Okay, since I'm also interested in "discussing d20 intelligently", I'm starting a thread on what I'm interested in.

I want to talk about d20 as a system design. In particular, I want to talk about its impact on game design overall and whether or not it's a good thing for us indie people. (My assertion is that it is a good thing -- see below.) Whether or not d20 is a good design or not is important to discussing this, but it's not the main issue. But we'll forgive you for rambling in that direction, as I'm about to. ;-D

Okay, this is my take on D20. D&D 3E is, bar none, the best version of D&D so far. It does Gamist D&D fantasy very, very well. And isn't that how we're supposed to judge things here on the Forge? Does it meet its design goals, and is it reasonably coherent? Hell, yes. Regardless, one of the reasons I like it is while "back to the dungeon" may be the marketing emphasis, the system can support other things as well.

Think about it. Let's look at the core of d20. Throw away your prejudices about levels, hit dice, and so on. Let's look at the big "innovation" of d20: the skill system.

Let's face it, the old AD&D skill system -- "nonweapon proficiencies" -- was a kludge to allow D&D characters to do non-combat things. It didn't work very well -- D&D characters were still largely a collection of combat abilities.

While D&D 3E may be all about going back to the dungeon and killing things, the fact of the matter is the skill system supports doing other things, and it supports it very, very well.

Frankly, it does this by introducing to D&D "innovations" that have been in other RPGs for a long time. John Wick complains about how nothing d20 does is new in an article in Campaign magazine, IIRC. Fine, d20 isn't as innovative as a lot of its boosters claim -- but let's look at the mechanic as a mechanic, thowing aside claims of innovation and our "levels suck" prejudices.

Basically, the task resolution system in d20 takes years of Sim/Gamist design and puts it into a nice, neat package. It's a basic "target level" system. The GM sets the Target Number using a basic set of guidelines, then the player rolls a d20, adds their attribute bonus and skill bonus, and if they beat or meet the TN, they succeed. Simple. Both attribute and skill are a factor.

If you aren't under pressure, you can "Take 10" -- assume you rolled a 10 on the die. IF you aren't under pressure and don't mind taking a long time, and are doing something where it's okay to try over and over again, you can "Take 20" and assume you rolled a 20 on the die.

Innovative? No. Good? YES. Okay, sure, there's a lot of variation in the d20, you might not like that. But if you don't mind that -- or if it fits well with what you're trying to do -- d20 contains an excellent, simple, tried-and-true task resolution mechanic.

And lots and lots of people are now familiar with it. Yeah, okay, we've heard all the arguments here on the Forge about the mainstream. But fact of the matter is, anyone you're likely to play with had likely played or will play D&D3E -- bringing in new players is fine, but there's something to be said for "old" players as well. As a designer, this is great, even if you only use one concept from d20. I can talk about something in another game and say "it's like taking 20" and eyes light up around the table and everyone in the play group knows what I'm talking about. And unlike comparing it to stuff in old editions of D&D, I'm actually comparting it to a reasonably "modern" mechanic. Sure, it's not The Pool. but, hell, it worked for Over the Edge, didn't it? That was just a dice pool totalled and compared against a TN.

Regardless of what you think about D&D fantasy, this is a good thing for designers. And the revent OGL games, where they've modified the game signifigantly, like Mutants and Masterminds and the Farscape RPG, have shown us the way.

If there is an element you like in d20, even if it's just the skill system or the Feats system, you can keep those elements and then modify the system to do what you want. Isn't this the ultimate "having your cake and eating it too"? You can still design the system to reward the kind of play you want, while using mechanisms people are already familiar with. (The most "D&D Fantasy" thing about D20 is the "kill things and take their stuff" orientation of the experience system. Fine, change it -- that's what d20 Cthulhu did.)

Indie designers should look beyond their prejudices and consider d20 -- like any other system, from The Pool to Paladin, to be a tool. If it does what you want, great. If it doesn't, can it be modified to do what you want? I mean, we're seeing this with The Riddle of Steel with discussions of using TROS in a modern-day setting -- why can't we view d20 in the same way?

