> Voivode
>
> Brad and any other readers, it dawned on me after I wrote this reply
> that I may come across a bit short at times. I apologize if I come
> across that way, I really don't intend to do so.
I appreciate your candor, and rest assured I don't take offense at your
words.
> That fits nicely under "negative impact" in my eyes and that is a good
> answer, saying that you "think it will "is OK for me. It is just that no
> one has yet to show me "how" D20 will reduce the number of other
> games/rule
> systems.
No one will be able to show anything until the d20 is actually released.
The how is simply through creating a path of lesser resistance for creating
new games (making a d20 game will be easier than creating a new system from
scratch). The reduction of other systems will be through attrition (as
older games die out and more new games are d20, then d20 will gradually
reduce the number of other systems). It do not believe any major existing
games will port to d20.
> You see, we agree, it's settings that get new people into the game.
> However, to attract the established players I think you need to cater to
> their style of play. The real question is "do I/You want to?"
I happen to think that established players are also attracted first to
settings and second to style of play. Many players gravitate to a
particular style (whether it is class or skill based, flat or exponential
randomizers, high fantasy or dark and dangerous), and some will ignore a
setting because it uses a style they have had a bad experience with in the
past, but in my own personal experience, it is the story and setting that
carry a game. In many cases, this boils down to the interpersonal
relationships between the players. Great players have fun with every
system, while poor players find fault with them all. Most of us fall in
between. I think players gravitate towards a particular system because such
a system reminds them of a particular situation where everything 'clicked',
and they are making an effort to reclaim that experience.
> That presupposes a lot.
Granted.
> We have nothing that shows it will be balanced.
The 3e playtesters have all raved about the balance of the new system.
> If we are concerned about balance, then tweaking a balanced
> system is very likely to cause it to unbalance.
It almost certainly will. However, with an broad spectrum of examples to
draw on, one can tweak one subsystem at a time and gradually create the
system you need to fully realize your setting. Also, you might not need to
change everything, so all that you don't change stays in balance relative to
everything else.
> In this case it might be better to start from scratch so that
> we know from beginning to end what most of the system will impact.
In some cases it will be, but VERY few systems have achieved a good,
balanced system on the first pass. D&D did a lousy job. ICE was worse.
Shadowrun is a min/maxer's dream. Traveler was so vague it all came down to
what the GM would let you get away with. Starting from scratch offers no
guarantees at all. At least d20 starts out even.
> They will both require much playtesting to find out and from the
> design standpoint I think the different positives and negatives
> of each end up equal.
For an experienced, veteran designer, you are probably correct. For the
other 99% of us, I think having a good place to start is very comforting.
Others will find it restricting, but I think many will find it so because of
NIH syndrome - Not Invented Here. When the flashes and sparks of ideas
spring into our minds, it is only human nature to assume that you have come
up with something that is different, unique, and inherently better than what
has come before. In most cases, we're wrong. On those rare occasions when
it is true, the whole world can be changed overnight.
> Saying that "randomized mechanics are nearly all the same,
> but expressed
> differently" is, to my eyes, stepping so far away from the forest of trees
> as to have no perspective to know anything about the trees, much less the
> forest.
That isn't exactly what I said. I said that all randomized mechanics could
be distilled down to a handful of distinct processes, but that implies that
those processes are distinct with respect to each other, otherwise they
would have been factored out of the group. All randomizers are NOT created
equal.
> It does nothing to further the discussion or
> analysis. So to with your statement.
It is highly relevant - if every expression if a randomizer is not unique,
then they can be standardized without loss to the expression. This
standardization is the goal of d20. In fact, d20 depends on the mechanics
being irrelevant to the setting. I think this is MOSTLY true, but that
mechanics can lend a subtle feel to a game which is otherwise hard to
quantify. What we need to do is distil these disparate mechanics down to
the most basic level, so that we can focus on the settings and simply use
the mechanics as a means to an end.
> Again, I think that it ends up so vague as to be useless for
> the purpose of discussion or analysis.
