I see a lot of shit talk about the d20 system, but I never see these people talk about the alternatives. What is this secret superior system?
>>46460043
We don't talk about it.
>>46460043
>but I never see these people talk about the alternatives.
(you)
(you)
(you)
(you)
Here, have your (you)s and fuck off, you cockgobbling hypertwat cuntbadger.
FATE
GURPS
Reign/ORE
Torchbearer
Dungeon World
Earthdawn
Ars Magica
7th Sea
Savage Worlds
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
Wayfarers
Over the Edge
d6
The Burning Wheel
Dragon Age/Fantasy Age
Warrior, Rogue, Mage
BareBones Fantasy Role Play
Basic Role-Playing
Tavern Tales
Jesus Fucking Christ, just TRY SOMETHING ELSE.
multiple dice so you don't have a fucking 5% chance to fumble or dice pools.
>>46460043
>I see a lot of shit talk about the d20 system,
And you should largely ignore it, because it's just shit talk from sad people.
Like this guy.
>>46460261
>>46460043
3D6
>People still think that the problem with the d20 system is the shape of the die
Pathetic.
>>46460043
>What is this secret superior system?
You don't need to replace d20 with a single system thats always going to be better, but it worth your time to learn and experience other systems so that you can begin to think critically about the effect they have on how your games play.
>>46460043
In theory most of the d6 based systems where you roll successes like in shadowrun are better in terms of how the math works out.
Realistically such a thing doesn't exist. People will shit on FATE/GURPS/ORE/Savage Worlds/etc too just about as much, mostly the points are valid all around too.
Aside from the fact that you can't often say one system is strictly better, most of them don't cross compare at all. Exalted and FATE aren't meant for the same kind of game
Only a few systems actually cover exactly the same ground as each other, and usually they're all pretty convoluted and error riddled with their own wacky idiosyncrasies.
As far as actual dice go though d20 kinda sucks. It's fun because it's big numbers and shit but it's really hard to set difficulties well in d20 actually. Not really related to the main issues with specific d20 based systems though.
A better topic: Why is 3d6 looked down upon? It's a bell curve.
It seems most of the complains are from people who want the game to be more random and have an equal chance to succeed and an equal chance for failure. Why?
Wouldn't a bell curve be more representative of a characters ability than for no reason at all succeeded/failing on something they were just as likely to fail/succeed in? I don't even know if what I'm writing makes sense and conveys what I mean.
>>46460043
>>46460512
Isn't it more that people are tired ofthe Gurps Cult?
>>46460261
Right, I'm going to put my tentative tier list (never got to play most of these because people's obsession with 5e) out here, thanks for the material random anon.
>Published Never Ever Tier:
>Song of Swords
>Tavern Tales
>Theorycrafting/Nobody Plays It Tier:
>Warrior, Rogue, Mage
>BareBones Fantasy Role Play
>Basic Role-Playing
>Reign/ORE
>Earthdawn
>Ars Magica
>Wayfarers
>Over the Edge
>Dragon Age/Fantasy Age
>Mediocre Tier:
>FATE
>GURPS
>7th Sea
>Dungeon World
>Would Try if Could Try Tier
>Savage Worlds
>Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
>Torchbearer
>The Burning Wheel
>d6
>Marvel Heroic Roleplaying
Virtually anything else
>>46460043
Coin system
>>46460123
>>46460547
I am legitimately curious. Also, OP posts don't get (you)s.
>>46460385
It's not the shape it's the amount of die which effects probability and game balance.
>>46460043
This is a topic I've never had explained to me and never understood. Will some anon baby me and explain 1 system in comparison to the d20 system?
>>46460512
I used to defend d20 but after a friend pushed me to try FATE I find d20 so messy and chaotic now. 4dF centers around your character's actual skill but with enough variation so as to be interesting.
>>46460616
Burning wheel is fantastic, highly rec'd
>>46460261
>GURPS
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh Anon, you so funny.
>>46460616
>Theorycrafting/Nobody Plays It Tier
>Reign/ORE
I'm in a game using ORE and Nemesis rules right now. we're using alt rules for combat, so damage is based on height rather than width.
