Why D20 sucks, Vent here on why you dislike d20 Options

[Buzzed]

My reason #1 why I dislike the D20 system.

The D20 standard is an attempt by WotC to make all roleplaying games clones of D&D in order to sell more of their books. If you play D20 then you will play D&D at least once.

[Tanka]

It's not like D20 is that bad. It has it's weaknesses, just as the SR system does. It also has some strengths, just like SR does.

Example: Still having to roll a four when you're 1 foot from the guy you're shooting at! Even if I don't have a skill in Firearms (RL me), I could shoot him right in the face from one foot. Yet SR doesn't compensate for this. Admittedly, I might not be prepared for the kick, but the guy surely has a bullet in his head.

[Adam]

[TinkerGnome]

DnD 3.5 was planned from the time 3.0 hit the shelves. Right now, 4.0's release schedule is already being worked on. As many bad things as you can say about d20 (most of which I would argue aren't any worse than flaws in other systems), WotC does understand how the marketplace works for RPGs. If you don't make a new edition every few years, it runs the risk of stagnation. The more people who play the game, the faster that can happen.

[Digital Heroin]

You know, I've yet to see a reason to hate the system here... just a reason to hate the company, and a poor one at that...

[MYST1C]

I simply don't like systems with fixed character classes and advancement through levels.

[TinkerGnome]

I think it's less of "I hate d20 as a system" and more "I hate the effect the d20 system is having on the gaming industry". Right now, d20 products make up a staggering majority of pen and paper RPG books published each month. However, most of the old standbys are still going strong (SR for instance). They just make up a smaller percentage of the overall pie.

One of the things I do like about d20 and the RPGA by extension is that it's possible for people with good ideas but few connections to make a place for themselves in the gaming industry by using the WotC vehicles provided. I, personally, think that the d20 open source model is good for the gaming industry because it allows fresh thinkers into the industry without so much political effort.

Take the only D&D setting I'm currently active in, Arcanis. There's not a whole lot of chance that these guys would have managed to publish their stuff successfully if they'd had to write their own RPG rules to go along with it. In fact, they'd probably have been labled another D&D clone and forgotten about.

Anyway, D&D works well for the genre. Level based systems work fine for the fantasy genre (I'll make no defense for d20 modern or anything else but the fantasy stuff) where the heros classicly start out weak and then become powerful. Open ended character advancement systems allow more freedom... but it's not really necessary to create a positive gaming experience for most people.

[Buzzed]

Slicing a low level pc with a blade does huge damage, but that same blade slicing a naked high level pc only scratches them. Blades are blades and should hurt high level pcs just as much as they hurt low level pcs. The D20 hit point system where you gain more hp per level just doesn't make any sense at all.

The Shadowrun, Twilight2000, ect. ect. systems are much more realistic with how they handle health.

[Bull]

Anyone who knows me knows that I have series issues with D20. The system has some serious flaws, in my eyes and in my opinion. Of course, this doesn't make the system bad or good in general, just bad for me in particular.

Overall, d20 has had both good and bad effects on the gaming market:

Bad

1) Oversaturation of bad product.

It's too easy for any moron with some money to burn to write a game and slap the d20 logo on it, hoping it will sell. Fortunately most game stores were smart enough not to buy into the 3rd party crap too heavily, but still, the fact that there is a glut, and that most of it is utter drek, stands.

Still, overall there's a metric ton of product on the market and that coupled with the necessary price increases that the game market has finally seen in the last few years ago (And was way overdue for) means that the average game buyers dollar is stretched way further than before.

2) The "Is it D20?" effect.

Unfortuantly, a percentage of the gaming market has fallen for the D20 hype to the degree where they've gotten lazy. Too lazy to learn new games, which is annoying. Too many gamers bought into the hype that "you only have to learn one system", and more than a few times I've talked to or heard of people who didn't want to play a non-D20 system because they "didn't want to learn a new system".

Good

1) Some innovative D20 designs

A few game companies have made attempts to stretch the D20 system to make it their own unique entity. It's occasionally interesting to see what a company can do within the confines of the OGL and D20 licenses. Plus, a few of these attempts have actually been pretty good.

2) Collects the bad Games in a single place.

Ok, this is a little snide, I realize, but... Many "bad" game designers that really wanted to publish their own game (i.e., vanity projects) now take the easy way out and puublish it under d20. Since I generally only trust and will use certain game companies products for d20, I can automatically ignore a good chunk of the chaff. Consider it a Spam Filter for the game store :]

3) Boosting visibilty and sales in general of the gaming Industry

While I don't for a second believe the over-inflated marketing data that die-hard d20 fans trot out (still), it is a fact that D&D and D20 in general has helped revitalize the gaming industry a bit. Most of that is D20 specifically, of course, but there has been trickle over. The fact is that any entry point into the hobby is advantageous, and many new gamers will eventually explore other games and games system.

