gamegrene.com

Wasn't sure if you were serious or not, but I know people who do actually think that way.

Some people just want to play.
Others prefer to use game time to have a discussion about how to play.

Amen to that, brother

Same argument, new presentation.

Plus ça change plus c'est pareil...

sigh.

Well Starfury has started the flame war... who will fan it.

First off, I wanted to backtrack real quick and clarify -- I didn't want to sound like I was advocating rules-lawyering during a session. Any discussion about rules should be handled before, or after, a gaming session. I hate rules-lawyers as much as the next the guy.

d20 is indeed an easy system to grasp. And that's good...provided you don't want anything more than popcorn and bubblegum. I'm all for bringing new gamers into the fold, and d20 certainly facilitates that. But I would guess most old schoolers like me miss the passing of an age.

And lastly, I have to disagree that systems stay around because they are good. They can also stay around because the big guy on the block pushes them on the market like all get-out.

Microsoft proved that. ;-)

Good article with good points. This comment is actually to Nephandus.

I agree with much of what Nephandus has to say in theory. I'm an old schooler, as well - 25 years (though I don't want to get into a whole "I'm old and thus wise" thing; just want you to know I've been there). I think the popcorn and bubblegum comment was a bit harsh; and, as Nephandus said, it's not game mechanics but story mechanics that make the game enjoyable.

What I got out of Hurricane's article, personally, was a note of caution concerning the d20 system. WoTC has the teeth to take out a lot of small game companies, IMHO. On the one hand, I'm happy that WoTC bought out TSR and saved what seemed to me at the time to be a sinking franchise (the movie didn't help either, but I digress). On the other, I get a little concerned that WoTC might use it's influence to either a) push smaller game companies down or b) take smaller game companies into themselves under the d20 umbrella. These are the practices of a good company, of course, but I wonder to myself if that will hurt some of the creativity we know and love.

For example, I think the chips and cards in Deadlands are a bang-up idea, combining story mechanics with game mechanics in a really pleasing way. I don't want to ever see us in a position where Deadlands couldn't put out this great idea because WoTC is the big boy on the block. I don't think Hurricane does, either.

I don't want to come across as the "hoary old DM", either. There are rules that definitely need some work (ever tackle Ars Magica? Good God) and rules that are great (Deadlands above, and some of the White Wolf stuff). Either way, I think the different rulesets are what keeps the game exciting. Granted, a game is only as excited as its story mechanics, but game mechanics can add true flavor and true grit to a campaign.

After all, who doesn't have a "and I rolled a 20 when all hope was lost!" story :-)

I side with Nephandus as well. As a fairly new hand at RPGs, d20 helped me quickly and easily climb into D&D. I'd been vaguely aware of the oddities of 2nd Edition before (15 different kinds of saves, negative AC is good, THAC0, etc) and d20 made it all simple for me. I'm ecstatic to see the 3.5 revision coming out soon--they're actually taking several years of playtesting, and IMPROVING THE GAME RULES! I'll gladly shell out another $60 for that--my old PHB is falling to pieces anyhow. I honestly don't see it as money-grubbing, but rather a company that, for once, really listens to its customers.
One advantage is that you CAN cross over between systems. Not as in Luke Skywalker running around Greyhawk, but in the sense that if I'm running a naval campaign, or one involving airships or somthing unusual of that nature, I can steal the (updated) Star Wars space combat rules without breaking anything. The same goes for d20 Modern, and Call of Cthulhu, which show the steady improvement on the d20 system that prompted 3.5.

Now I'm not saying everything should be d20. Deadlands' card-draw system is very unique, and one of its advantages is that your 'roll' is made up of seperate pieces, so you can effectively keep part of your roll and replace other parts.
But every system should make the attempt to be as welcoming and easy-to-use as d20; at its core, you can play D&D with about 5 pages of rules. Everything else is added on to that; you don't want to deal with grappling rules? Don't grapple.

OK Grey, I think I get it.

Your gaming group doesn't understand AoO, hence the time loss, which left you no choice but to throw it out (since it led to so many arguments). But, isn't this article about how nice it is to argue about the rules and have to barter for AoO and other things?

I tell you AoO are very simple to use (if you don't try to bend the rules). Everything is covered (feints, spell casting, retreat, route, acrobatic evasions (tumbling), charges, flashy maneuvres and weapon reach) but that is what the "Out with the rules, let's be creative" school of thought don't like.

I tell you 3E is tough IF you follow the rules. As far as being heroes not zeroes is concerned, you are right, but if you look at character gen 3E it isn't that bad. You get max HP at first level (not bad) and your stats can bee rerolled if they meet one of the two following conditions: 1 – Their summed up associated bonus doesn't add up to a positive number 2 – Your highest stat is a 13.
I find that satisfying, although I've had my share of bland PC's with 5 stats from 9 to 12 and one damned 14, although they were no superheroes, I would not call them zeroes.

Now back to the main topic (Homogenization of Rule Sets: Phooey!).

I totally disagree with Hurricane Masta on the following points:

a) There are no more discussions about rule interpretations. "buzzer sound" wrong answer Hurricane Masta, I know for a fact that there are as many discussions about the rules as there were before. Now they don't bog down play, they take place during off time and between games. Discussions are more about the tactical nature of the rules and how good or bad certain maneuvres are according to the rules. Ex: The expertise-trip-disarm vs power-attack-cleave-great-cleave argument. Which fighter development arc is better? Why? In which situations? Are sorcerers better than wizards? and so on. But, these discussions usually don't take place during combat or during "dramatic" moments.

b) The endless matrix runs of Shadowrun were fun? for who? That is the worst part of playing Shadowrun. The last games we played, we made it so all the runs were made either by: contacts (run by the GM) or secondary characters run by one of the player in GM to Player sessions that happened in-between games. Deckers and Otaku were the worst characters to play (unless the whole group played one), what a bad character concept. You are close to useless in the real world (where you slow down the group and are a liability) and when your time to shine comes, you piss off the rest of the group who becomes completely useless as they stop playing while you go one on one with the DM.
For crying out loud, RPGing is a group activity!!

c) Negociation, bluff and threats… All these are still part of the game you have to get some character class choices approuved (you have to convince the DM to let you play such and such prestige class). You have to convince the Chaotic Neutral Rogue that the ring of protection from good is a bad thing fo him to have, you still have to "fiht" for first pick from the loot, you have to convince the NPC's of what you want, you can try to influence your group and exert leadership on it. All these debating skills you've defined are still of use. Now though, the rules won't be the focus of your negociations, the story elements will. Should we try to take out the goblin king? Should we interfere with the Baron's overtaxing the peasants? Should we trust this crazy Wizard who's asking us the save the people from themselves?

I especially agree with one point you made:

It will be a sad day when only one RPG system exists. The 80's and 90's diversity has given rise to many improvements we now enjoy in the game system that made it out of this period.

What d20 does is make us all play the same game! Especialluy if Wotc keeps absorbingall these little companies.

What is d20 really about? Money. Come on, say it with me. "Money." People are jumping all over the d20 bandwagon because it takes a huge risk factor out of putting out your own game, or supplement; Will people like/understand our rules? d20 is a game publishing crutch, and a huge cash cow at the same time.

I don't think d20 will ever replace the myriad of game systems out there unless they all sell out their great, original systems to cash in and put out a d20 version of their game because they are afraid they will lose the chance to. "We have to put out d20 'Goblins and Droids' before someone else puts out something like it!"

For example...I LOVE old school Cyberpunk, by R.Talsorian. I personally think it is a brilliant system that reflects what I think a Gibson-esque RPG should be like. It's fast, and deadly. You don't get a second chance if you screw up too badly. You can't possibly keep the flavor of the game alive if you made it into a d20 system, it couldn't ever be as concise and fast and downright nasty as the way it is now. For me, turning Cyberpunk 2020 into a d20 system would ruin its appeal, it wouldn't be the same game anymore. Sure, it has its flaws, but so does d20.

I think the proliferation of d20 has a lot more to do with market share, and sheer laziness as well. To borrow off of Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man character, "Back in my day, we didn't have no d20 system! We had thousands of game systems, and we needed barrels full of dice, and charts, and we liked it!" Learning a new system is not all that hard, if you're complaining that having to learn a non-d20 system is work, you may very well be taking yourself too seriously. Do you play computer games? Do you gripe about having to learn each new engine? Do you think every RTS should be like Warcraft, and that every shooter should use the Unreal engine, so you don't have to expend the minimal amount of brainpower it takes to figure out how the game works?

Arkelias said:
I think that it has gone a long way to keeping the tabletop RPG market alive.

Funny how the largest numbers of players of RPG's was during 1Ed days.......
So is it CCG's which killed it, or a succession of nerks at Wizards and other places dragging it in the wrong direction?

Korzak said: What is d20 really about? Money. Come on, say it with me. "Money."

I hear you brother "Money...Money Oh Lawdy MONEY"
Right on the nail!
Still, no amount of marketing will save d20 if the buying public see it as a poor system. They will do what they did to TSR in its latter days and stop throwing their hard -earned cash in that direction.....although I did hear a very nasty and - surely untrue story - about how TSR were not the architects of their own poor quality downfall.

The question is: Will 3.5 be even more vanilla, or will they throw some curry powder in with the ice-cream.
For example, try using some non-US playtesters.
Wow, there's an idea European input. Nah! Never fly...we 'd probably just try to infect the game with mad - Brit disease.

Is anyone browsing sites devoted to stuff like Call Of Chthulu to see if they think d20 has substantially changed their view of the game.

