Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[J.E. Sawyer]

We discuss opinions all the time here on the boards. That's exactly what forums are for. For one, it is great to hear other viewpoints.

Why, so they can be apparently ignored as "just another opinion"? I haven't seen anyone budge in this thread, just the continual thrashing of opinions up against each other with the meaningless disclaimer, "It's just my opinion" or "It's just your opinion". What's the point of exchanging opinions if the opinions and all of their underlying justifications are reflexively attacked or ignored?

[Jediphile]

Which one you have in mind? GURPS Fantasy? Really? Is it really worth the effort to translate 200+ spells to a different system? You said yourself that countries like Alphatia and Glantri would be particularly difficult to address.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Still not sure what I'd choose. GURPS Fantasy is an option since I was curious about 4th edition GURPS and bought the core books. I'm not going to bother converting all the spells of those nations, though. I rarely have players with characters from those nations (though my own favorite D&D PC was...). And even if it did become relevant, I'll simply just introduce specific skills to replace the spells on a general basis, sort of like Ars Magica, which has an excellent magic system.

 

Nice way to hide the fact that there still were many alternatives when 2ndEd came out. 2ndEd came out in '89. Meaning you must have started in '89 or '90. A lot of other games were out in '89/'90... including your beloved GURPS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually never played much GURPS, so it's not a particularly apt argument. There might have been alternatives back then, but I began playing D&D back in 86, and we were few, so I had to go with whatever the other players were into. By the time I joined, they had already invested a lot in OD&D (which became the Mystara campaign), so whatever I did as a GM had to support that. Since I didn't like the OD&D principle of "rewrite all the skills and introduce X new classes with each supplement"-approach, we found 2e to be a reasonable compromise. I didn't know any better at the time, but even if I had, I wouldn't have had much choice.

 

The operative word in the phrase "type of RPG" was "type." I know you were not advocating a specific RPG but you were advocating skill-based systems in general.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because I find that skill-based system will allow me options that class-based will not.

 

You have stated that they are inflexibe and rigid.. but meaning what exactly? I am curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I did give a few examples, but fine.

 

The ranger in my campaign is really annoyed that he cannot develop as a master archer, because the rules won't allow him to attain weapon high mastery with his bow. I tweaked the rules to allow it, but I can bend the rules only so far before game balance goes out the window, so he had to pay five times the cost that single-classed fighters pay for the same priviledge, and he had to be level 15 instead of 9 to do it. Isn't it rather odd that rangers aren't allowed to be master archers in 2e even with Player Option rules?

 

Also, why don't rangers have spells that aid their weapons? A bow would be a fairly common weapon for an ranger, yet Flame Arrow and similar are all wizard spells, and since you cannot do the ranger/mage combo in 2e, the option to combine is not available to the ranger at all. 3e has an Arcane Archer prestige class that does this, but I don't like that since it just tries to fix a broken class structure by introducing yet more classes.

 

Similarly in d20 Star Wars. Luke and Anakin were both natural pilots (and not just because of the force - lots of jedi aren't good pilots, Obi-Wan for one), yet you can't be one in d20 Star Wars. Nope, to be good pilot you need to develop the pilot skill and then take the Starship Ace (or even Jedi Ace) prestige classes... That's rigid and contrary to good character development. Was Han Solo a Starship Ace? He might have been, but it doesn't fit his archetype of scoundrel very well if he was... Besides, you need to have 9 pilot ranks and +6 base attack, meaning at least six levels, and I doubt the common rebel or imperial pilot can qualify for that. Silly... Why can't I keep developing my soldier with focus on piloting skills and get the same bonus?

 

Also, why can't wizards do healing spells in AD&D? Never understood that, and I tweaked the rules and introduced healing spells for wizards, only they are so limited and comes with a disadvantage that means no wizard has ever pursued it in my campaign (except for a few of my own NPCs, of course).

[Lancer]

Why, so they can be apparently ignored as "just another opinion"?  I haven't seen anyone budge in this thread, just the continual thrashing of opinions up against each other with the meaningless disclaimer, "It's just my opinion" or "It's just your opinion".  What's the point of exchanging opinions if the opinions and all of their underlying justifications are reflexively attacked or ignored?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No.. It is to learn and be challenged! And I love to learn and to be challenged in my personal viewpoints.. I know I have been forced to re-think my view on matters in this discussion and learned a couple of interesting tidbits. Definitely hasn't been for naught.

