d20 as a Universal System

[Valamir]

Ok, I'll kick start the d20 discussions.  I'll leave some of the meatier topics for others, but this is one of interest to me.

We've seen d20 get used with varying degrees of success (not unexpectedly for me tied directly to willingness to customize) for a variety of genres...you all know what they are.

So the discussion question I have is this:

To what degree is the obsession (in some circles) with doing everying in d20 stiffling design in the sense that we're seeing fewer (if we are) truly original and unique systems designed for a specific setting vs. seeing as many settings as possible d20ed.

Or, are we instead seeing settings that wouldn't otherwise get made (like Nyambe, and probably Slaine) get made simply because of the attention boost they'll get by being d20?

Obviously the first effect would be bad if its occuring...is it?
The second effect would be good...is it likely to continue?

[wyrdlyng]

To what degree is the obsession (in some circles) with doing everying in d20 stiffling design in the sense that we're seeing fewer (if we are) truly original and unique systems designed for a specific setting vs. seeing as many settings as possible d20ed.

A few months ago I would have said that the stifling effect is moving towards killing setting unique systems. To a certain extent it still is (in the case of some of these hybrid books).

However, and I consider OGL games and d20 games to be only minimally separated, in recent times more and more publishers have been pushing the foundations of the original d20 system. The Everquest RPG opened the door to this but Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds has really kicked it open. (Other good examples of this, though to a much lesser extent, is the 2000 AD stuff being done by Mongoose.)

So we're seeing a movement towards morphing the d20 system beyond "house rules" to fit the setting/source more comfortably. I would not be surprised at all to see more companies going in this direction. Monte Cook's variant Player's Handbook should also help nudge more publishers towards abandoning the sacred cow of the PHB and OGLing their own.

Or, are we instead seeing settings that wouldn't otherwise get made (like Nyambe, and probably Slaine) get made simply because of the attention boost they'll get by being d20?

I think it's 75% attention boost and 25% "there's a popular system so let's just use that rather than create one from scratch and have to put out core rulebooks too." Nyambe could have been done using a variant of the Ars Magica system, like Rune did but I do think that it works best currently for Atlas Games as a d20 setting. It draws "heat" from d20 buzz and is different enough to attract those looking for something other than another Forgotten Realms.

But in the end, is d20 currently valid as a Universal system? I would have to say no. Give it another year and more movement towards OGL rather than d20 (the logo no longer has the hypnotic power it once used to) and I think it can develop into one. Of course it would be quite different from what you'd find in 3rd Ed D&D.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

To what degree is the obsession (in some circles) with doing everying in d20 stiffling design in the sense that we're seeing fewer (if we are) truly original and unique systems designed for a specific setting vs. seeing as many settings as possible d20ed.

Or, are we instead seeing settings that wouldn't otherwise get made (like Nyambe, and probably Slaine) get made simply because of the attention boost they'll get by being d20?

Obviously the first effect would be bad if its occuring...is it?
The second effect would be good...is it likely to continue?

Ralph,

I think we see both effects occuring, but the second one in greater amounts. The d20 market has done something very interesting to role-playing games - it's created a sub-market of RPGs that is actually bigger than the rest of the larger market, transforming it completely. This does create a larger "test market" where new ideas can be created in a market that can support them. In other words, I think we're seeing more settings come out now than would otherwise, but they're being created for d20.

Nyambe's a great example, because I think it's one of the first settings for d20 I've seen that is an original interesting setting. (By interesting, I mean not a mish-mash of old ideas that have been swirling around RPGs for the last 10 years - "Dinosaurs with ROBOTS! Crazy!") While I think it would have still been created without the d20 market, it would have been much more akin to the small, concentrated release that most Forge indie games see. Because of d20, Atlas felt like they could risk publishing an odd setting, because the system was familiar.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a good or bad thing - I am saying that new ideas, possibly watered down, are reaching a larger audience than they might otherwise.

[contracycle]

I looked at Nyambe on the basis of various reccomendations, and IMO it was pretty poor.  My concerns about D20 go back to what appear to me to be fundamental problems with the way the whole exercise is approached.

