D&D 4E d20 Modern 4E - I want it!

[Greg K]

The pure scientist and the pure soldier is an NPC. He is not the protagonist of the story told in the game. At best, he's a side-kick.
(That's in fact how it works in many movies - there is a single protagonist that can do a lot of stuff, but sometimes he has side-kicks that can help him out in certain areas. Of course, in a RPG, would you want to play the side-kick if your friend plays the protagonist?

You are assuming a game with either a decent amount of combat or a combat focused game. Modern was not for characters to start of as experienced Action Heroes or the assumption that the default campaign would necessarily see a decent amount of combat

THe game was designed assuming the game would automatically run any type of Modern setting game from Scooby Doo to combat focused games (and, if you want, I will actually link you to the quote at the WOTC site where Scooby Doo was stated).

Furthermore, the game is designed to start off as normal people, who grow into the hero role via multiclassing and advanced classes. If you want to do A-Team, Die Hard, Indiana Jones, or characters with an experienced background in their occupation you start off at levels higher than one (a design intention, again, which should not have had to have been explained in Modern Player's Companion).

If you want a campaign, where people have some combat role, make sure you tell your players to take a class that gives them a good BAB and/or start the game at a higher level so that they can multiclass.

If you want characters to not be focused on non-combat skills, tell that to your players. Tell them that they need to spend spend points on non-combat skills. Occupations are there to provide characters some additional class skills. So, don't let you players, get away without having some non-combat skills. If necessary starting at a higher level so that characters can multiclass is not a bad idea depending on the type of game you are running.


And, with regards to the the dedicated scientist or soldier getting caught out of their element, maybe, that is a good time to use action points for a bonus to help them succeed and an incentive to multiclass. If combat is going to be important to the campaign, the non-combat character should be multiclassing. Thnk Cordelia training in combat with Angel, Phoebe training in martial arts with Cole, Buffy (in the movie) training with her Watcher, and the new slayers training with Buffy (in the series).

Another possibility is to use cut scenes when applicable. When appropriate, provide characters things to with their specialty at different locations and cut back an forth without spending too much time with any given player at a given moment.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You are assuming a game with either a decent amount of combat or a combat focused game. Modern was not for characters to start of as experienced Action Heroes or the assumption that the default campaign would necessarily see a decent amount of combat

THe game was designed assuming the game would automatically run any type of Modern setting game from Scooby Doo to combat focused games (and, if you want, I will actually link you to the quote at the WOTC site where Scooby Doo was stated).

Furthermore, the game is designed to start off as normal people, who grow into the hero role via multiclassing and advanced classes. If you want to do A-Team, Die Hard, Indiana Jones, or characters with an experienced background in their occupation you start off at levels higher than one (a design intention, again, which should not have had to have been explained in Modern Player's Companion).

If you want a campaign, where people have some combat role, make sure you tell your players to take a class that gives them a good BAB and/or start the game at a higher level so that they can multiclass.

If you want characters to not be focused on non-combat skills, tell that to your players. Tell them that they need to spend spend points on non-combat skills. Occupations are there to provide characters some additional class skills. So, don't let you players, get away without having some non-combat skills. If necessary starting at a higher level so that characters can multiclass is not a bad idea depending on the type of game you are running.


And, with regards to the the dedicated scientist or soldier getting caught out of their element, maybe, that is a good time to use action points for a bonus to help them succeed and an incentive to multiclass. If combat is going to be important to the campaign, the non-combat character should be multiclassing. Thnk Cordelia training in combat with Angel, Phoebe training in martial arts with Cole, Buffy (in the movie) training with her Watcher, and the new slayers training with Buffy (in the series).

Well, of course I am talking about my ideal model of d20 Modern, which is game suited for me and my group.

We like a system
- Mix of action & investigation and maybe some intrigue(in order of importance )
- good adventure support.

To many of my group members just don't have the time (and some, to be blunt, lack the skills) to create their own adventures. A game that supports both non-combat characters and combat characters is harder to support with new adventures then one that guarantees that each character is capable in both areas. Adventures can sometimes focus more on the investigation stuff, and others can focus more on the combat stuff, without anyone ever getting bored because his characters abilities are useless.

Another possibility is to use cut scenes when applicable. When appropriate, provide characters things to with their specialty at different locations and cut back an forth without spending too much time with any given player at a given moment.