 

And who knows you might even be able to get someone to agree with you. Admittedly, it doesn't happen too often (look at politicians) but not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

EDIT: I know I haven't been dismissing anyone's comments as just crap. I do seriously read and consider what everyone has to say.

[J.E. Sawyer]

No.. It is to learn and be challenged! And I love to learn and to be challenged in my personal viewpoints.. I know I have been forced to re-think my view on matters in this discussion and learned a couple of interesting tidbits. Definitely hasn't been for naught.

Can you give an example of how you have been changed by this discussion?

[Kaftan Barlast]

Can you give an example of how you have been changed by this discussion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

We're all even more firmly anchored to our beliefs now, than when we started?

 

 

"

[Lancer]

Can you give an example of how you have been changed by this discussion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I love your interrogations!

 

Well... I understand even more clearly than ever before why skill-based advocates dislike class-based systems so much. The reasons do vary from person to person and I can see why some wouldn't like the AD&D core rules... particularly in the realm of character creation.

 

It is true that the general character creation options in the AD&D core rules are inferior to those of some other games.. And if you don't do any of your own devious tweaking then , of course, it doesn't provide as much flexibilty. But this is still no reason why with products such as Player's Option and a bit of DM creativity you can't even the odds... Even with a class-based system.

 

In regards to combat.. I would say, though that I do prefer the AD&D combat system (barring house rules) than say CoC's or GURPS.

 

One of the main things I learned is that it seems that people who are not happy with AD&D are the ones who a) either didn't fiddle with it enough and lost patience with it or b) never got it customized to their liking. If you stick with it, however, you can make even AD&D a truly rewarding system.

[Jediphile]

One of the things I disliked about the AD&D core rules was its NWP system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. The NWP system they introduced to replace it in Skills & Powers is infinitely much better - I switched on the spot and never looked back.

 

Many, many years ago I had totally revamped the NWP system so that skills would improve realistically (i.e. your character doesn

[Lancer]

Can you give an example of how you have been changed by this discussion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

We're all even more firmly anchored to our beliefs now, than when we started?

 

 

"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes! :D

[Lancer]

@ J.E. Sawyer

 

And I learned interesting new tidbits like new details about GURPS 4e's skill lists and the MMB list.. (I had always used MML).

[Lancer]

GURPS 4th Ed. "Characters" core book lists Amnesia as well as whole bunch of other disadvantages. What I like about is that it's actually inspiring to just read through the list. Instead of having an idea from the beginning, I can just read the list and get good ideas for my character. Even if I'm playing another game!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. GURPS has the most kicka$$ character creation system on the planet. I its extensive skill lists.

[Jediphile]

CoC is too *simplistic" for me. You mention the lack of traits/flaws.. And the combat simply is too bare-boned to be enjoyable. It is more taste (I know you hate it when I bring this up  ) than anything else but I don't really like the fact that the PCs efforts really don't make a difference in the long run.

I know it has its fans and it is considered one of the best RPGS ever made.. But it is just not for me.

That's interesting though that you imported another combat system. Admittedly, the original CoC combat system needs major help IMHO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

CoC has fans due to its ways of presenting horror, not because of the system itself. The skill system is fine, and the sanity rules are excellent, but the rest is, well, a bit lacking, as you say... "

 

True.. But doesn't a word document summarizing all your changes in one little place help?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, it does. I wrote all my house rules down and then created a Yahoo!Group where it was available to the players whenever. The problem is, however, that once you're spread out over at least six rulebooks (PHB, DMG, Skills&Powers, Combat&Tactics, Spells&Magic, High Level Campaigns...) as well as my 40+ pages of tightly written house rules, the players just give up and stop reading through it all

 

I do own Spells and Magic, however, up to this point I haven't really used it. Just C&T and S&P.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I use it extensively, but then most of my favorite characters are wizards... :">

 

Well. I don't use dual-classing just because OD&D Mystara didn't... Unless, you consider the OD&D shadow elves class to be a dual-class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, they're demi-humans, so like elves they would tend toward the fighter/class multi-class. Though I do believe there were rules on TSR's site that said they could be cleric/mages, which is relevant. Never came up, though, since the PCs all hate them after they kicked the elves out of Alfheim. I give characters the choice of classes, though. So while OD&D elves were always fighter/mages by AD&D terminology, I don't see why they can't be whatever they want to. I've had elven thieves and bards in my campaign...

