d20 Modern: Too much FX?

[The Shaman]

In the d20 Modern "2.0" thread, King of Old School mentioned the phrase "D&D Modern" that some use to describe WotC's Modern adventure game.

It's true that d20 Modern's campaign modules tend to be heavy on FX of one sort or another: All three campaign models in the core rule book (Agents of Psi, Shadow Chasers, and Urban Arcana) and (even more inexplicably) d20 Past (Age of Adventure, Shadow Stalkers, and Pulp Heroes) include magic and/or psionics, the only WotC-published campaign book is an expansion of Urban Arcana, and d20s Future, Apocalypse, and Cyberscape all include classes and campaign models that nod to magic and psionics - I believe one could make the case that advanced tech such as franks/moreaus, mutations, and cybernetics is also a form of FX as well.

Speaking for myself, I've run five Modern games now: three (Seventies cops-and-robbers, American Wild West, and Fifties military) had no FX, one (contemporary necromancers and supersoldiers) had low levels of FX (incantation magic and advanced tech), and one (Seventies post-apocalypse) uses fair amounts of advanced tech - I'm also working on a no-FX Victorian espionage game. I've not run anything with FX as prevalent as Agents of PSI or Urban Arcana.

I tend to purchase and use no-FX supplements: Sidewinder: Recoiled, Big Bang Ricochet, Blood and Guts, Modern Player's Companion, and Martial Arts Mayhem are my favorites. (I also own Modern Magic, but I haven't used anything from it so far.)

I admit I get rather frustrated with the amount of FX in WotC's Modern books in particular. I wonder why "Age of Adventure," for example, needs magic and monsters - swashbuckling musketeers and swift-riding highwaymen aren't fun enough? I also believe I'm totally in the minority on this, that most Modern players are looking for FX in their games - the number of threads asking when magic, psionics, and so on will be added to Spycraft 2.0 hasn't escaped me.

What's your take on Modern FX?

 

[Stormborn]

What's your take on Modern FX?

That it shouldn't be the same as DnD. I like magic and I like magic in modern campaigns, but I don't want it to be DnD magic. I much prefer modern FX to be unique and flavorful (and made it so in a forthcoming setting book from Highmoon - which will some day be finished and see print).

But, as far the d20 modern stuff goes, I understand why its there, and why they have the same magic system as DnD - it makes it more accessible to crossover players. I also think that many of us (gamers in general and ENWorlders) want the element of the fantastic in our games, that we don't want to just be cops or soldiers, we would rather play X-files or Delta Green. But, as you have already clearly stated, its just as easy to leave it out.

 

[jaerdaph]

"Too much FX" isn't the same as "can't be played without FX".

That being said (at least about the core d20 Modern book and a few supplements, WotC and 3rd party), I personally wouldn't be interested in running or playing in a no FX game. No FX supplements can and do have their place and utility, however, in an FX game. So I'd have to agree the deck is stacked in favor of those who play with FX.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I'm with jaerdaph. As you know, it's pretty easy to run Modern without any FX. Those rules and options are easily ignored. I enjoy FX in most of my Modern-line games, but that doesn't mean I feel I should incorporate them into a Sidewinder campaign.

 

[Roudi]

F/X is, like every other rule in the game, subject above all things to Gamemaster's Discretion. No rule is so set in stone that a GM cannot do away with it, replace it, or modify it to make it work. No setting is so married to one specific ruleset that a GM cannot use it without also incorporating those rules. To say a game has "too much F/X" is to deny Gamemasters the ability to shape their own games, settings, rules systems, etc.

Sure, WotC incorporates a lot of magic in their d20 Modern material. That's what WotC likes to do, and I'm sure there are folks who are glad WotC includes that material. If it doesn't fly for your game, then you're not commiting a sin (or even a terrible inconvenience) by not using that material.

I'm sorry, but it just seems pointless to discuss whether or not WotC emphasizes magic too much or not in their books. Its the Gamemaster who determines what actually shows up in a game, not WotC.

