D20 Past = 96 page softcover? Now I'm depressed.

[Holy Bovine]

D&D does not cover the past. It doesn't even cover standard fantasy or mythology. It covers Diablo and little more. Like many others, I am writing my own d20 Fantasy using inspiration from d20 Modern. They really should make a d20 Fantasy. I won't buy more D&D books (I only bought the 3.0 core books and used the 3.5 SRD) because I don't like Diablo. I bought perhaps a thousand dollars worth of 2e (and that would probably be 2k with today's money and paper prices)

Hmmmm. Good spelling and grammar so it loses on the 'hat' factor but overall I'll give it 6 trolls

 

[trancejeremy]

Really?

Okay... try this...
Run a game set in 1565 England.
That means no magic.
No elves.
No dwarves.
No races other than human.
No fantastic creatures.
Bards lose all spells.
No Wizards.
No Sorcerers.

Do that with base D&D, and see how easily it flows.

The problem is that it doesn't...
You're left with Fighters and Rogues as classes, and it was much more rich than that...
I think D20 Past is needed...

Exactly. Most Avalanche Press try to do just that (do historical era using regular D&D, minus all the magic classes) and it just doesn't work.


Anyway, all the FX stuff is optional in d20 Modern. All of the sample campaigns do use them to varying degrees, but that's because most modern era games do seem to have something of the supernatural in them. Because otherwise there's not much left that you can't do yourself in real life (as opposed to roleplaying it). I mean, really really violent stuff, I guess or spy/mercenary stuff. But

 

[Mythtify]

Really?

Okay... try this...
Run a game set in 1565 England.
That means no magic.
No elves.
No dwarves.
No races other than human.
No fantastic creatures.
Bards lose all spells.
No Wizards.
No Sorcerers.

Do that with base D&D, and see how easily it flows.

The problem is that it doesn't...
You're left with Fighters and Rogues as classes, and it was much more rich than that...
I think D20 Past is needed....
If for no other reason than D20 Modern/Future can have the FX simply ignored without caveats. To do the same with D&D would take a complete rebuilding of the system, turning it into..... D20 Past...

How many new rules would you need that are not in d20 modern for a game set in 1565 England? I would like to see perhaps rules for sailing vessels, old fire arms, and I can't think of mutch else.

Sure, d20 past may be needed, but it dosn't need to be big. d20Modern can already do most things that you need it to do for d20 past. The orginal poster was stating his disapointment that d20 past was only going to be 96 pages. My point of view has been that it dosn't need to be any longer to be effective; especialy with James Wyatt as the author.

As for playing 1565 england with D&D:

Along with the fighter and rouge, you can add the barbarian, and the swashbuckler from complete warrior. The rouge is versitle. You can make almost any kind of character that isn't a fighter or spell caster using a rouge.

I would also use some of the rules from UA. I would probaly go with defense bonus, armor as dmg reduction, VP/Wp, and the honor system.

 

[Ranger REG]

As for playing 1565 england with D&D:

* gasps and covers the child's ears and eyes *

How dare you bring that filth!

Joking aside, not many agree that D&D classes are suitable for such a renaissance campaign, or a WW I & II campaign for that matter. You can try to convince them but they'll fall on deaf ears (much like trying to persuade me that XPH is the better psionic rules when I don't agree with WotC's "works like magic" base approach to it in the first place; I prefer skill-n-feat model).

In fact, a lot of d20 Modern gamers are former D&D gamers.

If d20 Past can give us what we want for use with the d20 Modern rather than D&D then they succeed. HOWEVER, doing it in 96 pages and in softbound format does not feel like WotC is fully behind such a project with 100% enthusiasm. Look at d20 Future. Even the designers admitted there were a lot more material than was presented in the final product. If you had to cut more than 20% useful material to fit the text into the planned book format, you may want to consider risking the ire of cheap SOB gamers (those who complained to this day that $30 is a luxury price) and add more page count to make it feel that we have what we need "out of the box."

 

[Mythtify]

I actualy like d20 Modern more than D&D. I personaly think it's the best version of d20 to date. I just wish it got more support from WoTC. As with lots of other folks, I hope that both d20 future and d20 past inspires good third party products.

Now, my players are another story. They won't even be interested in d20 past. It has to be elves and orcs for them. Man, if I hadn't known theese guys for 16 years, I would drop them like a bad habit.

d2o Past dosn't strike me as a product that will draw a lot of players to d20 Modern.

 

[Acid_crash]

I would be so much happier if d20 Past was just a straight out conversion of D&D to d20Modern, using the D&D classes as advanced classes in a fantasy/past world. Then we could really use d20 Modern based classes in fantasy without too much trouble.

I say that cuz the d20Modern classes are the best classes I've seen in ANY d20 books and are the ones that make the most sense. IF they were used for D&D I think D&D would be much better than it is now.

 

[Turanil]

I would be so much happier if d20 Past was just a straight out conversion of D&D to d20Modern, using the D&D classes as advanced classes in a fantasy/past world. Then we could really use d20 Modern based classes in fantasy without too much trouble.

I say that cuz the d20Modern classes are the best classes I've seen in ANY d20 books and are the ones that make the most sense. IF they were used for D&D I think D&D would be much better than it is now.

D20 Past may be good, but it's in 2005. Right now, there is Grim Tales. Just get a look at the three reviews on Enworld (see link in my signature).

 

[bubbalin]

I think that 96 page softcover is a standard form...

I recall when I first saw the d20 future entry and some other entries, they all said 96 page softcover, which was then revised a few months later as they got a better idea of what was in it. I will stand by this.

And I am pretty sure it will be a hardcover, at least 160 pages I would guess. But don't quote me on that bit.

 

[Ranger REG]

I recall when I first saw the d20 future entry and some other entries, they all said 96 page softcover, which was then revised a few months later as they got a better idea of what was in it. I will stand by this.

Yeah, but based on consensus -- and I agree as well -- the 224-page hardbound d20 Future lacked in-depth rules coverage though it tries to cover everything except psionics.

They should really consider how much they want to cover in just 96 pages. IMHO, I sincerely doubt they can cover the time period of 1450 to 1950 AD with additional FX material.

 

[Akrasia]

It is clear that this is just a "bone toss" for WotC.

If you want decent "historical" role-playing, GURPS looks like the only system that takes it seriously.