What Happened to d20?

[Xathan]

So this occurred to me during an IRC discussion yesterday - when the CBG was founded, it was very 3.5 and d20 in general oriented. So much so that other systems were often met with blank stares, and when a few (LC, Xeviat, and a couple others) advocated non d20 settings they had a bit of an uphill battle to deal with.

Now?

There's someone on this board - I honestly forget to - who's signature either states or stated - "Pathfinder - backwards compatible with suck." And that seems to be the general view of posters here, or at least the one I get - I've seen very, very few settings designed with d20 in any form in mind, and it's been ages since I've seen a post detailing a new class or race for d20. I'm curious why that happened, and if there are people still out there who like d20/use it.

Note that when I say d20 I'm including Pathfinder, since it's simply the latest update to the d20 and most of the views towards that system are wrapped up with d20 views.

In short, did you ever like d20, what changed your mind if you no longer do, and if you do do you build your settings with that in mind?

[Humabout]

I liked d20 when it was the only system with which I was intimately familiar.  I actually started RPing with Alternity and Star Wars 2e, and then AD&D.  I stopped for a few years and picked up with D&D 3e.  That's when I really got into it, but as time went on and I found the entire class system more and more limiting, I got tired of having ot make new classes and check balance issues every time I started a new campaign.  Despite even the endless houserules to fix all the cracks in 3.x, it was the lack of versatility in the class system that did it for me.

That's when a friend pointed me at GURPS, and I fell in love with complete customizability and a system that wasn't and isn't in any way broken.  It even follows as closely to the functioning of reality as any system I've seen, and the versatility in the rule set lets me run anything from over-the-top full-on WH40K-style epic space opera to the grittiest and most mundane police procedural to epic D&D-style fantasy games.  One system.  Complete versatility.  No cracks to fix.  Why should I go back?

[Steerpike]

Despite my tastes for the outlandish and my bitching about Wizards of the Coast (see my obnoxious ranting in the 5E thread), I'll admit to being something of a d20 enthusiast.  It's not a perfect system  and doubtless it was roundly abused & broken, but I think that, in essence, it's a pretty solid system that allows for some great roleplaying.

I think what people objected to, in part, was the creepy way that d20 started to "take over" other games, this sense that d20 wanted to be the "ideal gaming system" or something.  Thus there was a d20 version of Call of Cthulhu, d20 World of Darkness, d20 Deadlands, d20 Traveller, etc.  It's like the system took on this eerie borg-like aspect, assimilating settings as it went, contributing to WotC's little gaming empire (to labour the metaphor more, Pathfinder might be the Germanic hordes in this scenario...).  There was this sense that d20 was selling itself as the "ultimate system" or as a kind of super-flexible, easily customizable all-purpose gaming system, which it totally wasn't.  I like the OGL as much as anyone, but this was one of its unpleasant side-effects, I think.

d20 was great for a certain kind of roleplaying, and I think it's still great for that type of roleplaying - fairly heroic fantasy with powerful characters, involved combat, and a pretty solid set of skill mechanics for non-combat situations.  What it's not is this brilliant one-size-fits-all ubersystem, a role it possibly aspired to.  I think this is where dissatisfaction set in, but I think that as a result people tend to unfairly demonize the system itself.

[Nomadic]

I liked and still do like D20, I think it has an important place. But I also think that it is only a small part of the whole when you examine the options and the more I look at things the less well it fits the sort of games I'm interested in running. D20 is good for beer and pretzels style smash down the dungeon doors with friends games. It's abstract, straight forward, and while broken in some areas it isn't hard to run with for a casual game. Unfortunately this doesn't fit with the style of game I'm looking for right now so it's been shelved in favor of other systems.

[Steerpike]

I'd contend that it's range is significantly better than the beer-and-pretzels variety of hack & slash gaming, though it certainly does that very well.  Arguably, 4E does an even better job at the "beat down the dungeon door" stuff.  d20 has, perhaps, a bit more colour, a bit less balance.  I think it can be used to run a pretty sophisticated game, actually, albeit one in the "high fantasy" mode.  If your game is all political nuance and story, or something, then it doesn't work particularly well (though it has some social functionality and leaves room for intrigue); and if you want low-powered, hyper-deadly, simulationist grit, it doesn't do that spectacularly either (though it can accommodate some degree of roughness & danger, certainly).

[Superfluous Crow]

I think the issue with D&D is that it doesn't adapt well to settings and, well, settings are what we deal in here.
Playing D&D  (sans extreme house rules) essentially means that you are accepting magical items, vancian magic, adventurers, colored dragons, and magical music. Of course like every system it is modular of a sorts, you could cut the dragons out of Dungeons & Dragons and no one would blink - but you can only take alterations of this order so far. Cutting out the above things leaves the system crippled and depleted, especially considering that the entire game is designed (or, in gamer jargon, balanced) around these integral features.
As our settings evolve, we want to take it further and further from this status quo and consequentially we have to remove ourselves from our D20 origins. 
I realize this is more of a friendly rebuke of D&D and not so much D20, but I think this is at the root of the issue.

[Elemental_Elf]

I loved d20 when it was new, I still like d20 today. The difference is that I know of and have played many games in other game systems, which has given me perspective concerning the pros and cons of d20 as a whole. Its still a good system, and its probably the best system out there for general gaming but it really isn't the best game system if you have something very specific in mind.

