Talk:D20 System

message: We should add the conflict between d20 fans and anti-d20 ones.
--------
Why?  It would be rather difficult to talk about it with an NPOV.
:Iceberg3k 13:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edition wars

message: This section seems biased, but I do not want to go through altering things since I do not know everything about the subject (and I'd like to reach a consensus rather than go in editting blindly).  Anyway, my opinions:
* The use of the term "Golden Age" has a strong bias to me, indicating that everything was better during this time -- not just commercial activity -- and ever since then that everything related to d20 has degenerated.  Plus, AFAIK the term "Golden Age" isn't widely used among gamers (and if so, it should be noted).  This is the same for the term "backlash," as if there was a mass movement by gamers against d20 products.
* The d20 backlash portion (and to some extent the previous portion) is lacking in data.  What are some examples of companies that gone under?  Since when is "recent years"?  Is there any data to support the changes in sales among both d20 and non-d20 companies?
* The phrase "many consumers began to notice that the quality was somewhat lacking in many publications" implies two things.  One, that quality is objective.  Two, that "many consumers" hold this belief.  Again, this is a perspective about consumers that lacks support.
* There are no dates in the history section. When was the golden age? When did it end? Rrreese 04:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: To get around the 'technical limitations' stated under the title, why not just call it "The d20 System",  then you do not need the disclaimer beneath the title that says the title is wrong.
--Because that would alphabetize it in the wrong place.  The word "The" is never put at the beginning of an article title.  Vaxalon 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet that's what it's called.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  modifying the Title 

message: The Open Gaming License should either get its own article, or a mention in this one; there are at least three systems out there that use it besides D20.
Never mind.  I should read before I write.  Vaxalon 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Gaming 

message: The article is incorrect: the SPECIAL system used in Fallout is based on d10 and d100 rolling and there is no "fixed" base challenge(an equivalent of "DC15" in d20) as the use of percentile dice for skills quickly makes that useless. While the systems do have things in common, the way the article is worded - "a near one-to-one game mechanics correspondence" - implies a far greater similarity than actually exists.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.237.72 (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that comparisons with other systems in the mechanics section should be made more rigorous or ditched entirely. As it stands, references to Palladium and FALLOUT seem to be "drive by" observations by fans of those systems and really fail to take into account a more complicated inheritance/relationship situation. For example, with the Palladium cite, D20 is clearly a retooled D&D. Palladium was also a D&D derivative, so noting that they have similarities, while true, doesn't really say anything that isn't true of dozens of other games, which makes the significance seem rather low. Fans of dozens of games have made inheritance/kinship claims; I'd stick to claims that can be backed up factually (like licensing or author statements.) Sangrolu (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanics Section 

message: From the article: This is generally (though not universally) considered to be superior to the first- and second- edition AD&D "THAC0" mechanic. (From a mathematical standpoint, the two are actually identical - however, the d20 System version was designed to be quicker and easier to use and to make estimating probablities a more intuitive process.)
From what I remember, the 1st ed. Thac0 table did some funky nonlinear stuff at certain points, and so aren't mathematicly equivalent.  I remember reading a quote about how the 2nd ed. writers looked at the tables and despaired.  ^_^  The revised tables they came up with are equivalent to the 3rd ed. system.  I guess I'll edit the parenthetical comment to be more pedanticly correct.
:You are correct. As the author of the above statement, I was aware of the "repeating 20" that 1E used (I think that was the only nonlinear bit), but figured a bit of admittedly-distorting simplification was okay in a general-purpose article. But there's nothing wrong with your version either. PurplePlatypus 09:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a longer explanation could go a long way towards revealing the truth to greater detail; something along these lines, perhaps: In early editions of Dungeons & Dragons, upon which the system was partially based, while you generally still rolled a twenty-sided die (abbreviated as a "d20"), the tables and charts used to deduce whether you succeeded or not differed a lot according to the kind of action or reaction you checked for, which is regarded by many people as convoluted and counter-intuitive when the probabilities and outcomes are, mathematically speaking, exactly the same; others still counter that getting used to the process (especially in regard to the AD&D 2nd Edition) is not that difficult to follow and that a person can do so in one's mind with great ease after a while. -- RaspK FOG 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THAc0 nitpicking 

message: I really think this page needs a big clean up. First off, it should be a discussion on the d20 System itself - mainly it's mechanics and rules - See how GURPS, Tri-Stat dX pages are set up for an example. About 70% of this article is complaints and commentary about the Open Game Licence which already has it's own page and some of this writing is reworded there anyway. Cyberia23 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up?

message: FYI, Wizards of the Coast uses the spelling "Roleplaying" in its d20 products.  For example, they officially call their "modern" game the "d20 Modern Roleplaying Game.  They likewise spell the word "roleplaying" in their D&D products and on their official website.  Therefore I changed the spelling to "roleplaying" to match the company's preferred spelling (except in the category listings). Dugwiki 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling is "Roleplaying" in d20 products 

