The d20 Box

[Shreyas Sampat]

... we bailed on poor d20, which was boxing us in. My chief complaint about d20 I think is that it provides a lot of information about what a player and character cannot do. Your opinion may differ.

This sentence (split from Matt's Wushu thread) caught my attention, because I had noticed a similar thing when I was playing d20 a few months ago; I left the session muttering about how, to be able to do anything cool, my character would have to gain a bunch of levels, and lose a lot of the novelty and excitement of playing a low-level character.

My question is this:

In a D&D game, how can I minimize this effect without radically changing the system?  It's very closely bound, especially in the combat system, to the resolution system and the tasks that it governs; I don't know how I would introduce descriptive freedom without taking away an aspect of the game that the people I game with find appealing.

[Calithena]

This last summer I was running a Sim-prioritized fantasy game with color provided by Jack Vance, Tanith Lee, and Indian mythology. We started out playing with a homebrew system I wrote that was essentially d20 gone AD&D - I gutted the feats, used the Arduin hit point system, chopped the skill list down to nine (Athletics, Chirurgery, Handicraft, Legerdemain, Lore, Perception, Stealth, Suasion, Wilderness Survival, if anyone cares), took out skill points and pegged skill advancement directly to class and level - well, OK, other stuff too, I won't go on about this forever. I also gave each character one cool special ability, by their request.

This game was a lot like a rationalized version of AD&D/OD&D and supported the focus on exploration for its own sake that I and one of my principal players were interested in doing pretty well. The other three players had clear Gamist play preferences in general, but my setting was so weird and wacky compared to what they were used to that they mostly enjoyed the change of pace, and it was a fantasy game, so there were some fights and all.

Then at a certain point, for reasons I will never understand, I lost confidence in my own design, and just switched to straight 3e to finish out the campaign.

This completely changed the nature of the game. It wasn't that people stopped getting into their characters or exploring the setting, but suddenly the game became way, way more competititve. Everyone was emailing me about feats and powers between sessions instead of world information; players would snarl at each other during combat and at least three of the guys were clearly focused on out-doing each other in strength and power. The little bit of Sim-prioritized play I had managed to get people into mostly vanished, becoming just color, and the Sim-prioritized player's character became the party wuss. Luckily he had the best social skills in the group as a PC and in real life both so there were still things for him to do. But anyway, the game became all about winning, and I think that the switch to the 3e mechanics was a big part of that.

The set of mechanics I had been using before didn't really support anything, which I suppose in a sense means they supported exploration of setting. 3e supported Gamism in a serious way. And I wasn't up to the challenge, even though in other contexts I've been a hard-core Gamist GM; I couldn't deal with my game crumbling under me, and at the time I didn't understand why it crumbled under me. This was the start of the path that led me here to the Forge.

So anyway, this is a long way of saying that you should play a different game if you really want more freedom and spontaneity of action - 3e isn't about that. Failing that, find a GM who's willing to ignore the rules in certain circumstances so that you can try weird and wacky stuff at lower levels. Another possibility is to play a magic user - Prestidigitation and Mage Hand are truly frightening in the hands of a clever player, and they are level 0 spells.

I mean, look at your question. 'How can I give descriptive freedom in a game whose whole rule system tightly regiments combat and relatively tightly regiments everything else and pegs what you can and can't do in a very concrete way to your advancement and feat choices?' I don't think you can. Just for starters, the whole point of feats is to let players break certain rules at certain points, to their character's advantage. So if you loosen the restrictions on description, you're invalidating the feat system, which is something that 3e players love and which is a primary part of the reward system for character advancement.

Now, there's no reason you couldn't make a d20 game that was much more liberal about description, and maybe it could even take advantage of a lot of 3e's combat rules in the final analysis. But I don't think that it would be something you could do with a quick fix. Maybe, with a lot of effort, you could find something that looked to casual inspection fairly close to 3e but actually had a lot more freedom for description-driven action.