Basically, it's my assertion that d20 is a design that we should be willing to add to our toolkit, and that several aspects of the design are good -- the skill mechanic is only one of them. If it doesn't do what one wants, fine -- design something else. But it's introduced several good system concepts (a clean task resolution mechanic, consistant math, a high roll is always better, etc.) to people who'd never seen that before, and even if you hate D&D you have to admit that's a positive impact on design.

I'm saying that "It's just like D&D, except..." can become a good phrase for talking to other roleplayers, rather than a stereotypically bad way of explaining roleplaying.

No, it's not the One True System. It does some things -- particularly in its most unmodified form -- very badly. But it's not the One True Evil, either -- d20 actually contains some solid design concepts. (Another example: There's nothing wrong with the attribute breakdown. Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma. For a lot of design concepts (particularly Sim/Gamist ones), this attribute breakdown is perfectly fine.)

And, as an aside, d20 CAN lead players to other things. The clean-ness of D&D3E, compared to other incarnations of D&D, can be a starting point for going in another direction. My current group started out largely as people playing in my D&D3E Planescape campaign. Planescape, as a setting, had a lot of room for "out of the dungeon" non-Gamist play, and the system actually did an okay job of supporting this, especially once I tweaked the XP system. This let us discover and then focus in on the other, non-D&D stuff we liked. From there, we have played and enjoyed Wuthering Heights, InSpectres, OctaNe, Elfs, Donjon, The Pool and other indie games, and this has informed everyone's thinking about their gaming in a positive way -- and, as proof of D&D's flexibility, it's informed the way the group runs D&D3E. (In the upcoming Dragonstar game my friend Shawn is running, critical hits will give you, essentially, a Monologue of Victory, and all characters are to be described using the "three points of interest only" method from OctaNe...)

As another example, a recent Spycraft game had been useful for figuring out how interested we are in the spy genre, and what aspects of it we like -- even if we end up using a different system for it (which is what I hope happens) our familiarity with d20 made it easy to get in and play. From a design perspective, it lets you tinker with certain ideas (like the Requisition System in Spycraft, sort of an abstract Wealth mechanic) without having to re-invent the rest of the wheel. The fact that you may throw away the d20 aspects of it doesn't make d20 a bad thing.

The core rules of 3e is by far the simpler than any of the AD&D variations. Consolidating all of the disparate types of rolls (attack, saving throws, theif skills, attribute tests) into a single system was a much needed improvement. As has been said...state of the art in 1987. But you're right. So the hype about innovative should be taken to mean "innovative to those who've been living under a rock for the last 10 years"...but since a huge portion of "gamers" fall into that category as far as their gaming experience goes its not that irrational a claim, and pretty irrelevant as to whether or not the system is good.

I particularly think the concept is decent. I'd give it a 3 maybe 3 1/2 out of 5 stars on the system scale. Detriments to me are the unnecessary (save for marketing reasons) conversion of a 3d6 score into a +/- modifier step and the tremendous variability of the d20. The take 10 and take 20 rules are good. They show someone was thinking...but again they are a kludge for a core die system that it too linear over too wide a range. I've seen house rules that roll 3d6 instead of 1d20 (with corresponding tweaks to the critical rules) and that makes sense. Personally I would have replaced take 10 with roll 3d20 and keep the median...and take 20 with roll 3d20 and keep the high...but I can see where this wouldn't go over well with the core audience.

Where D&D begins to fall down for me is the huge wealth of stuff that gets tacked on to this. EVERY feat is a rules exception. The best feats from a sanity standpoint are the ones that serve no function other than to make something possible that wasn't otherwise. But many of the feats require you to learn an entire rules subsystem. Cleave and GreatCleave is just one example. Even if you just stick to WoTC products and eschew the numerous (oft munchkinized) add-ons the number of feats are astounding.

