d20 As Design

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Quick side note. Alex wrote,
"Character attributes remain on the same scale (3-18, roughly) as old D&D, though for no real purpose since the modifier is the most essential portion. The system could have and can be converted to a simple + or - with 0 as average scale similar to Silhouette."

If you check out Jonathan Tweet's work on Talislanta, when it was published by Wizards of the Coast in the late 1980s, you will see exactly the same modifiers used as the primary attribute system, relative to the roll of a D20.

The fact that we are talking about the same author and the same publisher of D&D3E is not a coincidence. Basically, the basic relationship of attribute to resolution system in the game D20 uses the Talislanta rules, with the 3-18 scale simply pasted on top of it.

None of the above is to be construed as a criticism, as this usage is wholly legitimate, artistically and legally. Just making a historical point.

Best,
Ron

[wyrdlyng]

I do remember seeing it in Talislanta (one of the neatest places ever put to paper). The Tweet connection didn't strike me until you reminded me.

I just think that design-wise, if every adjustment to an attribute (racial bonuses, spell effects, etc.) is going to be done in increments of 2 (meaning a modifier adjustment of + or - 1) then why bother with the inflated numbers instead of just using the modifier values as attribute values? Is it a "mine goes to 11" thing?

Really, there is no mechanical difference between a 12 and a 13 in an attribute in d20. It's a situation similar to Champion's breakpoint but much worse.

This is just my two cents and one of my pet peeves.

[quozl]

Really, there is no mechanical difference between a 12 and a 13 in an attribute in d20.

I don't play D20 so I don't know but I heard that bonuses are given at even numbers and feats requirements are odd numbers (or vice versa).  So there actually is a difference albeit not much of one.

[Valamir]

I wonder how many people who play 3e regularly actually do it "right"...meaning that the orc shaman has all of the appropriate class trappings and feats for an orc shaman...or if most players tend to abbreviate it because it is so complex.

I can only speak to my experience, but I do it "right" (in your sense) about... 1/5 of the time. Another 2/5 of the time I use the NPCs in the DMG with some modification, as a shortcut.

Interesting...

I don't mean this to be snarky in the least, but do you really consider d20 to be a good system when you admittedly only use its full potential 1/5 of the time, use shortcuts 2/5 of the time and (presumeably) just make stuff up that's close the rest?

Seems to me that if there is that much system that you're not using, that perhaps there's something not quite kosher there.

BTW:  In the interest of trivial accuracy, I believe the first part of your last post was actually quoteing Gareth, not me.

[Cassidy]

[Interesting...

I don't mean this to be snarky in the least, but do you really consider d20 to be a good system when you admittedly only use its full potential 1/5 of the time, use shortcuts 2/5 of the time and (presumeably) just make stuff up that's close the rest?

Seems to me that if there is that much system that you're not using, that perhaps there's something not quite kosher there.

That's sort of what the GM in the d20 game I'm involved in at the moment is doing.

Arguably he could be accused of running d4 since he's using only a fraction of the d20 system and making the rest up as he goes along.

I think it's a poorly designed system with numerous flaws many of which have already been stated by previous posters.

The old basic D&D system strikes me as being more playable and enjoyable than d20.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think this thread would benefit a great deal if people would keep their value judgments to themselves.

Some terms are judgmental and critical without being value-judgments. "Broken," for instance, refers to specific numerical or procedural problems which can be identified. Such terms would be just fine on this thread if people use them.

However, a couple of posts are perilously close to "it sucks." If you're going to post, give us fair value for taking the time to read.

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

[Edited to change the first paragraph a little and to make my prose more clear.]

Thanks, Ron, for saying that... Remember, people, we're supposed to be discussing d20 intelligently here. If you hate it, fine, but we're discussing it as a design -- which means you have to consider it in terms of what the creators wanted it to do, rather than waht you would rather it did. (Plus, I created a different thread for people to vent in a more freeform fashion about d20 on...)

I don't mean this to be snarky in the least, but do you really consider d20 to be a good system when you admittedly only use its full potential 1/5 of the time, use shortcuts 2/5 of the time and (presumeably) just make stuff up that's close the rest?

Seems to me that if there is that much system that you're not using, that perhaps there's something not quite kosher there.

