Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[EnderAndrew]

It's really a good book.

[Lancer]

Again McDonalds is the most popular burger chain on the planet.  That does not mean they make good burgers.  I always wonder why people don't eat a better burger elsewhere, but people seem content to eat there.

 

Because there will always be some people that *do* think that McDonald's make the best burgers (though many others don't).. The Big Mac expert, for instance, from Supersize me certainly thinks so.

And there are some weirdos, myself included, that think 2ndEd is overall one of the best systems out there. Is it the best system in the world? Probably not. Is it better than 3E? Debatable. Do I like my homebrew 2ndED system better than 3E? Without a doubt, yes!

[Lancer]

And on another note.. Do you people ever sleep?

[Jediphile]

And on another note.. Do you people ever sleep?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No - not having a life helps :D

[Lancer]

I thought WotC was pure evil.  I really want to hate them, as they are owned by Hasbro, and they put stupid restrictions on D&D CRPGs.  However, the Open Gaming License is a double-edged sword that I'm not sure I have a problem with.

 

 

I have a problem with the OGL since it encourages the d20 monopoly that WotC is building up.

 

In a worst case "extreme" scenario (i.e. nightmare) it would put your other favorite gaming companies SJ Games,White Wolf, West End Games...etc out of business or at least smother them to the point where they find it more lucrative to do nothing else but d20 derivatives through OGL.

 

This would truly signify the coming of Gehenna.

[Lancer]

Again, I'm happy that people enjoy their games.  I think they might enjoy their games more with a better system.  And I'm not encouraging people to switch systems mid-chronicle.  But next time, consider another system.  You might really enjoy it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would definitely consider trying out other games if nothing else but to have a broader and more detailed understanding of our favorite hobby (we are truly geeks!)... :ph34r:

 

Different strokes for different folks however. Many others profess growing to hating AD&D after trying out other systems.. However, I must say that my exposure to various other gaming systems hasn't made me dislike AD&D. On the contrary, it opened up my eyes to just how flawed everyone else's systems truly are (In many cases just as flawed as AD&D despite the claims of some), how quick AD&D mechanics were, and how much more fleshed out TSR's settings were in comparison.

 

Edit: BTW, SJ Games is as bad as WotC itself when it comes to inundating the market with an endless number of supplements.. Not saying that the supplements are bad, however. Admittedely, GURPS supplements are quite good and I can even use them in my AD&D or Cyberpunk campaigns.

[Lancer]

A 20th Level Fighter can roll a 1 and whiff 5% of the time.

 

Let's say I am some insane fighter in WoD and I have 12 dice to roll to hit.  (Really twinky characters might actually even roll say, 15 dice, but that's rare).

 

You are five times more likely to get a success than a 1.  So, 1 in 5, 15 times over again is a .000000016384% chance of botching.

 

Nobody is talking about having 12 or 15 dice (LOL). Of course you will have a large probability of succeeding in your task with *that* many dice unless you are cursed by the gods themselves. My point is that the cancelling-out effect becomes significant with an intermediate size pool of dice say 4-8 dice.

[Jediphile]

And there are some weirdos, myself included, that think 2ndEd is overall one of the best systems out there. Is it the best system in the world? Probably not. Is it better than 3E? Debatable. Do I like my homebrew 2ndED system better than 3E? Without a doubt, yes!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but that's a personal preference, not an objective appraisal. You pretty much say it yourself, when you admit that 2e is probably not the best, and perhaps not as good as 3e. There will always be a personal preference for certain games among certain, but that is usually because of the nostalgia and experiences they've had with those games.

 

I have most of my best RPG experiences from 2e (as noted in another topic) simply because that was what we played when:

 

1. I was introduced to role-playing games

 

2. When we had the most fun playing RPGs.

 

That impression lasts, so if someone voices criticism of that system, I will rise to defend it. But when I do so, it's out of those fond memories, which really originated from my friends and my GM and not from the crummy rules at all.