Au Revoir

For my money, the best homogenous system ever was ICE rolemaster. The only problem of course was teh fact that characters were walking mutilation magnets. But for the time that your character actually lived, everything he could ever do hada percent chart for it. It made for good role playing, though, because an orphan with a sharp stick could kill your super-character in one shot. Nasty stuff but very methodically and mathematically worked out.
Deadlands was an awesome game. The feel of the game with the cards and chips was stellar.
Now, as to d and d, let me throw this in. I have played for 25 years, and I will state for teh record that 3e is ten times better than 1e. Period. 1e had so many problems that it would fatigue me to list them here. In my rules lawyering phase, I once discovered a way to generate a first level character with up to 140 hit points using the aracne alignment change rule in the DMG. Also, under the phb, if you had stats of five or less, you could have a character with up to six classes simultaneously at the price of one (albeit with all 5's in stats). The rules, which developed from CHAINMAIL, were a ghastly affarir of tangled cotisoles and recondite clauses. And then there's the new classes that just kept adding new rules or severely altering the old ones.
Here's an example: surprise. In 1e, it made no sense. Creature a imposes surprise on a 1-5 on a d6. Ranger b is surpised only on a 1 in a d8. Now, how does this work? You have to convert it to percentages to get it to come out- which is what homogenization comes down to.
I am running 3e now, and I love it. The amount of headaches has been reduced dramatically. Most things now are a dc. You just set a number and go.
I still dont get the whole dm control issue. It is a social contract that the gm runs the game. The rule system is superflous. back in 1e, I had to change half the rules to make them make sense. My players understood that that was the way I was running the game. They adapted and went on. NO book can empower a gm; either you take control of your game, or watch it disintegrate.

phoenix said: grey said about wanting zeros not heros - surely you through your roleplaying make your character memerable, not just stats.

In which case, why do WOTC give you a 4 point neg smackdown if you choose half-orc and get a 2 point str boost?
Why are there char. gen rules at all if ability points don't matter?
And how many of you remember the guy who ran second in the 100m in the last Olympic games? Right.. we remember the people who were the fastest, strongest, most graceful or toughest. Human nature.
I suppose there is always Eddie the Eagle, but he was heroically useless ( DEX Score of 5 or less...)

I agree that ability points don't of themselves make a character memorable. But they certainly help to make the PC survivable in the early days before you acrue items to help you make that save.
And they can be a good talking point - anyone in RPG who doesn't get a warm happy feeling at a PC who rolls out with some exceptional ability?

Which actually brings us back to homogenous systems strangely. Why does the PC Generator count the number of times you roll up a character, or the adjustements you give to ability points unless it is the intention of WOTC to make you start vanilla characters. Beccause if you don't have a vanilla PC, by the time you add a feat or two, it can unbalance the game in their terms (having fun in my terms.)
A good example is Combat Reflexes: if you actually manage to role up a fighter who has enough stats to have good STR, CON and DEX, it rapidly shows just how poorly thought out 3Ed is.
Vanilla rules, vanilla PC's....

--Grey

If one does NOTHING but game, and I mean at the freak level, then the idea of having a myriad of systems crammed inside you head is fine. This hobby has suffered from the stygmatism that stubborn, I-hate-3E gamers have created. To enjoy other systems and mechanics has nothing to do with how one should view 3E. It has given our industry a great resurgence in the world of video games.

Of course it comes off as vannilla. I think good game mechanics should be vannilla. Easy to swallow, lets the gaming aspect shine. Should every game play like Unreal or Warcraft? Absolutley not! But it sure is nice that I don't have to buy a whole new computer every time I want to play a new game. Because that it essentially what this is. Not an argument of gaming style or content, which most of these posts refer to, but an argument of game mechanics. So WoTC is a giant in the business. If they did't do it, someone else would have. At least I hope someone would have. I can sit my friends and relatives down now, and within an evening teach them a simple, and elegant system (your @#$*ing vannilla system) that gets them into gaming. It dosen't styfle creatism. Look at this web site alone. No one here is getting the MONEY that seems to be the very core of the evil 3E world. The D+D world seems to be in the hands of some very dedicate people.

"Those who do and act will always bear the worst of criticism." -Admr. Rickover.

Rant? Complain? Do you think you will get them to pull the book off the shelf?! HECK NO!! Fan the flames? Of what? It's gaming for crying out loud!!!! I can understand a gripe here and there, this is America after all. But fer chrisakes, trying to topple the 3E empire? Pal, it's not very sturdy as it is.

Hum hum, Shark... many of the people on this site are outside the US or North America for that matter.

Still I couldn't agree more with you.

I also agree with the people who felt cheated when all their books became useless. But re-equiping yourself once every... 10? 12? years isn't that bad now is it? Computer/console gaming costs much more than that in hardware and software.

But then why make Fiend Folio just 3 months before 3.5... oh well they are in it for the money after all. I just choose to refuse buying Fiend Folio and any other 3E books untill 3.5 comes out and I cand see what the differences are and how they can all be integrated together.

I must say, d20 is lacking in many of the areas I love. I love complexity, but not for complexity's sake; I like it because it adds depth. One mechanic I can by NO MEANS agree with is the view of a spell as something that does X damage. If my wizard creates a fireball, it should do the damage that a big fireball would do, not some amount determined by a guy who's too worried about "balanced gameplay." My character should be able to slash another's hand off as easily as "attacking" him; it would really make more sense to play the fights out without dice, save chances of failure, if you look at it. Why not have a universal time unit, say, half-seconds, and this cahracter can think fast enough to 'act' once every 1.5 seconds but his reflexes only allow him to actually swing his staff every 3 seconds. Likewise, the opponent could have killer reflexes, but never see blows coming in time to block. Tying in the defensive nature of some weapons, or likewise the offensive, one can have a dicely battle system that makes more sense than "My ultra powerful guy with 3 feet of solid plate mail can't even manage to hit a 15x10 orc with no mobility with an axe the size of Cleveland."

...

Anyone see where I'm going with this? Not everything has to be a dice roll.

HCKK: I disagree with you about the battle. d20 isn't necessarily about realism, it's about roleplaying, stories, and having fun with your friends. The kind of combat you're describing would, imho, lead to a micromanagement nightmare. A 30-second combat scene would take forever, and would get more and more confusing as it went on. Dodging blows, declaring blows, waiting for things to happen, things resolving and being delayed all over the place.. In a fight with four PCs and say, four NPCs, with sixty half-second intervals, you're looking at an insane number of 'time units' to plan through and deal with.

2. Balancing: Oh, balancing... One of the biggest ongoing arguments between people in my group is about balancing. The reason those rules exist is because if a wizard can make a fireball that kills anyone in one shot, not only will people want to play wizards instead of other classes, the people who do choose to play other classes won't have fun because they either have to die or hide, and they're completely ineffective compared to their wizard companion. Imagine if a party had a fight with a wizard, they die in the first two rounds, or the first twelve time units by your idea. It just ends up not being fun. With regards to the cutting hands off thing, cutting someone's hand off with one blow is damn hard, and it's a lot harder than just "attacking", which is just taking any shot you can get at the person. BTW, wearing that much armor and using an axe that big just makes it hard.. those are cumbersome pieces of equipment, and there's always a chance to miss..

Anyways.. sorry if i came off as rude, but in my group as of late we've had arguments galore about balance and the like, i'm just letting off steam. Seriously though, if you enjoy that kind of complexity and micromanagement, power to you. d20 isn't marketed as an "advanced" system, and the most important thing about playing any system is making it work for you.. if you don't like something just change it, but understand first that things like class balancing are there for a reason, and that they help to keep things fun for everyone without nearly as much hassle.

In any case.. Have fun, and do what you want to *enjoy* your RPGing. :)

-Daniel

Now see? This kid Balance gets it! Is D20 the end-all be-all? No way. It's just nice to have some simple rules that MOST will agree are pretty balanced (yes, game balance does indeed rule the day as Taco points out). Nothing is perfect, but who is arguing that D20 is? Keep your old rules from Shadowrun. Add new rules like Balance's jump rolling. Want your precious depth (through gaming mechanics? I guess...), Put it in!

Way back on April 15, Aubry said:As a fairly new hand at RPGs, d20 helped me quickly and easily climb into D&D.

These are the golden years of paper gaming. It's obvious that everyone posting messages here is, or has had, some great gaming sessions that they will never forget. 3E is passing on. So too will 3.5 eventually. I can't believe there are so many of you that are willing to knock a giant in our hobby. These kinds of products help keep our gaming shops open and our hobby magazines shipping. The problem stated is that the big guy is pushing the little guys out. This is quite true. It's the nature of the beast. And it's because people want it that way. We love 3E Forgotten realms, we want more 3E Rokugan, and by god we would pay for for some 3E Darksun. Would I be able to convince my more casual gaming members to join these campaigns if they each ran under a completely different set of rules. No. No matter how cool the other rules were, most casual gamers just don't have the time and finances to justify a switch. The nature of the beast, my friends.

Ahriman said:L5R has an incredible d10 system, and I consider the waste of space in new books for 3E stuff a tragedy.

Go ahead. This is a wonderful comment.

I wonder if there was any increase of sales due to the "tragic" addition of a rule set that has become a pleasant standard for many of those who are SPENDING THEIR MONEY on our hobby. I do not disagree with the fact that the D10 system L5R works with is an incredible system. But that is the beauty of it all. Both systems were addressed. Makes it easy for us all to digest. I wouldn't be suprised if we see systems such as the D10 make an impact on future versions of the D20 system.

If one is familiar with the marketing and history of modern products within the last 50 years (such as the motorcycle, or the personal computer), one can only pray that our hobby can enjoy its current success for a good deal longer. And the really good systems that were killed off? If they were "really good," they will eventually enjoy their rebirth.

Eleas said:
Yes, d20 is easy... as long as you're accustomed to d20.