[Jediphile]

Why, so they can be apparently ignored as "just another opinion"?  I haven't seen anyone budge in this thread, just the continual thrashing of opinions up against each other with the meaningless disclaimer, "It's just my opinion" or "It's just your opinion".  What's the point of exchanging opinions if the opinions and all of their underlying justifications are reflexively attacked or ignored?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I still post because I remain hopeful that the discussion might lead to some sort of constructive conclusion at some point or at least give us insight into topic. Since Lancer is still posting, I'm assuming he sees it the same way.

 

No, I haven't budged and neither has Lancer, but we might. I always try to go into a discussion with my eye on the possibility that I might be wrong, though someone will have to tell me why before I accept it. And granted, I don't change my mind easily. But I do try to keep an open mind (though I may not always succeed...). Haven't heard many arguments yet to sway me, though, but that might still happen.

[Lancer]

You can, but I still don't see why I shouldn't expect a good and finished game when I pay for it. If I'm going to rewrite the entire thing anyway, then why bother in the first place?

 

Well.. it is expected that you are only changing it a little bit at a time over the years and not all in one sitting! lol.

It seriously.. hasn't been THAT bad. Most of my time was spent on converting things like priesthoods and Immortals over to AD&D than fixing rulesets. And its things like this that you still would have to do even when you do go to another system (unless you simplify things greatly) not to mention somehow convert the entire AD&D magic system over to something else.

 

You will still end up re-writing everything ANYWAY! So, the way I look at it, at least stick with something that you are *ALMOST* done revamping rather then starting all over again with another system.

[Lancer]

Well. I don't use dual-classing just because OD&D Mystara didn't... Unless, you consider the OD&D shadow elves class to be a dual-class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, they're demi-humans, so like elves they would tend toward the fighter/class multi-class. Though I do believe there were rules on TSR's site that said they could be cleric/mages, which is relevant. Never came up, though, since the PCs all hate them after they kicked the elves out of Alfheim. I give characters the choice of classes, though. So while OD&D elves were always fighter/mages by AD&D terminology, I don't see why they can't be whatever they want to. I've had elven thieves and bards in my campaign...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I had struggled with this because AD&D says that only human characters can dual-class yet in OD&D rules shadow elves progress in a manner that is most similar to how an AD&D dual-classed character progesses.

 

I do have Monte Cook's AD&D shadow elf conversion with the multi-classing solution. Although, the multi-classing rules are a bit broken and it is a very different class from the OD&D one. It is unfortunate that the elven classes (and the halflings) are nearly impossible to convert faithfully to AD&D.

[Lancer]

I did give a few examples, but fine.

 

The ranger in my campaign is really annoyed that he cannot develop as a master archer, because the rules won't allow him to attain weapon high mastery with his bow. I tweaked the rules to allow it, but I can bend the rules only so far before game balance goes out the window, so he had to pay five times the cost that single-classed fighters pay for the same priviledge, and he had to be level 15 instead of 9 to do it. Isn't it rather odd that rangers aren't allowed to be master archers in 2e even with Player Option rules?

 

Ohhh... I was confused when I read this initially because of course rangers can have mastery under PO rules.. Then I realized you are probably talking about high and grand mastery.

 

But, yeah, I never really had any problems with rangers not being able to cast spells or mages not being able to heal.. But then again those are just the fantasy archetypes I am used to. I don't see too many healing mages or spell-slinging rangers in literature.

 

I do agree that the scoundrel vs. ace pilot discrepancy in d20 Star Wars sounds like a major oversight on the part of the designers.

Did the designers ever watch the movies?

[EnderAndrew]

You wouldn't have any of these problems in a skill-based system.

 

Classes are nothing but restrictions.

 

Skill-based systems + Templates for the win, yet again.

[Jediphile]

You wouldn't have any of these problems in a skill-based system.

 

Classes are nothing but restrictions.

 

Skill-based systems + Templates for the win, yet again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, but I guess Lancer just doesn't feel that the classes restrict him or his game, whereas I see classes like a box or a leash - as long as you're fine within the box you're assigned to, you really won't have a problem, but the walls are there, and you'll feel them immediately if you push against them.

 

Or it's the leash - you're completely free within the space the leash allows you, but try to go further than that and you'll be reined in (or else choke, which is what I do...).

 

The game might still work with those restrictions, but even if I can live with them, I still want them gone on principle. No leash for my imagination and no box for my character to fit into!

[EnderAndrew]

Very good analogies.

[Lancer]

You wouldn't have any of these problems in a skill-based system.

 

Classes are nothing but restrictions.

