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?

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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?

Valamir wrote: 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?

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.

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

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?

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.

Valamir wrote: 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?

Clinton wrote:

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.

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).

Jonathan Walton wrote:
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.

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

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.

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

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.

I'd say the larger constraint than simply systems, is the constraint on an entire attitude towards presentation. For example, if you look at the very layout of D20 products, they tend to be laid out in a similiar manner.

Compare the attitude of D&D to that of Whitewolf games. In the first, you get very system specific, and have to "construct" the setting by mashing together the various species, magics, classes, and magic items("Well, obviously a world with beholders and drow, and this and that is like this!"). In the second, you have all the setting and background laid out for you, then you get the rules and system on how to do it.

I'm also a big fan of L5R, but the biggest change hasn't been system, but that of presentation. Instead of giving you a great short story to illustrate an NPC, they describe them just like a D&D character. Instead of the monster being illustrated in the myth, you get a full list of powers, breeding habits and body weight. Instead of a map that is supposed to be unreliable, you get exact distances measured to the mile.

D20 products tend to not only demand certain things be presented in a certain way("A character without stats?!? What am I paying for?"), but also strongly encourages a certain sort of presentation("It says here that the rainy season of Wonderland means a 27% chance of rain today!"). D20 is very focused towards concrete action and detailed stats.

I have no beef with the system for what its supposed to do, but I do have beef with several companies for not recognizing that one can still produce D20 products without having to swallow the whole D20 presentation enchilada.

Chris

I don't know, I kind of think D20 is worthwhile in absorbing a lot of the "unique" systems out there. Frankly, if you're releasing a game that is in the same basic model of most RPGs on the market -- a simulation game -- why make a new system?

Really, how different is D20 to BRP or to Storyteller? Sure there's some minor tweaks, or a different game mechanic, but the whole thing follows the same style of game play. GM makes the adventure, task rolls are about success/failure, characters have stats, skills, maybe some special defects or abilities and combat goes initiative -- roll to hit -- roll damage.

Why would I need another system to do that?

I think D20's a better route then re-inventing the wheel yet again. Unless that system did something different in gameplay (like Over the Edge) then why not D20?

Take care,
Steve Dustin

Steve Dustin wrote: Unless that system did something different in gameplay (like Over the Edge) then why not D20?

Take care,
Steve Dustin

I'm going to try to go back to the beginning here and give my two cents. I'm not dismissing the discussion so far -- I find Clinton's comments particularly germane -- but because of the drift I'm going to try to focus on Valamir's original question.

Valamir wrote: 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?

Blake Hutchins wrote: Dream Pod 9, frex, will evidently publish a d20 version of Silhouette with their Core Rules book in 2003.

xiombarg wrote: Spycraft is the opposite side of the this syndrome, but still bad. There's a lot of love, but the fact of the matter is that d20 is not a terribly good match for the spy genre. Sure, if you start out as higher-level characters it's better, but this feels like a kluge.

I've been stalling getting involved in this thread because I'm really inclined to address the spin-off question more than the original question; but I'll satisfy myself by addressing the spin-off first, and then get to the main.

Is D20 a good universal system?

I don't use that word that way. I would say that D20 is an adequate generic system, but has no chance as a universal one.  A generic system is one which is designed to work with any setting; a universal system is desinged to work with every setting.

I mean that with a lot of tweaks and twists, you can probably play any kind of world with the D20 game system. People already did that for decades with other systems. Is there anyone here who never encountered a game in which some guy adapted his preferred game to play some setting for which it was never intended? Sometimes it seemed like you were wrenching the setting onto the system, but it was done. D20 is loose enough that you can make it fit any world you want, if you're willing to do the work to make it fit.

But in my mind a universal system is one which attempts to join all kinds of worlds into one game. Rifts attempts to do so, creating rifts through which characters can pass between worlds of different genres. It's long been a dream of game designers to make a game that would do that; TSR included crossover rules to go between D&D and Gamma World and Boot Hill, and appended a system to AD&D for moving to worlds in which technology went up and magic down. Multiverser is universal; player characters move from genre to genre as part of play.

D20 offers nothing to support those genre differences during play. That is, the game engine built for swords and sorcery can be easily adapted for space combat, but it can't easily support a battle between wizards and space marines in either world. It requires too much tweaking from world to world to work well for that sort of play.

Now, is the game discouraging new product, or encouraging it?

