z20 Reviewed

For nearly three years now, I have had a love-hate codependent relationship with D&D. In short, I can't live with it, but I can't seem to live without it, either. When I come back to it after a break, I feel rejuvinated and excited by this old comfortable friend I know so well. But after a couple weeks, all the old irritants come back, and I'm driven away to some other gaming system thread... until I eventually come crawling back again.

I have come to think of "z20" as describing the history of this abusive relationship, including all my attempts to change d20 (rather than love it the way it is). It includes Drudge, mini20, d20house, etc.

Hyperbole aside, it is time to review z20 (again) to see what I'm trying to get out of it. What is my goal here? Is z20 meant to be a simple tweak of d20? A conversion of d20? Or a whole new system simply inspired by d20? I'm hoping that, if I can decide what I want out of it, I can then move past the tensions it's causing in my design work.


z20 is not meant be a whole new system--though it often seems to drift in that direction. There are other existing systems I could use if that was my goal. But instead I want to retain all my existing d20 content. Basically, I'm too invested, with hours and years of learning and a number of existing storylines and worlds defined in terms of D&D. I can't easily let it all go. (I would say zilch has been strongly inspired by d20, but compatiblity was never a concern there, and so zilch is largely separate from z20... except that now it is starting to feed ideas back to into z20.)

But z20 is not a simple tweak, either. It has gone too far for that. I've tried to throttle things to back to this level as d20house--which approximates a relatively normal level of house rules or the degree of changes made by Pathfinder.

So, if z20 is more than just a tweak, but not a completely separate and independent system, that means it's a conversion. It is a kind of bastardization: no longer the old d20 system, but not a new truly system with a life of its own either.


Other such hybrid/conversion systems already exist--such as True20 fantasy or Microlite20 (both of which have served as inspiration). So why not just play these then?

Mainly, because I don't feel the conversion goes far enough to capture all the content. Microlite20 actually caused the revival of z20 and serves as its core. But, while it simplifies characters--attributes, skills, feats, etc--it doesn't simplify the rest: conditions, special abilities, spells, magic items, monsters. This is frequently a problem: a d20 conversion system essential streamlines the first half the Player's Handbook, but neglects to do the same for the second half (the spells) or the other two core books.

And, I've come to realize, it's not really the character sheet that's my problem. Yes, it takes a long time to develop a character. But 1) this is usually fun in and of itself and 2) this is relatively minor investment in terms of a campaign that will take months or even years to play all the way through. Simpler characters really only help for one-off games or similar quick start situations with new players.

Instead, my problem is with the modifiers, the numbers to track, all the little details that are going on during play: basically, the reason it so often takes 3 hours to play through two minutes of combat. And this is not easy to simplify because of how entangled all these rules are. Monsters rely on all the special ability rules and spell-like abilities; spells rely on the possible character conditions; the combat rules inform spells and conditions and feats. Simply touching one of these systems ripples through all the others.


Another insight I've had is that a "conversion" is a temporary state, not a finished system. If the conversion is not completed, then it is simply an elaborate tweak--which is worse than the original system in terms of quick use. Even if the conversion ultimately simplifies the rules, it must still be applied on the fly. Each rule lookup now requires the DM do the lookup in d20... and then apply the conversion (hopefully without also having to look up the conversion rule). This is why I prefer finished system documents where all lookups need to be directed to only a single resource.

But, if I apply the necessary conversions throughout the system, I end up with a new system! Any additional d20 material must undergo the same conversion to be used. Furthermore, this is a massive undertaking. I'd have to touch every monster and the over 600 spells in the core rulebooks. While I've thought that some of this could be automated, it is really just not worth the effort. This much effort could instead be spent loosely converting existing material into a completely new/alternate system.

In short, keeping z20 compatible with d20 is only useful if the content can all still be used without conversion. But, since all the rules are form an interdependent system, more than a few tweaks breaks the system or makes it a new, incompatible game.


I've now slept on this, and I think the conclusion is clear. z20 is essentially a new game system, but it does not offer enough new or exciting differences from d20 to make it worth a lone-man translation of all the core content. I can think of z20 as Zludge for d20: an assortment of modular rules, sort of like Unearthed Arcana on steriods. As such, much of the work I've done could rollover into any future work I do on a new fantasy or generic rules-heavy RPG.

