d20 As Design

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Yow. People, I think the various views on the topic have been well-articulated, no? And points of disagreement or refutation can be noted and logged?

Those are rhetorical questions. Here's what I call for, now: let's distill out the meaningful points that have emerged, articulate them, and be done. No more judgments of one another, please.

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

Chris, Val and Gareth... let's keep it civil, okay? *glances at "Topic Review" window* Like Ron said.

I tend to agree with Valamir's point regarding Gareth's comments. It's a matter of taste, and I still assert that given the design goals, d20 is an admirable design.

I'd like to respond to a couple of things.

After playing D&D 3E, (3 seperate campaigns now, about 30+ sessions) I cannot in all honesty say that I have seen the skill system add anything significant to the game.

Well, my experience has been the exact opposite. I've been running and playing D&D3E since it first came out, at least once every other week, and have been in or run over 6 campaigns, including currently ongoing campaigns.

And I can say, without hesitation, that the skill system has made a big difference in bringing the game above hack and slash and supporting other modes of play than killing things and taking their stuff. To wit, court intrigue, espionage, and even a certain amount of economic simulation.

In particular,  want to talk about its impact on game design overall and whether or not it's a good thing for us indie people.

Absolutely nil. Considering that every game designer, just about, must be familiar with D&D by now, the present re-hash of the elderly rules will have absolutely zero effect on the state of the art of design thinking. If the only innovation in the new design is the skill system, then this is a belated concession to a better idea that itself has been in print for at least two decades, I reckon.

No one is denying that the skill system is old hat, in its own way. But just because it's old hat doesn't mean that it isn't good design and worth emulating. It's not about "innovation" it's about solid design and the fact that tons of already-existing gamers have now been exposed to it. (I think some of the designs here on the Forge are sometimes a little obsessed with re-inventing the wheel, but that's a little off-topic.)

And it isn't just the skill system. I submit that the Feat system is good Gamist design. Not innovative, but good.

Which it frankly is not. Now I concede that GURPS is also a universal system of the "any colour you like as long as its black" type, but what it does NOT do is hard-code certain genre assumptions, like the endless controversy about hit-points, into the core, "universal" mechanics. There is default sim baseline from which adaptation to other settings is relatively easily done. It simply doesn't suffer from the problems with snipers and falling of cliffs which are inherent to D&D-style hit points.

And here, I can only point to Valamir's post. Mutants and Masterminds proves the robustness of the d20 mechanics and the fact the genre assumptions are NOT hard-coded.

Gareth, check out Mutants and Masterminds. It refutes your points more eloquently than me or Valamir can. Of course, I may be biased -- the core damage mechanic, the "damage save", is essentially the same damage mechanic I had already used in Unsung...

[Jack Spencer Jr]

No one is denying that the skill system is old hat, in its own way. But just because it's old hat doesn't mean that it isn't good design and worth emulating. It's not about "innovation" it's about solid design and the fact that tons of already-existing gamers have now been exposed to it.
...
And it isn't just the skill system. I submit that the Feat system is good Gamist design. Not innovative, but good.

I will dispute this a little bit. I mean that after had been a Skill System convert after Levels, I will say that the bloom is off the rose a bit. In d20 especially, but any skill system IMO. Most of the design considerations are very combat-centric and the non-combat skills seem-- hollow. Like in GURPS where non-combat skills and advantages are just a means to get players to spend less points on combat skills. Or such is my take on the matter. The non-combat skills can be used and a session can be played so that such skills are important, but IME they are more there to keep the combat proficiency down a notch. YMMV

[xiombarg]

I mean that after had been a Skill System convert after Levels, I will say that the bloom is off the rose a bit. In d20 especially, but any skill system IMO. Most of the design considerations are very combat-centric and the non-combat skills seem-- hollow. Like in GURPS where non-combat skills and advantages are just a means to get players to spend less points on combat skills. Or such is my take on the matter. The non-combat skills can be used and a session can be played so that such skills are important, but IME they are more there to keep the combat proficiency down a notch. YMMV

Well, to repeat what I told Cassidy, my milage does vary. While combat certainly happens in my D&D games, skill and Feat use was (and is) much more important, because the game was not about killing things and taking stuff -- generally I rewarded talking. The mechanic can support other styles of play, and without much work, either -- I didn't put any more effort into things than I normally did. (In fact, the only time D&D took a lot of time for me was the few times that I did plan a combat.)