Agreed. Around my table is a 1st in Chem from Oxford Univ, 2x 2.1 in Maths, a 1st in Electronics, a post grad in education, a professional lecturer and various people from the It industry plus my 11 yr old son.
None of us thinks that 3Ed is particularly easy to learn or rational.
The only easy mantra is 'high scores are always good'....

If the game had been extensively playtested well and was rational/elegant as various others state, we wouldn't be looking at 3.5 only a short way down the line.

It's sole advantage is vanilla flavour. If it does come to dominate gaming, a lot of gamers will save money as stated above. And a few companies will make shedloads.
Except of course, that they have to keep revising the standard to sell player's books, 'cos modules only get bought by DM's.

My advice: look around at companies that bring out products slowly and thoughtfully e.g. Privateer Press or Kenzer and Co's Hackmaster.

- Grey

I'll try to keep this brief, but I don't tend to be particularly good at that, so maybe bear with me -- you might earn a star.

I can't abide AD&D 3rd Ed. I won't play it. I can't stand WotC and what they've done, and I don't buy their products. I find fault with the whole D20 mechancial system.

But, guess what? That's me. I won't go into depth about what I have against the games and the company, because I'm not trying to "convert" anyone to my way of thinking. If you like 3rd. Ed/D20, then, by all means, use it.

People seem to be drifting away from one of the primary (and most valid) points of the initial article and wandering into yet another argument over the merits of the new system(s) (let's face it: it is a contentious topic). The concern is not about what D20 does *within* the gaming group, but rather what it is capable of doing to *the gaming world*.

I note two primary items of potential distress: The first is, as mentioned, the tendency for WotC to gobble up lesser entities; spit them back out in a zombified, D20 format; and lumber on its not-so-merry way. The monopolizing proclivity then, of course, potentially imperils the future of the gaming world (note that I use "world" and not "industry"; more would appear to be at stake than simple economics) by marginalizing non-conformist efforts and products with this apparent, Inquisition-style, "convert-or-die" mentality/approach. Aha! say the supporters, "But they have not only allowed for the survival of 'the little guy,' but even encouraged it, with the introduction of the 'open/free gaming license' model. Now everyone is free to bring their ideas to the market!"

Right. Under *their* flag. I usually revile homogenization (outside of my milk and orange juice), and this venture smacks of it. What if you just don't want to use D20 in your RPG? What if you have a unique, honestly good dice/rules scheme that you feel fits better with whatever your concept is than D20? You must suffer because you aren't bowing to the machine?

I'll preface my parallel example with a comment that has appeared several times in these exchanges that my own words should, hopefully, readily dispel:
That people will buy it because it is good; and that greater sales indicate greater (or at least great) quality.

I need employ but two words: Pop starlet.
There are countless seriously talented and innovative songwriters and musicians out there that are scraping to get by, unable to get a break because they don't fit the mold of what the record companies figure will appeal to the public. However, being young, blond, and busty will get you awfully far.

The point? Just because people buy it doesn't mean it's good, and there *will* be quality ideas that will never see the fluorescent light of the hobby shop shelf because they want to go their own way. And be honest: No matter how loftily intellectual many gamers perceive themselves to be, the majority are just as crass and shallow as the masses they claim to despise.

With only that inelegant segue, I'll move on to my final point, far further along in volume than I had intended to be (I warned you). I've written this before and elsewhere, but I figure that getting the word spread through as many venues as possible will, at the least, get people annoyed at me. This whole 'open gaming license' (am I getting the phrasing right?) is symptomatic of a general downward trend (dare I say pandemic?) in the quality of essentially all works -- particularly the artistic -- in the modern (First) world, instigated largely by just such a freedom of publication. Call me an elitist, but letting every idiot speak his mind *and get paid for it* is going to clog the bookshelves, and the industry, with a lot of useless garbage. I wouldn't want to be unable to find some pertinent book because the hobby stores were littered with the likes of "Phil Haluka's Fantastik Space Advenchure Game!, by D20." (No offense if your name happens to be Phil Haluka.) Frankly, I would rather (hypothetically) struggle to get some product published -- oppressed by the difficulties of realizing success and not by a mega-corporate conglomerate's exploitation of capitalism at its worst -- than sacrifice originality for the sake of the primrose path and a few bucks.

That's all I have to say. For now.

-

Let me be the first to say that Dead here makes some great points of which I do not present a counter-argument. But I dare say that Dead makes the argument against himself. D20 does almost nothing for the gaming "world" artistically. Agreed. Could there be a system more aesthetically oriented in purpose? There may be, at present, a game available only in some dark corner of the universe that involves the game mechanics of determining in-game outcome by spilling coffee on the floor and interpreting the splash pattern. The artistic merits of any work always breaks down into personal taste, so there is no point in arguing over it. Working in the field of graphic arts (fantasy and handbook illustrations nonetheless) always makes one painfully aware of what is art and what one could say "works."

Does this put the gaming world at peril? Perhaps. I'm sure that at one time the pop wonders known as the Beetles threatened the very existence of the musical explorations of mankind. In the world of pop-culture, artist blink into and out of existence faster than most care to admit. So how do we know what is quality when we seem to be only returning to the statement that if it's sells, it's good? The answer is time. Let's proceed with the Beetles analogy. Did they dominate the market? I think so. Did they epitomize the pop culture of their time? I know so. Did this bring about the end of music artistically speaking?

Well?

There were many musical acts that copied the style. They used the formula (There you are D20), they panned to the pop crowd (oh my god, the open game format), and yet still we have a musical culture that is as diverse as one could possibly imagine. Unfortunately for those who hated the Beetles, the songs became classics which many people look back on with great fondness. And several of those zombified music groups (can you believe what WoTC does to these people) did all right for themselves and the musical revolution as a whole.

Time and Time again, we run into the people who hate what is popular for the sake of hating what is popular (read: homogenized).

Pop starlet. Because you have what people want, you must truly be bad for the artistic movement. Pop starlet, please give yourself up and give Johnny his time in the spotlight. And if Johnny becomes successful, I guess we'll have to shoot him down as well. Pop Starlet, you were there first (oh Eleas, here we are again). How dare you! Even though we call you 3rd Ed., we all know that you preceded 1st and 2nd. Pop starlet, don't you know that people will always buy something once it is popular? Long term sales and profits are no indicator of how talented you are. So Pop starlet, we must tear you down because you will last forever otherwise... even though you are just bubblegum and vanilla.

Hmmm...

So, ONCE AGAIN, is D20 bad because it is no good and is just pop culture crap which will blink out in an instant, or because it is too good and will dominate the market for so long that it stifles the RPG "world," as it were? Hey, please feel free to tell me how it could be both if you see it that way.

And people, we're all fellow gamers, so take it with a bit of friendly ribbing.

Well said, Monsieur Dead.

One big point - various contributors keep on harping on that d20 has saved the game because it has a 'simple, elegant' system.
So why in the days of horribly complex inelegant AD&D was there the greatest growth and the largest audience?
Surely this in itself is an argument against a homogenised system.
In the light of this, is d20 saving the gaming world or staving off the day of its demise?

Second Point:
I (partially, see below) accept that companies only continue if they make money. Let's also assume that d20 is an elegant, rational, non-broken system.
The problem is that WOTC will not survive selling modules, DMG and MM guides. They have to sell PHB's and other non-cores. In order to keep going and making money, they have to keep changing the game and re-selling the same book-set. i.e. the motivating factor is continually selling rule-changes to make money. Let's assume they get to d20- perfect. What then? Logically they have to either change the ruleset to be worse - or as they did to AD&D, change the ruleset completely and lose the flavour of the early (high-selling, high-growth) game.
The problem with non-vanilla is that it will probably last longer before each evolutionary step - hence cutting profits to the likes of WOTC.

Last points: Will any of the pro-vanilla pro-d20 pro-WOTC camp actually admit they are wrong by the time we are on d20 v9.5. ( I really only expect weasel words back in answer to this.....)
Will any of you actually put your money where your mouth is and estimate how long before d20 4.0 is rammed down the gaming public's collective throat

- Grey
P.S. Actually you don't have to make money to be massively successful or to be quality. For those in the computing world, look at the whole GNU/Free Software Foundation effort. LINUX is eating rather well into more traditionally marketed products. (And LINUX comes in lots of flavours....)

Re: "The problem is that WOTC will not survive selling modules, DMG and MM guides. They have to sell PHB's and other non-cores."

The PHB is not a "non-core". It's the single most "core" D20 book there is. Furthermore, no system will make much off of one or two books. You keep cranking out new material or you get left behind. This applies to all systems and publishers, not just WotC and D20. Need I remind you that the World of Darkness system has been through as many editions as D&D in a fraction of the time?

Re: "In order to keep going and making money, they have to keep changing the game and re-selling the same book-set. i.e. the motivating factor is continually selling rule-changes to make money."

You realize that 3.5 will be a free add-on, right? This sort of assassinates your theory that it's being used to force people to buy new books. Not that anyone was "forced" to go to 3E in the first place.

And WotC wouldn't bother developing 3.5 and giving it away for free now if 4.0 was even on the drawing table, let alone on the horizon of imminent release.

Re: "Let's assume they get to d20- perfect. What then? Logically they have to either change the ruleset to be worse..."

A straw argument that serves only as WotC-bashing for its own sake. No system can ever be perfect, therefore improvements can always be made. And, as noted above, given away free of charge.

Re: "...or as they did to AD&D, change the ruleset completely and lose the flavour of the early (high-selling, high-growth) game."

If you're going to argue against the most popular game system, then pointing to the popularity of a previous game as "proof" of its superiority does little to boost your argument.

