d20 Games

[Soren37]

So to all the forumites on SF, how many of you tabletop roleplay? Or even know what a d20 is? This topic is meant to bring everyone, from the inexperienced to the veterans to introduce tabletop roleplaying.

To those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, Dungeons and Dragons might be the best example. Or you can just take Oblivion, remove the whole computer, replace all of the prettiness coming from a guy trying his best to murder you painfully, and your character is now on 2-4 sheets of paper. All random occurrences, such as hitting, damage, and level up gains, are determined by rolling dice.

With that being said, has anyone ever made up their own d20 game? I came up with a pretty neat idea for a Fire Emblem Dungeons and Dragons, and the testing is going well so far. You just need to have a small group of friends. ~4 seems to work. Anymore and then people get bored.

I'm also in the works of converting The Hunger Games into a d20 game.

So, discuss away!

[Icon of Sin]

I've played DnD a few times, but it's been a long while since I played so I'm a bit rusty. I did like my experiences but conflicting schedules with my friends prevent me from playing more often, really.

[Blasied]

I play D&D on a monthly basis and have had 23 months to come to this opinion.

4TH EDITION SUCKS!

[Parrhesia]

There are four other interested parties in the high school I attend. I would happily disembowel two of them. Hopefully, it'll get a little better in college.

I did try to set up a thing. That...that fell apart pretty quickly, due to clashes of schedule.

[TheEnd]

I still play 2nd edition because our DM dislikes 3E. The current campaign has been going for around 4 years or so, though some of the players have already started moving (permanently) out of town so who knows for how long we'll keep at it.

I doubt my mage will ever reach 12th level anyway.

[Integrity]

I've always had a vague interest and no method of pursuing it, what's that worth?

Plus, I own a 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. :o

[Soren37]

If you want to Integ, I can link you to a resource and we can start a forum D&D RP.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I play D&D on a monthly basis and have had 23 months to come to this opinion.

4TH EDITION SUCKS!

Massive DnDfag reporting in! Played some of various editions, but I started hardcore in Mage: The Ubering 3.5, now I mainly play 4e. Also why do you think 4e sucks? Tell me so I can crush your feeble opinion under my iron shod boots.

Edited November 19, 2010 by ZXValaRevan

[Soren37]

Massive DnDfag reporting in! Played some of various editions, but I started hardcore in Mage: The Ubering 3.5, now I mainly play 4e. Also why do you think 4e sucks? Tell me so I can crush your feeble opinion under my iron shod boots.

I wouldn't go out as far to say that 4e sucked, but I found it less enjoyable than 3.5. The biggest thing that my friends and I didn't like about it was the balancing, or rather, the over-use of balancing. We had a four-person party consisting of a Human Warlord, an Elven Druid, a Goliath Warden, and a Dragonborn Sorcerer. It felt like all of us were just clones of each other, with just that slight little change to make it interesting. The only person who really had a different role was our Warlord, and even then, he barely got to use his skills.

With the balancing, they made a lot of the classes mirror each other in some way, shape, or form. Rangers and Sorcerers can both do ranged attacks that hurt something bad. Controllers such as Wizards and...forget the other one, both do the same thing. Moderate damage while adding on a little bit of an after-effect. Warlords and Clerics can both buff the party and make them fight better. The fact that no class had something different to offer made it a bit bland to play. In 3.5 or 3, Bards were their own unique class, Clerics could heal while few other classes could, Sorcerers were the be all and end all at 20th level because they could rain fire from the sky and wish to become King. Druids were unique because they could shift freely into whatever they wanted, while other classes required spells.

This brings me to my next point; skills/magic. In the earlier editions, magic was a thing to nurtured. Your d4 of health Wizard couldn't take a hit, and could only hit things with a quarterstaff. After protecting him and watching him grow, he becomes a devastating force of barely contained energy. You don't get that feeling in 4e. Why? Everyone has spells. Sorcerers have spells, Druids have spells, Fighters have spells, even Rogues have spells. However, all of these spells are "skills" with magic only being long, drawn out rituals that took much less time to cast in other adventures. The at-will skills are probably the most nonsensical thing to me about the whole casting system. At first level, Acid Orb is a rare resource, and you hold on until you absolutely have to. When I had my 4e Sorcerer, I never once used my Spear. It was all Acid Orb. With a d10+4 damage with a +6 to hit. It became bland after a while. I never had to think about what I wanted to do. It was just pretty much "Acid Orb. Roll Dice. ?????. Profit." There was no strategy, no thought process, until something came too close to me. In that case, it was just run around and and use Acid Orb again. 3.5 in comparison, you had to carefully plan when you cast your spells, as that Goblin with Cleric levels may not have been the final boss that you had to kill, and now you're fresh out of Fireballs and Chain Lightning.