From the inside, I can tell you that there's a lot of pressure in small game companies to jump on the D20 wagon. One well-intentioned Multiverser supporter released a rumor that we were going to do a D20 conversion of Multiverser. It's difficult to quash rumors. I won't say it can't be done; Multiverser can integrate with anything. I just don't think it can be done within the terms of the licenses, and a lot of the strengths of the game are in its system in ways D20 couldn't emulate. But it still comes up periodically. There is this feeling that if you're not doing something with the D20 logo on the front, you're not going to reach the customers. I've even been asked to resurrect a vast and unfinished D&D game world and revamp the entire thing to work under D20 so it could be published--an immense project which I think would be "in the works" until D&D4E hits the stands.

Today I received a letter from an independent filmmaker wanting to do a documentary about "Dungeons & Dragons". The questions she asked demonstrated that she had no clue about the subject. Are there D&D conventions? Does partaking in D&D make young people anti-social? How do people get into it? It also showed that she had no concept either that D&D was part of a larger hobby game industry that pre-existed it or that it was only part of a larger role playing game industry that grew from it. To her, there is Dungeons & Dragons, a completely unique and isolated activity with no connection to anything else in the world that she can see.

That is how this OGL/D20 thing is perceived by game creators: here is a chance to be part of the only game that is really recognized outside the hobby, indeed outside the hardcore hobbyists. White Wolf managed to get a monster manual on the game store shelves before WotC, and put "official" on the cover; the point was to get the unwashed masses of D&D Only players and the uninitiated newcomers to the hobby to buy something that was published by White Wolf, to get a food in the door, money in the coffers, and the chance to introduce themselves to the real market. Problem is, it doesn't seem to work. It makes money for some; but it doesn't really bring a lot of people over to other games. In fact, I think it starts to create a feeling among D20 players (as perhaps was once prevalent among GURPS and still is among Fudge players) that they don't ever need any other game system, because anything they want to play they can play with D20.

I don't believe that. I don't even believe that Multiverser is the best game engine for every game world. When we built Multiverser, we included the interfacing rules precisely because we recognized that some games did some kinds of worlds extremely well, and for a system to truly do all worlds it would have to use the mechanics of those games when in those worlds. D20 runs roughshod over that idea. It treats every world as if it can be reduced to the same ideas, systems, stats. It misses the nuances more often than not.

So I think D20 is mostly reducing the production of good games and encouraging the production of a lot of setting material most of which is dross. The fact that some of it is good stuff is to be expected; I don't think there's as much good in it as there is money.

--M. J. Young

I strongly agree with MJ's conclusion.

In many ways I think the whol debate is misplaced. What is the nominal virtue of d20? That it captured a broad market for a given product with its brand identity? Surely, this is good specifically for D&D players, and at best irrelevant to everyone else. That it brought products into production whcih would otherwise not have been produced? Well how and why; what this seems to say is that capital was reserved for the brand line, and that their production serves to extend the brand. Is that virtuous? Surely this cannot be BETTER than producing your own game as you see it; pandering to the presently existing cvoncentrations of capital may be a business reality but I don't see how this can be claimed to be beneficial.

To say that a game, frex Nayambe, would not have been produced were it not for d20 begs the question: WAS it produced? I don;t know from whence Nyambe derives, but is the final product what the writer intended, or is that what was produced after it went through the brand-coherence grinder? Was Nyambe really produced, or was a pale d20 shadow of Nyambe produced? Could anyone see d20 Sorceror, or d20 Nobilis? I can't.

contracycle wrote:
To say that a game, frex Nayambe, would not have been produced were it not for d20 begs the question: WAS it produced? I don;t know from whence Nyambe derives, but is the final product what the writer intended, or is that what was produced after it went through the brand-coherence grinder? Was Nyambe really produced, or was a pale d20 shadow of Nyambe produced? Could anyone see d20 Sorceror, or d20 Nobilis? I can't.

Where is this 'if it weren't for D20 it would happen" come from? Hellooooo (banging on the door of the fallout shelter) I have news... !people have been bringing out fantasy settings for both D&D and unrelated and even setting unique systems for decades! I find no substance to the idea that D20 has produced this completely new market. The primary difference is the d20 logo on the front and the fact they primarily arent being made by the publishers of D&D. (By the way wasn't one of the main marketing ideas behind the Dancey plan that settings books were losers?)

b_bankhead wrote: Where is this 'if it weren't for D20 it would happen" come from?

Valamir wrote: Is it better to have a pale d20 shadow of Nyambe than no Nyambe at all.

So the answer Loki, is just what Gareth said. It's good for people who like D20, and at best irrelevant to others.

I've succumbed to the urge to buy D&D supplements in the past thinking two things. 1) I can probably convert them for use in some other system, and 2) after all this time certainly the content will have improved to the point where the content is actually good.

