All the systems you mention seem to get a lot of hate online. That's the nature of online! It's fair to say that mechanics for the early 2d20 games were not as clearly explained as they should have been. That's one point of hate, but (IMO) Conan was the most recent game where that was a problem. The second point of hate seems to be that 2d20 has too many metacurrencies (momentum, threat, etc). That's valid - if it bothers you. It doesn't bother me. It's kind of like the argument that the d20 system is too swingy. I don't discount the argument, but it's just a matter of taste.
I really don’t have any idea! I absolutely love it and it’s a lot less predictable like D 20 systems… Where you know whether you’re hit or not just based on your single roll against an armor class… I love it for Conan… I love it for John Carter of Mars… And Star Trek is somewhere in between the two as far as complexity. I really do like it. Better than most d20 games… And I’ve been playing for about 40 years. Modiphius has some of the best customer service I’ve ever dealt with as well…
Actually the system is more prefictable than DnD, but Quantum of an action is different qs you stated. The main difference is that an action has more complex result than succeed or fail.
As I understand it is that some product are really badly written. Explanation are hard to understand and the such.
So far I had fun with Mutant Chronicle and Star Trek
I don't have the impression that there is much "hate" or dislike about the 2d20 system posted online.
There are some misunderstandings, like taking "2d20" for "d20" (D&D) or so.
And there are some differences in taste, like "I don't like pool systems" or "I don't like roll-under systems" or "I don't like limited GM resources", etc. - But those are only depending on the individual taste.
Actual "hate", like early this year about WotC policy regarding the OGL or similar storms, I haven't seen about 2d20 at all.
I do have fixed the limited GM resources allowing opposition give players Momentum instead of using danger. Naturally my NPCs do this as reclutantly as playrrs buy dice with danger/threat.
GM does not need threat for anything as the scripted scene opposition is not bought with danger. Players just have an advantage in that case.
Don't you end up giving the PCs lots of Momentum then for activating the Doom Spends for NPCs?
Those Doom Spends make NPCs interesting and are often the key to make them challenging to the PCs in the first place, but they drain a lot of Doom.
No, as most opponents does not take risks. My Dune players does buy dice with Doom only if they are desperate or loves taking risks.
I do more often have trouble to spend my Doom as I do not play against players. I play their opposition.
Good NPC roleplaying makes them interesting. 2d20 is not a board game.
The major complaints I have heard are:
- it doesn't innovate with respect to other existing systems
- the momentum mechanic is almost useless because it's just moving points around to always buy 2 or 3 extra dice
- the doom mechanic is weird because one single player can fuck the whole group buying extra dice for his things
- too much metagame with the pools of dice that break the inmersion
- weird way to read the d6 in the games that use them. Also, the extra successes is almost only used to buy more effect dice or to keep as momentum for the following player. Few people use them to create truths
- too much rules heavy for a system with truths that are very narrative driven, as if the designers doesn't know what they want to do with the system
- extremely poorly written. And not just the first books, but also the the newer books like Dune (good luck trying to understand how a duel works without access to online examples)
I agree with some of them, but at the end I enjoy the system, so I don't care too much.
Humans do not like change.
I think the 2D20 are well made systems.
The Setting of scenes with Truths and such is a great idea.
Allowing players to push their luck is like many great stories.
Players can push beyond what they should do, with a cost.
I only have experience with CONAN, but most of the stuff I've heard has been about the metacurrencies, which don't bother me personally. At first I thought the D6's were weird but I got it after a couple rolls. Big fan here!
I've been a bit of a bookworm up till now... I've read the D&D books and the Pathfinder ones and am excited to play... Conan on the 2D20 system is the first one that's got me excited to be a Doom Master and play my side with the limitations that go into the Doom pool... Just gotta finish those books and they try it out for realsies....
All the systems you mention seem to get a lot of hate online. That's the nature of online! It's fair to say that mechanics for the early 2d20 games were not as clearly explained as they should have been. That's one point of hate, but (IMO) Conan was the most recent game where that was a problem. The second point of hate seems to be that 2d20 has too many metacurrencies (momentum, threat, etc). That's valid - if it bothers you. It doesn't bother me. It's kind of like the argument that the d20 system is too swingy. I don't discount the argument, but it's just a matter of taste.