It's pretty okay. The system is weird to wrap my head around. Min-maxing is exactly as advertized, but I feel like being a generalist or above average at several things is just going to end up failing a lot. a team of diversely talented idiot-savants would probably be most likely party to succeed.
>>46461207
If we're talking solely about dice here's the gist of it
1d20 has about a 5% chance to roll a 1 or 20. Which is alright for D&D imo but the failure chance for combat starts to get silly at high levels. Investing in skills also isn't as useful as it could be.
If you split it up into multiple dice the chance of crit fails and successes drops immensely (<1% if 2d10). The number also tends to be closer to the average way more often. What this means is that you get consistently good at things you invest in but if you don't know it you're almost certainly fucked. The power gap between levels grow. People who care about this usually want their probability to be less of a pyramid and more of a bell curve (like 3d6) so there is some breathing room for numbers higher and lower than the average.
There are pros and cons to both styles but for people who don't like the silliness 1d20 creates they prefer more dice.
>>46461386
Meme all you want it's a better made game than any edition of D&D just for having sensible shit like dodging and parrying and armor as DR.
Does anything use a d100 system?
>>46461140
Again, if you think that the problem with the d20 System (which is a specific ruleset, not "anything that rolls primarily a d20") rests completely or mainly in the dice probability, you are an idiot.
>>46460043
d20 isn't terrible, D&D is terrible. Mutants and Masterminds uses the system to make a far better game.
Roll 1d6-1d6 for each one
STR
DEX
CON
WIS
INT
CAR
>>46461472
Dark Heresy.
I know literally nothing else about Dark Heresy btw
>>46461472
what are you calling a d100 system? any system that uses a d100, or a system along the lines of d20 where a (possibly modified) d100 roll determines most or all results?
if the latter, TSR's marvel hero system has you roll a d100 against a table where you character's abilities set the thresholds for success.
>>46461386
>I can't do basic arithmetic
It's alright anon some people are retarded and that's just fine.
>>46461472
BRP and it fucking rocks. Unless you want combat that isnt realisticaly brutal.
>>46461515
Okay, enlighten us.
>>46461554
wait is that the former or the latter?
isn't the table just a mathless version of THAC0?
>>46461446
>It's better because it's more "realistic"!
Anon, not sure how to tell you this, but realism (or attempts thereof) isn't directly proportional to the value of the system.
Not saying GURPS isn't better than some editions of D&D, but that's a very subjective reason for it.
>>46460043
Strike!Preemtive fuck you, I'm in a shilling mood.
>>46460043
I like the d10 system that Fantasy Flight uses. It fits better with the kinds of games my group plays. The DC system that d20 uses never felt natural to me, and never really clicked in my group, especially when running games on the fly.
>>46461393
I play ORE games all the time, and the trick I've found is realizing that you only need a dice pool of 6 to have an excellent chance of at least some kind of success; anything higher than that you're just trying to hedge your odds against penalties or multiple actions.
Then again I've never played Nemesis so I don't know how the rules are different.
ORE owns, although it definitely belongs in the Theorycrafting/Nobody Plays It Tier. You can basically do anything with it, but it's scarcely used.
>>46461690
so what is good about this game? i saw the pdf and it looks like a mess
>>46461668
It's not that much more realistic. I've played games which more or less did similar things (rifts, now that's a meme game.) and all it is 1 or 2 more rolls. D&D felt lackluster in comparison especially without called shots and AC is just fucking bizarre. You think it's somehow super simulationist but the truth is that D&D is fucking weirdly abstract and having seperate rolls to defend yourself is the bare minimum of to something normal.
>>46461573
I can do math just fine (my teacher even gave me a gold star!), but not all of us like playing Adventures In Accounting.
>>46461615
First of all, you have to understand what the d20 system is, and what kind of games based on that system came out.
