PDA

View Full Version : D20 Why the hate?



MukkTB
2012-01-18, 06:40 PM
My group has played some modern D20, some Urban Arcana, and some future. Its a serviceable enough system for telling stories but it does feel a little thin. I'm not interested in defending it. I'm interested in understanding why people think its a mediocre system. Whats wrong with it?

Sidmen
2012-01-18, 06:52 PM
My group has played some modern D20, some Urban Arcana, and some future. Its a serviceable enough system for telling stories but it does feel a little thin. I'm not interested in defending it. I'm interested in understanding why people think its a mediocre system. Whats wrong with it? For me, its the classes. I've slowly started to HATE class-based systems and D20 modern with its "generic" classes seemed to be... I'll just say bad, because I can't think of an appropriate word.

The whole concept behind the classes as generic guides for early levels, but with VERY specific powers really rubbed me the wrong way.

Yora
2012-01-18, 06:55 PM
I think using the Star Wars Saga rules is just a lot neater. d20 Modern has just so many generic things and the presentation just doesn't get me exited.
But even when I strip Saga of all the Star Wars, remove the Jedi and the force, and convert all weapons to modern guns, it still feels a lot more fun and exiting to me.
D20 modern is just extremely bland.

Manateee
2012-01-18, 07:13 PM
For one, it pretends to be something it isn't - a generic and universally applicable system fit for any sort of game. But its mechanics will fight against users at every turn when trying to run a game where meaningful conflict can exist outside a battlemap or where a character isn't wholely constrained to the actions explicitly laid out in their character sheet.

I'm going to use a by-the-book example of a detective game to point out the reasons I have to say that:

PCs show up at the crime scene and look for clues. Players describe the methods they use to look for clues. The GM asks for some Search checks. An especially crafty player will get a +2 bonus on that search, an especially stupid player will get a -2 modifier on the search. Since the skill system is founded on a binary success/failure mechanic, there's only a 10% chance player ingenuity or blockheadedness will affect the outcome at all.

One player might want to Gather Information from the witnesses. But that puts the GM in a tight corner: if he allows it, he's tearing the system apart because giving that away for free would make the Investigator class's ability useless; if he doesn't allow it, he's wrestling against the system for stupid metagamey reasons.

Later, the PCs corner a suspect and engage in high-stakes negotiations. The scene should be big, dramatic and prolonged, but the mechanics are reduced to a single opposed roll. Going beyond that basically means either ripping out the rules system in favor of something more resolved or relying on motivation of the players to become involved in the scene. And again, player input is not likely to mechanically influence the outcome, so the system tries to push them by.

Later, one of the players decides to chase down one of the leading suspect's mooks - an important genre scene - and the rules-heavy system runs out of rules support, beyond comparing movement rates.

Later, when trying to sneak from the mob kingpin's speakeasy to his office in the back, the PCs come up with a bright idea: start a barroom brawl as a distraction, which will even give the resident hot-tempered detective the chance to pop the mobster's bodyguard in the nose as comeuppance for a burning grudge. But when the dice start rolling, they keep rolling and an hour later, the group's run out of time, with little plot advancement beyond a long list of who punched/shot at who in a 30 second burst of violence.

---

Then there's the variance of the d20, which forms the core mechanic. It's a wildly swingy die. Modern responds to this by giving characters some control over its swing with huge lists of tiny and individually inconsequential modifiers. This both makes a huge amount of homework setting up characters and a huge amount of fiddly garbage to push around during the game. (And yes, I know there are worse systems. I don't use them either, if I can help it.)

---

I've been too frustrated with the system's unnecessary difficulty running the kinds of game I like to look too deeply into its merits as a wargame, such as balanced options or tactical nuance. And I haven't even touched its magic rules. I'll leave those to someone else to field.

EDIT:
Also, classes can be useful when you're using them to represent genre archetypes in a genre-driven game. They're unwieldy and obnoxious otherwise. d20 Modern's system falls under 'otherwise.'

EDIT EDIT:
And yes, I know there's a totally valid response to most of my complaints to just "fix it" by handwaving rules in some places and making them up in others. But then, I might as well not be using a structured rule system at all. It's usually easier and more fun to shift to a different system that's more enjoyable, like Fate or Primetime adventures, or more appropriate, like Gumshoe or InSpectres for the above example.

Morghen
2012-01-18, 07:22 PM
Just be glad you're not playing d02 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?31914-My-hate-of-d02-know-no-limit).

Just to Browse
2012-01-18, 07:33 PM
Just be glad you're not playing d02 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?31914-My-hate-of-d02-know-no-limit).