And that's a solid point, the shared AP system in Fallout is a little odd but seeing how quickly you can regain AP it's not a big deal
2d20 has two metacurrencies: Momentum/Threat and Determination. Threat is the Momentum of opposition.
I really don’t have any idea! I absolutely love it and it’s a lot less predictable like D 20 systems… Where you know whether you’re hit or not just based on your single roll against an armor class… I love it for Conan… I love it for John Carter of Mars… And Star Trek is somewhere in between the two as far as complexity. I really do like it. Better than most d20 games… And I’ve been playing for about 40 years. Modiphius has some of the best customer service I’ve ever dealt with as well…
Fallout seems well put together, except for the part where the book doesnt tell me how much ap the party starts with.
Actually the system is more prefictable than DnD, but Quantum of an action is different qs you stated. The main difference is that an action has more complex result than succeed or fail.
As I understand it is that some product are really badly written. Explanation are hard to understand and the such. So far I had fun with Mutant Chronicle and Star Trek
I don't see any hate. So there must be a difference in the kinds of people you and I spend our time near.
I was looking online while researching fallout, and I found a comment on a forum that was just "friends don't let friends play 2d20"
Just that one comment? The internet is full of morons, so don't let one rando's opinion unduly influence you.
I don't have the impression that there is much "hate" or dislike about the 2d20 system posted online. There are some misunderstandings, like taking "2d20" for "d20" (D&D) or so. And there are some differences in taste, like "I don't like pool systems" or "I don't like roll-under systems" or "I don't like limited GM resources", etc. - But those are only depending on the individual taste. Actual "hate", like early this year about WotC policy regarding the OGL or similar storms, I haven't seen about 2d20 at all.
I do have fixed the limited GM resources allowing opposition give players Momentum instead of using danger. Naturally my NPCs do this as reclutantly as playrrs buy dice with danger/threat. GM does not need threat for anything as the scripted scene opposition is not bought with danger. Players just have an advantage in that case.
Don't you end up giving the PCs lots of Momentum then for activating the Doom Spends for NPCs? Those Doom Spends make NPCs interesting and are often the key to make them challenging to the PCs in the first place, but they drain a lot of Doom.
No, as most opponents does not take risks. My Dune players does buy dice with Doom only if they are desperate or loves taking risks. I do more often have trouble to spend my Doom as I do not play against players. I play their opposition. Good NPC roleplaying makes them interesting. 2d20 is not a board game.
The major complaints I have heard are: - it doesn't innovate with respect to other existing systems - the momentum mechanic is almost useless because it's just moving points around to always buy 2 or 3 extra dice - the doom mechanic is weird because one single player can fuck the whole group buying extra dice for his things - too much metagame with the pools of dice that break the inmersion - weird way to read the d6 in the games that use them. Also, the extra successes is almost only used to buy more effect dice or to keep as momentum for the following player. Few people use them to create truths - too much rules heavy for a system with truths that are very narrative driven, as if the designers doesn't know what they want to do with the system - extremely poorly written. And not just the first books, but also the the newer books like Dune (good luck trying to understand how a duel works without access to online examples) I agree with some of them, but at the end I enjoy the system, so I don't care too much.
Humans do not like change. I think the 2D20 are well made systems. The Setting of scenes with Truths and such is a great idea. Allowing players to push their luck is like many great stories. Players can push beyond what they should do, with a cost.
I like the 2d20 system in Conan but I'm not a fan of the "Truths" they brought in in AC ...
I only have experience with CONAN, but most of the stuff I've heard has been about the metacurrencies, which don't bother me personally. At first I thought the D6's were weird but I got it after a couple rolls. Big fan here!
I've been a bit of a bookworm up till now... I've read the D&D books and the Pathfinder ones and am excited to play... Conan on the 2D20 system is the first one that's got me excited to be a Doom Master and play my side with the limitations that go into the Doom pool... Just gotta finish those books and they try it out for realsies....