D20 Future????

[arwink]

When I first heard about D20 future, I was excited.

When I first got the book, I was dissappointed.

Now that I'm actually putting together a few sessions of a future campaign, and building stuff from the ground up, I find myself loving the book more and more.

There's a certain irony to this discussion occuring at the same time as the discussions on Mearls's theory of Core Stories in RPG's. In many ways, d20 future hails from an early era of game design when folks were given the tools and asked to create the stories for themselves. There's no core stories, there's just option and rough guidelines on how to use them to get different effects. Once you start tinkering with the rules and the set-ups, the entire book gradually becomes more interesting because you start seeing how things go together and where certain options will lead you.

 

[thefrostytinman]

.........................

What’s wrong with D20 modern you ask well lets start with the good things they did………..it’s a big book that can bee good………………..the art work is ok…………………

 

[Klaus]

I think d20 Future is one of the best RPG books I've ever bought. I really like the "toolbox" approach, where I can mix-n-match the chapters to my liking.

Of course, being based on the superb d20Modern book, one of the best RPG books I've ever read, is a bonus.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I think d20 Future is one of the best RPG books I've ever bought. I really like the "toolbox" approach, where I can mix-n-match the chapters to my liking.

Of course, being based on the superb d20Modern book, one of the best RPG books I've ever read, is a bonus.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[trancejeremy]

Eh. I think d20 Modern was hurt by WOTC deciding it had to be more or less compatible with D&D. Something like Spycraft, with the VP/WP rules, the character classes that only have to be balanced with each other, not the D&D classes (and so you get things like Soldiers not being very good at fighting, because in order balance them out getting more skill points, they have to have a mediocre BAB). And don't get me started on the guns/armor.

I also think d20 Future was hurt not by deciding to be a toolbox, which I liked, but one of those tiny toolboxes that only has 1 screwdriver, one wrench that is supposedly adjustable but actually only barely works, and a box of really cheap screws. Instead of a proper, full blown toolbox with both metric and imperial sockets, lots of screwdrivers, etc.

 

[HellHound]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this one.

I didn't particularly like the final implementation of d20 Modern, but love a LOT of the ideas that went towards said implementation. I love talent trees, the gritty effects of a low MDT instead of the overly heroic WP/VP of Star Wars d20, stripping down the character classes, action points, and the collection of mini-settings thrown into the book.

A lot of these ideas, though, I think could / should be implemented differently to better effect - ditching classes completely and replacing them with a generic "Hero" class; making Action Points a renewable resource since the current system penalizes GMs who don't advance their players at the 'standard' d20 pace; more discussion on the ways to use MDT and armor rules...

. . .

That said, d20 Future was even more usable to me than the core modern rule book. As a developer, it gives me a 'standard baseline' for the development of cyberware, space ships, weapons, tech levels and so on... all the stuff that a developer should have to work within a framework when writing supplements. On the other hand, that's ALL this was - the guidelines. What the basics are, without a lot of illustration of these basics at work.

I like it, but was underwhelmed overall.

 

[HellHound]

Personally I thought it was a very disappointing. However, I didn’t have very high hopes for it since it used the D20 modern core book.

Thoughts?

I think you set yourself up quite nicely to not like the product. Obviously, if you don't like d20 Modern, you won't find the supplements for d20 Modern to be of much use to you, or to your liking. d20 Future was never promoted as anything but a supplement for the d20 Modern rules set.

 

[EricNoah]

WotC's "future rules that aren't d20" was called Alternity; you can probably still find books around used, and there are fan sites you might like. Alternity was generic enough to support near future (Dark*Matter) and far future (StarDrive) roleplaying.

 

[The Shaman]

D20 Modern is my favorite RPG.

I love the toolbox approach of d20 Future.

I wish d20 Past was one-quarter as well-done as Future.

 

[Ranger REG]

Eh. I think d20 Modern was hurt by WOTC deciding it had to be more or less compatible with D&D. Something like Spycraft, with the VP/WP rules, the character classes that only have to be balanced with each other, not the D&D classes (and so you get things like Soldiers not being very good at fighting, because in order balance them out getting more skill points, they have to have a mediocre BAB). And don't get me started on the guns/armor.

And that's a bad thing? You'd rather they design d20 Modern using D&D benchmarks?