Since getting back into gaming after a 15+ year break, I have been encountering more than a fair amount of opposition to the d20 system. I came back hearing horror stories from D&D 4e, but what I am talking about is the seemingly endless posts all over the Internet forums from GMs deploring everything d20. Now, as you would expect, most of these opinions have been filed by older gamers and I would expect that anyone could just say these "oldschoolers" are just too set in their ways to accept a new system (relatively speaking). However, I have been searching for games recommended by the same reviewers and I must say, I have been reading some amazing and well thought out systems.
I guess the discussion would start here. What I would like to get us talking about are systems that this community thinks others should give a chance, or maybe just great alternative methods designed by GMs to take the place of akward, inconsistent rules that seem to sometimes pop up with the d20 system. What do you guys think?

I am not denying the popularity of games that use the d20 system. And as far as marketing, there will always be people that cling to games because of name branding (a la D&D). What I am trying to focus on, and get more viewpoints for, are where d20 systems fail to provide a consistant game. What have been GMs' and players' experiences with d20's flaws, and how have they managed and to overcome those problems?

Good point. So let's get off the subject of specific d20 games and talk about the system itself. A unified die roll streamlines the game, and as such makes play faster to pick up and run without requiring the memorization of seperate die rolls for deffering situations. However, I find that the d20 system allows for a huge inconsistancy with the spread it creates.

Let's take skill checks for a level 1 character for example:
Given the worste case senario, a character with ability score of 8 (-1) untrained in a skill can roll a check with a success spread of 0-19. Another ability of 18 (+4) with training in a skill has a margin of 5-29. This is all before feats, gear, etc. The margin of success for these characters is huge, and to me defeats the idea of consistant Difficulty Classes. Has anyone attempted to resolve issues of this nature to make outcomes more dynamic? Something like a bell curve comes to mind, where on average heroes would perform skills to there average trained ability, with greater success and failure less and less likely.

I admit I might be barking up the wrong tree. The easiest answer would be to play a different system all together. But if I can play a D&D game and keep what's good while changing what needs fixing, I think it would help.

Great post Hew, especially brining up the point of min/max. I am not one to create characters using this technique, in fact I love a party that has a variety of weaknesses. In my opinion, the weaknesses of characters are what foster teamwork and help build tension, all ultimately making the game better.

As far as defeating the players' power-gaming drive, one could always go way old school and make them roll attributes with 3d6 in order, no player placement. That'll teach 'em! lol