Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[EnderAndrew]

I haven't said the players who play such games are inferior.

 

I have said the rules are inferior. And I will maintain that a game that limits my opportunities as a role-player is inferior to a game that allows more opportunities.

 

From a pure logical standpoint, I think most people would have to agree with that statement. I feel some don't want to as they have certain attachments to D&D. They have fond memories, and have had good times playing D&D.

 

It should be noted that I have said several times, that I think people should be entitled to play whatever they want, and I hope they have fun doing so.

 

However, I think when designing a game, people shouldn't stick simply to the conventions that exist simply out of tradition. And I've met countless players who play D&D primarily because they've never been exposed to other systems, and I think that is really sad.

 

When VHS beat out Betamax, the world accepted a standard that was inferior, but more popular. Pop music often sucks, but it sells. Popularity does not equate directly to quality.

 

McDonalds is the most popular burger chain in the world. They have far from the best burgers. I don't know why people defend D&D's rules so vehemently, when the rules are in fact severely flawed.

[Lancer]

A good GM can make the flaws of event he worst system not matter at all. But if the GM is that good, what could get out of a system that was much better? And as EnderWiggin said, an flawed system is still a flawed system. A good GM can get around that, but why should he have to? Shouldn't the system be tested and flawless to begin with? Yes, I know that will never happen, but I think we can get a good deal closer to perfection than we do in 3e...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We can certainly do *a lot* better than 3E. Fact of the matter is (I said this earlier) that I have never found a system which I didn't see the potential for many pages of house rules (either re-writing or adding missing stuff)... Even for "superior" modern systems.

[Lancer]

McDonalds is the most popular burger chain in the world.  They have far from the best burgers.  I don't know why people defend D&D's rules so vehemently, when the rules are in fact severely flawed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All systems are flawed to some extent. Severely flawed? I personally don't think so, if i did, I wouldn't still be playing it.

[EnderAndrew]

We can certainly do *a lot* better than 3E. Fact of the matter is (I said this earlier) that I have never found a system which I didn't see the potential for many pages of house rules (either re-writing or adding missing stuff)... Even for  "superior" modern systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Certain DM/GM/STs feel that Toon was one of the few perfect systems. It may be the simplest system I've ever run across. And in running D6 with no house rules for over 7 years, I never once heard a complaint. In fact, many of my players want me to go back to running a D6 Star Wars game.

 

Neither of these are brand new systems. As WoD is a popular system most people are familiar with, I'd like to lay it on the table. How is the system flawed and what house rules would be necessary before running it?

[Archmonarch]

Im one of those poor wretches who have never been released beyond WOTC's control. I would certainly like to however, and thus suggest someone should start an internet (whether by chat, etc.) PnP game with the system of their choice and have members from these boards play. Given the various ranges of characters we have here, I think the sessions would be rather interesting.

 

Also, it could settle this debate by introducing people to various different systems and arriving upon a consensus as to which is best.

[Lancer]

And it is not just about defending the 2ndEd core rules but defending YOUR OWN adaptation of the rules. Most AD&D vets' rules differ somewhat from the AD&D core ruleset. And at least for me, I am happy with mine. Happy enough that I think it is the best for my campaign. And I have tried, played, read the rulesets for many other systems but I still like mine.

[EnderAndrew]

WoD is a pretty simple rules system.

 

You have three groups of attributes, Physical, Social and Mental. You choose one to be primary, and divide up 10 points. Let's say you pick Physical.

 

You have Strength which governs damage down in melee combat and brawling.

You have Dexterity which governs your ability to hit.

You have Stamina which governs your ability to withstand damage.

 

All attributes have a base of 1 for free. You might split your 10 points up, putting 4 in Strength, 2 in Dex, and 4 in Stamina, or however you see fit.

 

Skill points go along a similiar line, and any character can put points equally into any skill or attribute as they see fit.

 

Let's say at the end of character creation, you have a Dex of 4, and a Brawl of 3. You're a Gangrel, and you prefer to fight hand-to-hand with Claws.

 

You take 7 dice (4+3) and roll them. Your difficulty is 6. For every dice that is a 6 or higher, you have a success. If you role a 1, it takes away a success.

 

I just used a random web-based dice roll, and got this:

 

8, 3, 4, 1, 1, 4, 4

 

There are more 1's than successes, so this roll is a botch, and you fail to hit. That's basically it. You now know how to play with that system.

