This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: The d20 Renaissance  (Read 2671 times)

Benoist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22049
The d20 Renaissance
« on: April 28, 2014, 03:59:51 PM »
One of the very good things about d20 was the OGL. At the beginning, post 2000, there was a boom of ideas and variants (both within WotC and beyond), tons of cool, different spins on the d20 mechanics, with stuff like Black Company and Arcana Unearthed and on and on with Etherscope, Spycraft, d20 Modern, CoC d20 and whatnot. Right now, we're still very much living into the aftermath of Wizards leaving the OGL in the dust. The OGL, besides the OSR cottage industry and the like, is very much gravitating around Pathfinder now.

I have this idea that things are going to go full circle at some point. That gamers are going to get tired of the one size fits all, that they're going to get bored with the optimization and everything is about the rules, and the extreme passion or hatred for everything d20, back to the beginnings, where it was more about publishing your own d20 spin for the hell of it, experimenting with this or that aspect of the system implemented on a different setting or genre, and seeing if anybody out there liked it enough to buy it.

Am I off base here? Do you think that we're going to see a sort of d20/OGL renaissance, a few years, or even decades, from now?

The Butcher

  • Cyborg Shock Trooper
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7183
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2014, 04:05:21 PM »
No idea, but that would be pretty cool.

Steerpike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2014, 04:06:40 PM »
I don't think it'll all be d20, but I do see a lot of old school "hacks" of various old editions and retroclones out there, which is kind of in the same vein.  Stuff like Jack Shear's "murderhobo" hack of the game.

thedungeondelver

  • Advanced D&D
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6039
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2014, 04:12:36 PM »
I find d20 to be bland and boring.  I never got the whole "But, this way we all learn a unified system!"

Mechanics that are designed to fit the genre or even just the game they're written for are no sin.  I like the game mechanics of Twilight:2000 (v1), I like the mechanics of AD&D 1e, I like the mechanics of OD&D, I like the mechanics of Call of Cthulhu*, and so on.

If there's a "d20 renaissance" I don't particularly care, people can enjoy what they will.  

Just so long as there's no 4e renaissance.  That was an unmitigated disaster and objectively the worst D&D rules ever.


...

*=yes I know.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 08:18:20 PM by thedungeondelver »
THE DELVERS DUNGEON


Mcbobbo sums it up nicely.

Quote
Astrophysicists are reassessing Einsteinian relativity because the 28 billion l

aspiringlich

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2014, 04:24:47 PM »
Quote from: thedungeondelver;745630
I find d20 to be bland and boring.  I never got the whole "But, this way we all learn a unified system!"

I agree. Anytime you try to fix something by making it more "rational," you end up killing it, and d20 to me is sterile and lifeless. Old-school mechanics might not make sense, but they don't make sense in a way that a tree's limbs don't make sense. Yeah, they're growing all over the place, but the thing is alive. d20 isn't alive to me.

kythri

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2014, 05:49:36 PM »
Perhaps I'm not very RPG-worldly, but I have yet to experience an issue where the d20 stuff didn't accomodate my gaming.

I've got no issues with different mechanics, I just, quite frankly, don't see the need/desire for them.  I've never been able to wrap my head around the whole "this system is more cinematic" and other wankery.

If enough people that I want to play with are playing a non-d20-based game, I'll certainly play, but, frankly, any time I pick up anything non-d20 published in the last decade or so, the system design mentality seems to have been "let's make sure this doesn't resemble d20" rather than "let's make this fit the setting."

Now, that said - it's not like I'm against non-d20 games, or against changing/tweaking/molding d20 to be "better" or "different" - I used to game with someone that had a hard-on for converting everything to d20.  Anytime someone suggested some Shadowrun or Battletech/Mechwarrior, he had to start drooling about converting it to d20, which was obnoxious.

Out of curiosity, what does/doesn't d20 do that puts you off the system?

mcbobbo

  • Communicates Poorly
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2552
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2014, 05:50:03 PM »
While I actually love the "one size fits all" concept,  it may well be impossible to achieve.

Further I think the vile stain of "system mastery" may be insurmountable.

But I do hold out hope...
"It is the mark of an [intelligent] mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

The Were-Grognard

  • aka Androlphas
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2014, 06:13:18 PM »
Quote from: Benoist;745625
I have this idea that things are going to go full circle at some point. That gamers are going to get tired of the one size fits all, that they're going to get bored with the optimization and everything is about the rules, and the extreme passion or hatred for everything d20, back to the beginnings, where it was more about publishing your own d20 spin for the hell of it, experimenting with this or that aspect of the system implemented on a different setting or genre, and seeing if anybody out there liked it enough to buy it.


