converting d20 to gurps

[Spanky The Dolphin]

D20 is simply evil. Shit, even a moron can run D6 decently...

[Hotfoot]

One of the biggest problems with D20 is that everything needs to be spelled out in no uncertain terms. The more complex a system is, the harder it is to learn to play and learn to run. Add to this the feature creep that is ocurring with all the constant supplements (I really hate the idea of not being able to do something with a character until X, Y, or Z supplement comes out), adding new core classes, prestige classes, spells, feats, and equipment. It gets to be a massive pain in the ass keeping track of it all.

It's how WOTC makes money (the new minis line is really helping there as well), by making each supplement seem like you need it to run your game (each one of the Complete series is going to be drooled over by pretty much every player in the group). While they do put out some decent supplements, constantly cranking out new rules like clockwork has a bad tendancy to break the game. I suspect it won't be long until D&D 3.75 or 4.0 comes out, causing a rash of reprints yet again.

If you have a decent rules set, this is what you should do: print the rules all in one or two books. Then print the setting information in another book, containing all the equipment the setting needs. After that, you go for supplements to enhance the setting (further detail on various areas, bestiaries, that sort of thing). That system best benefits the customers, the people who actually play the game. If the customers want new equipment, give them the tools to generate their own, emphasizing that the GM gets final say in what something costs.

The point being, you want to have everything that is alike to be all together in one book. I'm sick and tired of damn near every RPG out there putting out supplements that are little more than patches to the existing game. Palladium and D20 being two of the biggest offenders in this regard.

Yes, I know, you don't need any of the supplements to play D&D, you can get by just fine on the core books, but I defy any D&D player to tell me that they only use the PHB, DMG, and MM1 in their games, and nothing else*.



*Setting information books are somewhat excluded, since they tend to focus more on what a particular setting is like than attempting to patch the game itself.


That said, it seems to me that most systems outside of D20 are skills-based, not class-based, which makes translation extremely difficult. Feats and skills become nasty to try and do, as some feats are very skill-like in nature (weapon proficiency, weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc.) whereas others are more like superpowers (whirlwind attack, superior cleave, etc.). As was said before, it's best to go with descriptors and try to best fit the character or material to the new system essentially from scratch.

[Knighthawk]

Then your players are assholes. You're the DM. You have the final say. Period. They don't like it, they can find a different gaming group.

While the GM does get the final say, a GM who does not know how to communicate with his players will quickly find himself without a gaming group. Playing an RPG is a two-way street. You can't play without a GM, and you can't play without players.

Very true

[Solauren]

*Complaints about complexity of the game *

Meanwhile, I tought my neighbours 11 year old daughter to play it in less then 10 minutes

[Knighthawk]

One of the biggest problems with D20 is that everything needs to be spelled out in no uncertain terms. The more complex a system is, the harder it is to learn to play and learn to run. Add to this the feature creep that is ocurring with all the constant supplements (I really hate the idea of not being able to do something with a character until X, Y, or Z supplement comes out), adding new core classes, prestige classes, spells, feats, and equipment. It gets to be a massive pain in the ass keeping track of it all.

It's how WOTC makes money (the new minis line is really helping there as well), by making each supplement seem like you need it to run your game (each one of the Complete series is going to be drooled over by pretty much every player in the group). While they do put out some decent supplements, constantly cranking out new rules like clockwork has a bad tendancy to break the game. I suspect it won't be long until D&D 3.75 or 4.0 comes out, causing a rash of reprints yet again.

If you have a decent rules set, this is what you should do: print the rules all in one or two books. Then print the setting information in another book, containing all the equipment the setting needs. After that, you go for supplements to enhance the setting (further detail on various areas, bestiaries, that sort of thing). That system best benefits the customers, the people who actually play the game. If the customers want new equipment, give them the tools to generate their own, emphasizing that the GM gets final say in what something costs.

The point being, you want to have everything that is alike to be all together in one book. I'm sick and tired of damn near every RPG out there putting out supplements that are little more than patches to the existing game. Palladium and D20 being two of the biggest offenders in this regard.

Yes, I know, you don't need any of the supplements to play D&D, you can get by just fine on the core books, but I defy any D&D player to tell me that they only use the PHB, DMG, and MM1 in their games, and nothing else*.



*Setting information books are somewhat excluded, since they tend to focus more on what a particular setting is like than attempting to patch the game itself.


That said, it seems to me that most systems outside of D20 are skills-based, not class-based, which makes translation extremely difficult. Feats and skills become nasty to try and do, as some feats are very skill-like in nature (weapon proficiency, weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc.) whereas others are more like superpowers (whirlwind attack, superior cleave, etc.). As was said before, it's best to go with descriptors and try to best fit the character or material to the new system essentially from scratch.

Honestly, this is why I loved Cyberpunk 2020. The supplements that came out weren't really neccessary! I could easily, and still with a great deal of enjoyment, run a game without the four chromebooks, the theater books, the corp books, etc. All they did was add more, easily adapted equipment, a few new skills, and a couple new classes. All of which were easily inserted. Hell, making a nomad into a Panzerjock wasn't particularly difficult! Also, if you wanted to "multiclass" there was never any real drawback to it (and if you used my rules, it was a more realistic transition). Also, you didn't have to be a neccessarily uber-character to compete with stronger characters, and running is much more of an option. D&D still strongly promotes killing things for XP, Most other games promote either avoiding combat, or accomplishing goals.
Silloutte, Interlock, even Fasa were much stingier with bonuses, and equipment that gives out such bonuses.

Well, I think I've ranted too long about this, and likely have ostracized a player or two (Hotfoot)...I'll shut it now.

-K

[Stofsk]

*snip*

I agree with you in principle, which is why I never fork over any cash for anything other than a core rulebook. The supplementals are just money traps.

One thing I've noticed that I think is good, is the d20 Traveller conversion. The rulebook is the biggest d20 rulebook I've ever seen. Supplemental material comes in the form of .pdfs that you buy from the main website, which is fairly cheap (IIRC it's something like $5 USD), and most of it doesn't have new rules/feats/skills/whatever, but rather info on the setting and expanded equipment lists. For a d20 game, Traveller is pretty good as a result - it's certainly not as flashy as a lot of the WOTC books.

And yes, I'm a d20 fan, though my experience in roleplaying hasn't been all that significant. I do know that diceless systems are chaotic which I don't enjoy, and Exalted is too insane - I'd rather not play force-wank characters. I guess I just enjoy d20. But I suspect it's really about who you play with, rather than what you play.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Meanwhile, I tought my neighbours 11 year old daughter to play it in less then 10 minutes

You can teach anybody to play any RPG in less than ten minutes, so that's not really a selling point.

Well, I think I've ranted too long about this, and likely have ostracized a player or two (Hotfoot)...I'll shut it now.

Don't be so self-depricating. A well-thought out post does not normally ostracize people in G&C unless the message is "I hate/love D&D".

[Hotfoot]

Meanwhile, I tought my neighbours 11 year old daughter to play it in less then 10 minutes

Yes, I'm sure you taught her how to roll a die and how skills and stats add up, which is only the beginning of learning "how to play". I sincerely doubt you taught her all the basic combat actions in that time frame, much less the basic combat spells, or the more complex actions. Unless you'd like to claim that you took time out of that ten minute crash course to teach her about attacks of opprotunity, what causes them, the differences between power attacking with a one-handed weapon and a two-handed weapon, flanking, sneak attacks while flanking, and the dozens of other rules that come into play in and out of combat. It takes longer than ten minutes to READ those chapters, much less explain them.

