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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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

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 - 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

I also say bullshit to promoting hack & slash, it's all with the GM and players (and possibly the campaign too). The group I game with is currently playing both Shadowrun and D&D, and the number of fights ratio is 2 to 1 with Shadowrun getting the lion's share of violence and combat.

You see, that may just be your GM who's doing it that way. Most D&D groups around here are hack-and-slash, while the group I play SR with is mainly thinking/stealth.

Don't just a game by how you play it. I can guarantee people play it differently elsewhere.

D&D: "Ho ho, the village guards want us to do what? I kick their sorry butts with my Staff of Power".

SR: "That fraggin' Lone Star cop called for a SWAT unit!!!"

Bottomline: Sure, you can get into as many fights in SR as in D&D, but then you will have a gloriously short life. Combat in Shadowrun is deadly and you really don't want to get into a firefight (not to mention to attract unwanted attention), so you have to dedicate more time to role-playing and thinking.

I once ran a party of street sammies and combat mages. They tried to avoid fights as much as possible (sure, they could slaughter a couple cop cars until the LS pulled out the really big guns).

Most new SR players learn that fast: it only takes one dead scapegoat (say, the first dumb runner who wants to stay and face Security) for them to start using their brainpower.

I take full responsabillty for all of the games I play in or st.

When it comes down to it:

The games are what we make them.

No two people, no two groups ever play the same way. From game to game even my playing style changes to fit my mood and what I and the people I am playing with want.
You get what you put into it, you decide your level of involvement. No one can tell anyone how to game. No one can tell a group "here you must play by these rules" sure you can play a sanctioned game, like living seatle and you are given a set of rules that you have to play by... but who is chooseing to be a part of that game? You.

I don't point fingers at the gaming companies. I buy the books that I want to buy, I steal the ideas that I want from them and I make the games my own, because ultimately any game I st belongs to me and my players. If I choose to get involved I can change and twist any game system to reflect what we want. We can go through an entire session without ever touching the dice, provided everyone can agree on balanced outcomes. I can also go through a session of any game where it seems like I just don't have enough dice or paper or stats to keep track of it all. It really depends on the group I am playing with.

It is increadably easy to reward any type of play in game. It is just as easy to punish play.

If everyone is having fun, who cares? If someone isn't having fun then maybe something needs to change. But I put the fault entirely on myself and the group if I have a session that goes bad. I don't blame the system or the rules or the company because that's just coping out. Any game, any system is just a bunch of ideas that someone got lucky enough to put down on paper, it might reflect hard work and passion on thier part, I'm not trying to downgrade it. But if it dosn't fit with what we want as players then let it go modify it, change it. Sure the HP system in D20 dosn't fit reality. But then again we aren't playing with reality here are we? In the world we play in what we choose to make real becomes real.

Here is my take on the nekkied 20 level character vs the knife. Treat is cinematicly, role-play it. It dosn't fit the dice so don't use them, describe the scene and the action and come to an agreement with the player about what just happend. Because in the real world and in our game worlds, it's not hard to agree on exactly what would happen. How you decide to actually reflect it in points is up to you and the player.

I agree that the players make the game, but the game gives the players tools. I would say that SR is FAR more realistic than the Other Game, which means that the Other Game lets players engage in significantly more insane and stupid acts.

Example 1: An advanced SR character and an advanced DnD character are both fighting naked (don't ask why). No armor, they're too tired to dodge. Both are stabbed through the head with a big sword. SR character, assumedly has to face 6S-10D damage depending on variables, and if he or she is not dead, the character is certainly quite close to it. DnD average character gets hit for 1d8 points and still has 60HP left. This sort of problem will always give high level characters a feeling of invincibility. I can tell you if I thought I could shoot myself in the temple and heal it with a potion, I certainly would get into a lot more fights!