(This is the same reasoning why, despite many "old timers" loathing first CCG's and now CMG's, these games are beneficial to the hobby)

4) More effort on the part of newer game designers

Whether to spite D20, or to stand out among the d20 crowd, there have been a lot of new games over the last three years, and many of them show the effort that's been poured into making them really stand out or be different. As they say, competition brings out the best.

<shrug>

Like I said, I have issues with certain design elements of D20, but that in and of itself doesn't make it bad. WotC's marketing of it likewise doesn't make it a bad thing. They're trying to increase sales, which is what all game companies do (or should do). And they're not forcing anyone to play D20 or convert to D20. They simply offer the option. If you want to blame anyone for D20, blame the companies that offer D20 products instead of (or along with) non-d20 games. But blame them only for hoping to increase their sales and fanbase.

And as for the Edition thing... Look at it like this. 3rd edition was really more of a 1st edition. There were so many changes to the game, and reader feedback demanded certain changes to the game for balance and play issues. 3rd ed was mostly a new system, and despite playtesting it still was going to need work once it got out "in the field". No 1st edition sruvives for too many years unscathed, and 3 years isn't a bad run.

Hell, Shadowrun had a 2nd edition 3 years after their first edition.

The fact was, they had enough feedback and changes that warranted a new edition. And you know what? They put the changes up on their web site, for free. So you could still play the current rules without shelling out for the new books.

So to my mind, d20 isn;t quite evil game everyone tries to make it out to be.

Bull

[DigitalMage]

I have only played a couple of D20 games and am just reading the Star Wars D20 game so my opinions have to be taken with a pinch of salt but here goes:

Linear probability - with just one die to roll it, you are just as lkely to roll a really great success (a 20) as you are an average success (a 10). Using multiple dice evens this out so that really high rolls, while possible are not as common as "average" roles.

Luck more of a factor at low levels - at 1st or 2nd level your max skill is only 4 or 5 adds but when you roll a D20 the range of results is quite dramatic, at these levels luck is a much greater factor than skill. And gotd help you if you have gone against the advice of the game and put just 1 or 2 points into a skill (you may as well have not bothered).

Levels - A completely abstract way of indicating how experienced a character is becomes a tangible part of the rules in that some tests are easier or harder just because of a person's level (regardless of their attributes and skills).

Saves - the Reflex, Fortitude and Will saves all benefit from level, regardless of the actual attribute rating, therefore a 1st level character with a Constitution of 15 has a harder time making a Fortitude save than a 5th level character with Con of 10 (the ability mod difference is only +2, whereas the level increase to the save throws can be quite high).

Classes - As a tool for newbies, they are great, but for experienced character creators they can be restrictive. I recently tried to create an ex Servant/Butler character in Star Wars and had to go with the Noble class as this shared most of the class skills I wanted - but the Favour mechanic doesn't fit with this character and some skills I wanted I had to take as Cross Class (e.g. Sense Motive - used to anticipate the Master's needs).

Feats that could just be replaced with extra skill adds - too many feats in my opinion could be better implemented by more skill adds as that is in effect what they do. However they become important because it is often the only way to get a skill rating above the artifical limit imposed by the Level of the character. These Feats mean many more pieces of information to trawl through and remember as a GM.

Feats in my opinion should be used for things that cannot, or should not, be reflected in skills, similar to Shadowrun's Edges and Flaws (Focused Concentration) for example. I actually think the Weapon Proficiencies and Piloting Proficiencies are great - without specific training in a weapon you won't be so great, but if you're a crack shot with a similar weapon you shouldn't be as bad as a completely untrained person (this is actually a bad point about Shadowrun, having different skills for similar weapons (Pistols vs SMGs) which is partially offset by the defaulting rules). These sorts of Feats remind me of the Fields of Experience in the James Bond RPG e.g. you have Skiing as a Field of Experience rather than as a skill, and use your existing Evasion skill for chases while skiing (without the Field of Experience you eitehr can't do it or are at big penalties).

Too Combat oriented - to me most of the mechanics, feats and so forth are based around combat - fine for some systems, but not all (this is what I call the Adept problem, similar to Shadowrun's adept powers being mainly combat focused when the potential in other areas is so great).

Hit Points - not such an issue with Star Wars but as has been said, Hit Points that make a naked 10th level hero harder to kill than a fully armoured 1st level character is crap. They may work for very cinematic genres but not for all the genres that D20 stuff is being pushed out to.