Now, I will admit I did end up modifying the reward system for my current game, using instead the XP system from Omega World in combination with the XP system from d20 Call of Cthulhu.

[Cassidy]

And I can say, without hesitation, that the skill system has made a big difference in bringing the game above hack and slash and supporting other modes of play than killing things and taking their stuff. To wit, court intrigue, espionage, and even a certain amount of economic simulation.

I buy what you are saying and I think that has more to do with the way that you have chosen to run your games rather than actually being an intentional design goal of WotC.

Long ago, when I was knee high to a gnome, I ran 2nd Edition AD&D campaigns and made use of Non Weapon Proficiencies in much the same way that you have used d20 Skills in your games. Combat was there but it didn't take centre stage since there were other sources of conflict. I used magic very sparingly if at all.

If you think about it players were always able to bring D&D above the usual hack-and-slash dungeon crawl that is the staple of D&D. I'm sure that players and GMs all over the place were doing that years ago. It's actually nothing new.

d20 D&D does have is a more detailed description of Skills and their application that is far better than in prior D&D incarnations.

If a d20 design goal was to create a role-playing game with a broader scope than just dungeon crawling and monster bashing then is it useful to have an entire section of the DMG devoted to Dungeon rules or to focus so much on combat and magic?

I'm not denying that d20 D&D can be run to encompass a variety of other role-playing themes beyond dungeon crawling and monster bashing, such as espionage, intrigue, diplomacy, etc.

I just don't see much in the design of the game or the accompanying text in the books that emphasizes the fact that D&D CAN be played that way.

If that is a design goal of d20 D&D then these these alternatives should perhaps be highlighted more.

[xiombarg]

I buy what you are saying and I think that has more to do with the way that you have chosen to run your games rather than actually being an intentional design goal of WotC.

Long ago, when I was knee high to a gnome, I ran 2nd Edition AD&D campaigns and made use of Non Weapon Proficiencies in much the same way that you have used d20 Skills in your games. Combat was there but it didn't take centre stage since there were other sources of conflict. I used magic very sparingly if at all.

I've been playing RPGs since 1st edition AD&D. I remember NonWeapon Proficiencies. (Originally introduced for 1st edition in Unearthed Arcana, IIRC, before becoming part of the "core" in 2nd Edition.)

NonWeapon Proficencies had (and have) a very high whiff factor. They were highly de-protagonizing in that way... Failure was common unless you had high stats, in which case you rarely needed the pitful bonus provided by the proficiency anyway.

This is not the case with the 3E skill system. You can make an effective 1st level character, and characters start to become really effective at 3rd level -- again, unlike NonWeapon Proficiencies. And your skill can overcome crappy stats.

This is an effective and working mechanic. It's part of the system. D&D 3E supports non-hack-and-slash better than any other version of D&D on a pure system level. Sure it's in the way I run it -- but you can run Vampire as a hack-and-slash fest. That isn't the point.

(More on this below.)

If a d20 design goal was to create a role-playing game with a broader scope than just dungeon crawling and monster bashing then is it useful to have an entire section of the DMG devoted to Dungeon rules or to focus so much on combat and magic?

Uh, because they want to support that mode of play as well?

Because the two goals aren't mutually exclusive?

I'm not trying to be snide here, but it seems that you're saying that because the text supports one mode of play it CANNOT support another, even though the text, and the mechanic itself, clearly does so. (More on that below.)

