Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Interplay were supposed to do a CRPG based on that setting. Wonder what happened to the rights to that..

[Aash Li]

I've enjoyed playing Exalted myself, but I wouldn't say it's without its flaws, though it is certainly better than d20 to near-infinite degrees! For one thing, the difference between the usage of 'freebie points' during character creation and the use of xp during the actual game brings about an awful lot of min/maxing...

 

No, it definitely has flaws, namely min/maxing by munchkins. Of course the game is based partially on the mechanics from the old WOD series.

 

d20 doesn't use character creation with point-costs, but that's not to say it doesn't have flaws there. No, one thing I really dislike in d20 is the way you must effectively decide your entire progression of abilities and particularly feats, if you're going to make the most of the rules. While planning ahead should always be rewarded in RPGs (and always will be), I don't need the system to encourage a philosophy, where I'm actually rewarded for effectively deciding my character's progression through levels 1 to 20+ during character creation. In d20 you earn xp and then buy whatever you want when advancing. I'd much rather have the skills you actually used in the last adventure improve, as they did in 5th edition Call of Cthulhu. Why should my wizard get better at hitting a troll with his staff, if all ever does is to lob spells at the monsters, and hasn't used his staff once in the last seven adventures? Peculiar idea...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats one thing I hate about all these class-based RPG games. Instead of treating the character like a person, its more like they are robots getting upgrades plugged into them.

 

"Anshar. Class: Wizard, Level: 9, Skills... Upgrades: 13... installing... complete"

</logging off>

 

hehe. I know its only a system, but theres better ways of doing things.

[Lancer]

All this discussion shows that there is truly not one ruleset that is better than any other. People's tastes vary so much that it is impossible to say "x-system" is the best or that it is so much better than this other system... What one person may consider a great system another might think is total crap.

All rulesets have their strengths and weaknesses.. It is just a matter of making sure that *you* as the player/DM will be able to live with the particular weaknesses that a certain ruleset has. If you can't then it is on to another system which you personally perceive as better.

[Loof]

I particularly like Exalted's stunt rule.  If you attempt something particularly daring and clever, the Storyteller can assign you bonus dice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That idea didn't originate in Exalted though, feng shui used it at least a few years before exalted was published. Don't know if they where the first though.

 

Just my two shaved knuckles of useless knowlage

 

General thread coments:

No of course there isn't a "best rule system", and even if there was one you can always improve anything, so that doesn't mean that the topic is pointless. It also doesn't mean that there can't be a worst one... ok d20 isn't the worst one, but in my opinion its pretty close, for the reasons mentioned by the topic starter.

[Lancer]

No of course there isn't a "best rule system", and even if there was one you can always improve anything, so that doesn't mean that the topic is pointless. It also doesn't mean that  there can't be a worst one... ok d20 isn't the worst one, but in my opinion its pretty close, for the reasons mentioned by the topic starter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First- I'd say that the setting and DM are much more important than the ruleset. I don't like d20 either but I would play it in a heartbeat with a good DM in an interesting non hack and slash campaign.

 

Second- a very good DM, GM, Storyteller (or whatever) can make a great campaign out of a setting with an otherwise inferior ruleset(especially with house rules). Likewise, a game with a "great" ruleset doesn't guarantee a successful campaign under an incompetent DM.

 

Lastly, I have seen people here bicker about small things that they don't like about certain systems(AoO, proficiencies, certain spells)..I don't see what the big deal is about fixing the problem yourself via house rules. House rules make discussions about how unbalanced "stoneskin" is in 2ndEd moot. IMHO, if there is something you don't like just fix it so it works... It's not *that* hard. Now, of course, if you can't stand the entire system top-down altogether (or dislike something fundamental to the ruleset like "hp" or "classes") and have deep enough pockets to be spending tons of money on every new system that comes out on the market just to find one that is the same or only marginally better than the one previous then I guess that's fine too.