And furthermore, the flavor of D&D is primarilydefined by the campaign world it's being played in, the DM running it, and the players playing it. It will vary wildly from one gaming group to the next. It's a system, not a setting. This was the case in 1st edition, it was the case in 2nd, and it's the case in 3rd.

Re: "The problem with non-vanilla is that it will probably last longer before each evolutionary step - hence cutting profits to the likes of WOTC."

Nonsense. It is the nature of all development to increase in pace.

Re: "Will any of the pro-vanilla pro-d20 pro-WOTC camp..."

I like the D20 system, therefore I approve of everything WotC does and want D20 to crush all competition.

Yeah. And I use Windows too, so I must also worship Bill Gates and despise Linux users.

Stick to the facts here, and leave the mudslinging to the politicians, okay?

Re: "...actually admit they are wrong by the time we are on d20 v9.5."

Assuming that the rate of release of new rulesets holds steady, 9.5 will be out in the year 2038. By that time, Shadowrun will be on version 11 and World of Darkness will be on 14. Paranoia will only be on version 8, but it'll be called 45th Edition. Hail Computer.

Re: "Will any of you actually put your money where your mouth is and estimate how long before d20 4.0 is rammed down the gaming public's collective throat"

When WotC runs out of ways to squeeze money out of 3.x revisions, reprints, and tie-in merchandise...and not a moment before. 2nd Ed was milked for over a decade by a company with neither robust marketing nor the backing of Hasbro. Imagine how long WotC's machine will be able to go without having to invest R&D in creating another new system from the ground up.

"Pop starlet. Because you have what people want, you must truly be bad for the artistic movement. Pop starlet, please give yourself up and give Johnny his time in the spotlight. And if Johnny becomes successful, I guess we'll have to shoot him down as well. Pop Starlet, you were there first (oh Eleas, here we are again). How dare you!"

D&D (Chainmail) was good for its time. The problem is that the pop starlets of real life have changed. Beatles and Britney Spears can't be equated; the time and culture differential is too great. D&D/d20, essentially, is unchanged; it's still levels and abstract hit points and a magic system from Hell, and only a few frills have been added. But it's _still_ being crammed down the gaming world's collective throat.

Besides, the simple fact is that your adopted analogy only works if there was one Pop Starlet dominating the entire market for twenty years. It only works if said starlet bought up old bands and released covers of its albums and forbade the old bands from selling. It would only work if said starlet's publisher offered guided nationwide lessons on how to sing just like the starlet, and gave low marks if you didn't sound similar (d20 licence).

That *would* kill competition, you must know this. Just as d20 kills competition.

Two things, mostly in response to Shatterjack.

Was anyone "forced" to buy 3rd Ed.? Only if you wanted to use new products. Of course, a) this happens no matter who it is, whenever a new edition of something comes out, so it's not a direct indictment of WotC; sometimes new editions are good (e.g. Shadowrun 2nd) and sometimes they're not (e.g. Warzone 2nd); b) if one doesn't want to upgrade, one should have all s/he needs in the core books of the old edition; the only new material will generally be in sourcebooks that, first, don't contain new rules, generally, so much as new information, and which often only consist of reworkings of old sourcebooks to fit with whatever major changes were implemented with the new edition, so they're far from necessary.

However, I do note that there was some overt effort on the part of WotC that sure made it seem like they were trying to force the change. There were a number of products at the end there specifically designed to wipe out parties ("Die, Vecna, Die") or, yea, even whole worlds ("The Apocalypse Stone"). Read the product pitches; you weren't meant to survive (see "The Dungeon of Death")(1). Certainly, there's no accounting for people that would purchase and run that kind of adventure, but it does seem to constitute a concerted effort toward saying: "Get rid of the old and make way for the new. Now!" The adventures represent just one of several examples, but I'm not of a mind to put volumes here, and as I intended it just as passing commentary (though it will probably spark furthering arguing in which someone passionately defends "The Apocalypse Stone") I'll leave off there.

Second point is a question, and I mean this out of honest curiosity, and not as smart-mouth rhetoric. If 3.5Ed. is supposed to be free, how is that going to work? Is there some proof-of-purchase verification system that's going to assist in distribution? Or is it just going to be handed out, irrespective of concern for whether or not the recipient actually has "3.0"? If it's the latter, should there be expected any real quality, or will it probably prove as worthwhile as those "convert your character from 2nd to 3rd" pamphlets that they were giving out before the 3rd Ed. publication?

I mean, if it's really of such superficial import that they can just whip up a few thousand copies and dish 'em out like a vindictive meter-maid with an overabundance of parking tickets, then the argument against 3.5 as being a scam for more immediate money doesn't hold much water. In that case, it would just be to test how much of a bunch of suckers the audience still is.

(1) This one I have not actually seen; my source is a non-professional column from about three years ago, regarding the shift toward 3rd.

-

Shark said:
There's my money. Where's yours? I haven't heard one marketing alternative, from anyone, that could work in a real world.

Actually, that's easy.
LINUX was originally free. A few companies then made a small profit by offering to support it. (UK £ 3-6). Later, some companies made saleable versions (still at hugely reduced cost compared to either WINDOWS or SOLARIS systems).
Result, by having many flavour of LINUX, lots of choice on capability, proce and level of support.

So why can't DnD use this model?

- Grey

Re: "Agreed, Re-read the sentence."

I did. Before I posted. Several times. Now you re-read it: "They have to sell PHB's and other non-cores."

PHB's and other non-cores. That states quite plainly that the PHB is a non-core. If you made a typo, fine. But don't blame me for it.

Re: "But how many of you will actually download and print off 3 entire manuals? And then keep the looseleaf in some sort of order."

Learn about 3.5 first, complain about it later. It's not a whole new system, it's a friggin' errata. Nobody needs to download 3 whole books.

Besides, if you think nobody's willing to lug around sheafs of stuff they ran off their printer then you haven't met many gamers.

Re: "So how come Privateer Press does [make money from one or two books]?"

A quick peek at PP's website tells me they are not resting on their publishing laurels. They may not be running off new books at WotC's pace, but they're still in the game. Publish or perish.

Re: "It still doesn't make your opinion right. Or rational."

Then prove me wrong or irrational. You haven't done so yet.

Re: "Why would liking one make it necessary to crush all oppostion?"

You tell me. I'm not the one smearing D20 players with the "pro-vanilla, pro-WotC" label.

Re: " (...actually I do get sarcasm....)"

Well, then act like it.

Re: "Actually, I didn't mention superiority. I said that 3.0 has *** none *** of the flavour of AD&D."

Prove it. Show me the elements of this elusive quality that are present in 2E but missing in 3E. Surely it doesn't vex you this much that dwarves can now be paladins?

Re: "Different rule sets do much more to enforce a game-flavour than DM's do."

Wrong.

If I take Cyperpunk's gritty, highly lethal system and run a light-hearted humor game with it (as I have done), then the overall tone and theme of the game (the "flavor", as you call it) is substantially different from what's found in the rulebook. The same thing happens if I take Vampire's system and run a dungeon crawl (as I have done). The rules systems certainly affects the overall flavor of the game, but it still primarily comes down to the people who play the game.

Re: "Look at all the other rants preceding either complaining or praising Shadowrun for example. If you were right and I were wrong, then why would v3.0 exist at all?"

3.0 exists because WotC:

1. Looked at the ailing TSR and their tasty D&D franchise and saw an opportunity to acquire a source of nice profits.

2. Wrote a big fat check.

3. Listened to the players of 2E D&D. Recruited from their ranks. Found out that many gamers hated the multiclassing rules, wanted official support for critical hits, almost never used the race/class restrictions, etc.

4. Created a new system that was recognizable as D&D but implemented features that many players had wanted to see for a long time. Things like feats and modular classes, which allow for more conceptual freedom in character design.

5. Cashed a check considerably fatter than the one in step 2.

Re: "You are confusing development and change. They aren't the same."

Apparently you're saying that 3.0 is just "change" and not "development". Now back that up. Facts this time, please, not rhetoric.

Re: "Hooray! At last it is admitted. Development of the game isn;t to do with providing a better product, or with length of playtesting. Good old fashioned money is what will rule the future."

These goals need not be mutually exclusive. Besides, nobody gets into the RPG business solely for the money. There are publishing ventures much more profitable than RPG's are ever likely to be that don't require the kind of R&D that games do. Everyone in the industry knows this, and the ones who only want a paycheck move on before long.

Re: "Did it occur to you that TSR eventually died because they got in the habit of producing poorer and poorer product to squeeze gamers to an accounting schedule? WOTC could do exactly the same very easily."

They could. They haven't yet. Did you have a point here?

Re: "It's by registering the reaction against vanilla and single company markets in places like these that maybe someone there will take notice and think about better quality products."

WotC doesn't want a single-company market. If they did they wouldn't have created the OGL that allows anybody to profit from their system.

I'm not singing WotC's praises here or claiming their motivation isn't financial. I'm saying that they've found a way to make competition work to their financial advantage.

Re: "A cross of v3.0 with Hackmaster would be superb!"

Careful there. You just admitted that 3.0 has merits and Hackmaster has flaws.

"I have personally made a classless, levelless D20 system. This was made not merely possible but remarkably easy by D20's modular nature."

D20 is only modular when compared to itself or games like Rolemaster, which is the core assumption that d20 proponents seem to make (and frequently fail to defend).

Compared to games like GURPS, Storyteller (horrible that it is), Buffy, Basic Role Playing, Twilight, Khelataar, Rimworlds or Kult, d20 is decidedly inferior in mutability. FUDGE, Västmark, Eon, the D6 system and Silhouette all pretty much eviscerate d20 in terms of power, ease of use and flexibility.