Example 2: There's always someone bigger in SR, and they are obliged to beat you around the head if you start making a lot of noise. I don't care who you are, if you have the ability to take down a SWAT team, they will spend millions of dollars to eliminate you. They will call in the military and firebomb your house. If you're waltzing around wasting cops left and right, they will not stop until you are dead dead dead. This is the way the world is SUPPOSED to be setup (obviously, if your GM doesn't enforce it and you enjoy it, that's fine, it is a game, but the world was made with the intention of you being the little guy always and forever). However, a DnD party waltzes into a village. Unless the GM is sadistic to the point of twisting reality, there is no Elminster living there, and the players can feel free to slaughter with impunity, safe in the knowledge that the local militia is level 6 at best and honestly, no one really cares about a little village in this wild west world.

Example 3: Shadowrun has relatively few rules, and the items seem to be pretty well balanced. I think this is in part because FASA was under the impression that creating quality goods would continue book sales, whereas WotC thought giving players something to make them more powerful than other players or anything the GM can throw at them would sell books. WotC was right. There are, of course, several items in SR which are considered munchie, but I've only seen about four which people really have an issue with. And, of course, there are always super powerful stuff like jet fighters you can get that you shouldn't have, but that goes back to number 2.

I've seen people come away upset with entire books WotC has put out. The fighter handbook is horribly unbalancing. And with the sheer complexity of the rules, some people really begin studying and exploiting flaws to make overpowered characters. I did run a campaign of the Other Game and it's rather depressing when you have one or two characters who, even if you deny them all the powerful stuff, still manage to become far more powerful than they should. I can easily list off a dozen mixes of edges which will make a fighter far more powerful than a monster of an equivalent challenge rating (and assumedly, most any other party member), and so the game is inherently flawed.

Of course, if you enjoy it, play whatever you please. But I feel quite confident that the Other Game is far more easily abused and twisted than SR, and is made more to enforce the 'you are powerful' idea than SR to begin with.

Thing is, the sleeping Troll might just have a Body of 20 or so (It can be done, if you number crunch enough. ), so it could probably stay alive after the attack. Now, of course, you'd then have a mighty angry Troll that will take said sword and shove it down your throat, but, hey, you tried, right?

D20 rawks! Anyone who says different will face my Hackmaster +12 after I waste him with my crossbow firing Bolts of Slaying and surviving my Sidewinder fireballs!

Hoody-hoo!



Dudes, a game is only as good as the GM running it. Somes games tend towards hack-n-slash not so much because of the rules (which you can always modify to suit your preferences) but more so because of the associated genre cliches.

Anyway, I'm not a big D20 fan but I'll GM a mean Star Wars D20 campaign if I'm in the mood. If I really want to play anything else "universal", I'll play/run a GURPS campaign.

Firstly, yes, you're right, I edited my example because in the bed is a bad example (because of coup de grace). Now they're just fighting naked : P

Yes, DnD is more 'epic', which is great when you're doing epic things, like killing dragons and what not. But that means that that puts your characters on a totally different baseline than the rest of humanity. The way they approached it, it HAS to be unbalanced. Playing DnD below level 5 is a totally different experience than 10+ because, all of a sudden, you can't do anything. SR, in my opinion, does not require a character to be unbalancing to do cool stuff. Give him relatively easy to get equipment and time to plan, and a good SR character can do just about anything. Which one is better? Depends on your players. Which one encourages hack 'n slash (even if you don't use the system for that)? I think that's self-evident.

A troll canNOT have a body of 20. p244 in the main book, maximum racial modified limit. I also recall seeing somewhere they do not suggest letting anyone have a stat over 10, but I can't quote the page right now.

Yes, you could take DnD and change it to be deadlier or whatever than SR. You can pick and choose which rules you use. HOWEVER, I do not purchase a gaming system so I can throw away the rules. The idea is that, out of the box, you have a good product which works for what you want without modifications (and without having a super experienced GM. We all have to start somewhere.) I've never played d20 star wars (actually, my skin crawls at the idea, the rulebook is too cookie cutter for my likes). But considering I had one of my players stomp out on a game because another character, only using canon rules, made a character twice as strong in every way, I have a rather negative opinion of the rules that come out of any WotC box. If I wanted to play a game where rules lawyers always win, I WOULD play hackmaster.