 

Of course I could be preaching to the choir here to a whole bunch of rules purists

[Loof]

I agree completly GM and setting are much more important, then what rules are used.

Your second statment culd even be altered to say that a realy good GM doesnt need the rules at all, and can crate a great experience in a totaly freeform setting. That being said I prefer to have a ruleset (preferably a fast and treamlined one).

 

To you last point I agree that small details are easily fixed, but the things that I dislike about D&D are core mechanics, such as levels, classes, hp per level (don't have anything against hp in general just that they increase to fast), spellslots per day, and lastly the d20 is to large a dice without a bell crurve distrubation of results (its only one dice) in comparison to the stat range of the character, in other words the ruleset is to radom.

So I fall in yoru second category as unfortunetly changeing any one of these issues (except spelslots per day) is so fundamental that it would more or less mean designing your own system. Therefore I avoid playing D&D if I can (but as you said with agood enough GM any system can be fun so nothing is set in stone).

[EnderAndrew]

I will agree that there isn't a perfect system, and certain systems are better suited for various purposes.

 

However I maintain that in general, level and class based systems are still inferior.

[Jediphile]

First- I'd say that the setting and DM are much more important than the ruleset. I don't like d20 either but I would play it in a heartbeat with a good DM in an interesting non hack and slash campaign.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, yes, an excellent GM can turn any horribly flawed rpg-system into pure gold. The problem in d20 is that it is so geared towards hack'n slash and dungeon-crawls, that it becomes difficult to use it for something else. I miss the idea of optional disadvantages, for example (they were there in 2e Player Option rules), since that's one thing that helps to give the characters, welll, character... I'd probably want to play with a good GM in most campaigns too, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't think twice, when I heard we'd be played a d20 system.

 

Second- a very good DM, GM, Storyteller (or whatever) can make a great campaign out of a setting with an otherwise inferior ruleset(especially with house rules). Likewise, a game with a "great" ruleset doesn't guarantee a successful campaign under an incompetent DM.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A successful campaign is impossible without a good GM. I pride myself on being a good GM for being able to run a campaign for ten years and counting in spite of playing 2e. Some of the players have tried more advanced systems, such as Vampire or GURPS, and early on there were moaning about the very simplistic and utterly unrealistic and ancient principles of 2e. But once we got past that and became involved with the game, we didn't think about it so more. It does annoy me as a GM, however, but I have to stick with it for now, since converting the PCs to a better system is impossible - I'll never be able to do the characters justice, not even in 3e.

 

Lastly, I have seen people here bicker about small things that they don't like about certain systems(AoO, proficiencies, certain spells)..I don't see what the big deal is about fixing the problem yourself via house rules. House rules make discussions about how unbalanced "stoneskin" is in 2ndEd moot. IMHO, if there is something you don't like just fix it so it works... It's not *that* hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, yes - house rules. I'll tell you exactly why house rules are a mixed blessing, because I have made extensive house rules myself. Changing a few rules is fine, but the trouble with it is, that rules should be consistent. I was a player in a campaign, where the GM altered the rules without telling us about it. We played a mix between 1e and 2e, but he didn't write it down, so we had no idea what was changed and what wasn't. He let his rulings be on the whim, since he couldn't be bothered to write the changes down, and so there were times when a situation was resolved one way one week and another way the next. I remember seeing other players getting certain results in specific situations, but when I tried the exact same thing in the exact same way, my results were different. That's not okay.