But I think my time and effort would be better served by searching for (or even developing) a new system unfettered by vague d20 "compatibility" or "equivalence" constraints. I could then translate only the necessary content of my world--a handful of characters--rather than all the d20 core content.

Therefore, my current plan is to shelve z20 indefinitely. I may be able to use the work for later Zludge Prime efforts. In the mean time, I'll play my existing d20 lines through to their ends (or at least to a good conversion point) as d20. I'll probably still poke at zilch, since that has a neat boardgame aspect to it. But, between d20 and zilch, I don't see a real need for a third fantasy RPG in my life. My game system design efforts would be better spent elsewhere.


For the curious: This is where z20 stands now.

History of z20 and Zludge

As the last couple posts have hinted, my z20 project has been quietly resurrected, despite earlier posts suggesting this is a doomed endeavor. I started wondering at this--where did z20 come from? How did I get here, and where do I think I'm going?

However, in digging for the answer, I found that z20 is intricately tied to the history of Zludge. Pouring through my archive of Sent email messages to S. and B., I was able to reconstruct the following chronology:

Jun 2007: I become intrigued by Fudge and Fate 2.0 (effectively a specific flavor of Fudge). Fudge in particular is filled with good ideas, but in a very "...and here's another good idea" style, leaving the GM to roll these ideas into his own perfect system. I start my own Fudge derivative named Zludge: a mixture of Fudge, Fate, d20, and GURPS ideas.

Jul 2007: I finish an early version of Zludge largely shaped for a sci-fi campaign (including psi rules, for example), though still intending to be a largely universal system.

Dec 2007: After repeatedly being frustrated by the slow rate of D&D combat--particularly the modifier tracking and rule details--I consider a possible simplification project. Zludge comes to mind as a base, and so I begin a document to blend Zludge and d20.

Feb 2008: The Zludge-d20 project grows beyond a simple hack document and becomes its own system: Drudge.

Mar 2008: After playing around with Animal Ball's Instant Game, one day S. and I just sit down and play a rules-lite system I come up with in an hour based on bare-bones Zludge. Originally named Fluff, this soon becomes Fluffy.

There are now three flavors of Zludge going: the lite Fluffy, the original Zludge (which I start calling Zludge Prime), and the relatively rules-heavy Drudge. The idea comes to make Zludge a roll-your-own system. However, instead of just being a jumble of ideas, it would be a system of clearly-defined, compatible modules. GMs could define a "zenome" document for their particular instance of Zludge that would specify which rule modules they are using. Thus, the rules could be lite or heavy depending on GM preference or the particular campaign. Furthermore, when I found a good mechanic idea in another system, I could port that single idea into the framework of Zludge, thus being able to experiment with small pieces here and there while still keeping the bulk of my gaming system constant.

I begin surfing more and more RPG test drive rules and indie RPG system for neat ideas.

Apr 2008: I start this blog, whose name is even inspired by Zludge.

Jul 2008: Fluffy (and its basically synonymous incarnation Huffy) sees some action on a long car trip with B. in a Heavy Metal Atomic Wasteland campaign setting. (Sadly, this never got documented properly here on SludgePit.)

May 2009: After 18 months of work (not 15), I call an end to Drudge. Essentially, Drudge had wandered too far from d20 to be at all useful. It would have been easier and faster to just completely reimagine the d20 content in a Zludge system. Intrigued by True20, I instead consider a d20-True20 blending named z20.

Jun 2009: I essentially realize the differences between True20 and d20 are too minor to be bothering with a synthesis. In short, I'm simply bastardizing d20 without significant advantage. I decide to end z20 in favor of d20house, which is just a handful of house rules for d20 and an digital DM's screen to speed play.

Aug 2009: I discover Microlite20. This is d20 streamlined! I think my own strength is streamlining--making simpler rules that are still effectively equivalent to the source. But I suck at actually trimming and drastically cutting away the fat (and even some of the meat, if necessary). Microlite provides the core I've been looking for.

However, there are a number of things I don't like. For instance, the core rules are so lite and streamlined, but the equipment lists are so long and detailed, spells are still straight from d20 (and so too detail-oriented), translated monsters have no special abilities at all--essentially just attack bonuses, AC, and hit points. In short, it feels like a hodge-podge.

I start pulling Microlite20 into a single document and tweaking what I don't like. Of course, I find myself adding a lot of old Drudge ideas, etc. It grows beyond the Microlite core, so I call it mini20.