I dunno, it looks pretty cool to me (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm).

erikun
2012-01-18, 07:48 PM
Are we talking about the d20 system in general or d20 Modern in particular?

Anyways, the problems with d20 is that it ends up awkward from just about every perspective you look at it. Combat has four defensive values, one which is almost untrainable and only benefits from equipment, and the other three which are arbitrarily assigned by your classes. HP values make combat either instantly fatal (at 1st level) from any attack, or grants the ability of everybody, with nearly any build, to survive any single attack. The combat grid, especially when combined with above, end up throwing away pretty much any restrictions for movement. This means that common-sense tactics like hiding behind someone else or standing in the way just plain don't mean anything, unless we're talking about a 5' wide doorway. Sure, I might think twice about running past fifty guys with knives, but that 1d8 longsword just doesn't cut it.

Combat maneuvers are confusing and frequently just don't work, even when trained to properly use them. The average toddler with a pointy stick has roughly a 50% chance to prevent someone from picking them up, regardless of how much bigger or faster they are. Conversely, there really is no mechanical way to remove that same toddler who has decided to hug daddy's leg. That might seem like a minor quibble, but when we are talking about a zombie trying to bite an ally or a psycho-murderer trying to slit someone's throat, the inability to pull someone off looks very awkward.

Feats are too few, too little, and too infrequent. Given that they cover stuff like proficient competence in various tasks, I would assume that most people should have more than two or three throughout their whole lives. A "gun expert" who is familiar and practiced with five different unique guns should not need to be represented by a 10th level character.

The skills system is just wacky, with a sharp contrast between the "haves" with invested skill points and the "have-nots". People invested in it could easily open any lock you could come across, while anyone without a strength bonus will encounter trouble with a steep set of stairs. The rolls and encounters strongly encourage a roll-until-your-fail playstyle, further encouraging auto-win specialization or just finding ways to bypass checks.

The choice of attributes discourages any kinds of social encounters, reducing them to a simple die roll with a single variable. The mental attributes are an unusual division, pretty much ignoring being used to allow the character problem-solve or work out mental situations themselves, and are mostly regulated to cover what they see, how much they remember, and how many skills they can be good at.

some guy
2012-01-18, 08:05 PM
Hm, I ran a Call of Cthulhu d20 game. It worked quite good. My only squabble with it is the Gather Information skill. I can deal with the other social skills, but I despise Gather Information. If you want to know something, ask a npc. But it's very easy to just cross that skill off.

Morghen
2012-01-18, 08:27 PM
I dunno, it looks pretty cool to me (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm).Gah! I'd completely forgotten about that.

My favorite part is the character sheet.

Anxe
2012-01-18, 08:36 PM
I don't really like playing in the modern era. I already live in it. I want something at least a little different when I'm roleplaying. Preferably very different. And I feel like d20 is specifically designed for modern games. Star wars works for future and D&D works for past. That's why I don't use d20.

Also, d02 looks awesome for a one-off session.

holywhippet
2012-01-18, 09:15 PM
PCs show up at the crime scene and look for clues. Players describe the methods they use to look for clues. The GM asks for some Search checks. An especially crafty player will get a +2 bonus on that search, an especially stupid player will get a -2 modifier on the search. Since the skill system is founded on a binary success/failure mechanic, there's only a 10% chance player ingenuity or blockheadedness will affect the outcome at all.


I sort of agree and sort of don't. By roleplaying the players might be able to get a bonus to some of their checks. Like if they are searching for clues a player might state they intend to break up the search area into a grid and search each section individually. The DM might reward them with a bonus to search for doing so.

The flipside is, at low levels in particular, that d20 represents a large variable range. If someone has a +2 bonus and someone has a -2 then they might roll a natural 1 and a natural 20 respectively. So the person who has actual talent when it comes to searching ends up a lot worse than someone who has a handicap.

One system I think is better is the most recent Dr Who roleplaying system. IIRC you add your skill, your stat and roll 2d6. Highly skilled characters, even from the very start, have a better chance of succeeding at something they are good at since the total bonuses add up to more and the 2d6 has less effect.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-01-18, 09:27 PM
Honestly I think the major upside with d20 modern (and future) is that it's familiar enough for D&D players to move into without much problems. But it's major downside is just that same thing. You got a game trying to be D&D but in a modern setting... and yet lacking the one thing that makes people stick to D&D, it's massive amounts of options. Sure D&D may be class based and has it's flaws, but darn it if you can think of it we can find the rules to build it. d20 modern? Not to much.