I'd add in closing that Matt's and your problem is something a lot of OD&D and early AD&D players miss when they pick up 3e. That is, they feel like something's different, and they don't know what it is. I think it's that in most groups description was a much bigger driver of action than it can be in 3e. A lot of OD&D and 1e play, including Gamist play, was driven by thinking of weird stuff to do with your gear. This is tying imagination to in-game success in a direct way and was part of what was good about that game. You can still do that in various places in 3e, but the tighter regimentation comes at a cost to imaginative expression. It also resolves some arguments without arbitrary appeals to GM authority. Me? I'd rather play the old game, arguments, arbitrariness, and all, if it means freeing up that extra space for affecting the game directly through my imagination. Of course, that's a false dichotomy, because there are about ten billion other games to choose from that address these issues in a whole variety of ways.

[Mark Johnson]

Shreyas,

I apologize in advance.  I don't normally blatantly hype a new game in Actual Play, but you might check out Troll Lord Games' Castles and Crusaders.  The game is OGL and anyone who has played D20 can pretty much pick it up and play it, but in the process of going "rules lite" (getting rid of the feats, AoO, strict definitions, all the shalt nots, etc.) it looks like they managed to regain the Sim flavors in Gygax's AD&D.  The best thing I found about AD&D was that since you pretty much knew what a fighter/mage/cleric could do and looked like at 1st, 10th and 20th level, you devoted more energies to simming out the character (or even pursuing narrativist goals, but there was really nothing mechanically to support it).

Calithena,

Why did you lose confidence in your game before reverting to pure D20?  Anything in actual play or player feedback?

Talk Soon,
Mark

[Sparky]

Mark wrote : "This completely changed the nature of the game. It wasn't that people stopped getting into their characters or exploring the setting, but suddenly the game became way, way more competititve. Everyone was emailing me about feats and powers between sessions instead of world information..."

I haven't been able to pin it down in pure language exactly, but it sure seems to me that there's a major obsession about rule complexity for the gaming public. (though I hate to cast such a broad net.) There is some kind of minimum complexity requirement for mass-appeal games. I don't understand the need.

To try to answer Shreyas' question, have you tried giving out +1 roll bonuses for facts? (Donjon style?) This might keep it within the Gamist sort of feel without changing too much.

Chris

[Calithena]

I think that the rules complexity offers a rationale for more stuff to buy, and that more stuff to buy is for a large portion of the gaming public (but not me) a plus for a game, not a minus. Lots of people spend ten to twenty times or more reading game stuff than they do playing, and supporting that kind of habit requires buying lots of stuff.

Mark, I know the Troll Lords a little from on-line, and lots of the people involved in the C&C project. I'm not privy to the stuff that is actually being released, though I've talked about these rules informally with some of them, but I know the feel and mechanics you describe is the one they want to attain, for whatever that's worth. Some of that is what I was going for in my homebrew too.

As to why I lost confidence, no, the players liked it fine with the home-grown rules system, except for one 3e junkie who was willing to go along anyway. I just hadn't run my own rules for a group for like twenty years (I don't count my 3e, Ars Magica, and WFRP homebrewed variants as my own rules) and I chickened out. It was sad. Don't ever do this, folks - you'll feel bad about yourself for not trying harder later, and if your rules really suck, your players will find ways to let you know. I lacked confidence in my own ideas and so I wasn't willing to hold on to them after the first insecurity/panic attack happened, even though they seemed to be working fine. This happens to me way too much.

[Paul Czege]

Hey Chris,

There is some kind of minimum complexity requirement for mass-appeal games. I don't understand the need.

In modern society, rules are the currency of trust. If my light is green, I know the other guy has a red light. If he's driving, I trust that he has a driver's license. I trust that the state would not have issued him a license without insuring he knows to stop for a red light. So I proceed through the intersection with confidence.

And when something goes wrong, the modern solution is to legislate a corrective rule. So we're acculturated to equating complexity with mature, fair, time-tested systems.

Paul

[Ben Lehman]

In a D&D game, how can I minimize this effect without radically changing the system?  It's very closely bound, especially in the combat system, to the resolution system and the tasks that it governs; I don't know how I would introduce descriptive freedom without taking away an aspect of the game that the people I game with find appealing.

BL>  Play D&D the way I do:

Prioritize the skills subsystem (and the non-combat magic subsystem), rather than the combat subsystem.  Encourage players to take the Cosmopolitian, Skill Focus, and +2/+2 feats.  And follow up on it.  If there is a combat, allow skill-based knowledge (from Gather Info, Stealth, tactical subskills, etc) to dominate it.