And I've played all of these games. I know the difference. Most d20 proponents seem to have started with a d20 variant and stuck with it for upwards of ten years, whereupon they claim it is easy to use. Of course it is easy. After ten years of training, anything is.

I tried to modify SW d20, by the way. Me and my friends. We've rewritten other games and between us have around half a century of RPG experience. In the end, we gave up. It just wasn't worth the effort.

Lame…

Nazism didn’t win the war. Pop starlets come and go. My point keeps being made for me. Either it’s (D20) just bubblegum and won’t last, or it’s quality material that will hang around for some time. Anti D20 stumble all over this one. Keep pointing out popular material and I’ll show you something that passed on because it didn’t have enough chutzpa and real-world merit, or remained to become a classic, loved and remembered. Nazism was an idiotic choice. Take on my “popular over time” argument. I’ve never stated, “Popular automatically means good.” Nazism is hardly a popular conceptual threat that has stood the test of time. Racism is an ugly thing. Slavery is a crime in the world. Ethnic cleansing is an act that does not win one the Nobel peace prize. And besides, popular sentiment is a far cry from pop culture. Let me reword this so that Oxford can understand. If it’s no good, it won’t last. That’s my point! What are you worried about anti D20? IF IT’S NO GOOD, IT WON’T LAST. Do I need to repeat that?

IF IT”S REALLY NO GOOD, IT WON’T LAST!

Show me something that was bad in taste and form that has stood the test of time. Even Eleas supports my argument. (Eleas said: your adopted analogy only works if there was one Pop Starlet dominating the entire market for twenty years.) Now I extend my argumentative thanks to Eleas. If given time, most products will show their true nature. IF IT”S REALLY NO GOOD, IT WON’T LAST! It won’t sell. It won’t dominate. It won’t stand the test of time. The proof is still in the pudding as I originally stated. Give your fellow gamers some credit. If we find that it doesn’t work, we’ll move on. Do you really think people would make a classic out of a YUGO? Show me their sales records. Hey, what sales records? If it’s good, it will sell, and continue to sell. Why do Hondas sell? Why is Harley Davidson a prestigious company? Even though a Harley used to piss oil, it’s still a quality ride. As Mercedes Benz begins to water down it’s engineering, so too have sales begun to cool off. That’s why they’re no longer just a German owned company (besides the effects of a cooler world economy, Mercedes market share has dropped as well, my brother worked for them). Think about how much McDonalds has changed their menus over the years to include salads, and chicken patties. Even Burger King has jumped into the chicken war with more muscle. These do not even come close to constituting a “quality product.” It does, however show that companies understand that poor products cannot maintain sales.

And great products that die? How does the argument of “if it is good, it will sell” hold up? As there have been a passing of a great many quality products, we find the ones that were truly exceptional come back. Again, you must add the time argument into the formula. That’s why there are reunion tours of great musical acts. That’s why Indian (the motorcycling company) has enjoyed a marketing rebirth. That’s why we still buy DVDs of movie classics (all products must face the yo-yo effect, regardless of quality).

I live near a naval base in America. You simply can’t picture the amount of sailors that come and go, a constantly shifting gaming community. I look back on the days when there were multiple systems that everyone liked to game in. It was like being at the tower of Babel. Few of us who were willing to spend the time learning multiple systems actually benefited from this. It left us little spare time to enjoy life, which is why I left the gaming hobby for a good five years. There were just too many sailors who wanted to either play something different, or who quit playing when the systems proved too hard to learn. I found the same at school. And I definitely found the same once I started earning a living. There were too many. Who has the time to learn a gaming system per genre?

Learning new, deeper, more complex rules of gaming really brings out the geek in anyone. Try telling your coworkers how many gaming systems you have under your belt, and see what type of response you get. Despite the richness that many gaming systems bring out, and there are many, having one system to which I can sit down and play with a stranger is just a great concept. And we can play in a variety of gaming settings. We’ve never felt that a gaming setting’s atmosphere and feel was ruined by D20. That’s just absurd. If the GM stunk, hey, that didn’t mean that we dropped D20 altogether, blaming the mechanics for a ruined evening. We simply worked out what was wrong and continued on our way. We’ve been through our share of game systems; we’ve found D20 as fair as any we’ve played.

I originally started out as a gamer that did not want to leave 2nd Ed for a WoTC product. I did not care for Magic the Gathering, so I looked upon 3rd edition with a bad taste in my mouth. I’m not as stubborn as some old codgers out there are. The system is a workable one. We’ve had fun. A lot of us have had fun. When you can convince me that this is bad for the gaming community, then you’ve won.

There have been a lot of silly arguments and counter arguments. We can definitely see the merits for and the detractors against an OGL. Here’s the circle (minus the detail arguments) we’ve been running through on this site:

Anti says: D20 hurts the gaming world because it’s a flawed, bubblegum, vanilla system that’s being crammed down our throats.

Pro says: But vanilla isn’t bad, pretty good actually. The few problems we do have are being addressed in 3.5. And someone makes money creating a universal language for gaming. Good for the hobby.

Anti says: See! This is what we mean. 3.5 indeed! D20 hurts the gaming world because it’s a flawed, bubblegum, vanilla system that’s being crammed down our throats.

Pro says: But vanilla isn’t bad, pretty good actually. The few problems we do have are being addressed in 3.5. And someone makes money creating a universal language for gaming. Good for the hobby

Anti says: blah blah blah.

Pro says: blah blah blah.

So then we begin to degenerate into name calling. Probably of which I am guilty of starting with my “Popular Haters.” I’m sure that starting this post with “Lame,” didn’t help out either. Of the offensive nature of my posts, I apologize.

I still haven’t seen the death of gaming. I still haven’t seen a better idea work. You dislike the concept of the OGL. I don’t.

In all, this militant stance on the issue that we’ve been accused of taking? PLEASE… it’s just a hobby. Just a hobby! If you have something better to offer, free as has been suggested, then do it. I’m a gamer. I’ll see what you’ve got.

Let’s discuss the merits of a “LINUX” styled business venture in the world of gaming. Show me where you get the startup capitol for publishing and R and D. Perhaps you’ve discovered a way to circumnavigate costs. Show me how it is distributed to the market, including those with no online capabilities. Tell me how it will differ in terms of stifling the collective creativeness of the gaming hobby. What if it becomes popular?

Are there any other suggestions? Eleas? Mr. Dead? Hurricane? Point for point, Shatterjack (you da’ man!) has been very thorough with his arguments. I believe he is the proverbial smash master around here and I would not enjoy being on the other side of the fence from him. I thankfully completely agree with him. Of the Anti group, Grey has had some of the better posts in that he actually offers a solution with his complaints. I won’t say much about his argumentative style however…

I’m willing to hear out Grey’s solution in a point for point discussion. And anyone else’s for that matter. Something that is better than what we have now (Corporate models, not system options, there’s no winning that one). Let’s move this discussion forward.

Hey, watch your mouth!

Are we posting verbal garbage now?

So that’s the level Sam is going to sink to! Hmmm. As if merde and his post aren’t one and the same. His post is nonsensical in nature. Well, many of these things are gone. How about that? Guess they didn’t stand the test of time. And no they did not all last long relatively speaking. The next generation of children will have no idea what many of these things are. My thanks are now extended to Sam for bolstering my theory. AND… Some of these things are not gone, but they are also not consumer products now are they? And the ones that are consumer products and are not gone… give it some time. All things are relative. Some of these things don’t deserve to be in the same category of “bad” things. Some would argue that some of the subjects you listed are not considered bad in form or taste. The Ed Sullivan Show? Heavy metal? Cosmo (Sam must be lonely)? Petroleum fueled cars? Does Sam drive one? Has Sam ever owned anything besides a petroleum-fueled car? And who says all petroleum-fueled cars are bad? Ever sat behind the wheel of a Toyota Supra GT, in the driver’s seat of a 1970 ‘Vette, or within the stately confines of a Bentley? These are PETROLEUM CARS that will come to define their respective fields within their industry. If Sam’s comment is on people’s personal tastes, then perhaps he needs to find another point to argue. I’m referring to product quality, poor or high.

And what the hell is the matter with you, sicko! Arguing the quality or lack thereof in child pornography?

Still sounding lame and still no counter D20 proposal.

Oh and Shark, just you understand what I wrote about us (as in us in Quebec):
"Damn do we look stupid when you look at the sh... we produce and consume" More or less.

Also I am quite happily engaged thank you. If you think you know or understand women from reading Cosmo... whew... you might not be lonely, but I'm not sure I'd like the same women you would (all this assuming of course you're a hetero male.)
Do you actually think women can actually learn to interact with men by reading FHM and GQ?

Re: "In any case, I agree PHB is core. And will therefore have to be changed continually to make sales."

You make it sound like every single rules revision is a scam devised for the sole purpose of re-selling the same book to the same people over and over, with no other motivation being possible. If that's true of WotC and D20, then it's true for every singe publisher who ever revises their rule system- in short, all of them.

Re: "[Learn about 3.5 first, complain about it later.]
Why? "

Because otherwise you don't know what you're talking about. Like when you said we'd have to download 3 new books.

Re: "It isn't about whether 3.5. would improve the game or not."

On the contrary, that's entirely what it's about. A free update to the rules system that easily fits with existing material obviously can't be an attempt to force the purchase of new books. I repeat- the 3.5 revisions are based on player feedback.

Re: "It's about one system - and the company which controls it - being able to enforce change on the gaming community without the will of the gaming community."

1. WotC does not control D20. (I can elaborate on that if you like)

2. The 3.5 revision is not a revision to D20. It's a revision to D&D, which is one of many implementations of D20. 3.5 does not affect Star Wars, CoC, D20 Modern, etc. It's about D&D and nothing else.