So how, pray tell, does your little example disprove that D20 is an overly complicated system? Because you don't counter any of my points, you just whip out a nice little anecdotal tale which has no real bearing on the discussion at hand.

One thing I've noticed that I think is good, is the d20 Traveller conversion. The rulebook is the biggest d20 rulebook I've ever seen. Supplemental material comes in the form of .pdfs that you buy from the main website, which is fairly cheap (IIRC it's something like $5 USD), and most of it doesn't have new rules/feats/skills/whatever, but rather info on the setting and expanded equipment lists. For a d20 game, Traveller is pretty good as a result - it's certainly not as flashy as a lot of the WOTC books.

Traveller is a good setting (I'm looking forward to the 2300 reprint/translation, especially since the game is hard to get otherwise). I'm not a huge fan of the D20 rules as a whole, but Traveller and SG-1 are sweet settings, and the main books offer plenty of material. Traveller has been around for over 25 years, in one form or another, so the fan base is incredibly huge (though you will still find many people who swear by Classic Traveller and Megatraveller).

And yes, I'm a d20 fan, though my experience in roleplaying hasn't been all that significant. I do know that diceless systems are chaotic which I don't enjoy, and Exalted is too insane - I'd rather not play force-wank characters. I guess I just enjoy d20. But I suspect it's really about who you play with, rather than what you play.

It really is. Even a game playing with the FATAL ruleset can be fun if you have a good enough group and GM. The big point I was making is that the more complex the system, the more difficult that becomes.

Don't be so self-depricating. A well-thought out post does not normally ostracize people in G&C unless the message is "I hate/love D&D".

He's like a little techno-weenie Woody Allen, isn't he?

[Rogue 9]

I'm not about to deny that d20 is elaborate. What I will say is that I prefer it that way. Gives me options. Freeform's fun for just roleplaying, but when it comes to combat the whole thing tends to break down. 2e D&D just sucked monkey ass; if you think d20 is complicated then take a gander at the ol' Rules Cyclopedia, and on top of that it managed to be far more limiting than d20 despite having many more and more complex rules for doing stuff. GURPS is more easily broken than d20 and far too generic for it's own good to boot, and the Storyteller system just sucks. And contrary to what some have said in here, I've never run into a situation where I want to do something that d20 simply won't let me do. If there's no specific rules for an action, I can and will ad hoc something fairly well balanced in a few seconds. Takes some practice and a thorough grounding in the mechanics of the system, but it can be done.

[Enforcer Talen]

Meanwhile, I tought my neighbours 11 year old daughter to play it in less then 10 minutes

Yes, I'm sure you taught her how to roll a die and how skills and stats add up, which is only the beginning of learning "how to play". I sincerely doubt you taught her all the basic combat actions in that time frame, much less the basic combat spells, or the more complex actions. Unless you'd like to claim that you took time out of that ten minute crash course to teach her about attacks of opprotunity, what causes them, the differences between power attacking with a one-handed weapon and a two-handed weapon, flanking, sneak attacks while flanking, and the dozens of other rules that come into play in and out of combat. It takes longer than ten minutes to READ those chapters, much less explain them.

what, you use those rules? I leave most of them out.

[Hotfoot]

I'm not about to deny that d20 is elaborate. What I will say is that I prefer it that way. Gives me options. Freeform's fun for just roleplaying, but when it comes to combat the whole thing tends to break down. 2e D&D just sucked monkey ass; if you think d20 is complicated then take a gander at the ol' Rules Cyclopedia, and on top of that it managed to be far more limiting than d20 despite having many more and more complex rules for doing stuff. GURPS is more easily broken than d20 and far too generic for it's own good to boot, and the Storyteller system just sucks. And contrary to what some have said in here, I've never run into a situation where I want to do something that d20 simply won't let me do. If there's no specific rules for an action, I can and will ad hoc something fairly well balanced in a few seconds. Takes some practice and a thorough grounding in the mechanics of the system, but it can be done.

Well, it's not just D20 or freeform. There are literally dozens of rules systems out there, enough such that anyone who wants to can find a system that best fits them. Interlock, Fuzion, Silhouette, Tri-Stat, WEG D6, FASA's system, Palladium, so on and so forth. I'm personally fond of Silhouette, because it uses the same rules set for personal combat as it does for squad and fleet combat, and it has an elegance to it that allows it to do so pretty easily.

The problem I have with D20 is that it does things in a very non-intuitive fashion, and in order to make things work in a fashion that makes more sense, you basically have to re-write the rules from pretty much the ground up until all that's left is that you have ability scores and ranks with skills, you use a twenty-sided die to determine if you are successful in an action, and there are different character classes (with levels) that have different advantages and disadvantages.

That said, there are plenty of alternate rules that make D20 better. Armor that gives damage resistance instead of an AC bonus, static hitpoints throughout the level system, so on and so forth.

[Eleas]

the awesomeness that is d20

You shall be first up against the wall when the revolution comes!! VIVA LA SILHOUETTE!!!

Hell, viva la anything* but the AOL of pen & paper. I'll never understand the deal with those classes, especially in Star Wars...

The reasoning was something like this, I believe.

1. We have classes. Classes are part of d20. They're useless for anything you'd care to name, they have no concrete meaning, and impose restrictions on virtually everything you do. That's why they're so awesome.
2. The new Star Wars game shall be d20 based.
3. Now we have to pigeonhole every character in SW to fit into those character classes.
4.
5. Profit!

[Rogue 9]

You shall be first up against the wall when the revolution comes!! VIVA LA SILHOUETTE!!!

Hell, viva la anything* but the AOL of pen & paper. I'll never understand the deal with those classes, especially in Star Wars...

The reasoning was something like this, I believe.

1. We have classes. Classes are part of d20. They're useless for anything you'd care to name, they have no concrete meaning, and impose restrictions on virtually everything you do. That's why they're so awesome.
2. The new Star Wars game shall be d20 based.
3. Now we have to pigeonhole every character in SW to fit into those character classes.
4.
5. Profit!

There's a reason for the restrictions. If everything is unrestricted, you wind up with the ol' "I swing from the chandelier and throw a dozen grenades all at once while simultaneously chopping off the Sith Lord's head with my lightsaber, killing all the bad guys with no losses to myself. Go me!" line.

[Hotfoot]

There's a reason for the restrictions. If everything is unrestricted, you wind up with the ol' "I swing from the chandelier and throw a dozen grenades all at once while simultaneously chopping off the Sith Lord's head with my lightsaber, killing all the bad guys with no losses to myself. Go me!" line.

I'm not quite getting this all or nothing viewpoint you keep applying to this discussion. It seems like you keep saying it's either D20 or freeform, which just simply isn't the case.

Class-based systems, especially those as restrictive as D20, limit the growth of characters uneccesarily, and I don't see how not having a strictly regulated class system turns into somehow becoming a cheese-fest where characters kill everything without any trouble whatsoever....

