d20 Modern: What Would you change part II
Psion
Adventurer
Vigilance said:
No you didn't, but then, you weren't to specific about what the upshot of your effort here was, neh?
I assumed I was fairly safe stating what I wouldn't want to see. If you don't fall afoul that, then by all means, more power to you. No need to abuse your desk over it.
Vigilance
Explorer
Psion said:No you didn't, but then, you weren't to specific about what the upshot of your effort here was, neh?
I assumed I was fairly safe stating what I wouldn't want to see. If you don't fall afoul that, then by all means, more power to you. No need to abuse your desk over it.
If you saw how coffee-stained my desk was, you'd know a little more debauching wouldn't hurt it
One of my mission statements has been to reduce die-rolls, especially in adventure prep, especially from the GM.
I'm not trying to remake Amber Diceless or anything.
The origin of this book comes from the recent Two Worlds RPG that I did, for inclusion in the deluxe edition of the X-Box 360 game. I did a complete d20 RPG, complete with character generation, in about 30 normal sized pages (70 pages the size of a 360 case).
The more I looked at that game, the more I liked it.
Now Modern System 2.0 isn't THAT simplified, but I do think some streamlining could make the game more fun.
buzz
Adventurer
Beat me to it! SotC has some of the best GM advice ever written, IMO.SteveC said:
This seems less of a mechanical issue than a scene-framing and intent-setting issue. And, to get back to SotC, one of the best pieces of advice in it is that, for any check, the GM needs to first imagine its success and failure. If either one of those outcomes is uninteresting, then you should not be calling for a check.Vigilance said:
So, in your example, if failing the Knowledge check to find the vault results in nothing but the adventure coming to a dead stop, then you should not be calling for that check. Totally ruining the adventure is not an interesting outcome.
What would be more interesting is if the Knowledge check, assuming it's needed at all, gave a result that affected the overall task in a meaningful way. The simplest example might be that the check determines how long it takes for the PC to determine the location. Or maybe whether they determine that, I dunno, the vault happens to be in a building with long-forgotten coal tunnel access that maybe the enemy doesn't know about.
I think the issue is really more about scenario design, and the fact that task resolution in d20 is intent-irrelevant. The best fix, IMO, is to provide solid guidelines about calling for skill checks and designing scenarios, and to add intent and stakes-setting to the mix.
Again, back to your example... if that preamble stuff doesn't seem fun to you, don't include it. Start the PCs at the point they begin infiltrating the vault location, and let them use their skills to maybe retroactively determine what advantages/disadvantages they've got going at the outset.
The randomness is dependent on the skill bonus. A PC with +20 vs. an NPC with +1 is going to be no contest. A PC with +10 vs. an NPC with +10 is a toss-up, but that's okay, as they are equal in skill and both rolling that 1d20.Vigilance said:
I think defaulting the passive skill to rank+10/+20 is stacking the deck too heavily in favor of that passive participant.
Anyway, I heartily recommend taking a look at SotC. You can get the rules for free in the SotC SRD: http://www.faterpg.com/dl/sotc-srd.html
EditorBFG
Explorer
I will be watching this project eagerly.
At Big Finger Games, we have long discussed the possibility of our own revised edition of Modern, starting with concepts from our POSTMODERN line of Modern products (we would've called the game POSTMODERN as well). Our discussions all ended with the idea that Modern players didn't want the change. I'm not sure if that was true. Even modest but global changes we wanted to make in products for Modern-- such as revised Occupations where each opened up a Talent tree-- ended up on the cutting room floor for being too far from the basic game.
For me, I always wanted more from Modern. The base classes are good ideas but blandly executed-- you never really feel like your 1st level character is a bad-ass going out the gate the way you feel about your average starting D&D fighter-- Wealth is an iffy compromise, nonlethal damage is just strange, guns don't behave realistically OR cinematically, and a lot of ported over D&D rules just don't feel like the 21st century. Despite so many great concepts by the designers, it seems like someone along the way just could not let go of D&D enough to pull the trigger on a truly versatile system. For the most part it ends up feeling a lot like the "default" setting the Modern books put forward: a teenager in blue-jeans with a Greyhawk god's symbol on his belt-buckle. I want a "universal" modern system to be a lot more robust in terms of handling different genres and settings.
I wrote a lot of things aimed at addressing these issues, but taking it as far as I wanted never seemed to be realistic.
So I'm really glad you're doing this. I've dreamed of Modern getting fixed a long time. Frankly, I'm a little jealous. Then again, if there was a company out there to make this happen in a way that mattered, it was gonna be you guys or the Game Mechanics (who, to be fair, actually wrote most of Modern in the first place) and probably not a smaller shop like ours.