That said I don't think it's a bad system, just a bit bland, and well, I don't RP to get even more into real life stuff. I got the news for that. (Either give me extremely high sci-fi, fantasy... or possibly Shadowrun.)

Winds
2012-01-18, 09:50 PM
I enjoyed d20. I like having the modern to head for without just patching firearms into what is otherwise a straight fantasy setting. I'd like to point out that several of the 'problems' make it a good trainer for normal D&D. The HP thing, for example, gives the chance to practice combat without dying to a mistake or a good roll from your enemy. The simplified classes can allow a player to pick a more limited list of abilities that focus on one stat and what it means to the character. I agree that these things can present a problem to folks that like straight-out D&D, but really, the problem I ended having was that it was juuuuust different enough to mess up the build I was tying for without the benefit of having a fresh experience.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-01-18, 10:36 PM
I enjoyed d20. I like having the modern to head for without just patching firearms into what is otherwise a straight fantasy setting. I'd like to point out that several of the 'problems' make it a good trainer for normal D&D. The HP thing, for example, gives the chance to practice combat without dying to a mistake or a good roll from your enemy. The simplified classes can allow a player to pick a more limited list of abilities that focus on one stat and what it means to the character. I agree that these things can present a problem to folks that like straight-out D&D, but really, the problem I ended having was that it was juuuuust different enough to mess up the build I was tying for without the benefit of having a fresh experience.

You can still do the "trainer" thing with DnD by just saying "We're doing PBH ONLY, no if's, and's or but's.". As for the modern feel, I agree that patching firearms into a straight up fantasy setting is horrible and if you're going for a pure modern feel D20 modern does the job pretty decently, but there are other systems that does it better and with more options. But yes, if you just want a change from the standard fantasy setting but don't wanna learn a whole new system, it's not bad at what it does, especially not if you include D2 Future (whatever from it applies..) and changes some wealth DC's to reflect that, well it's +10 years old now, computers aren't super expensive and broadband connections are common. You know, minor things like that. (I do have to say I like it's wealth system...)

horseboy
2012-01-19, 06:32 AM
Are we talking about the d20 system in general or d20 Modern in particular?

There's a difference? :smallamused:

To sum it up succulency: Why play a bad game when there's so many good ones out there?

DigoDragon
2012-01-19, 07:49 AM
I'll agree that d20 Modern is a bland system. However, I don't think it's a hopeless system.
My group wanted to play d20 modern despite it's blandness and we were determined to make it work. Using our years of experience with D&D, we inserted house-rules and homebrew content into the core mechanics to fix what we perceived were issues and to add options and spice to the few present options. What we ended up with was a really good "X-Files" style campaign that we all had fun playing.

Sure, it took work and tweaks to the system to make it playable, but we found it worth the effort. And I think anything worthwhile in life require some work. :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2012-01-19, 09:46 AM
My group has played some modern D20, some Urban Arcana, and some future. Its a serviceable enough system for telling stories but it does feel a little thin. I'm not interested in defending it. I'm interested in understanding why people think its a mediocre system. Whats wrong with it?

I can, in core and by RAW, fill the entire world with explosives at the start of the game in modern.

On the other hand, in future, mech-mounted weapons frequently do less damage than hand held ones, and make you into a giant target. You're better off hanging out of the mech shooting with your sidearm than using the onboard cannon.

So, balance is...a bit rough around the edges.

nyarlathotep
2012-01-19, 09:56 AM
There's a difference? :smallamused:

To sum it up succulency: Why play a bad game when there's so many good ones out there?

Same reason I play GURPS. As the player I like to have several mechanically interesting option for character build and action which a number of systems have an irritating lack of. As a Gm I like to build my own world mostly from scratch and a large number of RPGs have an annoying habit of having rules and default setting very intertwined, and if I don't use the pre-established fluff the people that were pushing for that system tend to get pushy.

Yora
2012-01-19, 10:10 AM
I'll agree that d20 Modern is a bland system. However, I don't think it's a hopeless system.
My group wanted to play d20 modern despite it's blandness and we were determined to make it work. Using our years of experience with D&D, we inserted house-rules and homebrew content into the core mechanics to fix what we perceived were issues and to add options and spice to the few present options. What we ended up with was a really good "X-Files" style campaign that we all had fun playing.
With many other RPGs, you read the books and get all exited "I so want to play this". The d20 modern books don't do that.
You need to be exited about a campaign concept first and then you can make characters using the rules. You never get the feeling that there is something in the books you want to try out.

