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.
Quote from: J ArcaneD20 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.
What an utter load of crap.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditWhat an utter load of crap.
RPGPundit
Says the guy who goes on about how True20 is better than D&D.
Quote from: J ArcaneSays the guy who goes on about how True20 is better than D&D.
Well, I like it better, but surely that's an subjective thing. Better for me is not the same as better for you- and obviously so in this case.
True20 isn't Dungeons and Dragons, neither are M&M, Conan, d20 Modern, or a host of other games. They play differently, they sport different mechanics and system considerations, ultimately they're very different games that just use a common resolution mechanic and general system outline.
Quote from: J ArcaneSays the guy who goes on about how True20 is better than D&D.
As out there as it may sound, I gotta say it takes second place to GURPS Supers (possibly the most craptastic excuse for a supers game given inadequate adaptation to a system that is truly unsuited for it and which is even badmouthed by GURPS fans) is better than Mutants and Masterminds (a slick, easy to use system given the proper level of adaptation and easily the most popular supers game currently on the market.)
At any rate, I've discussed this with J Arcane in the past and trying to change his mind on the issue is pretty much futile, so I recommend that various respondants stop trying to do so and address the original poster.
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.
Well, if it gets you into fun games, then that's as good a reason as any to embrace d20.
Of course, even I, true blue D20 lover that I am, don't see to point in totally swearing off other systems. I
do tend to focus more of my time and energy on games that I am currently playing or am likely to play in the near future, there's nothing wrong with keeping your interest and knowledge of other games alive.
So long as it fits your budget, of course.
Quote from: J ArcaneD20 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.
Bullshit.
-O
Quote from: obrynBullshit.
-O
So that D20 SRD that consists entirely of D&D and D&D related mechanics is all a horrible illusion, then?
Quote from: C.W.RichesonTrue20 isn't Dungeons and Dragons, neither are M&M, Conan, d20 Modern, or a host of other games. They play differently, they sport different mechanics and system considerations, ultimately they're very different games that just use a common resolution mechanic and general system outline.
Given 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.
Quote from: J ArcaneSo that D20 SRD that consists entirely of D&D and D&D related mechanics is all a horrible illusion, then?
Nope, no illusion. It contains a good many things, including classes, magic items, and
basic character structure and resolution mechanics.
It's when you move from that to saying OGL games are just D&D that you're going batty. You have actually
looked at an OGL game, right?
-O
Quote from: obrynNope, no illusion. It contains a good many things, including classes, magic items, and basic character structure and resolution mechanics.
It's when you move from that to saying OGL games are just D&D that you're going batty. You have actually looked at an OGL game, right?
-O
You don't seem to be reading what I am saying at all. Or at least understanding it.
I say this because I don't understand what the fuck you just said has anything to do with anything I have said.
Quote from: J ArcaneYou don't seem to be reading what I am saying at all. Or at least understanding it.
I say this because I don't understand what the fuck you just said has anything to do with anything I have said.
If you're not saying "OGL and D20 games are just D&D with houserules," perhaps then you could explain it in something more than a one-liner?
QuoteI 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.
-O
Quote from: obrynIf you're not saying "OGL and D20 games are just D&D with houserules," perhaps then you could explain it in something more than a one-liner?
-O
There are no rules for anything but D&D in the D20 SRD. There is no "D20 system". There is D&D.
Everything that has come since then is just a lot of crap grafted onto the same basic mechanics to try and make D&D into something else.
The levels are still there. The classes are still there. BAB and base saves are still there. Skills capped by level are still there. The feat trees are still there.
Those are good and wonderful mechanics for D&D, but D&D is a world that doesn't resemble anything else, nor does it even resemble reality in any sense. And that's fine.
But it becomes a problem when you start trying to force it to do things it was never designed to do.
And yet, thanks to the OGL, a large number of individuals are determined to treat D&D as more generic than it really is, even to the extent of making asinine statements about how there's no reason to use anything but D20 for a new game.