 

Skill-based systems + Templates for the win, yet again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, but I guess Lancer just doesn't feel that the classes restrict him or his game, whereas I see classes like a box or a leash - as long as you're fine within the box you're assigned to, you really won't have a problem, but the walls are there, and you'll feel them immediately if you push against them.

 

Or it's the leash - you're completely free within the space the leash allows you, but try to go further than that and you'll be reined in (or else choke, which is what I do...).

 

The game might still work with those restrictions, but even if I can live with them, I still want them gone on principle. No leash for my imagination and no box for my character to fit into!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just make a very, very long leash. The sky's the limit. The only real leash is the DM's own restrictive imagination.

[Lancer]

You wouldn't have any of these problems in a skill-based system.

 

 

No.. d20 just sucks a mouthful of _____

 

 

Skill-based systems + Templates for the win, yet again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No.. you'd just have other problems like unnecessarily cumbersome (or simplified) combat, streamlined but cumbersome mechanics, mini-maxing supreme, incomplete skill/magic lists, and even more house rules..etc. There will always be issues in all systems that would need to be addressed. The only one that I have tried that wasn't oozing problems left and right was SLA Industries.. And even in that one mechanics for space combat and vehicle stats are inexplicably absent. Which is inexcusable being that it is a sci-fi game where space travel is downright common.

 

In addition, why spend many years converting your favorite campaign setting to this other game (running into incompatibility issues and making many unfortunate compromises with the conversions along the way) when you could instead be making adventures, running campaigns and fleshing out your world? I just have no desire to convert AD&D's magic system, all 15 Gazs, HW Gazs, Creature Crucible, Immortals rules, War Machine rules, all the various monstrous compendiums + the equivalent for my Planescape/Ravenloft settings to another ruleset. Only then having to contend with making house rules for things I find out later to be imbalanced (and/or incompatible) given the ruleset I decided to use.. I'd be 80 when I am done which would leave little time left for actual gaming and therefore not a very realistic option. I'd like to think I am a crafty enough DM (and so far it would seem that way )to render all the above unnecessary.

 

If I were to create my own gameworld from scratch(which of course wouldn't already come with its own ruleset), then and only then would I consider using something other than AD&D.

 

Classes are nothing but restrictions.

 

The classes in PO aren't really restricted classes, though. They are more like templates. The only restrictions present are the implied fantasy archetypes that I choose to adhere to. Although you can choose to make untraditional characters such as a ranger wizard or a gnome/paladin/necromancer <_< or whatever suits your fancy with your favorite skill-based fantasy ruleset, such characters don't make much sense within the scope of traditional fantasy literature and movies. If you don't want to follow any archetypes that's fine but I personally prefer my characters to mimic the archetypes established by fantasy heroes of myth and lore.

Player's Option allows for sufficient variability within the established fantasy archetypes. And even if you don't like something, PO is quite flexible and easily adaptable.

[Jediphile]

Just make a very, very long leash. The sky's the limit. The only real leash is the DM's own restrictive imagination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that's probably my problem - the leash is there and I know it! I can't get my mind around that no matter what, and I cannot dismiss it as unimportant, since there really doesn't seem to be any genuine need for a leash in the first place...

[Jediphile]

In addition, why spend many years converting your favorite campaign setting to this other game (running into incompatibility issues and making many unfortunate compromises with the conversions along the way) when you could instead be making adventures, running campaigns and fleshing out your world? I just have no desire to convert AD&D's magic system, all 15 Gazs, HW Gazs, Creature Crucible, Immortals rules, War Machine rules, all the various monstrous compendiums + the equivalent for my Planescape/Ravenloft settings to another ruleset. Only then having to contend with making house rules for things I find out later to be imbalanced (and/or incompatible) given the ruleset I decided to use.. I'd be 80 when I am done which would leave little time left for actual gaming and therefore not a very realistic option. I'd like to think I am a crafty enough DM (and so far it would seem that way )to render all the above unnecessary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's a good point, but I think EnderWiggin was talking about skill-based vs. class-based on principle and not in relation to existing material in AD&D or whatever. I certainly was. Then again, the OD&D gaz aren't exactly compatible with AD&D either... But yes, Planescape is a nightmare to convert, since it's so AD&D class/magic specific on many levels (and alignment-specific more so), while Mystara would actually be easier to convert to something else since the OD&D/AD&D split already creates lots of troubles that must be sorted out anyway.

