TheRPGSite

Since I don't personally appreciate these products, I thought I should be the one to start the discussion on them.  

I have my own reasons, which have been posted on various threads in pieces and parts, but I'm curious why others hate them.  

Not to be exclusionary, I'm interested to know, from those who love D&D and D20, what they think of the statements, comments and vitriol?

At the same time, I think I should apologize to anyone who has taken my personal preferences as an attack on something they love.  I don't hate those who love them (though I will poke jibes occasionally) ;), I simply have no interest, desire or love for them myself.  It's sort of like my complete dislike of sports, reality TV and hot dogs.  I'm not trying to stop anyone from enjoying these things, but I will never find enjoyment in them, myself.

So, whatcha got? :)

Personally, I like d20, but I'm not one of the cultists (I like other games too). When someone tells me how much they hate everything d20, I assume that they're speaking from ignorance, I tend to respect other peoples' right to ignorance.
-Zam

Quote from: VellorianNot to be exclusionary, I'm interested to know, from those who love D&D and D20, what they think of the statements, comments and vitriol?

I like d20. I've gamed since 1979, and it seems like a good iteration of the original D&D to me.

The negative comments - 3tards, d20 is too complicated, it's all about powergaming, roleplaying is impossible with it - are old. They're just old. As I've said elsewhere, it's just geeks calling geeks geeks. It's not fun, it's not interesting, it's not conducive to good conversation. I may dislike certain games, but I don't feel the need to threadcrap every. single. time. someone posts about those games I dislike. If I have something constructive to add to the conversation, I'll do so, but if all I'm gonna do is proselytize about how my game of choice is so much superior to the game being discussed, and imply that those who like that game are somehow inferior, what's the point? I'm not gonna convince anyone that I'm right by coming off as a smarmy prick.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying to shut up if you dislike d20. I'm just saying that if you have legitimate beefs with the game, and favor another over it, why not express that in a mature way that doesn't come off as bashing the game or the players? Detail out your preferences in a game system, and compare and contrast that with d20 (or whatever game is disliked). That would be interesting to me, and would engender more a feeling of mutual respect and understanding - I may not like your game of choice, but that doesn't mean you're an idiot.

Anytime anyone hyperbolizes about a game - "Game X is completely incapable of being played" - "Game X is for powergaming teenagers only" - "I'm proud to steer my friends and family away from Game X" - "Game X is the antiChrist of RPGs" - it sets off my bullshit-detector. It's just inflammatory and adds nothing.

D&D in all it forms breaks my own personal rules of realism (as presented in one of the Elements articles), it also simulates none of the key concepts I like in the fantasy genre and actively works against many of them. In general, for me it's a terrible design.

The designer notes for Age of Heroes contains more on the subject, but you can't have those :)

I do however respect it for what it is.

No hatred of d20, just disinterest. I spent 20 years running AD&D, and while it wasn't optimal, I could house rule it to be what I wanted. I wanted to run various other games - I tried it, repeatedly, but after a session or two, my players wanted to go back to AD&D. I sucked it up, and kept it all going. When 3rd edition cam out, I bought the PHB and read it. I realized they had refocused an unfocused mess and streamlined the system, but had focused it on an aspect of the game I didn't care for. House-ruling this baby would be like dragging a boulder up a hill. I was just burned out from 20 years of the same old same old, and had been counting on the new version to re-energize me. Instead I stopped the game, dismissed the players, and took a few months off.

Then I started up a new group with old 2nd Ed. AD&D. It was OK, though boring, but after a year or so, I ran a game I had designed myself. To my utter shock, my players loved it and preferred it to D&D, and urged me to get it ready for production. I haven't looked back since. My new players get a kick out of new systems, love playtesting, and enjoy new settings for old systems. I think I died and went to heaven!

Where were these people twenty years ago? They mostly weren't born yet. They love roleplaying for itself. I think my old group played mostly for the social interaction with friends. I didn't realize this until I started the new group.

-mice

To a great extent, the hostility is motivated by the predominate position of d20 D&D in the RPG market.  Any product that dominates a particular market (whether Starbucks, Microsoft, or D&D) will tend to attract a fair bit of hostility simply because of its position.

Less irrationally, the general identification of RPGs with D&D, and D&D's dominance of the market, can make it hard for some people to convince the gamers with whom they associate to try other games, which can be frustrating.

Neither of these things have to do with the content of d20 D&D itself, of course.  

There also exists a frustration with the endless series of 'splat books' that are produced for d20 D&D, and which seem to encourage a certain kind of 'power gamer' (or whatever) mentality.  Of course, one could (and IMO generally should) ignore these books, but walking in the RPG section of a store and seeing a shelf dominated with the DMG2, PH2, Complete Arcane, Races of the Wild, etc., can lead some people to roll their eyes in irritation.

Quote from: Vellorian... from those who love D&D and D20 ...

You seem to be identifying 'D&D' with the 'd20 version' of the game here.  However, one source of hostility, to 3e at least, is from people who think that the d20 version of D&D is not 'D&D'.  I sympathise with this view, as 3e does indeed break with earlier versions of the game in many fundamental respects.  To a great extent, 3e feels almost as much of a different game from, say, the RC version D&D or 1e/2e AD&D, as does Rolemaster or GURPS.  So there exists considerable hostility towards 3e among 'grognards' who liked earlier versions of the game.  As someone who thinks that the RC version of D&D is the best version ever produced, I can understand this sentiment.

(To see what I'm getting at, note the fact that a module produced for any pre-3e version of D&D can be used with very little work for anyother pre-3e version of D&D.  E.g. a module for Basic D&D can be used with 1e AD&D with almost no work -- simply modify the ACs, add some hit points, and give the cleric a couple more spells.  In contrast, converting a module from 3e to any version of pre-3e D&D, or vice versa, is a major task -- equivalent to converting a module for MERP into D&D terms.)

The internet is nirvana for poseurs and self-designated experts.  What's the quickest way to set yourself up as elite?  Knock on what's popular.   Entire boards are propped up by the trend of slamming what's common and putting the obscure on pedestals.