Fiery Diamond
2012-01-19, 05:13 PM
There's a difference? :smallamused:

To sum it up succulency: Why play a bad game when there's so many good ones out there?

Firstly: I think you meant succinctly, unless you think your summary was juicy and delicious, in which case you meant succulently. Succulency is the noun form of succulent. :smallbiggrin:

Secondly, yes, there's a gigantic difference. Saying "D20 in general" refers to any system that uses the rolling of a D20 as the primary mechanic. This mechanic is basically rolling a d20, adding or subtracting modifiers, and comparing the result to some target. (Though I'm sure that variations on that mechanic exist). D&D is a d20 game, and so are a lot of others. A d20 game doesn't even need to have classes; it's perfectly possible to make a classless d20 system.

To answer your question: because many people stick to whatever they are initially exposed to. Also, your definition of bad may not be the same as someone else's. I haven't had the opportunity to play anything other than D&D. If the rules for a system are free to view online, then yeah, there's no real reason not to check them out and see how they work, but it's still learning a new system. And despite popular belief, if you've played a system long enough it is EASIER to bend it over backwards through DM calls and houserules to make it do what you want than it is to learn and convert to a new system that does those things more naturally.

Also, there's the issue of lack of exposure. Unless someone links to it in a place I frequent or a friend hands me the rules, why should I (or anyone) bother to seek out and learn a new system that might do some things better? If I can brute force a system that I'm familiar with into doing something that I want through specific rulings or houserules, why should I care that another system does those things better? People tend to stick to what they are already familiar with, and if you only know one system, that's what you work from.

Also, I'm really only aware of the existence of four different base mechanics: d20 (familiar with), d100 (know how it works), xdx (use a set number of dice of a certain number of sides, such as the 2d6 thing mentioned above; this is generally functionally equivalent to d20 only less swingy and with a different result distribution); and dice pools (which usually end up having you count "number of successes"). Enlighten me - what other varieties of base mechanics are out there, and why do you think that whatever ones you think are superior are superior?

(For the record, the idea of counting successes just strikes me as weird and aesthetically displeasing. If I'm using dice, I want all the specific numbers that can come up to matter.)

erikun
2012-01-19, 05:43 PM
Firstly: I think you meant succinctly, unless you think your summary was juicy and delicious, in which case you meant succulently. Succulency is the noun form of succulent. :smallbiggrin:
Huh, never knew there was a word succinctly. Then again, I don't think I've even tried to use that word in that way before, so I doubt I've been misusing succulently.


Secondly, yes, there's a gigantic difference. Saying "D20 in general" refers to any system that uses the rolling of a D20 as the primary mechanic. This mechanic is basically rolling a d20, adding or subtracting modifiers, and comparing the result to some target. (Though I'm sure that variations on that mechanic exist). D&D is a d20 game, and so are a lot of others. A d20 game doesn't even need to have classes; it's perfectly possible to make a classless d20 system.
While it is true that any system using a d20 could be called a "d20 system", there is an actual published d20 System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D20_System) that has published material such as skills, abilities, to-hit bonuses, as so forth. When someone is talking about using the d20 System or a game that uses the d20 System, they are probably talking about this system, as opposed to just simply using a d20 die and that's it.


Also, I'm really only aware of the existence of four different base mechanics: d20 (familiar with), d100 (know how it works), xdx (use a set number of dice of a certain number of sides, such as the 2d6 thing mentioned above; this is generally functionally equivalent to d20 only less swingy and with a different result distribution); and dice pools (which usually end up having you count "number of successes"). Enlighten me - what other varieties of base mechanics are out there, and why do you think that whatever ones you think are superior are superior?
Variants include roll over vs. roll under, adding variables to dice vs. adding variables to the difficulty, "pairing" dice in dice pools to calculate successes, Fudge dice (values from +1 to -1), various uses of diceless systems, and systems that use a randomizer other than dice. There are also dice pool systems that use different sizes of dice, or where the "target number" can vary.

I like the idea behind a roll-under d% system, because then difficulty values can equal the actual chance of succeeding at a task. Fudge dice (typically 2dF for the Fudge system) will vary success within two "ranks" of the skill level, meaning that exceptionally skilled people don't fail trivial tasks and pure novices don't accidentally create space-age technology 1:20 times.

I also prefer dice pool systems, as ever since Star Wars d6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Roleplaying_Game_(West_End_Games)) I've been tired of adding up 30 dice to see the outcome of a wildly swingy roll. (As a side note, that game uses the D6 System - which, again, is different than just saying the system used d6 dice.)