IMO, exposition of culture exclusively through character class, spell list and racial template does not work.  It's difficult to get too precise in my criticisms as they can always defend themselves by asserting that there is no attempt at historical realism.  Thats fine.  It's just that to me the concentration of emphasis prompted by systematic and conventional concerns is misplaced; I found no apparent attempt to explain, for example, the whys and wherefore's of magic, or indication of how such aspects may be relevant to groups of individuals.

Almost everything I would be looking for in a modern RPG was missing; or perhaps I should say, that I didn't feel that the conceptualisation of what players do, how the game runs, what the goals are, have changed at all since AD&D.  As it stands, I can see no value in it either as a prospective game to play or as a reference work.

And so this brings me to my central point about d20; it seems to me that this is a case of rebranding rather than redesign.  I didn't feel that any of my expectations of how d20 would operate, and the type of play it engendered, had been challenged by Nyambe.  I also have a number of the L5R dual system books, and while the presence of d20 here is by no means overbearing, I firstly resent paying the print costs for stats blocks I am not going to use and secondly did not find the stat block enouraging.  There were the special micro-rules, the needlessly complex combat mechanics, the overspecification which I felt I walked away from 10 years ago.  While my exposure to d20 has been very low to date (and is not likely to improve), I have yet to see anything that convinces me that the old dog has learned any new tricks.

For these reasons, I am largely hostile to the d20 project.  I don't feel that it is contributing to the depth and richness of RPG, and I don't feel the subordination of individual titles to a universal system is at all healthy.  That said, I concede that I lean to toward the opposite extreme and would be happy with every setting having unique mechanics, so I would naturally take the position that universal d20 is not to my taste.  And lastly, I think the idea that operating under a single brand, and a single system, on the basis of ease is rather patronising to the buying public, and I suspect that this argument is primarily advanced by the pro-d20 cadre.  It might be a good enough claim to base an economic venture on, but whether it is true or not remains to be seen.

[Matt Machell]

I have mixed feelings about D20 as a universal system.

In some ways I dislike it's one size fits all approach. Something about that just grates.

But the key thing is that it's a great universal system, for people who like D&D. So it's broadened the gaming horizons of many dyed in the wool D&D fantasy gamers, which can only be a good thing IMO.

-Matt

[Valamir]

I doubt we have any d20 first players here on the Forge but perhaps we do or someone knows someone who is.  I'd be interested in following up on Matt's point.  Do we see the broadening horizon?  When d20 takes the D&D core rules to a new place (be it Nyambe or Mutants and Masterminds or Cthulhu or what have you) are we seeing D&D3e player expanding out into these new territories because they are already familiar (mostly) with the rules?

Or instead are we seeing mostly NON D&D3e players (even those who wouldn't touch D&D with a 10' pole) being attracted to those new d20 territories because their attracted to the territory and willing to tolerate the d20 mechanics...while the D&D3e players continue to play D&D3e and shun the alternative d20 settings?

[Jonathan Walton]

I can speak up as a good example of the latter type, Val.

I'm young enough that I've grown up without ever playing D&D and have aquired a strong distaste for it along the way (mostly from watching hardcore D&D players).  I wouldn't normally touch it with a 10-foot-pole.  However, when d20 Modern came out, I seriously considered buying it.  It sounded like they were doing something a little different that might actually be interesting and fun to play.

But then, online, I found a stat block for Vampires that read:

Vampire (Human Fast Hero 2/ Charismatic Hero 3): CR 7; Medium-size undead; HD 5d12; hp 32; Mas -- ; Init +8; Spd 30 ft.; Defense 25, touch 19, flat-footed 21 (+4 Dex, +5 class, +6 natural); BAB +2; Grap-+6; Atk +6 melee (1d6+4, slam); Full Atk +6 melee (1d6+4, slam) +7 melee (2d6/ 19-20, mastercraft katana), or +6 ranged; FS-5 ft. by 5 ft.; Reach 5 ft.; SQ blood drain, create spawn, domination (DC 17), energy drain, alternate form, children of the night, damage reduction 15/+1, fast healing 5, gaseous form, cold and electricity resistance 20, spider climb, +4 turn resistance, darkvision 60 ft., weaknesses; AL evil, chaos, master; SV Fort +2, Ref +10, Will +3; AP 2; Rep +5; Str 19, Dex 18, Con -- , Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 20.