I think this accounts for most of the criticism of D&D/D20, whether the the critics will admit it, even to themselves.  Most of the critics obviously speak from ignorance.  For example, anyone who characterizes CoC D20 as D&D with Mythos creatures obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

This isn't to say that D&D/D20 is perfect or a panacea.  I like honest critiques and analysis of the system.  I don't mind hate but I despise hate born of ignorance.  On Nothingland and the earlier incarnation of this board, we've had much dD20 hate that was well deserved, discussing what works and what doesn't what styles just won't work and what could be changed but still have D&D.

Beyond the details of the rules, D20 has aspects of playstyle that you either have to buy into or put in lots of  work to change.  It's not genre per se, I think D20 can do modern, sf, horror, etc.  It's a play style, D20 works well for moderately crunchy pulp and a particular style of heroic characters.  Of course D20 isn't realistic, it has never tried to be.

The base system is reasonably flexible.  For example, don't like high level, nigh invulnerable characters?  Just tweak the level-XP table.  But, beyond a certain point, it's just easier to start with a totally different system.

Well, if one is going to go to the effort of hating something, it really should be something people are aware of.

So, hating d20, hating White Wolf, hating Palladium, hell even hating the Forge, at least people know what you're talking about.

But if I went around hating Creeks and Crawdads most people wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about.

So, you need to pick your target well.

Quote from: NicephorusT
Beyond the details of the rules, D20 has aspects of playstyle that you either have to buy into or put in lots of  work to change.  It's not genre per se, I think D20 can do modern, sf, horror, etc.  It's a play style, D20 works well for moderately crunchy pulp and a particular style of heroic characters.  Of course D20 isn't realistic, it has never tried to be.

Bingo. I think the D20 version of D&D (3.x) is extra-ordinarily well designed and extremely focused on a kind of gaming I'm not interested in. No hate, just indifference. To me it's like Universalis, or My Life with Master.

-mice

It's all about the counter-culture, man. All us hip faux-beatniks in our turtleneck sweaters, puffing on our fake doobies, are sticking it to the man with our innovative, never seen before, cutting edge poems. :pundit:

*more than a little tongue in cheek*

In my own case, I purchased the new 3e rules in 2001 with great enthusiasm.  I carefully planned a campaign, which I ran from the fall of 2001 through the summer of 2002 with some friends from grad school (during my final year of grad school).

It was a bit of a shock.  At first I really liked the rules -- indeed, I thought that they appropriated many of the things that I remembered liking the most about MERP (the skill point system; the rolling high is 'always better' mechanic).

However, as the game sessions progressed, I found that the amount of prep work that I had to do was surprisingly large -- and tedious.  Combat progressed much slower than I thought it should (to some extent this was because we were becoming familiar with the rules, but the problem never fully went away), and generally required a battlemat (which I disliked using).  As additional magic items and spells started playing a role in the game, combat (and other tactical situations) slowed even more.  I found that we were looking up rules far too much during the game -- even after months of playing.

The campaign was a great success -- but this was despite the problems that we had with the rules.    

For a while I thought that the problem was with me, namely, that I simply was not adequately familiar with the rules.  But then I ran a second campaign with a different group in 2004-2005 (many members of that group knew the rules quite well, indeed, better than myself), and most of the same problems reappeared.   After that campaign we switched to 'Castles and Crusades' (I continued to use the same homebrew setting), and most of the frustrations that I had with 3e disappeared.  (Unfortunately I moved shortly afterwards, and so could not continue with that campaign.)

So, for me, the problems with 3e D&D are the following:

1.  The prep work needed to DM one's own adventures (or at least the kind of adventures I like to run).

2.  The combat system, which seems to be rather slow (especially at higher levels), and requires a battlemat or equivalent (at least for me; I would have a hard time keeping track of AoOs, etc., without some kind of graphical representation).

3. The number of variables that need to be taken into account for different actions (including, but not limited to, combat).  The main culprit here IME is the magic system -- viz. the many different magic items and spells that can interact with each other in complicated ways, and which take time to calculate (especially at higher levels).

4.  Default 'balance' assumptions in the game, for example, about the appropriate number of magic items necessary at various levels for the PCs (to some extent, at least at the lower levels, this can be ignored).

5.  Specific features of the game: sorcerers bug me, certain spells can be game-wreckers (at least for the kinds of games I like to run), etc.  However, I will be the first to concede that this complaint (unlike most of the others) is easily addressed through house rules.

So that's why I'm not nearly as much of a fan of 3e D&D as I wanted to be.  Of the above complaints, 1-3 are the most serious (for me).  Since I very likely will be running a 3e campaign again soon -- the cruel fact of the matter is that, because of its dominant position, it simply is easier to find new D&D players for a game than it is to find players for any other RPG -- I am thinking about ways to address these problems.  I've solved 1 by deciding to run mainly published modules (albeit tweaked to fit my homebrew setting).  I'm still thinking about how to 'fix' the other problems, and might start a separate thread at some point to address them ...

Quote from: Akrasia2.  The combat system, which seems to be rather slow (especially at higher levels)...

3. The number of variables that need to be taken into account for different actions ...the many different magic items and spells that can interact...

I really like 3E D&D.  But beyond a certain character level, I find it tedious for these very reasons.  Between 5-10 items and 4-5 spells per person that modify die rolls, it's a ton to keep track of.  My main solution is to structure the world and the XP such that 10th level is high level and 15th or so is the best in the world.

Oh, and I like home made adventures but I generally steal stat blocks from published sources and use NPC generators and slightly tweak them because it take quite a while to create a high level character.

Quote from: flyingmiceBingo. I think the D20 version of D&D (3.x) is extra-ordinarily well designed and extremely focused on a kind of gaming I'm not interested in. No hate, just indifference. To me it's like Universalis, or My Life with Master.

That's largely what it is for me, although I can't say that I'm not interested in the general playstyle. I just have other interests, and there are a couple of things about D&D that really grate on me and I see resulting in bad things (in my experience) at the table in the long run. I think also in someways they've been leapfrogged.  As such I'll definately go back to D&D to take a look at 4e to see what they've done there.  Because yeah 3e I think was a well produced product that largely hit it's design mark (for better and worse). It'll be very interesting to see how they move forward with 4e.

AD&D though? Especially 2e....ARRRRGG! I don't have so much a problem with basic premise of the playstyle as I do with a lot of the excution. :(  But then that was yesterday's product built using the knowledge of the times.  I think C&C, inspite of it's warts, is ultimately a better AD&D than AD&D. Tight, and narrow boundries of character definitions and relatively "loose" rules.