[Eleas]

I'm not about to deny that d20 is elaborate. What I will say is that I prefer it that way. Gives me options.

And contrary to what some have said in here, I've never run into a situation where I want to do something that d20 simply won't let me do. If there's no specific rules for an action, I can and will ad hoc something fairly well balanced in a few seconds.

Do you want elaborate rules that you can use, or do you want it ad hoc? It seems difficult for you to decide.

Anyway, try as an experiment to practice your d20 character's swordsmanship. Have him practice two years, doing nothing else. And realize that the rules will not let him advance. Barring a major revamp of the system, this is unavoidable.

Anyway, back to your opening statement.

I'm not about to deny that d20 is elaborate. What I will say is that I prefer it that way. Gives me options.

Consider a typical fight sequence in a game like Eon:

Fight stands between an unarmed elven swordmaster armed with a single carwelan sword (think straight katana-like weapon) and a fully armored knight wielding a greatsword. Both decide to go straight for each other. Elf has a shorter reach because of the shorter weapon, but still takes the upper hand, using a feinting move followed by a long stab toward the opponent's ground, but still watchful of a counterattack. The elf is skilled in the fastest sword form that exists, but not so skilled to get such a difficult attack past his opponent's guard. The knight fends it off with no difficulty and presents and instant counterattack.
He successfully attacks his opponent, whose prudency allows him nothing in the face of spectacularly bad luck. The greatsword impacts his left knee. The elf is fairly lucky this time - his leg misses amputation by a hair's whisker, and nothing's broken. His leg is struck out from under him, however, and he collapses to the ground, yielding. That is the prudent thing, as his wound has started trickling a fair bit of blood already.



This is what I consider a complex system. And amazingly, it manages to be much less muddled, confusing and rules-heavy than d20, despite having a thousand times more detail. But I suppose that's not too odd, all things considered; in Eon and in the very majority of games that exist, the game is designed to determine what happens when you act. In d20, the game is designed around what happens to you. You're passive, not active.

You do not do, you have things done to you. You cannot duck below an arrow from a trap, you attempt a reflex save. You cannot cut at an opponent, you make an attack. You cannot train as a character, you follow the stiched path of existing classes. Needless abstraction, in which your character is a static object that is given specific but few interaction points with the game world.

A computer game. Which is why, I guess, d20 works so well in computer games.

[Eleas]

There's a reason for the restrictions. If everything is unrestricted, you wind up with the ol' "I swing from the chandelier and throw a dozen grenades all at once while simultaneously chopping off the Sith Lord's head with my lightsaber, killing all the bad guys with no losses to myself. Go me!" line.

Yes, but now we have hit upon the crux of the matter: the fact that this only happens if the players are immeasurably retarded. Thus, the only point of such ironclad restrictions is to force the players to do something they clearly do not wish to do.

Problem is, you can't force players. They will always find a way. Witness the rampant munchkin plague so common to the d20 community.

Besides which, the rules shouldn't be restrictive. The best rules encourage plausible behaviour in the context of the game. Take the brilliantly cinematic rules of the Unisystem, which gives rise to exactly the sort of behaviour we see in TV shows, as it was designed to do.

This is also why I dislike GURPS or indeed most generic gaming systems. A setting is aided by rules that give it flavour, and those rules are commonly difficult to add "on top" as it were.

[Rogue 9]

There's a reason for the restrictions. If everything is unrestricted, you wind up with the ol' "I swing from the chandelier and throw a dozen grenades all at once while simultaneously chopping off the Sith Lord's head with my lightsaber, killing all the bad guys with no losses to myself. Go me!" line.

I'm not quite getting this all or nothing viewpoint you keep applying to this discussion. It seems like you keep saying it's either D20 or freeform, which just simply isn't the case.

Class-based systems, especially those as restrictive as D20, limit the growth of characters uneccesarily, and I don't see how not having a strictly regulated class system turns into somehow becoming a cheese-fest where characters kill everything without any trouble whatsoever....

Because, well, that's what it becomes. I've seen it happen far too many times, including with d20, but it's easier to rein in with d20 than with freeform or to a lesser extent GURPS. Shall I go dig up some of the more infamous freeform threads on Quentriandal for you to demonstrate the "OMG I kill everything with my 1337 sword sk1llz! I rockzor!" trend? I moderate the board and it's part of my job to check that sort of behavior, but you will always get a player who will say "Oh yeah? Where does it say I can't?" And I usually can't answer that question under a freeform system except in the most general of senses with the "Don't godmode" and "Don't ruin everyone else's fun" rules. So I wind up just cracking down on the player, who will absolutely hate it and see it as arbitrary. One time that particularly stands out was when one John Doe had his character perform about five minutes' worth of actions in a single post, escaping an angry mob by jumping over all their heads and climbing gutters onto the inn roof, where he then proceeded to hijack the GM's storyline by making up some shit about hearing the servant girl crying in the upper room. He then leapt rooftop to rooftop to escape into the forest. All in one post. That's what you get when you don't have the rules to check the players. He argued about it in the game thread when the mod/GM running the game told him he couldn't do that. The RP was completely ruined, and until that point it had been one of the better ones on the board. There were no specific rules to point at save for hijacking the storyline, so he went on and on about how unfair we were being.

GURPS: Erm... Yeah, just find the most broken ability combos and get them. Not that hard, and absolutely annoying to everyone else.

D&D/d20: Yes, it's a class system, but with the incorporation of skill points, multiclassing, etc it's one of the more flexible class systems there is. In 2e, you couldn't even attempt to hide unless you were a thief. Period. Dwarves couldn't be mages, etc. 1e was even worse, since only humans could take character classes; the other humanoid races were stuck taking the class progression for their race and nothing else. Combine this with the 1e/2e strictures about how The DM Is Always Right And May Not Be Questioned and 3e/3.5 is infinitely better off.

Silhouette: Wouldn't know. If you like it, more power to you.

White Wolf games/Storyteller system: Yuck.

Palladium Fantasy: Heard good things about it, have wanted to take a crack at it for awhile, but can't get ahold of the rules anywhere.

You do not do, you have things done to you. You cannot duck below an arrow from a trap, you attempt a reflex save.

Which is the game mechanic for ducking below the arrow. You can describe it however you want; you can make your reflex save a duck, dodge to the side, triple backflip out of the arrow's path, or whatever the hell you feel like. The modified die roll is there to place a limit on your "OMG 1337 dodging sk1llz!" If you can get out of an arrow trap by just saying "I duck and it misses," then where the hell is the challenge?

You cannot cut at an opponent, you make an attack.

Yeah, that's what the attack is. Again, the die roll with modifiers is there to determine success or failure; beyond that, describe it in any way you damn well please.

You cannot train as a character, you follow the stiched path of existing classes.

If you don't like classes, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to argue that, as it's purely a matter of personal preference. However, allow me to point out that between skills, feats, and the ability to go into another class at any time you so choose, it's about as loose as a class and level system can be.

Needless abstraction, in which your character is a static object that is given specific but few interaction points with the game world.

If you let it. The rules are the framework. Put any description on it that you desire. If you have so little imagination that you can't see past the rolls of the dice, then what are you doing in this hobby?

A computer game. Which is why, I guess, d20 works so well in computer games.

