of a better system.

 

But 3e/d20 failed completely to innovate in any way, at least in my humble opinion. Here's why:

 

- Fixed classes

 

- Simplistic skills with more focus on relevant ability scores over building skills and tied to specific classes

 

- experience levels

 

- Use of experience points in d20

 

Now, there are other problems, but these are the main ones. Though multiclasses are handled better than in earlier D&D, the strict adherence to fixed classes and levels makes the game look incredibly antiquated and outdated.

 

The idea of fixed classes is so old and inflexible that it should have been abandoned completely a decade ago. In fact, the 2e Player Option: Skills & Powers book went some way toward doing that in D&D by making class abilities of other classes available across the board in many cases. It didn't remove classes, since it couldn't - it was still based on a system that demanded fixed classes - but it did try to lower the rigidity of the system by allowing more options. 3e/d20 did the opposite, however - it demanded that you embrace one archetype and built that only. I hear people arguing that you can "mix and match" to your heart's content with the use of the multi-class system, but it is a fact that the rules do not allow that without forcing the player to pay heavily in the character progress potential - you'll have to earn far more experience points to keep up with your fellow players who fully embraced the few archetypes defined by the game.

 

For example, why can't my wizard learn Innuendo as a class skill and why isn't swimming a class skill for a cleric? And why is the Concentration skill based on Constitution, when Wisdom is described as the measure of willpower in the game? There really aren't any good or logical reasons for that, which is something that hurts the game, since it doesn't serve to suspend the disbelief while playing.

 

In D&D you also still have hit points, and they've now become worse than ever. The problem with hit points is that they defy any sort of logic when taken to extremes as in D&D. A D&D Boromir could never have been killed by a few arrows, which is ridiculous. If a warrior in leather armor falls off a mountain and plummets for a mile before being impaled on sharp rocks, then he's dead - period! Yet in D&D the rules claim that this depends on how much damage he took and whether he had enough HPs to withstand it. :(

 

The Star Wars d20 RPG thankfully doesn't have hit points, but it still has most of the other problems of d20. Ability Scores still influence skills way too much, and the armor class system remains laughable. It also retains the silly experience system. As Marcus once said in Fallout 2, "Wow! I feel as if I've passed some arbitrary experience value and gained more power!"... :-"

 

Experience points also have the problem of how they're gained in d20. Most things add to the total, including killing people, so by that notion the game supports the principle of going into full slayer-mode, where you kill eveything and everybody you meet - it all adds up, so you goodbye old man begging in the street and little girl screaming for mommy... :lol:

 

I realize that all good role-playing is based on the noble and moral principle of grave-robbing (in that all good gear you get in RPG is usually taken from the cold dead hands of your slain enemies), but this is going a bit far... KotOR games suffer from the same flawed logic that is completely out of touch with any sort of convincing gaming experience in any way.

 

The fixed classes also hurt Star Wars and games like KotOR. I'm sick of hearing about how Yoda is a counselor, so he can't force jump, or Obi-Wan must be a guardian since he uses a blue lightsaber... Luke switched from a blue lightsaber to a green one between Episode V and VI, so I guess he turned from being a guardian to being a counselor... :)

 

Experience levels also lead to stupid conclusions that contradict the flow of good storytelling and drama. Since the to-hit probability is based on levels, that makes low-level characters inferior to high-level ones, yet in Episode I we see Darth Maul kill Qui-Gon, a jedi master, in single combat, only to then see Darth Maul be killed by Qui-Gon's "inferior" apprentice... This leads to all sorts of inane speculation about how Obi-Wan was a guardian and so had better hit-probability as per his class than Qui-Gon who was a counselor (used green lightsaber). Others then respond that, oh no, Qui-Gon was also a guardian, or he couldn't have done force jumps as we clearly saw him do, or that though he was a counselor, he still had better hit probability, since he would have been level 13+ or whatever, while Obi-Wan would only have been around level 7, where he is declared a knight... -_-

 