 

So when began my own campaign, I dicided that I would be consistent - if I changed rules, I would write it down and make these available to the players, so that they could see for themselves what had changed and how things would be resolved. To that end, I began writing a document in Word, and every time I changed something, that document became longer. As we speak, this document is now 43 pages long. Hasn't changed much in the last few years, but still. That's a lot for players to go through, and it's tightly written in order preserve space. I have little doubt it would fill twice as much or more if published. A friend of mine once joked about how I should published as the 'Complete Book of House Rules'

 

Since we play 2e Player Option, these house rules are also pretty annoying. I mean, if you have to look up something, then you begin in the PHB. Then you check in any relevant Player Option book (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, Spells & Magic, or High-Level Campaigns) to see if there are revisions, and then you finally check my house rules for final revisions... That's a lot, and several of my players have given up looking through it all, and instead just ask me. Of course, they could just blindly be trusting my judgment, knowing that I'll get my way in any event, but somehow I doubt it

 

Truly, throwing out all my old house rules was a major reason why I looked forward to 3e - finally all the old and antiquated stuff was going to be updated, it was going to be in one book, and I could do with very few house rules... Oh my how I was mistaken

 

Now, of course, if you can't stand the entire system top-down altogether (or dislike something fundamental to the ruleset like "hp" or "classes") and have deep enough pockets to be spending tons of money on every new system that comes out on the market just to find one that is the same or only marginally better than the one previous then I guess that's fine too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually I'm considering doing my own system and have been working on it for a while. It's met with trouble, however, since there are areas that I find it difficult to approach. A main one is combat. I want the system to be relatively fluid and usable, but I also want combat to be far more strategic and have better options than in D&D, so that's a real tall order. Besides, it's all going to look a lot like GURPS in many areas, so I've considered just using GURPS instead. It's not without it's own flaws, but they are few enough that I can overlook it.

[Jediphile]

I will agree that there isn't a perfect system, and certain systems are better suited for various purposes.

 

However I maintain that in general, level and class based systems are still inferior.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed.

 

I want levels, but only for my skills!

[Lancer]

Actually I'm considering doing my own system and have been working on it for a while. It's met with trouble, however, since there are areas that I find it difficult to approach. A main one is combat. I want the system to be relatively fluid and usable, but I also want combat to be far more strategic and have better options than in D&D, so that's a real tall order. Besides, it's all going to look a lot like GURPS in many areas, so I've considered just using GURPS instead. It's not without it's own flaws, but they are few enough that I can overlook it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahhh yes.. GURPS. I have tried that and granted it is much more realistic than D&D. But that realism comes at the price of slowing your game down to a crawl. Granted, I *love* the character creation system in GURPS.. I must say it is the best I have ever seen. The combat, however, is a whole different matter. All the hit location, passive/active defense rules ..etc IMHO is complete overkill. The combat chapter was probably 100 pages long.

 

And since you also play CoC. Just a quick comment...CoC is in some ways just the complete opposite of GURPS. It hardly has any rules at all particularly in the area of combat. Granted, combat is supposed to be only a small part of CoC but the few times combat happens it is wholly unsatisfying. The rules seem too plain vanilla for me and not enough to satisfy my strategy/tactical combat requirements.

 

This is why I always go back to D&D. To me, it is the best of both worlds.. Detail and Efficiency. It's got enough detail (with Player's Option, in particular) to make combat interesting and at the same time keep combat moving at a brisk pace. And with the PO's you *can* make any type of character you want, albeit, it might have some slight balance problems. But then again, so does GURPS (or any other system)at moderately high character point totals too.

 

And class-based systems have never bothered me at all. Unlike how they apparently bother everyone else here. *shrugs*

 

Edit: Speaking of making your own system. FUDGE seems to be relatively popular. It is basically a bunch of guidelines on how to make your own rpg system. I never got around to reading it, but perhaps someday.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Lastly, I have seen people here bicker about small things that they don't like about certain systems(AoO, proficiencies, certain spells)..I don't see what the big deal is about fixing the problem yourself via house rules. House rules make discussions about how unbalanced "stoneskin" is in 2ndEd moot. IMHO, if there is something you don't like just fix it so it works... It's not *that* hard.

I didn't have to pay for any of my 3E books, but if I did, I would be annoyed at having to write pages of house rules so the game isn't broken or generally sucky. People pay for goods so they don't have to manufacture those goods themselves.