These kinds of houserules were around in the old days before the OGL, but nobody then pretended they were anything but what they were. Now they have a license and a Wizards marketing ploy to let them do just that.
It's pretentious crap.
Quote from: J ArcaneThere are no rules for anything but D&D in the D20 SRD. There is no "D20 system". There is D&D.
Everything that has come since then is just a lot of crap grafted onto the same basic mechanics to try and make D&D into something else.
The levels are still there. The classes are still there. BAB and base saves are still there. Skills capped by level are still there. The feat trees are still there.
Those are good and wonderful mechanics for D&D, but D&D is a world that doesn't resemble anything else, nor does it even resemble reality in any sense. And that's fine.
But it becomes a problem when you start trying to force it to do things it was never designed to do.
And yet, thanks to the OGL, a large number of individuals are determined to treat D&D as more generic than it really is, even to the extent of making asinine statements about how there's no reason to use anything but D20 for a new game.
These kinds of houserules were around in the old days before the OGL, but nobody then pretended they were anything but what they were. Now they have a license and a Wizards marketing ploy to let them do just that.
It's pretentious crap.
It makes more sense when you explain it rather than just drop quips here and there.
I still fundamentally disagree, mind you. If you don't have fighters, wizards, elves, orcs, kobolds, fireballs, and +1 swords, it's not D&D.
-O
Quote from: J ArcaneThose are good and wonderful mechanics for D&D, but D&D is a world that doesn't resemble anything else, nor does it even resemble reality in any sense. And that's fine.
This is very important statement.
I wish I could endorse the rest of your post as well, for verily I desire it to be true. However, lacking more than basic familiarity with the matter in hand, I won't.
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! :D
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.
Quote from: C.W.RichesonI 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.
But Spycraft... which is better than either IMNSHO... embraces classes. :D
M&M I can buy. Unlike other genres, I actually agree that classes are a poor fit for supers because superpowers often have nothing to do with training or life experience, and often stand alone.
But I think it's pretty telling that in most modern and even futuristic action shows and movies, I have little problem pegging most characters with a spycraft class (or fairly simple combination thereof).
I dismiss the notion that archetypes only apply to fantasy. I think that springs from the fact that's what you might be used to playing class based systems with.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadI dismiss the notion that archetypes only apply to fantasy. I think that springs from the fact that's what you might be used to playing class based systems with.
I agree with you. I haven't, and wouldn't, argue that archetypes can't work for everything. I do think that 'modern' is more broad than 'fantasy' and that Spycraft succeeds so well by being narrowly focused on the sorts of games it wants to work with. I also think that class systems work better with more focused goals and genre in mind, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is J's point that the classes themselves communicate something about the setting. When I sit down to play Spycraft my mind goes in totally different directions than it does when I sit down for d20 Modern.
The class systems that seem able to handle any genre well - True 20 and D20 Modern - are very general with the meaning and purpose of the classes. Multiclassing in both games is common and encouraged in order to obtain the desired character. I think this is because it's more difficult to peg things as archetypes when you start talking about all of possibility (or even all of modern game concepts).
QuoteI dismiss the notion that archetypes only apply to fantasy.
That's an inaccurate interpretation of what I'm saying. I think those sorts of archetypes as represented in D&D's class system only work well in D&D.
Real people don't fit into neat molds like that, and I find that while that is easily dismissed in D&D, it becomes less so when moved to a setting that is closer to home, like the modern day, because I can just look around me at the people I meet and be able to say, "But that's not right!"
It's really not a fantasy vs. modern vs. scifi thing or anything like that, excepting that in further removal from real day-to-day life, those sorts of straightjacketed archetypes are more acceptable shortcuts.
By and large, I don't care for class systems most times, and I'm on the fence over levels depending on how they're implemented. I make an exception for D&D because in D&D, they do prove to be rather fun as a game mechanic, and also because the world of D&D is essentially defined by those classes.
Quote from: J ArcaneIt's really not a fantasy vs. modern vs. scifi thing or anything like that, excepting that in further removal from real day-to-day life, those sorts of straightjacketed archetypes are more acceptable shortcuts.