3. Even if 3.5 was meant for the entire D20 system, it could not be forced on anyone who doesn't want it.

Re: "If d20 is so democaratic..."

I never said D20 was democratic. I said that D&D 3.0 and 3.5's IMPLEMENTATION of the D20 system are based on player feedback. Market research, not democracy. Again I remind you: 3E is D20 but D20 is not 3E.

Re: "...why have several companies delayed their publishing schedules to see what 3.5 brings?"

Because they chose to. Many D20 games are very close to D&D mechanically, which means those games could benefit from implementing the same changes. But WotC wasn't thinking of those games when they designed 3.5, they were just trying to fine-tune 3.0. They don't care whether Joe Blow Publications implements 3.5 in the next printing of Orcs 'n Stuff.

Re: "I simply don't remember so many gamers complaining about AD&D as a system which got in the way of doing role playing because you continually have to fall back on 'Now what was that rule again?'"

Then your memory sucks. Players have always looked up rules and debated their meaning in-game. And AD&D was one of the bigger offenders in this area (of course it couldn't hold a candle to Rifts in this respect, but I digress).

Re: "On the ther hand, go thru most of the rants around this site and others, and that accusation continually comes up."

And it came up just as often with 2E if not more so.

Re: "How many gamers out there thought all the add-on books like Tome of Blood etc were good value. There were decent bits in all - not enough to justify the price though."

I'll side with you on this- the expansions are pricier than they need to be- particularly dissappointing when compared to how inexpensive the cores are.

However, thanks to the open-source nature of D20, official expansions are more optional than ever. If I want a bunch of feats and prestige classes (and let's face it, that's what sells those books), I can find plenty of them from non-WotC sources, both printed and online. And unlike the 2E days, nobody who prints such a book needs to worry about legal action.

Re: "Don't confuse campaign atmosphere and game flavour."

Fine then. I ask you again- show me how this "flavor" you are so keen on but have yet to define is present in 2E and missing in 3E. When last I asked you to do so, you sidetracked into the issue of rules clarity.

Re: "Within DnD I have also run and played horror, fairy stories, action adventure etc. It was all DnD. The horror sections never really approached the flavour of CoC. All down to game mechanics."

Remind me never to play with you. If mechanics are the only thing that define the flavor of your game then you're doing something seriously wrong.

You have no idea how ironic it is, by the way, that I'm arguing this right now. I usually come at this point from the other side when talking with the rules-aren't-important-let's-just-roleplay types who won't acknowledge the importance of the mechanical side of gaming.

Re: "Development and change: If 3E were such a development, why are they backtracking so damn fasat on 3.5 - at least from the teasers about 3.5 released, it looks like much of the development could more rightly be called bugs."

Fixing bugs is part of the development process. Would you rather they left in the overpowered spells, front-loaded classes, and poor description of AoO provocation?

"They shouldn't have had those bugs in the first place!", most anti-D20'ers scream at this point. And they're right. But hindsight is 20/20, and nobody will ever create a perfect system. Credit WotC for acknowledging their mistakes and working to correct them.

Re: "Actually, I think you will find that the owners of WOTC did [get into the RPG business solely for the money]."

Not talking about the owners here. They're not in the business of game design (their money is, but they're not). I'm talking about the designers and project managers- the people who create and release the games.

Re: "But in the meantime, releasing the OGL so other companies can do the grunt work of attracting new players..."

Yes. A model in which both sides of the competition profit.

Re: "...and then changing the nature of the game to a format they will always be ahead with..."

No. I repeat, D20 isn't being changed- D&D is. If other D20 publishers don't want their games to be dependant on D&D revisions, they are free to make their games' rules different enough that 3.5 is irrelevant. The OGL allows plenty of room to do this without even jeopardizing your rights to the D20 logo.

Re: "And that's fine. But a lot of the rest of us still cannot see the up-side to a single company having such a controlling interest in a hobby market like DnD."

I'll assume you actually meant "a hobby market like RPG's", since WotC is pretty well entitled to a controlling interest in D&D. Semantics aside, the spread of D20 acts as free advertising for WotC, not control over other people's games.

Re: "Never had a problem with any kind of design. Just used to put things past my DM's and then agree what was reasonable for campagns."

You're missing the point. The rules frameworks of 1E and 2E didn't have a lot of room for customizing your characters. Equipment and race aside, one fighter was more or less like another. Any further customization of the character's abilities would have to come through house-rules. Not that there's anything wrong with house-rules, but not everyone wants to take time away from gameplay to haggle over them.

This changed in 3E. Those two fighters can now be built into completely different kinds of characters within the supported framework. Through feats, skills, and prestige classes, each can have vastly different abilities and tactical value.

In fairness I must point out that the "kits" of 2E allowed the same kind of customization, to a degree. But kits frequently had ultra-specialized rules that were a pain in the neck, and the character was still locked into a static progression under the insane multiclass system. 3E's prestige classes fix the latter problem, though most retain the former. Oh well.

Re: "The old books weren't supposed to be law books. More guidelines. d20 isn't the same. It is clearly meant to be a set of commandments."

Nonsense. DM's are encouraged to use, change, or ignore the rules as they see fit. All game companies do this. Read page 6 of the DMG: "You get to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them." Likewise, the PHB constantly reminds players that the DM is in charge.

Re: "The trouble is that the pro d20 / pro 3ed camp seem to have trouble taking criticism."

Really? I thought the trouble was that D20 is an unworkable system that's being used as WotC's unholy sword in its quest to destroy the gaming universe.

Re: "The lsightest hint of free thought about d20 seems to bring out a real fundamentalist streak."

All game systems have their evangelizers. D20's are no different from Fuzion's, GURPS's, or MasterBook's. I guarantee you that somewhere out there is a gamer who passionately believes that World of Synnibar is the only viable gaming system in the world. Someone who *isn't* Raven McCracken.

Hey Sam,
I know what you said in French. I understand the point you were making. I just felt that your post attacked people's personal tastes and opinions rather than product quality. Pardon Moi for my rude, snide, and sarcastic post. The personal attacks were stupid. Your point was actually well made. I reacted the wrong way because I felt that we were talking apples and oranges, really. Do you see my point? I do, however, want to move this discussion forward.

Penta,
The D20 is just a hold over from earlier versions. Attacks in DnD have usually been made with a D20. And a D20 is somewhat exotic, gives you a larger scope of probabilities, without being ridiculous in nature (the accursed, forever-rolling D100). Could the market have been different with another die? I think it’s a rather silly point, but perhaps there might be some merit to the question. I think that for now we should stick to the OGL question at hand.

Anyone,
What could be done differently? I’m still interested in hearing more of Grey’s idea, and anyone else’s. How do you overcome homogenization without creating more homogenization?

Just in the interests of clarity, I'll add:

(1. The market is technically not "zero-sum," of course; the audience could plausibly be expanded. However, it is most practical and secure to employ the realist approach and seek to maximize profits assuming a theory of absolute competition.)

2. There is no viable solution, from where we stand (or sit). There didn't used to be a "giant" on the block, and although there were certainly those companies that were larger than others, they did not generally look to change other people's systems to match their own. Everyone worked toward making the best possible system, seeking to succeed by merit. The new model says that one instead succeeds by conformity.

How do you avoid homogenization? Change WotC's practices. How do you change WotC's practices? . . . Therein lies the alchemy.

-

I've followed this thread a day late and a dollar short, it seems. Lots of brilliant input and not quite as much bashing as I would have expected.

I am in what I assume is the normative demographic for my generation of gamers: late 20's, married, full-time job, not enough time to game and I have a hard time finding gamers I want to play with.

I am absolutely thrilled to see the amount of thought and energy the gaming community is putting into concerns about game quality and the future of non-electronic RPGs. The Internet itself offers the gaming community a chance to come together, have discussions, collaborate, and effect change.

I can only hope that some of your concerns are being raised within WOTC and other game shops such as Steve Jackson Games. Perhaps some splinter groups will emerge from them to offer viable competition and new ways of thinking; better game systems, alternatives, new ideas. You never know. Obviously I'm making the assumption that there are gamers at WOTC that, more than anything, want to see people having fun with RPGs- at least I hope so. The older I get the more optimistic I become.

In the meantime, don't stop your efforts. If you have an alternative to D20, put it online. Get people to play it and give you feedback. If you like D20, add your creativity to the community; solicit ideas and suggest improvements. Your efforts now are the reason the next generation of gamers can expect better RPGs.

Shark said:
How do you overcome homogenization without creating more homogenization?

The answer is in the question really. Which I could put in one of 2 ways:
1) Mr. Dead – Wot he said! Summed up all the frothing at the mouth groping for logic I probably failed to put across. Thanks Mr. Dead. (Who is that Masked Man?)
2) Don’t create more games in d20 game mould. Don’t do d20 Gothic, d20 Call of Cthulu , instead do Runequest 21st Century, or ‘Joe Gamer: d9 The Origin’.

I am going to try to summarise the thread’s direction on this subject. (And try to be honest, not just argue my own cause.)

This thread seems to have 4 main issues as it’s thrust:
1. Is a homogenous d20 system to which most game developers subscribe a good thing?
2. Is WOTC’s stance in that market a good thing?
3. Does sales equal quality?
4. Is OGL a good thing?

Attempted Summary:
1. Pro party sees the ability to go anywhere in the world pick up a d20 and start (no matter the genre) along with a small learning curve as a (main?) plus.
Anti – party sees the sheer weight of d20 adherence as a problem because if the single d20 market fails, most commercial gaming goes with it.

2. Pro party sees WOTC weighing in with R&D and marketing bucks as a saviour to RPG’s.
Anti – party sees WOTC as a necessary evil now intent on market domination.