Nothing but love, baby. :D

I'm honestly a bit burnt out on D&D, though there are many more things I want to do with it.

I'm still fully on board with the D20/OGL variants.

I don't have anythin in particular against d20.

it just seems a bit to much video gamish to me. I still play it from time to time and have fun when I do. Just not my thing.

Quote from: blakkieAD&D though? Especially 2e....ARRRRGG! I don't have so much a problem with basic premise of the playstyle as I do with a lot of the excution. :(  But then that was yesterday's product built using the knowledge of the times.  I think C&C, inspite of it's warts, is ultimately a better AD&D than AD&D. Tight, and narrow boundries of character definitions and relatively "loose" rules.

You understand I wasn't running AD&D, I was running an extensively house-ruled game founded in AD&D. For all it's mess - and it was a mess - AD&D was exceedingly easy to house-rule. House-ruling 3.x is like prying open a clam with yout fingernails.

-mice

It's not my favorite system out there, but I can still play it and have fun--and I'm GMing it now, and my players (many of them brand-new to the hobby) definitely enjoy it.  Not my first system of choice, but well far from being my last.

Quote from: flyingmiceYou understand I wasn't running AD&D, I was running an extensively house-ruled game founded in AD&D. For all it's mess - and it was a mess - AD&D was exceedingly easy to house-rule. House-ruling 3.x is like prying open a clam with yout fingernails.

I've never found it to be so, at least not for the sorts of house rules I've found meaningful. Indeed, the fact that it builds from a consistent baseline makes it easy to build on the existing structure of the game.

Some house rules you need to be a bit trickier about and I see what you are getting at. My injury house rule explicitly avoids revolving around to hit numbers/crits, because that would mean re-jiggering the weapons tables.

Fortunately, since I did play AD&D, which almost requires house ruling, I developed the survival skill of being good at house ruling, so I managed.

I love D&D so obviously the question isn't aimed at me.

Here's what I suspect:

If you hate D&D, yet somehow find the need to talk about it constantly, I totally suspect it's because your'e trying to make cool points and puff yourself up, probably because you suck as a human being. There isn't many other conclusions I can come to. Likewise with the "well, D&D is a mark of someone with social problems.." smear. I always kinda nod my head and go "oh yeah, I get it. You suck as a human being so you have to sorta project the blame.. totally understandable.."

Plenty of people don't like/outright dislike/totally hate D&D, but they also don't have the need to belabor the point.

:emot-flowers:

I have to agree with the other poster that I don't see that there is much hate.  D&D/D20 is even fairly popular with the indie crowd (who more commonly bash on White Wolf).  Levi Kornelsen's Perfect20 variant won the the Indie RPG Award prize for Best Free Game this year, for example, and there's a lot of buzz over Iron Heroes and Spycraft.  

Personally, I've given it as fair a shot as I can (played in two campaigns and GMed several D20 or D20-variant one-shots), and I conclude I don't like it.  Is this the sort of hate we're talking about and should I thus explain my reasons, or are we talking about something else?

Quote from: jhkimPersonally, I've given it as fair a shot as I can (played in two campaigns and GMed several D20 or D20-variant one-shots), and I conclude I don't like it.  Is this the sort of hate we're talking about and should I thus explain my reasons, or are we talking about something else?

That hardly sounds like hate, more like reasoned personal dislike.

I think they're talking about the kind of guys who come into d20 threads expressly to knock it, as some kind of personal crusade.

Yeah - I haven't seen the unreasoning hatred I used to see a couple of years ago for quite some time, and not at all here.

-mice

Quote from: flyingmiceYeah - I haven't seen the unreasoning hatred I used to see a couple of years ago for quite some time, and not at all here.

I used to see it all the time on RPGnet (anyone remember Kamikaze?) But eventually, even RPGnet of all places seemed to grow weary of it and it seemed to happen less and less often, though there is still the occasional grandstanding anti-D&D threadcrapper.

Ah... It's up to me to save the day then with vitriol and bile and... well... Hate?

Woe unto thee, D&D lovers, for Spike hath spake much on the topic of thine favorite game, and it is verily like a vast sewage pit and stinketh much...


Naw.

Stuff I don't like. Levels, Classes... in revolving order but together just....grrr..

Hit point pools of DOOM!  Armor that makes you harder to hit rather than harder to hurt.

The never ending array of badly designed, badly conceived Feats (or prestige classes, or...)

Optimal 'Builds' overshadowing 'character concepts'.  Lethal housecats and weapons that merely tickle (see again levels and Hit points....)

Fifty shelves of D&D books.  Not being able to find players for other games due to the D&D love. Not being able to find an excellent setting that should have decent mechanics, because the designers decided to go with the easy out (Iron Kingdoms, I'm looking at YOU!) Excellent settings that had excellent mechanics that died because some jackass thought trying to release an OGL version was a good idea (Fading Suns, I'm looking at YOU.... Heavy Gear et al... still dying out but...yeah you get it)

Players coming to me with some broken ass Prestige Class (or even new 'core class'... battlemage I'm looking at YOU) that has absolutely no place in the setting I'm running, and whining like I kicked their dog when I say No.  That's right, some players can NOT accept that the PHB and whatever prepublished setting guide we might be using are the ONLY authorized books to build characters from. (XXX I'm looking at... aw fuck it, you get it already)

Unlike most posters here and elsewhere I DO like 3E a LOT better than I liked AD&D.  I find it neither harder or easier to houserule.  I like the basics of the system, I've found a handful of variants that are fun and easy to play.  Combat can be slow, but it can also be brutally fast if you don't try to get bogged down in rules lawyering.  I just don't personally like too many of the 'sacred cows'. Okay, don't generally like sacred cows (hmm... hamburger...)... to like the game.  

Spike has spoken.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI used to see it all the time on RPGnet (anyone remember Kamikaze?) But eventually, even RPGnet of all places seemed to grow weary of it and it seemed to happen less and less often, though there is still the occasional grandstanding anti-D&D threadcrapper.

Yeah, the "hat of d02" has simmered down, for the most part. Now, it mostly manifests in smug snarkiness from true gaming "auteurs." It's mostly a general attitude of condescencion than outright hostility.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonYeah, the "hat of d02" has simmered down, for the most part. Now, it mostly manifests in smug snarkiness from true gaming "auteurs." It's mostly a general attitude of condescencion than outright hostility.