I like this suggestions, but (there's always a but ):
I haven't had any satisfying experience using such techniques yet - that might be fault of the DM in question. (The last DM using that was someone who was new to the group and ran Shadowrun 4E for us)
But I think there are some inherent flaws - jumping between multiple scenes makes it harder for the DM and the players to keep all the details straight and keep the game (and their individual scene) flowing. Some players enjoy to "spectate", other just sit back bored.

 

[Mokona]

You are assuming a game with either a decent amount of combat or a combat focused game. Modern was not for...the assumption that the default campaign would necessarily see a decent amount of combat

The game was designed assuming the game would automatically run any type of Modern setting game from Scooby Doo to combat focused games

Try this logic on for size…

If every character class is mechanically fun in combat and mechanically fun in some area outside of combat, you can run any type of game you want.

Want a time-to-shine game? Some players emphasize the combat aspect of their characters and some emphasize other things (with feat choices, &c).

Want an A-Team game where everyone participates before, during and after combat? Done.

Want an intrigue game where everyone is bad at combat? Always use opponents of higher CR or hand out combat penalties to PCs.

Want a combat-heavy game (like D&D)? Done, this idea is based on 4th edition after all.

Want a single scientist character to gimp in combat (hopefully your own PC)? Arbitrarily take a minus two penalty to hit for yourself or give yourself bad combat tactics. Warn the other players first or they might mob you for hurting team performance.

Theory: It is easier to remove elements than add them in a balanced fashion.

Theory: Use D20 Modern if it already does your game style well. Let a 4th edition inspired modern game grow and improve to support a wider variety of styles.

Also, 4th edition lets you play heroic characters at first level. Some opinions are that D20 Modern doesn’t let you play heroic characters until later (8th level perhaps). My preference is for the 4th edition method because intuitively players start at 1st level and not at 11th level (supposing that 1-10 = normal and 11-20 = heroic).

 

[Greg K]

Try this logic on for size…

If every character class is mechanically fun in combat and mechanically fun in some area outside of combat, you can run any type of game you want.

Want a time-to-shine game? Some players emphasize the combat aspect of their characters and some emphasize other things (with feat choices, &c).

Want an A-Team game where everyone participates before, during and after combat? Done.

Want an intrigue game where everyone is bad at combat? Always use opponents of higher CR or hand out combat penalties to PCs.

Want a combat-heavy game (like D&D)? Done, this idea is based on 4th edition after all.

Want a single scientist character to gimp in combat (hopefully your own PC)? Arbitrarily take a minus two penalty to hit for yourself or give yourself bad combat tactics. Warn the other players first or they might mob you for hurting team performance.

Theory: It is easier to remove elements than add them in a balanced fashion.


Theory: Use D20 Modern if it already does your game style well. Let a 4th edition inspired modern game grow and improve to support a wider variety of styles.

Your kidding right?. How is it going to support a wider variety of styles? You already stated that you want to remove something that game does at low level to expand the area of something else that it already does. So, you are cutting out a style. If you are removing a style, that covers less styles.

And, you stated that it is harder to add then to remove. Therefore, by your logic, the game should let the lower levels cover what they already do and you should just remove the lower levels for your own home game.

 

[Mokona]

Your kidding right?. How is it going to support a wider variety of styles?...If you are removing a style, that covers less styles.

Greg_K, you qouted a lot of my post but mysteriously failed to quote the section you're refuting.

Also, 4th edition lets you play heroic characters at first level. Some opinions are that D20 Modern doesn’t let you play heroic characters until later (8th level perhaps). My preference is for the 4th edition method...

This last line of my post is tangential to my core point. I take it that this (scaling from mere mortal in to heroic instead of starting at heroic) is the only area where we disagree. So I'll concede that I should start my games at 11th level and you should start at 1st. According to the argument presented now you can agree with my design proposal for 4th edition Modern.

 

[simply not edible]

What I'd like to see is one Core book, which is rather "contemporary", and thus gives you the basis of common type, every day heroes. Then come out with regular campaign specific expansions for stuff like Urban Arcana, Dark*Matter, Space Opera, Historcal Pulp, and stuff like that.

Otherwise, just Dark*Matter would do. Seriously. Love that setting.

 

[Ranger REG]

The six attributes lack flavor as character classes. Spycraft had the right idea.

At the time d20 Modern was designed, they initially wanted to use class-by-profession format (like D&D figher, wizard, etc.). They were first shown in the Polyhedron mini-setting, Pulp Heroes.