I mean, just look at that.  It's frightening.  I don't think I want to understand what all that says.  So now, I think I've managed to resist the curiosity I have towards non-traditional d20 products, but only just barely.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I doubt we have any d20 first players here on the Forge but perhaps we do or someone knows someone who is.  I'd be interested in following up on Matt's point.  Do we see the broadening horizon?  When d20 takes the D&D core rules to a new place (be it Nyambe or Mutants and Masterminds or Cthulhu or what have you) are we seeing D&D3e player expanding out into these new territories because they are already familiar (mostly) with the rules?

Or instead are we seeing mostly NON D&D3e players (even those who wouldn't touch D&D with a 10' pole) being attracted to those new d20 territories because their attracted to the territory and willing to tolerate the d20 mechanics...while the D&D3e players continue to play D&D3e and shun the alternative d20 settings?

Ralph,

I don't have a lot of hard figures for you, but I can tell you from ancedotal evidence that we're seeing non-D&D players pick up those more exotic d20 settings. (That's not to say that D&D players aren't, although all the D&D players I know are still only playing D&D.)

Does anyone else think we have two threads here? I see the one Ralph started about d20 settings and the buying/playing behaviors they create, and another one about whether d20 is or is not a good universal system. In order to focus the thread, I'll answer the second question: last I checked, this was the 'GNS place.' I know, I know - not everyone believes in that clap-trap. Still, I think we can all agree system matters, and so, no, there's isn't a great universal system, and whether d20 is or isn't one is (a) all about opinion and (b) kind of irrelevant.

[Matt Wilson]

I think we see both effects occuring, but the second one in greater amounts. The d20 market has done something very interesting to role-playing games - it's created a sub-market of RPGs that is actually bigger than the rest of the larger market, transforming it completely. This does create a larger "test market" where new ideas can be created in a market that can support them. In other words, I think we're seeing more settings come out now than would otherwise, but they're being created for d20.

Do we see, I wonder, a proliferation of new settings, or specifically a proliferation of settings that work well with d20? If we're in the "system does matter" camp, then d20 fits a certain kind of game. If the answer to my question above is the first choice, then is the result that people pick up a new setting that doesn't fit so well with d20, try to play it, and feel unsatisfied? And where does that lead?

[Jason Lee]

I don't see D20 as a good universal system.  But, I don't think that's ever been part of its mission statement.

All the WoTC articles I've read on the direction D20 is supposed to go actually state that the D20 system is not that good - it was never intended to be the best system for fantasy, modern, or any setting.  It was intended to be a non-threatening sales tool.  They've focused first on what they thought would sell, and second on making the system the best they could within those limits.

As far as it promoting new settings - maybe, but I'm beginning to see a sort of melancholy setting in about D20 games (oh look, another D20 game, except the elves have + 1 CON instead of + 1 DEX).  They take up a lot of space on game store shelves, possibly pushing out other games.  I actually avoid looking at D20 books because I've already purchased the system twice and prefer to invent my own setting (but, I might be a minority).

[Cassidy]

But then, online, I found a stat block for Vampires that read:

Vampire (Human Fast Hero 2/ Charismatic Hero 3): CR 7; Medium-size undead; HD 5d12; hp 32; Mas -- ; Init +8; Spd 30 ft.; Defense 25, touch 19, flat-footed 21 (+4 Dex, +5 class, +6 natural); BAB +2; Grap-+6; Atk +6 melee (1d6+4, slam); Full Atk +6 melee (1d6+4, slam) +7 melee (2d6/ 19-20, mastercraft katana), or +6 ranged; FS-5 ft. by 5 ft.; Reach 5 ft.; SQ blood drain, create spawn, domination (DC 17), energy drain, alternate form, children of the night, damage reduction 15/+1, fast healing 5, gaseous form, cold and electricity resistance 20, spider climb, +4 turn resistance, darkvision 60 ft., weaknesses; AL evil, chaos, master; SV Fort +2, Ref +10, Will +3; AP 2; Rep +5; Str 19, Dex 18, Con -- , Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 20.

I mean, just look at that. It's frightening. I don't think I want to understand what all that says. So now, I think I've managed to resist the curiosity I have towards non-traditional d20 products, but only just barely.

