gamegrene.com

I run into the same problems these days. New players just ain't willing to try anything that doesn't have the d20 stamp on it. I think its a great system for D&D, and it works great with some other games, but it isn't the only thing worth playing out there.

First off, good article. I myself am a fan of the d20 system, but I like to try new systems too.

However, your complaints show some of the common misconceptions about d20. First off, the armour issue. Armour does NOT make you easier to hit, I agree. However, it does stop a blow from dealing any serious damage. That's what represented by the armour bonus. If I'm standing here in full plate, you could hit me with a sword just fine, but you'd be hard pressed to cause me serious injury. Hitting against armour represents finding a chink in the armour or hitting with enough force.

And it's also true that the average rogue couldn't kill the average fighter of the same level by shooting him in the chest with a crossbow. Would the system be balanced if it did? However, a properly trained and prepared assassin could. First off, most assassins won't just walk up and shoot you in the chest. So, if the assassin is a rogue and sneaking about, they get a big sneak attack bonus to their damage. They could also have a bunch of feats to enhance their shots, extra attacks, a magical weapon, and/or a poisoned bolt. Not to mention if they're an assassin they have the death attack ability.

On the tree-climbing issue, I believe the DC is to climb the tree in one round. Six seconds. The average person could only climb a tree in six seconds 25% or less of the time. When you were a kid, you probably "took 20" most of the time, as most people did.

And on experience, it really depends on the GM. Myself, if you use stealth or diplomacy to get by or negate a threat, you get as much experience as if you had defeated an enemy in combat. And don't forget, you also get experience for traps. And some GMs give out experience points for good roleplaying.

Sorry if I sound a little fanatical. It's just that I've heard these complaints too often (although the tree one is new.) I think the main problem is that d20 is designed for balance, while partially eschewing realism. If you want realism, play another game system. I'll stick with d20, but never be afraid to try something new.

Imerak-

Lets take your armor example first. You are wearing full plate. I am holding a two handed mace. Its going to be pretty close to impossible for me to miss you if I have any skill at all. Because a mace delivers blunt force trauma not only is it going to knock you down, but you are going to have broken bones despite your armor.

So again, the armor system is flawed. How do you fix it? Make armor give you an AR value. This value is then subtracted from the amount of damage that you take when you are hit. Plate makes you easy to hit but hard to hurt. Sounds a lot more realistic, right?

A simple system used by a lot of games, and a lot more realistic than what D20 uses. So explain to me how that's a 'misconception' on my part.

As to the crossbow example. Would it be balanced? Well that depends on the rest of the system. In Shadowrun if your opponent is training a gun on you, then you are either going to die or at least be seriously injured no matter who you are.

Its balanced in Shadowrun because the entire game doesn't center around combat like D&D. It focuses more on avoiding combat, or at least only fighting on your terms.

Is that lack of realism a flaw in D20? In my opinion yes, but I am willing to condede that its just my opinion. I like a little more realism in my games.

Correct me I'm wrong here but takin 10 takes twice as long as a normal action, right? And a climb check moves you 10 feet vertically right? So as a kid could I move ten feet up a tree in 12 seconds? Hell yes. I could do that now. If a big dog was chasing me could I do it in 6 seconds? Almost certainly.

But taking 10 in D20 would still mean that I failed. So I would need to take 20 which takes twenty times as long.
So two minutes to climb a tree? That's just bogus. And the climbing example is just one skill. I could point out many others.

And yes, you do sound fanatical. I have had these arguments many times and your post only serves to bear out my article. D20 has a lot of flaws, quirks and a total lack of realism. BUT THAT'S OK.

Play the game and enjoy it. Overlook the flaws and have fun. Just don't try to convince me that those flaws don't exist because you feel that it is an attack on the game you love.

And if you want to see me put my money where my mouth is check out Faelands.com. If you'd like I'll send you a beta copy and you can see what I consider to be a better system. And it won't cost you a dime...

Interesting...

