4e Modern

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have a hard time imagining a group of characters in a SF universe steadily upgrading their equipment over time. I mean, you don't see Commander Worf in Velin Battle Armor, or Troy with a psi-enhancing helmet array, etc. Epic destinies could work in a setting where there is a definable endpoint, like for instance, a manipulator of Red Truth becoming a demi-godlike being or an intelligent AI becoming a microverse of its own creation. I have a harder time seeing an epic destiny in something like Starship Troopers, the X-Files, or Ghost Dog.

Then don't do that. d20 Modern was pretty similar in that regard, unless you used FX, people would get their favored weapon and armor and be done with it. There were no +3 Berreta 92F by default.

While those statements are independently true, there is a rhetorical slip there. What I meant in the case of 4e was, "This is what there are rules for," not simply, "There is a lot of this." 3e had rules for crafting, social interaction, noncombat roles, and so forth. 4e does not really have a place for a Negotiator or the Windfall feat or Skill Focus (Craft:Mechanical).

What's your point? Is it somehow impossible to add these feats and skills to a d20 Modern game? 3E didn't have shotguns or hand grenades, yet somehow d20 Modern managed to have them. 3E didn't have Computer Use, but d20 Modern managed to have that.
(Besides, since when does 4E not have rules for social interaction? Did I somehow miss the latest errata removing several skills and the examples for social skill challenges?)

And non-combat roles? It had them the same way it had combat roles, and it had them the same way 4E has non-combat roles - implicit, hidden away in class features and skills. (Look at the Rogue - his "non-combat" role is clearly the trap-finding and scouting stuff, since both skills are "pre-selected". A Wizard still has most the skills that can be used for "Knowledge" type checks.)

d20 Modern was a lot more open in that regard - a Charismatic Hero was clearly the "Face" of a party, because most of his skills and talents were geared to interaction with people. Of course, it didn't really define these roles with 4E clarity - which would be the "4thified" d20 Moderns job.

4E would add skill challenges to the mix - (unfortunately, d20 Modern ignored the Urban Arcana rules for complex skill checks), and they would certainly be able to cover a lot of the non-combat interaction and conflicts typical for a modern game.

 

[Insight]

I think you can have roles in Modern 4E, but they would have to be different roles. Switch from a purely combat way of looking at the roles to more of a "how do they accomplish stuff" sort of role design.

 

[pawsplay]

Then don't do that. d20 Modern was pretty similar in that regard, unless you used FX, people would get their favored weapon and armor and be done with it. There were no +3 Berreta 92F by default.

d20 Modern assumed parity, by default. If the PCs have magic weapons, the bad guys do, as well. If they don't... well, there's nothing with DR in a non-magic setting, either.

4e, on the other hand, assumes certain gear in its mathematics. Remove that, and the numbers have to be re-scrutizined.

What's your point? Is it somehow impossible to add these feats and skills to a d20 Modern game?

My point, if you want to phrase it in those terms, is that it's possible to ad those things to any game. But that doesn't make Tales from the Floating Vagabond an ideal game for playing Starship Troopers. You said "impossible," I never said or implied anything was impossible.

Adding those things to 4e would involve a certain level of redesign. I think the final result is either likely to deform the intentions of the 4e design or to deform modern settings to fit 4e's original design priorities.

Modern characters:
- Tend to be polymaths.
- Are more differentiated on the human scale; that is, threats don't range from dire wolves to balors, they range from Nameless Thug #3 to The Operative.
- Don't often go door to door, killing things and taking their stuff, except in situations of societal breakdown.

 

[Aristotle]

I've been working on and off on a 4e sci-fi homebrew that I want to run. It diverges a good bit at character generation, but the goal is to keep all of the 4e monsters and whatnot balanced so I can use them. I'm still hacking away at the character class section but the current idea is...

One basic class for everyone with specialization into one of the four character roles (defender, leader, controller, and striker) for additional class features. All characters will have access to a number of "talent trees" that contain around 3 powers of each level to start. All of these talent trees handle "martial" themes or deal with technology.

