Tzeentch wrote:
I really don't see any evidence that d20 is designed to not be houseruled any more than any other game. Later in the post you post some core changes you'd have difficulty making, but that really isn't the same thing as the minor changes to aid playability that one might make to any system.
Allright, I concede that. I feel that their attitude toward rule patches is very unforgiving and carries the potential for a lot of trouble, but I can agree that there's a difference between that and real house rules.
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 don't think that trying to balance rules against each other is the same as"asking for" munchkinizing, any more than carrying a gun is asking to be robbed. Furthermore, most games with any kind of task resolution element and multiple ways to be good at task resolution (so I guess that'd be all of them) strive for game balance; a game in which one option is far superior to all others would rightly be looked down upon.
You're right. There greater the number of ways you can arrive at the same destination or assault a problem, the better. My objection toward d20 is that the game encourages the combat solution (or a solution based in combat). Combat, to my mind, should be a means rather than an end. However, combat is simply the superior option in the d20 versions I have played. Rogue 9 has already pointed out that mine is not the standard version of d20, so I feel compelled to note the distinction.
Balance is especially important to D20 because, like Exalted, it strives to make character advancement an entertaining strategic mini-game. It's easy to make a capable character; if you want to optimize your character, it's like a puzzle. This is true for most point-based systems as well, but character advancement is less explicitly a minigame.
That's the crux, I think. You use the word "strategic", and I think that's particularly fitting. Because the advancement leads toward combat capacity or greater levels of combat support, and the rewards are given in the same coin.
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.
It seems like you're contradicting yourself here. Is a system that allows moronism but discourages it good or bad?
Hm, good question. I'd say that any system allows moronism. A system that discourages idiotic behaviour would to my mind be superior to one that encourages it. I guess I've been saying two things in this one point, so I should clarify myself.
I feel that d20 discourages or even disallows me from doing what I feel my character should do in a given situation. I feel it penalizes me for playing my character correctly. Discouragement is only good if the kind of behaviour discouraged is actually bad behaviour.
As far as power level is concerned, as long as the GM and players are all on the same page, what's the problem? Anything else is people acting like morons.
I agree completely. This is a concern that has less to do with the system, however. It is also the reason all systems (except FATAL) can be used and enjoyed.
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."
Hooray for generalizations!
Allright, I was being an asshole. I apologize.
You assume a dictionary definition will be useful in discussing the use of the term in gaming... why?
Because the concept of a "class" doesn't have to be a narrow one. A class is simply a common set of characteristics. It doesn't have to mean a d20 profession, that's all I'm saying.
If you want to get technical, d20 is just the SRD. Either way you cut it, it's not star wars.
Rogue 9 made this clear to me, and so I concede.
Strawman. Using common sense in obvious situations not explicitly described in the rules is not rewriting the system to make it playable.
Conceded.
Yes, d20 markets to newbie gamers, and also to gamists, who you seem to regard as lepers. The discussion on how to use the system is geared towards them because they're the ones most likely to abuse it. That doesn't mean that d20 is only for these people.
I'm just close to being convinced that pure gamist mechanics and role playing is at the opposite end of a spectrum. Yes, I've seen both in happy coexistence, but still... ROLL-playing versus ROLE playing. I feel dirty just for saying that. Still, games that give you few options, games in which you have to fight for or buy the options you should have had to begin with, leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Well, feats yes. Combat manouvers no. To use your two examples, yes, any character can feint before every attack, using the bluff skill. I'm not sure exactly what the intent behind "locking blades" is, but any character can a) try and hit someone else's weapon, b) try and knock a weapon out of someone else's hand, or c) simply fight defensively to bring things to a standstill.
I will admit that this puts a better face on things.
I think I'm still misunderstanding this point. Can you give some more examples (that go beyond the semantics of dodge roll vs. reflex save), preferably contrasted with an "active game." It would also be nice if the contrasted game was not Eon, with which I'm unfamiliar.
Fair enough - I'll strike Eon and any other obscure game from the discussion. I believe you had some experience with the Unisystem? Should I use it as an example, or do you prefer FUDGE?*
* Though I'd rather not use FUDGE, as FUDGE comes in so many flavours
Actually, I'm using "experience points" to refer to any point quantity which you get during/after play and spend to improve the character. In the vast majority, you spend a few points to improve one thing, rather than the extremely abstract levelling of d20.
We seem to agree on that.
I realize you seem to assume that I play nothing but d20, but that's not actually the case. Of the names above, I'm only familiar with FUDGE. A couple of them sound like they're unavailable in the States, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. I know several 10-sided die based systems, but I'm not sure what Tensided is. Care to enlighten me?