Personally I'd much rather throw the rigid classes to the winds and embrace a skill based system like that of GURPS. Here there are no classes and instead you use points to buy whatever skills or abilities you want, except some require that you fulfil certain conditions, before you can get them (a bit similar to feats tree in d20, but much more evolved). That way your characters can have whatever skills and abilities, and we won't have to deal with annoying Jedi guardians/consulars or whatever, since force jump will be available to any jedi. I don't see much evidence of a class division among the jedi in the movies. Sure, Yoda is more of a force user than Mace or Obi-Wan, but that should be due to characterization, not dictated by archetype. You'd still get experience points, but they would be few, be awared only at the end of gaming sessions (or in KotOR games when you return to the Ebon Hawk or leave a planet), and they will be awared for success and choices in the game, not for killing innocent bystanders or staying around to get a higher body count of Sith soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree. I think D20 was a good move towards some semblance of simplifying rules and creating some balance. However, I've never been a big fan of fixed class/level based systems. The classes are never really balanced against each other, and I hate arbitrary leveling up.

 

I also hate games where experience seems to be generated solely by placing your character's life in jeapordy. It's not possible to learn via roleplay or problem solving. But if someone shoots at you, then you become better at everything you do.

 

I also hate how something can improve that you never used or worked on.

 

And don't get me started on hit points.

 

I much prefer systems like the World of Darkness, Legend of the Five Rings, D6, or even GURPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the problem. The D20 rules are designed so that they can be easily changed. If you think your wizard should be able to have innuendo as a class skill, get your DMs permission and make it a class skill.

 

And in the case of the character falling down a mountain and is impaled on sharp rocks, the DM says "Your character is impaled on sharp rocks. He's dead" and then he's dead, period.

 

And in the case of the characters killing little girls and beggars, the DM says "You're not getting experience for that" and they don't, period. In any case, given the relative abilities of the beggar and the character, it is likely they wouldn't get experience from it anyway.

 

 

I don't love D20, but I don't see why it's worse than any other system.


Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed classes are very important for cooperative roleplaying. Especially when people are starting out. It gives everyone a sense of what their function is within the party. Too often in freespend games people will end up with a mish mash of skills which often mean everyone trying to do the same thing.

 

Personally I think when your experienced enough to see the problems in the rules you simply adjust them to better suit you and your group.


I have to agree with Volourn.  Bioware is pretty much dead now.  Deals like this kills development studios.

478327[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fixed classes also hurt Star Wars and games like KotOR. I'm sick of hearing about how Yoda is a counselor, so he can't force jump, or Obi-Wan must be a guardian since he uses a blue lightsaber... Luke switched from a blue lightsaber to a green one between Episode V and VI, so I guess he turned from being a guardian to being a counselor...  :)

 

That was never Lukes it was Anakins, presumably Obi Wan picked it up after he chopped him up.

 

Luke dosnt scream consular does he, and the only reason for a green saber was it looked better in a desert background.


I have to agree with Volourn.  Bioware is pretty much dead now.  Deals like this kills development studios.

478327[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've never played a pen and paper role-playing game, but comparing the kind of class/level system in Neverwinter Nights to the freer system in Morrowind, I think I prefer the NWN system. Because your character has a fixed profession, other characters in the story can react to that. It allows the game to restrict certain quests to certain classes, increasing replayability. So as an exercise in pure role-playing, perhaps the Morrowind system is better, but as part of a whole-game experience, NWN is better for me. Potentially. Obviously, I'm not actually holding up the NWN campaign as a shining example of this. :)


"An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, I think fixed classes are overall bad. They may be good for brand-new roleplayers who don't know how to work in a group dynamic. But I think a good ST/GM/DM can find ways within story for each character to be useful, and for the characters to work together.

 

Rule mechanics shouldn't hold you back on the assumption that you're poor roleplayers.

 

I believe class based, level based, and hit point based games to be inferior to more open-ended systems. We're talking about making a unique character and role-playing them. Being forced into a mold seems to contradict that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the problem.  The D20 rules are designed so that they can be easily changed.  If you think your wizard should be able to have innuendo as a class skill, get your DMs permission and make it a class skill.

 

And in the case of the character falling down a mountain and is impaled on sharp rocks, the DM says "Your character is impaled on sharp rocks.  He's dead" and then he's dead, period.