message: The article currently states "...the SRD is drawn from the Dungeons & Dragons books Player's Handbook v3.5, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide v3.5, Monster Manual v3.5, Deities and Demigods v3.0, and Epic Level Handbook."
The current text implies that it is acceptable to take some content from the core rulebooks, but nothing in the core rulebooks. However, this is not actually the case. While the rules of the SRD work in an identical manner to the ones in the Core Rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM, etc) the actual text is not the same.
WotC actually used their original source material to create their core rulebooks (which are not part of the SRD and may not be used under the OGL) and the SRD which is a totally different document (in a legal sense) and can be used under the OGL. The D&D books and SRD were published at different times, have different copyright statements and are treated as different things by the OGL. The SRD is not drawn from those books it is a paralel publication that shares a common source.
(This may sound like nit-picking, but it isn't. It is an explanation of the complex way that the SRD and core rulebooks work together for players of the D&D game, but can not be interchanged by game developers. It is a subject that continually confuses people new to game publishing and the subject continually resurfaces on the mailing list of the Open Game Foundation, where established publishers help out new designers.)
d20 System publishers can use the SRD or MSRD but can never use anything from the core rulebooks (as they "contain no Open Game Content"). The only publisher that doesn't have to obey this rule is Wizards of the Coast itself.
(Incidentally this also means that d20 System books from WotC do not need to contain the Open Game Licence but d20 System books from anyone else do need an OGL. All publishers except WotC therefore have to comply with two licences to keep using the trademark. I don't think the article currently states the two tier nature of the d20 System at this time. This should be added to the article - but should be added in a neutral way that doesn't imply that WotC are bad for creating a two tier system. You might be able to cite this as part of the reason for the complaints, but you need to come up with a source to do that.)
BTW: Any company that wants to use any other WotC material can not do it via the d20STL and things like the Ravenloft books needed a special agreement (between Wizards and the publisher). The Ravenloft product line isn't currently mentioned in this article. The Ravenloft publisher may be able to provide you with details of this agreement. (The basic facts are that the Ravenloft Campaign Setting is a TSR setting that Wizards currently don't want to use, but still own. The existance of the private agreement between Wizards and the publisher, which I think is Sword and Sorcery Studios, could provide further understanding to the reader.)
Confusion between the SRD and core rulebooks is one of the reasons why some would be d20 System publishers find difficulty starting up. The other problem being confusion about finding and removing PI hidden within OGC from non-SRD sources. I think it would be worth mentioning confusion caused by the d20 System within the article and covering these points.
Big Mac 01:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should mention SRD != Core Rulebooks - PI 

message: I replaced the phrase "many publishers abandoning the d20 system" with "some publishers...."  The reason is that currently the article only cites one example of a publisher who previously used the d20 system opting to possibly not use it any more.  Thus "many" in this context is unverified and subjective (ie see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). So while there is citation of some publishers doing it, further external references would be needed to verify that RPG publishers are leaving the system en masse. Dugwiki 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "many publishers" abandoning system 

message: Offsite criticism of d20 should at least be cited. Reading this article you wouldn't know a school of such thought existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.44.62 (talk • contribs) 26 July 2007
:I for one am not aware of widespread criticism focused on D20. Of course, some people don't like the game, and prefer other kinds of roleplaying games, but these are matters of preference, not critique. Did you have a particular school of thought in mind? --Agamemnon2 11:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of the “criticism” is mainly a joke about how the d20 system is cursed and how the 20 sided die Corrupts every thing it touches. AmazingFerret (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: http://thedigitalfront.com/2007/09/05/episode-02-ogld20-panel-at-gen-con/ the one hour and half mp3 from the GenCon panel has someone stating that the existing d20 license for 3.x will no longer exist as well potentially the OGL for it as well under the new 4th edition licenses. someone with better hearing than me may want to listen to and update the relevant pages with the information given at this panel. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  future of the d20 license 

message: The fact that the "d20 Anything" is licensed and that a company has some control over its use contradicts the whole concept of OPEN.  This is silly. Mingramh 11:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Open

message: seriously, can't there be more information about what it is / what it does instead of fifty paragraphs of philosophical discussion of the virtues and drawbacks of it's licensing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.245.221 (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article sounds like the author just smoked about 10 pounds of **insert questionable substance of choice** 

message: There's some critical pieces of information missing, such as (which I came here looking for) WHEN d20 was first published. It is especially striking that an article with a "History" section doesn't have a single year in the whole thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  When published? 

message: Hello,
I was looking at the :category:Universal role-playing games and thought the D20 System was missing and should be added. I see though, that in this edit  Percy Snoodle removed the categories Role-playing game systems and Universal role-playing games.
Now, I can see why it was removed from Role-playing game systems, as it is in the sub-category D20 System. But I think it fits in Universal role-playing games. The D20 System supports games in multiple genres: fantasy (D&D), modern (d20 Modern), horror (d20 CoC), to name those I can think of at the moment.
Are there any arguments against adding the Universal role-playing games category back to this article?
-TenguTech (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.  True20 is in there, D20 should be.  98.232.219.86 (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding categories 

message: The picture with this caption shows D&D dice: d4, d8, d12, d20 and d10^2. Isn't only the d20 die used? -- megA (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The system is based on the d20, but any or all of those can be used. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - I didn't get that impression. This should be clarified in the text IMO. -- megA (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "dice used in the d20 system" 

message: Um... wow.  This article is several years out of date.  It makes no mention of the rather important fact that the d20 System Trademark License was completely discontinued in 2008, and that no new products may be released under the license.  It mentions under "Criticisms" the fact that the license "is revocable and is controlled by WotC", but doesn't mention that it has been revoked.
Yes, I know, I could add the information myself, and I would, but (a) I'm not the most knowledgeable source about the topic, and (b) I don't have the time right now to do a good job of it.  Still, if no one else has addressed the matter within the next week or so, I guess I'll take a stab at it... --Smeazel (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could take care of it, that would be great. :) 208.54.7.142 (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the formal revocation notice?  A post on a forum from a PR guy saying that they (WotC) are going to revoke the license isn't an actual revocation.  WotC never did send formal notices to registered licensees of the d20 STL.  71.193.180.96 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date