D20 Modern in 2007?

[Ranger REG]

I wouldn't so much give it a name (Ie: Greyhawk), but it has that standard (as Vig put it - Tolkien-Howard) implied nature of fantasy. Elves, dragons, magic, middle age technology, etc. You guys call it 'setting' but I call it subgenre. Much like modern has urban arcana, straight modern, modern military, apoc - and the many sub-sub genres of apoc, future - and the many sub-sub genres of future, etc.

But d20 Modern implied your setting is present-day Earth, or an alternate version of it. So why is that difficult to use or embrace than traditional [medieval] fantasy?

 

[Ranger REG]

Oh man! I'd loooove a shot at writing a D*M tie-in novel.

How about submitting D*M related short stories to the Knowledge Arcana staff to put in the free newsletter magazine online?

Or...

How about submitting it to Wizards Web Team to post online. After all, someone posted chapter-by-chapter of an Agents of Psi story a while ago.

 

[Vigilance]

But d20 Modern implied your setting is present-day Earth, or an alternate version of it. So why is that difficult to use or embrace than traditional [medieval] fantasy?

Modern Earth when?

Now? WWII? The Cold War? Victorian England? The Old West? A Post-Apocalyptic Future?

For a lot of campaigns the answer is NOT now, and every campaign I mentioned has a campaign setting at RPGNow right now except one.

And if your answer is now, is there FX in the game? Is it the high, Buffy-esque FX found in Urban Arcana and Shadow Chasers? Or is it the lower FX found in Blood and Relics or in the 12 to Midnight Pinebox setting. Or perhaps a supers game?

Even if the campaign uses FX, an Urban Arcana book isnt terribly suitable for Blood and Relics of the Pinebox setting.

Even if we agree that there is no FX, is it an investigation heavy campaign set in the states where the players play police officers or is it a military campaign where the players jet-set all over the world?

Cmon Reg.

There is SO much variety to d20 Modern.

It's a strength imo... but for everything you gain in a game's design, you give something up.

And one thing the more open design of d20M has done is made it harder for players to agree on a general setting "tone" like they have with fantasy games.

Which in turn makes adventures an even harder sell than normal.

 

[C. Baize]

But d20 Modern implied your setting is present-day Earth, or an alternate version of it. So why is that difficult to use or embrace than traditional [medieval] fantasy?

With what focus?
And how modern?
What world?
Modern Oerth, maybe?

The problem with assuming a particular setting as the default for D20 Modern is that's not what most people are using, from what I've seen. And it wouldn't matter the setting... most people aren't using THAT one (because most people are using their own).

Modern settings vary quite widely.

WotC could CREATE a modern setting or two and produce material for it... but I really don't think it'd sell even as well as the D20 Modern supplements they're producing.

They could DO a Buffyesque medium FX setting, or a Constantine type.
Maybe Dresden Files... or they could default to 24, or CSI... Whatever they decided, though, I just don't think would hit that "sweet spot" that everyone wants.

Fantasy is so well ingrained as Tolkienesque that releasing a product defaulting to a setting with all the different fantasy races is a nice safe bet.

I would like to see a default modern setting... but honestly, I have 3 different MODERN games (and each of them is quite different from the others), plus the D20 Future, plus my wife's modern game... a default setting MIGHT hit one of those campaigns... or it might not... That's the crap shoot.
Releasing products for an assumed default modern setting is really betting against the house. They're going to lose one way or another.
Personally... I'd PREFER it if WotC released toolkits. I'd hate to see their support of the line die, but it won't be the end of the world.
If WotC stopped supporting D20 Modern today, it wouldn't affect my D20 Modern games a bit, they'd keep going.
I'd hate to see them stop... but there it is.

 

[jezter6]

Vig hit it perfectly. Of course the 'implied' setting is modern day earth. But what kind of modern day earth? A campaign 'setting' is more than a map and a tech level. That's what differentiates Greyhawk and FR. The difference is, in general, you can play through a Greyhawk adventure in the realms with only the need to change some names and faces.

Modern doesn't have that luxury. Sure, we can imply modern day, but like Vig said...what type of campaign style is it? Is it Zombie Horror? Is it Modern Investigation? Military? In a modern game, if you write up a cool military adventure regarding the siege of some foreign outpost, it's going to be near useless in a conspiracy/horror game. Where in fantasy, you write up a military siege on an outpost, and it can fit in almost any D&D setting.