 

And in the case of the characters killing little girls and beggars, the DM says "You're not getting experience for that" and they don't, period.  In any case, given the relative abilities of the beggar and the character, it is likely they wouldn't get experience from it anyway.

 

 

I don't love D20, but I don't see why it's worse than any other system.

 

Sure I can overrule the rules as a GM. But if I do that, the players will argue the rules, and I can't say I blame them, since they're just following the only basis they have to fall back on.

 

Besides, if I'm to ignore d20 rules every two seconds, then why bother buying them in the first place?

 

And if these examples demonstrate flawed rules in d20, then doesn't that indicate poor design by the writers? That would also beg the question of why I should spend money on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either way, I think fixed classes are overall bad.  They may be good for brand-new roleplayers who don't know how to work in a group dynamic.  But I think a good ST/GM/DM can find ways within story for each character to be useful, and for the characters to work together.

 

Rule mechanics shouldn't hold you back on the assumption that you're poor roleplayers.

 

I believe class based, level based, and hit point based games to be inferior to more open-ended systems.  We're talking about making a unique character and role-playing them.  Being forced into a mold seems to contradict that.

 

Well your always going to need entry level games.

 

In PnP I cant say I've ever felt held back by any rules. It's certainly applicable to a CRPG though.

 

I dont think your "job" makes you what you are unless you let it. I'd probably put the storyteller games up there as my favourites. But I dont see why D&D needs to change that much.


I have to agree with Volourn.  Bioware is pretty much dead now.  Deals like this kills development studios.

478327[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I've never played a pen and paper role-playing game, but comparing the kind of class/level system in Neverwinter Nights to the freer system in Morrowind, I think I prefer the NWN system.  Because your character has a fixed profession, other characters in the story can react to that.  It allows the game to restrict certain quests to certain classes, increasing replayability.  So as an exercise in pure role-playing, perhaps the Morrowind system is better, but as part of a whole-game experience, NWN is better for me.  Potentially.  Obviously, I'm not actually holding up the NWN campaign as a shining example of this. :)

 

I don't know Morrowind at all. Besides, this is the PnP board, but even so, having a skill based system does not negate the idea of a profession at all, it's just a question of looking at which skills the character is best at rather than which fixed class he belongs to. If the character's skills in history and lore are high, then he's a scholar. If they're high in swordplay, he's a warrior. If they're high with a rifle (or a bow or crossbow in fantasy) or other ranged weapon, then he's a marksman. Not a problem at all.

 

I hate NWN, but that's a whole different bowl of soup, so I'll drop commenting on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure I can overrule the rules as a GM. But if I do that, the players will argue the rules, and I can't say I blame them, since they're just following the only basis they have to fall back on.

 

Besides, if I'm to ignore d20 rules every two seconds, then why bother buying them in the first place?

 

And if these examples demonstrate flawed rules in d20, then doesn't that indicate poor design by the writers? That would also beg the question of why I should spend money on it.

 

It's always better to discuss the rules before the game. Players dont like to have things sprung on them and I cant say I blame them. If I am forced to do that (and it does happen) then I write it down and apply it to the rest of the game. Then afterwards I invite the players to discuss alternatives (that way it dosnt interupt the game and at the same time they dont feel like i'm abusing my DM power).

 

You could always write your own system even if it's simply a case of borrowing from other systems since your not trying to sell it there is no problem. This is one of my favourite aspects of PnP. One of the first things I did was to add the roleplayer crit tables and convert D&D to a percentile system.

 

The D20 system has always struck me as trying to be beginner friendly. As such I think it does what it sets out to do so I wouldnt consider it a flaw as such.

 

If you can find something that serves you better, the simple answer is you shouldnt.


I have to agree with Volourn.  Bioware is pretty much dead now.  Deals like this kills development studios.

478327[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the problem.  The D20 rules are designed so that they can be easily changed.  If you think your wizard should be able to have innuendo as a class skill, get your DMs permission and make it a class skill.

 

And in the case of the character falling down a mountain and is impaled on sharp rocks, the DM says "Your character is impaled on sharp rocks.  He's dead" and then he's dead, period.

 

And in the case of the characters killing little girls and beggars, the DM says "You're not getting experience for that" and they don't, period.  In any case, given the relative abilities of the beggar and the character, it is likely they wouldn't get experience from it anyway.