Sept 2009: mini20 has stopped being even "mini". But it seems to also be close to my original goal way back with Drudge: a lite version of d20. In short, its the d20 that I always wanted to play. I resurrect the name z20.


So that's how I got here. As to where I'm going... maybe in another post soon I'll talk about some of the things I proud of in z20, and see if I can ever answer that still-haunting question: "Why convert or change d20 in the first place? Why not just play d20 as is, or else start a new system from scratch?"

z20: What game is this again?

Following on the heels of my insight that Drudge was a bastardization, I'm realizing there really isn't much overhauling that you can do to a game system and still have it work.

Gary Gygax stressed this in his book, Role-Playing Mastery. He points out that every game has a spirit, and you can't violate that spirit without ruining the game. The 3.5 DMG asks the same thing in more specific terms: Why are you changing the rules? Do you really know why you're doing it and what it'll mean for the game as a whole?

As I've worked on z20 this week, I'm realizing more and more that trying to change D&D is a futile endeavor. Even simple changes have sweeping effects. For example, I consolidated and renamed some of the skills. This was a good change, since now the skills are all equally valuable purchases for players based on how I actually use the skills as a DM. (For example, I don't think I've ever called for an Appraise check, but I do Spot checks all the time. Certain skills are just way more valuable than others in my campaigns.) But I realized this morning that this totally breaks the character sheet--half the skills are missing or renamed. (Missing is okay--players can just cross them off--but name changes are irritating.)

Another change I considered was dropping Attacks of Opportunity. Instead, characters would just lose their DEX bonuses while performing any action that used to provoke an AoO. But I realized this morning that AoOs really aren't that big a problem. They really don't crop up all that often in normal combat, since players do their best to avoid them. Changing that rule still means I need to remember which actions (used to) provoke AoOs. And it has unexpected consequences. For example, the Mobility feat: +4 vs AoOs while moving. So how would this translate according to the new rule? It implies that moving across the battlefield must leave characters defenseless. If so, should Mobility just allow a character to keep their dodge bonus while moving, or should it still grant the same +4 bonus? And then there's the Combat Reflexes feat... In short, even a simple rule swap really does lead to cascading changes through the whole system.

That's not to say that neat tweaks here and there are impossible though. I decided that damage rolls would just consistently do their average. For example, 1d6 always does 3 points of damage; 2d8+1 would do 9 points every time. This one change--simple enough to done mentally during play--suddenly cuts the need for all the other dice besides d20 (and possibly d%), as well as all the mental totaling of die rolls. But otherwise the game effect is basically the same as the original. Unlike the changes made by True20, I still have a hit point mechanic and all that goes along with that. (There's actually a bit more to this rule change, since I also have the degree of success on the attack roll modify the damage dealt slightly, just so things are not completely routine for every attack!)

This afternoon, I started thinking about how to streamline modifier tracking... and the approaches I used with Drudge just won't work without massive overhauls. In short, hours and hours of creation-time to save a few minutes of game-time.

So my conclusion from all this is a more visceral understanding of Gygax's point: if you choose a gaming system, then play that system. Don't try to make it something it's not. If you don't like it, choose a different system--there are certainly plenty of them out there to choose from if you just look around!

So z20 continues to shrink in scope... which is a good thing! It's becoming mostly a collection of house-rules and clarifications to reflect how I DM. I'm also trying a few little shortcuts to speed a few things up here and there, but I'm learning I really need to leave the mechanics themselves well enough alone. Instead, I should put the time into producing DM aids for myself--like a good/personalized DM screen or a better way to track game modifiers--than trying to overhaul the system itself.

I should also be playing entirely different (separate) systems to fill my need for change and lighter rule systems.

"When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep." -- Zen adage

The End of Drudge

Today I decided to end my work on Drudge.

Drudge was my attempt to simplify D&D. Frequently, while playing D&D, I despair at the slow rate of combat and tedium of tracking countless modifiers. In those campaigns that I DM, my players (all 2 of them) are not very familiar with the rules, and so I end up tracking every modifier currently in play. In the one campaign where I was only a player, a single battle would take a full 3-hour gaming session. Even though the group was large--about 8 players--this still seemed excessive.

So, thinking about how to streamline D&D, I turned to Zludge. Zludge is my own custom RPG system based primarily on Fudge, but also pulling ideas from a great number of other systems. I've been working on the Drudge rules for over 15 months now.