 

Fortunately, however, I have played enough different RPGs to have fun with several systems, and so I don't automatically associate fun with a specific system. Over the years I've had fun playing OD&D (Basic D&D), 1e, 2e, 2e Player Option, 3e (though not so much), d20 Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu (5th edition), Shadowrun, Exalted, Vampire, LUG Star Trek, GURPS, and probably a host of others that I forget...

 

Playing so many games has granted me the virtue of fun with many games, and so I know that the fun did not derive from one system so much as it did from the people I gamed with. This brings me to the conclusion that no system, however basic and simple, is the source of the fun on the basis of its accessibility - it is and always will be the people you game with who make or break the game. The system can be as brilliant as you want it to be - the game will fail if the players don't get along. Vice versa, the system can be as horribly flawed as possible - the game will be entertaining and fun if the people involved get along socially. For me role-playing is really just an excuse to hang out with friends, have fun, and swap stories - we probably spend more time talking about our lives than about the game. But the game is the focal point - without it we might not get around to meeting at all, and without it we might not have any fun that evening at all, life being often unfair and depressing...

 

All this has left me in a position of judging an RPG- book not by its cover, nor by its association with fun gaming sessions, but instead on the hard value of its contents, because I can separate the fun of the game from the quality of the writing. And this evalution tells me that d20/3e is a poor RPG system, that classes and experience levels are outdated concepts, and that you don't need fixed archetypes to have fun with the game... among other things.

[Lancer]

It is obvious in this discussion that one's opinion about AD&D is highly reflective of what you think about class-based vs. skill-based systems.

 

All the people here who claim other systems are better than AD&D are those that hold the credence that skill-based is so much better. The main reason why to these people AD&D seems so irrepairably broken is because they don't like classes, levels, hp.

 

I would argue that those who have never had a problem with classes, hp, levels come to hold AD&D in higher regard relative to other systems. I would say this discrepancy is the main reason why we are having this debate. It is hardly a debate about superiority of one system to another it is more like a debate on taste.

[Jediphile]

Edit: BTW, SJ Games is as bad as WotC itself when it comes to inundating the market with an endless number of supplements.. Not saying that the supplements are bad, however. Admittedely, GURPS supplements are quite good and I can even use them in my AD&D or Cyberpunk campaigns.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

SJ have released lots of rulebooks, yes, but their way of doing it is completely different from WotC. WotC released a game that was very basic and rigid with little or no diversity for players to explore, then slowly introduce that diversity in the gazillion of prestige classes, optional classes, new feats, new spells, etc., that they introduce in their many rulebooks.

 

SJ does it the other way around - they create a core that has about all the skills and traits you could want, then they build on it. There may come new skills and traits in subsequent books, but if that happens, it is not because they 'deliberately held it back for the purpose of more profit down the line'. At least, it is not my impression of SJ, though it is of WotC. Besides, after several revisions early on, core GURPS remained more or less consistent for 20 years before they finally did 4th edition. And 4th edition isn't even that different. If anything, it just tries to put all those wayward skills and traits into fewer books, so that the critique of many rulebooks will be less. Yes, the books are pricey ($40 a piece), but you get a full game with almost endless options by getting just two books.

[Lancer]

Yes, but that's a personal preference, not an objective appraisal. You pretty much say it yourself, when you admit that 2e is probably not the best, and perhaps not as good as 3e. There will always be a personal preference for certain games among certain, but that is usually because of the nostalgia and experiences they've had with those games.

 

No..no.. no... It is not about nostalgia. It is about tweaking the system until you are at the point which you are proud of your work because it is *exactly* the way you want it and wouldn't change it for anything less.

[Lancer]

SJ have released lots of rulebooks, yes, but their way of doing it is completely different from WotC. WotC released a game that was very basic and rigid with little or no diversity for players to explore, then slowly introduce that diversity in the gazillion of prestige classes, optional classes, new feats, new spells, etc., that they introduce in their many rulebooks.