 

 

I don't love D20, but I don't see why it's worse than any other system.

 

Sure I can overrule the rules as a GM. But if I do that, the players will argue the rules, and I can't say I blame them, since they're just following the only basis they have to fall back on.

 

Besides, if I'm to ignore d20 rules every two seconds, then why bother buying them in the first place?

 

And if these examples demonstrate flawed rules in d20, then doesn't that indicate poor design by the writers? That would also beg the question of why I should spend money on it.

 

No, these are examples of exeptions to rules. If your players are going around killing children and beggars, there's something wrong with your players, not the rules.

 

Falling down a mountain implies a fall of greater than one thousand feet, while the rules for falling in d20 only cover falls of up to about 200 feet, and even then not onto impaling rocks. This would seem to imply that this is a situation that requires DM adjudication.


Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well your always going to need entry level games.

 

True enough, but I don't see why that necessitates fixed classes. You can just as easily have two many warriors or all wizards in a D&D group. The problem isn't that diversity is lost in skill based games, but that players forget to communicate about functions they serve in the group. That will always be a problem in any game.

 

In PnP I cant say I've ever felt held back by any rules.

 

You're lucky - I constantly feel that way in any d20 game I find myself in.

 

It's certainly applicable to a CRPG though.

 

I dont think your "job" makes you what you are unless you let it. I'd probably put the storyteller games up there as my favourites. But I dont see why D&D needs to change that much.

 

Well, the problem really isn't D&D 3e and d20 as such. It's an incredibly simplistic badly designed system IMHO, but then I'm not going to be playing Pokemon either...

 

No, the problem is that while I can completely ignore Pokemon because I don't like the content, I don't have that option with d20, which seeks to permeate the entire RPG industry. In short, d20 is *everywhere* and you can't escape it! Star Wars is now d20, so I'll have to play it if I like Star Wars RPG. Heck, even Call of Cthulhu is d20 now (with levels :) ), so there is no escape.

 

But what really annoys me is WotC's strategy for d20. The following is from the d20 FAQ:

 

The company has decided it is possible that consumers can be educated to understand the problems of system over-proliferation, and for those consumers to apply pressure to publishers to use standardized systems.

 

This is where I really get hopping mad at WotC :angry:

 

They're basically saying that we're all sheep who can be manipulated. We're the customers, so how about showing some goddam respect!! :)

 

Later they write this:

The company believes that this is a market where diversity is more harmful than beneficial. The competition in the tabletop RPG category will (if the OGL/d20 strategy is successful) shift from producing competitive RPG systems to producing competitive RPG products that share a common system.

 

This is quite elistist, but setting aside the notion that "diversity is harmful", there might be some truth to the idea that many systems might cloud the market, while a standard could make it much more accesible to the consumers.

 

The problem, however, is that if there is to be an industry-wide standard, then d20 is about the last system that should be considered for that standard for the reasons of flawed the design and illogical rules that I have given above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, these are examples of exeptions to rules.  If your players are going around killing children and beggars, there's something wrong with your players, not the rules.

 

Falling down a mountain implies a fall of greater than one thousand feet, while the rules for falling in d20 only cover falls of up to about 200 feet, and even then not onto impaling rocks.  This would seem to imply that this is a situation that requires DM adjudication.

 

They are extreme examples, but the fact that rules support them lead to general trouble when playing, since it puts the players in hack-n-slash mode. No, they might not slay every child and helpless bystander, but if they see an umber hulk, they will attack. Why? Because it's worth xp. See a troll? Attack. See a wolf? Attack.

 

Now, if the troll was actually an NPC I wanted to the players to meet and interact with, then I'll have to interfere with their role-playing options, since they'll already have gone into kill-mode by the time they see it. If they discover the troll some distance away and see it coming toward them, then chances are they'll toss arrows and fireballs first and worry about questions later... or never.

 

Sure, they might have impaled my plot, but they won't know that, and should still get their xps, since trolls are dangerous. And my only means of control is to rail-road them into submission by giving out information that they really shouldn't have.