I just started roleplaying about 7 months ago and, yes, my first game was 3E D&D. However, on the very same night, I was introduced to Vampire: the Masquerade. Having read this article and the comments following it, I see how this has influenced my view of other games.

Last month, I was part of a 72-hour Game-a-thon. Around the 40th hour we decided to play Shadowrun. It was I, the D&D player, who rushed into a room full of security guards of a maximum security magical prison. Though I wasn't shot that time (oddly enough), I was suprised that I took a lot of damage from the robot in the room right after. I thought that all my armor (natural, mundane, and magical) would be enough to stop most bullets. Maybe if I had had more time to study the rules I would have known to be more careful. Oh well, it was a one-shot game and I didn't die, so who cares?

This is a good arguement.

Myself? I've played so many different games that I have a singular viewpoint.

Systems are fun. All systems are not necessarily good, but in many cases, they add to the game.

But it comes down to one thing and one thing only: how you play the game.

If anyone is depending on SYSTEM to make the game for them, then they may as well play Hackmaster. Any system can be tweaked without effort to make it more or less realistic. And the use of story can also do this.

If you can't storytell the abilities of the players to explain the rules, then you had best give up the game, because that's what makes the game exciting. And if players choose to be to bold because of their stats, it's time to add a little surprise to the action. If a fighter in our campaign had an assassin walk up and aim a crossbow at him, he'd duck. Because that bolt may just turn out to be one of "slaying".

On the other hand if you enjoy playing the numbers, go right ahead. I just won't join said game :)

On June 29, 2003 12:25 PM, kommisar said: If anyone is depending on SYSTEM to make the game for them, then they may as well play Hackmaster. Any system can be tweaked without effort to make it more or less realistic. And the use of story can also do this.

Shure, you can tweak systems to make them work like you want them to. In theory, you can tweak D&D to give it a gritty, underbelly of society feel. You can tweak Vampire the masqurade to give it a cheery, uplifting feel. You can tweak shadowrun to make it inspire acts of heroism from the PC's.

But it's a hell of a lot of work.

The point I was trying to make was simple: each system fit's best with a certain kind of gameplay.

so when you are putting togather a campaign, pick the system that is the closest to what you are trying to do, and then yeah, shure, tweak it a bit, but don't pick a system that isn't anything like what you are trying to and then spend hours on end trying to shape it to fit your game.

remember: the more you change the game, the more likely you are to F*** something up

On a completely different note: what's wrong with Hackmaster?

Ahem, in defence of 3E

"Lets take your armor example first. You are wearing full plate. I am holding a two handed mace. Its going to be pretty close to impossible for me to miss you if I have any skill at all."

Well yeah, if he's just standing there. What if he's swinging at you with his own weapon, while trying to get out of the way of your mace? And what if you only clip him with a glancing blow?

"Yet in D&D a Firbolg with a two handed sword can deliver a critical hit, and if you are a high level fighter you won't bat an eye."

On average that hit will deliver 36 - 40 hit points, pretty much guarenteed to kill most fighters below 6th level, most rogues below 8th level, and most wizards below 10th level! In one hit! And you claim this isn't lethal? Sure, a higher level warrior will survive, but they've spent their entire career fighting in deadly combat, they're probably not just standing there waiting to be hit. And if they are, the Firbolg can just perform a coup-de-grace and kill them in one hit anyway, no matter what level they are.

Nephandus,

Others have made this point but I figured that I would chime in. You claim that a system shouldn't play a huge role in the setting and feel of a game.

Have you ever played Exalted? Or Earthdawn? Or Deadlands? Each of these games has a system that is built to support and reinforce the setting and feel of the game.

Could you convert these games to D20 and still retain the feel? Maybe with a tremendous amount of work, but I still doubt it.

Lets take Earthdawn for example. Your roll dice on a step ssytem, and at lower levels you roll smaller dice. So at 1st circle you may have 2d6 on a skill whereas at fifth circle you could have d20 + d8 +d6. If you roll maximum on any of these dice then you roll that die again and add it to the total.