I've played AD&D since 2nd grade. I know how to throw a dozen orcs at a party, and to judge how rough a battle it will be. But how do I judge as GM a party where the effectiveness of a 5th level fighter ranges from scrub to combat god depending on what feats he took (ok...true combat god status doesn't kick in until level 10 or 15...but these levels are eminently obtainable...have you seen the shear volume of ass whooping a 15th level fighter with the right feats can dish out?!)

But what's worse is as a GM I CAN'T simply throw a dozen orcs from a random encounter at the party. The orcs have levels now...they have feats of their own. The truely adept 3e GM can put together a 12 man orc death squad with feat combinations that compliment each other like some sort of Navy Seal Team.

Can I do that...? Do I have the time to master that much stuff, and that many permutations? Would I WANT to take that much time?

Magic is even worse. Its always been a huge pain in the ass. I could never play a wizard effectively because I could never learn the effective use of more than the basic core spells. A true AD&D wizard player can come up with all sorts of evil uses for magic. Now there are magic feats that enable spells to be cast in less time...with or without components, more damage, etc, etc. Making up the evil wizard NPC is a now a monumental task.

In AD&D a 20th level evil wizard was as simple as looking up how many spells a 20th level wizard would have based on level and INT bonus, taking the standard selection of PHB party killer spells and multipling 20 by 3 or 3.5 to get HPs without rolling. Everything else from thaco to saving throws involved just looking them up on a table.

Try that in 3e...no way...you might do it but he'd be an effective putz compared to what he COULD be if you feated him out right and new the best multiclassing path to take.

Its a nightmare of epic proportions for a casual DM...especially if you're not DMing casual players. That's why D&D as a gateway game is an absolutely ridiculous concept. There are few RPGs since the hey day of Chivalry and Sorcery and RoleMaster that are as up front intimidating to try to learn. Its hard to be even a casual player in a party of masters...your character will always be about 30-40% (at least) behind in effectiveness. "That was stupid...since you didn't take Feat X at level 3 you won't be able to get the A-B combo now until 12th level...that really sucks"

So when all is said and done. AD&D with its crazy inverted AC scale, arcane thaco calculations, saving throws that rolled opposite from hit rolls, and thiefs skills based on % for no good reason whatsoever...is actually a HELL of a lot easier to play than 3e. Or at least a hell of alot easier to play well. You can play 3e just to play it...but to play it well you need a masters degree in min-maxology.

Valamir wrote: So when all is said and done. AD&D with its crazy inverted AC scale, arcane thaco calculations, saving throws that rolled opposite from hit rolls, and thiefs skills based on % for no good reason whatsoever...is actually a HELL of a lot easier to play than 3e. Or at least a hell of alot easier to play well. You can play 3e just to play it...but to play it well you need a masters degree in min-maxology.

Damn it, Kirt, you've uncovered my secret plans for Narr20. Arg. (I'm keeping levels, though.)

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Damn it, Kirt, you've uncovered my secret plans for Narr20. Arg. (I'm keeping levels, though.)

xiombarg wrote:

Well, frankly, this is the stuff that an indie designer can rip out. Imagine a version of d20 without levels, where you use XP White Wolf style to buy skills, Feats, attribute increases, whatever.

xiombarg wrote:
Well, frankly, this is the stuff that an indie designer can rip out. Imagine a version of d20 without levels, where you use XP White Wolf style to buy skills, Feats, attribute increases, whatever.

Just to be clear...since my post was rather negative. I actually LIKE the d20 system alot. I like where it goes and mostly how it gets there. It quite probably would have been my favorite game in 1987 when we still got together for monster 10 hour game sessions every week and hacked through every creature in the Monster Manual.

I just don't have the time to invest in a game like D&D3e these days. While I agree Xi that you COULD throw generic orks at a party, there's something unsatisfying to me about only using half of a system's potential. D&D is a game to which there is very little point in playing it (vs some other game using a similiar setting) unless you're going to strive to be good at it. And it just takes too much effort to get good at it. But unlike say...Go...or even chess, the effort isn't one of "simple to learn, lifetime to master". Rather the shear volume of information makes learning it a enormous task.