I have yet to ever encounter a computer game that has the freedom of action that a live game with a GM instead of a comp allows. Generally, with a computer you're stuck in a certain area until you complete a specific task; in D&D your characters can pack up and go do something else.

[Eleas]

Because, well, that's what it becomes. I've seen it happen far too many times, including with d20, but it's easier to rein in with d20 than with freeform or to a lesser extent GURPS. Shall I go dig up some of the more infamous freeform threads on Quentriandal for you to demonstrate the "OMG I kill everything with my 1337 sword sk1llz! I rockzor!" trend? I moderate the board and it's part of my job to check that sort of behavior, but you will always get a player who will say "Oh yeah? Where does it say I can't?"

That's the d20 legacy in a nutshell. It comes of the slavish d20 adherence to rules. A GM in a decent system would say something on the order of "fuck off, don't be a retard". And that would be the end of it. However, since the d20 rulebook puts the fear of God into any would-be intrepid improvisators, they have no choice but to refer, not to the GM, but to the rulebook to find out just what is allowed.

And that's truly a bass-ackwards way of doing it.

GURPS: Erm... Yeah, just find the most broken ability combos and get them. Not that hard, and absolutely annoying to everyone else.

Because that's what you, as a player, want to do. Gotcha.

D&D/d20: Yes, it's a class system, but with the incorporation of skill points, multiclassing, etc it's one of the more flexible class systems there is.

Wrong. D6 has a class system, and yet you can leave the templates whenever you want. It has freedom on a scale you can't believe. Don't confuse the concept of a class with what d20 has made it into.

White Wolf games/Storyteller system: Yuck.

Now that's a cogent refutation of points.

You do not do, you have things done to you. You cannot duck below an arrow from a trap, you attempt a reflex save.

Which is the game mechanic for ducking below the arrow. You can describe it however you want; you can make your reflex save a duck, dodge to the side, triple backflip out of the arrow's path, or whatever the hell you feel like.

Again, I see the point fails to strike home. Attempting a reflex save is done automatically. You don't get a choice. We could charitably assume that most people would want to do such a thing, but... what if someone wanted to just take the god damn arrow?

If you read the rules, and in d20 you're discouraged from not following them in exactitude, you'll find that you can't. Unless you step away from the rules. And, oh, wait, what does the book say on that? d20 Star Wars showed me the way.

Consider the following when you are changing a rule:

* Why am I changing this?
* Am I clear on how the rule I'm going to change really works?
* Have I considered why the rule exists how it does?
* How will the change impact other rules or situations?
* Will the change favour one class, species, skill, feat, etc. more than the others?
* Overall, is this change going to make the players happy or unhappy? (If the answer is "happy," make sure the change isn't unbalancing. If the answer is "unhappy," make sure the change is worth it).

It's all there: the FUD tactics toward experimentation, the rabid balancing madness, the "player versus GM" concept, the ludicrous implication that you have to somehow grok the intent of the gamemakers to be entitled to change the letter of their rules even if they don't work for you, that you have to consider every potential problem with a change... the mind boggles.

The modified die roll is there to place a limit on your "OMG 1337 dodging sk1llz!" If you can get out of an arrow trap by just saying "I duck and it misses," then where the hell is the challenge?

Your binary way of thinking is somewhat perplexing. What I was referring to was that as the rules give rise to the illusion that the character dodges without a synapse firing in his brain, control is lost. What does idiotic players who won't respect common grounds of play have to do with that?

You cannot cut at an opponent, you make an attack.

Yeah, that's what the attack is. Again, the die roll with modifiers is there to determine success or failure; beyond that, describe it in any way you damn well please.

Yes, but in the context of the game, it won't make one fucking iota of difference how I describe it, now will it? It will still be exactly as hard a blow, exactly as quick, exactly as any other.

You cannot train as a character, you follow the stiched path of existing classes.

If you don't like classes, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to argue that, as it's purely a matter of personal preference. However, allow me to point out that between skills, feats, and the ability to go into another class at any time you so choose, it's about as loose as a class and level system can be.

You said that once before. It's still as completely wrong as it was then. D6 classes, Unisystem classes, Eon classes... they're all open. d20 isn't even close to being in full sight of a loose class system.

The other point you made is also wrong, and quite frankly it's sloppy to the point of deception to strawman my argument of "you cannot train as a character" into "I do not like classes [as] purely a matter of personal preference". It is not a preference to say that it is impossible for player character to advance through sheer training.

Needless abstraction, in which your character is a static object that is given specific but few interaction points with the game world.

If you let it. The rules are the framework. Put any description on it that you desire. If you have so little imagination that you can't see past the rolls of the dice, then what are you doing in this hobby?

Apparently, I'm here to point out that a repetition of "D20 is great because you can change the rules" does not a valid argument make.

A computer game. Which is why, I guess, d20 works so well in computer games.

I have yet to ever encounter a computer game that has the freedom of action that a live game with a GM instead of a comp allows. Generally, with a computer you're stuck in a certain area until you complete a specific task; in D&D your characters can pack up and go do something else.

I agree. I was being facetious. Obviously, no computer can allow the freedom of a GM, even though d20 actively attempts to hamper the GM in this regard.

Now it's time for the concession list:
On the practice issue, concession accepted.
On the complexity issue, concession accepted.

[Hotfoot]

Because, well, that's what it becomes. I've seen it happen far too many times, including with d20, but it's easier to rein in with d20 than with freeform or to a lesser extent GURPS.

Right, but like I've been saying, it's not D20 or bust, as WotC would love for you to believe.

Shall I go dig up some of the more infamous freeform threads on Quentriandal for you to demonstrate the "OMG I kill everything with my 1337 sword sk1llz! I rockzor!" trend? I moderate the board and it's part of my job to check that sort of behavior, but you will always get a player who will say "Oh yeah? Where does it say I can't?" And I usually can't answer that question under a freeform system except in the most general of senses with the "Don't godmode" and "Don't ruin everyone else's fun" rules. So I wind up just cracking down on the player, who will absolutely hate it and see it as arbitrary. One time that particularly stands out was when one John Doe had his character perform about five minutes' worth of actions in a single post, escaping an angry mob by jumping over all their heads and climbing gutters onto the inn roof, where he then proceeded to hijack the GM's storyline by making up some shit about hearing the servant girl crying in the upper room. He then leapt rooftop to rooftop to escape into the forest. All in one post. That's what you get when you don't have the rules to check the players. He argued about it in the game thread when the mod/GM running the game told him he couldn't do that. The RP was completely ruined, and until that point it had been one of the better ones on the board. There were no specific rules to point at save for hijacking the storyline, so he went on and on about how unfair we were being.

Freeform RPing has its own host of problems, but it remains as a rules system (or lack thereof) that can work beautifully when it does work. The trick is that you need a group of people of like minds who can work things out without having hard feelings. That said, I've been on the rough end of freeform RPing, and I'm not advocating it as an alternative to structured rule systems, I'm just saying that, as a rules system, D20 leaves a lot to be desired on my end. However, the situation you've just described is just as much of a problem as players actively cheating in rules-based systems in order to gain the upper hand.