 

Also, be aware that when pen-and-paper game systems are adapted into computer games, the license-holder isn't going to let your favorite house rules in.

[Lancer]

I didn't have to pay for any of my 3E books, but if I did, I would be annoyed at having to write pages of house rules so the game isn't broken or generally sucky.  People pay for goods so they don't have to manufacture those goods themselves.

 

Also, be aware that when pen-and-paper game systems are adapted into computer games, the license-holder isn't going to let your favorite house rules in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even with the most "elegant" rulesets (SLA, Storyteller..etc) I have found much potential for *LOTS* of house rules. I have yet to find a perfect or even near-perfect system. It just doesn't exist.

 

As for PnP games, considering the move to d20/3E (which I don't like) coupled with the emphasis on hack and slash action RPGs as of late I will be gladly skipping some of these. It is admittedly, a shame.As I stated earlier, however, even with a ruleset I don't care much for (like d20), I can enjoy a well-done game with those rules(like the d20-ish KOTOR1). Many people on these boards profess hatred for 2ndED ,yet, Planescape Torment must be the most respected game on here. Heck, it is probably just as or even more loved here than such skill-based games with the "superior" rulesets like Fallout.

 

A "crappy" ruleset doesn't have to doom or dictate a game regardless of platform. In the case of PnP, all it takes is a competent DM/GM/Storyteller/referee and in PC RPGs -- great writers/programmers that know how to put together an awesome storyline with a lot of *real* RPG features.

And you can do this even without house rules.

[Cantousent]

I can see what you're saying, but I haven't played a system where I didn't, at some point, tinker with the rules. Nevertheless, I agree that I should not have been compelled to make changes to the rules. In fact, some of the things that I thought needed changing from third edition did not receive treatment in 3.5. In many ways, 3.5 is just an optional ruleset as someone mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

Still, I just can't get enough people to stick with something other than DnD. If I could, I'd have an entire Call of Cthulu campaign.

[Lancer]

I can see what you're saying, but I haven't played a system where I didn't, at some point, tinker with the rules. 

 

Exactly my point.

 

Still, I just can't get enough people to stick with something other than DnD. If I could, I'd have an entire Call of Cthulu campaign.

 

Why would you? AD&D is *so* much more fun!

[J.E. Sawyer]

Even with the most "elegant" rulesets (SLA, Storyteller..etc) I have found much potential for *LOTS* of house rules. I have yet to find a perfect or even near-perfect system. It just doesn't exist.

I wasn't arguing that one did exist, but I didn't need to write pages and pages of house rules when I ran CoC, Toon, or Paranoia.

 

Many people on these boards profess hatred for 2ndED ,yet, Planescape Torment must be the most respected game on here. Heck, it is probably just as or even more loved here than such skill-based games with the "superior" rulesets like Fallout.

Planescape: Torment does a pretty good job of avoiding and sublimating 2nd Ed. rules to the point of near-irrelevance. I can take a ride through paradise in a crappy Chevy Cavalier. My environment does not diminish the crappy nature of the Cavalier.

 

A "crappy" ruleset doesn't have to doom or dictate a game regardless of platform.  In the case of PnP, all it takes is a competent DM/GM/Storyteller/referee and in PC RPGs -- great writers/programmers that know how to put together an awesome storyline with a lot of *real* RPG features.

And you can do this even without house rules.

An awesome game with a crappy ruleset would be a better game if it had a better ruleset. Again, why grit your teeth and accept fundamentally dumb systems and their dumb adaptations into different media when such things clearly could be designed and executed better?