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.

For the most part I think D&D3E is a complete mess! While there are many elements that are improvements (unified experience,unified mechanic for saves and so on...) overall the system is simply too bloated and complicated.
They are trying to please to many people with the system. They want to have many of the doodads of a 'modern' system (e.g. Champions ca. 1981) but they can't leave behind the tropes that made it D&D. So they have symply piled more and more subsytems onto the old base system. This has exponentially increased the complexity far beyond any advantages gained from the other genuine improvements. Anyone who says D&D3e is simple should be read out of the discussion(as should anyone who say its for 'casual gamers or non-gamers). The idea of D&D as simple is based on the nostalgia of the 3 brown books and 5 supllements, or the Little red book and its supplements. The monstrosity that is has become bears little real resemblance to this. If I were going to use a D&D like system I'd rather dig out my old ARDUIN books or go on ebay and try to find actual D&D gamebooks. The present version offers nothing over these but layers of excessive complexity.

For me the biggest argument against the system is that I am simply not prepared to subject myself to all the travails of gamemastering and bookeeping for such a pointlessly complex system. I know from experience good roleplaying can be done with less than a tenth of the rules of this thing so why even consider using it? In my area the rpg crowd is so depleted by cards and Warhammer that there is virtually no market for anything other than bad fantasy D&D and since I have no use for that, there is no reason to buy the game. Non D&D D20 is virtually non-existent too... I think most of those Spycraft books are sitting on shelves. If I do manage to created a new rpg culture for myself, its certainly not going to be based on game sets with page counts higher that DUNE.

If I'm skipping over some of your points here, Val and Gareth, it's because you were right. ;-D

contracycle wrote: Lastly, the appeal to the fact that d20 is now qwuite widely known is not germane. That is an argument about the social context in which d20 appears, and has no relevance to whether or not d20 is a GOOD design.

Valamir wrote: I just don't have the time to invest in a game like D&D3e these days. While I agree Xi that you COULD throw generic orks at a party, there's something unsatisfying to me about only using half of a system's potential. D&D is a game to which there is very little point in playing it (vs some other game using a similiar setting) unless you're going to strive to be good at it. And it just takes too much effort to get good at it. But unlike say...Go...or even chess, the effort isn't one of "simple to learn, lifetime to master". Rather the shear volume of information makes learning it a enormous task.

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 have a love/hate relationship with D20. It makes my inner gamist smile, with all the happy little doodads and crunchy bits, the leveling up, etc. But, on the other hand, I couldn't see myself playing a campaign of it. I also couldn't see myself ever really trying to figure out attacks of opportunity, or counting squares with minitures, or using them anything more than to go"Hah HAh! Whack!"(knocks over the orc model).

My biggest issue of D&D demanding too much time isn't even in the prep(which is quite a bit anyway), but if I want to see my character go from Frodo to Gandalf, that's oh, 20 levels, which is a few years of play. I don't really want to do all that.

I think the biggest mistake that WOTC is having is that they were hoping to be able to make D&D work like Magic or Pokemon. But the time it takes to learn the rules, set up a game, the length of time commitment(10-30 minutes vs. hours of play over the course of months, perhaps years), makes D&D a hard choice for folks to just "hop into".

As far as the feats go, they're the greatest strength of perviness. They're the equivalent of special cards in Magic, so the strategy in even developing your character becomes intense. It was a very good gamist decision on their part.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: My biggest issue of D&D demanding too much time isn't even in the prep(which is quite a bit anyway), but if I want to see my character go from Frodo to Gandalf, that's oh, 20 levels, which is a few years of play. I don't really want to do all that.

What always got me about D20 was the sheer volume of special cases, some things were unified, but the feat system makes up for all of them. The never fixed the spell system, since every spell is essentailly a special case, and there is no real consistency in them, other than bigger is better. Then only correlation I can think of in another system is picking skills and ads/disads in grurps. (Ok, there's 20 PAGES of these things?) Maybe we need a thread on how to organize games.