So if you have 2d6 you can still get a result of 30 or more. Its rare, but it means that low level characters can do things like kill a horror at first circle. It adds an element of chance that cannot be duplicated with a single d20.

Now lets take an example of a couple systems that really hurt a game setting. Rifts (especially back in the early days) was one of my favorite game worlds. But the system sucks. Skills are klunky, and combat is just rediculous. The bad mechanics really hinder the game.

Now don't get me wrong. I have ran several long Rifts campaigns. When people were just playing their characters things went smoothly and we had a great time. But whenever the dice came out things went a little sour.

The same holds true for Trinity- a game by whitewolf. The Psion powers were either way overpowered or just sucked. There was no middle ground. So while we loved the storylines and plot of the game two of the players were just overshadowed by one of the others. None of us had ever played before, and no one was powergaming. It was just the way the game worked.

Now before you tell me 'a good GM could just fix the problems' or 'a good GM doesn't rely on the system'. A good GM can patch holes in a bad system. But a smart GM picks a good system with less things that need to be tweaked.

Most of the old school GMs (myself included) went through the same pattern. We spent years tweaking D&D. We made house rules, fixed bugs and solved problems that bothered us.

Then we realized that fixing an inherently flawed game (especially one with new rules coming out all the time) was just too much work. So we started experimenting with other systems until we found one that we liked. Some GMs (like me) even took it a step futher and made our own system.

Regardless, each of us found the system and game that worked for us. We found that one special game or system that fit our style and we made it our own. We did it because we learned that a system very much impacts the feel and tone of a game world.

In my opinion d20 is too limited to run the kind of games that I want to run. I have played way too many systems to count. Some were better than others. D20 is far from the worst. But it is also far from the best.

Well said Dan. If that's what you enjoy more power to you.

Your game soely relies on the GM, not merely your actions. Maybe your play a combat oriented samurai (Excuse the shadowrun refrences, I dont play much D&D) thats always looking for a fight. Sure, you'll get experince for your fight, in or out of character. If your GM likes how you play in refrence of his or he own personal stye, then you're likely to get more points than a sneaking elven Face with a knack for getting information of people.

The few GM's I play with use both systems, depending on the game. Though I only tend to play shadowrun games, I've sat in on a number of D&D games, as well as Star Wars and some other things. A good deal of them wont even roll for somethig like climbing a tree. Its a judgement call. Actually, I cant possibly fathom rollig for climbig a tree unless maybe it was alive and trying to beat you off while climbing it.

Hm. Theres an interesting idea. *Writes it down.* And yes, I think the drawn out argument over the 'climb a tree' is the funiest thing I've ever come across.

On another note: A lot of younger players dont want realizm. At all. I spent the last three months with a group of 15 year olds and my excitement over how a specific tank would work on the streets of Seattle was met with totally blank faces. But then gain, this was the group that got mad at me and actually said I was 'too origional' as if it was the worst possible insult to them.

Someone is going to have to explain how thats insulting to me o_o

Ashaqua: ... You thought to stop bullets? *Palms her forehead.*

Inserting minor annoyance here: The effort to stop, avoid or out run bullets have always annoyed me. Ran into a guy the other day that was convinceid I shot him in the head with a desert eagle, his kevlar VEST would take the damage. Oh yes, the vest was high enough to prevent the damage, but that wasnt te point, now was it. It took me half an hour to explain to him why this was bad. In the end, he retracted his statement, chased my character up a firescape, just to recive another headshot when he poked his head over the edge of the building to 'see where she went'.

*Rubs her temples.* I dont belive the phrase 'Girls are smarter than boys' but I'm seriously beginning to wonder.

On some final notes, I ome across thinking about rule-mongerisim. Maybe you like studying the rules to a hilt and making sure you have every detail down. Mabe your GM does too, but the rest of the players don. There aways going to be a comprimising situation you needto deal with unless you've got an extremely tight group and are unwilling to chance a player who doesnt know what their doing.