[Lancer]

Neither of these are brand new systems.  As WoD is a popular system most people are familiar with, I'd like to lay it on the table.  How is the system flawed and what house rules would be necessary before running it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Simple.

I am not a big fan of rolling a whole bunch of dice and counting successes minus the ones cancelled. It bogs down gameplay and is reminiscent somewhat of Shadowrun. I'd rather have a single to hit die and be over with it.

 

The ST system can also lead to unrealistic results as well. Sometimes you can have a smaller chance of accomplishing a task the more dice you have because the more dice you have in possession, the greater the chance that some successes will get nullified.

 

I have yet to read the new WoD sourcebook for comparison but I should be doing it in the next few weeks.

[Jediphile]

Any system that limits you from playing whatever concept you want is inferior to a system that will allow you to play any concept you want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Precisely. I've run into this particular wall again and again in 3e. In one game, we were playing in Forgotten Realms, and I wanted to make a sly wizard, loosely based on Garak from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. For those of you who don't know him, he is a spy with an awful lot of bad history posing as a tailor on a space station, but he lies every chance he gets, and he is very slick and very smart about it and a master at nasty comments and subtle threats (that doesn't do him justice at all, but it's what I can do now...). So I needed my character to be really sly - he didn't have to be a thief, he just had to that sort of 'evil charm' and be really subtle. Now, you can infer that any way you want, but in 3e, the way to become 'silvertongued' is to build the Innuendo skill - a lot! But I couldn't do that as a wizard, because the rules wouldn't let me. That's bad game design!

 

Not at all. Worst is a system that is so simple that you have to make up a whole bunch of rules just so that it can become playable.. (i.e. CoC)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uhm... Not to put too fine a point on it, but is that precisely what you've said you did with 2e rules? I know I did...

[EnderAndrew]

Honestly, I find that WoD combat resolves MUCH quicker than D&D combat. It may have something to do with the lethality of combat, where one-hit kills are far more common, instead of 15 rounds of combat.

 

It doesn't take but 5 seconds to roll 7 dice and count for successes, and you don't have to consult any tables or charts.

 

Still, you suggest that modern systems would need house rules before they could become playable. I don't know what house rules WoD would need. I run with one house rule, not because of a flaw in the system, but rather to just increase overall difficulty. I up the standard diff from 6 to 7.

[Lancer]

[uhm... Not to put too fine a point on it, but is that precisely what you've said you did with 2e rules? I know I did...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not quite. I refined some of the core rules but never did I have to come up with an entirely new ruleset because the mechanics were just absent to begin with.

[EnderAndrew]

Not quite. I refined some of the core rules but never did I have to come up with an entirely new ruleset because the mechanics were just absent to begin with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet my beef is with the core mechanics and you say they can be fixed with simple house rules.

[Lancer]

Brawl of 3.  You're a Gangrel, and you prefer to fight hand-to-hand with Claws.

 

You take 7 dice (4+3) and roll them.  Your difficulty is 6.  For every dice that is a 6 or higher, you have a success.  If you role a 1, it takes away a success.

 

I just used a random web-based dice roll, and got this:

 

8, 3, 4, 1, 1, 4, 4

 

There are more 1's than successes, so this roll is a botch, and you fail to hit.  That's basically it.  You now know how to play with that system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The less die you have , the lower your chances of getting a 1 and cancelling a success.. But wait? Shouldn't your chances of succeeding *increase* as you have more dice?

Hence, a core mechanic problem.

[Jediphile]

And it is not just about defending the 2ndEd core rules but defending YOUR OWN adaptation of the rules. Most AD&D vets' rules differ somewhat from the AD&D core ruleset. And at least for me, I am happy with mine. Happy enough that I think it is the best for my campaign. And I have tried, played, read the rulesets for many other systems but I still like mine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but there is a big difference between house rules that fit the individual campaign style of the GM and house rules that try to fix the broken rules of a system. You seem to cast those two in as the same, but they're not.

 

Most campaigns will, in any system, throw in their own tweaks here and there, but that's a matter of individual preference among the players and GM. This doesn't indicate that the rules are flawed, just that the players and GM want to do something a little differently. In short, they add those tweaks because they want them - not because they need them.

 

The same cannot be said to be the case for my 2e revisions with regard to the dual-class options, for example - those I definitely introduced because the existing rules were terribly flawed and, worse, a wide open opportunity for exploitation.

[Lancer]

Not quite. I refined some of the core rules but never did I have to come up with an entirely new ruleset because the mechanics were just absent to begin with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet my beef is with the core mechanics and you say they can be fixed with simple house rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, yes, of course.