Honestly, I used to design settings with d20 in mind but now-a-days I generally make my settings system-free, which gives me the liberty of using any system I fancy when I go to play in that world. Aeolond in 4E would feel different than Aeolond with Exalted or Aeolond with L5R rules - yet each is a perfectly valid system (at their core) for the world.

[O Senhor Leetz]

I think d20 works well if the general consensus (amongst players and DM) is pro-crunch gaming. I think d20 does crunch very well. Just enough customization without becoming banal. But I don't think it does fluff that well - unless of course, the DM puts some serious, or not so serious, work into adapting d20 to the setting (this seems to be a recurring point here.) And despite it's imbalance, it is a fairly easy simple to wrap ones head around; compare d20 with ADnD - THACO, +/- Armor Class, different leveling tables for every class, multi- and duel-classing.

Overall I like d20, it's basically the system I really cut my teeth on, so it's always going to be somewhat nostalgic. That being said, I'm also a fan of FUDGE, which is a very very rules light system, but fun and really easy to adapt.

[Xathan]

I'm glad to see the overall consensus seems to be much less anti dnd that I had thought and more 'there's better out there'. The reason I ask is my players requested a game in classic, no 3rd party, heroic fantasy dnd and the group generally dislikes 4e, so I'm at the point where I have to make a dnd setting and want to post it here, but was worried I'd be getting little to no feedback which I need - that and I've fallen back in love with dnd's classes and monsters and such, and would love to post them here for feedback. (also going to post them on the OOTS forums to find members I can poach for us, but that's another story for another thread.)

[LordVreeg]

I'm a home brewer.  Period.
Sort of an extremist in it, honestly.

But the only two games I have really sunk my teeth into creating in the last few decades (I used to be known as someone who created a system every month) are a d100 and a d20 retro. 

And much in line with Nom's train of thought, the d20 was created basically on one sheet of graph paper to start because I was asked to run a game in a situation where my d100 Guildschool rules would have done poorly; we needed quick and dirty with fast chargen.  I wrote the basic rules in 30 minutes and we had 4 characters in my Accis, world of Bronze and Heroes system.  I fleshed it out and have since run a dozen quick games in it.  It works because it is very heroic and swashbuckling...and i can make a character in 10-15 minutes at a normal pace.

So it is not that I don't like it, but I find it and pure class based games less suited for my longer, campaign based, games. 

[LordVreeg]

But I don't think it does fluff that well - unless of course, the DM puts some serious, or not so serious, work into adapting d20 to the setting (this seems to be a recurring point here.)

Love you, man. 

[Hibou]

There's someone on this board - I honestly forget to - who's signature either states or stated - "Pathfinder - backwards compatible with suck."

;). A friend of mine said that in the ENWorld chat one day when 4e was new and PF was controversial.

I used to be a big fan of d20, but now I'm not as much. I'll soon be running an E6 Pathfinder game, but if I have a favorite system now it's probably Alternity, which is d20 with more of a focus on skills. I think as with a lot of others, it just becomes the case that we find better systems for what we want to do - from the admittedly little I've actually ran them, my settings have played better in other and/or modified systems that are typically made for a grittier and more low-powered kind of game. I still run standard PF from time to time, though. I've got a soft spot for the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms.

Crow stated the main issue for me with d20 - it doesn't seem to adapt well. Sure, you can argue that with a good group you can get around this (and similar things have recently been debated on the site and in the chat), but I feel like a system designed for the game I want is more important, so I'm looking at gearing Alternity for all of my settings and am looking into Chivalry&Sorcery as a possible substitute in the Haveneast department.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

As Horse says, d20 doesn't adapt as well as it tries to. It wanted to be this universal mechanic, but it was not well suited to every type of game. Some games run well enough with it. Others don't work quite right.

[sparkletwist]

I never really played much d20. I got my start on AD&D and by the time 3rd edition came out I was playing other things. So, while I can see certain things it's good at and certain things it's not so good at (I've learned a decent bit about the system in the meantime) I'm not really a fan. I'd probably play in a D&D/PF/whatever game if it was run by someone I knew to be a good DM and the subject matter seemed interesting, but it's highly doubtful I'd DM any sort of D&D/d20/whatever game myself.

a system that wasn't and isn't in any way broken

While I rather like GURPS too, this is just hyperbole.
Everything designed by humans is broken in some way or other. :grin:

compare d20 with ADnD - THACO, +/- Armor Class, different leveling tables for every class, multi- and duel-classing

Aww, THAC0 wasn't that bad. The weird way that AC worked backwards from common sense was pretty bad, though, and it's good they got rid of that. Still, I think you're being a little hard on it-- or maybe I'm just being nostalgic. It's not as though d20 didn't/doesn't have its own share of wonky stuff though.

[Humabout]

While I rather like GURPS too, this is just hyperbole.
Everything designed by humans is broken in some way or other. :grin:

You mean a 50-point ability that annihilates all life in the universe is broken? :p

True enough that it's not perfect, but it's the best I've found so far.  D20 was good for what it did, but more than anything, I got annoyed by the railroading imposed by the class system.  The generic classes in UA were the closest thing to making me happy, but they just didn't quite do it for me.  I guess by the time I started looking for an alternative, I'd already turned my back on d20.

That's not to say that I don't miss the sense of wonder and magic that it evoked, but again, I suspect that was as much because it was my first real introduction to that sort of gaming as it was the system itself.  Even still, I try to capture some of that feel in my games, but I don't think I'll ever go back.