 

The classes in PO aren't really restricted classes, though. They are more like templates. The only restrictions present are the implied fantasy archetypes that I choose to adhere to. Although you can choose to make untraditional characters such as a ranger wizard or a gnome/paladin/necromancer  <_<  or whatever suits your fancy with your favorite skill-based fantasy ruleset, such characters don't make much sense within the scope of traditional fantasy literature and movies. If you don't want to follow any archetypes that's fine but I personally prefer my characters to mimic the archetypes established by fantasy heroes of myth and lore.

Player's Option allows for sufficient variability within the established fantasy archetypes. And even if you don't like something,  PO is quite flexible and easily adaptable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah... I mean, with PO rules your wizard specialist can take weapon specialization... "

Why would you take weapon specialization if you've chosen to play an illusionist?!? Doesn't make much sense, and nobody would do it, since the cost means severe restrictions on available spell ability and similar that you then don't have enough points to get. Still, I do like the option, even if it's completely redundant...

 

But as we've agreed before, Player Option rules means at least six rulebooks plus your own house rules, and that's pretty rules-heavy even when compared to something like GURPS or similar...

[Lancer]

But as we've agreed before, Player Option rules means at least six rulebooks plus your own house rules, and that's pretty rules-heavy even when compared to something like GURPS or similar...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bah..It's not nearly as bad as you imply.

 

PO renders much of the material in the PHB, DMG and such to be redundant. And I only use part of C&T, most of S&P, and don't use S&M at all.

 

Although I do have house rules modifying rules I didn't like in the core rules, most of my effort has been on fleshing out the game world (like the cosmology stuff I have been sending you! , or AD&D priesthoods, updated Immortals, ..etc ) rather than actual fixing of rulesets. I have *a lot* of material that fleshes out Mystara and Planescape for my campaigns and although I do have some rule fixes, PO does a good job of doing the brunt of that for me.

[Lancer]

Yeah... I mean, with PO rules your wizard specialist can take weapon specialization...  "

Why would you take weapon specialization if you've chosen to play an illusionist?!? Doesn't make much sense, and nobody would do it, since the cost means severe restrictions on available spell ability and similar that you then don't have enough points to get. Still, I do like the option, even if it's completely redundant...

 

Well, of course that's the whole point with trade-offs. All skill-based systems I have tried have them too.

[Jediphile]

This thread seems to have been only about skill-based vs. class-based recently, but my original disgust with d20 wasn't only about the inflexibility of predetermined and rigid classes, though I don't like those much either, as I have described rather a lot already.

 

d20 Cthulhu doesn't have classes, for example, but it does have experience levels. I don't like experience levels, because like classes, they don't make much sense, and in fact they're more problematic.

 

I have no problem with characters progression through the game and improving their abilities - they should do that in any case - but there is a difference between building ability and then suddenly having a load of feats, skill points and what have we tossed in your face once you've gotten some predetermined number of points. I always think of Marcus' rather apt and sarcastic comment about leveling-up in Fallout 2: "Wow! I feel as if I've passed some arbitrary experience value and gained more power!" "

 

In 5th edition Cthulhu you had to build your skills, and actually could only improve skills that you had used successfully during a session. You rolled against your skill and actually to fail that roll for it to improve, thereby making it harder to improve as you got better at it. That's a very simple and nice way of improving skills, and it also makes sense that your bad skills improve faster than your good ones, assuming you managed to successfully use a bad skill.

 

Other games let the GM assign points based on your role-playing that you then distribute to buy Skills or Traits or whatever, which I also find to be a good approach. I mean, why does my 3e wizard's to-hit probability improve when he only ever casts spells and never ever uses a weapon?!? Or where did my 3e paladin suddenly learn magic from, when all he ever does is pummel the critters over the head with his sword? There is no sense of achievement in gaining these improvements, since you never actively worked toward them - you just have them thrown at you at arbitrary and convenient moments wheter you like it or not.

 

There's also the high-level superhero vs. common man problem. I know D&D is about heroic characters, but it's really silly that your group of four 15-th level characters can basically tear apart an orcish army of several thousands without much trouble, let alone the local villages you chance across in your travels... Try reading som "Knights of the Dinner Table" comic books for some extreme examples of how silly that can get. It's just silly to have rules that allow you to fireball a village into oblivion in a few seconds without trouble, and the high-level play also ruins the role-playing experience, since why would your 18th-level paladin fear those shady-loooking characters sneaking sneaking around in that dark alley - there is no chance at all that they can harm him in any way, and players are fully justified by the rules if they show no concern at all about this...