I feel this is where the OSR has been going now that most, if not all of the retro-clones have been completed.  Now we are seeing products that push the boundaries, while still having simple rules.  Maybe this is just the beginning of what you describe.

I think there is a growing movement of people who are old enough to remember RPGs before D20, and its attached complexity, flocking to simpler games.  This observation may be anecdotal, though.  I didn't take notice of the OSR (as a movement) until I was well and fed up with both 3e and 4e.  There were some tremors beforehand, such as when I took a break from 3e to run campaigns with the simpler D6 system.

Endless Flight

  • Impressive Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
    • RPG PUB
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2014, 08:01:09 PM »
I've been waiting for d20 Modern v.2 for ten years. It's been so long I've started to write it and I don't write games.

Vic99

  • Old Guy That Still Games
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Wicked Cool Games FB page
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2014, 10:04:18 PM »
Good topic, Benoist.

I'm getting older, have less time to put into gaming and don't want to put the effort into learning another game system these days.  The d20 works fine for most things that I want to do.  We use it for D&D, Cthulhu, Star Wars, post-apoc, someone even ran an Aliens campaign with it.  Used 3.0 until I discovered 3.5 recently.

Back in my twenties (1990s) I loved experimenting.  Even wrote a very detailed d12 system for a cyberpunk/magic world.  My buddy and I never tried to market it because we figured it would be a niche thing for people that liked rules intense richly detailed combat.  The d12 was so much more geared toward such a task.  Almost hired an artist or two as well.  If tech was as helpful back the as it is today, I bet we would have gotten a product out there . . . . I was just looking at the rules just the other day . . . Nearly 200 pages.  We used it for 6 years play testing with our buddies.  Too bad we never made any money or even broke even . . . In another life I'll be a game designer.

I still wonder how many people would be into something rules intensive.  I have to think that most role players like d20 and simple systems . . . . Remember, I said most.  :)

I think we already hit the high point of d20, but I would still expect a game or two to continue to use it as the years go on.

Exploderwizard

  • DESTROYER OF HOBBIES!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 5025
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2014, 06:45:21 AM »
I'm kind of neutral on the whole d20 thing. I see the system as a kind of fallback bog standard resolution system that can be used in the absence of a more evocative flavorful one.

Kind of like "close enough for government work" applied to rpg mechanics.

D20, to me seems like a generic skeletal structure that parts are bolted onto in various configurations to make different games, sort of like a Lego kit. The full flavor of these games is influenced by that underlying structure though and often don't get fully realized.

Building a game from the ground up, with no preconceived mechanical structure, allows the core ideas and feel to form the underlying game structure, and mechanics are attached as needed to enforce and maintain that core feel. A game feels more natural if mechanics are developed to serve it, rather than shoehorning game concepts into a pre-fab rules structure such as D20.
Quote from: JonWake
Gamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than 'oh, neat, what's this do?', the reaction is to decide if it's a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.

Quote from: Old Geezer;724252
At some point it seems like D&D is going to disappear up its own ass.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997
In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.

xech

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • x
  • Posts: 174
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2014, 09:44:43 AM »
Quote from: Benoist;745625

Am I off base here? Do you think that we're going to see a sort of d20/OGL renaissance, a few years, or even decades, from now?


No, I do not. For rpg gamers there is no established connection to the D20 system as there has been for D&D and its fantasy tropes.
But I do believe we will see new and better systems than those of the past due to the system design exercise that the D20/OGL provoked and the subsequent overall internet culture around game systems.
 

Tetsubo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1221
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2014, 06:01:25 PM »
Quote from: aspiringlich;745633
I agree. Anytime you try to fix something by making it more "rational," you end up killing it, and d20 to me is sterile and lifeless. Old-school mechanics might not make sense, but they don't make sense in a way that a tree's limbs don't make sense. Yeah, they're growing all over the place, but the thing is alive. d20 isn't alive to me.


Tree limbs make perfect sense. Old school mechanics make about as much sense as a tree limb with a dog ear growing in one spot, a coffee pot in another, a copper wire trailing the ground and a fish tail flapping in the breeze. Otherwise, no sense at all. Give me a unified mechanic and comprehensive rule system any day.

