D20 Future (SRD) what's (not so) good and what can be improved (and how)?

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

How many times do you want to abritarily combine space combat and "character"-combat/actions?

As many times as necessary, and as long as people snivel that they don't get to do stuff constantly.

And half-human cyborgs boarding a ship stranded in the past is NOT a space combat situation.

Even if it's during close range combat where point defense weapons are being used and you practically reach out and touch the other ship as it is firing broadsides at your ship?

Really?

Sounds like it to me.

It is not really a problem with Newton´s Calculus - it´s more a problem of me as the DM making the wrong kind of adventure for the characters - who simply aren´t all space combatants - and it is a weakness of the system that 4 character´s can´t really contribute meaningful and imaginative in space combat - at least if they are on the same ship. (SO, maybe it´s more a "setting"-mistake - everybody should have his own space ship.)
Meaningful and imaginiativecontributing does exclude the aid another option - it might be some kind of contribution, even meaningful, but it´s not really imaginative...

It's a weakness of the system? Well, this is my opinion after reading everyone's threads...

GROW THE HELL UP EVERYONE!

Everyone IRL doesn't get to constantly partake in what's going on. Airborne troops sit in the belley of the aircraft and hope it doesn't get shop down. Marines sit inside the ship and hope it doesn't get sunk, and Navy hopes that the coastal batteries get put out before they get sunk.

Realism?

HEY! IT'S A GAME! YOU'RE NOT REALLY A VRUSK!

Who cares if it's scientifically viable, follows Newton and Einstien and Sagan's laws? IS IT FRACKING FUN? That's the question. Not "Well, does it account for gravitational pull from ultra-dense comets and the pushing of solar winds as I fire my single torpedoe that moves so slowly that he can see it coming for the next week?" But "TAKE THAT! YOU KILLED MY BASTARD, YOU KLINGON SONS!"

Everyone here is complaining about the rules and asking "What use are they, they don't give me what I want!" WAAAAHHHH!!! The framework is there, get with your GM and figure something out.

There isn't a setting yet. You think making a fantasy setting is tough? Try doing a sci-fi one. Sci-fi can be even more difficult to write than fantasy.

In a way, you know who is to blame for the ship combat rules, the ship and mecha construction rules?

YOU ARE! YOU TOO! AND YOU!

"The rules need to interlock!"
"Why can't X be like Y?"
"Why do I have to learn another ruleset?"
"Can't this be simpler?"

Well, you got your way.

Quit whining and live it up.

The tools are all in the MSRD Future additions, and the d20 Future book to make a great campaign, from near future dystopia to post apocalyptic wasteland to space opera with FTL and AI driods...

Use them. With the effort some of you have put into your posts griping about something, you could have done in house FIXES!

 

[Voadam]

reminder

Here is the original question.

So now that the D20 Future SRD is available to the general public, what are the opinions on the rules and systems in the D20 Future SRD?

So saying the SRD rules lack X or do Y poorly are just as valid comments for this thread as "they give you everything you need".

 

[Plane Sailing]

keep calm, Warlord Ralts - shouting in CAPS doesn't do anything to advance your argument, nor does telling people to "grow up".

Thanks
Plane Sailing
(Moderator)

 

[Masada]

I think the rules for spaceships were kept very simple by design not "lack of knowledge or effort". d20 Modern is a *role* playing game 1st and everything else second. Detailed ship, vehicle, space vehicle rules become game dominating. At this point it's not a RPG anymore and more of a tabletop combat game.

There's nothing wrong with a game more focused on ships and machines. It's just hard to be both a starship combat game (accurately depicted) and a playable RPG without 600 pages of rules. The learning curve on the d20 System is already a huge barrier to new player adoption. Keeping it as simple as possible and re-using as much as possible are key goals in the system.

I don't think WotC made any mistakes in picking the systems they did. No GM seriously interested in detailed space combat is going to be prevented from finding or creating a new combat system. If you have one already, by all means post it.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

True, it doesn't.

But sometimes, the only way to get it through people's heads is with a big stick. Preferably a rebar.

Call it the constant whining and bitching about the system not being perfect, having everything they want, or being written specifically for them getting on my nerves.

While the d20 Future rules aren't perfect, at least they are highly modifiable. We all saw the train-wreck that happened when the Rifts mechanics moved to space. Could you imagine trying to use Megatraveller rules for medieval ship combat? Or worse yet, trying to use Twilight 2000 vehicle combat rules for a starship game? You'd be there for an hour trying to figure out if the torpedoe ripped through the hull., or just grazed the stabalizing fin, and how much atmosphere leaked out, and how many people died from... bah, you get the point.

