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

[Loonook]

Ok... since everyone is discussing the wonderment of retrofitting Modern into something...

Gotta say, GregK (as always) sums up most of what I like. However, here are some things which should be done:

1.) I like the concept of Talents a lot... but I really don't like how they're attached willy-nilly to classes. Personally, I'd love to see some sort of structure wherein talents could be garnered based on certain traits . . . something akin to the way Backgrounds are handled in Modern20 (with Talent Trees in lieu of the skill bumps) with additional Talents unlocked based on class selections. A Smart Dockworker, for example, may have some Tough traits which could be taken, alongside some Smart traits . . .

I just don't get how some 3PP decide talents were so funky. I mean, it kinda sucks that FX Resistance is a Tough Hero ability, or an Occultist ability, but mages are just winging spells at each other without any resistance? Really?

2.) I love Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth... but the structures just seemed wonky and the traditions themselves were very... centric. I would love a more realistic (haha) FX interpretation; but not a lot of people out there are going to put in the time to write all the fluff... I heartily offer my hand and pen to anyone who wants some assistance .

--

There are a few more things... but those are my basics which were not covered by Greg K.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Spatula]

Well I do not think this is the function of classes -at least traditionally. I rather think that classes were a ruling machination to implement the gameplay elements of a game. The adventuring day or the combat-arena for example.

I don't quite get your meaning here. How are, for example, the 1e ranger, paladin, or monk built around the adventuring day or the combat arena? I don't see it - they're all meant to embody particular character concepts (Aragorn, the knightly crusader, the kung-fu practicioner).

 

[Azgulor]

Did d20 modern fail? When I was younger and not in a gaming community like this I saw it come up and then just disappeared (which disappoints me). Anyone know why or am I wrong and it was a success?

No, it did not fail. (BTW, I voted incorrectly - that's what I get for speed reading but I didn't expect "Did you like D20 Modern" after the tag line "Did D20 Modern fail".

D20 Modern is one of my favorite D20 games. It received modest (by WotC standards) support but is clearly the poster-child for PDF support by 3rd-parties.

I think other games did firearm rules better but the nature of the d20 license and OGL made it possbile to mix-n-match without shelving the D20 Modern core.

Also, as a DM & Player, I found D20 Modern extremely easy to use to spec out characters from movies, TV, and film. I find myself constantly watching shows and movies and thinking "ok, he's a Strong/Dedicated, she's a Fast/Smart" etc.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Updating d20 Modern: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/218098-d20-modern-d-d-4th-edition-i-want.html

This was one of the bigger threads of where to go with d20 Modern and 4E D&D.

 

[xechnao]

I don't quite get your meaning here. How are, for example, the 1e ranger, paladin, or monk built around the adventuring day or the combat arena? I don't see it - they're all meant to embody particular character concepts (Aragorn, the knightly crusader, the kung-fu practicioner).

Think of the abilities, the tools that the game gives you with these classes. Hitpoints, attack ratings, per day abilities, the abilities of their followers etch.
The character concepts you are talking about can mean a lot of things but to me they are primarily about the man that has gone to live in the wilderness for some reason (Aragorn), the man that follows code and duty of his order(knight) or the man that seeks to master disciplines (monk).
Of course there is some effort in D&D that the gameplay abilities can come along with these archetypes.
This effort is more prevalent with spells. Some of their gameplay functionality depends on setting theme: outdoors, indoors, if there are plants nearby, if there is "evil", etch. But even Magic the Gathering has some of this. The color themes, the drawing of mana from "land", the descriptors, etch.
Hm, is it more clear the meaning perhaps?

 

[xechnao]

Updating d20 Modern: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/218098-d20-modern-d-d-4th-edition-i-want.html

This was one of the bigger threads of where to go with d20 Modern and 4E D&D.