[Lancer]

An awesome game with a crappy ruleset would be a better game if it had a better ruleset.  Again, why grit your teeth and accept fundamentally dumb systems and their dumb adaptations into different media when such things clearly could be designed and executed better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what it comes down to. What you consider to be a "fundamentally dumb" system I consider to be a stroke of genius. I used the word "crappy" in a sarcastic sense to describe AD&D (notice the quotations) since some of you think systems like GURPS are so much better. I for one think AD&D 2ndEd is the best thing since sliced bread. To me, AD&D 2ndEd overall has a better ruleset than GURPS, CoC, or whatever system you can throw at me.

 

And yes, even AD&D can be made better (like all other systems), but to me, it is and *has* been one of the best systems around. To me, it is the best thing we've got. So you are right.. Why would I accept other inferior adaptations if I feel I already have the best?

 

And again this comes back around full circle to people's tastes. We are all different in what we perceive as "good" or "bad." What might be a crappy Chevy Cavalier to you, to me is a Mercedes Benz or even a Ferrari.

[Lancer]

Planescape: Torment does a pretty good job of avoiding and sublimating 2nd Ed. rules to the point of near-irrelevance. 

 

Sublimating rules? It is no different than the application of "house rules" in your own campaign although all the major aspects of 2ndEd were there (hp, classes levels..etc). Furthermore, a good GM can render the "faults" of a given ruleset irrelevant through brilliant execution of his story.

 

Planescape Torment proves that a campaign is only 5% the ruleset and 95% the quality of the story/creativity of the DM/GM.

[J.E. Sawyer]

This is what it comes down to. What you consider to be a "fundamentally dumb" system I consider to be a stroke of genius.

What parts of 2nd Ed. AD&D are indicative of genius?

 

I used the word "crappy" in a sarcastic sense to describe AD&D (notice the quotations) since some of you think systems like GURPS are so much better.

I haven't argued that GURPS is better than AD&D or D&D.

 

And yes, even AD&D can be made better (like all other systems), but to me, it is and *has* been one of the best systems around. To me, it is the best thing we've got. So you are right.. Why would I accept other inferior adaptations if I feel I already have the best?

I wasn't asking you accept other game systems. I was suggesting that you should not to accept the glacial evolution of almost all current game systems.

 

And again this comes back around full circle to people's tastes. We are all different in what we perceive as "good" or "bad." What might be a crappy Chevy Cavalier to you, to me is a Mercedes Benz or even a Ferrari.

There are matters of taste, which can hardly be disputed, and there are matters of performance/function, which can be quantified and prioritized. I guess you could argue that you like having 2nd Ed. AD&D's thief skills on one scale and proficiencies on another scale, but that doesn't change the fact that they are both measured and acquired in different ways, seemingly for no reason. Similarly, the scales for proficiencies go up and the scales for armor class go down, resulting in two different mechanics. What is accomplished by having them different? Beats me.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sublimating rules? It is no different than the application of "house rules" in your own campaign although all the major aspects of 2ndEd were there (hp, classes levels..etc). Furthermore, a good GM can render the "faults" of a given ruleset irrelevant through brilliant execution of his story.

 

Planescape Torment proves that a campaign is only 5% the ruleset and 95% the quality of the story/creativity of the DM/GM.

I assume you run pen and paper campaigns. Why don't you run your fantasy role-playing games using the Toon system?

[Lancer]

What parts of 2nd Ed. AD&D are indicative of genius?

 

Being able to combine detail and quick combat resolution without getting bogged down in needless minutiae. Good tactical combat. Excellent thoroughly fleshed out settings with complicated/beliveable worlds with many, many gameplay options (i.e Mystara,Planescape). Speaking of which, medieval/ancient fantasy is probably my favorite type of setting to roleplay in so of course that is a bias. AD&D also had had tons of support.

 

I haven't argued that GURPS is better than AD&D or D&D.

 

Didn't say you did. But I did state some people do.

 

 

I wasn't asking you accept other game systems.  I was suggesting that you should not to accept the glacial evolution of almost all current game systems.

I don't accept it. d20 sucks and I agree with this.