D&D/d20: Yes, it's a class system, but with the incorporation of skill points, multiclassing, etc it's one of the more flexible class systems there is. In 2e, you couldn't even attempt to hide unless you were a thief. Period. Dwarves couldn't be mages, etc. 1e was even worse, since only humans could take character classes; the other humanoid races were stuck taking the class progression for their race and nothing else. Combine this with the 1e/2e strictures about how The DM Is Always Right And May Not Be Questioned and 3e/3.5 is infinitely better off.

This is true, after almost twenty years, D&D is finally taking a healthy step forward after being outclassed for years and years by better systems. Still, it holds dear to its roots, which ends up hobbling what could otherwise be an excellent fantasy game. Still, just because it is less restrictive than it used to be doesn't mean it's not restrictive. For an example of a very versatile class system, check out Interlock, the system powering Cyberpunk 2020. Classes bestow special abilities and class skills, but nothing keeps a Rockerboy from kicking ass alongside a Solo, or a Media surfing the datanet looking for information on an infamous netrunner.

Silhouette: Wouldn't know. If you like it, more power to you.

I shall bring the light of Silhouette to the world! It's not a perfect system, but it has a certain gracefulness to it that I can't help but love.

Palladium Fantasy: Heard good things about it, have wanted to take a crack at it for awhile, but can't get ahold of the rules anywhere.

I own several Palladium books, most of them RIFTS. They have good settings, but the rules are even more of a pain in the ass and open to powergaming than 3.0, 3.5, or AD&D.

[Tzeentch]

That's the d20 legacy in a nutshell. It comes of the slavish d20 adherence to rules. A GM in a decent system would say something on the order of "fuck off, don't be a retard". And that would be the end of it. However, since the d20 rulebook puts the fear of God into any would-be intrepid improvisators, they have no choice but to refer, not to the GM, but to the rulebook to find out just what is allowed.

Are you honestly condemning a system because of the GM advice chapter?

GURPS: Erm... Yeah, just find the most broken ability combos and get them. Not that hard, and absolutely annoying to everyone else.

Because that's what you, as a player, want to do. Gotcha.

Okay, so first you've criticized d&d for its ruleset, now you're claiming that abusing loopholes in GURPS reflects badly on the player instead of the system. The obvious solution is, as GM, to smack the munchkin upside the head... justl like it is in d&d.

Wrong. D6 has a class system, and yet you can leave the templates whenever you want. It has freedom on a scale you can't believe. Don't confuse the concept of a class with what d20 has made it into.

Ah, because clearly class must mean what you define it to be. I tend to regard class as inherently rigid, and refer to things in tri-stat or unisystem or whatever as "templates" or "packages," because they have a different function. Instead of defining your character's path, they give you a set of abilities representing an aspect of him.

Again, I see the point fails to strike home. Attempting a reflex save is done automatically. You don't get a choice. We could charitably assume that most people would want to do such a thing, but... what if someone wanted to just take the god damn arrow?

Then they'd say "I want to take the god damn arrow," and the GM would say "fine," and they'd roll damage. And you'll cry "that's changing the rules, which is only allowed outside d&d. It says so in the GM advice chapter! And not even the D&D GMchapter, but the Star wars GM chapter!"

And no one cares, because of this thing called "common sense." GMs choose which supplemental material to allow into their games: common sense. GMs make up on-the-spot rulings for grey areas: commons sense. No system is perfect, for obvious reasons.

It's all there: the FUD tactics toward experimentation, the rabid balancing madness, the "player versus GM" concept, the ludicrous implication that you have to somehow grok the intent of the gamemakers to be entitled to change the letter of their rules even if they don't work for you, that you have to consider every potential problem with a change... the mind boggles.

I'd argue that the people who need advice on changing rules are probably running hack-and-slash campaigns, and thus could probably use the advice. Still, it's advice. Who gives a fuck if it happens to be bad, but the system is decent?

Yes, but in the context of the game, it won't make one fucking iota of difference how I describe it, now will it? It will still be exactly as hard a blow, exactly as quick, exactly as any other.

...Which would be why 3e introduced feats and combat manouvers. Y'know, so that you can make different kinds of attacks and pull interesting tricks during combat. Are you objecting because d&d doesn't have a stunt system or drama points? I've added both to my games, because I like them. Arguably, it's a flaw in the system, but its also a matter of personal preference. I was under the impression that your complaints went deeper then "d&d is missing a couple of mechanics from games like unisystem"

The other point you made is also wrong, and quite frankly it's sloppy to the point of deception to strawman my argument of "you cannot train as a character" into "I do not like classes [as] purely a matter of personal preference". It is not a preference to say that it is impossible for player character to advance through sheer training.

Please, name systems in which it is possible to advance through training without spending experience points or some synonym.

In D&D, there are three ways to simulate training. The first is to require that players have some downtime to practice their skills in order to spend xp. The second is to consider training as a series of low-EL encounters that gradually make you better. The third way is simply to say "you train for two years, and when the story picks up again, you have gained a level. In the mean time, your adversaries have been on the move..."

Apparently, I'm here to point out that a repetition of "D20 is great because you can change the rules" does not a valid argument make.

Way to miss his point. He's saying that you use dice for task resolution, and then narrate what's going on. It's kind of the basis of rpgs in general. Besides, if your arguments are all nitpicks (you can't choose to be hit by a trap!), then saying that such things can easily be worked around is a perfectly valid argument, especially in a plug-and-play ruleset like d20.

I own several Palladium books, most of them RIFTS. They have good settings, but the rules are even more of a pain in the ass and open to powergaming than 3.0, 3.5, or AD&D.

Truth.

It really is. Even a game playing with the FATAL ruleset can be fun if you have a good enough group and GM. The big point I was making is that the more complex the system, the more difficult that becomes.

Falsehood. Nothing could make FATAL fun. Except maybe tracking down the authors and hitting them with sticks.

[Eleas]

And yes, I'm a d20 fan, though my experience in roleplaying hasn't been all that significant. I do know that diceless systems are chaotic which I don't enjoy, and Exalted is too insane - I'd rather not play force-wank characters. I guess I just enjoy d20. But I suspect it's really about who you play with, rather than what you play.

A-bloody-men. I've had the fortune of finding a group I enjoy playing with, and the synergy effect is just fucking amazing.

[Rogue 9]

Because, well, that's what it becomes. I've seen it happen far too many times, including with d20, but it's easier to rein in with d20 than with freeform or to a lesser extent GURPS. Shall I go dig up some of the more infamous freeform threads on Quentriandal for you to demonstrate the "OMG I kill everything with my 1337 sword sk1llz! I rockzor!" trend? I moderate the board and it's part of my job to check that sort of behavior, but you will always get a player who will say "Oh yeah? Where does it say I can't?"

That's the d20 legacy in a nutshell. It comes of the slavish d20 adherence to rules. A GM in a decent system would say something on the order of "fuck off, don't be a retard". And that would be the end of it. However, since the d20 rulebook puts the fear of God into any would-be intrepid improvisators, they have no choice but to refer, not to the GM, but to the rulebook to find out just what is allowed.

And that's truly a bass-ackwards way of doing it.

I was describing freeform, retard, not d20.

GURPS: Erm... Yeah, just find the most broken ability combos and get them. Not that hard, and absolutely annoying to everyone else.

Because that's what you, as a player, want to do. Gotcha.