I still can not understand how you envision this product. In that thread you talk about action being a priority. I suppose you want to see 4e's miniature combat design with roles. What I see is that anything but a melee skirmish is hard to grasp with this approach. While I see how one could run 4e or even ninja-kungfu action with Modern D20 I have a very hard time to see how you could fit in the system settings like Cthulhutech, Twilight 2013, World War II.
I think you would have to re-work the whole combat system and base it on a much larger scale that can handle unit cover-spread fire formations and tactical chases-maneuvering-positioning on the map: your encounter area is not the "room" anymore but the whole "dungeon". Needless to say that classes would need to go too. Better base it on equipment: the medi-kit guy, the heavy weapon guy, the light armored guy for close quarters and hand to hand combat etch.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I still can not understand how you envision this product. In that thread you talk about action being a priority. I suppose you want to see 4e's miniature combat design with roles. What I see is that anything but a melee skirmish is hard to grasp with this approach. While I see how one could run 4e or even ninja-kungfu action with Modern D20 I have a very hard time to see how you could fit in the system settings like Cthulhutech, Twilight 2013, World War II.
I think you would have to re-work the whole combat system and base it on a much larger scale that can handle unit cover-spread fire formations and tactical chases-maneuvering-positioning on the map: your encounter area is not the "room" anymore but the whole "dungeon". Needless to say that classes would need to go too. Better base it on equipment: the medi-kit guy, the heavy weapon guy, the light armored guy for close quarters and hand to hand combat etch.

I don't necessarily want a mini-focus, because I feel it doesn't work so great in modern games with firearms. (At least not if it's supposed to be action-focused).

Characters would basically pick a combat role. Maybe the 4 D&D 4E ones, maybe I'd need to conflate some - Controller and Defender can become very close to each other once most people use firearms. But the basic idea of having a "healer", someone responsble for dealing damage and someone directing the flow of damage of opponents (controller/defender) seems to fit in every combat system.

And they would pick a non-combat role. (Face, Techie, Guide, Sage or something along these lines).

I think a certain equipment focus might come naturally, too.
I found that a lot of special attacks that made sense in a modern environment seem weapon based, not entirely character based - like automatic weapon attacks. You just don't get to fire Autofirebursts with a Revolver. But your combat role might change how you use it (suppressive fire for Control/Defense, narrow burst fire for striking and so on.)

 

[spellchrome]

I don't know if d20 failed or not. I know I bought the book because it seemed quite cool in the book store, but I never did end up getting a group together to play it.

What I noticed about D20 Modern was it often leaned towards the general over the specific. You could use this setup, or this one, or a this one. I fully understand why they did it - I've seen reviews that praise this modularity - take what what you like, skip what you don't.

The only problem with a modular approach is that you miss out on some of the feeling for the game world. In other settings you know, just by hearing the name of the game, whether some characters will capable of casting spells, or other details. (On the other hand, I suppose you have to ask a dozen questions before starting a DnD campaign to know what it will be like.)

The modern world is an interesting setting, but (I imagine) a challenging on to develop for. It almost needs to be coupled with some other concept to make it distinct and fun to play in.

 

[xechnao]

...
What I noticed about D20 Modern was it often leaned towards the general over the specific. You could use this setup, or this one, or a this one. I fully understand why they did it - I've seen reviews that praise this modularity - take what what you like, skip what you don't.
...
The modern world is an interesting setting, but (I imagine) a challenging on to develop for. It almost needs to be coupled with some other concept to make it distinct and fun to play in.

In Traveler I think there was a build in system to seek concepts in-game (military, trade, exploration, etch)
Traveler's approach seems interesting enough. I think for a modern game to try being a modern game should approach things from the "group" perspective-where is your place, where you belong and have drawn your resources from: your turf, your neighborhood, your department, what have you. Then build on groups and how they relate with each other - this for the Game Master. So that adventures can be build upon this foundation.
You add some action rules for players, a resources-equipment compendium for the Game Master, the Game Master building a plot that ha can base its development on the foundation described above and you are good to go.

 

[spellchrome]

I think for a modern game to try being a modern game should approach things from the "group" perspective-where is your place, where you belong and have drawn your resources from: your turf, your neighborhood, your department, what have you. Then build on groups and how they relate with each other - this for the Game Master. So that adventures can be build upon this foundation.

Your comment reminds me of my old RPG group's first Shadowrun adventures. The GM set it in the same city we lived in. We had only played DnD up to that point, so it was kind of neat to talk about getting around town using certain streets, etc.