To the OP>

Different games are good at emphasising different things in play. Playing and owning many games gives one's playing experiences a richness and breadth that arbitrarily confining one's play to d20 denies. Even if you find playing D&D very satisfying - and I certainly do - one should not rule out the possibility of trying some other game. Openness is a virtue.

Quote from: J ArcaneSays the guy who goes on about how True20 is better than D&D.

You're talking about range, right? Well D20 has way bigger range than True20.  True20 is really cool, really good, for doing certain types of gaming, but the spectrum that it can cover is much MORE narrow than what D20 covers.

You have to be seriously fucked in the head to buy into this make-believe about D20 not working for anything other than D&D.  Its absurd. D20 is one of the most usable generic systems in the history of roleplaying.  It certainly has a wider range of playable settings than GURPS.

Of course, I'm willing to bet that you don't really believe in such a thing as "generic systems" to begin with, do you?  You've fallen for the idiotic notion that every single game has to have a totally different set of rules for it to work really well...

RPGPundit

I love GURPS, I think it's fantastic.  (Well, 3rd Edition was, my opinion's still mixed on 4th Ed.)

GURPS isn't truly generic either.  No system truly is, not HERO, not GURPS, not BESM or Tri-Stat, nothing.  I think that a game can cover a pretty broad spectrum of topics, but that D&D is not one of them.

I've yet to find one game that works for everything, everywhere.  But I've found a lot of people who desperately want to believe that D&D does.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineDifferent games are good at emphasising different things in play. Playing and owning many games gives one's playing experiences a richness and breadth that arbitrarily confining one's play to d20 denies. Even if you find playing D&D very satisfying - and I certainly do - one should not rule out the possibility of trying some other game. Openness is a virtue.

I could not possibly agree more.

Quote from: 1717 FusilWhy not just go completely d20 and be done with it. Now on one had I am not a huge fan of  d20 but find it easy to set up and run and for the most part find players. On the otherhand I like other systems better than d20.

I would say that you shouldn't offer to run a game unless you're really into it. It never works out, you always end up wanting to change, or screwing things up some way. Only offer to run the systems and settings you're really keen on. The GM is the one person in the campaign whose preferences are vital to the campaign's existence - it can survive one or two players being bored or pissed off, it can't survive the GM being unhappy. So choose to run something you're going to love!

Quote from: 171 FusilI would like to use something like d6 maybe but don't feel like converting a setting or have time to create my own again. I would rather spend time playing though I love to create setting and even rule systems but love playing a game more. I just don't have time to do everything these days.

Well, there over over 1,600, and possibly up to 2,000, roleplaying game systems out there. You don't need to create a new one. So that's one job we can get rid of, and open up some more time for you.

There are also lots of games out there pretty closely tied to settings, and also lots of setting books which are either without a system (like Harn) or only loosely-connected to the system (like most GURPS worldbooks). So you don't have to create a setting from the whole cloth, either - you can just take one already there, and fine-tune it to fit what you and your players like.

There are two basic approaches you can take.

First is, decide you setting and system, and do a nice write-up and campaign poster to promote it. Then send that out on your local town gamer's mailing list, and then meet with the people who answer, one by one, and see who you want to game with.

Second is, if you already have plenty of people you want to game with, ask them to describe their ideal setting and character and adventure or story, and then take their different ideas and mash 'em together into something new.

I guess the other thing is that you can just go and be a player. But your post seems to imply that you don't have a game group at the moment, and no-one is running a game you want to join, or has a space for you. Yes/no? So you're saying to yourself, "Well if I run a game then I'll get to play even if I don't get to be a player." But assuming you're going to be a GM, well... See above.

Quote from: J ArcaneGiven that you're a well known game reviewer, I find this statement to be rather surprising.  You can't have read any of those games to closely if you don't see D&D's mechanics shining through clear as day.

I've played all of those games, and while they're similar to D&D they're each distinct and have their own feel.

There's no question that various d20 incarnations share many things in common.  Levels, feats, and skills are present in most d20 games in some form.

I think you may have an interesting argument underneath all this - perhaps that the d20 system is suited for a certain type of tactical roleplay for the most part and games that break that mold (such as M&M and True20) are the exception rather than the rule - but to just say that all d20 games are D&D doesn't make much sense to me.