So, for eample, one day I decided to purchase a discounted Al Quadim, thinking that I could get some ideas for as sorta deserty game I was running. Nope. Wrong. 1) the nature of the difference in presentation of the materials made conversion next to impossible because, 2) the content was the same as it ever was. A map with locations on it, in which were described the encounters that could occur.

This is just so totally different in style from what I need that I literally get no use out of D&D materials. Even were I to play D&D, I would not use D&D published materials. I just can't play that way. I'd be drifting hard to Sim.

Now, I haven't read Nyambe. But I have no confidence that, given the track record of the past, and the relatively minimal change in system focus, that such materials will be presented nowadays in any more usable fashion. Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong?

The point is that for me it's the same as if there were no Nyambe at all. So at best, it's irellevant. At worst, it's taking the efforts of some designer that could have benefited me, potenetially, and throwing them away. Thus, for we who can't use the stuff, it's not something that's in any way worthwhile.

Mike

Well, Mike, I guess the answer would be, for me, to admit to a certain extent you're right. If you don't like d20, a lot of d20 stuff -- like a book of prestige classes -- is useless to you.

However, it's notable that your example is Al Quadim, which is AD&D and not D20. In my opinion, D20 is solidly designed enough that assuming you don't mind a "roll against a target number" system a lot of stuff is usable. And the setting stuff is VERY usable.

Take, for example, the Scarred Lands, my favorite D&D 3E setting. I think there is a lot there for a non-D&D player. The Scarred Lands Campaign Setting: Ghelspad book is 99% setting -- the only D20 stuff is in the back. It's good stuff, an interesting dark fantasy re-configuration of several mythic ideas. (There's this Greek-style gods vs. titans thing, but they've done such original work with the basic idea and twisted it in a very cool and original non-Greek way). The Divine and the Defeated contains a very interesting mythological structure that anyone could steal for a non-D20 game with a mimimum of effort. (Some of the other Sword and Sorcery stuff, like Relics and Rituals, is much less useful outside D&D, but then again it should be obvious that if you're not interested in D20, avoid the books that are almost entirely crunchy bits.)

Without D20, ideas for settings like the Scarred Lands or Diomin would have never been published, and would never have been available. And they're quite usable outside D20. (In fact, I'd be tempted to run a Diomin game using Big Eyes, Small Mouth...) And many of them are (IMHO, YMMV, of course) very good.

As another example, Avalanche Press has produced all sorts of historical and mythic d20 supplements like I, Mordred: The Fall & Rise Of Camelot, the compiled data from which is highly useful to non-d20 people. (You gotta ignore the Heavy Metal style cover art in favor of the actual meaty text within, but ya know...) I doubt they'd risked it if d20 didn't exist.

So, I dispute that if you're not interested in d20 that d20's efforts are "at best" indifferent. Because a lot of creative effort is going into d20, much more than went on in AD&D because so many people are involved, that there is plenty there for the non-d20 gamer. Now, obviously it's not going to be quite as useful, but it's like GURPS with ten times the creative effort. Non-GURPS players find GURPS supplements useful idea mines, and that's one company's output. d20 has more companies and people than I care to count...

I think you'll find most actual, full-on setting supplements for d20 aren't like "Al Quadim", which is very much the product of the TSR AD&D mentality, which does NOT exist in d20 -- it's much more open. YMMV, of course -- since I don't mind d20 I can't fully put myself in your shoes.

Steve Dustin wrote: Why would I need another system to do that?

I think D20's a better route then re-inventing the wheel yet again. Unless that system did something different in gameplay (like Over the Edge) then why not D20?

thoth wrote: Personally though, if one has the time, resources, and desire, I ask "Why not create a new system?". Yeah, I know it sounds kinda silly, but I think it's better to encourage than discourage in pretty much every situation.

Here's my example of why I think D20 pushes certian directions and
hence is not a good universal system.

Consider trying to make a high fantasy game that is like DnD, but does not have levels? What do you have to do?
1)Figure out costs to increase skills, taking into account attributes and feats
2)Figure out costs to buy feats, create a dependecny tree, link the tree to skills, ect.

3)Figure out some alternative magic system. probably link it to skills, ect.


My point is not that it can't be done, it can and has, but that you have to gut the system to the point that it becomes D20 quite literally. The only real thing people can carry over is the fact that they don't have to buy new dice. (The skill system usually carries over also, mainly because it's pretty much the same as any other system based on the absolute difference of a roll and target number)

Ok, my two cents on d20 ... having played D&D from 1st-3rd (even skills and powers...) and other rpgs.