I see d20 as an attempt to introduce standardization to the gaming industry.
That in itself is relevant to the discussion.
> > Once the OGL gets rolling and every wanna-be game designer
> throws in their
> > two cents worth, virtually every system ever conceived will be available
> to
> > those who want to use the d20 logo. The only people who resist d20 at
> that
> > point will do so emotional rather than intellectual grounds
> (despite their
> > vocal claims to the contrary). That will never change, but they will
> always
> > be a small minority of the players.
>
> Before I misconstrue what your saying, let me ask if this is what you
> mean to say in the above: "After D20 gets going, it will be
> modified to be
> like every other system out there, (becoming the systems it is
> purported to
> drive out), and the only people out there who aren't interested in getting
> into it will not do so because they are idiots or at least only thinking
> with their glands."
Not exactly. After d20 gets going, it will be modified like every system in
existence has been modified by gamers every time the game is played. Things
that they don't like will be changed, and those changes will be shared
through the OGL. I believe the changes will revolve around the fundamental
differences of 'styles of play'. The inertial weight of the player network
will gradually mold those fragments into highly compatible discrete elements
which can be plugged together by a game designer much like an architect
builds a house - they don't design a plumbing fixture or a structural beam,
they simply choose the correct one for the job. In the end, a game designer
will have a palette of RPG rules to select from that embody nearly all of
the distinct concepts of gaming. These distinct concepts will be generally
compatible, allowing a great deal of freedom of design without compromising
the subtle effects of those distinct elements.
At that point (and only at that point), the people who refuse to participate
in such a structure will be doing so on grounds other than intellectual
ones. That doesn't make them stupid, but it does mean they will need to
have a markedly superior expression of the fundamental concepts of gaming to
have any effect at all on the industry .
> Certainly, but you have to garner that draw in the first
> place, that is
> the part I don't see happening to the level that some here seem to think.
> You have to get more people to play D20 and not move on to other
> games that
> may fit their style better.
The OGL is the key to making that happen. That's why d20 doesn't work
without Open Gaming. It is not enough to simply allow others to contribute
legally to the most popular RPG game in history. You must also give them
the freedom to express their own opinions about the game. Let them change
d20 to fit their style. At first it will be chaotic, but within a few years
the system begin to reassemble itself into a handful of compatible
incarnations. At that point, d20 will encompass all of the most popular
styles, so there will only be setting to lure you away from it. And once
d20 does encompass the most popular styles, there will be very little reason
not to develop a setting under it.
> A problem here is that there may never be more than a cottage industry
> in RPGs, at least as we know them. And if there is it seems like you want
> it to end up a monopoly under D20, or at least Open Gaming.
Monopoly is the wrong word. Standards is the right word. I want
interoperability, not between individual games but between the systems that
make up those games. IEEE creates standards, not monopolies. Our laws
allow all of our cars to operate on the same roads, but no one company has a
monopoly on cars. They all have four wheels, except for the ones with two
or three. These are the distinctive differences between transportation
systems. I believe the randomizers and character styles create the
distinctive differences between RPGs.
The real reason this will happen is efficiency. All of the disparate
designs consume a disproportionate amount of resources - both in terms of
designers creating the same systems over and over again and players learning
the new expressions of the same systems over and over again. This is why
d20 will have a strong impact on the industry - not because we need it to,
but because those who take advantage of the efficiencies it offers will have
a competitive advantage over those who don't.
> I do not think that we can debate the pros and cons of whether the
> system is flexible or sufficient. If it is made more able to
> change (which
> at the moment it isn't), if it changes too much it becomes
> another system in
> practice, if not in name. Then we are talking about D20a, D20b and D20c,
> not "D20."
I think it is flexible, and open to change, through the terms of the OGL.
The character creation and experience thing is a minor annoyance and I
believe a short-term one.
As for D20a, D20b, and D20c, well, if there is a way to easily swap out the
pieces of D20a with the pieces of D20c to create D20g, then isn't it still
reasonable to call them all D20?
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
