Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[Jediphile]

I thought SPECIAL came out lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng before d20 was invented.

 

Didn't fallout come out before WotC even became a company?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. Which should tell us something about how "new and original" d20 really is "

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I thought SPECIAL came out lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng before d20 was invented.

 

Didn't fallout come out before WotC even became a company?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. Which should tell us something about how "new and original" d20 really is "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

3e is very different. Wouldnt exactly call it original, but its very different to previous versions of D&D.

[Lancer]

I thought SPECIAL came out lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng before d20 was invented.

 

Didn't fallout come out before WotC even became a company?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You are definitely right about that. Fallout was released in 1997 whereas 3E and d20 came out in 2000.

[Lancer]

SPECIAL has nothing to do with d20. Even comparing completely different RPG systems there will be *some* superficial similarities. Just because d20 and SPECIAL have one superficial similarity doesn't mean that one inspired the other. You can take any completely different rulesets on the market and they will have some things in common.

[Lancer]

3e is very different. Wouldnt exactly call it original, but its very different to previous versions of D&D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are many other game systems that do a much better job of what 3E fails to do ..That is to be stream-lined as well as efficient and simple to learn.

And they did it way before 3E was even on the blackboard.

[Lancer]

I thought SPECIAL came out lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng before d20 was invented.

 

Didn't fallout come out before WotC even became a company?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. Which should tell us something about how "new and original" d20 really is "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

3e is very different. Wouldnt exactly call it original, but its very different to previous versions of D&D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think Jediphile meant it to be sarcastically.. I hope

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I had a great D20 version of FO till my old PC blew up

[Lancer]

I had a great D20 version of FO till my old PC blew up

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ohh.. that sucks. I am paranoid about things like that and burn everything I own... at least twice.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

ohh.. that sucks. I am paranoid about things like that and burn everything I own... at least twice. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Stuff happens. It's been several years since I used them anyway. It's just that I put the old drive into a new PC last time.

 

I've probably got a hardcopy up in the attic along with all the other stuff.

[Jediphile]

ohh.. that sucks. I am paranoid about things like that and burn everything I own... at least twice. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Stuff happens. It's been several years since I used them anyway. It's just that I put the old drive into a new PC last time.

 

I've probably got a hardcopy up in the attic along with all the other stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's like they say: Real men don't make backups... But they cry a lot

[Jediphile]

I thought SPECIAL came out lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng before d20 was invented.

 

Didn't fallout come out before WotC even became a company?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. Which should tell us something about how "new and original" d20 really is "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

3e is very different. Wouldnt exactly call it original, but its very different to previous versions of D&D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think Jediphile meant it to be sarcastically.. I hope

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know me too well! *** Influence lost ***

[Lancer]

I thought SPECIAL came out lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng before d20 was invented.

 

Didn't fallout come out before WotC even became a company?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. Which should tell us something about how "new and original" d20 really is "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

3e is very different. Wouldnt exactly call it original, but its very different to previous versions of D&D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think Jediphile meant it to be sarcastically.. I hope

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know me too well! *** Influence lost ***

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OH NO!!! Now, I can't get the rest of your backstory!

[EnderAndrew]

It's impossible to have a great D20 system. :darque:

 

There are a few settings so damned good, I'll play them in D20 like Engel. That doesn't make the system great however.

[Lancer]

It's impossible to have a great D20 system.  :darque:

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sorry, I don't get the inside joke about Darque . Could you care to explain? Does she dislike d20 as well or something?

[Darque]

I tend to overuse the " " smiley at times....

 

So somone, I can't remember who at this point, dubbed the :darque: "emoticon" as a replacement...

 

:p :p :p :p

[alanschu]

We're hoping that if we use it enough, someone with a very good sense of humour that runs the boards will actually change the UBB to support it :darque:

[Darque]

 

 

[Lancer]

HAHA!!! :darque:

[Lord Tingeling]

Remember "haksthumbsup", anyone?

[Fionavar]

This thread has contributed a lot of constructinve and interesting discussion thus far, perhaps we could try not to derail it ... ?

[Jediphile]

Well, I'm sort of glad the topic hasn't been closed, but at the same time, I'm wondering if the reason we're no longer posting on topic is that it has run its course.

 

I began it because I felt that d20 is a very mediocre system that hurt games like KotOR that are based it. Seems that most people actually agree with me, though it is naturally true that a good GM can make any system work, no matter how flawed and hopeless it is. Heck, I could probably make a d20/3e campaign work myself, if I had an inclination to - I made 2e work, after all, in spite of my players having all tried much better systems, and I take the fact that they stick around in spite of marriage, children, job, and other role-playing-interrupting annoyances as a pretty pad on my shoulder.

 

Few people, if any, have argued that d20 is a good system. Those who have defended it has mostly done it on the basis that it's good enough for what it does or that its simplicity and fixed archetypes and game mechanics are valuable because they can be picked up by anyone in an instant.

