d20 modern Failed...why? (or did it?)

Did you like d20 Modern?

  • Yes

    Votes: 107 55.7%
  • No

    Votes: 25 13.0%
  • Never Played

    Votes: 60 31.3%
  • Never knew it existed

    Votes: 0 0.0%

D20 Modern suffered from being too generic. While the rules were sound and fun (I still play it) it has no real "core flavor" to it and thus it can be very difficult to determine just what and how to run it for a GM.


I wholeheartedly agree.

Truth be told, I prefer the D20 modern system to 3E. I just found the generic classes, feats, talents and overall flexibility to be great. But as you said it never really had an identity (core flavor) and IMO it suffered because of it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

On the other hand, it didn't fail because it also spawned a host of OGL games from it that used Modern mechanics in some form -- Grim Tales, Sidewinder:Recoiled, Gamma World, Darwin's World, etc. Heck, even Star Wars Saga edition borrows liberally from it.
 

I guess the question about succeeded or failed is a function of what it was trying to do, beyond just make money for WotC. I would say it succeeded in several ways. First, it showed how to use the d20 system to do something unlike DnD. It made a generic rule set to make just about any adventure you'd want to make. It didn't create a lasting world/setting, but I don't know if it was intended to do so.
 

I voted "sort of yes, sort of no." ;)

I like the game, personally.

I think D20 Modern was an attempt to be the D20 version of GURPS or HERO...a generic toolbox game, albeit slanted more towards modern gaming (hence the name). In that, I think it succeeded.

However, I also think that 3PP games like M&M and Spycraft did it better.

I don't know its sales figures, but I suspect that they paled in comparison to other WotC products, and to similar 3PP products.

That isn't because its a bad game- its not- but rather because there seems to be so many fewer gamers who like modern rpgs in general as opposed to FRPGs, Supers or even SFRPGs (which seem to flash and then disappear pretty quickly). In 30+ years of gaming, I can count on one hand the number of modern gaming campaigns I've gotten to play in...its all been Fantasy, Sci-Fi, or Supers otherwise.
 


The issue with Modern really comes from lack of imagination and sloppy writeups. It is still one of my favorite sandboxes, and I can make up almost any game for it. That being said... the settings written up for Modern pretty much sucked. Modern lent itself to a simple microsetting vibe; the 'core FX' classes really were a great introduction to that vibe (even though they needed adjustments... the ability to stun any Shadow-based creature... wow...).

Then came Urban Arcana... one of the worst setting books in the history of bad setting books. It created Greyhawk: 1999, and it really didn't have any pizazz behind it beyond simple stuff (oh my gods! Imagine a BURGER KING WHERE EVERYONE IS SHADOWKIND!!?!?!)

Dark*Matter? Essentially a cheap rehash quick-cash scheme... Past was a joke, Future is hilarious (for good and ill) in some of its chapters.

Just a lot of sloppy writing killed Modern. A great sandbox, but it seems WotC could only pick out the undesirable clumps and slap on a price tag.

Of course, I picked up all my Modern materials for less than 20 bucks (thank you, cheapies on Amazon) so I don't feel TOO ripped off by the system ;).

Slainte,

-Loonook.
 

I think it failed because Rabelais only ran two sessions and I missed both of those.

I rolled up a character, put everyone's info on the wiki, and was ready to go.

I blame Rabelais. :fist:
 


I only played it once, but I liked it. The idea of ability-based classed is an iffy one to me, but I like other aspects of the system, including some of the new skills. I ported the wealth system for CoC. I always thought Future loked nice, but never got the chance. Never bought anything, however; I just read the SRD. I can't see getting out of fantasy gaming for too long; I'm not sure how big Modern's niche is.
 


Remove ads

Top