I'd agree with this.  Because we know that truly enlightened gamers would never play anythng so sophomoric, silly, and munchkin as D&D--they'd rather do something with artistic merit, like wield a Daiklave.

At its core the d20 system is simple and good. It's when you add all the crap that you get problems.

Feats for example. Nine times out of ten you're dealing with stuff that aint that hard to learn. You applied the rules regarding two weapon fighting strictly the typical person in a d20 world wouldn't be able to use a knife and fork to eat meat with.

And combat is a malconceived mess. I say stuff static initiative and the crap they call attacks of opportunity. I've been in fights, video games don't even come close to accurately modeling them. It's bad Gamist, and that I hate.

Put me in charge of D&D 4e and you'd see a much better RPG.

Quote from: mythusmage... Put me in charge of D&D 4e and you'd see a much better RPG.

Well, you have my vote.  :)

I don't know if I hate D&D, but I certainly don't love it anymore...  Well, heck:

A "Dear D&D" letter:

Oh baby, I'm so sorry. It's not you, really. It's me. We're just not compatible.

I know you changed a lot over these past few decades, and I know you've tried your hardest to make me like you, but you just haven't changed the right things. You did a great job, Baby, when you switched to Third Edition, and I thought the changes you made would help our relationship. But Baby, it just wasn't enough. I love that you accepted a unified mechanic, even if you didn't feel the need to apply it to turning undead, but you still kept ablative hit points, and armor that makes you harder to hit, and classes.

And Baby, oh Baby, why couldn't you change fire-and-forget spellcasting? The sorcerer was a good try at fixing the magic system, but then you had to punish it by making it less flexible compared to your true love, the wizard.

I know you can change more. I know you've got modular parts, and new magic systems like psionics and Incarnum, but it just ain't enough. Fire-and-forget magic will always be your favorite, and it shows in how you treated those half-assed magic systems.

Baby, I'm so sorry. I know you have alternate rules for almost everything, and I loved that Unearthed Arcana gift you gave me a few years ago, but when I play a game, I shouldn't have to rewrite the whole game system.

There's just too much to change, Baby. And all you do is keep churning out more supplements, with more rules and feats and prestige classes. It just ain't enough.

No, baby. changing to 3.6 won't do it either, nor will changing to 4th Edition, not unless you make bigger changes than you're willing to make.

I need a simpler and faster system. I need something that doesn't require so many books. I need a system that handles multiple genres without feeling like medieval fantasy carelessly tossed into a different environment. And I need to play a game where all medieval fantasy doesn't feel the same. Sure, you got your pretty Faerun and Eberron books, but they're still nothing new, baby.

Yeah. I still love you. I can't forget all those years we spent together, and all those inside jokes like the Umber Hulk and the Beholder and AC and THAC0. And we had a lot of great times together, Baby. We really did. I swear to God.

But really, I want a game where competent characters can still be threatened by a bunch of zombies. I want a game where experienced characters aren't loaded down with tons and tons of magic items. Baby, I need a game where combat doesn't take three hours.

Please don't cry, Baby. I'll come back every now and then to visit. I just can't stay with you any more.

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, you have my vote.  :)

Hey, if AoO go away, I could get behind that.

Quote from: mythusmageAnd combat is a malconceived mess. I say stuff static initiative and the crap they call attacks of opportunity. I've been in fights, video games don't even come close to accurately modeling them. It's bad Gamist, and that I hate.

Put me in charge of D&D 4e and you'd see a much better RPG.

No thinks, AOO was one of the cool things in 4e.

Quote from: gleichmanNo thinks, AOO was one of the cool things in 4e.

Okay, you definitely do not get my vote to be in charge of 4e!  ;)

Quote from: AkrasiaOkay, you definitely do not get my vote to be in charge of 4e!  ;)

Rats!

And I already had this 180 pape book to slide in it's place too. :)

I don't mind playing it, running it on the other hand, invovles more work than I'm willing to put in.

So what's the deal with AoO? I know the abbreviation means "Attacks of Opportunity". I also have a vague idea that they're a bit like the use of Zones of Control and Opportunity Fire in wargames--a way to keep people from taking advantage of the sequence of play (nonsimultaneous execution of movement and combat) to zip around while ignoring people who "in real life" would threaten them as they move.

In short it sounds like a good idea to me, so what's the problem?

Bear in mind that I haven't played anything in the D&D family of games since the 80's.

Elliot:

I think the issue is less that they exist, but rather the means by which you use them.  A great deal of confusion, of wailing and gnashing of teeth arises when teh topic comes up because it is so damned confusing to a great number of people. Then there comes up the topic of 'builds', like the slightly infamous 'spiked chain' build, designed solely to exploit AoO's.


Or course, it could just be that some people are whiney bitches and don't like having to face the fact that AoO's were meant to solve a real issue, for better or worse.:D

I like D20. I like the vancian spell system. I like hit points.

What's wrong with me?

Quote from: Myst3ry M@nI like D20. I like the vancian spell system. I like hit points.

What's wrong with me?

Based on your picture, I think you put your head in a vice and you're probably going to die of lung cancer.  ;)

p.s. Oh, and I like AoO's too.

Quote from: VellorianBased on your picture, I think you put your head in a vice and you're probably going to die of lung cancer.  ;)

pssst...that's not really me!

:p

Quote from: SpikeElliot:

I think the issue is less that they exist, but rather the means by which you use them.  A great deal of confusion, of wailing and gnashing of teeth arises when teh topic comes up because it is so damned confusing to a great number of people. Then there comes up the topic of 'builds', like the slightly infamous 'spiked chain' build, designed solely to exploit AoO's.


Or course, it could just be that some people are whiney bitches and don't like having to face the fact that AoO's were meant to solve a real issue, for better or worse.:D

You're right on all counts, in my estimation. AoO's are a lot easier to grasp if one uses minis or whatever to show where characters and critters are in relation to each other. I think a lot of confusion is caused by not being able to really "see" the spacial relationships between combatants.

Quote from: flyingmiceYou understand I wasn't running AD&D, I was running an extensively house-ruled game founded in AD&D. For all it's mess - and it was a mess - AD&D was exceedingly easy to house-rule. House-ruling 3.x is like prying open a clam with yout fingernails.