And that is what I as a GM want to NOT HAPPEN because unstoppable ability combos are no fun at all. As a player I'm there because I want a challenge. Just mowing down the villains through an unforeseen interaction between rules or abilities isn't any fun, and that sort of thing is far more likely to come about in a system where you get to cherrypick your abilities.

D&D/d20: Yes, it's a class system, but with the incorporation of skill points, multiclassing, etc it's one of the more flexible class systems there is.

Wrong. D6 has a class system, and yet you can leave the templates whenever you want. It has freedom on a scale you can't believe. Don't confuse the concept of a class with what d20 has made it into.

White Wolf games/Storyteller system: Yuck.

Now that's a cogent refutation of points.

Given that no one else brought it up, there was nothing to refute. I was stating my opinions of various systems and the horror of that one came to mind. Seriously, you ever try to play Vampire? *Shudder*

You do not do, you have things done to you. You cannot duck below an arrow from a trap, you attempt a reflex save.

Which is the game mechanic for ducking below the arrow. You can describe it however you want; you can make your reflex save a duck, dodge to the side, triple backflip out of the arrow's path, or whatever the hell you feel like.

Again, I see the point fails to strike home. Attempting a reflex save is done automatically. You don't get a choice. We could charitably assume that most people would want to do such a thing, but... what if someone wanted to just take the god damn arrow?

You are obviously profoundly ignorant of the rules. A character can choose to forgo his save.

If you read the rules, and in d20 you're discouraged from not following them in exactitude, you'll find that you can't. Unless you step away from the rules. And, oh, wait, what does the book say on that? d20 Star Wars showed me the way.

Consider the following when you are changing a rule:

* Why am I changing this?
* Am I clear on how the rule I'm going to change really works?
* Have I considered why the rule exists how it does?
* How will the change impact other rules or situations?
* Will the change favour one class, species, skill, feat, etc. more than the others?
* Overall, is this change going to make the players happy or unhappy? (If the answer is "happy," make sure the change isn't unbalancing. If the answer is "unhappy," make sure the change is worth it).

It's all there: the FUD tactics toward experimentation, the rabid balancing madness, the "player versus GM" concept, the ludicrous implication that you have to somehow grok the intent of the gamemakers to be entitled to change the letter of their rules even if they don't work for you, that you have to consider every potential problem with a change... the mind boggles.

*Sigh* There is also an extensive section on house rules and how the DM is free to change whatever the hell he wants in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Got any more selective quoting to do? That section is there because, frankly, someone who tries to modify the rules without understanding them will in all likelihood throw the game's balance out of whack. If someone were to, say, decide he didn't like spell effect caps at low level and got rid of them across the board, then at high level the spellcasters become game-breakingly powerful, with wizards and sorcerers tossing around 20d6 3rd level spells and clerics healing insane amounts of damage at the cost of a first level spell slot. Maybe it's just me, but having cure light wounds have essentially the same effect as heal when you get up into 20th+ level is a little much.

The modified die roll is there to place a limit on your "OMG 1337 dodging sk1llz!" If you can get out of an arrow trap by just saying "I duck and it misses," then where the hell is the challenge?

Your binary way of thinking is somewhat perplexing. What I was referring to was that as the rules give rise to the illusion that the character dodges without a synapse firing in his brain, control is lost. What does idiotic players who won't respect common grounds of play have to do with that?

You again neglect the fact that a character can choose to forgo his save if he desires. Either that or you're deliberately misrepresenting the entire concept of the save in order to disparage the system.

You cannot cut at an opponent, you make an attack.

Yeah, that's what the attack is. Again, the die roll with modifiers is there to determine success or failure; beyond that, describe it in any way you damn well please.

Yes, but in the context of the game, it won't make one fucking iota of difference how I describe it, now will it? It will still be exactly as hard a blow, exactly as quick, exactly as any other.

POWER ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Str 13.
Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)
A fighter may select Power Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.

COMBAT EXPERTISE [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as –5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action.
Normal: A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class.
Special: A fighter may select Combat Expertise as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.

As you can see, there are myriad ways of modifying your attack roll for how hard you want to hit or for concentrating more on defending yourself. Again, you demonstrate great ignorance of the d20 system.

You cannot train as a character, you follow the stiched path of existing classes.

If you don't like classes, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to argue that, as it's purely a matter of personal preference. However, allow me to point out that between skills, feats, and the ability to go into another class at any time you so choose, it's about as loose as a class and level system can be.

You said that once before. It's still as completely wrong as it was then. D6 classes, Unisystem classes, Eon classes... they're all open. d20 isn't even close to being in full sight of a loose class system.

The other point you made is also wrong, and quite frankly it's sloppy to the point of deception to strawman my argument of "you cannot train as a character" into "I do not like classes [as] purely a matter of personal preference". It is not a preference to say that it is impossible for player character to advance through sheer training.

Not quite. Some DMs require training to be performed to gain level-related benefits and so forth. Others might simply award experience for training, although seriously, who wants to spend their gaming session having the character go to the gym? Both options are detailed in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Needless abstraction, in which your character is a static object that is given specific but few interaction points with the game world.

If you let it. The rules are the framework. Put any description on it that you desire. If you have so little imagination that you can't see past the rolls of the dice, then what are you doing in this hobby?

Apparently, I'm here to point out that a repetition of "D20 is great because you can change the rules" does not a valid argument make.

It's not a rule change to add description onto the effects of the dice rolls, dumbass. It's what you're supposed to do. I wasn't repeating that d20 is a great system as a response to your point; I was pointing out that your point was incorrect and for you to think so your imagination must be severely handicapped.

Now it's time for the concession list:
On the practice issue, concession accepted.
On the complexity issue, concession accepted.

Erm... Practice issue?

What concession? I like complex. You think you can have a variable-based combat system without complexity? You know, we could get rid of the complexity, but that would make your earlier lie about how every attack roll is the same true by eliminating the rules for grappling, tripping your opponent, bull rush, defensive fighting, power attacks, parries, and so forth. This would not be a good thing.

[Utsanomiko]

If you don't like classes, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to argue that, as it's purely a matter of personal preference. However, allow me to point out that between skills, feats, and the ability to go into another class at any time you so choose, it's about as loose as a class and level system can be.

That's another thing I don't get about d20 classes; why is anyone impressed by skills/feats? The first time I found out that 3rd ed could really only customize its classes with token bonuses and minor extra skills, I was very dissapointed. So what? They still function the exact same way despite barely-noticeable additions. Not to mention that multiclassing is simply trading back and forth with which class you improve in each level. Like I said, it's the AOL of RPGs; it works, but it's only impressive if you're unaware of other systems that do it better.

D6 only has classes in the sense that you can build 'templates' around the six attributes; you can have high Strength and Dexterity for an athletic and combat-able character, Knowledge and Perception for clever characters that bargain and reason their way though situations, and then Mechanical for piloting and Technical for engineering/repair. And there's no restrictions of what skills you get regardless of attributes, so you can focus on skills in your best attributes or you can do the opposite (have high Per. and Tech and poor Dex. and Strength, but keep improving 2-3 combat skills you use regularly while your high base attributes allow you to have good borad skills). And every time there's a break in the action they can either build up their 'template's' skills or go a while other direction. You can have a party with a construction worker, a rockstar/hacker turned bounty hunter, a geologist sniper, a fake wizard, and a washed-up attourney, and at the end of the adventure they can all get good experience for RPing and being useful.

