d20 Past - Anyone using it?

[Bobitron]

Perhaps a little too much at times.

I just received two more books (with a third on the way) on the Algerian war for my PbP Modern game, bringing my library on the war against the FLN to twenty-four volumes. I'm actually having to create an index so I can reference information quickly for the game...

I love you. Don't tell my gf, OK?

 

[Sketchpad]

I didn't get the impression that the book was rushed - in fact, I am relatively certain that it did everything that the designers wanted it to do. D20 Past merely reflects the same sort of design philosophy for D20 Modern products that we were introduced to in D20 Future. A tip-of-the-iceberg approach to a genre/time period or two with a couple of examples for how one might flesh it out for their own purposes.

In all honesty, this seems to be one of the greatest weaknesses of the current Modern design philosophy. I certainly don't expect D20 Modern to take the GURPs route (publish an in-depth book about EVERYTHING), it's not really taking advantage of the strongly successful strategy that D&D employed. While in a D&D game my players will know they need a Players Handbook (and not really anything else), and that with that book alone there's a wealth of possibilities, the background necessary for anything other than a "straight" modern game requires the use of several books for the players alone (or that you write an extensive set of rules on your own).

The problem with fleshing things out is the lack of rules to do such. If there were a class construction engine available, I don't think I'd have as huge of a gripe with it. But without rules for creating classes, be it advanced or core, it makes it hard to flesh things out. Sure, anyone can make a class ... but making it a balanced class is a bit more of a problem. Don't get me wrong, I like d20 Modern, but I really wish there was more crunch at points ... :\

 

[buzz]

This is also slated to be 96 pages and a Trade Paperback - so even smallwr than d20 Past. There is also no author listed. Hurm.

Authors listed are Eric Cagle, Darrin Drader, and Owen K.C. Stephens. The book is nto a trade paperback, just a standard paperback splat like d20P. It's the same size.

Seeing as d20M is sticking with these smaller supplements, I'd like to see them tighten their focus, a la the minigames form Poly. d20P is a bit too broad. d20A seems about right, as does d20C.

 

[Ranger REG]

The problem with fleshing things out is the lack of rules to do such. If there were a class construction engine available, I don't think I'd have as huge of a gripe with it. But without rules for creating classes, be it advanced or core, it makes it hard to flesh things out. Sure, anyone can make a class ... but making it a balanced class is a bit more of a problem. Don't get me wrong, I like d20 Modern, but I really wish there was more crunch at points ... :\

Sorry, that there is no hard formula for making balanced classes. Sometimes you just got to go with your instinct and intuition. Besides, how can you tell what is underbalanced or overbalanced without some "engine"?

 

[Ranger REG]

Seeing as d20M is sticking with these smaller supplements, I'd like to see them tighten their focus, a la the minigames form Poly. d20P is a bit too broad. d20A seems about right, as does d20C.

IOW, split the three campaign models into separate books (e.g., d20 Pulp)? I have no problem with that. The thing is can WotC keep up the demand (ideally, I like 6 themebooks per year)?

 

[Bobitron]

IOW, split the three campaign models into separate books (e.g., d20 Pulp)? I have no problem with that. The thing is can WotC keep up the demand (ideally, I like 6 themebooks per year)?

I mentioned that earlier in the thread. I don't know how the economics work, but I would love to see a bunch of 50 page or so books rather than a 100 pager with three settings crammed in.

 

[buzz]

IOW, split the three campaign models into separate books (e.g., d20 Pulp)? I have no problem with that. The thing is can WotC keep up the demand (ideally, I like 6 themebooks per year)?

I think they/Paizo did a good job with Poly, which such a line would basically be. I think that these splats would be far enough "under the radar" that we'd see the design staff flexing their muscles a bit. I.e., the products where they can just get crazy.

 

[The Shaman]

I love you. Don't tell my gf, OK?

Shhh...people will talk...

 

[Ranger REG]

I think they/Paizo did a good job with Poly, which such a line would basically be.

If each book is an isolated setting or game that uses the d20 Modern rules? Yes. But there are gamers like me that want to put two and two together, like mecha and starships. Should both have separate rules or should both be based/derived under one unified system?

 

[buzz]

If each book is an isolated setting or game that uses the d20 Modern rules? Yes. But there are gamers like me that want to put two and two together, like mecha and starships. Should both have separate rules or should both be based/derived under one unified system?

Depends on the treatment, I guess. Everything would use d20M as a base, of course, so one should be able to mix n' match as they see fit. Ideally, at least basic compatibility between supplements would be a design goal.