Okay, as much as I can see this, it seems to me that most D20 variants for which this applies make the archetypes much less straightjacketed. D&D, for example, seems to be the only remaining D20 variant these days that levies multiclass restrictions. Most better d20 variants insert a lot more room for variance (like feats and talent tree choices in D20 modern; origins and the intermittent class ability choices in Spycraft). But not so much, mind you, that you end up with the scattershot type characters you find in many free-build point systems, and with the added benefit of guiding you towards cohesive concepts that are in line with the settings.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadOkay, as much as I can see this, it seems to me that most D20 variants for which this applies make the archetypes much less straightjacketed. D&D, for example, seems to be the only remaining D20 variant these days that levies multiclass restrictions. Most better d20 variants insert a lot more room for variance (like feats and talent tree choices in D20 modern; origins and the intermittent class ability choices in Spycraft). But not so much, mind you, that you end up with the scattershot type characters you find in many free-build point systems, and with the added benefit of guiding you towards cohesive concepts that are in line with the settings.
I find that the basic structure of how classes in D&D work, and how certain key abilities are directly tied to class level (not absolute level, but class), creates it's own multiclass penalty.
The scattershot approach of take one or two levels in a dozen different classes is kludgy at best, and ultimately because of the nature of how classes work in D&D wind up crippling a character more than benefiting it.
Ultimately, I'd rather just have the freedom of a more flexible system from the get go, and by and large I've been very unsatisfied with the end result of the attempts to create such in D&D.
Quote from: C.W.RichesonI also think that class systems work better with more focused goals and genre in mind, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is J's point that the classes themselves communicate something about the setting.
Absolutely.
When I first got Spycraft 2.0, I was bewildered at the number of base classes they provided. I was put off that they threw so many at you.
Then I read the genres section in the GM chapter, where they described a handful of appropriate classes for each genre, and all of a sudden I
got it. :cool: The subset of classes defined for each genre does, exactly as you say, help define the genre, what the game is about.
And fantasy is not, by a long shot, the only genre eligible for this treatment.
QuoteThe class systems that seem able to handle any genre well - True 20 and D20 Modern - are very general with the meaning and purpose of the classes.
I consider True20 a fairly weak take on a class based system because it's too general. The classes fail to design roles or aid you in assembling a cohesive genre-appropriate concept. As such, I see little point in uses classes at all. I'd just as soon use a classless system for anything one might consider True20 for.
D20 Modern is a horse of a different color. Whereas I'd consider Spycraft first for most modern action genres, it seems to me that D20 modern plays a slightly different roles. Namely, the classes seem to be based more on personality than role or profession. As such, I think it would be more appropriate for games where the pcs might be the same or similar professions but you wish to make strong mechanics based distinctions between characters. Something like where the entire party is something like the crew of a mining rig (like The Abyss).
Quote from: J ArcaneI find that the basic structure of how classes in D&D work, and how certain key abilities are directly tied to class level (not absolute level, but class), creates it's own multiclass penalty.
Sure. However, this is a quality of D&D, not necessarily shared by other D20 games, so the notion that D20 is D&D and cannot vary therefrom is given the lie. This is one of a number of ways that many other D20 games don't latch on to that strongly.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadI consider True20 a fairly weak take on a class based system because it's too general. The classes fail to design roles or aid you in assembling a cohesive genre-appropriate concept. As such, I see little point in uses classes at all. I'd just as soon use a classless system for anything one might consider True20 for.
Yes and no. As writtin in the core book, sure. Although, we haven;t had any real problems as a result of the vaugeness. That said, the companion gives role creation rules, so you can tailor roles to your setting; IMO these rules should have been in the core book, actually.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadSure. However, this is a quality of D&D, not necessarily shared by other D20 games, so the notion that D20 is D&D and cannot vary therefrom is given the lie. This is one of a number of ways that many other D20 games don't latch on to that strongly.
Class abilities alone introduce this problem.