The biggest problem is that the d20 system is at its core a class-and-level based system, so most games (be they new games or adaptations) were forced to fit in that paradigm, or at least in a level-based one. Having levels means that some parts of the games scale progressively, while other parts do not. In D&D, the originator of this system, the disparity is partly ameliorted by a wealth of other options. In many d20-based games, however, this didn't happen. So you get stuff like d20 Cthulhu or the historical settings by Green Ronin that shoehorn characters in that kind of paradigm, and end up with weird uneven curves of character progression.
A second aspect of the problem I mentioned is that in many of these systems skills are the core of what a character can do. Now, this wouldn't be especially a problem, even if d20 still had its wonkiness in that sector (overly narrow skills, especially in the older incarnations, and the bullshit that was skill synergies). Yet at the same time other parts of the game were either fixed or scaling purely in function of level, meaning that some character concepts found themselves in odd places in a few levels.
Finally, in many occasions the designers of third-party games based on the d20 System did not bother with extra work and kept the stuff that was in the baseline game, such as armor class (which has been in D&D for so long that it's acceptable but it's not particularly good for more "realistic" settings), vancian spellcasting and so on. Unsurprisingly, the best things to come out of the d20 system were those that dared to get a bit farther than the baseline game - Mutants&Masterminds comes to mind.
>>46460607
I think it says a lot of state of RPG rulesystems that an overly complicated autistic mess is so highly regarded. I find it funny that there still doesn't exist streamlined and fast system with sufficiently "realistic" (deadly combat) simulation even though it's fairly easy to homebrew one especially from old d100 systems.
>>46461800
The PDF is a mess admittedly.
I like it because:
-Very simple base (kinda burning wheel like)
-the combat module is 4e, but without all the fiddly modifiers/bloat of it
-a lot of optional sub-systems to customize how you want to play
It's basically my go to game when I want anything with tactically interesting combat, and not concern myself with hard simulationism.
>>46461731
Nemesis is apparently ORE for playing a horror movie (or scooby doo, honestly) no one gets any kind of super powers, there's modern weapons and armor and there's rules for going crazy and getting mentally scarred. the last two our GM isn't really using, he's a fan of godlike and the game we're playing he sold as godlike meets game of thrones, so I think he just wanted an ORE system where you don't get any fantastical bullshit by default, but I don't know if anything else delivers that, this is the first ORE game I've played.
>>46461446
But that's not how D&D's AC works. It a combination of armor, agility, magic, and plain luck.
Same goes for HP - it's not that your warrior could survive an arrow to the head, it's just that you have to wear him out to do that.
>>46461800
Only two people who like Strike here are that shill and touhoufag who worked on it.
>>46460123
>calling replies '(you)'s
I remember when this was done ironically.
>>46461946
It's not overly complicated though unless positive and negative multipliers mixing is complicated. In fact it's very consistent about things to the point of naseau, but no gorillion subsystems like some games
>let me guess am I going to have to roll 3d6 with positive, and sometimes negative, modifiers in order to beat a target number?
That's it. That's 99% of the game. GURPS problem is that no matter how you spice it it will always feel like GURPS which gets old.
>>46461800
>especially without called shots
D&D assumes that your character always goes for the best possible blow.
If you go full chop-chop-chop without caring about accuracy, you just do an all-out attack.
>>46462016
There's me, touhoufag, and there was at least a third guy I think, but yeah.
It's a small indie game thing with not a lot of traction, and it expects you (the DM) to actually like fiddling with systems and customizing your shit to your group and your game. I want it to catch on, because it really is perfect for a lot of games people ask about, like most vidya and anime inspired ones where fun combat is expected.
>>46461992
I didn't say that's how AC works. I described GURPS method which lets you dodge or parry a blow and if you get hit your armor reduces the damage. I already know AC is abstracted weirdness that throws all of that into a blender.
>>46462131
>dodge or parry
What's the difference? Or is it the case of "that's better because muh realism"?
>>46462104
I remember I first heard about Strike! as being like 4e and since I'm a giant ficking 4rry I gave it a look but my only reaction was "WTF am I reading." I don't know if it was just so modular as to have no real grounding I could latch onto, or if it's just written like shit and the shiny core of the game was lost on me but I really could not get behind it at all.
