d20 Modern: Too much FX?

[Roudi]

... (and nofx as well)...

Rock on! Love those guys. I'm glad I'm not the only one who starts thinking of Punk In Drublic when someone mentions a "no F/X campaign"

 

[SWBaxter]

Superstition played a huge role in the lives of pirates and explorers, both real and fictionalized.

If this is your main point, then I feel compelled to note that this has absolutely zero to do with the d20 Modern FX rules. Those rules are based on the D&D magic rules, and as such are designed to provide fun and hopefully balanced abilities for characters. Atmosphere is the province of the GM and players, and it's easy to argue that the presence of magical advanced classes or clearly defined spells detracts heavily from a superstition-laden atmosphere.

 

[Prest0]

I'll chime in with a "me too" and say that the magic in d20 Modern never felt right to me, either. "D&D Modern" is a great term I'll be using from now on. While the FX system might be fine for a "Buffy" style game, it's too fantastic for most "real world" campaigns. In D&D, magic is more or less accepted as fact. In our world, real magic should freakin' blow our minds. It's dabbling in "things man wasn't meant to know". At the very least, magic should be hard. That why, when I wrote Bloodlines, I turned to Mongoose's OGL Horror. I think that system is more appropriate for "real world" adventures.

WotC could have done this or that, but from a business standpoint I can see why they recycled the D&D system. They can't be all things for everyone. Fortunately for us, there are plenty of 3rd parties out there producing quality material that lets us customize our adventures to suite our needs. So slide on up to the buffet and don't be afraid to take a little of this and a little of that.

 

[danzig138]

swashbuckling musketeers and swift-riding highwaymen aren't fun enough?

No. But if it makes you feel any better, swashbuckling musketeers and swiift-riding highwaymen with FX aren't fun enough either.

What's your take on Modern FX?

My take? FX is in its own section in the back of the book. The only time I've really looked at the FX alot is when I'm working on updating my MSRD pdf. FX don't have a part in my post-apoc game, but I'm sure they'll play a part in the PC Angels game I'm planning. FX won't play a huge part in a CoC game I'm planning. If the FX fit the setting, fine. I don't see an issue. Out of curiosity, how well have modern, or even other games without the equivalent of FX done on the market? I'm not terribly familiar with such games. I remember Top Secret, but I do't know who much of a seller it was. And that's the only one that comes to mind. Wait, wasn't there a James Bond game for a while? And maybe an Indiana Jones? I guess people like to blow things up with their minds, or at least with fireballs. Personally, I prefer to blow things up with large weapons - Omega cannons, devestators, disruptors, etc (I'm a Battlelords fan - wish it was d20).
Certainly,advanced tech, mutations, and bionics could be seen as FX. . . in a game where I'm playing a caveman, or a 12th century knight. But if I'm playing a 12th century knight, a 1911 A1 is FX too. So for the purposes of discussion, IMO, it's probably better to not treat these things as FX. Otherwise, Ook discoving fire is FX.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

Of course the GM decides on what's in and what's out, and one of the great strengths of d20 Modern is that magic is not integral to the basic character classes, but rather an optional element for inclusion at the GM's discretion.

The strong emphasis on FX games doesn't detract from my games directly, since I either don't use it or houserule it to fit, but I do look at the page count devoted to FX classes, spells/powers, and campaigns and wonder, "Gee, would it kill them to include one no-FX campaign model?" I think the sample campaigns, for the most part, offer a good starting-point for younger or inexperienced GMs, and a no-FX campaign model would be a good way to introduce these gamers to the ways in which Modern can be played differently than "Dungeons and Dragons with guns."

I disagree with the notion that no-FX games are limited to cops-and-robbers or special commandos. First, "cops-and-robbers" doesn't mean that everyone has to play cops - in our game, The Streets of Seattle, two of the four characters were police officers, one was an investigative reporter, and another was a Hollywood action-movie star with a cop fetish (a particularly inspired character, I thought!).

There's also the organized crime game, such as an adaptation of GTA Vice City, or Tony DiGerolamo's d20 Complete Mafia game book.

Second, what about games based on movies like National Treasure or Sahara, which I think would make an awesome no-FX "Treasure Hunters!" campaign model? For that matter, take out the last ten minutes of Raiders of the Lost Ark and you have a no-FX "Treasure Hunters!" game as well.

How about espionage? Could you run a fun no-FX game involving corporate spies stealing trade secrets and fending off rival company agents?

I really take exception to the idea that historical games require some sort of FX to be appealing. The idea that the only way to run a swashbucking game is in the style of Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl floors me - have you never read (or seen the movies of) Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers, Rafael Sabatini's The Sea-Hawk or Scaramouche, or even Robert E. Howard's Black Vulmea's Vengeance? I've been working on a game based on the Zorro stories, again with no-FX - is it really inconceivable to imagine such a game without an abruja Dedicated 3/Shaman 4?