Lets say we have a class that gets Cool Power 1 at level 1, Cool Power 2 at level 3, and Cool Power 3 at level 6. Each Cool Power is progressively more powerful than the last.
The end result is that unless I take all those 6 levels, I don't get all those cool powers. And this design quality is carried to all the other classes in the game.
So a character that goes all the way up to level 6 will wind up with inherently more powerful abilities than someone who takes, say, 2 levels each in three different classes.
I've yet to see a class system that doesn't do this to some regard, D20 or no.
Quote from: J ArcaneClass abilities alone introduce this problem.
Lets say we have a class that gets Cool Power 1 at level 1, Cool Power 2 at level 3, and Cool Power 3 at level 6. Each Cool Power is progressively more powerful than the last.
The end result is that unless I take all those 6 levels, I don't get all those cool powers. And this design quality is carried to all the other classes in the game.
So a character that goes all the way up to level 6 will wind up with inherently more powerful abilities than someone who takes, say, 2 levels each in three different classes.
I've yet to see a class system that doesn't do this to some regard, D20 or no.
I thinks that's
1) greatly oversimplifying
2) again, pegging something that many games don't do to the extent that D&D does, and ignores different approaches some other games have.
3) underplaying the potential effects of synergies between abilities of different classes that work together
4) neglect the role of versatility in determining character spotlight time (a primal measure of "balance" AFAIAC.) I think that the way spellcasters work in D&D really hinders versatility as a measure of multiclass character power, but for many other games that feature no magic or different approaches to magic, versatility can be a big factor in character power.
Of course, you can't really expect every class to work together well, but I think that in a well designed d20 variant, some logically cohesive concepts can work well together, and some systems specifically work this into their design.
In games like traveller D20 and true20, a great majority or all of the class abilities are simply bonus feats. T20 doesn't feature many long feat chains, so rarely does multiclassing hurt you if you are going after a specific feat chain unless you consciously choose a class that doesn't feature feats in that chain as a bonus feat.
In spycraft, many "class ability" chains are common between different classes; these class abilities are given names with a roman numerals. If you get the same ability from a different class, you just add the numbers together. So if you get Uncanny Dodge I and Uncanny Dodge II from progressing to level 8 in explorer, then switch over to Intruder and take 4 levels and get Uncanny Dodge I from that class, you actually get Uncanny Dodge III.
So in conclusion, there are lots of games out there that don't share the same limitations D&D does, just because they feature classes, levels, and use a d20.
Quote from: J ArcaneSo a character that goes all the way up to level 6 will wind up with inherently more powerful abilities than someone who takes, say, 2 levels each in three different classes.
One of the major reasons I don't like class based systems generally.
The answer to this is simple if not easy to implement. Create new classes. Most times I multiclass because I'd like to do a little cherry picking of class features.
Actually is there something out there for this? Something specific as a class construction kit of some kind?
I actually thought I would like the kind of class treatments in games like true20. But in the end I actually didn't like the watered down class approach as much.
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.
For me there are two reasons:
1) System Matters- for me I want a system that is buit specific for the setting
2) I don't like D20- I have no problem that people enjoy the system but it's just not a system I enjoy nor will play.
Lucky for me I have people who will play systems other then D20. I guess if it comes to a point where D20 is the only system I can play I will put my game stuff on Ebay and walk away from the hobby
Quote from: darOne of the major reasons I don't like class based systems generally.
The answer to this is simple if not easy to implement. Create new classes. Most times I multiclass because I'd like to do a little cherry picking of class features.
Actually is there something out there for this? Something specific as a class construction kit of some kind?
True20 has this in the "True20 Campanion." But, really as Slaad said, there aren't really any really long feat chains in True 20 to begin with. Three feats is maybe the longest one I can think of.
Quote from: C.W.RichesonDifferent 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.
The thing is that the systems you mentioned (along with HERO, Unisystem, Rolemaster, Traveller, Cyberpunk, Tri-Stat, BRP, D6, and the like) are all essentially the same straight roll "attempt to achieve objective using ability" style systems, and most of these also separate the 'to hit' and 'damage' rolls as well. This means that as far as I'm concerned, they're effectively identical. The only differences are in the details, and quite frankly I can as easily add those to D20 as I can to any of the above.