Wrapping it up, I'd like to say I GM. This is nolonger anything even mildly impressive since anyone with the incentive to do so can be one. Theres no real special skill to it other than having friends who agree to put you into power or not. I stll find there's shocking power in being able to say I am a Female GM. Seems a lot more people come to my games when they find out about this, though as to why I dont know seeing as most my games are carried out via mIRC.

More importantly, I am a Female Shadowrun GM. I've only heard of two others, one of which writes the CLUE files, or so I am lead to belive. However, I've never gotten to read the primary and current rulebook more than half way through - I dont have the time. Ive told people this over and over. I've recently finished running my 12th game (Decker and gang attack Knight Errant for information. They horribly fail and have enough common sense to realize they should run away very fast).

Despite being a new GM that really doesnt have a clue on most the ruling systems (I still need magical combat explained to me), I continually get talked into running games. I preffer some sences of realisim an charactarization. Most frequently, I wont have to turn to the rulebooks at all, as shadowrun is more rolepla oriented han the combat run systems of D&D.

Not to say D&D is a bad system, just not to use it if you want realistic situations. D&D is clearly marked Fantasy. Shadowrun is not. Not everyoe can be a great writer or play exactly how you want them to. Either learn to make comprimises, accept people have opinions weather you like them or not. Or, simply, Get out.

Quote of the day: "You know your in trouble when you start talking about D&D and your player is convinced your talking about Dumb and Dumber."

On June 30, 2003 12:56 PM, dwhoward said: To use an analogy, the system (e.g. d20, Shadowrun) is like the engine of a car. When I buy a car, I simply want to drive places with it. I don't care about its engine very much.

the only problem I have with your analogy (and the rest of your post's so far) is the assumption that all systems are functionally the same. there are differences besides those of quality (which arkelias has given some good exampels of). There is a very real and tangible connection between the game mechanics and the feel of the game.
you'r quake 3 example works very well towords my point: shure you COULD convert it into a smurfs game, but the weaponry, action, blood, and guts that the engine is built around wouldn't easily lend themselves to a very ...smurfy atmosphere. And though I wouldn't mind gibbing that one guy with the mirror, I don't think that's the kind of thing that should happen in a smurfs game. You can make it LOOK smurfy by tweaking the system a bit, but you can't make it feel smurfy withought making a smurfy system. and furthermore: smurfetty Mc.smurfy smurf-smurf. so there!

Game mechanics probably influence the feel of the game. But, like all ignorant consumers, I don't really care. Betamax may be better than VHS; Mac may be better than PC; etc. etc. But I still buy VHS and PC. It is like buying an unpopular game console just to play one game that is only available for that platform. Others may make that investment but, for lots of people like me, forget it. I've already made my choice and I'll just suffer with poor video quality, computer crashes and Pong.

If somebody cannot shoehorn their game into the d20 system, then their game will be held to a far higher standard since they are asking me to "invest", not just asking me to attend.

Don't you be dissin' Pong. For some stupid reason it's still fun after all these years.

All I've played is D&D. I'd like to branch out, but I have no job, which means no books (Though I was able to convince my mom to let me spend probably about $40 or more D&D books last weekend.). Plus I'm an introvert, so while someone might feel comfortable going into the nearest gaming store and asking if there's any games looking for players, I feel nervous just stepping into the store. One of my friends was going to start a Werewolf game, but it took ages to get a single character done (that is, if any character ever did get done). (I'm going to try to encourage him to start it again, I'd love to try it.)

D20 does have its flaws, I admit, such as the 1hp and still going strong flaw. (Hmm. . . Energizer bunny. . .) I'm hoping to incorperate a hit system like Mahdi has into my game. (Psst, any suggestions would be appreciated. *winkwink*)

The biggest flaw I think the d20 system has, however, is the experience system. So, my fighter gains combat skills by talking his way out of a fight? Or, my bard can become a better diplomat by slicing up the monsters on the way to the neighboring kingdom? So not right.