From the arguements on hard-science wasn't used, to the fact that the rules missed something, or didn't have 3 chapters on another topic, and everything else, aren't productive, less productive, as a matter of fact, than my post.

It's what was not so good, and how can it be improved, not "please complain and whine about things with offering an alternative" like the thread seems to be.



Trust me, buddy, I was being calm. ,-)

I just have a low tolerance for whiners.

 

[Gomez]

I think the rules for spaceships were kept very simple by design not "lack of knowledge or effort".

The reason that the spaceship rules were on the simple side is that WOTC put a page limit on the book and the author had to trim about 100 pages of ship rules. Hopefully they can put a web enhancement out with the cut rules. But saying that, I don't have any complants about the d20 Future book and I am going to use it extensively on my Gamma World type campaign that I working on.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

True, it doesn't.

But sometimes, the only way to get it through people's heads is with a big stick. Preferably a rebar.

Call it the constant whining and bitching about the system not being perfect, having everything they want, or being written specifically for them getting on my nerves.

While the d20 Future rules aren't perfect, at least they are highly modifiable. We all saw the train-wreck that happened when the Rifts mechanics moved to space. Could you imagine trying to use Megatraveller rules for medieval ship combat? Or worse yet, trying to use Twilight 2000 vehicle combat rules for a starship game? You'd be there for an hour trying to figure out if the torpedoe ripped through the hull., or just grazed the stabalizing fin, and how much atmosphere leaked out, and how many people died from... bah, you get the point.

From the arguements on hard-science wasn't used, to the fact that the rules missed something, or didn't have 3 chapters on another topic, and everything else, aren't productive, less productive, as a matter of fact, than my post.

It's what was not so good, and how can it be improved, not "please complain and whine about things with offering an alternative" like the thread seems to be.



Trust me, buddy, I was being calm. ,-)

I just have a low tolerance for whiners.

I can understand you, I sometimes feel the same. But I can (usually) resist the temptation to scream out loud.

Personally, I can also completely understand the reason why the rules are there as they are. I would have liked others, but it is the same problem that the "gun nuts" have with the firearm rules: If you know a lot about it, you want a different system. Only few of them (or us) can constrain themselves to accept a simple system.
And actually, I think the basic idea of the system is fine.
The greatest weakness actually is that they didn´t use a different "scale" - I don´t like rolling 15dx for damage, and even if I only use the average values, I think it is to much accounting.
But besides this, I would love to see a good system that allows for all the things I want: tactical combat with options for every character (and I think this is VERY important. The characters - or at least the players - are the focus of the game), and yet simple to use.
Maybe it is impossible. Maybe I should create games using space combat a bit different - if the characters can`t be the focus during space combat, the player´s must be active, at least - so let them control the other participants in combat, even if it are not their characters.

 

[jezter6]

Not to mention, WotC gave us the toolbox. The toolbox is used by you to create your own stuff, or for publishers to put out that 'great space combat' book for future. Or the 'even better starship design rules book.'

It just made SRD, give it a few weeks for publishers to morph their homebrew rules into the d20 future toolkit.

 

[Ashardalon]

Interesting, especially applied to melee weapons for Fantasy games.

My Toledo Steel Greatsword deals 6d6 (PL:x3) damage while your Iron Age shortsword only deals 1d6, not to mention 16d8 (PL:x8) for my Beamsword now.

He, good thing my idea was to limit this to non-mine spaceship weapons.
Which, by the way pretty much makes sure that ultra-light space ships don't want to be hit - a single hit will usually destroy them outright - which seems to be a quite common thing in SF movies and series for the small ships.

Another thing, my idea puts the damage of the nuclear missile into the neighborhood of the damage dealt by a killed nuclear toxyderm (remember that guy?), even though I didn't plan to do so. If I get to use the spaceship rules, I think I'll use my idea.

 

[Ranger REG]

Hmm. I am beginning to think that if the option to make a bigger $40 sourcebook is no longer feasible during the book project's development, that they should have decided to go with a two-volume series and release one for now. The first volume should cover the vehicle and equipment (including starships and mecha) with both basic standard and variant rules. Then later release a second volume featuring biology and environment (species, mutations, genetic engineering, world/system creation).

That way, most of the authors' material that have been cut out of the present d20 Future would have been included. Granted, it will cost a gamer a total of $70 for the whole set but then again, these are supplements. Some gamers prefer to focus on mutations in their games while others focus on starships.

I know, I know. What's done is done. I just needed to air this out, is all.