Taking into account that when I talk about attributes, I'm usualy referencing to SR2 rules. I talked that character over with one of my GMs and he OK'd it with no problem. Nothing countered anything else, and if I could go the Deltaware route and/or Cyberzombie route, it'd be higher. All else aside...

As I've said time and again, either style can be hack-and-slash, it just depends on how the people want it. Your renditions of SR might be all combat, but the renditions of D&D around here are all about combat. It just depends on the players and the GM to set everything up. I'd rather be able to sit down and use actual skills other than fighting people to win a scenario. Once or twice in SR, it's come down to where you just couldn't, but that was the way the GM set it up. Most of the rest of the time, it works out to where you can just do some talking, thinking, and major roleplaying to get it done without a hitch.

I'll say this, pure and simple: D20 is fun in certain styles. I personally don't mind D20 Modern (From what I've read. Got the main book and am semi-reading it now.), however, I'm not a big fan of D&D. It may just be that the times I played it, the GM sucked and did hack-and-slash, but it may just be that I don't like it. I played Wheel of Time D20, and it was OK. Didn't do the series justice, but, anyway.

I'll play either, really, but, as has been stated time and again, it's up to the GM not to make it hack-and-slash. It is also up to the players to do the same. A cooperation has to be there to keep it from declining that far.

I have no problem at all with the d20 system. In fact, I consider it one of the better game systems out there. It isn't the best, I reserve that for HERO 5th, but it is very good at balancing skills and such on a point-for-point basis. I'd like to address a couple of the arguments I've seen here against it...

1) "Dice system makes a spectacular success just as likely as an average success." This argument neglects the target number requirement. Success is not just determined by your die roll, but what you add to it, subtract from it, and how far above (or below) that TN your result is.

2) "Levels/classes suck." Here, though I don't feel at all strongly about it, I agree. A level & class system has its problems with pigeon-holing. Thankfully, this is mitigated by a large number of available classes, multiclassing ability, prestige classes, and a fairly easy mechanic for developing classes should none of them adequately apply. Also, if I remember correctly, the d20 Call of Cthulu is not a class-based system, though I seem to remember that it did include levels. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong there.

3) "Too much terrible product." While there are subpar supplements out there, the VAST majority of WotC supplements are top quality. They're not cheap, but thanks to Amazon.com and other volume retailers, this is not as big of a factor as it could be. WWGS also puts out great product for D&D from its various lines. It's when you get into the small-press groups that you start giving up quality. Lesson? Stick to the big operations and you'll save yourself a lot of money.

4) "Hitting a fully-armored 1st level character for 6 points of damage is far more crippling than hitting a naked 10th level character for 6 damage." First, you'll be a LOT less likely to hit the fully-armored 1st level character. Second, damage and hit points are ill-defined and ill-interpreted. Look at HP like a sort of combat luck/skill that allows the character to avoid and reduce damage from hits up to a certain point, after which the character's luck runs out and they fall from the next hit. A 1st level character hasn't seen enough combat to know how to deal with more than a hit or two, so they fall quicker.

That said, I do prefer the SWRPG system with vitality/wound points and, especially, armor that reduces damage rather than making it harder to hit the character. However, I'd also like to note that the SWRPG system gives an AC bonus to characters by level & class. I'm fine with this, but I'm sure some gamers would dislike that.

What it boils down to is that the D&D damage/HP system isn't anywhere near as bad as it is being made out to be, largely due to gamer unwillingness to think outside the numbers.

5) "Gamers don't want to learn other systems because of d20!" Most people, believe it or not, don't go out and think to themselves "Man, do I want to learn a new system today." In fact, they'll stick with the games and systems they used in the past and which, through game setting or whatever, established a preference. It is never a bad thing when a player can take their knowledge of a game system across game lines. If the system they know is a good system, which d20 is, then they have even less reason to check out other systems. I have to be VERY interested in a game setting before I'll even consider taking up a new game system.