Thoughts on how to balance it? Would lowering the XP needed to level be approprate, then allowing the normal increases, except for skills? And skills must be improved by pratice, using a seperate XP requirement? Like the following:
2st lvl @ 750xp | ------ | 2nd lvl skills @ 250xp*
*Skills that have not been used may not be increased.

Imerak: "And don't forget, you also get experience for traps."

If I recall properly, you get the same amount of experience if you're skilled enough to disarm it, as you do if you're a big, dumb klutz who just happens to be tough enough to survive the trap. Not totally sure, the trap section in the DMG sorta confused me out of using traps.

Starfury,

Please reread my article and my posts. I may be a hardcore gamer, but I am not arguing whether or not D&D is a solid system. It is. Nor am i suggesting that people not play it. Like I said, I play it from time to time. Its a good, cheap universal system and obviously the most popular out there.

I also admitted several times that this is just my opinion and my specific style of play. I like more internal logic and realism than you, but that's ok. We both play the way that we like, and that's fine.

What really gets to me, and the reason that I sound so vehement in my posts, is people that are unwilling to listen to anything negative about d20.

In the end it comes down to play style. I play the games that I like the way that I like to. You do the same, and I am so ok with that. As long as we all have fun.

Just PLEASE stop trying to convince me that my opinion about the d20 system is wrong. That I am 'biased'. I came to the conclusions that I did through years of playing the game. I don't just dislike it because everyone else likes it.

And what's the point of your assassin example? My point was this. I am a first level thief holding a crossbow pointed at your chest. You are a fourth level fighter. There is no way that I can kill you even with a critical. In fact there is a really good chance that I will miss you from three feet away. So as the fighter you don't experience the fear that a situation like that would engender.

In Shadowrun or Rolemaster or a half dozen other games I can think of you could very easily die in that situation, and thus would react accordingly. I like dark gritty games. So do my players. Consequently we play the games that match our style. d20 does not.

BUT its still a good game...

Slightly off topic but I do wonder if a 1st level thief should be able to hold off a 4th level fighter with a crossbow aimed at his chest. From my point of view, this is equivalent to a skilled amateur with a handgun (say, a computer programmer who goes to the shooting range once a month) holding off a Green Beret with a machete. I can't say for sure whether this would work or not.

As I think of it more, a medieval crossbow simply is not a gun. Trying to arrest people or push around hostages using a crossbow simply isn't as effective as using a gun. Firing a single crossbow bolt into somebody's gut isn't the same kind of threat that firing 6 bullets into somebody's gut is. But, with that said, if it were 3 or more 1st level thieves aiming crossbows at various vital organs of the 4th level fighter, well, that seems like the 1st level guys should win.

But, the original point is well taken. The poster was trying to point out that there are situations using D&D rules where a PC should be able to be instantly killed but where, by nature of the rules, it is impossible. And, yes, I'd agree that this is probably so.

Arkelias,
While I have enjoyed many hours of AD&D, I have not played 3E, so I cannot really comment on its merits or faults, but I do recall fondly the "golden age of gaming" you refer to. And I totally recall playing new systems all the time, which was part of the fun. Also I have purchased games that I never expect to play, just because the setting, or a single mechanic seemed cool. I imagine you have too.

That was all a long time ago, now of course, I am a boring adult, have not gotten a new game in most of a decade, and can barely manage to run one monthly campaign. But about half the group learned the system I intended to run it in (the TFT system by Metagaming) even though it has been out of print now for about 20 yrs, they just borrowed copies to do so.
Some of the other posters make a good point about the potential expense of buying a new game, but I have played a number of games without owning them, and I cannot imagine not wanting to learn a new system if someone I knew was willing to run a game. I kinda feel sorry for the two players you mention, as they will miss that "new game" thrill.

Anyway, enjoy your game, be it D20, Champions, Earthdawn or whatever.

John

Assuming that the player is willing, an alternative to having the player learn the rules to a new system upfront is to boil the game down into the bare minimum to play.

