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

[Spatula]

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!!?!?!)

This always perpexled me. Was someone really hurting to play an aasimar devotee of Pelor in a modern-day setting? And did they really need a setting hardcover for it, when all the D&D stuff was already very portable? Talk about a failure of imagination.

I played d20 Modern a bit and didn't care for it. I don't think that the core d20 system, with levels and abstract hit points and AC, models modern genres very well. What you basically get is D&D with guns. Plus the wealth system is extremely clunky.

 

[twistnack]

- The talents are either boring (Oh, wow, Melee Smash lets me deal more damage And I can take it 3 times!) or needlessly convoluted (okay, I roll a Charisma Check against a DC to activate this power, and then the opponent makes a Save, and then he might get a penalty?).
Star Wars Saga did this a lot better.

The convoluted talents are one of my least favorite things about d20 Modern. It's hard to remember how they work and they tend to allow a saving throw with a low DC to avoid the effect, which limits their usefulness.

 

[Spatula]

In D&D classes represent tactical roles regarding the adventuring day (old school) or fighting monsters in the "encounter-arena" (modern 4e). How would you envision classes for the modern D20 game and why?

Tailored to fit each genre. Or scrapped in favor of some kind of point-buy.

 

[xechnao]

Tailored to fit each genre. Or scrapped in favor of some kind of point-buy.

So classes should represent just archetypes Spatula? In this case shouldn't point buy be more direct and to the point to let you build the archetype you want?

 

[Kelvor Ravenstar]

I think D20 Modern failed in lack of support, I was waiting forever for D20 Supers, but later found out the project was put aside when developers were shifted to Star Wars Saga Edition.
But, I found it was a success for me and my group, at the time of its release. I've used its toolbox format, along with the extra content from the Dungeon/Polyhedron magazine, to construct D20 rules adaptations for settings that I loved, but didn't like their existing rpg adaptations.
I used Shadow Slayers for a Buffy The Vampire Slayer game with Department 7 taking on a replacement Initiative role; D20 Future + Mecha Crusade minigame as the basis for a RIFTS campaign, which was the first time I'd ever used classes I'd written myself in game; and more stuff recently.
After my group got burned out on D&D this year, I re-evaluated D20 Modern for use as the basis of a Dresden Files game, since its going to be at least another year for the FATE-based rules system to be published. I ended up using D20 Modern with a few tweaks added from other D20 products. It's got consolodated skills a-la Saga or 4e, I'm probably going to work up minion rules, and I'm still working out the kinks for a skill-based magic system.
It's been successful so far, because my group is actually getting more actual role-playing done.

 

[Desert Hare]

So classes should represent just archetypes Spatula? In this case shouldn't point buy be more direct and to the point to let you build the archetype you want?

Point buy is where Mutants & Masterminds succeeds in being a good replacement for D20 Modern.

 

[xechnao]

Point buy is where Mutants & Masterminds succeeds in being a good replacement for D20 Modern.

I very well suppose so that M&M would be a better tool to build archetypes -if this is what you really want: a game that helps you build archetypes.

But I do not believe modern games should be about archetypes or tactical combat roles. I rather believe they should be about contacts, organizations and stuff. ConspiracyX has a rules section regarding organization resources such as media, military, police, scientific laboratories and things like that.
I believe a modern game should be more about how you can manage your way with a structure of groups-institutions than anything else.

If you do not something like this, then better play super-hero or in a very focused or very detailed campaign -something that provides more on the structure of the adventures than the archetypes (things like twilight 2000, heavy-gear, dark-heresy, starship troopers or even esoterrorists, fear itself, CoC may seem a good fit).

 

[mxyzplk]

I liked D20 Modern OK. The generic stat-based classes made me somewhat sad, and so often I prefer variants that are more genre-specific - like I find Spycraft 1e is better for normal modern action.

I agree with the derivative writing thing. It seemed to me that all the proposed settings were custom designed to cannibalize other popular games. Urban Arcana is Shadowrun with the serial numbers filed off. Shadow Chasers is Buffy/Hunter. Agents of PSI is... Well, it came out very close to Shadowforce: Archer for Spycraft and is the same deal as Dark Conspiracy, Conspiracy: X or other previous games. Then they repurposed Dark*Matter weakly - as someone who had and enjoyed the Alternity version I was quite underwhelmed.

The later supplements similarly were very short and unfocused. Face it, d20 is a very crunchy game, so the amount of detail published was insufficient to actually play in any of the many genres they covered. Take d20 Future. In one book, it tries to cover various tech levels, starships, mecha, robots, cyber, mutations, aliens, and settings that were their own big ass book previously (Bughunters, Star*Drive, etc) all in one book. So all you really had were "hints on how you'd do this if you wanted to largely implement it yourself."

It couldn't decide what it wanted to be. I think if rather than going for "very light spread of generic" they had published some more directly usable stuff... There was a lot of good d20 Modern addon stuff done, mostly in PDF, by third party folks.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I thought it was good. There some mechanics that bothered me though. Should have just kept the focus on Skills and keep things simple. But otherwise, I loved it. I own the core book, and it is a great resource if you like modern games. The problem might be the market. Most people I know who play modern games, play things like Vampire or Heroes. Mundane Genres just seem less popular where I live. I have found that gamers have a "Anywhere but the present" mentallity. And when they do play a game set in the present it has to be extraordinary with magic and monsters. For me, the Modern Setting is appealing because it opens up the Thriller/Suspense Genre.

 

[xechnao]

it opens up the Thriller/Suspense Genre.

Then give a look to conspiracyx or esoterrorists. They seem much more suited than modern20 imo.