 

SJ does it the other way around - they create a core that has about all the skills and traits you could want, then they build on it. There may come new skills and traits in subsequent books, but if that happens, it is not because they 'deliberately held it back for the purpose of more profit down the line'. At least, it is not my impression of SJ, though it is of WotC. Besides, after several revisions early on, core GURPS remained more or less consistent for 20 years before they finally did 4th edition. And 4th edition isn't even that different. If anything, it just tries to put all those wayward skills and traits into fewer books, so that the critique of many rulebooks will be less. Yes, the books are pricey ($40 a piece), but you get a full game with almost endless options by getting just two books.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is quite true. The reason why SJ Games has so many sourcebooks is not because it is holding back rules for future profit (as is the case with WotC) but being a "universal roleplaying system" it has no choice but to put out many supplements in order to cover all the various genres it supports.

 

BUT.. A big BUT...

What is annoying about GURPS' settings (Traveller, Transhuman space...etc) is that the main sourcebooks of the setting is never enough. I hate when they tell you that "to get full enjoyment of this sourcebook you need Ultra-Tech I and II, plus GURPS Space plus Biotech plus.. blah blah blah." Granted, this problem probably just comes with the territory of being a system that caters to all different styles of play.

But damn annoying regardless.

[Cantousent]

Folks have been trying to put the competition out of business for years, Jedi. I just don't think it will work.

 

Microsoft occupies a special place, and there is no end of ire directed at Bill Gates. I know Microsoft. I use Microsoft products. WotC, sir, is no Microsoft. ...Or, if it is, it's a very poor, dumbed down Microsoft.

[Lancer]

Folks have been trying to put the competition out of business for years, Jedi.  I just don't think it will work.

 

Microsoft occupies a special place, and there is no end of ire directed at Bill Gates.  I know Microsoft.  I use Microsoft products.  WotC, sir, is no Microsoft.  ...Or, if it is, it's a very poor, dumbed down Microsoft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For the sake of the hobby.. Pray that the competition is never put away.

[Jediphile]

It is obvious in this discussion that one's opinion about AD&D is highly reflective of what you think about class-based vs. skill-based systems.

 

All the people here who claim other systems are better than AD&D are those that hold the credence that skill-based is so much better. The main reason why to these people AD&D seems so irrepairably broken is because they don't like classes, levels, hp.

 

I would argue that those who have never had a problem with classes, hp, levels come to hold AD&D in higher regard relative to other systems. I would say this discrepancy is the main reason why we are having this debate. It is hardly a debate about superiority of one system to another it is more like a debate on taste.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, that is the focus of the debate, but I don't see why it cannot be discussed. My position (and I think several here agree with that) is that experience levels and fixed classes are bad, because they enforce a structure that does not exist in real life.

 

Sure, you could say that RPGs are not realistic in any event, but *are* representative of reality in some way - we're not talking about Road Runner the RPG, after all. We're talking about RPGs were we play characters who are not quite so distanced from reality that we that we cannot empathize with them.

 

If there is dissent about something in an RPG, then the first argument is usually about how something would or could never happen in the real world. Of course there is no magic in the real world, but people can become good swordsman or crack shots, so evaluating something from a realistic assessment is not entirely irrelevant (except for magic, psionics, force-powers, laser guns, starships, etc.).

 

Most times when players have argued against AD&D rules in my campaign, it has been on the basis of something being totally unrealistic. And despite what anyone might think about that, it is a valid objection, because unconving rules do not serve to suspend disbelief, and that is essential in role-playing - if you cannot put yourself in the position of your character, then your ability to play him is compromised - he becomes a cartoonish character whose situation and opinions cannot be accepted as compelling or relevant in any way, and so you won't care much what happens to him. That is poison to the player-character relationship.

 

And fixed classes, experience levels, and hit points does not help here because they are so unrealistic - it distances the characters from reality and turns them into cartoonish figures. They become like characters in fantasy movies or the like.