3. Pro – party pleads the case that if d20 (and also 3Ed) is any good, it will stand the test of sales and time.
Anti –party says sales does not equal quality. There are lots of high selling pieces of crap (material and intellectual) on in the market which have made money and been around a long time.

4. Pro – party says that the OGL lets everyone in on the game and is a great idea.
Anti –party says that the OGL is another form of a single company holding market dominance.

OK. Shark said he would like to see further ideas. So (places kevlar helmet and flak jacket in reach) here we go…….

1. Dehomogenising the Game: I am not going to suggest replacing d20 (and 3Ed) wholesale – let’s face, not going to happen. However, how could it be de-homogenised and rebalanced. (Although this now diverges completely from my beloved 1Ed…)

A) Strip feats out of it and make it completely skills based.
- Feats simply serve to sell prestige classes and non-core books.
B) Make all initial skills depend solely on ability points, not character classes.
C) Forget about class/ cross-class / non-class skills. If the player wants a truly unique character – build, then don’t put class-based restrictions in the way.
D) Provide a DM/Player template for introducing new-skills and skill point acquisition for them. I.e. build mutability into the player/DM/designer pact.
E) Relate criticals to the player’s skill with a weapon, not to the weapon.

i.e. a PC with 30 skill points in bastard sword should have a better chance to critical an opponent than a player with 10 skill points in

F) Make the d20 PHB (note, carefully not the Dnd 3Ed PHB) available on the net as a growing work on the same basis as Net Book of Classes etc. i.e. free at point of need!

The d20 PHB would comprise mainly of 3 ever-growing parts:
Core and New Races (mediaeval, horror and alien)
Skills (weapon related, profession related, adventure –related, knowledge related etc…)
Spells and Powers

2. Is WOTC’s stance a good thing?
I simply don’t see how writing a check gives WOTC carte blanche. Nobody liked IBM when they were the bullies, nobody likes their replacement’s bully boy tactics now, nobody liked it when TSR inflicted crap on the gamer (Arcana et. al…) and ultimately most people will come to express distaste for snuffing the little guys.
Improving WOTC’s stance?
My advice – write and tell ‘em what you don’t like or do like. I will.
Encourage them to try non-U.S. based play testers.
Ask them to provide better quality stuff on a slower basis. Tell them to talk to Privateer Press.
Will it work? Let’s see.

3. Does sales equal quality?
It only really equals income.
Let’s all be honest. We all buy or do things which are bad for us – from fried foods to too much T.V. And these things make mega-bucks and will never go away.
The two examples I chose are often the point of obsessive behaviour. That’s deliberate. Most of the serious gamers are fairly obsessive ( or at least too serious) about their hobbies. They will and do buy lots of RPG stuff that is fairly useless. I often hear the phrase “I’m just going to invest in…..” (Normally when there is no wife or girlfriend present.)
Can we end the argument therefore that if d20 (and by proxy) 3Ed sells, it must be good. ( I am not proposing that ipso facto, it must be bad.)

4. Is OGL a good thing?
I side with Mr. Dead strongly here.

But to move on, let’s give WOTC the benefit of the doubt and assume they created the OGL in a fit of altruism.
Well, how about we make it truly OPEN and not just AJAR.
[ My definition of AJAR is this: a door just open enough to get into, but which can be slammed shut behind you, locking you in. I know this one, my gaawd, designed loads of s/ware like that...but only for money...]
This is easy to achieve. Create an industry standards body for the OGL of the top game companies and designers. Allow any company which has a developed game on the market and the energy to contribute to sit on that standards/ownership body. Add to that body the kind of great geeks who created Net Book of XYZ or run the top free-to- gamer web sites.
Then make sure there are reps from Europe, Canada, U.K., Spain, France (I can hear the howls), Darkest Africa and bloody Ank-Morpork if necessary.

For goodness sake, even IBM agreed to ANSI standards for SQL. If they can do it, it can’t be too painful.
Then do the same to d20 as a system.
This will have the side-benefit of allowing the current OGL owners the freedom of extra time to concentrate on game development. I.e. it costs them nothing if ‘open’ was truly their intent.

Note one thing: I am always against the big guy. So at that point I will naturally turn my ire against the OGL Standards Board and all their devilish ilk!

I now retire to my bunker, armour up and wait for the first shot….

- Greyshirakwa

Nephandus: Fair enough.
I accept your comment in respect of why a simpler more elegant system might not sell more. (Once again your superior Vulcan logic has me changing my viewpoint.)

I still don't accept it is simpler or more elegant.

Of course, it is now possible to posit the question:
"If simple and elegant doesn't expand the number of gamers, then why bother?"

One other thing which I hope someone can provide evidence for - does anyone know where we can obtain figures on how many gamers there were and are? Do WOTC, Kenzerco et al publish current sales figures by category.
In the UK, we normally just get bottomline P&L and other company figures published.

What I am getting at is - let's see if they have actually saved the game population or not.

- Grey
-

Greyshirakwa:
"I still don't accept it is simpler or more elegant."

No, it is simpler and more elegant - objectively.
Game mechanics aren't like RPG elements such as story or characterization - which can be applied onto the mechanical framework. At a basic level, they are math - like program code in, say, a videogame. They allow the player to interact with the world, and they create the physics through which that player interacts. Like videogames, redundant and conflicting mechanics cause the game to break down. On the computer, the software freezes, not knowing what to do. Around the table, it turns into a bunfight argument about how to play, rather than simply playing.

You've seen this if you play D&D 1st. A Black Dragon spits acid at you. How do you resolve it? Breath Weapon save? Dex Check house rule? (makes more sense, except how do you improve it with level gains). The answer is simple in 3e. Possibly a constitution check if it hits you??? The 1st edition rules are clear on what the save is, yet they do not follow a consistent logic - what is a breath weapon save attempting to approximate?

Good game code corrects that. Forget 'Save vs Breath Weapon' and switch to the more intuitive and logical Dex check. The target evades the hit.

Also Greyshirakwa - the logic and elegance of the game may have little to do with the amount of players. Case in point - Apple computers in the 1980's, or Betamax format VCRs. Did Wizards save gaming? These things move in cycles, and D&D was definitely in its twilight years, choking on its own glut of products. The new edition fixed it up and helped to create a Rennaisance in gaming - it got people talking, buying, and playing again.

And, the more people that play D&D, the more people will be introduced to other RPG games.

Greyshirakwa says:
The difference is that in the IT world, the sheer computing power doubles every 18 months[…] If d20 system were to have delivered the same results, all combat sessions would be resolved in 6 seconds, […] But I am sure you see the core of the rebuttal.

Nephandus:
I see it, but your metaphor isn’t the most appropriate on. I’m talking about logic, leanness, and specificity in software code (the quality of the game mechanics), while you are talking processor speed (how math-friendly the players are at the table, and how quickly they can argue). It’s the difference between making the game simpler, and making the players smarter. The former is easier than the latter when dealing with living beings.

Greyshirakwa says:
One question, if your assessment of the game as more simple and elegant is objective, why do you claim that save vs dex is more intuitive for a check than sv vs breath weapon?

Nephandus:

Two reasons-

1. Dexterity approximates an actual game action. The person evades the hit. It’s cinematic – I know how to describe the game action, and I know what affects it. Save vs Breath weapon indicates a damage reduction, but it leaves vague the method used to achieve it. So it leaves room for argument whether the sticky goo that mires the character actually affects her ability to avoid the damage.

2. As indicated before, there are many instances in 1st and 2nd ed where there is more than one way to resolve an action – again, I point to ‘roll under your ability’ vs ‘saving throws’.

Greyshirakwa says:
So the answer to what 'saved' the game wasn't having a new game. It was marketing it better. Changing to d20/3Ed was purely incidental. WOTC could have bought any game system, called it DnD and marketed it. It would have had the same effect.

Nephandus:
If, for some reason, it is important to you to believe this, then you are certainly entitled, but it does not follow logically that because Wizards did superb marketing, that this is the sole reason that the game did well. It’s a much better game, and they marketed it well. And now, aside from the 3.5 release, they are falling into much the same trap that TSR did – publishing too much source material for different game worlds and ‘extra’ character rules, fragmenting the market and causing another glut.
.

Greyshirakwa says:
I have seen more arguments since 3Ed than before at virtually every gaming table. Both at my own and others as player and DM.

Nephandus:
Me too, but only from people who insist on attempting to invoke 1st edition rules. Once we trimmed those people from the group, I can honestly say its been the best gaming I’ve had in 20 years.

Greyshirakwa says:
My own viewpoint is you need **just enough** rules to have a common framework. The core of the game is art, enthusiasm and entertainment.

Nephandus:
I have always maintained that there are many elements to a good RPG. But here, I am only talking about the rules and mechanics. Art etc is layered on top of that.

Greyshirakwa says:
As soon as the ruleset impinges on the nub - and 3Ed does all the time - you have lost the core flavour. No ruleset covers every situation. The more rules you have, the more loopholes you also create.

Nephandus:
Huh? Because of the arbitrariness, whimsicality, redundant and conflicting or vague rules of prior editions, there enough loopholes to crochet an afghan. If you can’t see that, plain as day, then you are probably right – there isn’t much room for agreement here. In fact, I’d be amazed to discover that you’d even ever played 3e.

Greyshirakwa says:
P.S. On the logic point: Why would a save get better with level?

Nephandus:
For good gamesmanship, to help players cope with increasing challenges. Players like to up the ante, to increase their choices, to meet greater challenges, to reap greater rewards. You know this, don’t you?