Similar but different - Each game seems to have the same core D20 rules, but changes them slightly or quite a lot. I don't know if this is a problem, but to me I would think this could cause more confusion as you try and apply tehrules of one game to another and have to figure out all the discrepancies ("What do you mean Armour doesn't add to my defense and is only effective on Critical Hits? Why the hell would I wear armour then?!!!!!). Completely different systems negate this, people know the system is different and then don't try and relate it to previous games but learn it afresh, with no mistaken assumptions.

To be honest, I like the idea of a generic system that can be used for different games by different publishers. But I just think D20 isn't the best system to use for this. The Action system (also under OGL) at least tries and institute ways to adapt the system for gritty, realistic and cinematic genres.

[Swansonegger]

[DigitalMage]

@Swansonegger - This is why I mentioned the Hit Point issue isn't so bad in Star Wars D20 due to explicitly splitting out Vitality points (which go up with each level) from Wound Points (which stay equal to Constitution). A critical hit goes straight to Wounds and therefore it is always possible to get killed in one go.

[TinkerGnome]

It's worth pointing out that a hero of any level can be killed in his/her sleep by a peasant with a dagger. It's easier to kill the level 1 character than a level 20 character, but the difference is only about 50%. I point this out simply because most people point to hitpoints as being so horrible and don't realize that they're not used for attacks which can't be defended against.

Rules: A coup de grace with a dagger deals 2d4 damage, requiring a fortitude save vs. DC 10+damage to live through. A 20th level fighter has a 12+con+d20 roll against it. A level 1 fighter has 2+con+d20 to roll. The 20th level fighter will probably live (+2 con modifier gives him a 5% chance to die at 6 points of damage, 10% at 7, and 15% at 8). The first level fighter has a much higher chance to die (+2 con modifier gives a 55% chance of death at average damage (5) and ranges from 40% to 70%). That's for a single knife wound from someone who has no training/ability with stabbing people in their sleep. A level 1 rogue gets +1d6 to the damage (and thus the save DC).

[XON2000]

I have no problem with the idea of a "universal" system. In fact, I've tinkered with my own system on and off for years. I also don't have any problem with WotC trying to make money. That's what businesses do.

But the idea that D20 is such a great system that it can be used by anyone is what sticks in my craw. I admit that the current incarnation of D20 is a great improvement over the original D&D rules, but it still maintains all of the old, obsolete concepts. I hate classes and levels, and I really can't stand hit points. Even with the explaination that they are an abstraction, they still bother me. It's just overly simplistic to me.

Also, as was mentioned before, with a single die roll, a roll of 20 is just as likely as a roll of 10, or even 1. And aside from critical successes or failures, there are no degrees of success. You either succeed or you fail. SR's D6, or White Wolf's D10 systems are the best method I've seen for providing an easy way to determine variable degrees of success without the need for a bunch of charts.

Finally, there have been a lot of games whose system contributes to the flavor of the game as much as the setting does. Take Deadlands, for instance. The poker hand mechanic really made the game unique and fit in nicely with the setting. Trying to shoehorn every game into the same tired old system just makes them all equally bland.

[JongWK]

I dislike Class systems, at least they allowed for easier multiclassing.

Hit Points: Hate them, utterly hate them and the explanation given is soooo lame. I mean, sure, you can say it is "combat experience", but (for example) what about when you're locked in a room and a stone block falls on you? You're getting the same damage for a stone hitting you than by "dodging" an attack? COME ON!!!!!!

Still, my longest running campaign (almost 4 years) was AD&D 2nd, switching to D&D 3E as soon as we had the 3 core books...

...Oh, NOW I remember! THREE (3) mandatory books just to play the game? Get real.

[Adam]

To run the game. I've been playing 3e for about a year now and have only bought the PHB and one of the compiled spell-books from Green Ronin. I occasionally have to borrow a Monster Manual, but that's it.

If you only need bite-sized bits of information from core d20 books, using the appropriate SRD is the way to go. :)

[JongWK]

They don't give a SRD for the MM as far as I know, but I could be wrong.

Some other things I dislike:

-Gaming at higher levels gets ridiculous, although not as bad as 2E when it was "gee, 11th level characters, do we start another campaign now?".

-Horrible experience rules. They reward combat, not role-playing.

-Unbalanced classes. High level spellcasters laugh at mundanes.

-The system is designed to baby-sit the PCs, without really risking their lives.

-The "simple" rules aren't really simple, and they don't allow for great detail.

-WotC's campaign settings and adventures are lame and an excuse for hack-and-slash.

-Over-abundance of excessively hyped-up bad products, like the Book of Vile Dumbness (er, Darkness): The most stupid, politically correct and inmature attempt at writing an "evil" book.