Sorry for the confusion, that wasn't aimed in your direction or talking about your experience. :)

Even rewriting large tracks of AD&D it was hard as hell to make it worse.  With 3e was tuned much more, and so when you try to pull it apart you actually degrade it. So it was easier to house rule in AD&D in the same way it is easier to renovate a rundown, rotten shack than a well built house.  You feel a whole lot less loss when you just toss a little diesel fuel and a match on the shack. ;)

yeah, get rid of AoO. I really hate those.

Quote from: Myst3ry M@nI like D20. I like the vancian spell system. I like hit points.

What's wrong with me?

Well, clearly, you're not fit for public society.  :p

(not that many of us are)

Quote from: Myst3ry [emailM@n]pssst...that[/email]'s not really me!

:p

Coincidentally, I just happened to see the movie it's from recently. Can't recall the title. It was a short.

I like DnD. I like some d20. It's not my prefered game, but a lot of my friends like to play it, and I like to have fun with my friends.
DnD is fun too, it's a good time. My DM knows it well enough to fix all the broken bits. The System is robust and capable of providing a lot of player options.
I don't know quite the word to explain it, but it seems like DnD naysayers were hoping Candyland was in the Monopoly box. DnD does what DnD does, the haters wanted it to do something else and got disappointed.
That, and there also tends to be elitism when it comes to a market. Mac vs. PC, Starbucks vs. You favorite Local Coffeeshop, McDonalds vs. Carl's Jr.. So if I like DnD, then WoD is pretensious crap! Or if I like GRPS, then Hero is utter trash!

Quote from: KrakaJakI don't know quite the word to explain it, but it seems like DnD naysayers were hoping Candyland was in the Monopoly box. DnD does what DnD does, the haters wanted it to do something else and got disappointed.

Even though I don't mind the occational game of Monopoly, I personally get a little edgy when I'm told that:
1) You can do Candyland (and Parcheesi and Chicago Poker) with Monopoly, just house rule it.
2) Just look at the market share. Nobody really likes Candyland anyway, freak.

EDIT:  AoO ROCCKEZZZTH ur HizHowsers!!!!!  Just drop $25 on a Battlemat and a couple of wet erase markers. Then use beer bottle caps, 1" squares of paper, and grandma's bingo chips for 'minis'. It's all good from there. :)  I strongly suggest that's how D&D was designed to be played, on a grid with a grid. For better and worse.

Quote from: SpikeThen there comes up the topic of 'builds', like the slightly infamous 'spiked chain' build, designed solely to exploit AoO's.

I found that once you applied the rules properly where 50% cover (i.e. someone your size in the square between you and the wielder) negates the threat then the spiked chain wasn't nearly as bad powerwise as it was just plain animie-style goofy. YMMV.

I don't have much use for 3e itself. I don't like the setting assumptions, the magic system, the races or classes... but I do like several of the varients, and I love True20, it has everything i like about d20 and none of what I don't like.

Quote from: AosI don't have much use for 3e itself. I don't like the setting assumptions, the magic system, the races or classes... but I do like several of the varients, and I love True20, it has everything i like about d20 and none of what I don't like.

A friend of mine has been feeding me the True20 love-thang since he got Blue Rose, and in exactly those terms Aos. I don't know enough about d20 to compare the 2, but I've got True20. I like the look of it, and I can see what he and you are getting at when I compare it to the D&D3.5 material I do have. ;)

Quote from: blakkieEven though I don't mind the occational game of Monopoly, I personally get a little edgy when I'm told that:
1) You can do Candyland (and Parcheesi and Chicago Poker) with Monopoly, just house rule it.
2) Just look at the market share. Nobody really likes Candyland anyway, freak.

EDIT:  AoO ROCCKEZZZTH ur HizHowsers!!!!!  Just drop $25 on a Battlemat and a couple of wet erase markers. Then use beer bottle caps, 1" squares of paper, and grandma's bingo chips for 'minis'. It's all good from there. :)  I strongly suggest that's how D&D was designed to be played, on a grid with a grid. For better and worse.

D20 I think it what you're talking about here right?
 
I think D20 did Call of Cthulhu pretty good. Mtants and Masterminds is a great use of the mechanics. It's probably the only dcent application I've seen for dramatic action rather than tactical.
 
I see D20 kind of like grand theft auto. Where you can do a lot of things but other games do the individual parts better. Like in GTA you can do driving, but Gran Turismo is better at it. In GTA you can go shoot people, but Counterstrike is better for that.
 
D20 can Do Zombies Horror but AFMBE is better at it. It can do Modern Vampire PC's, but Vampire is better for it. It can do over the top wuxia action, but feng shui is better at it.  It's built more for "Gamist" play in a fantasy setting, but it is capable of far more. With a little tweak or two it is able to do a pretty good job in other genres too.

Levels.
Ugh.

Classes.
Ugh.

Hitpoints.
Ugh.

Passing itself off as a generic system when it takes some SERIOUS crowbarring to make it do any sort of genre emulation at all really.

D&D comes with a whole host of assumptions (some contradictory to other assumptions it has) that I don't care for, simply put. That isn't to say D20 can't be a good game (Cloak of Steel, Lone Wolf, Mutants and Masterminds, Spycraft 2.0 and True20 variations are all quite good.) its just that D&D to me is not.


Concepts I find problematic: Hit Points being skill and luck not just health as handled--I don't mind the abstraction its just the handling of it is odd. It IS on the other hand simple and easy to grasp, so it does have a boon in that respect.  (I'd much prefer Drama/karma Points and seperate Health records )

Classes as cultures as opposed to professions. See Barbarian. Most fictional barbarians were NOT berzerker sorts with battle rage.)

Abstract Melee vs Blow by Blow ranged (according to D&D a single roll of dice is not a single strike--per se, its just a single chance of a series of blows to be a telling one.) yet the game treats ranged attacks differently (you keep track of each arrow for example) I don't mind abstractions but I'd prefer them to be equitable across the board.

I don't like eastern tropes in my western fantasy RPG's (Monks for example)

All the above are preferences--I like Elves and Dwarves and classic fantasy (Lord of the Rings, Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, style) but I just don't feel that D&D does it well. It works for a lot of other people and thats a GOOD thing. It just doesn't work for me.