Lets say I don't like the d20. I just replace it with the sum of a roll of 4d6-4 (or just count the 6's as 0's). Let's say I want PCs to all start with the same amount of HP. I just say characters have a straight 5X Level points. Let's say that I want to avoid focusing on combat, and more on the mental well being of the characters. I just rename HP to Sanity.
And suddenly I have a D20 version of "call of Cthulhu" that works better than the commercial one (and if you don't believe me, I'll run you a game :) ).
I can do similar things to the other systems to present the kind of experience I want, but if any of these systems will do, then why not start with D20?
That said, there are things none of these systems can do, and there are things all of these systems do that I hate, but that's a discussion for another time.
Quote from: C.W.RichesonThe class systems that seem able to handle any genre well - True 20 and D20 Modern - are very general with the meaning and purpose of the classes. Multiclassing in both games is common and encouraged in order to obtain the desired character. I think this is because it's more difficult to peg things as archetypes when you start talking about all of possibility (or even all of modern game concepts).
The whole point of a class is to give the player some idea of WHO the character is, not necessarily WHAT the character is capable of (though that may be a direct result of who the character is). The problem is that most class based systems tie mechanical effectiveness so closely to classes that a player has no choice but to game the 'archetypes' when they game the system, which leads to the creation of perhaps more effective, but far less meaningful and identifiable characters.
And then there are the systems (such as True20 and D20 Modern) that dispense with characterization entirely and do nothing BUT tie mechanical effectiveness to classes. I mean come on, '
Strong Hero'?!? They're just naming the classes after the attributes! You don't need classes to buy attribute related skills and feats, you need them to help give your character depth and direction.
Quote from: J ArcaneThat's an inaccurate interpretation of what I'm saying. I think those sorts of archetypes as represented in D&D's class system only work well in D&D.
Real people don't fit into neat molds like that, and I find that while that is easily dismissed in D&D, it becomes less so when moved to a setting that is closer to home, like the modern day, because I can just look around me at the people I meet and be able to say, "But that's not right!"
It's really not a fantasy vs. modern vs. scifi thing or anything like that, excepting that in further removal from real day-to-day life, those sorts of straightjacketed archetypes are more acceptable shortcuts.
By and large, I don't care for class systems most times, and I'm on the fence over levels depending on how they're implemented. I make an exception for D&D because in D&D, they do prove to be rather fun as a game mechanic, and also because the world of D&D is essentially defined by those classes.
All of which is pointless, since D20 can and has often been done without classes, or with a totally different class system.
RPGPundit
Quote from: J ArcaneI find that the basic structure of how classes in D&D work, and how certain key abilities are directly tied to class level (not absolute level, but class), creates it's own multiclass penalty.
The scattershot approach of take one or two levels in a dozen different classes is kludgy at best, and ultimately because of the nature of how classes work in D&D wind up crippling a character more than benefiting it.
Ultimately, I'd rather just have the freedom of a more flexible system from the get go, and by and large I've been very unsatisfied with the end result of the attempts to create such in D&D.
So because you don't like D20, you claim it doesn't really exist? How amusing.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditSo because you don't like D20, you claim it doesn't really exist? How amusing.
RPGPundit
Tell the Arcane one it exists.
D20 takes up at least 40% of our RPG shelf space in one form or another.
- Ed C.
Quote from: RPGPunditSo because you don't like D20, you claim it doesn't really exist? How amusing.
RPGPundit
No, I'm saying you're a Swine.
Wow,I did not expect this many response. I will say thanks for the responses as it is helping me think through my gaming.
I will say when I say D20, I really am not including OGL stuff as much. Why? That is because most people I run into want to play something like D&D be it d20 modern or Star Wars even. They are comfortable with the system as a whole. yes, it game might have little changes but for the most part a quick read of the rules and you can be up and playing a new game.