I just don't see much in the design of the game or the accompanying text in the books that emphasizes the fact that D&D CAN be played that way.

So, for a mechanic to be good for something, the text has to go out of its way to point this fact out?

I'm not buying it. Especially since the various class supplements -- like Song and Silence -- can and do go over non-combat uses for skills, expanding on what's already established by the skill system. And the non-combat detail in the skill listings that you (IHMO) dismiss with a wave of your hand seem to support non-combat play.

Sure, this was true, to a certain extent, of 2nd Ed (and 1st Ed, through Unearthed Arcana) and the NonWeapon Proficiency system, but unlike NonWeapon Proficiencies the d20 skill system actually works to provide that support, mechanically, rather than trying to and failing.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi, Kirt

I don't think I was very clear in my post but what I mean is I really don't think that the skiil or feat system is very well designed, balanced or thought-out in d20 *except for* anything that is combat related. It feels tacked-on to me. I could be wrong.

[Pramas]

On this basis, the whole d20 project must be seen of the light of a cynical marketing exercise intended to provide the illusion of a redesigned system to sell yet one more iteration of the same product to the same fanbase it always had... and to use the spurious OGL to persuade other games to be "D&D-ified".

You, and perhaps others in this thread, seem to be laboring under the misperception that 3rd edition D&D had "make a universal system" as one of its design goals. It did not. The design team's goal was to create a new edition of D&D. The OGL came from Ryan Dancey and his brand group, a different group of people than the game designers. Once Ryan began to posit his theories of why the OGL was a good idea (and that's a debate for another day), it didn't take long for people to realize that the core mechanics of d20 can be ported over to other genres. The question is and will remain, "How much of D&D do I have to keep for this to be d20?" No one, of course, agrees on what the answer is. For some d20 fans, anything that they are not immediately able to plug into their D&D game goes to far. Others view OGL games like Mutants & Masterminds as the way to take the core d20 mechanics and translate them into a new genre.

[contracycle]

Others view OGL games like Mutants & Masterminds as the way to take the core d20 mechanics and translate them into a new genre.

At which point you run straight into a problem that was already mentioned: at what point does it become easier to start from scratch?

Furthermore, this impression of the aim of a universal system is encouraged by the fanbase, who have often advised me that d20 is so different from D&D that my hesitancy to purchase the product was misplaced.  I could explain to them at great length why I don't play D&D any more, and they insist that d20 is nothing like that any more.

Now the defense is being offered that it was never intended to be anything othert than D&D - then, where on earth do the fans telling me its NOT just another D&D rewrite get that impression from?

And lastly, id d20 is just the next edition of D&D, why are we discussing it?  It has no claim to special status, being self-acknowledged as nothing more than am unchallenging rewrite of an existing an elderly system.  Why should a board dedicated to indie RPG's be discussing the least indie game around?  Now, if the claim were consistently being advanced that the d20 model offers something radical and innovative, then it would make sense; but if in actual fact, as we have seen, its just another D&D, then of what possible interest is it to us?

[Ozymandias]

Now the defense is being offered that it was never intended to be anything othert than D&D - then, where on earth do the fans telling me its NOT just another D&D rewrite get that impression from?

The problem here is that you have different people meaning different things when they say "this is D&D".

When people say that d20 is different than previous editions of D&D they are correct in that:

1. It has a coherent, consistent core mechanic.
2. It has a detailed and emphasized skilled system.
3. It has feats, which are completely new.
4. Classes are more detailed and unique, each posessing a variety of special abilities.
5. New multiclassing rules are less of a straightjacket than in previous editions.

However, when people say it was designed bearing in mind the fact it was still D&D and had to retain certain elements on that basis, they are also correct in that:

1. It still has classes and levels.
2. It still has Vancian fire and forget magic.
3. It still has +4 Longswords, etc.
4. It still has hit points.
5. It still has the same six characteristics on the same basic scale.