But last night, I started looking through Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds again. Today, I read through the True20 Quickstart again. This is really d20 simplified, complete with a d20-to-True20 conversion document.

I realized that Drudge had really gone too far from d20 to be useful. While everything still converted from d20 in an easy mapping, everything had to be touched. Essentially, conversion became as much work as just re-imagining the same content from scratch in a completely different system. It was a weird, hybrid bastard that no one was ever going to use (possibly not even me).

But still, the exercise was not without its value. It's like learning how to write an operating system: no one's ever really going to use what you produce instead of Windows or even Linux, but it's essential to learning what goes into an OS. I still believe that, in a generic RPG system of my own design, feat and spell lists are something to avoid. They are too constraining while also require too much effort to construct and record. Instead, I think general rules and a purely skill-based system are the way to go. But stripping these out of d20, along with hit points and various die shapes (including the d20 itself!), leaves something largely unrecognizable behind.

Instead, I've realized I need something that cleanly translates. That means, all the 3.0/3.5 feats, spells, monsters, etc, need to translate over with very little effort. It's just the gameplay that needs to be tweaked. So I'm taking a lot of my Drudge work and trying something called z20: a hybridization of d20, Pathfinder, and True20--possibly with a few other odds and ends thrown in (such as from Castles and Crusades). I'm also giving up any notion that this would ever be widely (or even narrowly!) adopted by others. It'll just be my own construction of excessive house rules. Maybe then I can easily convert my many d20 campaigns, and recapture the joy of just playing again!

D&D: Tellurian Tales (vol 11)

Sadly, it had been almost 2 years since I posted a volume of my main Tellurian Tales line. After being inspired by a post over at Head Injury Theater about spending more time posting excuses about not posting than actually doing something productive, I decided after my afternoon nap to do something about it. Yay!

Lately, Tellurian Tales has involved simply slogging through a long dungeon. Running this solo, now that I'm comfortable with the D&D rules, is not quite as exciting as it once was. Also, I've moved on to hacking on Zludge rules as my primary form of entertainment, rather than building D&D characters that need a story to shine in. I guess this partly explains why it's been 2 years.

I'm looking forward to the end of the current story cycle. I'd like to dust all the characters off while I level them up and (as already planned) break the party into smaller groups for more story-focused adventures. I'll probably leave things running as D&D though. The characters I have (some of whom haven't even entered the story yet) represent countless hours pouring over D&D rule books and supplements, squeezing out the max advantage from combining diverse feats and prestige classes. Seems a shame to lose all that history by switching to Drudge. Also, it's a good idea to keep one foot in d20 while I contemplate translating it to Drudge.

Besides, I already have plans to alpha-test Drudge with Ailithorn, and I'm currently toying with a Western D&D setting for beta-testing games (with either S., B., or even a gaming group). I'm also wondering about a Zludge adaptation of Dark Heresy...

Time's at a premium though, so we'll see how it goes. I really need to focus...

Oh, and the slowest point in this evening's game was the pause to determine whether a ranged touch attack counts as a simple or natural weapon. My conclusion: No. Which makes sense if you think of it as just an attack and not a weapon. But there's confounding issues such as unarmed attacks sometimes being equivalent to simple weapons and the ability to take Weapon Focus for magical rays.

Drudge: Ailithorn (vol 1)

Well, I just "played" a bit of Ailithorn: Demon Hunter (a Tellurian tale), which is finally posted. I say "played" since, for this line, my focus has been a bit more on the writing (at least at this point) than the gaming. Also, Drudge is still currently in pieces, so I can't even say this is alpha testing. My second character--Sophie--isn't even fully rolled up yet.

That said, of the handful of attack rolls I have made so far, I have the following to note:
1) My black Fudge dice seem to roll low more often than they roll high.
2) Burning an aspect for a repeat roll (getting the same result again) sucks.
3) I may need to go back to drawing board (again) on converting D&D HD to Drudge, or at least give it a bit more thought. In D&D, that mane should have taken (on average) 1.5 crossbow hits. In Drudge, it will consistently take 3 one-handed hits. (Actually, more, since I wasn't bothering with its natural armor. Oops, and I also see now I forgot its Acidic Cloud death-throes, though I happened to get the general dissolving spirit right.)
4) Related to 3, I do miss that thrill of getting in a good solid hit for more damage. Though there's less rolling without damage rolls, Drudge is currently a bit more slogging in nature.

Nothing I want to change yet; just things to keep in mind.