The skill system allows the dominance of descriptive actions, almost without thinking about it.  Because the skills are so widely defined, players need to describe how they are applying their character's abilities to the situation.

Note that this is still a tactical (gamist) game.  It is just a *different*, more descriptive tactical game.  If you're asking how to take the Gamism out of d20, that will involve more complicated surgery.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  For taking the focus off of combat I recommend having a large relationship web of NPCs, and having many NPCs be flat-out stronger than the PCs.  Go further than making killing not a solution -- make killing actively a problem.

[Jeph]

Two things:

1) Stunting Bonuses. Just like in Exalted. Moderately cool action that doesn't take the environment into accound, +2 to your AC, check, save, attack roll, or damage roll. Cool and takes environment into account, +4. Everyone goes "Dan!", +6.

2) Fact Insertion, remeniscent of Donjon. Whenever a player wants to insert something into the game (even if they don't make it clear, by saying "Is there a horse around?" or somesuch), call for a tangentially related check, DC 15 or 20. Failure means they got something, but not what they were expecting (because nothing would just be boring). Success means they got pretty much just what they asked for.

These, in my experience, make the game quite a bit more open.

Hope this helps,
--Jeff

[Umberhulk]

As far as how to keep novelty and excitment in D&D, I would suggest playing some Living Greyhawk campaign (www.livinggreyhawk.com).  Before playing LG, I had the same feeling with D&D.  I felt as the characters got higher in level, the tougher it was to balance the encounters, and therefore as a DM, I always errored on coddling the PCs for the home group.  What's changed with LG?  My knowledge of how to play D&D.  You really need to know what all the spells, feats, and other special stuff does so that you can play the monsters to the fullest and create adventures that are challenging to the particular party.  Make sure to play with a combat mat, because the game is a miniatures game at heart.  LG is full of a lot of very experienced D&D players, and you get to play with a variety of players and DMs to learn the "tricks".  Also, many of the LG modules are very good and they are made to be played in a four hour convention block, and they are free.  LG will definitely improve your "Inner D&D Power Gamer".

[ADGBoss]

Lets take the LG example one step further as it provides a great example of how to use D&D and other, similar corporate model games.

Tonight I ws playing in a Living Greyhawk game, in the Duchy of Geoff, where we have tons of all kins of play going on.  It can vary from table to table even at a con running the same module.  Is this variance bad, as long no one is breaking any rPGA/Event rules? No its a good thing.

Anyway back to tonight.  My character lept onto a table and then off the table onto a ledge.  The next round the villian lept over the ledge to escape and I let go, grabbed her, and we both crashed to the ground.  All of these were legal rolls and legal uses of the rules, with some DM judgement thrown in there.  And It required only two rolls and the use of 1 skill.  

I will not disagree with the idea that D&D3e and D20 in general have a tendancy to empower negatively.  That is basically tell you what you cannot do.  The trick, is to manage the blocks of information carefully so that what can be done is illuminated.  Yet reputation can have as much an effect on someone's perceptions as actual play.  We always here about what D&D does not let you do, and partially this is the system's fault.  The rest I think is pure Gamer Urban Legend.

"Too much D&D will make you sterile..."

"Gary Gygax and Bill Gates are the same person..."

"WOTC is trying to make more money off of people by making new books... " (well ok that one IS true... :)   )

All my life I have heard what the Theory of Relativity (or Law? is Relativity a Law now?) tells us we cannot do.  At this point I am not sure exactly what it says (not having even seen it in some time) but NEVER have I heard what it says we CAN do.  So even if it does empower me to do something, I have to sift through the sea of negative thought to figure out what that is.

Now take Relativity at Face value, and lacking the full understanding of it I cannot simply ignore it, then I have to live with it since its a Universla Law.  D&D3e and D20 are not Universasal Laws.  If the game system does not empower you or does not empower your game then don't play it.  I can agree that the System is not adequate for the taks that some people want to accomplish with it.  However, is that an issue with the system?  I Am not 100% convinced that it is.