 

Now, in an epic/heroic game like AD&D, you could say that's not so bad, except for one important aspect - when you watch Luke Skywalker or Captain Picard or Aragorn fight the bad guys, you know they're not going to die - they will not be killed in a fight and they will defeat the villains. One-way drama can work that way, because you're exploring a narrative that you're already distanced from - you look at what Luke or Picard or whomever are doing, but you do not participate, and there is no danger beyond what the writer/director/whoever can evoke with his plot and characterization. Those people are fairly good at what they do, but they also do have the handy tools of lighting, impressive visual effects and atmospheric music at their disposal. Computer games are much the same way. KotOR games are horribly fixed for archetype, but you get a compelling story with all the trimmings of a movie in return. You do not, however, get many genuine options to choose from in the game - there is one set plotline, and you must follow that whether you like it or not. It's basically like a movie where you get to participate in some elements of a scene, but you don't get to rewrite it, and you don't get to progress in the plot until you've completed the scene the way you're supposed to.

 

Tabletop RPG is completely different - here you have *all* the choices, and they are all genuine. You don't have the flash or atmospheric music of the movies, however, so if the experience is to be compelling, then it must come from interaction of the plot (controlled by the GM) and the character (controlled by the player). And your hero can certainly die in the confrontation with the evil Sith or Black Eagle Baron or whomever - you can't just reload and play the scene again if things go against you (much to the chagrin of many a role-player, but I digress )! So when you enter a fight, there is something at stake, because your character could lose his life or similar.

 

Only how is losing your character going to mean anything, if your he is not the character you had in mind, because the rules did not allow you to make what you thought of? And how are you to suspend your disbelief when you know that your 17th-level warrior with a full plate +5 and a sword +4 could easily kill the entire village, or even the army of thousand orcs you just noticed down the road? It's all good and fine to say that the warrior shouldn't kill all the helpless villagers, but if it's what the player wants to do because someone stole from him or insulted him, then it *is* interfering with the player-character relationship if the GM tries to prevent a player from doing so. Isn't it more relevant that the rules should preclude such nonsense in and of themselves?

 

I don't mind that a genuine swordmaster like Conan can knock down a few orcs without too much trouble, but even Conan is supposed to be threatened, if he is all alone against 10 orcs or similar. Sure, he might win the fight, but the threat is there. For even a 9th-level D&D fighter, it is not there.

[Jediphile]

No..no.. no... It is not about nostalgia. It is about tweaking the system until you are at the point which you are proud of your work because it is *exactly* the way you want it and wouldn't change it for anything less.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I can't do that in 2e, even with Player Option rules. It's just not possible. I can alter stuff, I can change the rules, but get to where I have the level of options for characterization I want? Nope, not possible. It would be easier to write a new system... Or just play something else.

[Lancer]

Only how is losing your character going to mean anything, if your he is not the character you had in mind, because the rules did not allow you to make what you thought of? And how are you to suspend your disbelief when you know that your 17th-level warrior with a full plate +5 and a sword +4 could easily kill the entire village, or even the army of thousand orcs you just noticed down the road? It's all good and fine to say that the warrior shouldn't kill all the helpless villagers, but if it's what the player wants to do because someone stole from him or insulted him, then it *is* interfering with the player-character relationship if the GM tries to prevent a player from doing so. Isn't it more relevant that the rules should preclude such nonsense in and of themselves?

 

Even if there is no immediate danger of retaliation when your Level 17 character slays the hapless villages there are the legal repercussions that would make a player think twice. A 17th level fighter who does this would incur the wrath of the local Baron, Duke,King, Emperior (whatever) and soon the empire's best assassins will be sent down the player's throat in no time. Not to mention other terrible things might happen like being hunted by bouny hunters, excommunication, banishment, loss of favor by the Gods, curses, holding loved ones ransom or killing them outright, being captured and losing limbs...etc

I think these are realistic results which don't serve to suspend belief. A high level character can certainly wipe out an entire community of villagers but would need to weigh the consequences of his actions.

 

 

I don't mind that a genuine swordmaster like Conan can knock down a few orcs without too much trouble, but even Conan is supposed to be threatened, if he is all alone against 10 orcs or similar. Sure, he might win the fight, but the threat is there. For even a 9th-level D&D fighter, it is not there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Trust me.. The threat *is* there in my 2ndEd campaign. With my rules? LOL.