The last thing I have to say about it is an opinion that I found on the Commissioned webcomic, and I must agree with it. The whole experience felt too "video-gamey". Instead of individualized character growths, it was all lumped into one table. Instead of feet and inches, it was squares. Instead of having to figure out on your own and worry about your efficiency, the handbook actually TOLD you what races to use and how to make your builds. It's silly. D&D is one of the few games that does not require any electronics nowadays (computers can be fully optional), and if I want to play a video game, I have a DS and a Wii. Point is, D&D is a game that has turned to its niche market since its opening, and trying to open it up to a broader market has only injured its chances of making another step forward in the play style.

That being said, it was easy to dive into, especially for my friend's brother, who was playing for the first time. The guidebook was easy to follow, and within a few minutes, my character was set and ready to go. It does have its pros, as it appeals to new gamers, but older fans of the D&D series may find it to be a bit of a let down.

EDIT: Found the link to the Commissioned comic analysis of 4.0. Here is the link.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Soren37

[Parrhesia]

...okay, from that long and drawn out review I'm more determined than ever to find my goddamn 3rd edition stuff.

[Soren37]

If you can't find it, then the Pathfinder system is almost the extension of the 3.5 rules.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I wouldn't go out as far to say that 4e sucked, but I found it less enjoyable than 3.5. The biggest thing that my friends and I didn't like about it was the balancing, or rather, the over-use of balancing. We had a four-person party consisting of a Human Warlord, an Elven Druid, a Goliath Warden, and a Dragonborn Sorcerer. It felt like all of us were just clones of each other, with just that slight little change to make it interesting. The only person who really had a different role was our Warlord, and even then, he barely got to use his skills.

Thing is, that's not really true. It's not over balanced (I mean 3.5 was so unbalanced it was painful, so if that's your base, okay), and the characters aren't clones. It's one of those things people always claim about 4e, but in practise never seems to be true. Like, they play COMPLETELY differently. I mean, maybe you guys were new and so stuck to old edition playstyles or something, but even then the differences are pretty big.

With the balancing, they made a lot of the classes mirror each other in some way, shape, or form. Rangers and Sorcerers can both do ranged attacks that hurt something bad. Controllers such as Wizards and...forget the other one, both do the same thing. Moderate damage while adding on a little bit of an after-effect. Warlords and Clerics can both buff the party and make them fight better. The fact that no class had something different to offer made it a bit bland to play. In 3.5 or 3, Bards were their own unique class, Clerics could heal while few other classes could, Sorcerers were the be all and end all at 20th level because they could rain fire from the sky and wish to become King. Druids were unique because they could shift freely into whatever they wanted, while other classes required spells.

They don't so much mirror each other, as share a common base to prevent one base mechanic from completely eclipsing another (like what happened in 3.5, and to date no one has been able to actually fix that balance). (Certain types of) Rangers and (certain types of) Sorcerors both use ranged attacks that hurt people badly, but they kind of did that in earlier editions too. Not to mention how they do it and the other effects or often different. The Controllers are kind of all over the place actually, but again, each controller tends to have its own distinct form of controlling. Like, it actually plays differently. Now, sure, members of the same Role have similarites, but they goddamn better, they're fulfilling the same niche, theoretically. And ALL the classes are different. This is one key fault in the logic; just because they all use Powers now doesn't mean they're all the same, because the way they use them, their class features, the powers themselves, etc, all contribute to make every class unique. In 3.5, Clerics, Wizards and Druids were so much more powerful than everybody else it was ridiculous, partially because of all these crazy abilities they got, but in 4e Bards are still unique, Clerics can still heal (and Clerics were not even close to being the only class that could heal), and Sorcerors can still rain fire from the sky (though even in 3.5 they were not the best at 20th level). Druids can still Wildshape. None of this has changed. Just because Wildshape doesn't let you transform into these crazy things with fucking huge stats that made your party fighter even more obsolete doesn't mean there is no Wildshape.

This brings me to my next point; skills/magic. In the earlier editions, magic was a thing to nurtured. Your d4 of health Wizard couldn't take a hit, and could only hit things with a quarterstaff.

Not quite. Sure he was a glass cannon, but he was still possibly stronger than the Fighter at this level, and of course this rapidly became worse as he levelled.

After protecting him and watching him grow, he becomes a devastating force of barely contained energy.

Who outshines the majority of the other classes in the game.

You don't get that feeling in 4e. Why?

Because having half the people in your game suck for the first half while the others rock, then switching positions is not so fun (not that it was like that, more like they started equal and some just got exponentially better) all the time?