 

Heck, I've even see PCs killed by their ambitions when hordes of orcs were swarming them, yet they remained blindly confident that their four PCs could take on an army of 1000 orcs simply because they had knowledge of the rules (i.e., "orcs are puny and cannot harm us") and had XP-signs in their eyes.

 

Now, that's just bad role-playing. That will happen in any event, but I certainly don't need the rules to support that. I want rules where I can safely argue, without having players contradicting me and pointing to pages in the book, that they can kill just as many or as few orcs as they like, because I really won't care one whit by the time I give out XP. In fact, I might penalize them for monster-slashing on the basis that it's bad role-playing. D20 rules don't support that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the problem really isn't D&D 3e and d20 as such. It's an incredibly simplistic badly designed system IMHO, but then I'm not going to be playing Pokemon either...

 

No, the problem is that while I can completely ignore Pokemon because I don't like the content, I don't have that option with d20, which seeks to permeate the entire RPG industry. In short, d20 is *everywhere* and you can't escape it! Star Wars is now d20, so I'll have to play it if I like Star Wars RPG. Heck, even Call of Cthulhu is d20 now (with levels  :ermm: ), so there is no escape.

 

But what really annoys me is WotC's strategy for d20. The following is from the d20 FAQ:

 

The company has decided it is possible that consumers can be educated to understand the problems of system over-proliferation, and for those consumers to apply pressure to publishers to use standardized systems.

 

This is where I really get hopping mad at WotC :angry:

 

They're basically saying that we're all sheep who can be manipulated. We're the customers, so how about showing some goddam respect!!  o:)

 

Later they write this:

The company believes that this is a market where diversity is more harmful than beneficial. The competition in the tabletop RPG category will (if the OGL/d20 strategy is successful) shift from producing competitive RPG systems to producing competitive RPG products that share a common system.

 

This is quite elistist, but setting aside the notion that "diversity is harmful", there might be some truth to the idea that many systems might cloud the market, while a standard could make it much more accesible to the consumers.

 

The problem, however, is that if there is to be an industry-wide standard, then d20 is about the last system that should be considered for that standard for the reasons of flawed the design and illogical rules that I have given above.

 

Why the hate for Pokemon ? Or is there a D20 pokemon game now ?

 

Well when I was at my RPG playing peak there were a lot of systems. I personally own about 100 or more of the things.

Each system would require you to learn it. Some people liked that (I always did) some people hated and wanted something universal where the core rules stayed constant. GURPS is probably the obvious one , core rules with various world books. If you knew GURPS then you could very quickly play any of the world books without having to relearn a new set of rules.

 

These days I would write or adapt some rules rather than buying them. Although source books are always handy.


I have to agree with Volourn.  Bioware is pretty much dead now.  Deals like this kills development studios.

478327[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why the hate for Pokemon ?

 

Just don't like it - way too childish and silly for my tastes.

 

Or is there a D20 pokemon game now ?

 

 

GAAAHH!!!

 

What a horrible idea :ermm:

 

No, there isn't, at least not to my knowlege. And Please don't do that again :D

 

 

Well when I was at my RPG playing peak there were a lot of systems. I personally own about 100 or more of the things.

Each system would require you to learn it. Some people liked that (I always did) some people hated and wanted something universal where the core rules stayed constant. GURPS is probably the obvious one , core rules with various world books. If you knew GURPS then you could very quickly play any of the world books without having to relearn a new set of rules.

 

These days I would write or adapt some rules rather than buying them. Although source books are always handy.

 

Quite. The problem is that d20 sourcebooks don't lend themselves well to other systems, whereas GURPS sourcebooks could be used in World of Darkness or most other games without too much trouble. The insistence on fixed classes and levels in d20, however, make sourcebooks practically useless to other games. The various guides and online databases provide more useful info for a GURPS Star Wars game than the d20 Star Wars sourcebooks would o:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, these are examples of exeptions to rules.  If your players are going around killing children and beggars, there's something wrong with your players, not the rules.

 

Falling down a mountain implies a fall of greater than one thousand feet, while the rules for falling in d20 only cover falls of up to about 200 feet, and even then not onto impaling rocks.  This would seem to imply that this is a situation that requires DM adjudication.