It's Arthur Tuxedo's home-grown d20 love child. And I feel sort of cheap for mentioning games you would have no reason to have played. Some of them, though, are rather interesting - particularly combat-wise.
Why do you assume that the abstract term "encounter" refers to an adventure? It simply means something difficult. A week of strenuous weight training can certainly qualify, just as picking a difficult lock can, or bringing in the harvest. How do you think commoners gain levels?
To be honest, I thought commoners usually gained very few levels.
I don't see how it's shocking to allow character improvement during two years of downtime. Just because there isn't a little table for years -> xp doesn't make it forbidden. The game acknowledges that characters can grow without a player at the helm when it lets you start characters at higher than level one.
Doesn't sound like too much of a change really. All right, I agree.
As for the apparent ludicrousness of mounting xp costs...
After a while of lifting one particular weight, it will cease to help you. In order to keep building up strength, you need to go on to something heavier. Similarly, practicing fencing against the same person over and over again ceases to make you better once you significantly exceed them in skill. Is it so surprising that once kobolds are no longer a challenge, you no longer improve your skills by fighting against them? Each level is gained by (iirc) 13 encounters of the appropriate CR; varying CRs mean varying numbers. To improve your skills, you have to actually challenge them. Why exactly is this so bizzare?
I think it's a bit bizarre that you don't gain experience by your example, actually, because the challenge has little to do with the type or the skills of the monster. Put the kobolds in broad daylight, for example, in a pit with you above them, you having a bow. Contrast this to being in a tunnel system, in pitch dark, without a torch (for the sake of argument, assume the kobolds have night vision). The idea is that the combat difficulty often has little to do with the type of enemy compared to the situation. I think it's the legacy of monster XP rearing its head, and it really ought to have been excised.
Let's look at something like the stunt system in Feng Shui (I haven't played much of this game, so forgive me if I'm getting something wrong). The game actually encourages you to do crazy things. You get penalties for being boring, and bonuses for being exciting in combat. Yet "I flip over the heads of the goons, land behind them and shoot them in the back" is a move and an attack. Does this satisfy you, or do you object to the lack of specific rules for the flip, etc?
It actually satisfies me, which is weird because from what I've heard Feng Shui is supposed to be complete crap. Though that might be an example of the system being a bit too loose. I've never played Feng Shui, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance.
The core rules certainly claim to be balanced. However, given that anyone can produce supplemental materials, anyone can make quasi-compatible new games based on the skeleton (Mutants and Masterminds, anyone?), and anyone can produce OGL games like Conan, I'd be amazed if anyone claimed that all d20 material was carefully balanced, or even intended to fit into a campaign world that made RIFTS look cohesive. D20 is a plug and play system because anyone can put out new content or (ding!) variant rulesets, and many effective ones have been made. Core d20, as per the SRD, is balanced against itself, and WoTC generally tries to balance its supplemental materials. Still, they're not all of d20.
Granted. I know too little of the core rules to counter this.
Mutants and Masterminds changed HP out for a damage system more in line with its superhero source material.. OGL Conan made AC into parrying and dodging. BESM d20 goes at least as far (though I found that game hella confusing, to tell the truth). Check out the Grim and Gritty rules on EN World's free download section, and see a much changed and decidedly non-heroic d20 that works quite nicely. I'm sorry you find implementing your desired changes difficult, but this is an argument from incredulity: just because you have trouble doing it doesn't mean it can't be done.
I liked the system of Vitality points in d20 Star Wars - I thought it was tons better than the old HP system. However, I felt that every supplement that came out (including the excellently written Dark Side Sourcebook) seemed to view the rules in a way that was profoundly
alien to my way of thinking. To their minds, Prestige Classes seemed to be something designed to add flavour to otherwise completely bland characters, which meant that from the start, they characters would have little flavour of their own. The balancing reduced the Dark Side characters from fearsome opponents to sad, pathetic geriatric cases. The terminology was completely impenetrable. A Hero wasn't a hero, or even close to the people we see in the movies. A Soldier wasn't a soldier. The dark side was ultimately weaker than the light side. Anakin Skywalker, the "best star-fighter pilot in the galaxy", wasn't a Star Fighter Pilot. An ISD can slaughter another ISD with one broadside, and is reliably killed by twelve X-Wings. Et cetera ad nauseam.
What I mean by all this is that there comes a point when what you can use in a system is outweighed by what you have to change in order to make it work. Like in d20 Star Wars. Which is a problem, as it
looks like it could be made to work.