Please let me be clear on something: I don't mean to impugn anyone's taste in games. I'm not "against FX in Modern" - as noted two of the five Modern games that I've run so far have included FX elements. What I'm asking for is, if not equal time, then at least a more noticeable nod in the direction of no-FX campaign models by WotC, and slightlyfewer pages devoted to "D&D Modern," of providing more material for the gamer not concerned about making sure that all of the Dungeons and Dragons character archetypes have Modern analogs.

I really don't think that's asking for too much.

 

[Ranger REG]

But they do need to be wholly integrated into the system, which is why I think the core book has just the right amount of FX.

Well, if you think they should stop at magic and psionics FX (though I never cared for WotC's model of psionics), then you don't have to go further. Of course, you might want more spells and powers, particularly appropriate for the modern-day props (cell phones, iPod, CD/DVD, automobiles, firearms, etc.).

But there are other gamers that want more, like d20 Superheroes.

Me? I want more Future FX, mainly more material on starships (creation and combat).

 

[Committed Hero]

Well, if you think they should stop at magic and psionics FX (though I never cared for WotC's model of psionics), then you don't have to go further.

Ah, but harping on the individual systems is a different matter (and one on which I probably agree with you )

 

[King of Old School]

As the person whose statement apparently inspired this thread (thanks, The Shaman!), I should clarify my own take on this.

I have zero problem with the amount of FX in the d20M corebook, in terms of rules. My problem with the d20M core is that of the three campaign models in the book, two of them offer a very specifically D&D-flavoured take on the fantastic. That's bad on two levels:

a) It's repetitive, which makes it feel like wasted page count in a book that can't afford to waste pages.

b) Given the wealth of material out there on fantastic elements in a modern/near-future setting, it's disappointing that Wizards couldn't muster up a little more originality.

And while I also prefer a FX-oriented game myself (where FX can be either fantasy or SF elements, or a mix of both), I find the implication on Wizards' part that a non-FX game isn't worth the page count to be questionable.

Personally, I can accept that a D&D Modern campaign model was a must-have from a marketing perspective, and I don't begrudge it -- hey, I own and like Urban Arcana! What I would have preferred is for UrbArc and Shadow Chasers to be rolled into a single UrbArc setting (that was more like SC in tone but with UrbArc-level FX), Agents of PSI replaced with Genetech (with psionic FX included), and a third non-FX setting included; or if Shadow Chasers was a must-have as well, for it to be a non-FX setting with explicitly non-D&D, horrific monsters. I think this would have helped avoid the impression that d20M is D&D Modern.

KoOS

 

[arscott]

If this is your main point, then I feel compelled to note that this has absolutely zero to do with the d20 Modern FX rules. Those rules are based on the D&D magic rules, and as such are designed to provide fun and hopefully balanced abilities for characters. Atmosphere is the province of the GM and players, and it's easy to argue that the presence of magical advanced classes or clearly defined spells detracts heavily from a superstition-laden atmosphere.

I wasn't defending the d20 modern FX rules. I don't like the Vancian/Spells per day Magic system in D&D, let alone in a modern game. The only redeeming grace of d20M is the occultist.

I was defending d20 Past. The book took a lot of flak for being FX heavy, and I think a lot of that is undeserved. I simply feel that almost all of the included FX was useful on multiple levels, and that it was at about the right ratio of FX to mundane.

What people often forget is that Campaign settings, at least as they are presented in modern, serve to differentiate the setting from the real world, not to describe it in it's entirety. Thus, the core book had four different settings: Agents of Psi, Shadow Chasers, Unearthed Arcana, and the real world. Guess which one took up two thirds of the book.

I'd say that the balance in d20 past is about the same. If you took the first two (mundane) chapters, and added the Non-FX elements of the rest of the book, you'd probably get a similar ratio.

Of course there are those who say that having that FX portion means they're paying for a third of a book that they'll never use. But then again, there are folks who use just a some of the FX and complain about a quarter or fifth of the book they'll never use. And there are folks who run using 3rd party AdCs or base classes only, who don't use an entirely different portion of the book than those who decry FX.

And then there are the folks who buy splatbooks just so they can have one class.

And that still doesn't hold a candle to students who are required to shell out upwards of $100 for a second textbook because the professor feels that the chapter on pedulum motion is better than the one in the main book.

My moral is this: If you object to d20M FX on the grounds that it's clunky, or it's poorly balanced, or it doesn't take modern innovations into account, or it's got a stupid name, then good for you. I might even agree with you. But If you object because the FX system is taking up precious book space, then quit your whining.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

OK, I'm being overly harsh and I know it - but I do believe that they took the path of least resistance, to the detriment of d20 Modern. It is pretty good, but nowhere near as good as it could have been.

I feel this way, too. I really think that there should've been a sample non-Fx setting, just to show how it's done. I dunno, some sort of techno-thrillerish setting without any funky gengineered freaks or psionics. As is, d20 Modern comes with a "D&D in modern times, yay!" setting, a Buffyish setting that really could've been the first with just a darker lens, and one where we rub out magic and type in psionics. I was *sorely* disappointed with d20 Modern.

Pity that ShadowForce Archer died before releasing the Company and Brotherhood books.

Brad