Opaopajr

  • SeƱor Wences
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7768
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2014, 06:29:25 PM »
I wish you the best on a d20 revival. As I have said before, I've never played in a fun game of d20, so I cannot share any of your enthusiasm. I myself am waiting for more OSR material for 2e, and there's still all the buckets of already made TSR material I am still trying to collect let alone use.

Good luck!
Just make your fuckin' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what's interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it's more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
The d20 Renaissance
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2014, 06:59:32 PM »
Quote from: Benoist;745625
One of the very good things about d20 was the OGL. At the beginning, post 2000, there was a boom of ideas and variants (both within WotC and beyond), tons of cool, different spins on the d20 mechanics, with stuff like Black Company and Arcana Unearthed and on and on with Etherscope, Spycraft, d20 Modern, CoC d20 and whatnot. Right now, we're still very much living into the aftermath of Wizards leaving the OGL in the dust. The OGL, besides the OSR cottage industry and the like, is very much gravitating around Pathfinder now.

I have this idea that things are going to go full circle at some point. That gamers are going to get tired of the one size fits all, that they're going to get bored with the optimization and everything is about the rules, and the extreme passion or hatred for everything d20, back to the beginnings, where it was more about publishing your own d20 spin for the hell of it, experimenting with this or that aspect of the system implemented on a different setting or genre, and seeing if anybody out there liked it enough to buy it.

Am I off base here? Do you think that we're going to see a sort of d20/OGL renaissance, a few years, or even decades, from now?

I've given this some thought. I think one of the missing premises in your post is that what's wrong with d20 is not *just* the emergent "optimization" issue which is a byproduct of the design - it's the simple fact that the design itself is flawed.

The emergent flaws of d20 (3.x/PF - 4e fails design-wise imo from a different philosophy but almost fully accepts these conceits) - is that optimization exists *because* the options presented are too narrow in focus and execution.

Free of context, which is how a lot of new gamers approached 3.x/PF optimization is a no-brainer. Take any attempt at creating a "traditional" melee schtick in 3.x/PF - and you'll soon realize that (again) free of context your Spartan Warrior is a piece of shit by the mechanics presented.

The optimal, two-handed, full-plate-wearing Fighter trumps all forms of non-magical martial combat, when the name of the game should be options that allow you to fully realize any concept mechanically as being meaningful.

4e is even worse at this.

This is why I hold the premise of d20 wasn't bad. It was the execution of it.

Case in point: if I wanted to make a Spartan-like warrior in 1e or 2e, the Fighter with a sword and board in 1e would work fine as is. No frills certainly. But the conceits of 1e preclude any real glaring imbalances that everyone can readily deal with.

in 2e - we get some window-dressing with things like Style and Weapon specialzation. Kits if you're so inclined. And dare we go into Skills and Options for really cinematic (for some) flair.

Taken for face value, again with the same conceits of the system against other classes, and this concept does just fine (as do any other non-caster schticks).

But in 3.x/PF - it's a hot fucking mess.

This is precisely why I use Fantasy Craft as my redemption for d20. It's much more refined, and literally gives you the player and the GM everything you could ever want in d20. The options are literally impossible to fuck up. All the classes kick ass. All the feats kick ass. All the possibilities are simply right there. And you can make it as over the top as you want, or as simple as you want.

Oh it's different than 3.x/PF - but only in the right way. I often wonder why it doesn't get as much praise as it deserves as a system simply for this reason: there are few things one could level at 3.x/PF that FC doesn't solve mechanically (because it balances everything against everything else without sacrificing optimization - because everything is *already* optimized). No Feat taxes. No LF/QM, No crappy skills, No shitty feats, No weak classes, Ridiculous amounts of options on character, GM, campaign, NPC level. It's really what 3e should have been, imo.

Whether you like it or not - it's worlds better than any iteration of 3e or Pathfinder mechanically. (if d20 isn't your thing - then ignore this post).

Will there ever be a renaissance like d20? Dunno frankly. I don't think after 3e/4e D&D will ever be the same for anyone with history with it. I think it's gone so far afield that it's just a name, with different meanings to different people. That ship has sailed.

If there will be another "gaming zeitgeist" - I'd bet it will be long in coming. I have no faith it will be D&D Next - though I'm sure a lot of people will play it.


Edit: if there was a game I'd love to see a renaissance for based purely on the community and the quality of the game: it would be Talislanta. Looking forward to the new Savage Lands game!!! woo! (but yeah - I doubt this will usher in any renaissance)
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 07:03:53 PM by tenbones »