 

They are extreme examples, but the fact that rules support them lead to general trouble when playing, since it puts the players in hack-n-slash mode. No, they might not slay every child and helpless bystander, but if they see an umber hulk, they will attack. Why? Because it's worth xp. See a troll? Attack. See a wolf? Attack.

 

Now, if the troll was actually an NPC I wanted to the players to meet and interact with, then I'll have to interfere with their role-playing options, since they'll already have gone into kill-mode by the time they see it. If they discover the troll some distance away and see it coming toward them, then chances are they'll toss arrows and fireballs first and worry about questions later... or never.

 

Sure, they might have impaled my plot, but they won't know that, and should still get their xps, since trolls are dangerous. And my only means of control is to rail-road them into submission by giving out information that they really shouldn't have.

 

Heck, I've even see PCs killed by their ambitions when hordes of orcs were swarming them, yet they remained blindly confident that their four PCs could take on an army of 1000 orcs simply because they had knowledge of the rules (i.e., "orcs are puny and cannot harm us") and had XP-signs in their eyes.

 

Now, that's just bad role-playing. That will happen in any event, but I certainly don't need the rules to support that. I want rules where I can safely argue, without having players contradicting me and pointing to pages in the book, that they can kill just as many or as few orcs as they like, because I really won't care one whit by the time I give out XP. In fact, I might penalize them for monster-slashing on the basis that it's bad role-playing. D20 rules don't support that idea.

 

No! This is not the problem of the rules. This is a problem with your players. If your players kill everything in sight, that's their fault. And if you can't see a way to get your players not to kill everyone in sight, that's your fault. If your players are too stupid to realise that 1000 orcs would kill them, that's no one's fault but theirs.

 

And if you want those sort of rules, then either tell you rplayers that you're changing the rules with regards to experience, and they can like it or lump it, or play a different system.

 

But let me ask you this: If you don't like d20, why the hell do you play it? There are, as you said, plenty of other systems.


Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just don't like it - way too childish and silly for my tastes.

 

 

Something about judging a book by its cover comes to mind. Pokemon is actually incredibly complex. Depsite its cutesy outward appearence.

 

What a spanking idea I'll send off a design brief to WoTC right away. (w00t)

 

I'm currently working on a real time version of pokemon combat just for fun.


I have to agree with Volourn.  Bioware is pretty much dead now.  Deals like this kills development studios.

478327[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No!  This is not the problem of the rules.  This is a problem with your players.  If your players kill everything in sight, that's their fault.  And if you can't see a way to get your players not to kill everyone in sight, that's your fault.  If your players are too stupid to realise that 1000 orcs would kill them, that's no one's fault but theirs.

 

And if you want those sort of rules, then either tell you rplayers that you're changing the rules with regards to experience, and they can like it or lump it, or play a different system.

 

But let me ask you this:  If you don't like d20, why the hell do you play it?  There are, as you said, plenty of other systems.

 

Could be wrong. But it appears to me that Jediphile and his or her players (no offence I just dont know you gender) are looking for a different type of gaming experience.


I have to agree with Volourn.  Bioware is pretty much dead now.  Deals like this kills development studios.

478327[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No!  This is not the problem of the rules.  This is a problem with your players.  If your players kill everything in sight, that's their fault.  And if you can't see a way to get your players not to kill everyone in sight, that's your fault.  If your players are too stupid to realise that 1000 orcs would kill them, that's no one's fault but theirs.

 

And if you want those sort of rules, then either tell you rplayers that you're changing the rules with regards to experience, and they can like it or lump it, or play a different system.

 

Oh, don't worry about me - I know how to make the players see reason. People tend to learn after being torn to bits by 'those puny orcs'... ;)"

 

But that still doesn't address the problem of why I should pay for rules that suport such silly ideas. Like it or not - and it seems neither of us do - d20/3e rules do support the idea that four characters of level 15+ can kill an army of 1000 standard orcs without too much trouble. I can adjust the rules for that, sure, but why do the rules allow such nonsense in the first place?

 

And how about the Boromir-dilemma? Boromir was killed by - what? - four arrows in the movie? No way that could happen in D&D for an experienced warrior like him. That's just basic stupidity.