So, while it's design does in many ways depart from previous editions of D&D, it retains those basic elements which brand it as being D&D and without which those people who have played D&D in previous editions would not have upgraded to the new product.

Why should a board dedicated to indie RPG's be discussing the least indie game around?  Now, if the claim were consistently being advanced that the d20 model offers something radical and innovative, then it would make sense; but if in actual fact, as we have seen, its just another D&D, then of what possible interest is it to us?

People design games for different reasons, even indie ones. The definition of indie game that usually seems to be used around here focuses on a game being creator-owned, rather than anything to do with a game "radical and innovative" ergo since the OGL opens up those rules to be changed and tweaked for the creation of a creator owned product, it seems legitmate to explore the merits of said rules.

So, the real question comes down to what merits can be found within the d20 system that an indie-game designer might wish to utilize.

Let me throw out a few ideas in that direction:

1. You have a highly playtested set of gamist focused rules.
2. The core mechanic is easily learned and easily applied to a variety of situations.
3. The combat mechanics do provide for challenging, tactical play.
4. The fact that so many parts of the system are functional and worked out in advance for you enables you to focus on tweaking just those things which need to be altered for a certain genre. (ie: The damage save and power system found within mutants and masterminds.) I mean hell, if you really wanted to, you could take the base system and make it completely diceless, substituting spending some sort of resource points for rolling dice.

On the flipside, understanding that at times WotC chose to sacrifice good game-design for good product-design, is useful for helping one to analyze the basic ruleset and make changes to it.

The first idea that jumps to my mind, would be within the skill system utilizing a more generalized list of target numbers (ie: Easy = 10, Hard = 15, or whatever) rather than listing specific target numbers for specific tasks within each skill, thereby reducing how often the rulebook has to be consulted.

So, I think overall for an indie game designer who doesn't need to "reinvent the wheel" in order to produce the type of game he wants, the d20 system can be an excellent baseline, provided one understands how it functions and how it was designed.

[Cassidy]

And the non-combat detail in the skill listings that you (IHMO) dismiss with a wave of your hand seem to support non-combat play.

With respect xiomberg I was not trying to be dismissive.

d20 D&D does have is a more detailed description of Skills and their application that is far better than in prior D&D incarnations.

I'm not denying that d20 D&D can be run to encompass a variety of other role-playing themes beyond dungeon crawling and monster bashing, such as espionage, intrigue, diplomacy, etc.

If you consider comments like that to be dismissive then fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion. My comments were never intended to be dismissive.

[xiombarg]

I think Ozy said it better than I could so I'll just clean up a couple of things here from Cassidy and Jack...

With respect xiomberg I was not trying to be dismissive.

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but that wasn't my only point.

I think I made a good case for why my concept of D&D3E's capabilities wasn't just from the way I was running the game, but that it was part of the system design. Okay, you weren't being dismissive. Again, I apologize if I misunderstood. But what about the rest of my point? Did I miss something vital in your original post?

I don't think I was very clear in my post but what I mean is I really don't think that the skiil or feat system is very well designed, balanced or thought-out in d20 *except for* anything that is combat related. It feels tacked-on to me. I could be wrong.

Well, I can only speak to my own experience in play, and that hasn't been the case. This is especially true in the case of the skill system.

Now, the skill system aside, it's certainly true that there are more combat-oriented Feats than anything else, but I think this was because of two factors: 1) It's easy to come up with combat Feats. 2) The Fighter, as a class, was designed to be the class whose main benefit was access to more Feats than anyone else. So, they had to come up with a lot of combat Feats to make that work.

I mean, the magickal Feats alone I thought were very well thought out, and didn't neccessarily relate to combat. Sure, you can use Empower Spell on a combat spell, but you can use it on an illusion spell -- in fact, the benefits may be larger there, depending on the situation. Yes, you can make a wand that casts the Fireball spell, or you can also make a wand that casts the Charm Person spell (and for less XP, even).