Everyone has spells. Sorcerers have spells, Druids have spells, Fighters have spells, even Rogues have spells.

Wrong, everyone has powers.

However, all of these spells are "skills" with magic only being long, drawn out rituals that took much less time to cast in other adventures.

They're powers, actually, and Arcane characters still use magic. It's just Rituals are rituals.

The at-will skills are probably the most nonsensical thing to me about the whole casting system.

Why?

At first level, Acid Orb is a rare resource, and you hold on until you absolutely have to.

Why does it have to be like this? That's not inherently logical. I think a magic user being able to use weaker spells at will makes perfect sense/

When I had my 4e Sorcerer, I never once used my Spear.

Should a Sorceror have to use a spear?

It was all Acid Orb. With a d10+4 damage with a +6 to hit. It became bland after a while. I never had to think about what I wanted to do. It was just pretty much "Acid Orb. Roll Dice. ?????. Profit." There was no strategy, no thought process, until something came too close to me. In that case, it was just run around and and use Acid Orb again. 3.5 in comparison, you had to carefully plan when you cast your spells, as that Goblin with Cleric levels may not have been the final boss that you had to kill, and now you're fresh out of Fireballs and Chain Lightning.

Except all this exists in 4e because you have more than just one spell. You still have to choose carefully when to use your dailies and encounters, it's just that once you're out you're not COMPLETELY USELESS. Seriously, 4e combat can get pretty crazy tactical, and you die pretty fast if you just unthinkingly spam one move over and over again. I found combats in 3.5 a breeze as a spell caster (honestly past level 5 you basically never really run out of spells, what with wands and scrolls and whatnot), you could nuke the whole fight before it happened, turn into a badass soldier and kill everything, use non combat spells to trivialize everything (hello Silent Image), snipe enemies from way beyond their range while flying and invisible, or a whole host of other terribly terribly easy ways to insta win.

The last thing I have to say about it is an opinion that I found on the Commissioned webcomic, and I must agree with it. The whole experience felt too "video-gamey". Instead of individualized character growths, it was all lumped into one table. Instead of feet and inches, it was squares. Instead of having to figure out on your own and worry about your efficiency, the handbook actually TOLD you what races to use and how to make your builds.

This is one of the more bizarre arguments that really makes me wonder whether these people actually played 4e. Characters still grow individually, it's just there is a very loose common base for them (which is being deviated from a bit now actually), that is in no way hugely restricting. The books don't tell you what you have to do, they have advice for new players. They're trying to make it user friendly (but hey, 3.5 had this shit too!). Squares also is a lot less annoying than feet and inches because the squares before were 5' feet anyway. Now instead of saying 5' and meaning 1 square, they just say 5 feet.

It's silly. D&D is one of the few games that does not require any electronics nowadays (computers can be fully optional), and if I want to play a video game, I have a DS and a Wii.

It's not at all like a video game though. The things that actually make it unique (the RP, the freedom on how to act, the customizability, the DM, the dialogue, etc are all still there. The actual mechanics aren't any more video gamey than before really (besides, they made a video game with all the 3.5 mechanics, and did similar things with earlier editions, are those versions video gamey too?).

Point is, D&D is a game that has turned to its niche market since its opening, and trying to open it up to a broader market has only injured its chances of making another step forward in the play style.

Except all they did was make it easier to learn to play, they didn't somehow remove its uniqueness or cripple it. They just balanced it and streamlined it.

I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, and I love 3.5 and played it for years, and it still has some things over 4th edition, but 4e is generally an improvement, and is most certainly not a "video game" or mindless mess. I have found that most people who really hate on 4e haven't really played it. Most of them read the books, got a bad impression (often based on misinterpretations or misunderstandings), sub consciously decided it sucked, played a session and then decided it was bad, and it shows because they know almost nothing about how it actually plays. They say things that are demonstrably false, or make little sense in the context of the game.

[Parrhesia]

Goddamn natural tendency to agree with whoever's post was more recent.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Goddamn natural tendency to agree with whoever's post was more recent.

Honestly, I suggest you just really learn 4e, play it for a little while, then decide.

If ease of use, balance, tactics, and adventure is what you want, 4e is for you, if you want a "realistic", simulationist and "hardcore" experience, 3.5 may be what you prefer.

[Parrhesia]

Honestly, I suggest you just really learn 4e, play it for a little while, then decide.

If ease of use, balance, tactics, and adventure is what you want, 4e is for you, if you want a "realistic", simulationist and "hardcore" experience, 3.5 may be what you prefer.

That would require money, of which I am regrettably devoid.

Statistics in general entranced me as a child, so 3rd edition's kinda been imprinted into my mind since I was like five. I'd be more than happy to give anything a try.