The answer to your question is yes. YMMV, of course.

Just because I'm not using all of the system all of the time, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the system. In fact, I consider this to be an aspect of a good design -- that there is detail, flavor, and interesting things about the system that I can use if I want, but don't have to. Just because I don't use all of the system all of the time doesn't make it a bad system. Complicated, perhaps, but not bad.

Let's use some non-d20 examples.

If I run a Sorcerer game where the PCs largely use their "generated at start of game" demons and never Contact, Summon, or Banish anything, only Punish while working out their Kickers and chewing through a Relationship Map while coming to a fast and furious conculsion that changes the PCs forever, I haven't used the full potential of Sorcerer as a system, but we still had a damn fine game (assuming we had fun) and that doesn't mean Sorcerer isn't a good system.

If I play Universalis and we run a story of intense court intrigue that never uses the Master and Subcomponent rules, the damage rules (no combat ever happens) or the rules for Components that come in large numbers (because it's all about the individual personalities), does that make Universalis a bad system? No. In fact, the fact that I have those rules available for when we have the time, inclination, and need for them makes it a good system, tho perhaps a more complicated one -- that's a design decision.

You can use Paladin for more than Star Wars, but I've only used it for Star Wars, because I don't want to come up with a whole new setting and the code of honor associated with the PCs. I don't think this makes Paladin a bad system.

If I run 7th Sea and Sorcery never enters into the game because none of the PCs are Sorcerers and none of the villians are Sorcerers either (because I, as GM, don't feel like fooling with all the different Sorcery systems that are part of the game), does that make 7th Sea a bad game?

And as a final example: If I run a low-powered spy genre game using the 5th edition of the Hero System and we don't use most of the power rules and power modification rules because they're inappropriate and I, as GM, don't feel like having to deal with them but want certain other aspects of the game that Hero has to offer, does that make the Hero System a bad system? No, though one could argue all that stuff we're not using on powers makes it a complicated and large system, that's for sure.

(Most of the above are hypotheticals -- particularly the Hero system one, since I dislike Hero for reasons that are entirely a matter of taste and have nothing to do with whether it's a good system or not.)

I will note that when I say I do it "right" according to your sense 1/5 of the time, I'm only talking about fully statting NPCs and monsters rather than using them straight "out of the box". I'm using more than 1/5 of the system as a whole. I'm still using the full combat system and its tactical potential (monsters can have intelligent tactics without being full of feats and class levels, especially in groups), I'm using the skill system, and the experience system, and levels and feats and prestige classes and so on for PCs. IMHO, I'm using 90% of the the "potential" of the system as written. The fact that I can make a monster more complicated using class levels if I want to is a good aspect of the system.

To use an actual play example, in Feng Shui it takes a long time to stat a non-mook NPC compared to statting a mook. I don't think this makes it a bad system, though it does mean I don't put a Named villian in every scene. I view d20 the same way -- major villians get the full treatment, while less important monsters and characters don't.

They say throughout the D&D books that adding levels to monsters is possible, but nowhere does it say you have to do it, just like it's possible in the Hero System or (with the right supplement) GURPS to give the PCs access to superpowers, but you don't have to.

So, I submit (and I'm not trying to be snarky here, either) that the fact you feel that you're not using the full system all the time is bad is a reflection of your own personal taste, and doesn't say anything at all about the strength or weakness of the design.

BTW:  In the interest of trivial accuracy, I believe the first part of your last post was actually quoteing Gareth, not me.

You're right, sorry about that. I've edited the post to fix it.

[damion]

Here is what I would consider the 'design' flaws of D20. Obviously these are opinion only.
(Alot of D20 design is just gamist design, which isn't really a flaw, even if I'm not that fond of it.)

1)Charachter creation involves way to many 'here is a huge number of choices, pick N' type things. Feats, spells, even gods to a degree.  

2)Advancement, and feats have the same problem.

3)To many special cases: It's better than it was, but there is still a bunch of
'this does x, except if y is around, ect'

So sum up:Poor organization, to a degree this is offset by the good organization of the books, but it's still a problem.

