I'm way on the far end of the spectrum on this.
Dont get me wrong, I love d20 and D&D. But I would
HATE to see d20 become the predominant rule set for
all genres.
I strongly believe that a game's "feel" is one if its
most important and attractive qualities. The specific
rule system can contribute to that (or hinder it).
For example, the spell system in Ars Magica is just
wonderful. It captures the feel of the game. Combat
gets short shrift and poor rules, but the magic. Oh
man. d20 cant duplicate that. Or the cinematic chase
rules from the Indiana Jones game, or the comic book
feel of the Marvel Superheroes combat system. Those
are great and they really capture the feel of the
genre they are allowing you to play in.
Maybe the best example is the character creation in
Traveller. You spend hours on your character before
you play and there is almost no character growth after
that. A class/level system such as d20/D&D can never
capture that. Is that the "best" system? That doesnt
matter. It creates a certain feel for Traveller. It
reflects a certain game design concept. I would hate
to see d20 crush that out of existence.
I could envision a day when there was complete
seperation of rules from setting. For example, you
could have several core rule sets: a gritty, realistic
skill based set of rules (a la GURPS), a more flexible
default set of rules dealing with percentages (a la
Chaosium, which by the way is my favorite), a
high-adventure set of rules (a la d20/D&D which allows
for mega characters and extraordinary powers).
Then you would have a set of world/setting books.
Players then mix and match, like "garanimals"
(remember those?). For instance, I want to play "High
Fantasy" with "d20" rules. Or "Space Opera" with
"GURPS" rules, or "Modern Espionage" with
"Percentile/Chaosium" rules, etc. Sort of like what
GURPS does, but they just allow for interchangable
settings. This way, the setting rule books provide
details for the main core rule sets.
Sure that is a crazy extrapolation, but it might be
cool.
Any way, back to my origianl point. To me, a rule
system is often better just because it creates a feel
I like, even if it is a little more cumbersome. Would
a Sanity check really be the same if it was just a
stat added to the d20 core rules? Or how about the
number crunching of character creation in Champions.
Sure, there are "easier" rule sets or some that do
character creation "better," but Champions wouldnt be
Champions without that number crunching.
For example, sure you could run a d20 version of the
Knights of the Round Table, but it wouldnt be
Pendragon. The system makes a difference.
Of course, some rule sets dont creat a feel, they are
just a cumbersome mess--like the old Chivalry and
Sorcery rules or the Palladium games.
Again, I would hate to see d20 eliminate all systems
for the same reason you dont want monopolies in
commerce--it stymies creativity and impairs the growth
process caused by competing ideas.
Clark
=====
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