 

 

There are matters of taste, which can hardly be disputed, and there are matters of performance/function, which can be quantified and prioritized.  I guess you could argue that you like having 2nd Ed. AD&D's thief skills on one scale and proficiencies on another scale, but that doesn't change the fact that they are both measured and acquired in different ways, seemingly for no reason.  Similarly, the scales for proficiencies go up and the scales for armor class go down, resulting in two different mechanics.  What is accomplished by having them different?  Beats me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is not that I like thief skills and proficiences to be on different scale it is more like none of these things have ever bothered me. To me they are just rules, just like any other system has rules. And I seriously don't find them any more cumbersome than anyone else's. In fact, I find AD&D rules to be simpler to learn than many other systems.

True the rules aren't as streamlined as say 3E, GURPS, CoC, or WoD but I always found them surprisingly easy to learn. And for me, AD&D simulates reality close enough I don't need detailed rules for pissing.

[Lancer]

I assume you run pen and paper campaigns.  Why don't you run your fantasy role-playing games using the Toon system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have never played/GMed Toon and as said in my previous post, I like AD&D a lot so I have never had the desire to change to another system. Though I always like trying out others (and I have tried out quite a few). Isn't that the cartoon roleplaying game?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Being able to combine detail and quick combat resolution without getting bogged down in needless minutiae. Good tactical combat.

How do you define what is good tactical combat?

 

Excellent thoroughly fleshed out settings with complicated/beliveable worlds with many, many gameplay options (i.e Mystara,Planescape).

Most settings created by TSR during the 2nd Ed. days can and are used in other game systems. The systems don't make the settings good, though the use of a crummy system with a good setting can hurt the overall impact of the experience.

 

I don't accept it. d20 sucks and I agree with this.

I don't think you view d20 as an evolution of AD&D. I do.

 

It is not that I like thief skills and proficiences to be on different scale it is more like none of these things have ever bothered me. To me they are just rules, just like any other system has rules. And I seriously don't find them any more cumbersome than anyone else's. In fact, I find AD&D rules to be simpler to learn than many other systems.

What was the first pen-and-paper RPG system you learned?

[Lancer]

Lemme add one thing.. The only modern ruleset that I have enjoyed as much as AD&D was SLA Industries.

 

Oh man.. Now *that* is one kickass game. The only reason I don't play it is since it doesn't have the financial backup like the big boys (WotC, GURPS, White Wolfs) the world is not very fleshed out yet.. Not sure if it ever will be. The company that develops it is tiny.

[Lancer]

 

What do I consider good tactical combat? AD&D 2ndEd with Player's Option:Combat and Tactics.The ability to use miniatures, and positioning. Simple but satisfying combat mechanics that don't take 20 minutes to run a game round. However, complex enough (more complex than CoC) to be able to do things like ranged combat in a satisfying fashion. There is more but that is what comes to mind right now.

 

I don't think you view d20 as an evolution of AD&D.  I do.

 

You are right about this. I view it as a step backward.

 

What was the first pen-and-paper RPG system you learned?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OD&D. Basic D&D. Quite a ways back.

[J.E. Sawyer]

AD&D 2ndEd with Player's Option:Combat and Tactics. The ability to use miniatures, and positioning. Simple but satisfying combat mechanics that don't take 20 minutes to run a game round.

C&T was pretty dense with mechanics that slow down combat a lot, so unless you mean AD&D 2nd Ed. with a sixth of the rules in C&T, I can't imagine you actually find such combat to be quickly resolved.

 

You are right about this. I view it as a step backward.

It unified a lot of mechanics that were needlessly different (the afore-mentioned thief skills vs. proficiencies being one of many examples) and helped balance broken mechanics (multiclassing, unclear stacking rules, etc.). What was backwards about it? I view it as a system that didn't move far enough forward.

 

OD&D. Basic D&D. Quite a ways back.

Does it surprise you that subsequent editions of D&D and AD&D were easier to learn than radically different systems?