[Ben Lehman]

Prep time--
 Perhaps because I don't tend to use "mooks you kill" in my games, I have never had a problem with extraordinary prep time.  In any setting, my adventures are just a relationship map (I think -- I haven't actually read Ron's comments on it, but I use something that could be called that), a few sketched out scenes that I might want to throw around, and character sheets of 2-3 recurring antagonists.

 My problems with the system are really twofold, although they intertwine.

First, the resolution system is fundamentally broken, in that it is almost entirely dependent on chance at low-levels, and not at all dependent on chance at higher levels.  According the the Epic Level Handbook, the DC to swim up a waterfall is 80 some, and the DC to climb on a cloud is 120.  These are cool, heroic things that I will never have any chance of doing -- or, if I get the chance, I will automatically succeed at, because almost all the big modifiers are +30s :-P.

The second is that characters are far too dependent on magical items for power.  This is self-explanatory, but I really don't like that "the items are the characters."

I actually worked out a system where the characters can buy a "legend" with their experience points, which effectively works out to giving them certain magical effects all the time.  It was cute, especially when a character got their legend stolen (someone else was taking the credit for their deeds).  This is a cludge, though.

yrs--
--Ben

[Valamir]

Let's use some non-d20 examples.

Good point

[xiombarg]

Okay, Ben, I think your concern about magic items is really a matter of taste -- the magic item factor is a big part of D&D fantasy, I think, and meets the design goals of D&D.

Also, I don't think it's as big a deal as you think. I was very stingy with magic items (actually useful ones, at least) in my Planescape D&D 3E game and the characters were still quite competent.

This compaint is something we can sink our teeth into, tho:

First, the resolution system is fundamentally broken, in that it is almost entirely dependent on chance at low-levels, and not at all dependent on chance at higher levels.  According the the Epic Level Handbook, the DC to swim up a waterfall is 80 some, and the DC to climb on a cloud is 120.  These are cool, heroic things that I will never have any chance of doing -- or, if I get the chance, I will automatically succeed at, because almost all the big modifiers are +30s :-P.

I'm not sure I agree about the lower levels. For example, let's take a use of Disable Device from p. 67 of the Player's Handbook. It's a DC 15 task to sabotage a wagon wheel.

Let's assuming slightly above-average Dexterity, considering a low-Dex character is unlikely to be playing a rogue. Let's say a +2. Now, assume the character, at first level,  has the max ranks in the skill for another +4. That's +6. That's a better than 50% change of success, which I hardly call "mostly chance" -- particularly if the character isn't under time pressure and can take 10.

The role of chance reduces as you go up in level, at an incremental rate.

Now, it is true this is a problem at higher level. Once you're, say, a 12th level rogue you can have +15 in Disable Device, it's trivial for you to sabotage a wagon wheel or disable most "standard" traps.

However, I'll note this is a problem with most systems of the "roll against a target number" type. Also, I think it supports the D&D design goal where higher-level characters are "epic" -- personally, I think being able to do simple things instantly without having to bother to roll is more epic than swimming up a waterfall, the Epic Level Handbook nonwithstanding. I think that this meets the design goals of D&D.

[xiombarg]

Let's use some non-d20 examples.

Good point

Thanks... sorry if that post was overkill, I rolled out of bed and some of that "just woke up" energy went into it.

[Evan Waters]

The thing with all the "cruft" of rules exceptions in D&D (and most D20 implementations) can be read a number of ways.

Personally what I like about it is that it's there as a safety net. A lot of rules-light games assume the GM can make rulings on the fly, which is sometimes the case but not always, and it helps to sometimes have an official ruling. I think of most of the rules in D&D3e as "reference rules"- that is to say, they're things you can look up in case you want the official word on what such-and-such an element does to a scene. Want to know how the fog on the Forbidden Swamp affects missile combat? You can look that up. If you don't have time to look it up, then okay, the fog is just there for atmosphere, it has no effect. It may not be the best defense in the world to say "if you don't like a rule, ignore/change it!", but there's something to be said for a system where you can overlook these individual rulings without making much difference to how the core of it all works. It's a sign of system integrity.

