Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="King of Old School" data-source="post: 2727396" data-attributes="member: 8789">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</blockquote>

Verification