1) d20 isn't a bad idea. I dislike it flooding the market, but it's not a bad idea to make another generic system, especially one that can/might draw D&D players to other settings.

2) It began with D&D 3e. Which is bad, to put it mildly. The assumption I found in most d20 products was that they were meant to draw D&D players to other games, so they couldn't be that different from D&D. Which I dislike, to be really mild. At least no one has kept the D&D magic system :p

I did find most people I play with have switched to 3e simply because it is easier that 2e. If nothing else, d20 is easier to teach players than other "universal" systems I've found, especially if the player has some knowledge of the basic rules from another version of D&D (though it's often better if they don't...). Essentially, as a fellow I game with said, "3e is for people who thought 2e had problems" Lots of people did, and they finally found a sort-of-solution they like. Good. Whether the d20 system thatt's come out of it is a good thing as well is very debatable, but if it does get D&D players playing other systems (even if it's other systems adapted to the OGL) then I think it's worthwhile.

Not universal, but at least it broadns the universes some players play in.

Valamir wrote: 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?

D20 will probably work as a universal system for any "kill and loot" type game regardless of genre as long as realism was not a goal. If I were developing a game with this emphasis I probably would lean this way. A game in which a team of space mercenaries try to pillage ancient artifacts from alien temples could probably be created with D20 with minimal conversion dificulties. Also your potential fan base would probably already be very familiar with D20. So why not?

Other than uber-space marine and D&D type fantasy what other genres could be a good fit for D20? D20 Modern probably fills in a few gaps but there has to be others.

Thanks
Mark J

Kirt,

I guess the problem becomes that I have to take your word for it that the supplements being put out for D20 are of (I want to say "greater quality" but really it's) more appropriate design for players like myself, than those put out for D&D stuff in the past. And I'm sorta willing to believe this, for two reasons. First, I've read Eugene Zee's Materia Magica, and it is what you describe. His book, while chock full of stats still manages to have lots of stuff I would use for another system. Second, opening the system up to non "House" developers is just going to do that in some percentage of cases.

The problem is, how do I tell the stuff I can use from the stuff I can't. If Eugene hadn't been so kind to donate space for us to play in last GenCon, I probably would just have passed how booth by as "another d20 vendor". Because I've stopped ata some vendors, and I have checked them out. And what I find is that you get more of the old-school than stuff I can use. For example, I stopped by on booth that was displaying D20 stuff for sale, and it was a group that was reputable, and had produced other gaming materials, the sort I like, for other systems in the past. So, I figured, if these guys can't do it right, then nobody can. Well, I picked up a supplement, and what did I find? A whole book of numbered locations and stats.

What I'm saying is that, since D20 can be played this way, and with such supplements, they will continue to be commercially profitable, and will be the majority of stuff produced. So as a consumer, I have to be very hesitant about anything with the D20 label on it. For example, when seeing that somebody had finally done a "Mythic Africa" in Nyambe, I thought "Cool! I really would like to see that!" Then when I saw it was D20, my interest dropped like a rock. Because I have no assurances that it's not just another Al Quadim. It very well might be.

So, now I have to look for a review of the product, temper the review with what I think are the reviewer's biases (which I usually can only guess at), and then gamble my money on the product, hoping that it can be used to serve my purposes.

All-in-all, it's way too hit or miss. The final percentage of usable stuff, and the difficulty of determining which is, and which is not, makes it of very little utility on the whole. Great settings may be being made that I'm missing out on because they are lost in the sea of other D20 stuff. Better they had been made in another system that would catch my attention, or perhaps not at all.

Now, I'm willing to admit that there is the potential of some slight utility. Like Eugene's book. But I can't say that this makes it a wash for folks like me.

This all said, I can't begrudge anyone who really likes D&D, and would never create a setting for another system anyhow. But there are enough of these people that we don't need more people creating stuff for D20 just because they think there's more money in it (whether or not there is). Because that doesn't serve me as a consumer in the end.

I realize, however, that this is just my own problem, and that, for the majoprity of gamers that it's not a problem at all (they being fan's of the D&D style). As such, I really can't argue against it. All I can say is that it sucks to be me, as far as this is concerned. As the minority, all I can do is kvetch about it, and hope that people consider the alternative.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I realize, however, that this is just my own problem, and that, for the majority of gamers that it's not a problem at all (they being fan's of the D&D style). As such, I really can't argue against it. All I can say is that it sucks to be me, as far as this is concerned. As the minority, all I can do is kvetch about it, and hope that people consider the alternative.