 

Where I have disagreed most with the defenders of d20 is with the inferred idea that skill-based systems without fixed classes and experience levels cannot be easily accessible and enjoyable to new players. I find the opposite to be the case. If the GM asks a new player, "What sort of character do you want to play?", then isn't it better if the player can immediately sit down and build the character right from his imagination than hitting against rigid rules that dictate which archetypes he may choose between?

[EnderAndrew]

If the merits of the game is that D&D on the whole is a good entry-point game for players by giving them easy classes to slip into, then D20 is a good system for DMs to slip into.

 

It seems the 2E crowd loves 2E, and others prefer classless systems. So let me, the hater of all things D&D defend D20 for a minute.

 

Most people defend 2E in the fashion that really knowledgable and good DMs can make the game good. I contend better systems are playable out of the box. What happens for that 12 year old running his first game for friends who has to contend with all the charts and tables of a game like 2E, Rifts or Shadowrun? We got through it, but things could have been better. Combat takes forever, and we make poor arbitrations along the way. We also have to invest a great deal of time learning said systems and mastering them.

 

D20 provides simple base mechanics to the point that you don't need additional rule books. If you didn't play Spellcasters, all you would need is the chapter on classes, a monster manual, and you can run the game.

 

The three core books are freely available, and you don't need any more rules. You present any situation, and the DM provides a difficulty number and tells you to throw your D20. Each basic complication is a +2 to the base difficulty. Life is simple. You roll and move on.

 

For number crunches, that is a 10% chance of success. Finding appropriate challenge levels, and picking good DCs can be done relatively simply in comparison to systems like Shadowrun, Rifts and 2E.

 

The system doesn't get in the way of the game too much. I prefer systems that get in the way even less, but I personally think that D20 is an improvement on previous incarnations of D&D. It certainly doesn't FIX D&D, but it is an improvement.

 

[/devil's advocate]

[Jediphile]

Most people defend 2E in the fashion that really knowledgable and good DMs can make the game good.  I contend better systems are playable out of the box.  What happens for that 12 year old running his first game for friends who has to contend with all the charts and tables of a game like 2E, Rifts or Shadowrun?  We got through it, but things could have been better.  Combat takes forever, and we make poor arbitrations along the way.  We also have to invest a great deal of time learning said systems and mastering them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like Lancer I do play 2e, but unlike him I won't defend it as a good RPG system, since it's not - it's just what I've gotten used to, and if I stick with it, it'll be out of familiarity and nostalgia. Indeed, I would have dropped it already if 3e was that much better, but now I'm stuck with it for a while until my current campaign ends. But once that happens, chances are that I'll quit 2e too, for good.

 

D20 provides simple base mechanics to the point that you don't need additional rule books.  If you didn't play Spellcasters, all you would need is the chapter on classes, a monster manual, and you can run the game.

 

The three core books are freely available, and you don't need any more rules.  You present any situation, and the DM provides a difficulty number and tells you to throw your D20.  Each basic complication is a +2 to the base difficulty.  Life is simple.  You roll and move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

GURPS also has a simple mechanic - you roll 3d6 and try to roll below your skill. But if you don't like rolling below something, then there really is no reason why you couldn't add the skill value to the roll and try to get it as high as possible just as d20 does. Oh, and GURPS have all the rules you want in two books instead of three, and that is actually one book more than most RPGs. Combat might be more complicated, but it really didn't have to be - there is no reason why combat need more complex and slow in one game than in the other. In GURPS they just decided to have advanced and realistic representation of combat, and in d20 they focused on quick and simple even if that came at the expense of believability. But it's a choice, and there is no reason why GURPS couldn't have been much simpler in this regard.

 

 

For number crunches, that is a 10% chance of success.  Finding appropriate challenge levels, and picking good DCs can be done relatively simply in comparison to systems like Shadowrun, Rifts and 2E.

 

The system doesn't get in the way of the game too much.  I prefer systems that get in the way even less, but I personally think that D20 is an improvement on previous incarnations of D&D.  It certainly doesn't FIX D&D, but it is an improvement.

 

[/devil's advocate]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would say d20 3e is more polished than previous editions, but saying it's an improvement might be going to far. For a game that is supposedly built on more than a decade of 2e experience, it certainly makes a lot of the same mistakes. The fact that players no longer stop rolling for hit points at high levels means that a 17th level warrior can certainly have in the vicinity of 200 hp, while a command still has one 5 or 6. That's just completely ridiculous when you consider that a thief could kill the common man with just about any sword, and yet the warrior would hardly notice it even if the thief hit him with a backstab (or sneak attack, if you prefer...). And I'm going to invoke the Boromir-argrument here again - the fact that four arrows fired by orcs cannot possibly kill a high level warrior in 3e is just plain dumb. You could argue the same for 2e, of course, but at least the accumulated hp had a cap somewhere around level 10 there, and they did introduce Critical Hits in Player Option: Combat & Tactics, yet those are strangely absent from 3e, even though they would make even more sense here what with the increased hp totals...

[EnderAndrew]

Again, I don't care for hit points in level-based systems.

 

L5R is the only system I like with hit points, and L5R is not a level-based system.

 

Anyone in that game can be taken down at any given time with one good katana strike.

[Darque]

7th Sea > L5R