And, as I said, I don't think the non-combat, non-magic feats, like Leadership, were an afterthought, and they seem to work well in play. Plus, later supplements have rectified the unbalance, such as Song and Silence or any number of third-party d20 supplements.

[Cassidy]

I think I made a good case for why my concept of D&D3E's capabilities wasn't just from the way I was running the game, but that it was part of the system design. Okay, you weren't being dismissive. Again, I apologize if I misunderstood. But what about the rest of my point? Did I miss something vital in your original post?

Apology accepted. I didn't respond to your other points because I thought that it would have only created further misunderstanding. That would have acheived nothing.

In your initial post you discussed d20 and drew particular attention to design features which were part of D&D 3E.

I cannot comment on aspects of the d20 system beyond what I have read in the Players Guide (mine), the DMG (borrowed) and my own experiences from D&D 3E d20 games that I have participated in as a player.

You drew attention to the skill system in D&D 3E and that it can facilitate modes of play beyond the normal hack and slash dungeon bash.

I agreed that it can. I also agreed that the design of the skill system was far better than in previous versions of D&D.

My point was that the text in the rulebooks does not in my opinion draw enough attention to modes of play that would accomodate skill use in the way you describe.

The rulebooks, as read, promote a style of play that is predominantly combat and magic oriented, essentially D&D as we know it.

The d20 D&D 3E rules introduce a usable skill mechanic which is better than what we had before but then the rules appear to promote a style of play where use of skills is minimal or largely irrelavent.

That is the point I was trying to make.

[xiombarg]

My point was that the text in the rulebooks does not in my opinion draw enough attention to modes of play that would accomodate skill use in the way you describe.

The rulebooks, as read, promote a style of play that is predominantly combat and magic oriented, essentially D&D as we know it.

The d20 D&D 3E rules introduce a usable skill mechanic which is better than what we had before but then the rules appear to promote a style of play where use of skills is minimal or largely irrelavent.

Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree, as I've already made my argument as to why, at least in my opinion, this isn't the case. Yes, the style of play you mention is a big focus, and it's certainly the marketing focus, but it isn't the only focus, and I don't see why the game has to bend over backward and go "Look! Skills can be used to do non-combat stuff!" (which I should think isn't pointed out because it's obvious) for the mechanic to support that style of play, or for us to consider the utility of that mechanic outside the standard D&D context, which was the original point of this thread when I set it up.

That is, I don't see the text taking extra time pointing out what a mechanic can and can't do as part of design. It's more "color" to me. It's still a good design, and the fact this mechanic DOES support the kind of play I talk about and it's in D&D means more people are familiar with it, even if it's not being used to its full potential because the core rulebook isn't shouting "LOOK, NON-COMBAT SKILLS CAN BE USED OUTSIDE OF COMBAT". Not to mention all sorts of third-party D20 products, like Mutants and Masterminds and the upcoming Dynasties and Demagogues, highlight stuff other than (or in addition to) combat and magic.

I apologize if I seem sarcastic (I'm kinda ribbing you a little, I mean it good-naturedly), but if your only point is that the D&D corebooks treat D&D like D&D, I'm not sure how that relates to how good a design d20 is, or whether those elements of the design that are present but perhaps not shouted about are good and/or useful to other game designers, which is what this thread is about (see my first post). I apologize if topic drift made that unclear; I'm as guilty as anyone else.

Now, if you want to start another thread about whether the marketing thrust of d20 is a good idea considering the system can support so much more, or whether third-party d20 products are living up to the potential of the design or just perpetuating more dungeon-bashing, rock on. Sounds interesting.

[Cassidy]

That's why I started the What makes a d20 game a d20 game? thread.

I started that thread to try and nail down what the common elements of d20 actually are.

Funnily enough you appear to be the first respondant. :)