That said, all our POSTMODERN products just about 100% OGC, so everything we could put out is there for taking. I'd happily comp you any products you might not have, to contribute to the project.
At Big Finger Games, we have long discussed the possibility of our own revised edition of Modern, starting with concepts from our POSTMODERN line of Modern products (we would've called the game POSTMODERN as well). Our discussions all ended with the idea that Modern players didn't want the change. I'm not sure if that was true. Even modest but global changes we wanted to make in products for Modern-- such as revised Occupations where each opened up a Talent tree-- ended up on the cutting room floor for being too far from the basic game.
For me, I always wanted more from Modern. The base classes are good ideas but blandly executed-- you never really feel like your 1st level character is a bad-ass going out the gate the way you feel about your average starting D&D fighter-- Wealth is an iffy compromise, nonlethal damage is just strange, guns don't behave realistically OR cinematically, and a lot of ported over D&D rules just don't feel like the 21st century. Despite so many great concepts by the designers, it seems like someone along the way just could not let go of D&D enough to pull the trigger on a truly versatile system. For the most part it ends up feeling a lot like the "default" setting the Modern books put forward: a teenager in blue-jeans with a Greyhawk god's symbol on his belt-buckle. I want a "universal" modern system to be a lot more robust in terms of handling different genres and settings.
I wrote a lot of things aimed at addressing these issues, but taking it as far as I wanted never seemed to be realistic.
So I'm really glad you're doing this. I've dreamed of Modern getting fixed a long time. Frankly, I'm a little jealous. Then again, if there was a company out there to make this happen in a way that mattered, it was gonna be you guys or the Game Mechanics (who, to be fair, actually wrote most of Modern in the first place) and probably not a smaller shop like ours.
That said, all our POSTMODERN products just about 100% OGC, so everything we could put out is there for taking. I'd happily comp you any products you might not have, to contribute to the project.
Vigiliance,
You haven't exactly had the reaction that Monte had when he started releasing information in little nuggets about his Arcana Unearthed setting, are you? I know that sure can be frustrating. The good news is, haveing lurked around these boards for so many years, I know all these folk mean well, and intend to be helfpul.
So, first of all, thanks again for being bold enough to share. You're a braver man than many (many, many).
Interesting concept about the skill basis. I also like it in comparison/contrast with time. Although I'm not sure I'd pin yourself in on the time frame, other than perhaps with some guidelines. So the circumstances may be dictated by the DM, following a loose set of guidelines:
No time to research: is this deadly viral disease airborne or ingested?
Um, let's see, Science is a trained skill - check, you could learn it automatically if you had access to research - too bad, I'd call this a moderate difficulty DC20, and using our "passive" skill check system, that means you'd need to have +20 to the skill to identify it under duress (ie, in combat), or +10 to the skill to identify it under normal condidtions. You could identify this with time.
One question that's leaping out at me: why did you choose to place "religion" under the "sciences" field of study?
A few other tidbits (simply recommendations, overall, me like-ey):
Chemistry separate from Science?
Acrobatics separate from Athletics?
Streetwise vs. Gather Info - I'd love to see this get teh same treatment you gave influence
Firearms, Unarmed, Weapons in skills? Sorry, I'm not too familiar with Modern, more of a D&D dude.
Along those lines, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the inclusion of what are traditionally good yes/no die roll circumstances:
Set Trap/Disable Device
Secure/Open
which, in Modern may translate to a "security" vs. "Bypass Security" or would this all fit under "computers" as class/feat based abilities to be "unlocked"?
Along the lines of building skills in "knowledge" I wonder if you could establish a similiar building block for "fame" or "wealth" or "authority" These could be things a character would choose to invest in, like skills, and reap some specific non-combat benefits to help expedite the adventure? Similiarly, should there be crafting/appraising components.
Ok, I've really run on here. Good gaming!
You haven't exactly had the reaction that Monte had when he started releasing information in little nuggets about his Arcana Unearthed setting, are you? I know that sure can be frustrating. The good news is, haveing lurked around these boards for so many years, I know all these folk mean well, and intend to be helfpul.
So, first of all, thanks again for being bold enough to share. You're a braver man than many (many, many).
Interesting concept about the skill basis. I also like it in comparison/contrast with time. Although I'm not sure I'd pin yourself in on the time frame, other than perhaps with some guidelines. So the circumstances may be dictated by the DM, following a loose set of guidelines:
No time to research: is this deadly viral disease airborne or ingested?