>>46462131
>if you get hit your armor reduces the damage
Yeah, and in D&D if armor protects you, then you don't get hit. There's not much difference in the ideas behind those two methods.
>>46462182
They have different effects on action economy. Dodging is inherently easier but you won't get a chance to retaliate. Good for increasing your chances of avoiding a particularly strong attack. Parrying is inherently harder but gives you a chance to retaliate.
also here you go with thinking this is somehow really simulationist and not just something sensible and basic. >>46461854
>>46462131
>I already know AC is abstracted weirdness that throws all of that into a blender.
Well, maybe that's because people want to play fantasy heroes adventures and not a math homework simulator that is GURPS.
>>46462087
In my old homebrew (sadly I have lost it and lack willpower to write new one) system I adressed this issue by having "random hit location" table that you roll for when you make non-called shot.
>>46462227
>If I had one more armor I'd take 1 less damage
>If I had one more armor I'd take no damage at all
I don't care what's realistic, but there is definitely a mechanical difference.
>>46462131
AC in D&D represents your ability to dodge as well as resist damage using your armor. That's why it's based in DEX and not CON.
You can use your turn to "Ready" yourself, and make yourself harder to hit, as in preparing to dodge or parry.
It's not an amazing system I agree, but you're making it out to be worse than it actually is. It's just fine.
>>46462276
>1 or 2 more rolls
>modifiers
>math homework
Wow. D&D has negative modifiers too, right?
>>46462227
It's retarded unnecessary simplification to have dodging and armor simulation combined. Also, limits usefulness of both.
>>46462212
The basic idea was "okay, let take 4e and then rip everything out that isn't essential!". It was literally called "Sacred cow BBQ" at some point in its dev cycle.
The editing is not great. The general rules are a lot easier to understand if you have experience with burning wheel/mouseguard and/or *World games. But the combat is 4e distilled. Thanks to the modularity/refluffability, even if you dislike the generic system, you could just apply it when necessary. I have a group where I play Strike! with little to no houserules, and one where we just bolted the tactical combat module on top of FAE. Both work.
>>46462368
>simulation
Last time i checked, D&D was a game about magical heroes killing dragons, not a game about medieval knights.
>>46462453
It's not simulation. It's basic shit and amounts to an extra roll. I already told you this twice. Fuck off.
>>46462478
>it's a simulation!
>no no no, it's not!
Maybe stop changing your opinion every two seconds, no?
looks like strike came out of nowhere
>>46462531
Not being heavily abstracted garbage and handling two separate things with two separate mechanics is not simulationist.
>>46462478
>It's not simulation.
Then why did you called it that?
>inb4 "we're not the same anon"
>>46460331
>never ever try anything outside of your comfort zone that hasn't been accepted by the masses
seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you
>>46462556
>>46462368
>It's retarded unnecessary simplification to have dodging and armor simulation combined.
>>46462478
>It's not simulation.
Make up your fucking mind.
>>46462578
We actually aren't. I'll admit to fucking up and speaking for him. Let me post a screencap.
>>46462615
Where the fuck do you think are?
>>46462453
Are you implying that simulation excludes magical heroes killing dragons somehow? There are tons of ways to make heroic combat possible in "realistic" system and I'd say it's more fun abstract combat of D&D. My personal favorite way of addressing this is to have literal plot armor mechanics based on things like karma/willpower/hope, but that's not the only way.
>>46461406
Thanks anon very informative and it makes sense. I feel like stats should show the skill level increase rather than relying on dice but meh im also not designing games.
>>46461946
>I find it funny that there still doesn't exist streamlined and fast system with sufficiently "realistic" (deadly combat) simulation
This does exist.
It's called GURPS Lite.
You don't need all the rules anon. Only the ones you need.
>>46460512
Honestly: Neither the high variability of d20 nor the bell curve of 3d6 is bad. In the former, a +X to a roll has a predictable effect even if you have multiple of them. In the latter, bonuses to the roll become more notable a lot quicker as it becomes less likely for a lower number to win faster.
Both are fine and it depends heavily on what you want.