D&D's classes? They're all focused on combat with combat feats, levels that add hp and combat bonuses, experience gained chiefly though combat, and only minor skills/modifiers for non-combat situations. And yet most of thsoe damn classes are barely suited for combat compared to others, despite all of them revolving around combat. 90% of the adventure is usually slaying ogres and dire wolves, which the real fighters get into a burly brawl with half the classes that only get a couple hp/level staying out of the action, cast a few spells, and hope they don't get killed in one hit, while a couple classes just tag along and do nothing untill they need a token skill used. It's like those FPS where you shoot for 10 minutes and then you have to turn on your nightvision to find another doorway or whip out your grappling hook to reach the next floor; I'd sure hate to play a class that's basically just a grappling hook.

[Eleas]

Are you honestly condemning a system because of the GM advice chapter?

Yes, since the GM advice chapter is symptomatic of how the system is intended to be used. I wouldn't have cared if the GM advice chapter was alone in this regard, but it is not. This is how the rules are presented, designed, and intended to be used.

Because that's what you, as a player, want to do. Gotcha.

Okay, so first you've criticized d&d for its ruleset, now you're claiming that abusing loopholes in GURPS reflects badly on the player instead of the system. The obvious solution is, as GM, to smack the munchkin upside the head... justl like it is in d&d.

You seem to boil down my criticism toward d&d into "its ruleset is bad", and assert that since GURPS has loopholes, it must also be bad. However, this simplistic way of looking at it is just that: simplistic. While I do not like GURPS, I did not criticise games that have loopholes. I criticised the exact opposite: games that try to rabidly advance "balance" as some sort of holy grail, and that by their very design encourage gamers to optimize their characters into the best combat machines they can.

I first criticized D&D for its ruleset's rigidity, its poor rules and the notion that rigid rules somehow prevent powergaming. I also make a clear distinction between what the system promotes and what the system allows. A system that allows people to act like morons is only a problem when people are, in fact, morons. A system that discourages you from doing things you should be able to do is just stupid.

And in fact, the obvious response of the usual d20 player seems to be rather along the lines of "it's in the rules; here, look, page 122."

Wrong. D6 has a class system, and yet you can leave the templates whenever you want. It has freedom on a scale you can't believe. Don't confuse the concept of a class with what d20 has made it into.

Ah, because clearly class must mean what you define it to be.

No, I don't have that kind of arrogance. The word "class" carries a distinct meaning that is clearly separate from your wet dreams.

class Audio pronunciation of "class" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kls)
n.

1. A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or category.
2. A division based on quality, rank, or grade, as:
1. A grade of mail: a package sent third class.
2. A quality of accommodation on public transport: tourist class.
3.
1. A social stratum whose members share certain economic, social, or cultural characteristics: the lower-income classes.
2. Social rank or caste, especially high rank.
3. Informal. Elegance of style, taste, and manner: an actor with class.
4. A level of academic development, as in an elementary or secondary school.
5.
1. A group of students who are taught together because they have roughly the same level of academic development.
2. A group of students or alumni who have the same year of graduation.
3. A group of students who meet at a regularly scheduled time to study the same subject.
4. The period during which such a group meets: had to stay after class.
6. Biology. A taxonomic category ranking below a phylum or division and above an order. See table at taxonomy.
7. Statistics. An interval in a frequency distribution.
8. Linguistics. A group of words belonging to the same grammatical category that share a particular set of morphological properties, such as a set of inflections.

Main Entry: class
Function: noun
: a group of persons or things having characteristics in common: as a : a group of persons who have some common relationship to a person making a will and are designated to receive a gift under the will but whose identities will not be determined until sometime in the future —see also class gift at GIFT b : a group of securities (as stocks or bonds) having similar distinguishing features (as voting rights or priority of redemption) c : a group whose members are represented in a class action d : PROTECTED CLASS e : a group of crimes forming a category distinguished by a common characteristic (as the use of violence or the requirement for a maximum penalty)<murder is a class A felony>

Now, sit down.

Then they'd say "I want to take the god damn arrow," and the GM would say "fine," and they'd roll damage. And you'll cry "that's changing the rules, which is only allowed outside d&d. It says so in the GM advice chapter! And not even the D&D GMchapter, but the Star wars GM chapter!"

This would actually be a relevant point if we were talking about D&D as opposed to d20.

And no one cares, because of this thing called "common sense." GMs choose which supplemental material to allow into their games: common sense. GMs make up on-the-spot rulings for grey areas: commons sense. No system is perfect, for obvious reasons.

Wait a minute, I'm confused here. Are we judging the system? If we are, shouldn't we, like, actually judge what it says? You know, kinda like what its rules dictate and do? Of course not. We should judge the game to be excellent because the GM should be able to patch the game continuoustly.

It's another prepackaging of "d20 rules becuase you cn changeit!"

I'd argue that the people who need advice on changing rules are probably running hack-and-slash campaigns, and thus could probably use the advice. Still, it's advice. Who gives a fuck if it happens to be bad, but the system is decent?

I give a fuck when the quote is symptomatic of the whole philosophy behind the engine of the game.

...Which would be why 3e introduced feats and combat manouvers. Y'know, so that you can make different kinds of attacks and pull interesting tricks during combat. Are you objecting because d&d doesn't have a stunt system or drama points? I've added both to my games, because I like them. Arguably, it's a flaw in the system, but its also a matter of personal preference. I was under the impression that your complaints went deeper then "d&d is missing a couple of mechanics from games like unisystem"

And they do. I've listed tons of things I dislike about the system, and this is merely one of them.

Feats and combat maneuvers are (for the most part) impossible to perform if you don't possess them; i.e., a beginner can't use them at all, can't even attempt them. They furthermore come in completely arbitrary "use x times a day" helpings. Finally, and most damning, they do not actually simulate what I was asking for. If you want to feint every time you cut, that's impossible, for example. If you want to lock blades with a person, you can't. Et cetera.

But on the other hand, that was not what I was addressing to begin with, either. What I said was that in d20, things happen to you, while in other games you do things. There are a lot of actions in d20 that are active, but there are an equal number of actions around that you're not really asked about, despite the fact that your character performs them.

A bit like Windows, come to think about it.

Please, name systems in which it is possible to advance through training without spending experience points or some synonym.

You fail to consider that experience points do not imply levels or advancement of any skill but the one you're training. In light of that, your whole point becomes moot, as the only systems that don't let you train without yielding absurd results are systems identical to d20.

Anyway, Eon, Västmark, FUDGE, Khelataar, Skymningshem, Neotech and Tensided, IIRC all work fine without experience points at all. Break out of your myopia. You do not need it.

In D&D, there are three ways to simulate training. The first is to require that players have some downtime to practice their skills in order to spend xp.

This approach is unworkable. It presupposes the characters have XP - that is, that they have already won the experience required.

The second is to consider training as a series of low-EL encounters that gradually make you better.

I see. So you have to contrieve a series of adventure to simulate what is in effect no different from weight training? Unworkable also.

The third way is simply to say "you train for two years, and when the story picks up again, you have gained a level. In the mean time, your adversaries have been on the move..."