"D&D" is a dog whistle because it means so many different things to different people.

For me, D&D is the three brown books from 1974 and stuff close enough to them to be cross-usable with eyeball/brief adjustments. This includes the various basic sets produced over the years into the nineties, much of AD&D 1, and the core sourcebooks (but not all the supplements) for AD&D 2. More broadly, it includes supplements which add odd pieces to this here and there (new classes, spells, traps, ad hoc mechanics for particular situations, etc.).

3e is not cross-usable with the 1974 game without a good deal of work, so it's not really D&D in my book, even if WotC paid for the name. Other people's mileage obviously varies.

But anyway, I think when talking about D&D it's good to be aware that the word means different things to different people. For some it's synonymous with role-playing as a whole; with others it means exactly the homebrew they played with their high school buddies from 1984-7; for others it means the rules they came in with as written; for others it's any dungeon-crawling game; for others it's a particular mechanical approach to resolution, and on and on it goes.

Quote from: 1717 FusilThis is an offshoot of my other thread. As I have been looking over all my games and scaling back, I keep having this thought. Why not just go completely d20 and be done with it. Now on one had I am not a huge fan of  d20 but find it easy to set up and run and for the most part find players. On the otherhand I like other systems better than d20.

For fantasy, right now I am debating either using Arrowflight, RC D&D, C&C or D&D 3.5 to start a campaign. 3 of the 4 are all essentially versions of d20.

I would like to use something like d6 maybe but don't feel like converting a setting or have time to create my own again. I would rather spend time playing though I love to create setting and even rule systems but love playing a game more. I just don't have time to do everything these days. Hence I am starting to see why some people just play d20 games and nothing else.

I believe that you can go pretty far -- maybe all the way -- with just d20.

I like d20, though. If I had aesthetic issues with it, I might have a problem with that, but as it is this seems perfectly viable.

I believe the same thing about GURPS and Hero.

I think we have a set of good, generic systems that cover virtually the whole playing field. I say choose one or two and concentrate on setting and special rule extensions (e.g. supplements that add super powers).

Cheers,
-E.

There is definitely something to be said about sticking with one system in general. It can make things a lot easier on the GM and players if everyone has a good idea of how basic mechanics work. In my old age, I find it less and less desirable to learn new systems (unless they are particularly rules-light).

Example: About a year ago I tried running a Serenity game (using the MWP rules), and found myself utterly frustrated trying to figure out rules and constantly having to look things up. I vowed that if I ever ran the setting again, I would just use D20 modern (which I was very familiar with at the time).

I know large number of people who only play D20 variations, and due to it's popularity it makes a good choice of system for a lot of people.

There are also GURPS, HERO, D6, Unisystem, and Savage Worlds fans who stick to one system only and are happy doing it. I personally think HERO would be a bad fit for sci-fi, but for those people who have played Champions for a long time and are familiar with the rules, I can see how that would be an attractive option.

My current thinking is that I'd like to have a few genre-specific games, like Legend of the 5 Rings for oriental fantasy, Star Wars for Star Wars, and a good, rules-light, generic system like Savage Worlds for everything else.

the Dungeons & Dragons/the d20 system is like the first guitar you buy.  it plays well enough, it's comfortable in your hands, and it's great for playing when your friends come over and want to just hang out and jam.

d20 Modern and other OGL/d20-based games (Modern/M&M/True20/et al) are like effects pedals, or entirely different guitars...electric or otherwise.  they play the same music, but with a different sound, for those times when you want to play songs from a specific genre.

to the OP:  d20 seems to be the "path of least resistance".  you'll spend less time looking up rules, explaining them to your players, and even finding players:  everyone pretty much understands the concepts.

Pseudoephedrine pretty much sums up my opinion.  use whatever instrument suits you, but just keep making music would be my only addition.

Quote from: RPGPundit...... It certainly has a wider range of playable settings than GURPS.

 Not going to do it ...

 Really NOT gonna do it ..

 Shit!! Failed that resistance roll!! (FrackNabit!!)

EVERY setting is a possible GURPS setting - it even says so inside the books.