Deadlands. Greatest rpg ever. In my humble opinion.
The system is complex at first, it requires a mass of dice, from d4's to d20's, you need at least two decks of playing cards and 85 poker chips (10 blue, 25 red, 50 white... plus a few spare just in case for things like Legend chips). You need paper clips to record things like ammo usage by sliding them up and down the scale on the edge of the character sheet. You do need a lot of stuff to run the game to it's full potential, and carrying all that plus the books down on the 2 hour train journey to where most my players now live, is no small feat of logistics.
But I can assure you, once you've got it running, it is one of the smoothest systems I have ever come across, using playing cards to decide initiative order is innovative, and works beautifully, the best I've seen since the original Judge Dredd rp (think it was West End Games, same people who did the original Star Wars). The randomness of a huckster's hexes relying on a poker hand of 5 cards, again, reflects the nature of the game beautifully. And the way the players play their chips, trying to decide whether it's the right time to call on fate is as good as ShadowRun used to be (when I played it) but more visual, it seems bigger, a weightier decision than just numbers on a sheet when you have a physical representation in your hand.
And then they brought it out in D20.
I had mixed feelings about this. In some ways I thought it was a good thing, it would be spreading what I consider a superb story line to people who otherwise wouldn't discover it, and it would also provide more income for Pinnacle, who aren't the biggest gaming company in the world to say the least. This would mean there would be more opportunity for them to keep up the good work.
But... how can D20 possibly come close to the richness of that system? If you lose the chips and the cards, you lose a superb aid to setting the scene, to helping the players and gm getting immersed in the game. The first time we ever played it, we were very quickly all giving it everything we had, accents, quotes, mosying to the fridge for more Pepsi... How can a collection of dice do that?! You may have the greatest gm in the world, one able to describe situations with such rich details you can't help but see them vivdly in your mind... you might have the soundtrack to the Good the Bad and the Ugly playing in the background, you might have had a Western movie marathon the night before... but a collection of small plastic geometric shapes can not convey the same emotive quality as the chips and cards.. and you lose that extra touch...
Admittedly, I, and other players of the original game are quite lucky. The original system hasn't been completely lost as with examples like Star Wars and Cthulu. Pinnacle still print their editions with the old system, as well as the new. Again this is both good and bad.. it means we get the information regardless of which we play.. but it also means that a large part of the book I've bought contains information I will never use, I've payed for this, and it's useless to me. It also takes up room that could be used on furthering the superb plotlines... but I do count my blessings none-the-less.

I can understand why people would find the idea of a single, all-encompassing system a good one. It does offer some very inviting advantages... such as running a game of D&D fopr a while, only to have some Stormtroopers land and reveal the planet is primitive compared to the rest of the dangerously expanding universe around them... but for me.. for me and my lovely lovely Deadlands.. it can't have the same impact as my dice, cards, chips and paperclips. If the system is tailored to the theme of the game, homogenised systems will seriously reduce that experience.

Nephandus you seem to be missing his point. Some games- Earthdawn, Deadlands and Champions to name a few rely heavily on the system to convey the atmosphere of the game.

The story and aesthetics are NOT seperate. The dice system in Earthdawn allows you to do truly heroic things (like kill a Dragon in one shot), and fit the world. If you try representing that with the d20 system it just loses something.

The same is true of Champions. There is just something about throwing twenty d6s all at once that drives home the fact that you are playing a superhero.

The d20 system works fine for some games- but not all. Having played Deadlands I have to agree- the chips and cards make all the difference.

See that's the thing Nephandus. Each of us has our own opinion. I, along with many others, feel that the system can bring a lot to a game. It can also detract from a system.

I love the game world for Rifts, but I feel that the system is really lacking. Some glaring problems with it make the game very difficult to play.

In my opinion there are some games that are mated to a system. They lose something if seperated from it. Deadlands is a great example.

The people here who are talking about d20 homogenizing the imagination are referring more to the small publishers that cannot compete unless they make d20 product.

I am one such publisher. My game is an online PDF, and has only a few dozen followers. Many have suggested that I make a d20 version of the game, and I know that would make more money in doing so.

The thing is, like Deadlands, my system is very much a part of the world. Running it through a d20 conversion strips it of a lot of what makes it a unique and fun game.

In the end you are welcome to your opinion. Just understand that people like myself and DeeNial disagree.

Hmm. I see that I have still not articulated my postition very well. I'm not advocating that everything should be d20, nor am I saying that d20 is the ideal system, if that is what you seem to think I am saying. The article seems to be that homogenization of rules kills imagination - not so.

I am saying that d20 is more suitable to the game of Dungeons and Dragons than the previous version. Same with Star Wars, and I'm fine with d20 replacing any number of crappy game systems, to help me better enjoy the imaginative settings that are wasted on those crappy systems. In the post you responded to, I even said I quite enjoyed the Earthdawn system, though I don't particularly think much would be lost in a conversion to d20. But far from devaluing the 'game' aspect of an RPG, I hold that it is quite important - which is why it is important to marry a quality game system to a good imaginative setting and scenario.

I've not played Deadlands yet, but its use of props sounds quite interesting - in fact plain dice are a prop of sorts as well. From what was described, it sounds like the chips are simply a tangible representation of a regular statistical roll. We do these things all the time in games, but Deadlands just adds chips to represent it. Great for them! But it doesn't fundamentally change the game. It's not like you can't use game props in d20. It's not like d20 and imagination are mutually exclusive. That's all I'm saying.

Here's a proposition:

IF AND ONLY IF you assume that the purpose of a game system is to facilitate conflict resolution in the most efficient fashion, allowing the players to get along with the imagination and creativity aspects of the game, THEN

The objective ranking of how elegant a game system is, is whether or not the statistical possibilities tested in the dice roll are measured in the swiftest manner possible.

As an example, assume a particular character is supposed to have a 50% chance of doing some task. A system which simply flips a coin is more elegant than a system which rolls 10d10, adds them up, and sees if the total meets or beats the result attained when the DM also rolled 10d10.

In both cases the character had the same chance of achieving the desired result. (Actually, there's a tiny, tiny difference due to the "meet" aspect of "meet or beat," but lets say that's negligible for our purposes.) But one system took longer to achieve the same result. I'd call that less elegant. Its certainly less simple, at least.

That's the nice, or terrible, thing about the d20 system. It simplifies almost all probablities into increments of 5%, and then gives a simple and elegant manner for measuring the probability of any percentage check that is measurable in the that way.

Other systems might want to do a different probability curve, other than d20s flat distribution. For example, you could take the basic d20 mechanic, the target numbers and all, and apply it to a game that uses a bell curve distribution, possibly by rolling 3d20 and summing or averaging the results. However, unless the bell curve distribution is well worked into your game, you're just making things more complex than necessary.

Remember- this only works as an "objective" measure if you agree to the assumption above about what the goal of the rule system of a game actually is. If you have some different goal, then this argument isn't for you.

PS- I agree with Nephandus' point where he mentions that, if you believe that chips are a necessary element of your game, but d20 doesn't use them, add them. Sure, you can't totally replicate another gaming system. But there's no reason a barbarian can't have "rage" chips, or a druid "wild shape" chips, or a luck domain cleric a "luck" chip. Is the problem that in the Deadlands translation to d20 the writers didn't bring along the "call on the gods for good favor" mechanic? Did they drop the paperclip based ammunition count? If not, then perhaps its their fault, and they should have? Its not like d20 can't have that in it. Sure, maybe the playing cards would have to go. If everything stayed the same it wouldn't be much of a new version. But surely some of the props could have come along to d20 with the setting and style?

"No, it is simpler and more elegant - objectively" (than 1st or 2nd ed).

There are many redundant ways to solve certain challenges in 1st ed with, all with different probabilities of success. Most of them are centered partly around the saving throw system. If you've played D&D you've encountered them many times - there is no way to avoid them.

Greyshirakwa said:
If you have to base saves on reflex for example, a much better way is to have a skill
in 'Dodging'. And have the PC's allocate skill points into it (or not) as they wish.

Nephandus:
And if a system did as you propose, it would be good?
Please check out the 3e PHB, page 81 Feats, lower right. In case you miss it, it’s listed under this subtitle: “Dodge”

- Depends if you rhink giving players more choice about how they build their characters is good or not.
I do.
Sure know about 'Dodge' - feat, gives +1 dodge bonus vs 1 character.
I'm proposing a skill which could be used for all sorts of things: saves, avoiding blows, avoiding AofO etc. It would be incrementable. And you wouldn't be tied to virtually linear save progression. Dunno, Nephandus, does that sound just like the feat to you?

Dave said:
Do I think that 3e has too much number crunching? yes. Is it a better system than previous versions of the game? YES.

The key questions are:
a) Do you think even less number curnching would make for a better game?
b) Do you think previous versions had less number - crunching.

Personally, I think a matrix lookup is pretty easy. (Also, I don't like players being able to make exact calculations in order to meta-game. Contrary to pop. opinion, most gamers don't bother to remember reams of matrices.)

Dave said: one thing you forget, grey, is that you can rule zero and aspect of the game you do not like.

Not at all. The problem with 3Ed is that WOTC made more parts of the game depend on other parts than before.
A good example is AofO. AofO are a totally unnecessary game artifact. (See Below for Why?)
The problem is is you decide you don't want them , you have a major job to rework lots of feats and several skills. Once you start doing this, it renders some off-the-shelf modules a lot of hard work to make playable again. As well as making nonsense of lots of monster types with reach.

- Grey

Why?
1. Don't exist in real life (over 20 years of martial arts experience) - they just aren't there
2. Player nancy about the game board doing 5' steps instead of getting on with it
3. Create too many arguments
4. Require balancing skills and feats just to exist.

For the sake of everyone's sanity, I interject thusly.

If you don't like a rule, change it.
If you don't like a system, use another one.
If you don't like a book, don't buy it.
If you don't like an arguement, walk away from it.