QuoteWhy the D&D and D20 hate?

I can kind of understand it. I really don't like WotC's D&D. There is simply no room for feats or (non-thief) skills in my vision of D&D. I also prefer more difficult  multi-classing, class restrictions for demihumans, slow leveling, etc. I even hate the art. All of this strongly inclines me to turn to the Cyclopedia for my D&D games.

Oh, my sweet, sweet Cyclopedia...

Ahem.

Given that much dislike, I can see how some might be inclined to generalize it to encompass d20 stuff in general. I think that's a mistake, with all the great stuff like Mutants & Masterminds and Castles & Crusades that d20 and the OGL have spawned, but I can still understand it on a base, emotional level. I mean, I myself used to see d20 as that...thing...that ruined my favorite game, but I wised-up once I realized that it was more than D&D, and I'm glad now that I didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For me it's that the parts of the mechanics that I dislike combine with D&D's ubiquitousness to create a sort of perfect storm of pissing me off.
I don't care for some of the mechanics in Savage Worlds, either, but it doesn't bother me because I can find a local game that isn't Savage Worlds.  Of course that local game is D&D, which doesn't help any.

Too many mechanical details to keep in your head, IMO. Feats and spells and special-case rules and all that jazz.

I'll play d20, but only in its D&D format, and only to get my fix of D&D - brave adventurers plumb dark holes in the earth and abandoned ruins to get richer, more powerful, and with any luck survive to a ripe old age. I will not, however, run it, nor consider it the go-to system for other genres (ablative, escalating damage points + firearms = fails in every regard for me unless I'm playing a robot). But I find it passable to get my D&D on in.

Quote from: Christmas ApeToo many mechanical details to keep in your head, IMO. Feats and spells and special-case rules and all that jazz.

I'll play d20, but only in its D&D format, and only to get my fix of D&D - brave adventurers plumb dark holes in the earth and abandoned ruins to get richer, more powerful, and with any luck survive to a ripe old age. I will not, however, run it, nor consider it the go-to system for other genres (ablative, escalating damage points + firearms = fails in every regard for me unless I'm playing a robot). But I find it passable to get my D&D on in.

You might look at Castles and Crusades (no feats, only class based special rules--plus much better art IMHO.
Or Questers of the Middle Realms--using PDQ system. (PDF only)

Quote from: Christmas ApeToo many mechanical details to keep in your head, IMO. Feats and spells and special-case rules and all that jazz.

I'll play d20, but only in its D&D format, and only to get my fix of D&D - brave adventurers plumb dark holes in the earth and abandoned ruins to get richer, more powerful, and with any luck survive to a ripe old age. I will not, however, run it, nor consider it the go-to system for other genres (ablative, escalating damage points + firearms = fails in every regard for me unless I'm playing a robot). But I find it passable to get my D&D on in.

some of the varients don't have ablative armor -Conan; others don't have hit points- M&M and True20...

Well, I hated TSR for their habit of terrorizing the game field with threats of lawsuits while not having the balls to go after people outside the game biz when they spandered gaming, like the people calling D&D satanic or that greaseball geraldo rivera for saying D&D was responsible for 3 drug addictyed punks murdering one of their parents to collect insurance to buy drugs with.

That's why I hated TSR. As for D&D I don't hate it, I just don't like it and I don't like d20. Jesus, can't I not like a system without having to hate it? Where the hell did the attitude "If you don't like something you have to hate it" come from anyway, some extremist nutcase?

Quote from: SilverlionYou might look at Castles and Crusades (no feats, only class based special rules--plus much better art IMHO.
Or Questers of the Middle Realms--using PDQ system. (PDF only)

I've taken a look at both of them; C&C is a little too light for me, and QoMR, while entertaining, is sorta Heroquest Light. I've got Heroquest, so...*shrug* Didn't really seem necessary.

Quote from: Aossome varients don't have ablative armor -Conan; others don't have hit points- M&M and True20...

Hit Points only bug me when there are guns involved, so there's nothing about Conan I dislike. I don't really enjoy supers games - never been into the genre - and while M&M can do other stuff, so can Heroquest and with less fiddling. True20 is, admittedly, D&D for me, though I tend to shave everything off the feats but flavor text and run it 'from the hip'.

To be honest, I think I hate Exalted far more than I ever hated D&D simply because Exalted spectacularly fails to do what it says on the box.  Which part of working out interlocking combos of charms, flipping through rule-books and rolling countless numbers of dice makes for fast and furious action?

Essentially, I'm not a big fan of these front loaded feat/charm games simply because in effect what you have is a combat system and then about 200 exceptions to that combat system in the shape of charms and feats.  Exalted without Charms or the stupid personality mechanics actually plays quite nicely but otherwise I think it's horrific... except for when I sold one of the supplements I bought for about £60.  THAT was pretty cool.

The thing is that up until I hooked up with my current group, it was always by far and away me who did the most GMing, and the group were never mathematically gifted despite boasting two engineers.  So the thought of having to run that lot and spending my time re-explaining which modifiers to use makes me break out in a cold sweat.  As a result I never looked into D20 at all.

I don't hate it, it's just that it pains me to even imagine having to run it.

But I wouldn't mind a chance to run or play pre-D20 D&D, maybe using the rules cyclopedia. If only because I learned all those rules in the old days so I don't need to make that much effort.

Exception based rulesets are a bugger to run.  Cyclopedia works pretty much as it works, once you know a rule you're fine, it doesn't work by the exceptions.

Indeed.

I find that exception-based rule systems just clog up my mental pathways instead of liberating them to concentrate on other things.

I can cope with mathematical sophistication and lots of modifiers and such because I tend to find that stuff fairly intuitive but if there isn't a unifying mechanic then I'm in trouble as I literally resent having to learn what various powers and bits of pieces do.

The other thing that kills me with exception based rulesets is creating effective NPCs.  With BRP I can say "hm, this guy is supposed to be fairly good at research but a lousy speaker, I'll give him Library Use 70, Debate of 25 and we're good to go."

If he's a hostile combatant I can give him Sword 50, Shield 45, Bow 55 and say Dex 12 and 13 HP and I'm done.