 

But let me ask you this:  If you don't like d20, why the hell do you play it?  There are, as you said, plenty of other systems.

 

I don't. Or rather, I try not to. But if I want to play KotOR, then I must play d20 (in computerized form). If I want to play Star Wars RPG - d20. Want to play new Cthulhu adventures - d20. Want to play D&D - d20. It has permeated the market and is smothering anything else.

 

If d20 was just an option, then it wouldn't matter. I'd still hate it, but then I could just ignore it. Considering WotC's statements of marketing strategy as I have cited from their d20 FAQ, that will not be possible, however, because they want d20 to become the industry standard for *all* RPGs, which means spoonfeeding to people like me forcibly, whether we like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something about judging a book by its cover comes to mind. Pokemon is actually incredibly complex. Depsite its cutesy outward appearence.

 

Oh, I'm not criticizing the system. It's just that I hate the cutesy surface so much that I cannot move past that. Clearly I'm not the target audience. But yes, it's probably well designed beneath the surface. It was designed by the people who designed Magic, after all, and whatever you think of that, it was a brilliant concept.

 

What a spanking idea I'll send off a design brief to WoTC right away.  (w00t)

 

I'm currently working on a real time version of pokemon combat just for fun.

 

Don't even joke about it. Seriously ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could be wrong. But it appears to me that Jediphile and his or her players (no offence I just dont know you gender) are looking for a different type of gaming experience.

 

You may presume me to be male. And not gay, in spite of what XboxSithLord might think... o:)

 

Actually my current campaign is an old D&D campaign (11 years and counting...), which is very difficult to separate from those rules. So for now we're using 2e Player Option rules heavily modified by my 40+ pages of house rules and certain 3e ideas. We use 3e to-hit and Armor Class rules, for example, not that it makes much difference (really just a matter of how you crunch the numbers and nothing more).

 

One of my players admits that he sort of likes 3e, but also that it is a totally differnt game that has nothing to do with earlier incarnations of D&D.

 

But I intend to end my campaign soon and then embrace something else. I've been playing some Exalted (World of Darkness system) as a player, which is pretty good.

 

However, my D&D campaign is ending, and after that I plan to try some GURPS or 5th edition Call of Cthulhu (infinitely much better than the crappy d20 version of Cthulhu IMHO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, don't worry about me - I know how to make the players see reason. People tend to learn after being torn to bits by 'those puny orcs'...  o:)"

 

But that still doesn't address the problem of why I should pay for rules that suport such silly ideas.

 

Then don't. What are you complaining about? If you don't like it, then don't buy it.

 

Like it or not - and it seems neither of us do - d20/3e rules do support the idea that four characters of level 15+ can kill an army of 1000 standard orcs without too much trouble. I can adjust the rules for that, sure, but why do the rules allow such nonsense in the first place?

 

I don't have a problem with it. I assumed you were talking about low-level characters in your example, since you mentioned that they died. And according to the rules, four level 15 characters probably wouldn't get any experience for killing 1000 standard orcs, because it would most likely consume very little of their resources due to the fact that 1000 standard orcs probably wouldn't be able to hit them on anything other than a 20.

 

And how about the Boromir-dilemma? Boromir was killed by - what? - four arrows in the movie? No way that could happen in D&D for an experienced warrior like him. That's just basic stupidity.

 

Actually, it potentially could if the optional rule regarding instant kills was being used, as could it if it was a story related death, so the DM could just declare Boromir dead. Besides, I think this is all neither here nor there, as I cannot remember the last time any of my players met Boromir in our D&D game.

 

I don't. Or rather, I try not to. But if I want to play KotOR, then I must play d20 (in computerized form). If I want to play Star Wars RPG - d20. Want to play new Cthulhu adventures - d20. Want to play D&D - d20. It has permeated the market and is smothering anything else.

 

If d20 was just an option, then it wouldn't matter. I'd still hate it, but then I could just ignore it. Considering WotC's statements of marketing strategy as I have cited from their d20 FAQ, that will not be possible, however, because they want d20 to become the industry standard for *all* RPGs, which means spoonfeeding to people like me forcibly, whether we like it or not.