In D&D, rolling a d20 to hit with a set modifier and rolling a d8 for damage with a set modifier is sufficient for combat for a rules ignoramus. Rolling hit points and simply assigning a decent AC is all that is needed for a character sheet. If worse comes to worst, you simply assume that everything else about the PC is average.

If the player is experienced in other systems but unwilling to learn a new system, you can hopefully get him into the game in this way. Once he gets the taste of the system, he might be willing to learn more. If not, he can easily drop out before you or he has wasted significant time on teaching him the new system.

Anybody out there care to boil Shadowrun or Earthdawn or some other systems down to the bare minimum?

How do you boil ANY system down without depriving the players of options?
And if you'r cool with depriving the players of options, how can you keep each charachter original/ different? If everyone is average at most things, what distinguishes charachter A from charachter B???

If its d20 based its crap designed to draw you in while numbing your brain with mechanics made for a 12 year old. Its like watching tv sitcoms, with less commercials.

Take it away and bury someone, please!

1: that's what Maximum is trying to do

2: the question he asked was "any ideas how to sell the game?" that kind of percludes kicking the players out (unless you have some silly idea about using the threat ofexpulsion to get them to play)

3: see my last post

4: the question was HOW?

Now, my feeble attempt at answering the question:
Call of cthulu, like the literature it is based on, is unique, and has many points on which you can sell it. For example, you can point at the large body of literature you, as a GM, have at your disposal to incorperate into the game. You can point out how often this literature includes the greusome death of the main charachter, or the revelation thatthings arn't what they seem. You can point out the easily addapted descriptive style that focuses on describing the most horrifying details, as often as not, as completely indescribable. Most importantly, don't forget to remind them that the point of the game isn't to succseed at whatever you are supposed to be doing, it's to run away with as much of your sanity intact as possible.
in all seriousness, Cthulu can be a great roeplay experiance, but ultimately, the only way to convince someone to join in is to first convince the to read a Lovecraft story or two.

Thanks for the response, mormagli. I've already started getting people to read the books (which i personally love) and at least a couple are interested, even the people who dont want to play like them, they just dont find the idea of learning any new system appealing, it's not really a Cthulu problem. Maybe i'll just run a smaller group...
(BTW- re: the kicking player out suggestion, this is a group of friends, the point would be hanging out as much as it would be to play, and since i'm not really one for the gaming shop scene, my pool of roleplayers is somewhat limited :) )

Thanks all.

To Arkelias- Just out of curiousity, does the offer for a beta copy of your Faelands apply to anyone?
I was born into RPGs via D&D and I loved it, but the whole 3.5 thing has me salty enough that I am seriously considering finding another fantasy game to play in.
I found myself looking over Exalted yesterday at the bookstore, and then I remembered reading your post. So I thought I'd check it out.

On July 3, 2003 12:21 AM, Maximum_Taco said:

"A few weeks ago i was beginning to plan a Call of Cthulu (Chaosium) campaign, only to find that two out of the five of us didnt want to play because they would have to learn a new set of rules. Any ideas how to sell the game to them?"

That is a tough one. My friends and I are always willing to try any game someone is willing to GM. Many times we use the "Distilled Rules" approach that dwhoward suggests. Fill them in on the setting and some core mechanics, and the GM runs all the rules. If everybody likes it, they can learn the rest of the game as well, if not, they have not had to learn much. In fact that is the only way I have played CoC (sometime in the mid 80's), it was fun, and I was entertainingly driven mad and killed, without ever mastering or owning the game.

I'm afraid that's really all I can suggest, except to point out that learning new systems can really be fun (as this very article points out). You could also see if they are interested in running a game of their favorite system as a GM. Once you've done all the work it takes to GM, you really appreciate the simple joys of playerhood more.

John

On June 30, 2003 07:42 PM, Ashagua said:
Question for the Bebop Cow: what were you being too "original" about that got your players mad?

