This 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.

Go with what you love. If you're ok with d20, then keep d20 books around when you need something quick, or you can only get d20 players. Keep the other books because you love them, and want to play them first.

I know you said you were trimming your collection, but there's a reason for multiple systems. Get rid of the stuff you don't want. Keep what you'd actually like.

Well, why not go all the way and just stick with just one setting?

For some people that might be alright, and there are certainly some settings that would provide for lots of different campaign styles. But sometimes, you just want something thats decidedly different. I don't see the rules as much different. They shape the gaming experience, too. Sometimes even more, as the players might not particularly mind what the city they're in is called, but whether you're using GURPS or D&D to simulate the combat will have an influence on the style.

The counter-argument would be the flexibility of the particular rule system you're choosing. But even stuff like D20 or Hero has some limits, and if you're switching lots of the elements, the few remaining components won't make things that much easier. On the contrary, if they might confuse the players about what particular variant they're using now. If they're throwing 12d10 or 3d6 instead of a d20, they might make the mental switch more easily.

But in the end this is all a matter of taste. Some groups need different rules each weekend, some can stay in the same campaign for 10+ years.

Go with C&C,  always C&C.

you can add on the more complex bits of d20, or the weirder bits of RC.  You have a light simple game that you can customize to your group's playstyle.

The only more flexible system on the market is Fudge.

If you really want to ...
 Okay then.

 ME??

 I'd prefer to GURPS it out baby.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarIf you really want to ...
 Okay then.

 ME??

 I'd prefer to GURPS it out baby.


- Ed C.

I am not sure what I am going to do. I am kind of using these board to talk it out, so to speak. I used GURPS for many years and started using it when all that was out was Man to Man. Fun system but I realize not for me today.

I am considering switching to d20 only but always loved using different rulesets. I am at one of those times that comes in life that you need to reprioritize the things that you do. So as I reprioritize my involvement this hobby, I am trying to figure out what I want to get out of it and how much effort I want to put into it.

I do not see me stopping role-playing anytime soon, if ever, but living in a new area with different obligations changes what one can do or at least how much time one can spend doing it. In some ways I would love to game like I did years ago but unless someone is willing to pay me to be a full time GM, I will never be able to do so. Well maybe if I become rich all of a sudden but still highly unlikely. Until recently I never really understood how someone could just play D&D and not try or have a desire to play other games. As things have recently progressed I am beginning to understand why many players just stick to the one system the play and do not change from it.


Now I will Admit C&C is really starting to grow on me and am wondering if I need to give it a much closer look.

Different systems provide different play experiences and, on top of that, variety for those of us that want it.  If I run a fantasy game with GURPS, D&D 3.5, and Artesia then I'm going to have substantially different play experiences.  Even within a given system, such as d20 or GURPS, house rules and variations will notably change the experience.  Max HP every level?  The characters probably take more risks or fight tougher opponents than they otherwise would.  15th level characters rather than 2nd?  The entire scope of the game changes.

Even the core resolution mechanic is significant.  d20 provides a flat line of probability - you're as likely to roll a 10 as a 20 or a 3.  Other games provide a bell curve of differing amounts, such that results are more predictable.  A d20 roll adds more suspense to the die rolls, but it also sometimes leads to ridiculous inconsistency in character capabilities.

So, I play different game systems for different roleplaying experiences and because I find learning and understanding game systems to be part of the fun.

I think D&D is for playing D&D.

Everything else is bad houserules, on the order of the "Star Wars AD&D" conversions you'd find in Usenet in the old days before TSR started suing anyone who had an AD&D website or mailing list.

Quote from: J ArcaneI think D&D is for playing D&D.

Everything else is bad houserules, on the order of the "Star Wars AD&D" conversions you'd find in Usenet in the old days before TSR started suing anyone who had an AD&D website or mailing list.

When you say D&D do you mena d20 and/or all it's varients? Just curious.

Quote from: AosWhen you say D&D do you mena d20 and/or all it's varients? Just curious.

D20 is D&D.

the whole "d20" moniker, and the OGL, are basically from the start a license for people to actualyl sell the aforementioned houserules and pretend that waht they're using is some generic system, instead of what it really is, which is D&D.

Well, I see your point, but some of the varients are pretty far from the source- M&M and True20 for example. Would you classify Ruinquest as D&D as well? because it did start as a D&D houserule, and BRP is basically derivative of that- and they are certainly similar to D&D, if not the same...

Quote from: AosWell, I see your point, but some of the varients are pretty far from the source- M&M and True20 for example. Would you classify Ruinquest as D&D as well? because it did start as a D&D houserule, and BRP is basically derivative of that- and they are certainly similar to D&D, if not the same...

I hated M&M.  Because it was painfully obvious that what I had in my hand was an absolutely desperate attempt to try and force D&D to cover something it was never designed to do, and winding up doing an even worse job of things than GURPS Supers did.

I consider it the crowning example of exactly what I'm talking about.

On topic to the thread though, it's relavant for exactly the reason CWR stated:  Some systems just capture the feel of certain things better than others.  D&D is actually one of the most focused systems out there, which is why it adapts so poorly for everything else, but does D&D fantastically.

Quote from: J ArcaneI hated M&M.  Because it was painfully obvious that what I had in my hand was an absolutely desperate attempt to try and force D&D to cover something it was never designed to do, and winding up doing an even worse job of things than GURPS Supers did.

I consider it the crowning example of exactly what I'm talking about.

On topic to the thread though, it's relavant for exactly the reason CWR stated:  Some systems just capture the feel of certain things better than others.  D&D is actually one of the most focused systems out there, which is why it adapts so poorly for everything else, but does D&D fantastically.

I own M&M but I don't use it; I would much rather play V&V- for basically the reasons you mention. However, True20 has worked really well for us in a variety of genres, two fisted pulp, and sword and sorcery (which is pretty much D&D, I guess just with a different emphasis) chief among them.

Just curious, but what specifically makes M&M worse than GURPS Supers? My own personal opinion is that I found M&M to be boring in comparsion to other super games like HERO and MSH.

Quote from: DeadUematsuJust curious, but what specifically makes M&M worse than GURPS Supers? My own personal opinion is that I found M&M to be boring in comparsion to other super games like HERO and MSH.

Well, I referenced GURPS Supers, because it's a rather notorious example of a system that doesn't do something well being forced to do it anyway.  the problem was that GURPS doesn't scale up well to the high power levels of superhero stuff, especially superhuman statistics.

M&M suffers from a similar problem.  It's biggest problem was being too attached to D&D's mechanics like levels and feats, despite those mechanics making basically no sense for supers.  It felt awkward and shoehorned.