...thereby ignoring the system altogether, and also making it more difficult for your character to become better in his chosen field further on (something that is just ludicrous, as you must know). Yet again, unworkable.

Way to miss his point. He's saying that you use dice for task resolution, and then narrate what's going on. It's kind of the basis of rpgs in general.

I did not miss his point. Rather, it was you who missed the entire point of the discussion. I said that there were few methods of interacting. The character is allowed a rigid set of actions with little to no variations (feats and such are specific to certain people, and so should not be included, as the actions I speak of could be performed by anyone). His reply seemed to be roughly on the level of "well, you just use the rules as a framework and interpret it however you want. Oh, and the rules are good since you should be able to see past them".

Besides, if your arguments are all nitpicks (you can't choose to be hit by a trap!), then saying that such things can easily be worked around is a perfectly valid argument, especially in a plug-and-play ruleset like d20.

It seems a common conception that, by dint of repetition, d20 proponents can somehow make d20 into a Plug and Play system by calling it so. It isn't. The system is interlocked. Everything is (and the d20 people love to point this out) balanced. If I remove something, this will break the system.

If I want to add another class? Whoo boy. I have to write up fucking tables. If I wanted to make the attack bonus the skill it should have been from the beginning, it will throw things completely out of balance. If I want to add another Ability score? It would probably kill the system. Interlocks all over the place.

d20 is more modular than AD&D or Palladium. But frankly, that isn't saying much.

[Eleas]

I was describing freeform, retard, not d20.

Problem is, you were describing d20. You were describing the mentality bred by d20. Don't whine just because you can't see any alternative to d20 than freeform.

And that is what I as a GM want to NOT HAPPEN because unstoppable ability combos are no fun at all. As a player I'm there because I want a challenge. Just mowing down the villains through an unforeseen interaction between rules or abilities isn't any fun, and that sort of thing is far more likely to come about in a system where you get to cherrypick your abilities.

I agree with the first point, but not the second. I honestly feel this is a "Player versus GM" scenario, and not symptomatic of the flaws of a given system (unless it was Synibarr, which encourages Player versus GM).

However, in a system in which you get to cherrypick your abilities, you only get those abilities if you're actually out to get them, or if the system is broken. Whereas I strongly feel that the way d20 is set up encourages a climb towards the zenith of combat heaven on part of the characters.

I've seen people try to "break" the system too many times to believe. I've heard of the practice of drawing up "character plans" to insure that the characters eventually become the way the players envisioned them to be in the first place. It's not working.

White Wolf games/Storyteller system: Yuck.

Now that's a cogent refutation of points.

Given that no one else brought it up, there was nothing to refute. I was stating my opinions of various systems and the horror of that one came to mind. Seriously, you ever try to play Vampire? *Shudder* [/quote]

Of course. It is a vibrant, brilliant system, elegantly simplistic in its... aw, fuck it.

It's absolute shit. It's perhaps the worst system I've ever used. It makes d20 look like the love child of Shaft and Clint Eastwood. Its probabilities are FUBARed beyond all recognition, and the definitions of skills and their levels just makes you wonder what the hell the designers were smoking.

What's worse is that apparently, the new Vampire system is worse.

Again, I see the point fails to strike home. Attempting a reflex save is done automatically. You don't get a choice. We could charitably assume that most people would want to do such a thing, but... what if someone wanted to just take the god damn arrow?

You are obviously profoundly ignorant of the rules. A character can choose to forgo his save.

Not according to the d20 Star Wars rules, kemo sabe.

*Sigh* There is also an extensive section on house rules and how the DM is free to change whatever the hell he wants in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Got any more selective quoting to do?

Fuck you. We were discussing d20. I own a d20 system. I therefore am qualified to comment on d20 games, and in no way obligated to own them all. You may accuse me of quoting selectively, but that doesn't change the fact that the whole book says so, and that you god damn well know that it makes you a liar. Quoting the book I own when it states its intentions in clear text is hardly "selective", anymore than quoting Bushisms to point out that Bush has said stupid things is dishonest.

That section is there because, frankly, someone who tries to modify the rules without understanding them will in all likelihood throw the game's balance out of whack. If someone were to, say, decide he didn't like spell effect caps at low level and got rid of them across the board, then at high level the spellcasters become game-breakingly powerful, with wizards and sorcerers tossing around 20d6 3rd level spells and clerics healing insane amounts of damage at the cost of a first level spell slot. Maybe it's just me, but having cure light wounds have essentially the same effect as heal when you get up into 20th+ level is a little much.

It's a scare tactic. What's more, it's stupid. I can't answer "yes" to most those questions, but I wouldn't dream of not changing an obviously stupid rule because it might gain some justification for existence further down the road.

You again neglect the fact that a character can choose to forgo his save if he desires. Either that or you're deliberately misrepresenting the entire concept of the save in order to disparage the system.

Not in d20 Star Wars, again. As for your attempts at painting me in a dishonest light, I have to wonder if you're projecting.

[snip Power Attack text]

"Joshei pulled back his fist, putting his weight behind the blow and yelling a Kiai to strike a heavy blow at the prone foe. Alas, he had not learned how to strike heavier than usual, and so his blow did the same amount of damage. If only he had been out adventuring more."

[snip Combat Expertise]

"Next, Joshei drew his weapon. As a woodsman he had trained the arts of the longsword for a number of years. However, he simply was not smart enough to know how to assume as cautious a position as possible."

[snip Defensive fighting]

That one I agree with. The rest I don't, because they are special skills. If you made me into a d20 character, I would have no Warrior - esque Feats, yet would still be able to do all those things. That's why the system is limited in that regard.

As you can see, there are myriad ways of modifying your attack roll for how hard you want to hit or for concentrating more on defending yourself. Again, you demonstrate great ignorance of the d20 system.

That's "dislike", and it's justified.

Not quite. Some DMs require training to be performed to gain level-related benefits and so forth. Others might simply award experience for training, although seriously, who wants to spend their gaming session having the character go to the gym? Both options are detailed in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Yes. That's a good method of doing things, I agree with that. But why does it require already harvested XP?

It's not a rule change to add description onto the effects of the dice rolls, dumbass. It's what you're supposed to do. I wasn't repeating that d20 is a great system as a response to your point; I was pointing out that your point was incorrect and for you to think so your imagination must be severely handicapped.

I made the point that you had few ways of actually affecting the world around you in the game. Few variations. In which way the actions are then later interpreted has no bearing on that fact, and that was why I felt you were simply reciting the mantra of "if it doesn't work, change it, and that's why the existing rules are good." You weren't, I guess.

What concession? I like complex. You think you can have a variable-based combat system without complexity? You know, we could get rid of the complexity, but that would make your earlier lie about how every attack roll is the same true by eliminating the rules for grappling, tripping your opponent, bull rush, defensive fighting, power attacks, parries, and so forth. This would not be a good thing.

I did not lie, you fucking idiot. Every attack that a generic person can make is basically similar in very significant ways. You cannot vary the strength behind the blow. You cannot vary the number of attacks without Feats or extra weapons or high levels, something that isn't true in actual, you know, combat. You cannot feint. Etc. The grappling rules are nice, and a good addition, but the system is still painfully static. Furthermore, parries are a static value, not a roll.