 

[takyris]

Actually, I both agree and disagree. On one hand, I like magic, and in my completely anecdotal evidence, most d20 Modern games I've played in have had some form of FX, be it SF or Fantasy or Horror. So saying "No FX in the campaign settings" strikes me as silly.

However, on the flip-side, I do think that Urban Arcana and Shadow Hunters are too close. It's like the difference between, say, Buffy and Supernatural. They aren't the same in feel, exactly, but they could easily be two perspectives on the same universe.

My personal opinion is that the reason the campaign settings are there is to give GMs some standard settings to work with. That's fine, but I'd rather that the campaign settings be there to give the GMs examples of how to incorporate different optional rules (incantations, spellcasting, psionics) to make the campaign with the flavor that he wants -- with the campaign examples useful for campaigns for folks who want to run those campaigns, but different enough from each other that they're useful as "Here's how to make a _____-type game" tips.

For example, I'd love to see several different campaign settings -- to be reasonable-ish, say maybe three of the following (with each having a few advanced classes, a few new feats, a few sub-rules, possibly a new rule-sub-system):

Horror: Add a simple shock-and-trauma mechanic (since sanity is a trademarked term?), explain how to change the flavor of the standard D&D spells to make them horrific, explain how anyone can cast spells by making Kn(Arcane) checks but takes s-and-t damage for doing so, lower the massive damage threshold of characters by 5. (So an 18-Con guy, or a 15-Con guy with Improved Damage Threshold, has an MDT of 13.) Demon-summoner and Abjurer as advanced classes.

Wuxia: Add wuxia-feats for crazy uses of existing skills (a feat to use Climb to run up a wall, a feat to use Jump leap a huge distance, a feat to use Hide to turn invisible, likely x/day, with an Action Point spent for each time after x, or something like that). Add sub-rules for incorporating skills into combat (using jump for leaping attacks, using balance to slide across smooth surfaces, using climb to swing from a rope as part of a charge). Add Styles, an additional class feature like Occupations, that give cool abilities like Chuck's Blood & Vigilance stuff. Add several Advanced Classes that modify the Martial Artist for different flavor.

Investigative: Add expanded rules for using the Investigate, Search, and Knowledge skills, including advice for how the GM can give information in such a way that the player still feels cool giving that information to the team (who, in a real-life game, has just heard the GM say the same thing). Add expanded legal rules, including uses for Diplomacy and Knowledge(Civics), and a trial system modeled after d20 combat (the Prosecutor has X rounds to reduce the Defense to 0 case points, for example). Add expanded rules for how a Dedicated1/Tough1 security guard can be killed by what forensics reveals to be a single wrench-blow to the back of the head -- either a firm delineation between game events and plot events, or more lethal rules for attacks on unsuspecting opponents (effective coup de grace attacks, or automatic massive damage saves, or something). Expansions on the Investigator and Negotiator Advanced Classes.


Fantasy: As Urban Arcana and/or Shadow Chasers.

Espionage: As much as can be lifted from Spycraft, like a host of cool spy-type gadgets, rules for chases, and so forth. Expanded rules for Hide and Bluff under different circumstances, and expanded rules for hurrying up a Disable Device or Repair check. Expanded takes on the Infiltrator, Negotiator, and Field Scientists Advanced Classes.

The thing is, though, that I can understand the decision to put in two fantasy settings, because then you get to use the spell section twice. On one hand, it's repetitive, but on the other hand, that lessens the chance that a reader is going to say "Why is this garbage here? I don't want to play a ____ game", as I at least did for the psionics section. It seems like the choices here, and I don't know which of these is the best, are:

1) Shorten those sections, so that someone who doesn't intend to have D&D-like magic only has three or four "useless" pages. The good news is that you can always expand in campaign setting books after figuring out what's popular. The bad news is that with so little crossover, you've really only got a few pages to explain the FX-specialness of your world. (Only a few pages to explain how an Investigative campaign is special, or how Horror is different from Fantasy.)