The setting is a post apocalyptic world where the feywild, shadowfell, elemental tempest, and astral domains have come back into contact with our near future world. So the idea is to offer other power sources like arcane and divine through multiclassing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

d20 Modern assumed parity, by default. If the PCs have magic weapons, the bad guys do, as well. If they don't... well, there's nothing with DR in a non-magic setting, either.

This is true for most NPCs,but not true for monsters, including animals. Their CR would turn out too low if the characters are not equipped with FX items.

4e, on the other hand, assumes certain gear in its mathematics. Remove that, and the numbers have to be re-scrutizined.

Yes, it does. ANd it tells you the expectations pretty explicit, without hiding it behind different buff spells and items. Changing the monster or the PC progression to remove FX items is easy.

My point, if you want to phrase it in those terms, is that it's possible to ad those things to any game. But that doesn't make Tales from the Floating Vagabond an ideal game for playing Starship Troopers. You said "impossible," I never said or implied anything was impossible.

Adding those things to 4e would involve a certain level of redesign. I think the final result is either likely to deform the intentions of the 4e design or to deform modern settings to fit 4e's original design priorities.

Modern characters:
- Tend to be polymaths.
- Are more differentiated on the human scale; that is, threats don't range from dire wolves to balors, they range from Nameless Thug #3 to The Operative.
- Don't often go door to door, killing things and taking their stuff, except in situations of societal breakdown.

I am not sure what to say - of course one wouldn't just pick 4E, create a Gunslinger Paragon Path for the Rogue and all it d20 Modern 2.0.

d20 Modern did introduce stuff like the Massive Damage Threshold, new classes with customizable talent trees that entirely replaced the old classes, took away 4 levels of spells or powers (and actually all of them by default), and introduced Advanced Classes. Its classes were no longer based on a "job description" but based on something abstract as an ability score.

But it kept stuff like a skill system, BAB, Hit points, Saves or feats, mechanical underpinnings of the d20 system.

 

[Derro]

d20 Modern did introduce stuff like the Massive Damage Threshold, new classes with customizable talent trees that entirely replaced the old classes, took away 4 levels of spells or powers (and actually all of them by default), and introduced Advanced Classes. Its classes were no longer based on a "job description" but based on something abstract as an ability score.

But it kept stuff like a skill system, BAB, Hit points, Saves or feats, mechanical underpinnings of the d20 system.

This is the meat of it right here. 4e's underlying unified systems would make a perfectly serviceable framework for a modern game. The trappings of D&D like race, class, and escalating magical power are easy enough to pare away or re-skin. If the game is designed from the floor up instead of peeling away existing layers it is a very different animal. If a modern game was designed with the same focus of purpose as D&D it would probably work quite well.

Mystery and investigation are staples of modern games. A Skill Challenge system re-purposed and fleshed out to make that more engaging would be a good bet. Something akin to the Gumshoe stuff.

Race could be re-skinned as Origin and related to culture and profession instead of genotype.

I think roles and classes would need to be revisited entirely. Give role a more functional effect and divorce class from role. I like the three pronged approach True20 takes. Combat guy, skills guy, special effect guy. The original d20 Modern had an interesting class concept but one that proved to be both too abstract and too confining.

Since powers, as opposed to feats or talents, are the core of new classes offer a common set with ability score pre-requisites and specialized sets related to role and class. Feats could remain essentially the same, providing refinement rather than brand new abilities.

Gear escalation and tiered levels of power are not even an issue. The original tried to address this with Action Points and bonus dice. A more consistent approach is to give a flat bonus at particular levels like every 5th or so. As long as the math stays relatively consistent it doesn't matter what you call it.

I think the key is build instead of strip away. When 3.0 came out and there were stabs at a modern version most of it was pretty poor. Some of the supers stuff was atrocious. The exemplars of modern d20 games, Spycraft, Mutants & Masterminds, and True20, weren't published until after WotC released the first edition of Star Wars d20 which was there first crack at a modern game. Well, Star Wars modern anyway.

I'm not a fan of 4e. Subsequently I don't care much for 3e either anymore. But I would still look at a modern version of 4e. I think the core principles of the system are solid enough to power a game that is crunchy and fast paced and that is the epitome of modern games to me.