Eh. I like taking on extremely bizzare projects. Most of them pan out into very strange and entertaining games that stretch out for years. (Case in point; Pokehut was borrowed and improved upon from an old friend. I stll havnt seen any other system balence actual roleplay and gore while being a diceless system since then. Everything has fualts though, wont get into that right now.)

Most recently, I came across a group of fans who were trying to create a pheasible battlesystem for Sonic the Hedgehog. Sounded like a great chalenge and I joined in, forking over my knowledge and experince in game creation and roleplay for the last ten years.

Long story short, six or seven of the origional Sonic the Hedgehog races were included. From there on out, everything went to hell. A Dragon Ball Z combat system was generated and added (much to my complaint, not to mention it through the existant system to hell), weapon systems that were impossible for characters to pheasibly handle yet 'they just can' was implimented. And so on and so forth. In the end, I was slapped down for wanting to put in a spin of realisim (went and researched some real firearms, tanks, mecha therum, armor capability, etc), Gravity and general common sense into it.

I could also go into detail about how even now they're stealing work and characters I had just used to give examples and indeed formally requested them not to use when I left. Apparrently also including anythig from the games outside the characters and the rings was another cause for the 'too origional' statement.

People confuse the hell out of me sometimes. -_-

Question to everyone else:

Firm arguments between the D6 and the D20. I've been seeing them for years. Arent there any other systems? D8 based maybe? Or mabe some great diceless system? Do they even exist?

And so the Eternal Newbie sits here, torch alight and robes lightly singed from being held too close while writing, wondering why she cant make shorter posts.

Funny, Ashaqua, other than the side number of the die, it really sounds exactly the same as Shadowrun. Rule of Six, Rule of One, Target Numers and Specilizations.. *Blinks and rubs chin* I suppos people will continue following lines of what words and what doesnt.

I can't see anything too wrong with realistically inaccurate as a concept. If d20 - or any game system wasn't inaccurate, most skill and most monsters wouldn't be allowed.
Since these are RPG's, that seems a bit limiting.

I think what bothers most people falls into one of two categories:
1. That a particular subset of rules or application of them fails the test of internal game logic. i.e. the rules say "in this case we start from the premise of 2 +2 = 6", but when applied to game the users consistently end up with total of 3

2. That part of the rule set is so poor that users can't 'suspend disbelief'.

Presumably, that's what 3.5 Ed is supposed to fix. Although from pre-advertising, it appears that rather than ditch attacks of opportunity - which they admit most gaming groups have done - they decided that the problem isn' t the rules, it's the fact they hadn't explained the rules well enough.

For those of you who are Brits, this sounds awfully like the current government telling the public it isn't their policies which are at fault, it's just the public hasn't understood them well enough. Maybe Alistair Campbell is running Wizards too....

Oh well, let's all give it a good chance first...
- Greyshirakwa

Nope. Can't be bothered to go into that one again. If you want to find out, go thru a few other threads like'Demise of Dungeons and Dragons ' et al.

The real point is this: Wizards admit most groups don't bother playing them, or else have greatly changed them to make game sessions better. But rather than go 'Ok, tried it, no one liked it' and adapt, they have decided it's presentational.
Hence my point - let's wait to 3.5 Ed and see if representation makes them more palatable/enjoyable to the bulk of gaming groups.

But if it doesn't, they should listen to the gamers and drop them in the next revision.

- Grey

I have to say that I agree with you. I like D&D, but sometimes you need a little more realism. Exalted is great for this because it is still fantasy, and the characters are still (or perhaps more) godly, but they can die pretty easily if you're not careful.

As for armor in D&D, this is the way I've always explained it. Anything under a '10' is a flat out miss. Anything that is above 10 but still not a 'hit' does hit the target, but fails to do damage. It makes the idea of AC work a little better, even if it still makes no sense.