In most d20 games to be an effective opponenent I need to think of what feats the PCs have, what feats he might have, how the rules for them work.  If I can do all that then it might be even better I guess as the players' choices and mine all really matter, but it is way too much work.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalBut I wouldn't mind a chance to run or play pre-D20 D&D, maybe using the rules cyclopedia. If only because I learned all those rules in the old days so I don't need to make that much effort.

What would you run with the Cyclopedia?

Yeah, D20 statblocks are fairly horrific.  Weirdly though, I remember that in AD&D it would be kept simple so it was quite rare for enemy fighters to have weapon specialisations and such just so that you wouldn't have to worry about applying modifiers and extra attacks to them.  Seemingly that approach went out with D20.

BRP is fantastic on that level because it's all so intuitive that you can just stat stuff on the fly.


As for the Cyclopedia I don't know... I think I'd struggle to go real old-school and run a dungeon or a "you must save this village from Goblins" style game.  

I'd probably go for something urban and Lankhmary like the players being hired to set up a watch in one of the more violent and lawless sections of the city with a fair bit of fighting and a fair bit of intrigue and alliance building too.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYeah, D20 statblocks are fairly horrific.  Weirdly though, I remember that in AD&D it would be kept simple so it was quite rare for enemy fighters to have weapon specialisations and such just so that you wouldn't have to worry about applying modifiers and extra attacks to them.  Seemingly that approach went out with D20.

And for this, I am thankful.

I almost didn't buy into 3e. That was until I saw the monster manual and saw that they were giving monsters real stats and the possibility for classes. That was meaningful to be because up until that point, I had largely been using humanoid creatures as opponents because I could give them some detail.

There's a certain subset of the D&D fan base that pines for the good old days of 1 or 2 line stat blocks. Me, I am in no rush to return to the days when most of the opposition was modeled as a bag of hit points with a damage dice.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat was meaningful to be because up until that point, I had largely been using humanoid creatures as opponents because I could give them some detail.

That was me too. I would largely use human/demihuman opponents because creatures were so flat. Which was sad because really nothing says "player fun" like meeting up with a Slaad. :frog:

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAnd for this, I am thankful.

I almost didn't buy into 3e. That was until I saw the monster manual and saw that they were giving monsters real stats and the possibility for classes. That was meaningful to be because up until that point, I had largely been using humanoid creatures as opponents because I could give them some detail.

There's a certain subset of the D&D fan base that pines for the good old days of 1 or 2 line stat blocks. Me, I am in no rush to return to the days when most of the opposition was modeled as a bag of hit points with a damage dice.

EXACTLY. I feel the same way. I feel like putting together a nice detailed encounter with individual tactics is one of the really cool things about D&D.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical... Essentially, I'm not a big fan of these front loaded feat/charm games simply because in effect what you have is a combat system and then about 200 exceptions to that combat system in the shape of charms and feats....

Thank you for nicely stating one of the two things I hate about the d20 combat system.  (The other thing is the apparent need of battlemats to resolve things like AoOs.)

I would be much more fond of d20/3e D&D if it didn't have this goddamn fiddly 'lots-of-rule-breaking-feats' system.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAnd for this, I am thankful.

I almost didn't buy into 3e. That was until I saw the monster manual and saw that they were giving monsters real stats and the possibility for classes. That was meaningful to be because up until that point, I had largely been using humanoid creatures as opponents because I could give them some detail.

There's a certain subset of the D&D fan base that pines for the good old days of 1 or 2 line stat blocks. Me, I am in no rush to return to the days when most of the opposition was modeled as a bag of hit points with a damage dice.

I agree 50% with your main point here.  (Tangent: I disagree with your characterisation of most pre-3e D&D monsters -- most of the monsters in RC or 1e MM had specific abilities that made them more than 'bags of hit points with damage dice'.  But that's a bit beside the point.)

I'm in favour of having a system that allows the GM to make 'monsters' more unique, including giving them 'classes' (and associated abilities).

I just wish that 3e had found a way to do this in a simpler, more streamlined manner.  Just looking at the statblocks in some of my 3e modules make me wince (not to mention that all that information makes actually running an encounter sometimes difficult, as you have to sort through the statblock for the relevant information).

There should be some 'happy medium' between these extremes, i.e., some way to 'customise' monsters without requiring page-long statblocks.

I am of the opinion that special cases should build upon the basic rules, as examples of how to use those rules in different situations. Such as using a targe or buckler in combat. Or, heck, the Agriculture K/S Area in DJ. (A series of bad rolls there can provide a lot of background adventuring. :) )

I find that exceptions complicate matters more than they need to be. If you find that a rule is being honored more in the breach than the observance, maybe that rule needs a major revision.

Quote from: AkrasiaI agree 50% with your main point here.  (Tangent: I disagree with your characterisation of most pre-3e D&D monsters -- most of the monsters in RC or 1e MM had specific abilities that made them more than 'bags of hit points with damage dice'.  But that's a bit beside the point.)

Oh, I understand that they did. That's not what I was characterizing with that quip. What I was characterizing was the sort of extra short stat block that the folks I am alluding to seemed to be in love with.

Attacks of Opportunity really aren't that bad (other than some of the munchkinism that they have sired).  But the rules for them weren't well presented at all so they created tons of confusion.  

They also don't really require a mat or figures once you get used to them.  I've run pbp games in D20, AoOs have never been a problem.

The rule basically boils down to "if you do something such that you're not able to pay attention to your opponent and you're next to them, they get a free chance to whack you."  Everything else is just corollaries from there.  If you just go with this rule, the results aren't exactly the same, but they're close enough without slowing down the game.

So if you run down a hall past guards, turn around to read the incantation on the wall, turn around and run away, or similar, then you might get hit.  

When running without a mat, I give players the benefit of the doubt since there isn't a clear map in front of them.  If there is room for them to maneuver without running right past someone brandishing a weapon, or if there is room for them to step out of the fight to do something, then I assume they do.  Playing loose like this without a mat does make AoOs come up less often - that it isn't a big deal but players should be aware of that if they're planning on building a character based on AoO.

Quote from: NicephorusAttacks of Opportunity really aren't that bad (other than some of the munchkinism that they have sired).  But the rules for them weren't well presented at all so they created tons of confusion.  

  I think most dislike of the AoO rules are not based upon a perception of poor design but rather upon the general principle that they're un-necessary and a stupid idea regardless of how well implemented the rules are.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think most dislike of the AoO rules are not based upon a perception of poor design but rather upon the general principle that they're un-necessary and a stupid idea regardless of how well implemented the rules are.

