I got a proposal about turning a comic book I write for in an RPG setting. The dudes proposed "True d20" as the base system. I know that there is  an Italian edition of the game, but also that it is not going very well.

How is the game system beside the sales? I guess I can just buy a copy and check for myself, but an overall impression would be nice. During the pitch, alas, references to "story games" were made, making my hair slowly turn white, but maybe I didn't heard it right.

Comments?

Quote from: Reckall;522334I got a proposal about turning a comic book I write for in an RPG setting. The dudes proposed "True d20" as the base system. I know that there is  an Italian edition of the game, but also that it is not going very well.

How is the game system beside the sales? I guess I can just buy a copy and check for myself, but an overall impression would be nice. During the pitch, alas, references to "story games" were made, making my hair slowly turn white, but maybe I didn't heard it right.

Comments?

Do you mean True 20?

If so, it's definitely a roleplaying game (I've played the Blue Rose version of it, which came before the tidied-up True20 version of the rules, and even that was a few years ago so my details may be incorrect). It's got three basic classes (Fighty, skills-y and cast-y, I can't remember their names) which are very flexible through the use of feats. I don't remember assigning skill points individually, instead you get skill picks giving a constant bonus. You have the six attributes, but only the bonuses, not the numbers.

Skills checks work in the usual d20 + modifiers way, combat uses a damage save like Mutants and Masterminds, and there's a vague morality mechanic.

I thought it was so bland, it's average. It's playable, sure, and you can run a campaign in it, but there's nothing really interesting or innovative in the mechanics. It's just another game system.

True20 is good. It is bland, like any generic system will be, and it has no story game elements that I can see. The only one even close is it's "corruption" mechanic, but this is actually meant to serve more like Sanity in CoC than anything else. It represented the corruptive influence of using sorcery in Blue Rose.

As Ladybird pointed out, The characters abilities are the same is any d20 game, but only use the ability modifiers, not the 3-18 numbers.  So True20 is +3 instead of 17. I can't remember the names of the classes either, but they are meant to represent only the general aptitudes of the character, and any "class abilities" are feats in True20 and the characters are much more customizable. It is still a class/level system though. The advancement is also much more open and interpretable by the GM, with characters advancing in level when or at a frequency the individual GM or group decides they should. It's not a bad system at all, if class/level is ok with you.

"Bland" is the first word that comes to mind.

I agree on the "bland" part.  The other thing that stands out is the damage mechanism.  Instead of hit points, it uses a damage save and a track of damage conditions.  I can't say that it was any better than hit points, just different.

It's not a bad system, but there's nothing that makes me want to play it, either.

My main issue with it in play was the wound system.  Wounds were complicated.   Further, they had a high variability from the d20 roll - a blow could generally do anything from a scratch (if you rolled a 18) to a fatality (if you rolled a 2).   They were also part of a medium-strong death spiral.  

The result was that the best (by far) use of Conviction Points was to re-roll any low Toughness rolls to soak damage.  

The rest of it worked OK in play - but as others said, it was fairly bland.  

The three classes in particular were deliberately very bland.  I personally think they should have ditched classes and instead had non-bland skill/power/trait options.

True 20 is a good generic system. I guess bland is correct by its very nature. Its a streamlined down and somewhat slimmed down version of d20.

It has a lot in common with Savage Worlds but I prefer True 20 as it feels more robust and allows for greater granularity.

I forgot about Conviction... yeah, when I ran my Dark Sun test with True20 Conviction came in very handy for the players. I'd advise being fairly generous with it, especially at first until you find the sweet spot for your group. Better that than creating new characters several times. The grittiness relative to more "normal" d20 was one of the things that attracted me to True20. It's a pretty decent and versatile "gritty" d20 variant. I thought it would be great for modern games and still do although it's no longer my first choice.

Edit: What genre is the comic you write for Reck? If it's Supers, I'm not sure true20 would be a good fit. Horror, I think true20 would totally fit. Fantasy, you might be better off taking a look at Blue Rose and just ignore the fluff, especially if it's darker fantasy, for which Blue Rose is very well suited. As I said, IMO True20 is just fine for modern/military/sci-fi type gaming.

Here is my succinct review: I loathe 3e, but I liked True20 and I would play it again.

As generic systems go, my favorite was the ill-fated BESM 3e with Savage Worlds being my 2nd choice because its so fast and fun with minis. I would say True20 would probably be next choice.

I've played loads of Hero and GURPS and True20 was certainly more enjoyable than either of them.

The damage mechanic is kinda cool. Feels very cinematic in play.

I'm rather fond of it--but yes its bland, like Unisystem bland. Meaning it allows the flavor to all come from the setting not the rules. Sometimes that is a good thing (when adapting a setting and not writing game rules intended to re-enforce it.)

I wouldn't use it for things I wanted the rules to help drive the setting home well, but as a "hey look, simple, usable" rules set, it works well.

The revised edition with the settings pulled out and the companion folded in includes rules for gear design, class design (for doing more traditional fantasy/SF whatever classes) so I'd recommend it.

Interesting as it does a lot of things i have put into my heartbreaker.
Bonuses rather than stats, 3 classes based on Skills, Magic or combat. Now I sub-class archetypes but the aim is to have the GM build them for their setting (although a bunch are provided)
Might take a look to make sure i haven't reinvented a wheel no one is all that fond of

True20's best "innovation" IMO is the fact that attack and defence are now symmetrical. This is rare for a D20 derived RPG.

This allowed escalating HP to go and be replaced by Conviction to represent rising heroism and armour adding to Toughness. The result is cinematic, much like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings movies.

It is a simpler user friendly of version of d20 that doesn't use hit points.

The crunchiest aspect to the system are feats, much like any d20 OGL game.

It does have a very bland presentation, which may partially explain it not being a huge commercial success. The light support and the massive glut of d20 offerings also being reasons True20 didn't fare better.

There is also Mutants and Masterminds, which seems to be able to do everything that True20 can do and then some.

Quote from: PaladinCA;522463There is also Mutants and Masterminds, which seems to be able to do everything that True20 can do and then some.

At a higher effort to result ratio though in many cases IME.

Quote from: Skywalker;522467At a higher effort to result ratio though in many cases IME.

This is true.

Edit: M&M certainly has more crunch and complexity than True20 even if built on a similar foundation.