 

If you don't want to play d20, you don't have to. If you want to play Star Wars RPG, can't you use the old system? If you want to play new Cthulhu adventures, can't you just sit down and convert them back to the old system, as I do when I convert all my 1e D&D modules to d20? If you want to play D&D, can't you play another edition of it? In fact just about the only d20 game I can think of that doesn't have a non-d20 version would be d20 Modern.

 

The last time I went into my local RPG shop, there were plenty of non-d20 systems and books on the racks.


Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And according to the rules, four level 15 characters probably wouldn't get any experience for killing 1000 standard orcs, because it would most likely consume very little of their resources due to the fact that 1000 standard orcs probably wouldn't be able to hit them on anything other than a 20.

 

And that's just silly. If someone tries to hit you with a sharp object, then you're in danger and could lose your life if you don't defend yourself.

 

Actually, it potentially could if the optional rule regarding instant kills was being used, as could it if it was a story related death, so the DM could just declare Boromir dead.  Besides, I think this is all neither here nor there, as I cannot remember the last time any of my players met Boromir in our D&D game.

 

Of course you don't meet Boromir, but the situation is still just as relevant, isn't it? I mean, if my character was mortally wounded, I'd prefer to have the option to making the heroic death-speech along the lines of Boromir before dying, but d20 rules won't allow that or even that my character could be killed by four arrows. Sure, the DM can enforce stuff for dramatic purposes, but that's again avoiding the issue of what the rules say (EDIT: And reserved for NPCs), and they actually don't allow for a leve 15 warrior to be killed by four arrows. So if I'm a 15 level warrior in D&D, then I don't have to worry about that one orc (or even group of orcs, as it was i the novel) point a bow at me, because I know there is no way he can kill me - I can just stand there and say, "Do your worst - see if I care".

 

If you don't want to play d20, you don't have to.  If you want to play Star Wars RPG, can't you use the old system?  If you want to play new Cthulhu adventures, can't you just sit down and convert them back to the old system, as I do when I convert all my 1e D&D modules to d20?  If you want to play D&D, can't you play another edition of it?  In fact just about the only d20 game I can think of that doesn't have a non-d20 version would be d20 Modern.

 

You're missing my point. You're talking about whether I must play d20. I've alredy said that I don't have to (for now).

 

But what I'm talking about is whether d20 is a flawed and badly designed system at its core. That's the central issue of this topic, not whether you and I or whomever loves or loathes it.

 

The last time I went into my local RPG shop, there were plenty of non-d20 systems and books on the racks.

 

For now, yes, but as I have demonstrated, WotC intend to make d20 the industry-wide standard for all RPG over time. They have said so. You can go to their site and see this for yourself, if you don't believe me. Just go here and read the d20 FAQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fixed classes also hurt Star Wars and games like KotOR. I'm sick of hearing about how Yoda is a counselor, so he can't force jump, or Obi-Wan must be a guardian since he uses a blue lightsaber... Luke switched from a blue lightsaber to a green one between Episode V and VI, so I guess he turned from being a guardian to being a counselor...  o:)

 

Experience levels also lead to stupid conclusions that contradict the flow of good storytelling and drama. Since the to-hit probability is based on levels, that makes low-level characters inferior to high-level ones, yet in Episode I we see Darth Maul kill Qui-Gon, a jedi master, in single combat, only to then see Darth Maul be killed by Qui-Gon's "inferior" apprentice... This leads to all sorts of inane speculation about how Obi-Wan was a guardian and so had better hit-probability as per his class than Qui-Gon who was a counselor (used green lightsaber). Others then respond that, oh no, Qui-Gon was also a guardian, or he couldn't have done force jumps as we clearly saw him do, or that though he was a counselor, he still had better hit probability, since he would have been level 13+ or whatever, while Obi-Wan would only have been around level 7, where he is declared a knight...  ;)

Don't mistake the d20 system for that rubbish they used in the KotOR games. And all the lightsaber colour-class stuff was made up by someone at BIO, it has nothing to do with the d20 or SW canon whatsoever.

 

And about using the d20 to explain the movies... you'll see that the people at Wizards don't endorse those practices, so proceed at your own risk. :)


- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...