You read my mind.

I'm embroiled in a d20 game at the moment and most of it seems nonsensical to me.

Remember the basic D&D set that came in a red-box with dice and everything? Although we haven't played that in many a year I can certainly remember it being a lot more fun and a lot easier to comprehend than the 3rd Edition d20 stuff that we're playing now.

Universal? Sure d20 could be considered Universal. Look at the definition that Jonathan posted for a Vampire. I bet you could write up a set of d20 stats for Bill Clinton, Micky Mouse and Oprah if you wanted. If any d20 designers are reading this then please don't take that idea on board.

In d20 there's just too much information to digest.

Ever rolled up an 8th level Rogue? I had to and it did my head in. I hope my character doesn't get killed not because I don't want them to die but because I don't want to have to go through rolling up another character.

I sort of wish that they'd used d16 as the motif instead of d20.

"d16...hmmm...probably means that I need a d16 to play. Haven't got one of those so maybe I'll buy something else instead."

I do admire WotC in the way that they did a great marketing job with d20. I think it's a stylish product that looks great on the bookshelves and commerically I suspect that it's been a huge success.

I don't like playing d20 though.

[Blake Hutchins]

My experience is that d20 isn't even a good system to begin with, much less a universal one, even if you accept the notion that a system can be "universal."  Regarding settings, I tend toward Clinton's view, that exotic settings draw non-DnD customers rather than d20 adherents.

For now I'd like to ask that we focus this thread on discussion of the system itself.  Settings and marketing issues are ancillary topics that I suggest we hit in another thread after we've reached some consensus on the functionality of d20.  We might start by defining what qualities make up a "universal system," though I wonder whether in doing so we'll end up rehashing the debate on accessibility.

Best,

Blake

[Valamir]

Actually, Blake, while I would be happy to join in a discussion of d20 mechanics...this thread is pretty specific as to the topic it was about, and Clinton's warning in that regard has already been ignored too much.  

THIS thread was about whether d20 is in fact discouraging the creation of unique genre tied systems in preference for d20 compatability...or whether the games that I'm seeing come out that I would have much rather seen using a unique system wouldn't have gotten released at all if it weren't for d20.

I would love to have seen Slaine done in a Slaine specific system.  Mongoose did a hell of a job with the quality of what they did, but Slaine combat is a far cry from D&D combat and I think game play is hurt by using D&D rules for it....but would anyone have done a Slaine RPG at all otherwise?

I'd actually like to return to that topic for this thread.

[Blake Hutchins]

Oy, Ralph.  My mistake.  Sorry.  That's what comes of slipshod reading on my part.

I think it's likely that d20 has accomplished both getting some unique settings published that otherwise might not have appeared with their own systems.  The distribution model Ron frequently references isn't very friendly to unique systems.  With the OGL, people have smelled the money.  Atlas, for example, apparently sells a lot more of their d20 stuff than they do of their unique stuff like Unknown Armies.  All that said, it's my conclusion d20 hasn't significantly discouraged the publication of unique systems.  I guess the question regarding something like Slaine is whether they'd have chosen to publish at all without the OGL, or whether the OGL and the d20 market provided the incentive to put out the product.

With established companies appending d20 rules to their games, you have a good idea how the money picture looks to these outfits.  Dream Pod 9, frex, will evidently publish a d20 version of Silhouette with their Core Rules book in 2003.  Holistic has already put out d20 Fading Suns.  Godlike came out with a unique system AND d20 conversion, as did Guardians of Order with their Silver Age Sentinels game.  OTOH, I see Steam Power, Mechanical Dream, iHero, Decipher, Deep 7, and Eden Studios using or continuing to use their own systems.  In the indie realm, I see a lot of non-d20 stuff in the pipeline, of course.

Best,

Blake

[damion]

In my limited expleriance D20 does provide a limit effect on games designed in in it. Mainly because at some point fighting the system probably does more harm than good. I don't think you'll ever see a D20 game without a combat system.   (Also, there wouldn't be much left :) ).  My point is, that despite the the fact that you can customise it, the system still pushes a design in certian directions ,and is in that way, limiting.

On the other side, as was mentioned, I agree that while it stifles system development, it encourages setting development, as the system exists, and small things can easily be added to support the setting.