There are one or two exceptions to this that I think could stand to be addressed. As it now works, Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels are calculated with the assumption that the PCs will accumulate a certain amount of magical stuff- if they don't, or gain too much, than that part of the system can get unbalanced. I think addressing this would be easy- just lay out *how much* you'd have to adjust ELs and CRs upwards or downwards depending on whether you're giving out magic swords left and right or restricting such items heavily.

Oh, yeah, the other exception is calculating ELs and CRs with an assumed party size of four, but they make it clear that you should adjust upwards or downwards if that's not the case, and I've found that easy.

[Steve Dustin]

I think there's some social aspects that are really tied to D&D's design.

I think its hard to seperate the fact that certain aspects of design are intrinsically a part of D&D, no matter how badly implemented: class/levels (with 4 major classes: fighter, cleric, theif (rogue), magic-user (wizard)), spell slots, "fire & forget" spellcasting, and armor class. These kinds of rules are expectations by its players for it to be D&D. I think you can't really seperate these "expectations," when you consider streamlining the D&D system, like the attempt with D&D3e. So, in some sense, design issues with D&D are also "social" issues with D&D's core audience.

I think the amount of rules bloat in D&D3e is part of its appeal. I honestly don't think anyone is really "expected" to play D&D perfectly straight out of the box. Instead, this learning curve to master D&D, along with the level system, is what keeps people coming back for more. Add on top of that, with the D20 market phenomenon, new rules are coming out every month, to master all the rules will take literally a lifetime. While a lot of people play with only the 3 core books (me for example), people are also mixing and matching different rules for their home games from different supplements. I think of expectations of play for GURPS or HERO in the same light.

Finally, I'd like to point out that using D20 interchangable with D&D3e can lead to some confusion. The only thing anyone can justifiably say about D20 is that its a brand name used to link several roleplaying games that use the D&D3e system as their starting base. Unfortunately, trying to identify the core "D20" system I think is futile, since lots of it gets switched around and changed in each incarnation. Further add into the fact people mixing up D20 games when they mean OGL games (which changes things up even further), and eventually when you say D20, it really becomes meaningless phrase. I don't think it's got any real legitimacy as a term beyond a marketing one.

To put this in better perspective, when complaining about D20's spell system as needlessly complex begs the question, which spell system? There's about a bizillion on the market. Wizards, themselves, have at least 4 systems (D&D/D20 Modern, Call of Cthulhu, Wheel of Time, and Star Wars, if you count the Force rules as "magic.")

While I can, and I'm sure others can, identify what spell system is being talked about (D&D) from context, I think for a forum that prides itself in keeping its vocabulary precise, I think, being clear will lead to less confusion and frustration among the participants.

Take care,
Steve Dustin

[Mark Johnson]

I am probably being nit-picky here but one of my biggest problems with D20 design is not so much the class/level one, but how little ones basic attributes really affect a characters ability to perform a task.  I know realism is not goal of D20, but shouldn't someone with an Intelligence of 18 really have more than a +4 to their rolls.  This is theoretically someone in the top half percentile of intelligence.  

The essential problem with this is that this is so basic to the core of D20 that you cannot change it and still be compatible with the rest of D20.  My personal preference would be for characters to be rolled on 6 3d6 arranged to taste with the following modifiers.

1    -9
2    -8
3    -7
4    -6
5    -5
6    -4
7    -3
8    -2
9    -1
10  +0
11  +1
12  +2
13  +3
14  +4
15  +5
16  +6...
ad infintum

Characters could raise their attribute scores at every even level.

Still not realistic, but it feels more "D&D" to me and it better rewards high ability scores.  Strong heroes should be truly strong.  Nimble thieves should be truly nimble etc.

I am sure that this would entail the need for changes to the skill system as well.  Currently at first level each character class receives 4*class skill points with a max of 4 skill levels.  Instead, to make up for the ability bonus I would restrict class skill points to 1 per level and only receive their normal allocation of skill points at first level.

This would in turn probably force players to start their characters above first level...

Just a design critique that bothers me that I have not really seen addressed.

Thanks,
Mark J

P.S.  Yes, I am aware that just adding the ability score to a D20 plus the skill bonus is essentially the same as what I am proposing.  In fact, AC would simply be DEX + ARMOR BONUS this way.  I just proposed the above method to maintain a consistency with the current methods.