 

And you can't just look at combat as if you put all these characters in a caged death match. Even feeble creatures like orcs and goblins are very tactical and small communities of them would devise traps and use the environment to their advantage that if done well enough can make a high level character sweating bricks.

 

You are right.. In a PnP game(unlike movies and CRPGS) because of ALL the choices given and the lack of visual flair, it is the responsiblity of the DM to portray this world in a realistic enough fashion to the players. My suggestions above are realistic responses to the scenarios you posed.

And you can do the above without changing the AD&D rules at all.

[Lancer]

Well, I can't do that in 2e, even with Player Option rules. It's just not possible. I can alter stuff, I can change the rules, but get to where I have the level of options for characterization I want? Nope, not possible. It would be easier to write a new system... Or just play something else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You must want some crazy characterization. And that's the crux of the matter here. I am confident that my system can do what I want it to do whereas you can't get the system to work for you the way you want it. This is probably attributable to your preference for skill-based systems and to the fact that you are even pickier than me but regardless..

 

It all comes down to tastes. And ultimately it is virtually futile to argue about the problems with 2ndED when none of us plays it by the original rules anyways. Especially when a lot of us have solved a lot of its problems via house rules and some of us don't have any problems whatsoever with AD&D being class-based either.

[EnderAndrew]

Even if I wasn't against class-based, level-based systems, I still don't care for hit points, experience being tied directly to combat, the lack of class balance, the ability to twink, the abundance of kits, etc. etc.

 

I have many qualms with D&D.

[Lancer]

Even if I wasn't against class-based, level-based systems, I still don't care for hit points, experience being tied directly to combat, the lack of class balance, the ability to twink, the abundance of kits, etc. etc.

 

I have many qualms with D&D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep, that is why you don't play it and I don't blame you. AD&D is not for everyone (for that matter nor is any system) and you did the right thing in pursuing other systems. I would have done the same had I your particular set of peeves. But you can't assume that everyone else has the same gripes with RPGs as you do. I for one don't have a problem with the "problems" you mentioned here. As for twinking, as someone else humorously remarked, the DM needs to be the smartest person in the room .

 

Some of you preach skill-based systems like the be-all and end-all to roleplaying. I must admit I *do* like *some* of them but man I have seen many I like less than AD&D. Ultimately, to me it is about the setting and not the system. And I pride myself for being able to make the ruleset a non-factor in the enjoyment of my game.

 

BTW, kits are perfectly optional. I hardly ever use them. Not to mention that this same critique(prestige classes) as well as all the other core problems you mentioned are *still* applicable to 3E. It still has hp. It is still class-based, experience is still tied to combat , you can twink.. you can powergame more than ever before..etc Many believe the Ranger class is unbalanced in 3E (and mages are more powerful than ever), and from what I remember this point has some merit. So again this begs the question is 3E *truly* better than 2ndEd. My answer is a reverberating "no."

 

As for my game.. My experience system isn't tied only to combat like 3E is. Class balance? I haven't had a problem with it. So why the heck would I switch to a system that doesn't address problems I long resolved with my antiquated 2ndED ruleset? And what is the point discussing the "weaknesses" of 2ndEd when nobody plays it using only the core rules? It is like preaching to the choir.

[EnderAndrew]

A good DM should focus the game on party roles so that class balance isn't an issue. Each party member should get their opportunity to contribute and shine. However, poor DMs just throw out random combat or blindly follow a scripted adventure, where support characters may get lost in translation.

 

My first experience at 2E D&D, I created a Rouge/Thief because the party needed one. (My first PC ever was also a chick which weirded out the group, but I assumed the purpose of roleplay was to play something foreign to your mundane life.) All we did was instanced combat from random encounter tables. "From the shrubbery leaps two Storm Giants! Roll dice!"