It doesn't help that you have to be a little masochistic to pick up a game like SR and work through the rules. There are other rules systems that make SR look like tri-stat. I want to make a very important point about complicated systems: just because they're complicated, it doesn't mean they're good, balanced, or realistic.

6) "SR is a much better system." Yeegads. I can't believe I've actually seen this, but sure enough some people hold this opinion. SR is one of the more complicated, unbalanced, unrealistic, and easily powergamed systems in existence. Rules are scattered by section. Each type of conflict has a different resolution method. Even life-long players have problems determining how to apply certain rules and, with all the errata and FAQ listings, this doesn't get any easier.

Example: It costs 14 karma for a character with a 2 Quickness and a 2 Pistols skill to increase their natural Quickness by 2 or increase their trained Pistols skill by 2. So, under SR3, it's just as easy to double a character's "motor reflexes, balance, metabolism, running speed, flexibility, and coordination" (SR3, p. 40) as it is to double one's ability to hit with a pistol? Ugh! Where's the balance?!

After all this, why do I like SR? The setting is arguably one of my all-time favorites and the system isn't bad enough to counter this. Also, I took it as a challenge to learn the system a while back and, now that I have learned it to a reasonable degree, I'd feel bad if I didn't apply it. I really dislike making/using house rules, but I've got several pages worth for this game.

7) "It's way too combat based! I only get experience for combat!" Umm. Almost all RPGs are combat-based. Yes, you can play ALL OF THEM otherwise. Still, a large portion of nearly all game systems is devoted to resolving conflict, usually of a nature intended to injure others. D&D awards experience for combat, but so do other systems, and this isn't really true of D&D. Specifically, D&D awards based on encounter level, which includes things other than combat. If you want to award experience for roleplaying, before claiming d20 doesn't allow this, please read pg. 40 of the DMG 3.5. This is a prime example of overzealous gamers taking a mistaken opinion, blowing it up to epic levels, and never once looking at the rules. Sad...

I have to admit my biggest beef about the D20 system is trusting everything all to one roll of one die. Too often it seems that despite the characters and players best efforts there is no eliminating the randomness to the game. Using multiple dice tends to lessen the chance of critical failures to make it all the more interesting when one happens. In D20 there is always a 5% chance of critical failure no matter how skilled the character is, OTOH where multiple d6 are used its only a 2.7% chance that falls the more dice that are added past two. Needless to say I've had too many characters under the D20 type system that were good combatants, but bad die rollers.

The second problem I would have with the system is the way feats are handled. It would be nice if there were more flexible ones that weren't based on grid-map tactics. It unfortunately, in my experience, tends to make newer players think in "Diablo" combat tactics and focus their characters in that direction. It would be nice if there were more "all round" useful feats.

But that's just me.

This is a little late, but to bring up the Town watch Vs. Lonestar calling in SWAT teams point.

This is primarily a matter of the DM/GM. They create Isolated villages and towns, and then wonder why PCs completely mop up a Thorp's militia, and fear nothing. In a more realistic campaign setting, most fuedal towns, or even free, chartered towns, have a Knight and his retainers around a day's travel. And within a week, there should be a baron, and his army. and within 2 weeks travel, a duke. And then Kings.

And Kings, Dukes, etc, tend to have, in history, employed people known as "champions". A champion is a skilled fighter who's purpose is to whup ass.

In my D&D campaigns, up untill 7th+ level, the PCs are really not even on the "big Player" scale. They are small fries, and the local Lord(6th level or higher in his own right) is usually capable of dealing with them. There's also Thieve's guilds(who kill in the night), Universities of Magic(featuring powerful magic users), Retired adventurers, clerics of various Gods(Hextor, Hieronous and Cuthburt are my favored gods for dealing with law-breakers).