I apologise for the rant.  I enjoy and derive plenty of entertainment from D&D3e/D20 although I also seek out and play other systems when I want something a little different.  I applaud people who can tweek a system to better fit their needs, but honestly, this thread is likely to rapidly become just another "D&D / D20 sucks" and frankly I am not sure it can be productive.  We want the demon to die and yet we constantly invoke its name.  Ah well I said my peace.  

I will finish with only that if you turn the D&D rules on their head and look at it from the stand point of what you can do, then they may seem more viable to you.

[Edit" I also relaise I failed to answer the basic question to which I have a very basic answer.  You really cannot for if you spend 6 hours trying to make the changes, you could have spent those 6 hours finding a game that does empower you the way you wish.  And some of them are free :) ]

Sean

[Mark Johnson]

Has anyone had experience at introducing Hero Points or similar mechanics to their D20 game?  I know the mechanic is as old as the hills and I think D20 Modern probably has some crunchy version of it.  I would keep it simple though.  Simply have the DM reward Hero Points for whatever behavior they want to reward.  Your best bet is to only award points for one type of behavior such as strong descriptions, cinematic manuevers or addressing a certain theme/premise.  These hero points could allow rerolls or more powerfully, they could ensure a max result on a roll (a 20 on a D20, a 12 on a 2D6).

Your alternative is to have hero points which all characters have but which can only be ACTIVATED by the appropriate behavior (such as a strong description).

These systems do slightly unbalance the game in favor of the players, but the fact that the DM is handing the Hero Points probably balances it out somewhat.  The DM may need to throw harder encounters at characters, so I would probably drop the XP rewarded by encounter level from 300 to 200 to reflect the edge that the characters have.

With some balancing this might work, has anyone tried this sort of system in actual play with D20?

Later,
Mark

[Bob McNamee]

Clinton has an interesting idea, applicable to many games...

http://www.anvilwerks.com/index.php/Anvilwerks/ThereAndBack

[efindel]

Has anyone had experience at introducing Hero Points or similar mechanics to their D20 game?  I know the mechanic is as old as the hills and I think D20 Modern probably has some crunchy version of it.  I would keep it simple though.  Simply have the DM reward Hero Points for whatever behavior they want to reward.  Your best bet is to only award points for one type of behavior such as strong descriptions, cinematic manuevers or addressing a certain theme/premise.  These hero points could allow rerolls or more powerfully, they could ensure a max result on a roll (a 20 on a D20, a 12 on a 2D6).

Mutants & Masterminds has Hero Points; they allow re-rolls (with a guaranteed minimum of 10), +5 to Defense for one round, doing Extra Effort without taking fatigue, recover from being stunned, get an extra recovery check from being disabled or dying, and several other things.  The GM also has Villain points, which can be spent to do the same things for NPCs.  

There are a few powers which require Hero Points to be used (e.g., the Gadget power).

I like having them, especially in something with as much variation in rolls as d20 -- the guaranteed minimum 10 with the re-roll option can help prevent a lot of "whiffs".

M&M Hero Points are based on level, and are refreshed every adventure.  I've found this helps get players to actually use them... I've seen it happen in games where Hero/Luck/Whatever points have to be earned that players don't use them, saving them for later.  With them refreshing every adventure, there's a "use it or lose it" going on.  There is a "Heroes' Luck" feat which can be taken to get an extra Hero Point; it can be taken multiple times.

d20 Modern has "Action Points".  You can spend them to get an addition to a d20 roll; this is 1d6, 2d6, or 3d6, depending on the character's level.  They are used when you spend them, but you gain more when you go up a level.  There are some "class features" which can only be activated by spending an Action Point.

Personally, I like the Hero Points better -- an average +3.5 to a d20 roll isn't a lot.  It goes up with higher levels... but it's the low-level characters who really need a bonus from something like this the most.  M&M Hero Points have a lot of interesting options that Action Points don't -- for example, since defenders don't roll in d20, Action Points can't be used to get a bonus for defense (unless you have a class feature that lets you do this in some way).  Also, in the couple of d20 Modern games I've played in, I've never seen anyone actually use an Action Point.  I think this is partially because of the worry that "I might run out" (since you get more when you go up a level) or "I might need them later" (since you can build them up across levels), and partially because, with the campaigns having started at first level, the +1d6 they gave just wasn't that great.