Now, I have been of the opinion that system does matter. Different systems do change how games are played for most people. I do agree that you can modify most systems to run a lot of genre but some systems run certain games better than others. This is why the idea of just using one or two systems for me is a fairly new experience. I have run well over 50 different systems over my 25+ years of gaming.
That is why lately as I look to condense my games to a few generic systems are having more appeal. I do not have time to remember 20+systems or rung 6 different campaigns using 5 different systems anymore. I see a large number of people quite happy playing D&D 3.5 and nothing else and am beginning to see why.
I can understand the play what you like suggestionsbut there is a difference of playing D&D,a game I do enjoy from time to time, and playing say HARP, which I love to play). If I cannot find people willing to play HARP but will play D&D, I would rather play D&D and have some fun than not play anything and have no fun or wishing I was playing HARP.
As for being a player, I just moved to a small town and finding people even willing to play rpgs is hard. I also seem, even if I start as a player being ended up asked to GM. I guess I am pretty good at it as many of my players over the years have said so and I always seem to end up behind the screen at some point. So currently, unless I want to travel a long distance, I am working at creating my own group from scratch which the closest people I have found is those who have heard of D&D and are willing to give it a try. You mention any other game you get a blank look. The idea of those I am finding learning multiple systems is going to be a hard sell for most of them.
Quote from: J ArcaneBy and large, I don't care for class systems most times, and I'm on the fence over levels depending on how they're implemented. I make an exception for D&D because in D&D, they do prove to be rather fun as a game mechanic, and also because the world of D&D is essentially defined by those classes.
First I am a long time GURPS it has been and continues to be my primary system. With that being said I have a lot of respect for the D20 system. From my point of view if D20 existed in 1986, I would have never switched to Fantasy HERO and later GURPS.
Why? Because one of the main reason for switching systems it being able to customize your characters. In the beginning most did it through acquiring items but that had its own problems. A lot of players wanted to customize their character's capability.
D20 does that well through the feat and skill subsystems. No two fighters have to be the same (clerics, wizards, etc, etc). The multiclassing rules is just icing on the cake and allows for truly unique combinations.
When I got 3rd Edition, I both played it and GMed. To me, as long time GURPS DM, it looked like a GURPS lite. The 20 levels were a chunky way of allocating "points", attributes were attributes, skills were skills, and feats were advantages, and no disadvantages. When I DMed a game for a bunch of old time 2nd Edition players I opened their eyes as I ran it pretty much like a GURPS game with lots of skill checks and using their feats (advantages). My NPCs were nearly always a combination of classes including NPC classes.
In fact I briefly considered permanently switching. The main reason is that it was a pain the ass to make GURPS NPCs and creatures and D20 was considerably easier.
But in the end I didn't make the switch. I didn't feel like converting the decade long mass of support material I developed for the Wilderlands. GURPS 3rd Edition started publishing templates which eased my NPC creation problems. Finally when I played through D20 I didn't like the rate of progression (too fast). So I reverted to GURPS. But D20 is a fine system and would use it under the right circumstances.
There is nothing about the Class, Attribute, Feat, and Skills system that ties it to D&D and High Fantasy. It is eminently customizable in my opinion. Obviously the D20 SRD is for D&D High Fantasy. But the basic principles are sound and I feel been successfully applied to many different genres.
Classes are just a shorthand for a template to use to buy X number of Skills, Feats, and ability increases. Really no different then using GURPS templates except that few GURPS Templates have different levels of experiences while Class/Prestige Classes come in 5,10, 20 levels of experience.
From playing D&D for 20+ years the main appeal between D&D and the other rpgs was that with other RPGs your character was represented by bag of skills and abilities that was customizable. D&D in contrasts everything depended on the class you took. D20 is definitely in the category of "other" rpgs with your character being represented mostly by a bag of skills and feats. (with a few class abilities thrown in).
In contrast Castles and Crusade is more like D&D with actual abilities being firmly tied to the class. Of course you have the siege mechanic which makes it more flexibile the original.
Rob Conley