 

The Fighters and Clerics were better suited for melee, and healing. My Thief was not as suited to combat, and I also failed to receive the bonus 10% experience for combat. Because the DM didn't go out of his way to include my PC more directly, I was really bored. I asked to create a Fighter and throw away my PC, but the DM refused until my PC died. After that I tried to kill off my PC by acting in suicidal fashion.

 

The PC never died, and thus began my streak of improbable surviving PCs, and much of my playing style stemmed from that.

 

We played Dragonlance at the time, and we were in the middle of a Dragon War. Blue Dragons attacked our castle, and I leaped from the top tower on the back of a Dragon, attempting to backstab it mid-air. I succeeded, and after finishing off the Dragon, I fell 200 feet to the ground.

 

20D6 damage, and a successful saving throw later, I still survived. It was lots and lots of that.

 

I made 23rd Level Rouge, 10th Level Psionicist before I finally retired the character.

[Lancer]

A good DM should focus the game on party roles so that class balance isn't an issue.  Each party member should get their opportunity to contribute and shine.  However, poor DMs just throw out random combat or blindly follow a scripted adventure, where support characters may get lost in translation.

 

My first experience at 2E D&D, I created a Rouge/Thief because the party needed one.  (My first PC ever was also a chick which weirded out the group, but I assumed the purpose of roleplay was to play something foreign to your mundane life.)  All we did was instanced combat from random encounter tables.  "From the shrubbery leaps two Storm Giants!  Roll dice!"

 

The Fighters and Clerics were better suited for melee, and healing.  My Thief was not as suited to combat, and I also failed to receive the bonus 10% experience for combat.  Because the DM didn't go out of his way to include my PC more directly, I was really bored.  I asked to create a Fighter and throw away my PC, but the DM refused until my PC died.  After that I tried to kill off my PC by acting in suicidal fashion.

 

 

I agree with you here entirely. I had always felt that the three main classes all had their uses in combat (Fighter and Clerics for melee, Mages for spell-casting)whereas the thief's role within the party wasn't as obvious at times. I did incorporate slight modifications for the thief class to make it as "useful" as the other classes including minor backstab modifier adjustments, the ability to use Move Silently the same time as Hide in Shadows, and a couple of special abilities..etc

 

More importantly, there are many adventures in my campaigns where a certain degree of "stealth" is required.. Missions where having a thief PC would be extremely useful.. If not vital. For example, I can have the thief PC sneak into an enemy encampment to retrieve some important documents or if the PCs have been captured by authority or the bad guys, none other than the thief has a reasonable chance of getting the party out of trouble.

Along the same vein , a thief PC would be "especially" useful during a war in between battles when he can attempt to steal enemy battleplans and positions... Not to mention that I do give the thief a good XP bonus as a reward for proper roleplaying in this manner.

So ,yes, I do take into consideration trying to incorporate the thief class as much as the others. I especially made it a point that playing thieves in my campaigns should be a lot of fun!

 

We played Dragonlance at the time, and we were in the middle of a Dragon War.  Blue Dragons attacked our castle, and I leaped from the top tower on the back of a Dragon, attempting to backstab it mid-air.  I succeeded, and after finishing off the Dragon, I fell 200 feet to the ground.

 

20D6 damage, and a successful saving throw later, I still survived.  It was lots and lots of that.

 

Well, you can always increase the lethality of falls and totally abandon that 1d6 per 10 feet rule.

[EnderAndrew]

Actually from a realism standpoint, the damage would cap at some point due to reaching terminal velocity. But terminal velocity should kill, period.

[Lancer]

Actually from a realism standpoint, the damage would cap at some point due to reaching terminal velocity.  But terminal velocity should kill, period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You totally read my mind. I was about to mention this that you can incorporate terminal velocity concepts and perhaps have exponential increasing damage the closer you get to it...

 

IIRC, GURPS has some good rules on falling damage.

[EnderAndrew]

My PCs just tend to survive improbable situations so I play them very loosely and throw them in improbable situations whenever I can. My fictional personas have great luck to balance my personal bad luck I suppose.