Quite.  The other night when someone ran away I distinctly recall saying "you get a chance to stab at him as he retreats" which is essentially an AoO.  However, I said it because it seemed obvious, I don't think having a rule for it would have improved my life any.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'd probably go for something urban and Lankhmary like the players being hired to set up a watch in one of the more violent and lawless sections of the city with a fair bit of fighting and a fair bit of intrigue and alliance building too.

Very cool, though I suspect BRP would do it better.

My fear is that in the past when I've tried to run stuff like DnD I've found some otherwise good players suddenly undergo some reversion to their 14 year old selves and insist on treating it like a fucking dungeon crawl.

It's like the words DnD trigger some inner munchkin and suddenly a player who would normally negotiate is hacking down town officials and any NPC who backchats them regardless of sense or context.

I suspect it has something to do with their preconceptions about DnD, but it is annoying when it happens and puts me off running it myself.  That said, it's been many years since I played a Magic User.

Cyclopedia has a good skills system by the way, much better than 3.5's in my view and much simpler too.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think most dislike of the AoO rules are not based upon a perception of poor design but rather upon the general principle that they're un-necessary and a stupid idea regardless of how well implemented the rules are.

I don't share this perception.

Most vocal ranting (at least by people who play the game) I hear is:
1) Remembering all the unique conditions (I personally have no difficulty with it; most of the conditions make sense to me.)
2) The premise not always being met by the rules. For example, the premise is that "if you are distracted, there is an opening that a melee opponent can exploit." I hear great gnashing of teeth over the fact that you might suffer an AoO from being distracted while casting a spell, but you don't get an AoO on someone unconscious.

Quote from: BalbinusHowever, I said it because it seemed obvious, I don't think having a rule for it would have improved my life any.

Balbinus, you wouldn't know what rules would add to your life if they hit you over the head with a wet platypus.
:)

Quote from: gleichmanBalbinus, you wouldn't know what rules would add to your life if they hit you over the head with a wet platypus.
:)

Hah, now you sound like my parents used to...

Quote from: BalbinusHah, now you sound like my parents used to...

I never told you this before, but I am your father.

If you only knew the power of the Rules Side...

Quote from: BalbinusVery cool, though I suspect BRP would do it better.

  This is basically my response to everything game related.  As far as my tastes are concerned, BRP is the perfect game.

  I don't know about D&D bringing out munchkinism, having not touched the system since I was a teenager but I think it's as much about the PCs relative power as anything else.  In D&D most people are level 0 so all you need is a few levels under your belt and you feel invincible, capable of throwing your weight around all over the place and the use of brute force to solve all problems suddenly becomes very attractive.

  In most BRP games though, even if you're a seasoned adventurer you can still be seriously fucked up by a peasant with an axe so brute force seems less attractive.

  I remember playing in a BRP fantasy game where we all had a single magical power.  One bloke had the power to liquify bowells and thereby give anyone that looked at us funny the runs.  The Gm was somewhat liberal when it came to interpreting the power and coupled with us all having decent combat skills this meant that it wasn't long before all subtlety and plotting went straight out the window because if anyone called the guards we could make them all shit themselves and then run off.

  That was a weird game.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI don't know about D&D bringing out munchkinism, having not touched the system since I was a teenager but I think it's as much about the PCs relative power as anything else.  In D&D most people are level 0 so all you need is a few levels under your belt and you feel invincible, capable of throwing your weight around all over the place and the use of brute force to solve all problems suddenly becomes very attractive.

It may just have been those players, it just scarred me slightly.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThat was a weird game.

Indeed.  What an odd power by the way, still, at least it wasn't a supers game.

Quote from: BalbinusCyclopedia has a good skills system by the way, much better than 3.5's in my view and much simpler too.

This is something I'd like to hear more about.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis is something I'd like to hear more about.

You get I think four skills at character generation, each skill is based on a stat and is equal to that stat.  You roll your skill or less on d20 to succeed.

Very easy stuff.  There is also a wide range of skills, but not so wide to invalidate concepts.  I created an example fighter with skills in siegecraft and related stuff very easily, he was competent at that stuff and it made a more interesting character.

The only oddity is that as they are based on stats, a first level character is probably much better at his skills than his class stuff, but you pay a price for simplicity and that's fine for me.

There's probably a bit more to it, but that's how I broadly remember it.

Thanks, I like that. Not sure how I feel about the decoupling of skills from advancement but I suppose one could analyze it as meaning that the skills are peripheral to the core of the game--a means of framing scenes rather than a way of resolving them. E.g. siegecraft isn't going to win a battle for you but it will put you in a position to win it by allowing you to build a mine and fight your skirmish at the breach instead of at the wall.

I may be mistaken but I think that early Talislanta has something similar but with a simple method by which new skills can be learned and advance along with the core "class" advancement.

Quote from: BalbinusYou get I think four skills at character generation, each skill is based on a stat and is equal to that stat.  You roll your skill or less on d20 to succeed.

Very easy stuff.  There is also a wide range of skills, but not so wide to invalidate concepts.  I created an example fighter with skills in siegecraft and related stuff very easily, he was competent at that stuff and it made a more interesting character.

The only oddity is that as they are based on stats, a first level character is probably much better at his skills than his class stuff, but you pay a price for simplicity and that's fine for me.

There's probably a bit more to it, but that's how I broadly remember it.

To be more precise, the PC gets 4 + Int bonus skill 'slots' (so a PC with 18 Int would get 7).

You can spend additional skill 'slots' to improve a single skill, instead of taking a new one (e.g. if you spent two skill slots on 'acrobatics', and your Dex was 16, your skill in acrobatics would in fact be 17).  As should be obvious, this is really not worth it.

PCs also gain 1 additional skill slot every four levels afterwards (i.e. at level 5, 9, 13, 17, etc.).

Quote from: AkrasiaYou can spend additional skill 'slots' to improve a single skill, instead of taking a new one (e.g. if you spent two skill slots on 'acrobatics', and your Dex was 16, your skill in acrobatics would in fact be 17).  As should be obvious, this is really not worth it.

It's similar to 2E AD&D's skill system.  We used to houserule that additional slots gave you +4 and still almost no one spent additional slots.