That's the point Kirt. I never get to the point where I take a look anymore. I look over at the shelf of "that stuff" and just turn away. No, it's not worth my time to sift through all of it. Especially since I'm the kind of person who would rather make his own stuff up than use something even semi-unsuitable. The free time that I do have, I spend either playing, designing, posting here (can't browse the game store when I'm at work), or very occasionally, buying stuff for sysems that I know will work for me. I browse very little at all actually; instead, I go in, buy what I need, and get out. I buy online (and PDF) whenever possible. Based mostly off reviews, and word of mouth.

I'm guessing, but from what I have browsed (mostly at Cons, oddly), I've found that 95% of it is in the useless category. Now, again, since I've only taken a small sample, perhaps I've just looked at the bad stuff. Maybe the pecentage of stuff that would suit me is actually higher than that. If so, someone please make that point. But I think we all know that the vast majority of stuff produced for D20 follows the conventions of D&D modules that make them nigh worthless for my styles of play.

I mentioned reviews. Occasional browsing would come under that aegis as well. That is, these things will happen. Also word of mouth. My point is that, even with all these occasional sources of information, I'll still end up disapointed more often than not. For example, there was a glowing review of some City Book series (can't even remember the titles). I did take the time to check it out based on the review. And I was disapointed. Apparently the reviewer saying stuff like "lots of details of city life" meant "lots of numbered locations". Yeesh.

Again, I'm just not going to spend a lot of time looking for a needle in a haystack. Here's a better idea. You probably can figure out the sort of thing I'm looking for, Kirt. Sim detail, with lots of open-ended plot hooks based on personalities, politics, etc. Now, how many D20 books can you suggest for me? Let me know which ones they are. Apparently it's easy for you to just sift through it all (and therefore you must have already), so you ought to be able to direct me to the stuff that'll work for me, no prob.

Is Nyambe a suitable supplement for Sim/Narr play?

Mike

I think we may be missing something important about the usefulness of d20 by focusing too much on the viability of the system itself. of course not everyone is going to find d20 books useful, and of course history is going to repeat itself: most d20 books, like most older d&d support materials, are going to be crap. Mike can turn away from the shelves of d20 books if he wants; it's not going to hurt him or d20 in any way, any more than my not looking at RIFTS books has made my world less enjoyable or prevented numerous RIFTS books from being printed.

I think d20 is useful in an entirely different sense. I was reading up on the d20/OGL faqs this weekend for a different project, and noticed this:

d20 license FAQ wrote:
Q: Does Wizards of the Coast want to destroy competition in the gaming industry?

A: The company would like to see the number of widely distributed roleplaying game systems reduced.

There are people who see these two objectives as synonyms. There are real-world examples that prove that not to be the case.

There are numerous examples of successful, thriving publishers who focus on making products that are compatible with other game systems. Having a "house system" is not a requirement for being a roleplaying game publisher, despite the fact that those two ideas have gone hand-in-hand for nearly two decades.

The company believes that this is a market where diversity is more harmful than beneficial. The competition in the tabletop RPG category will (if the OGL/d20 strategy is successful) shift from producing competitive RPG systems to producing competitive RPG products that share a common system.

Q: Does Wizards of the Coast think that the d20 System is the only RPG that should be published?

A: Nobody at Wizards of the Coast believes that OGL/d20 will cause the market to reject all other RPGs. There will always be a market for game systems produced by publishers who are determined to forge their own path, or to push the envelope of design. And there will always be people who find different game systems more entertaining for different types of games and different genres. Over the long term, however, Wizards of the Coast hopes that the systems which are widely available in the market also become Open Games, and that instead of supporting dozens or hundreds of different games, the market chooses to support a just a handful.

Wait, so I don't have to check out so many Fantasy Heartbreakers because they will come out in D20 and not their own systems?!? Hmmm, that's tempting. D20 as a garbage vaccuum....

OTOH, perhaps that's enabling such designers. ;-)

And still, I'm not concerned with the garbage. I doubt that these will get past my review checks, and word of mouth filters anyhow. It's the designer that could be making something good that I'm concerned about. The one who might say, "Ah, I could make something better, but it's easier and more profitable to come out with something for D20." Why compete with Delta Green, when more people buy stuff for Greyhawk? Does this guy exist? Who knows, but he might.

Again, however, I'm sure the D20 people appreciate this guy's sentiments. You'll just have to understand if I'm not jumping for joy.

Mike

Hello,

Hey everyone, I did post a comment about staying on topic especially when discussing D20. This is a system thread, specifically, its application to a variety of settings and perhaps even of modes of play. Discussions of publishing, the OGL in particular, and related stuff are way off topic, OK?

Best,
Ron