 GURPS: Eberron? - Someone is running it

GURPS:Forgotten Realms? Someone has run one.

GURPS:STAR WARS ? At least three or four campaigns have been done that way.


- Ed C.

I actually find using differing d20 variants in quick succession to be more confusing. There are often minor tweaks buried in the rules that can alter the entire complexion of an an encounter, or give advantages and disadvantages entirely disproportionate to their apparent worth.

I'd rather spread myself about a little as systems go, keeping d20 as a touchstone that can be returned to whenever it seems most appropriate.

Quote from: KoltarNot going to do it ...

 Really NOT gonna do it ..

 Shit!! Failed that resistance roll!! (FrackNabit!!)

EVERY setting is a possible GURPS setting - it even says so inside the books.

 GURPS: Eberron? - Someone is running it

GURPS:Forgotten Realms? Someone has run one.

GURPS:STAR WARS ? At least three or four campaigns have been done that way.


- Ed C.

I didn't mean that you couldn't run anything in theory; I was saying that GURPS tends to crap out at the higher-end power levels.  GURPS is a great game for historical/"realistic"/human-level gaming. But it doesn't do Supers as well as other games, much less the equivalent of "high level D&D", high-fantasy stuff.

D20 has its high-end limitations too, and some argue that, without serious tweaking of the rules, it has more trouble doing ongoing "human-level" play than a game like GURPS would.

Every game system designed for "generic" play has its spectrum of what is playable.  D20's range is far from unlimited, but its pretty broad, broader IMO than GURPS.

RPGPundit

Quote from: KoltarEVERY setting is a possible GURPS setting

Every food is possible with TOFU!

Quote- it even says so inside the books.

Just ask the designer, he'll tell you!

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI've played all of those games, and while they're similar to D&D they're each distinct and have their own feel.

There's no question that various d20 incarnations share many things in common.  Levels, feats, and skills are present in most d20 games in some form.

I think you may have an interesting argument underneath all this - perhaps that the d20 system is suited for a certain type of tactical roleplay for the most part and games that break that mold (such as M&M and True20) are the exception rather than the rule - but to just say that all d20 games are D&D doesn't make much sense to me.

For me it's character creation mechanics that stick out to me.  I'm primarily a player, and pretty much never GM, and I tend to place a lot of importance on a game's character creation system, because that's one of my primary initial gateways to a system, and also something that needs to fit just right to the kind of character I feel like playing and expect from a given genre.

With D&D, I look at character creation as essentially part of the game universe that is D&D world.  Stuff just works differently in D&D than it does in the real world, but that's OK, because the game is fun as hell so it doesn't bother me.  It's essentially emulating the "D&D genre", if that makes any sense.

But move those mechanics outside of that unique genre, and they start to make less sense to me.  The kind of odd, structured learning mechanisms that make perfect sense for D&D, don't make as much sense to me when applied to most other settings really.  And the classes that are one of my staple joys in D&D, I find become a straightjacket outside of D&D, especially in a modern setting.  

It just all feels out of place to me.  And so I can't imagine limiting myself to "d20", because what that basically means is playing D&D and variants thereof for all my roleplaying, because as much as I enjoy D&D, I enjoy lots of other stuff too, even to the extent of trying to write my own, and I could never limit myself like that.

Quote from: J ArcaneWith D&D, I look at character creation as essentially part of the game universe that is D&D world.

I completely agree.  I think that a DM can really define a campaign by remixing the character classes available to players because those classes say so much about the game - they're the most common archetypes of the game world.

QuoteAnd the classes that are one of my staple joys in D&D, I find become a straightjacket outside of D&D, especially in a modern setting.  

I can totally dig that.  Modern characters don't translate as well into archetypes as fantasy characters do.  It's worth pointing out, though, that modern incarnations of d20 are less class based.  M&M has no classes and d20 Modern is designed with extensive multi-classing in mind.

QuoteIt just all feels out of place to me.  And so I can't imagine limiting myself to "d20", because what that basically means is playing D&D and variants thereof for all my roleplaying, because as much as I enjoy D&D, I enjoy lots of other stuff too, even to the extent of trying to write my own, and I could never limit myself like that.

Yep, I also love diversity in my gaming.