[Soren37]

I'm not getting into a huge debate, because you have much more information about 4e than I do. The things that I've picked up are whispered words and my own, single adventure.

If you would feel comfortable with it Raven, I'd actually really like to try out another 4e campaign. Thing is, you seem to have a much better grasp of the rules, so if you could run it, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'd still like to try out the system, I just haven't been able to.

[Defeatist Elitist]

That would require money, of which I am regrettably devoid.

Statistics in general entranced me as a child, so 3rd edition's kinda been imprinted into my mind since I was like five. I'd be more than happy to give anything a try.

Hahaha, piracy my friend. Or something. I mean, 3.5 is still plenty of fun and all, I just prefer 4e for most things.

I'm not getting into a huge debate, because you have much more information about 4e than I do. The things that I've picked up are whispered words and my own, single adventure.

If you would feel comfortable with it Raven, I'd actually really like to try out another 4e campaign. Thing is, you seem to have a much better grasp of the rules, so if you could run it, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'd still like to try out the system, I just haven't been able to.

Well, you're better than most grognards already. I'm not sure if I have the time to run a campaign right now, and most of the other games on these boards died pretty quickly due to the participants not participating, but I would totally be willing to give it a go. I'll think about it and see if I can think of something that will work.

[Parrhesia]

Well, you're better than most grognards already. I'm not sure if I have the time to run a campaign right now, and most of the other games on these boards died pretty quickly due to the participants not participating, but I would totally be willing to give it a go. I'll think about it and see if I can think of something that will work.

Argh, don't remind me about the thing Dark Sage tried to set up. Our party was gonna kick ass dammit!

[Le Communard]

Big Roleplayer here, but not big into the whole d20 thing. I run mostly Chaosium Call of Cuthulhu games, Dark Hearsy*, and RIFTS stuff. I've always sort of been opposed to the d20 mentality that not only is bashing shit over the head the most efficious solution, but the entire *point* of the game, which is never what role playing has been about for me (although I admit this might just be personal bias). I crunch number enough in mathematics, thank-you-very-much. That, and I've never much liked the whole system of unlimited growth, power without consequnce: it's telling that in two out of the three systems I run becoming powerful drives you insane... or worse (hehehehe). Nor have I really liked the way any of them simulate that growth--it feels very fake. To be fair, though, I was raised on some hard-core, take-no-prisoners simulationist stuff run by real old hands, so I've always suffered from high exspectations.

I have always wanted to get into DnD at least a little, though, seeing as how its such a big thing and it would help to have bigger options of people to play with. I'd be more than happy to give anything we set up the old colledge try.

*Hevily modified. The base game system isn't all that great.

Well, you're better than most grognards already.

Just FYI, but grognard is usually slang a veteran war-gamer--usually one from the 70's or 80's--and none of us really seem to be the Avalon Hill type.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Le Communard

[Parrhesia]

We need to set something up. WE NEED. TO SET. SOMETHING. THE FUCK UP.

[Esau of Isaac]

Actually got done from a D&D campaign a little while ago.

I play World of Darkness more often, and enjoy it more. The system is much easier to work with, there is less of a concentration on loot and the like, and the fluff is much, much more intriguing to me.

Kind of a problem with the group I play WoD with, though, since multiple people there are power gamers.

[Le Communard]

Kind of a problem with the group I play WoD with, though, since multiple people there are power gamers.

Call of Cthulhu is the ultimate bane of power-gaming. Highly suggested.

[Esau of Isaac]

Call of Cthulhu is the ultimate bane of power-gaming. Highly suggested.

I keep hearing that, and about how often gamers are going to be rewriting characters if they're dumb.

That sounds cool, and also sounds like an awesome way to punish people in my group that I am annoyed by. Though whenever I think about the setting, I think of it as like late 1800s, and my friend tells me that it apparently takes place like in the 50s.

[Le Communard]

That sounds cool, and also sounds like an awesome way to punish people in my group that I am annoyed by. Though whenever I think about the setting, I think of it as like late 1800s, and my friend tells me that it apparently takes place like in the 50s.

In terms of punishing, the game is perfect, since the entire universe is stacked against the player and anyone who tries to win by gaming it will quickly find themselves shoggoth food.

As for setting, the original game has three: the New England of the 20's, 1880's Victorian London, and the "present" (AKA, the 90's--it's a little dated). You could run all your games in the 50's though, there's nothing preventing that.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Le Communard

[Esau of Isaac]

1880s Victorian London sounds absolutely perfect. Like the exact image I have of the series.

I might try to pick it up when I get some spare cash, then. OR MAYBE I'LL CHECK IT OUT RIGHT NOW EVEN THOUGH I DON'T kekekekeke