Thanks Clinton, although I always start at least 4th level in the games anyway.

The biggest concern is that the gamist joy of earning the xp is diminished with the "instant level up" bonus. Granted, I usually up the xp rate anyway, just because I believe that folks should level up once a session, or at least every other one, but it still requires a bit of time.

One of the big things about D&D because it does play into power fantasies and strategic planning, is that you are almost always thinking 3 levels ahead, and fantasizing 10 levels beyond that. One of the big satisfactions is watching your no-name not shit guy reach the point where he bitch slaps dragons. You could say it feeds into the "picked on kid becomes buffed" fantasy of going from weak to mighty.

I'm not saying that all games have to watch characters climb 10+ levels, but from my personal experience and gamist bias, its more fun when it does happen. Funny enough, the game that I've found that fufills my inner gamist far better than D&D is a Final Fantasy homebrew called Zodiac(http://www14.brinkster.com/zodiacrpg) which literally sucked me and a few of my friends into a marathon entire weekend of gaming that normally I'm not down for. There is some sort of sick glee that kicks in when you have to agonize over picking power A or power B for each level.

Chris

Well, like Val did, let's consider looking at this one piece at a time. d20 is made up of a lot of parts welded together.

The Core mechanic roll a d20 and add modifier to beat a Target Number is simple and clean. Whether or not you find a d20 to be too variable is another issue and touches upon personal taste.

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.

Skills are a good addition but also mixed. The skills themselves vary between specific and abstract and are constantly expanded upon with new supplements. Perhaps choosing one direction or another would work better. The other problem is the cludge of non-class skills. 1/2 points are not intuitive and there could be a better way to present the difference in training and proficiency.

The Level system is streamlined with only 1 experience table and serves well the gamist purpose of simple difficulty comparison.

The Classes are again a mix of good and bad. They vary from generic and open concepts (Fighter) to more specialized instances (Paladin). Again, choosing either generic, customizable classes or numerous, specific classes would have been better.

Feats are a good idea. They allow character customization but many are not well-balanced or conceived and some become staples of PCs. Feats and Classes could have been better integrated to allow Feats to turn your Fighter into a Paladin or to add personlized touches to your Burglar.

Combat... combat is very complex. Positioning and exact distance calculations become cumbersome. Calculating Attacks of Opportunity and their numerous triggers adds another level to an already slow system. Armor Class is simplified but still dangling inbetween specific and abstract (the heavier the armor, the harder you are to hit?). The same goes for Hit Points. The revised Saves however are very simplified.

Magic is a freaking mess. The spells are all over the place in regards to functionality and utility and there is little to no effort to put any kind of thematic links in place. You can have a Wizard with Scare, Melph's Acid Arrow and Detect Invisiblity. Magic is little more than a list of cool powers. Additionally, many spells have their own subrules which only add to the level of complication.

So as a whole, d20 looks like a design by comittee. The individual components vary in simplicity and there is very little "unified integration" between them. It has some good parts and some not so good parts but lacks a cohesive feel between them.

How's that?

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

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.

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

xiombarg wrote:

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.

Valamir wrote: [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.

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

[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...)

Valamir wrote: 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.

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.

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

xiombarg wrote: Let's use some non-d20 examples.

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.

Valamir wrote:

xiombarg wrote: Let's use some non-d20 examples.

Good point

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.

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

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.

damion wrote: 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'

Naaah. I think that gives them too much credit; its the very lack of change from prior incarnaitons of the system that make it a hodge-podge. I don't think there was a conscious and deliberate analysis and redesign of the system at all.

contracycle wrote: Naaah. I think that gives them too much credit; its the very lack of change from prior incarnaitons of the system that make it a hodge-podge. I don't think there was a conscious and deliberate analysis and redesign of the system at all.

contracycle wrote: Naaah. I think that gives them too much credit; its the very lack of change from prior incarnaitons of the system that make it a hodge-podge. I don't think there was a conscious and deliberate analysis and redesign of the system at all.

contracycle wrote: Naaah. I think that gives them too much credit; its the very lack of change from prior incarnaitons of the system that make it a hodge-podge. I don't think there was a conscious and deliberate analysis and redesign of the system at all.