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

this is the meat of it right here. 4e's underlying unified systems would make a perfectly serviceable framework for a modern game. The trappings of d&d like race, class, and escalating magical power are easy enough to pare away or re-skin. If the game is designed from the floor up instead of peeling away existing layers it is a very different animal. If a modern game was designed with the same focus of purpose as d&d it would probably work quite well.

qft.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think roles and classes would need to be revisited entirely. Give role a more functional effect and divorce class from role. I like the three pronged approach True20 takes. Combat guy, skills guy, special effect guy. The original d20 Modern had an interesting class concept but one that proved to be both too abstract and too confining.

Well, I actually think this is the wrong approach. It might lead to certain "realismn", but I think it doesn't necessary lead to satisfying gameplay.

If you have a "combat guy" and a "skills guy", you split the players. One half of the players is enjoying the combat part, because his characeter rocks there, the other half likes the skills part, because his character rocks there. But unfortunately this means the players only love half the game - the part for which they build their respective characters. (Yes, I know I generalize. You don't need to remind me that not everyone is so "petty" as to only enjoy it if he gets to roll the dice and make decisions.)

That's why I am always talking about combat and non-combat roles for d20 Modern done the 4E way. One of 4E fundaments is that there is one part in the game that everyone will be able to contribute meaningful - the combat part - because they have a clearly defined role and his character will be able to cover that. It's only short-coming - especially when it comes to d20 Modern - is that it didn't use the same principle and rigorousness for non-combat scenarios. And that's what a d20 Modern done the 4E way should add.

Of course there are countless ways to create a "modern" game, but when talking about d20 Modern, I think it is okay to see (and design) it through the lense of D&D. The goal is not just to create some random d20 modern game, it's a game that will also remind people of their D&D gameplay experience.

 

[Derro]

Well, I actually think this is the wrong approach. It might lead to certain "realismn", but I think it doesn't necessary lead to satisfying gameplay.

I see your point but must qualify myself by saying that realism wasn't a major factor for my own point.

If you have a "combat guy" and a "skills guy", you split the players. One half of the players is enjoying the combat part, because his characeter rocks there, the other half likes the skills part, because his character rocks there. But unfortunately this means the players only love half the game - the part for which they build their respective characters. (Yes, I know I generalize. You don't need to remind me that not everyone is so "petty" as to only enjoy it if he gets to roll the dice and make decisions.)

Again, I see your point but I also think that it views the subject with too narrow a lens. If class were used to designate what the character is good at as opposed to what they are supposed to do the scope becomes broader. Modern characters tend to work better as a gestalt of elements rather than a predefined role. A lot of the problem is defining terminology vs. parlance.

That's why I am always talking about combat and non-combat roles for d20 Modern done the 4E way. One of 4E fundaments is that there is one part in the game that everyone will be able to contribute meaningful - the combat part - because they have a clearly defined role and his character will be able to cover that. It's only short-coming - especially when it comes to d20 Modern - is that it didn't use the same principle and rigorousness for non-combat scenarios. And that's what a d20 Modern done the 4E way should add.

Absolutely.

The focus should move from combat to conflict. There is no reason at all a solid social conflict situation couldn't arise from the basics of D&D combat. The same goes for investigative conflicts, chases, bureaucratic and financial take-overs, whatever.

Of course there are countless ways to create a "modern" game, but when talking about d20 Modern, I think it is okay to see (and design) it through the lense of D&D. The goal is not just to create some random d20 modern game, it's a game that will also remind people of their D&D gameplay experience.

What does that mean though? If you mean wanton acts of violence and pushing minis on a grid, I disagree. If you mean a mechanically sound system with an engaging premise then I concur.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I'd love to see other genres (espionage, super heroes, Old West, sci fi, etc.) use 4e's concepts. I'd love having roles, because they help make combat more enjoyable for me. However, I hit a wall when I think about Defenders in some modern style games (Old West, Espionage, etc.), because Defenders are usually melee-based but most combat is with ranged weapons, ie guns. Better game designers than me will have to tackle the issue, and I can't wait until they do.