Notice: Undefined variable: adPrefs in /var/www/rpgnet/include/header-sub.phtml on line 7

Notice: Undefined variable: coLogo in /var/www/rpgnet/include/header-sub.phtml on line 23
RPGnet
 
 d20 mention ...
Author: Roman (---.illinois.net)
Date:   04-24-2003 08:39

The author states that:

"One of the things that the latest incarnation of Dungeons & Dragons has over its predecessors is a flexible language, at least in terms of game mechanics. Even though the "default" D&D setting still makes a lot of assumptions about the way it's going to be played, it's based on a vocabulary of rules that's several orders of magnitude less limited than either previous edition -- witness the ubiquitous d20 emblazoning everything from religious apocalyptica to space opera to cosmic horror."

To some extent, I do agree. While I do believe that d20 still have *far* too many rules attached to it--the core system is *three* books of solid rules with only the barest hint of story or setting attached--certainly it was a great improvement in both flexibility and character diversity, with feats and prestige classes.

Still ... I truly wonder if the amount of people who jumped on the d20 bandwagon were truly impressed with the system's flexibility, or simply wanted a piece of the pie. Because while I will grant that the OGL gave us some remarkable stuff independent of WoC (notably books by Green Ronin and Mongoose Publishing), I can't help but think that many of these games were somewhat damaged in their translation to d20. I bought several d20 conversions of games I'd already played long and well in their original systems, including CoC, Deadlands, and Fading Suns, in order to try them out in *both* systems. Were the games playable? Certainly. But they also lacked substantially in their "fit" between system and setting.

My two bits, for what it's worth. (Please, don't train the flame throwers on me.)

Roman

P.S.: Yes, I do understand that part of the generic nature of D&D is what some people *look* for--making their own story and setting from the rules. And I also know that many (far too many, IMHO) games do the same thing--splitting rules between a player's handbook & a GM's Guide, with a book of monsters added on later. But am I the *only* one out there who really misses the game you can buy *ONE* book for, and play to your heart's content?

 Topics Author  Date
 d20 mention ...  
Roman 04-24-2003 08:39 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
Dasmen 04-24-2003 09:34 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
dan l-k 04-24-2003 10:37 
 Don't worry, you're not.  new
Roy Morgan 04-24-2003 20:48 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
SteelCaress 04-29-2003 15:20 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
Roman 04-30-2003 08:45 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
Patrick Lawinger 05-22-2003 09:59 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
SteelCaress 05-25-2003 23:35 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
SteelCaress 04-30-2003 10:51 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
Roman 04-30-2003 08:31 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
Dasmen 05-22-2003 08:33 
 RE: d20 mention ...  new
Randal 05-22-2003 11:14 

 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:
 Your Email:
 Subject:
Email replies to this thread, to the address above.