Um, let's see, Science is a trained skill - check, you could learn it automatically if you had access to research - too bad, I'd call this a moderate difficulty DC20, and using our "passive" skill check system, that means you'd need to have +20 to the skill to identify it under duress (ie, in combat), or +10 to the skill to identify it under normal condidtions. You could identify this with time.
One question that's leaping out at me: why did you choose to place "religion" under the "sciences" field of study?
A few other tidbits (simply recommendations, overall, me like-ey):
Chemistry separate from Science?
Acrobatics separate from Athletics?
Streetwise vs. Gather Info - I'd love to see this get teh same treatment you gave influence
Firearms, Unarmed, Weapons in skills? Sorry, I'm not too familiar with Modern, more of a D&D dude.
Along those lines, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the inclusion of what are traditionally good yes/no die roll circumstances:
Set Trap/Disable Device
Secure/Open
which, in Modern may translate to a "security" vs. "Bypass Security" or would this all fit under "computers" as class/feat based abilities to be "unlocked"?
Along the lines of building skills in "knowledge" I wonder if you could establish a similiar building block for "fame" or "wealth" or "authority" These could be things a character would choose to invest in, like skills, and reap some specific non-combat benefits to help expedite the adventure? Similiarly, should there be crafting/appraising components.
Ok, I've really run on here. Good gaming!
Vigilance
Explorer
EditorBFG said:
Well, I'm honestly not sure people want the change either. I only know one way to do a book, and I usually come to a feeling of how I think the book needs to be done.
My track record is pretty good, but not perfect
I certainly think *I* am ready for a change. I've written a lot for True 20 lately and it taught me some game design lessons I think. That, combined with my experience writing the Two Worlds rpg companion to the X-Box 360 game, where I did a complete d20 game in about 30 pages, got me thinking about ways to streamline the system some.
I agree with a lot of this. While d20 Modern can clearly handle a wide variety of games, there's some aspects that I'd like to have a different feel.
Thanks for that, I'm proud that folks think well of our d20 stuff. I've been a champion of the system for a long time and I still love it.
And honestly, this is something we've discussed for a long, LONG time internally. Our Modern System SRD book almost became this in fact, but it didn't feel like it was the right time then.
Whether it's the right time now, I never know, but I feel like it's right time for me to write this.
Chuck
Vigilance
Explorer
ashockney said:
Well, I guess this yet another piece of evidence that I don't have Monte's street cred, as if I needed any
Well, I've talked about a lot of stuff here in the past, just usually not this early. It's also hard to talk about some of this stuff because people can't see the whole thing.
Mostly, I'm worried that by offering tidbits this early, folks will judge the whole book based on little nuggets. Such is life I guess.
Yeah, the name doesn't quite mesh. Basically "Science" is my catch-all like Modern's "Knowledge". I think it still works though. Religious lore is as valid a science as studying Humanities, for example.
Yep, just like Medicine and Legal. Remember the skills are very broad. Medicine can act like Science for life science questions, for example.
Yep. Acrobatics is the dexterity aspects of movement (Balance, Tumble, Escape Artist) while Athletics are the strength aspects (Climb, Jump, Swim).
It does! The skills are very broad, and you can get many skill uses in more than one way.
Yep, that's something of a departure. I'll just say that the game doesn't use skills in place of BAB. The skills do other things, both in and out of combat.
You mean would they require rolls or not? For most of them, yes.
Thanks for the feedback.
Chuck
Arkhandus
First Post
Mokona said:Doesn't Star Wars Saga Edition do this? Anything from small pistols (3d4) to large rifles (3d10) can KO nonheroic characters in one or two hits [note: a CL 1 nonheroic character has 3d4 hit points].
And in D20 Modern, a 1st-level Ordinary character has between 1d6 to 1d10 hit points, plus Constitution modifier (typically +0). With a Massive Damage Threshold of 10 for the average Joe Human in D20 Modern; so a standard pistol's 2d6 damage (only a few are so small as to deal just 2d4 damage or less) has two halfway-decent chances of rendering the average Joe unconscious and dying in one shot (and has a chance of insta-death on a good critical hit).
It's at upper levels, and when dealing with Tough Heroes (not Tough Ordinaries though), that firearms become somewhat less lethal to characters (but then, most characters probably won't spend more than one feat on Improved Damage Threshold and most won't have maximum Constitution for a higher Threshold). Most NPCs will have roughly average or just-above-average Constitution and 1 or no copies of Improved Damage Threshold, so a common firearm still has a chance of insta-KO against them.
Similar Threads