Manateee
2012-01-19, 05:51 PM
Secondly, yes, there's a gigantic difference. Saying "D20 in general" refers to any system that uses the rolling of a D20 as the primary mechanic.
Um, no.

"d20 system" refers to a specific family of games originating with D&D 3e. Most are just rules-tweaks from 3e, but all share the same general structure (I wrote a list of shared mechanics, but it was long and dry; basically just look at a D&D 3e character sheet for a rundown).

Yes, you can use "d20" to refer to other things. But if you mention playing a d20 game, then talk about some mechanic in Villains & Vigilantes, nobody's going to have any idea what you're talking about.

EDIT EDIT:
There are tons of mechanics engines. Not all involving dice. For instance, I played Dread last weekend. Its core mechanic is Jenga.

horseboy
2012-01-19, 06:02 PM
Firstly: I think you meant succinctly, unless you think your summary was juicy and delicious, in which case you meant succulently. Succulency is the noun form of succulent. :smallbiggrin:
Yeah, spellchecker error.

Secondly, systems that will do "modern" better than a "d20" system off the top of my head:

Shadowrun do not grognard over 4th edition, do not grognard over 4th edition.
Cyberpunk. It'd be FAR easier to just strip the chrome out of these two than try and make guns work in a D&D clone, then fix all of D&D's OTHER problems.
Call of Chtulthu
Hot Chicks

Two of these are brought up regularly on these forums. A third anytime cyberware comes up in a topic. The fourth is still a bronze best seller on DrivethruRpg.com.

erikun
2012-01-19, 06:19 PM
Actually, I am not familiar with that many systems that work with the modern setting. Most are either fantasy or sci-fi, and I'm not sure how well removing all the tech from Shadowrun or Star Wars will work out. World of Darkness does comes to mind, but not all modern games would be fitting for the WoD ruleset. Call of Chtulthu would probably have the same problems, I'd think.

I'm sure I could put together a modern setting in Fudge (along with anything else), but that would still be a sizeable amount of work to set up.

Not familiar with Hot Chicks, I'm afraid. Yes, I realize how that came out.

horseboy
2012-01-19, 06:44 PM
Nah, Shadowrun actually does WoD and Rifts better than their home systems. It's very malleable, so a "mundane" only campaign would be no problem.
Chaosium uses the same mechanics for every one of their systems. If it can do Stormcaller and dolphin riding elves then it can do an Apocalypse Now story very well.
I'd actually forgotten about WoD, but yeah, just grab a copy of Hunter: The Reckoning, and instead of monsters you fight criminals.

Manateee
2012-01-19, 07:21 PM
There are tons of good modern games.

Just that I've played in the past couple months, I can think of Fiasco, Spirit of the Century, Fear Itself, InSpectres, Crimes People Play, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Wilderness of Mirrors, Little Fears, Spycraft and Mutants and Masterminds.

The latter two are even d20 games, but they do it well - they focus on a genre where the system fits (Spy action-fiction and superheroes, respectively), they readjust and focus the system on that genre (adding systems for the dramatic involved spy genre scenes to play out in a more dramatic involved fashion) and they don't make claims that would push the system in a different direction.

There are plenty of other modern-specific games, and plenty of better generic systems. d20 Modern is not filling some unique niche.

Raum
2012-01-19, 07:45 PM
Saying "D20 in general" refers to any system that uses the rolling of a D20 as the primary mechanic. As a couple of others noted, d20 applies to a specific family of systems. The 'd20' trademark is owned by WotC / Hasbro and is specifically defined - I believe in the OGL.


My group has played some modern D20, some Urban Arcana, and some future. Its a serviceable enough system for telling stories but it does feel a little thin. I'm not interested in defending it. While I'm not a big fan of d20, it's not "hate" - I will play. There are simply systems I like better.


I'm interested in understanding why people think its a mediocre system. Whats wrong with it?One of the largest issues is simply the fake 'advancement'. It's a treadmill. You level up and get better but so do your opponents*. Making any net power gains minimal at best. To make it worse, this leads to additional jarring issues like leaving town afraid of the cops and coming back capable of taking the whole town on...with one hand tied behind your back. Some variants (such as wounds / vitality) do minimize this...but it's not the only problem.

The problems are fixable, some derivatives have done a reasonable job. I simply find it more enjoyable to play something else than to spend time applying patches. :)

*Goblins one day, orcs the next, then maybe ogres or giants. Eventually you can kill dragons. But, from an actual game play point of view, little has changed. You probably still spend 40-60% of your hit points and powerful spells in a given combat. The names change, but nothing is really different.