Basically, If you DON'T have back-up, it's because YOU, as the DM have created a situation deserving that. Hell, even in a Thorp, the smallest town, you may face a Fighter of 6th level, with others of 3rd level. A group of fighters that powerful are not easy meat. But if you put the PCs in a situation where they can abuse, then you fucked up. Don't try to blame the game system. Please.

And if you say, well, a 20th level Wizard can level a town easily...well, duh. That's why he's a 20th level Wizard. He's on par with a fucking dragon. Which can also level a town. See, you have to try and apply a bit of logic.

In a world with large, mean beasties roaming, who see humans as a convient snack, then you should see humans much more prepared for such problems. Such is the problem with many D&D campaigns. The DM selects medieval europe as his template, then throws Trolls, Ogres, Giants and Dragons into the wilderness, and treats the townspeople as if they have not been in this world. Just as African villages adapted to the threat of Lions and Leopards, and Northern Europeans adapted to wolves and bears, and Japanese to earthquakes, so would D&D villagers adapt to a dangerous world.

Half of the damn problem is DM incompetence. They place Isolated towns in the wilderness, and then wonder why PCs only fight. What, you expect us to roleplay with the town blacksmith? Instead, why don't you work on the Political fun. Medival Politics commonly boiled down to resulotion by combat. And D&D is fu nwith intrigue. Try it. Why do you think Disguise, Innuendo and Diplomacy are in the game? Rogues are a must for intrigue.

Case in point, last night we played a one shot D&D adventure. My thief character managed to make five critical failures in a row. Yes that's right, he rolled a one on the good old D20 five friggin' times. Nothing ruins a good adventure like a string of bad luck, which seems incredibly prevalent in the D20 system. It takes a lot from the player's sense of adventure and accomplishment if it seems despite their best efforts they can do no right.

Alright, to reply to HolyTrinity... I have tried political intrigue (and when people are in the middle of a huge castle they are much less likely to start trouble). Also, my characters very very rarely decided to torch a village in the first place. I will agree that your take on backup is very good and I will use it next time I run a campaign. However, your view also seems to be unusual. I've never seen anything in any DnD book on what happens when a group of creatures torch a village. I've played under several GMs and a slew of DnD based computer games and it simply was never addressed at a level beyond 'they are all slain, you can move on'. Your idea makes perfect sense, but I see it as coming from you as an excellent GM and not from anything T$R ever, ever wrote. SR does address such a problem directly.

FYI Swansonegger, there are probability curves and I'd be happy to draw one out, however you need to decide the skill levels involved. Pretty much the SR curve is a bell curve which gets flatter as the skill goes down ('til its a flat line at skill of 1) and gets sharper as the skill goes up (so at level 6, you'll generally get 3-4 successes against a TN of 3).

Part of the problem as well with the D20 system as well is its skill system makes no allowances for larger target numbers, nor does it reward a character by being good at a certain skill. For example: If two characters are competing at a cetain skill saypicking a lock in SR a character with a skill of say 1 has less chance of being sucessful, but if he is, he will only be able to do it so fast. A character with a skill of six, however, will possibly be able to reduce the time it takes to do it. The chance of a high skill character making a critical failure is also significantly less. While low skill characters significantly more. In the above example the skill 1 character has a greater chance of say, setting off the alarm in the process.

In the D20 system however, similar characters (one with one skill rank and another with say a rank of six) both still have the same chance of rolling a critical failure (5%) and there is no allowance for the better thief to have a spectacular success. One this gives rise to all characters taking a shot at making a skill check. Two, it makes seemingly less difference between skilled and unskilled users especially since the attribute modifier applies to the skill check, hence a dexterous thief with little skill can be essentially as good as one with lots of skill.

But hey, this is an old arguement.

Good points; as a fan of skill-based systems, I typically don't like the way d20 handles skills. That said, adding "Critical successes" and "measure of success" to d20 skills is exceptionally easy.