Edit: Just to add - it's like adding a .50BMG to a bad guy. In modern, if the game doesn't focus on large guns and the ability to carry said gun, it's just not right for the setting. Whereas you drop an awesome sword...well, tons of people carry swords, so it's no big deal.

 

[jezter6]

I would like to see a default modern setting... but honestly, I have 3 different MODERN games (and each of them is quite different from the others), plus the D20 Future, plus my wife's modern game... a default setting MIGHT hit one of those campaigns... or it might not... That's the crap shoot.
Releasing products for an assumed default modern setting is really betting against the house. They're going to lose one way or another.
Personally... I'd PREFER it if WotC released toolkits. I'd hate to see their support of the line die, but it won't be the end of the world.
If WotC stopped supporting D20 Modern today, it wouldn't affect my D20 Modern games a bit, they'd keep going.
I'd hate to see them stop... but there it is.

Agreed. I much prefer the toolkit approach, which is why I like Grim Tales so much. Everything is plug and play. Don't want style XXX? No problem, remove it and substitue style YYY.

I don't want to see a default setting of modern. Any way you put it, it is likely not to be MY game setting. And if luck had it that they did put out my setting, chances are it would be useless for the rest of you.

The only part of modern that would need a setting (IMHO) would be if and when d20 Supers makes an appearance. I like that M&M has a good defined setting, and that's important for the style. Then again, even that setting isn't really my tastes and I don't use it. I'd rather a dark, grim setting.

I'll agree that even D&D has a lot of segmentation between settings. I think it's nuts to have 3-5 different settings to support. Unfortunately, some of them are just so old that continued support is nearly necessary to keep a certain strain of gamer playing. If they just upped and dropped FR off the chart forever, the FR fanboy types would go apecrap all over the place, and I imagine would lose a set of angry gamers.

At least if there's no default setting, there's no cries of 'CANON!' breaking material.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What can I say? We got few, nearly nil, adventure submissions for MODERNIZED. The forum for d20 Modern adventure paths existed, it's just that the contributors were lacking. Someone's got to want to write them, after all.

That's sad to hear, but Modern adventures are hard to write for. There's such a demand for Modern adventures precisely because the people who want them have a hard time writing them.

I'd like to contribute, except I don't want to subject people who don't me to the type of adventures I write

 

[buzz]

Agreed. I much prefer the toolkit approach...

I like toolkits, too, but I think us toolkit-lovers are the minority.

 

[kroh]

That's sad to hear, but Modern adventures are hard to write for. There's such a demand for Modern adventures precisely because the people who want them have a hard time writing them.

I'd like to contribute, except I don't want to subject people who don't me to the type of adventures I write

Modern adventures are really no harder than others to write. Write the story first with all it's twists and turns and then work the mechanics from there. The very fact that you say that people might not play the ones that you would write means that you write for yourself. If you pour yourself into what you write then you will probably come out with a labor of love. Not everyone will like what you write (I know people that think even the Original Star Wars trilogy was a load of crap written by a hack who couldn't even come up with an original idea). But there will be those that do and they will appreciate your efforts. I like SUPERS, D*M, PSI-campaigns, Space Opera, and fantasy that doesn't rip off JRR Tolkein. That being said, if you wrote a UA setting, I might not give it a second glance...or I might. If it is well written and you grab my attention then you have me as a fan.

Point is...We can't read it if you don't write it.

Regards,
Walt

 

[jezter6]

I like toolkits, too, but I think us toolkit-lovers are the minority.

Probably. There are just too many people that stick to the core. It's like those that play D&D with WotC only. I blame it on marketing of the 3e/d20 game and the fact that you and me and diaglo are getting older. I'm beginning to think that I'm not the target market for 3.x and/or the upcoming (whenver it does - not an argument for this thread) 4e, if rumors turn out to be anywhere close to true.

I come from a time where almost everything was made up by the DM. I once played in a 4 year FR campaign, but even then...aside from the map and some canon location specifics, the rest of the game was run with from scratch adventures. I think the newer incarnation of the game (or at least gamers) have long forgotten the curse of the GM and all the hours he puts in to make the players happy. Even us oldies do it sometimes because real life gets in the way. Lots of people want to be spoon fed a setting and the adventures to go with it.

I prefer to work up my creative side, with a little help from toolboxes.