Hi everyone,
The URL below is worth following:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/3point5comments.html

It doesn't totally blow off 3.5, but it does confirm for me the main driving force behind WOTC/Hasbor isn't giving the players what they want, or improving the game or any of that. It is and always will be greed.
And it does raise the question : What price d20 now?
- Grey

Check AMBER.. diceless roleplay... no luck involved, storytelling supreme. The assassin with the crossbow pointed at your chest maybe an utter wimp, or he may be an elder who has 5 times your abilities. Make em second guess everything...

Poor J.W. Harris. All I can say is: amen. I'm a GURPS enthusiast, but I'm having a time luring the d20 crowd away from 3d ed (or, heaven help us, 3.5).

Obstacles I encounter:

* Much of what I've read here. "I don't want realism, I get enough of it in real life." Hey, great. But stay away from my table.

* What do you mean, I can't swing my axe every round?

* "Bell curve mechanics don't work with linear modifiers." Hey, don't ask me: ask the @$ that told me this.

D&D is fun. I ran a 3d ed campaign for over a year just now, and I enjoyed it. But it left me hungry for something...not just more realism, but more thoughtfulness. When you find yourself having to fine-tune the rules too often, perhaps it's time to change the system. Or, to borrow dwhoward's analogy: if your car breaks down too often, perhaps you've bought a lemon.

KoboldSlayer:

1) Because the original CoC rules are simpler and more elegant than the d20 version. If ever there were a ruleset that didn't need to get converted to d20, this is it.
2) Because classes and levels don't make any sense in a modern setting. Check it out: my 8th level professor of semiotics is much harder to kill than your 1st level firefighter, because he's been fighting the Mythos longer?!? Not only is this situation totally absurd, it runs counter to the spirit of the genre. In D&D, characters get more powerful with time. In CoC, they get weaker. Using d20 screws up that mechanic.

Just a note that curiosity has prompted. Everyone posting here has made several points for their favorite systems, both in regards to realism, or the lack thereof. The major theme running through this thread seems to be the quick death, or the inability to cause it. Whether you support realism or not, in a game that is to make any sense, there must be a foundation of realism, or why are you playing? Fantasy is not the absence of reality, it's an expansion of it. When you fire a bow in the fantasy world, gravity does still dictate that it falls to the earth eventually, no? You need a flight spell to leave the ground, don't you? You need healing spells because a sharp sword causes damage.

With that said, and established, you must acknowledge that a reasonable foundation of reality must exist, or the game has no root meaning. SO, yes, the thief, with his crossbow, SHOULD be able to kill a fighter, if he catches him off guard. In no system I have played has this been accurately portrayed, with one exception, which is Rolemaster, which I first discovered in 1982, and am still playing today. Yeah, I'm old, but my 12 and 15 year old nephews love that system more than any others they have tried. You know why? Because they can die. They know if they screw up, get sloppy, or just plain careless and cocky, they will die. And in a world that is an expansion of reality, they dangers are also expanded, and so must your caution. And I just hate any system where the character has more damn hp's than his warhorse. Just kidding. No, wait...no I'm not.

Hi excellent article.

I reckon D&D is brilliant because its a simple, integrated system with well balanced and play-tested elements. Added to which its hugely popular so I am guaranteed continuous development, excellent supporting documentation and a large community of players.

I've played a lot of RPGs, with various levels of complication and and realism, and I reckon D&D gives a good overall balance.

Sure, the realism is full of holes, but theres nothing stopping you putting in a dozen or so house rules to tailor it to your taste. For example, the quick kill requirement my gaming group sorted out years ago by allowing something like a thief backstab from cover in a surprise segment. This let you wipe out low hit point critters while not being as lethal to characters as the old Assassinate percentage.

Last thing. I've always been against location of hits. Man. this is taking realism to excess. Who gives a damn, its only a simulation anyway. Heh.. I remember we used to play location hits and scarring maiming etc. After 7 or 8 melees, our party looked like a freak show, heavily scarred, missing eyes, digits , fingers, lips, limping. Very realistic no doubt, but hardly the stuff of fantasy !

Game on Dudes !