2) Make the FX-system sort of universal, so that it doesn't matter whether that Charm Person is coming from a demon's binding geas (Horror), sheer domination through chi-power (Wuxia), a Diplomacy-check-powered grilling that the detective throws down in order to make a suspect talk (Investigative), or a Bluff that turns the evil mastermind's hot female sidekick to work with you (Espionage) -- it's always Will save, DC11+Cha, or be turned to Friendly. The good news is that that lets you re-use a lot of spells -- a demon's hellfire looks like a chi-master's explosive-chi-blast looks like a mad scientist's cesium-ignition projector, and they all look like a D&D fireball. The bad news is that people who really disliked all of D&D magic (not just the spells/day rule, but the very way those spells worked) have a lot more trouble extricating themselves from those FX.

3) Don't make spell lists, psionic lists, gadget lists, and so forth. Instead, provide guidelines for how to make the FX for the campaign you want, including how to price the item or determine the level or mana cost or whatever, based on how much damage it does, what range it has, how many charges it's got, or how big a bonus it gives. The good news is that this really lets people do what they want. The bad news is that, well, it takes work, and not all GMs are willing to do that -- and not all players are willing to learn. It's a good system for a dedicated group (and I'm aware that several folks here have gone that route in major publications), but it's not a good thing to put into a game that you're trying to sell to first-time players. (This also raises the question of whether d20 Modern IS selling to first-time players, but that's another thread entirely.)

Okay, that's enough rambling for now.

 

[Psion]

I sort of think as d20 modern as a modern supernatural game. I'm not sure if it would have enough luster to keep me happy if it didn't have it.

I think for magic-lite modern d20, I'd go with Spycraft 2.0.

 

[Vigilance]

If the question is rules-wise, no.

I would have liked to see a non-FX campaign model though. Despite those who think it doesn't suit d20 Modern, I know that non-FX campaigns can work.

 

[arscott]

In defense of d20 Past

I admit I get rather frustrated with the amount of FX in WotC's Modern books in particular. I wonder why "Age of Adventure," for example, needs magic and monsters - swashbuckling musketeers and swift-riding highwaymen aren't fun enough?

I've always been baffled by this reaction. I don't know how you could run a decent swashbuckling/pirate campaign without FX. "Here there be serpents", Mysterious Islander Magics, and the occasional Ghost ship are staples of the genre.

Pirates of the Carribean had a ship crewed entirely by undead. The Princess Bride had a life-draining machine and Rodents of Unusual Size. In the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, one character was turned into a dragon, another was a talking rat, and the ship nearly sailed off the edge of the world. The 7th sea RPG has everything from Fairy magic to viking runecasters to the mysterious sorcery of the orient.

The only way I can see a non-FX pirate game is if the character merely think that magic and monsters exist, like in Treasure Island with the ghost of Benjamin Gunn. But merely pretending that mermaids and sea-serpents exist will only work for so long before the player catch on.

Of course, such elements probably have less use in a musketeers game than they will in a pirate game. But it's easier to tone down or remove fx elements than it is to add them. and notice that the musketeer themed mini-adventure is strictly No FX.

 

[SWBaxter]

In the d20 Modern "2.0" thread, King of Old School mentioned the phrase "D&D Modern" that some use to describe WotC's Modern adventure game.

(snippage)

What's your take on Modern FX?

I often like at least a little FX in my games. What I don't like is D&D-style spells 'n' abilities 'n' items mixed in with guns and fast cars. IMHO, in keeping with Modern's toolkit approach, the best way to do FX would be to provide a few different magic systems (for example) and show how they mesh with various genres.

As it is, it's not a gamebreaker for me, and I can take or leave the FX rules as they stand. It just works out that I mostly leave them. I'd rather have the page space devoted to something useful to me. And while WOTC is catering to my needs, I'd also like a pony (it's for my nephew, OK?)