Of course, a 1930's-style pulp setting is not one's idea for a modern-day genre. They also felt they were restrictive. So they went with a more open freeform class-by-attribute.

 

[Mokona]

In order:

Haven't the sales of d20 Modern been consistently slow and sluggish since its release?

The D20 Modern Core Rulebook is a perennial item while it’s supplements, like D20 Past, haven’t fared as well.

WOTC should be continuing the D20 Modern line as is, with a robust release schedule of quality product.

Sales have put D20 Modern in the top ten consistently, over such popular games as Mutants & Masterminds sometimes actually. The problem with Modern has been the lack of consistent first party support.

Supplements for a line probably sell no more than half what the core book sold. The fate of the Forgotten Realms line in 4th edition shows what happens to ongoing support for secondary product lines.

I think the best thing WotC could do for d20 Modern 2E (or 4E or whatever), is to forget the original d20 Modern entirely. Honestly, compared to other d20 games of a similar nature (Spycraft, for example), it was absolutely terrible. Simplistic, limited, neither realistic-feeling NOR cinematic-feeling, just really an all-round crummy game. I don't care if it has fans, I strongly suspect it sold less copies (and certainly occupied less shelf-space) than it's various d20 cousins.

Emphasis added. Can anyone here say what the core rulebook for True20 or Modern20 or other cousins sold? Was it 5,000 units? 10,000? 20,000? 30,000? 40,000? In addition to its sales, D20 Modern was given away for free (via the Modern OGL) to anyone who wanted it. I can remember at least a few ENWorld posts of users who’ve played D20 Modern a lot in groups that never bought any of the books.

But I actually believe that there are more players that will enjoy a 4E-like system then those that like a d20 Modern "1.0" system in the long run.

Every single genre I can think of either has a specific or generic d20 game that works significantly better for it than d20 Modern.

Thinking about the 4th edition approach to campaign settings (i.e. 3 books max) and different “modern” genres, I believe Wizards of the Coast should follow the White Wolf model. Release separate Core Rulebooks for each genre which are 100% compatible but offer different and genre-appropriate base classes/paragon paths. D20 Future 4 Ed. would reprint the basic rules engine just the same as D20 Song of Cthulhoid or D20 Indiana Jones or D20 Dark*Matter or D20 Alternity.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe of interest: Abstract Positioning for D&D 4:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4382788

---

Thinking about the 4th edition approach to campaign settings (i.e. 3 books max) and different “modern” genres, I believe Wizards of the Coast should follow the White Wolf model. Release separate Core Rulebooks for each genre which are 100% compatible but offer different and genre-appropriate base classes/paragon paths. D20 Future 4 Ed. would reprint the basic rules engine just the same as D20 Song of Cthulhoid or D20 Indiana Jones or D20 Dark*Matter or D20 Alternity.

I suppose they will only do this if they think it will give them enough money compared to investing it in D&D. That might be the problem in general for d20 Modern.

Otherwise, just Dark*Matter would do. Seriously. Love that setting.

I like that one too.
Dark*Matter seems to be the D&D equivalent of Modern. It includes all the various conspiracy theories, UFO theories, psionic stuff and so on, basically all the "modern" myths, while D&D is a mish-mash of all fantasy and fairy tale concepts.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Dark*Matter seems to be the D&D equivalent of Modern. It includes all the various conspiracy theories, UFO theories, psionic stuff and so on, basically all the "modern" myths, while D&D is a mish-mash of all fantasy and fairy tale concepts.

Dark*Matter is a bit of a mish-mash too. Apart from vague references to dark matter itself and a weak tendency to take the "right-of-center" take on any given conspiracy theory (likely for reasons of gameability, possibly unconsciously), it has no "unifying factor" regarding the various wierdnesses of the D*M. This is very unlike, say, Conspiracy X which had detailed, interlinked explanations for everything. It does make D*M harder to "break" by a player having read the GM-oriented material (though iirc, Conspiracy X often used the "one of these three things is true, you pick which" method, which is the perfect defense against that), but I don't think it's a whole giant less of a "mish-mash" than D&D.

I do think a re-written and updated Dark*Matter, especially with all the conspiracy potential afforded by Gulf War 2.0 and Afghanistan and so on would be pretty special. However, another d20 Modern-style cut & paste hackjob would just be sad.