Well, thats quite a set of responses. But I feel they rather give me my point; I find it telling that the response is "but then it wouldn't be D&D". I know, but I thought that was the pitch, that this was D20 not D&D. So thus it could also be Nyambe. But it isn't, its still D&D with a new logo. What we have here is a universal system of the "you can have any colour you like as long as its black" variety.

damion wrote: 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'

Contracycle (a.k.a. Gareth?) wrote: I find it telling that the response is "but then it wouldn't be D&D". I know, but I thought that was the pitch, that this was D20 not D&D....its still D&D with a new logo. What we have here is a universal system of the "you can have any colour you like as long as its black" variety.

Well said, M.J. I don't have much to add, other than to note what I've said before: all those choices (Feats, etc.) is a very functional Gamist design. It's also, as others have pointed out, good marketing, but I submit that even outside of the marketing issues, that it's a functional and good design, in the sense if gives people a lot of tactical options, and ways of changing a charcter's effectiveness. In fact, I submit that if Feats weren't special little bite-sized rules exceptions, they'd be boring...

Cassidy wrote: Take away the familiar "D&D"' elements we all know and love (or hate) and maybe it wouldn't BE D&D anymore.

Going back to initial post xiombarg wrote, and picking up on the skill system in d20...

xiombarg wrote: While D&D 3E may be all about going back to the dungeon and killing things, the fact of the matter is the skill system supports doing other things, and it supports it very, very well.

Interestingly, in the 3e game I play over summers, there's a low-combat bias and the skill system takes a large part in the action, as does the ability to create really 'tasty', cheap magic items.

Yet we're very obviously playing a D&D game - we sell our loot to bizarrely rich armourers (ex-adventurers, more often than not), people hire us to slay stuff, we troupe across the countryside astride our noble (stolen) steeds, all that good stuff.

So, it's interesting that 3e can produce both your style of crunchy dungeon hack play and our style of social travelogue play, both of which are staples of the D&D tradition.

contracycle wrote: Naaah. I think that gives them too much credit; its the very lack of change from prior incarnaitons of the system that make it a hodge-podge. I don't think there was a conscious and deliberate analysis and redesign of the system at all.

Pramas wrote:

contracycle wrote:
You'd be wrong then. There was a great deal of conscious and deliberate analysis.

Fair enough, then. They thought about it long and hard and came to the dumbest possible solution. Bravo.

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". Frankly, I suspect that if the ambition from tyhe get go had been posed as "lets expand the hobby by writing D&D versions of Rokugan/etc." I doubt anyone would have been persuaded; critical opinion about D&D is so vigorously entrenched that such a strategy could at best appeal to a limited segment of all roleplayers and would be highly unlikely to make the mainstream break. But by positing it as a d20 strategy to do such, it IMPLIED that the system was sufficienctly robust to at the very least be considered for such a monumental cross-genre role.

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.

AS A DESIGN, D&D is too limited to be any sort of universal system. To market it as such on the basis of a brand change borders on fraud. To date, we have seen a broad range of d20 products but I suspect that there will very shortly be a massive glut; established D&D players will have found their new world to play in, and its unlikely that the known limitations of D&D will be overcome such that it becomes a gateway product for hitherto unengaged players. Players of other systems will find a D&D sourcebook of very limited utility. Who, then, is going to buy the print runs of Nyambe or what have you? I'm now really curious as to what the print run volumes of the world sets are like by comparison to those of the core rules...

To forestall some objections, I am going to return to Xiombargs initial question:

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

Damn Gareth. I thought I was cynical. I don't suppose that your personal distaste for capitalistic marketing tactics is coloring your opinion in this matter at all...