[Archmonarch]

Um...anyone going to comment on my suggestion? Anyone?

[EnderAndrew]

The less die you have , the lower your chances of getting a 1 and cancelling a success.. But wait? Shouldn't your chances of succeeding *increase* as you have more dice?

Hence, a core mechanic problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are mistaken there. Let's say I'm only rolling 1 dice, and I have to hit a 6 (a 7 in my game).

 

I have a 50% chance of getting a success, and a 10% chance of rolling a 1. With more dice, you don't have a greater chance of failure as the 1's have to outnumber the successes. With each new dice, again you have a 50% chance of success, and 10% chance of rolling a 1.

 

In addition, if you have a specialty, you get to reroll a 10 and possibly get multiple successes on one die.

[Jediphile]

A DM should always be the smartest guy in the room.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hehe - better not tell my players this.... "

[Lancer]

Yes, but there is a big difference between house rules that fit the individual campaign style of the GM and house rules that try to fix the broken rules of a system. You seem to cast those two in as the same, but they're not.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When I say house rules I am exclusively talking about rules which address aspects which are broken about the system. And virtually all systems (not just AD&D) are just flat out broken.

I.E. GURPS at high character point totals.

[Lancer]

Im one of those poor wretches who have never been released beyond WOTC's control. I would certainly like to however, and thus suggest someone should start an internet (whether by chat, etc.) PnP game with the system of their choice and have members from these boards play. Given the various ranges of characters we have here, I think the sessions would be rather interesting.

 

Also, it could settle this debate by introducing people to various different systems and arriving upon a consensus as to which is best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No consensus would ever be reached because everyone will have different picks as what the best system is.

[EnderAndrew]

We might reach a majority concensus however that it is not D&D.

 

[Jediphile]

The less die you have , the lower your chances of getting a 1 and cancelling a success.. But wait? Shouldn't your chances of succeeding *increase* as you have more dice?

Hence, a core mechanic problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are mistaken there. Let's say I'm only rolling 1 dice, and I have to hit a 6 (a 7 in my game).

 

I have a 50% chance of getting a success, and a 10% chance of rolling a 1. With more dice, you don't have a greater chance of failure as the 1's have to outnumber the successes. With each new dice, again you have a 50% chance of success, and 10% chance of rolling a 1.

 

In addition, if you have a specialty, you get to reroll a 10 and possibly get multiple successes on one die.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do tend to side with Lancer here, since this has been my experience in WoD games too - the higher your pool gets, the greater the chance is of rolling that annoying one, and that can really ruin your result. It doesn't make much sense that building a higher dice pool actually increases my chances of rolling failures. I was made aware of this by a long-time Werewolf player, who embraces all things WoD, and yet he still agreed that this was a bit of a design flaw... They did that better in Exalted, where 1s are completely ignored if you roll just one success, but they don't use that in the other WoD games.

[EnderAndrew]

But a single 1 doesn't ruin your roll. You need more 1's than you have successes to them to be a factor. So a larger dice pool actually increases your chances of having more successes than 1's mathmatically.

[Jediphile]

Im one of those poor wretches who have never been released beyond WOTC's control. I would certainly like to however, and thus suggest someone should start an internet (whether by chat, etc.) PnP game with the system of their choice and have members from these boards play. Given the various ranges of characters we have here, I think the sessions would be rather interesting.

 

Also, it could settle this debate by introducing people to various different systems and arriving upon a consensus as to which is best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I doubt it will settle anything, though. The thing with the internet is that playing PBeM (Play By eMail) comes much closer to freeform RPG than standard tabletop, where you roll dice and discuss the rules, so the success or failure of such a game would depend far more on the narrative provided by whoever would GM such an effort than whatever rules he or she uses to run the campaign with.

 

Besides, such games can take an awful long time to play, unless you get people to coordinate their schedules so they can all be online at the same time. Since we're a worldwide community, that is next to impossible.

[Jediphile]

Yes, but there is a big difference between house rules that fit the individual campaign style of the GM and house rules that try to fix the broken rules of a system. You seem to cast those two in as the same, but they're not.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When I say house rules I am exclusively talking about rules which address aspects which are broken about the system. And virtually all systems (not just AD&D) are just flat out broken.

I.E. GURPS at high character point totals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By that, I take it you mean GURPS characters become overly powerful once they've accumulated and used many characters points?

 

How is that different from 2e or 3e D&D? Those characters are not just overpowered, they're virtual gods next to the common people!