-Creative sterility: I'm all in favor of small companies being able to publish their ideas, even if that means using the d20 system, but it looks as if creativity is also being drained away in favor of a mediocre standard.

[JongWK]

The weird thing is that I keep defending D&D in a local mail list here in Uruguay, because a small group is stubborn enough to say 2nd Edition is the Holy Grail of gaming. :shrug:

[Adam]

[TinkerGnome]

JongWK, a lot of the issues you list are issues more with the DMs than with the system. The system seems to foster that because, to a large extent, a lot of younger gamers get into D&D first (thus there is some need for hack and slash and babysitting).

Oh, and the SRD covers the PHB, DMG, and MM as well as much of the psionic stuff from 3.0 (which has yet to get a true 3.5 update).

[JongWK]

I stand corrected, the SRD does include the basic monsters.

Bad GMs are a problem everywhere, but if the game (and the advice it gives) fosters hack-n-slash + bad gaming, well, then I don't have a high opinion of that game. Compare it to the advice given to Shadowrun GMs to build an adventure or run things smoothly.

Serious gaming has suffered in a conscious effort to attract younger gamers, IMHO. OTOH, some 3rd party companies are really good (AEG's Rokugan d20 puts to shame the Oriental Adventures book, which in itself is a really good book).

[TinkerGnome]

AEG has been one of the companies with the best ideas about how to handle the d20 stuff. Simply put, they publish dual system books which cover not only the d20 rules for everything, but the L5R rules as well. They give younger gamers the chance to play in their world and then offer then a different system which they can use for it which requires only the purchase of one or two more books. Not to mention that it lets the company make money since they are, in effect, selling books to twice the audience (the L5R crowd and the D&D crowd).

[Tanka]

The "hack-and-slash" method that a lot of DMs get into is found in many other games, SR included. I know a guy who runs only hack-and-slash, but rewards highly for it (for some odd reason). I know another GM who uses fighting so rarely, that the one pure-fighting scenario we had (had to clear a hive in Chicago, ugh), we got just a couple karma (instead of the karma in the teens that we usually got).

That sort of style is popular because most people don't like thinking, they just like saying "I hit the ork with my +2 Sword of Slaying" or something, roll a die, tell the GM, and sit back until either they are attacked or they get to go again. As was said, that isn't role-playing, that's roll-playing.

Roll-playing should not be rewarded with more experience. Role-playing should (which is why SR suggests you give bonus karma to people who stay in character all the time (unless something really important happened that they completely missed), as well as other ways). Obviously, though, this won't change anything. What needs to happen is for people who run D&D need to take aspects of SR into their world, mainly the less hack-and-slash style and make the players struggle to get out of a jam to finish the mission (actually think, not have a huge battle). I don't mean have them roll Int and see who comes up with what, I mean have the players, OOC, discuss what to do, then tell them what happens.

This probably won't happen, though, because most DMs just don't think about it.

[Swansonegger]

To say that D20 promotes hack-n-slash while other systems promote role-playing is bullshit. In my experience, I have found that SR and the old D6 Star Wars promoted far more violent players than D&D. I agree with the sentiment that it is the DM who sets the D&D game for hack and slash. If a PC were to get the same XP for sneaking past the minotaur, or tricking it as they would for killing it, then I would bet there would be less fighting in the game (in fact, the PHB actually states that XP SHOULD be awarded in the same amount for the aforementioned item).

It really is all up to the GM to set the tone for the game. One of the best role playing games I heard of was a D6 Star Wars where the GM never gave out rewards for combat. Characters got more for roleplaying through the missions. Their best PC was a techie, who almost never fired a shot! Meanwhile, I've played Shadowrun games where I personally missed out on Karma because I didn't participate in the combats as much as the other players. Guess what kind of game that was?

Some of the best roleplaying I have ever done or seen was D&D (I had a ranger character that rarely, if ever fought, and got a goblinoid menace to leave his forest by negotiation and bluff - was so good, he had a goblin become his henchman). In fact, I would say that Shadowrun was the most hack-n-slash system I have ever played.

[Tanka]

Again, this is dependant on the GM. In my view, SR is supposed to be secretive, trying to avoid LS and the Corp you may just be hitting. Whereas, with D&D, it's more or less (from most of the stories I've heard) "Go to this dungeon, get to the treasure, and make it out alive." This usually curtails fighting and using any good weapons they manage to get with the treasure, which, a lot of times, is a "Sword of Slaying" or somesuch.

A game is more hack-and-slash only because of the GM. If the GM doesn't like that style, his game won't be that style (unless it suits the mission-basis). However, if all your GM has ever done is hack-and-slash, you can almost bet he'll reward the players that do the most hacking and slashing.