There is however, a LOT of crappy games built on the d20 chassis.
>>46462578
>>46462629
Rifts and OSR stuff were my first RPGs so what GURPS does is not inherently simulationist to me. It feels just right. Maybe I'm biased but you are too if you think anything slightly more indepth than AC is too simulationist.
>>46462776
But it's not d100 as like it. I rather prefer heavily stripped down homebrewed rolemaster.
>>46462776
You're supposed to drop rules to streamline it if your campaign calls for it in GURPS anyway. The only thing combat wise that you'd probably want to drop is grid related stuff if you're not into it and those modifiers for piercing, slashing, and blunt. Now that last shit is too crunchy for my liking and I think even most hardcore GURPSfags drop it.
>>46462615
>hate anything that's popular just because it's popular
I thought people grew out of that eventually.
is GURPS a meme?
>>46463448
Yes, but it's also a meme that degenerated and now makes little sense. At first it was about the vehicle splatbook from the last edition which did have horribly crunchy rules. Then it got applied to the whole game despite the fact that it's like every other RPG aka roll dice to beat a number with modifiers.
>>46460043
1d100 with modifiers, and exploding dice when said modifiers push the value above 100 with the excess added to the new roll.
>>46463448
"GURPS is accounting homework" is a meme, yes.
>>46460043
> What is this secret superior system?
Anon, you are supposed to choose a system to fit your campaign, not try to fit your campaign into the framework of a familiar system.
>>46460452
>In theory most of the d6 based systems where you roll successes like in shadowrun are better in terms of how the math works out.
>Realistically such a thing doesn't exist.
As someone working on a similar style game, can you tell me why the math doesn't work out in practice?
>>46461946
>sufficiently "realistic" (deadly combat) simulation
What would you consider realistic? Combat ending in just a few rounds? One or two successful attacks killing a PC? It's a fine line between realistic and unfun, because there's no room for mistakes.
>>46461140
No, the problem with the d20 system, by which we are talking about D&D and d20 modern, is how poorly balanced the classes are *relative* to the mechanics.
I.E. spellcasters often have the ability to bypass the fundamental mechanics (d20 + modifiers vs. Target number) in order to force an umbrage on their victims (make a high difficulty skill check now or be at a crippling disadvantage, from which you will not recover), or to gain an advantage which defies the usual functionality of the core system (being invisible makes you functionally immune to being perceived through the "spot" skill, regardless of how many ranks are placed in it. Invisible and Flying also functionally skips the "move silently" skill, making the opposing "listen" skill useless (moreso than it was initially).
The effect is not limited to pure spellcasters, but is most heavily notable on their behalf.
>>46464606
There's also the problem with the design behind feats and saving throw/AC/skill scaling.
That said, I'm not sure 3.PF and d20 modern are the only only things OP was thinking about when he said "d20 system".
>>46464643
That's because OP is a moron and thinks "d20 system" means "any system that uses a d20".
FATAL does it quite nicely in character creation actually, you roll multiple dice in a row and then divide by the amount of dice you rolled.
This averages out the randomness while still leaving some to make stuff interesting.
>>46464606
4e and M&M are both d20 system too.
The d20 system was all in all a pretty good thing.
It gave rise to the RPG PDF market and allowed a lot of 3rd party groups to get involved in RPGs more easily.
The big issue with it was that WOTC had serious control, which limited what people could do and still put the d20 system logo on it. Unlike the OGL where they had very little control.
>>46464729
meme forced answer
>>46461472
Call of Chtulhu & Runequest
>>46464643
Since OP is a faggot, as is always true, I simply assumed the worst of him and addressed the question as such.
All that time spent in critique of D&D, and I didn't even mention the basic class problems of d20 modern. Namely that half the classes are inherently very bad at their designated roles.
The Strong, Fast, and Smart heroes are very functional and can work as PCs from level 1. Meanwhile, the Tough, Wise, and Charismatic heroes are, simply enough, not. This largely has to do with the skill and combat mechanics of d20 modern.