To say 3e is not a redesign is 100%. It is one of the most thoroughly complete redesigns any RPG has ever gone through. It is the THIRD EDITION of an existing game. It is not and was never intended to be a new game. 3E is more greatly changed from 2E than 2E was from 1E. One could even say that there are more differences between 3E and 2E than there were between AD&D and OD&D.

As far as the "dumbest possible solution" I have to say that is one of the most assinine statements I've heard you make in a long time. You usually make at least an attempt to seperate objective analysis from personal opinion. Here you are just saying "I don't like D&D even though lots of other people do. WotC designed D&D for those people and not for me. WotC was dumb". This is utter nonsense.

As for it not being universal. Well have a general distaste for generic core mechanics that are applied to other settings anyway. But d20 has as much to offer folks who want a universal core mechanic as GURPS. It caters to a different set of game priorities than GURPS but it is equally as "Generic Universal" just with a different focus.

As for aspects of the game being "hard coded in". You seem to forget 2 amazingly crucial facts.

1) ALOT of people like those hard coded items you dismiss out of hand. That you hate them, and I'm pretty indifferent to them is entirely beside the point.

2) They AREN'T. I suggest you pick up a copy of Mutants and Masterminds to see what creative innovative talented game designers can do with the basic d20 mechanics. Gone are classes, gone is damage rolled on strange polyhedrons, gone is rollind 3d6 for stats, gone are hitpoints. M&M successfully overturns many of the WotC Sacred Cows in a way that is still essentially d20. It doesn't use the d20 logo but it does use the OGL which you so frequently blast.

Also "innovative" is not a a synonym for "original" or "unique". A game doesn't have to be either of those to earn the title innovative. Taking the same old same old and applying it in a new way is innovative. Taking an old product and repackaging it for a new audience is innovative.

But wait...they didn't repackage it for a new audience they gave it to the same old audience right? Oh contraire. That old audience IS the new audience. Sure most of the "new" 3E mechanics were late 80s early 90s inventions. You can see those basic ideas in numerous other RPGs from the era. But they never penetrated that closed market of D&D players. You know...that dark dingy world of gamers who never had and never would play any other game other than AD&D in their entire lives except to try it once and proclaim it sucks. The vast majority of gamers by absolute numbers as the number of PHB sales alone should prove.

What 3E did was it took an old product...late 80s early 90s roleplaying and introduced it to an audience that had entirely missed it the first time around. I know long time AD&D players who marvel at how wonderfully innovative 3E is...because they never played Cyperpunk, or Ars Magica, or White Wolf, or any of the other games we take for granted. Its all new to them. Getting the old school D&Ders to advance an entire decade in their gaming technology is innovative in itself. Maybe in another decade someone will do D&D4E and bring them into the 21st century.


So basically, on every single point you made in your last several posts you are 100% empiracally WRONG. And I don't mean wrong in the "in my opinion you're wrong" sense. I mean you are wrong in the "you don't have your facts straight and are ranting out you ass about something you don't know much about" sense.

Are there alot of design monkeys out there cloning mundane D&D applications. Yup. Does that mean D&D is the great gaming satan and a truely talanted game designer can't do anything with it. Nope.

M&M is a FANTASTIC supers game. Its the first game that let me create several of the character types that typically gave me problems without making any concessions and without spending 3 days with caluculator trying to get Champions to do it. Plug and Play superpowers...that work. Its a gem of a game, and its core is d20.

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

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.

Cassidy wrote: 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.

contracycle wrote:

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.

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.

xiombarg wrote: 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.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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 wrote:
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.

Cassidy wrote: 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 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 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.

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.

contracycle wrote: 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".

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

contracycle wrote:
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?

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?

xiombarg wrote: 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.

cassidy wrote: 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.

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

Cassidy wrote: With respect xiomberg I was not trying to be dismissive.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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.

xiombarg wrote: 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?

Cassidy wrote: 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'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. :)