On the combat side, the Strong hero is encouraged to have a high strength attribute, and go into melee swinging, and the Fast hero is encouraged to crank up dexterity and come out shooting. This works exceptionally well, because, barring police or military contacts in d20 modern, the best armor you can buy is a pathetic +2 AC. This means that, while *everyone* will have an excellent chance of hitting 99% of enemies with their almost meaningless 11-15 AC, the two best classes will be using their primary attributes to do the talking.
On the other hand, the Tough hero, who is encouraged to sink attribute points into constitution, will find themselves at the mercy of having an awful AC, and not having anywhere near enough HP to soak the damage inflicted upon them.
>>46465265
On the skill side: Intelligence still governs skill points, and a Smart hero has the lion's share. Investing these skill points can make a mediocre party better equipped and armed than a paramilitary organization.
And the other noncombatant character classes? The wise hero is suggested to be a party healer, except there's no magic in d20 modern. So, you can only do non-magical healing. Which just makes you recover double the HP per day of rest.
So, say you get whacked for 8 HP of damage in a fight at 1st level. But you have a wise hero! So it'll only take 4 days of bed rest to recover! Eh? Eh?
Four fucking days.
And Charismatic heroes are bards with no magic. Think on that for a second. 1/3rd rogue, 1/3rd fighter, but no backstabbing or martial weapons because archaic weaponry is archaic, and nothing else.
>>46464920
Yeah, but I like 4e as a game, up to about level 16-ish, after which it becomes a cluster of interconnected class abilities and item powers making augments to existing powers.
And I know nothing of M&M.
>>46465423
>Yeah, but I like 4e as a game, up to about level 16-ish
I mean, I have been shilling extra hard today (even in this thread), but if you haven't, you may want to take a look at Strike!
>>46460616
I've played a little Earthdawn. My friends seemed to mostly like it, but thought that the powers were a bit too limited (limited selection within each circle and some were clearly superior to others). I found it kind of meh, and found it more than a bit too limited. The game has some neat ideas, but needs work.
I've never played straight-out Basic Role-Playing, but I've played a number of games from the larger RuneQuest / BRP family, including a mashup of Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu (in addition to each one of those individually, not to mention a bit of RuneQuest, itself).
>>46460043
One of the bigger problems with D&D is that it's a hammer that people are trying to use as a screwdriver. And at various times, that's applied to the designers of new editions, as well. D&D is a limited game, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just designed to do a particular thing. Now, you might not be into the particular thing it does, and that's fine. There are plenty of things I'm not into that I still think have a right to exist. But the popularity of D&D has lead it to be used for everything, and that's the problem. Mind you, I'm not saying there aren't things I wouldn't like to see tweaked or changed, but that applies to any system I can think of off hand.
>>46466347
Holy fuck, I'm going to have to start reporting you for advertisement spam. I want to like your shitty game but your PDF is a fucking mess. Fuck off, fix it, then try shilling again.
>>46466492It's not mine. I'd fix it if I could.
>>46460043
How about, instead of a d20, you have a normal distribution.
>>46461543
>CAR
>>46466523
tell the guy that did it to fix it or i am going to start counter shilling
>>46466971
didn't notice that haha
>>46466971
>Being able to see both the 4 and the 3 at the same time.
Fucking awful dice.
>>46467217
you talking shit about my car?
>>46467459
I'm talking shot about the hood art on your car, yes.
Gas the artist ever seen a fucking common six sided die before?
Well if not, newsflash, the pips, those black spots? They are always arranged a very specific order: top + bottom = 7.
So if 4 is showing: the number on the bottom must be 3. So it should not be fucking visible like that.
>>46467561
Shot = shit. Gas = Has. Fuck autocorrect.
Also: my phone knows that when I type "fuck" the next most common word is "autocorrect". I'm somewhat happy with this.
>>46460043
Don't know, don't care. Most of the folks in my group would agree with me.
>>46460043
Actually not ALL d20 systems are horrible.
D20 M&M isn't incredibly balanced, but it's a pretty good approach for a superhero game or similar.
That would pretty much be the only one.
>>46467561
thats it. youll never dice again after im through with you
