d20 Past - Anyone using it?

[Ranger REG]

Well, it was about 3 to 4 months (if not more, I can't recall) before the the Future stuff made it to the SRD, so I assume more or less the same time for Past.

Now, here's the big question: if Past doesn't make it to the MSRD, will it be missed?

Actually, it was just one month after the d20 Future release.

As for your question? I honestly don't know. d20 publishers are not jumping on WotC to release d20 Past OGC soon so they can develop a product in mind. Adamant Entertainment is already set to release their own approach to pulp genre RPG material.

No offense to WotC, but their latest batch of new products that may be destined for the SRD aren't exactly "prized content" for hungry d20 publishers these days, or perhaps these publishers are moving away from them and venturing on their own, which in most case, are more in touch with the consumers than WotC now. A far cry from the early days, when we had a flood of d20 publishers trying to pitch their ideas in the market only to have consumers being turned off by more than half of the third-party d20 products on the shelves as mediocre. Nowadays, WotC is teetering on the mediocre or "meh" quality.

Then again, this is just my opinion.

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

Uninspired, thin, poorly thought out

For my part, I was so looking forward to this book when I first heard about it.
Then I saw it.
It lacks any real historical information.
Instead of presenting options for playing in different eras, it instead includes several poorly designed campaign models all heavy on FX.
It's a shame too, since this was going to be my early 2005 crowning jewel as far as gaming purchases went.
96 pages of drivel, of little to no information on various time periods, and no adventures.

You know what I'd like to have seen is a book the size of the D20 Modern core book with a timeline of major events for the time periods covered, a brief overview of the major historical events, some ideas on how to place characters in a certain era and what plots could drive a campaign in that era, a discussion and stats for weapons and vehicles of the eras covered, instead of new campaign models present adaptations of the campaign models from the core book to these earlier time periods.
In other words, real substance.

I was so disappointed. It does not full me with any kind of hope for the future of the D20 Modern franchise if this is the quality of the D20 Modern supplements. I don't much hope for D20 Apocalypse.

 

[Roudi]

Kheti sa-Menik -

WotC deliberately left fleshing out the d20 Modern system to the 3rd-party developers, and the good ones give life to the game where WotC fails. If you're looking to WotC for the future of the d20 Modern franchise, then you're bound to be disappointed.

 

[deranged DM]

Have it, love some of it. Sadly, it says No Open Game Content. I'm not expecting it to hit the SRD anytime at all.

 

[Ranger REG]

Have it, love some of it. Sadly, it says No Open Game Content. I'm not expecting it to hit the SRD anytime at all.

With the exception of Weapons Locker, all d20 Modern products contains NO Open Game Content. If you want them, you'll have to look them up in the MSRD.

 

[Ranger REG]

For my part, I was so looking forward to this book when I first heard about it.
Then I saw it.
It lacks any real historical information.

With all due respect, if you want real historical information, you can research them in the library.

I believe that after the d20 Future criticism, they decided to go smaller affordable products.

 

[The Shaman]

D20 Past is a huge disappointment.

I've detailed my reasons for not liking the design choices and the egregious errors elsewhere, so I won't belabor those points. I did however sit down with it last week to see if I could actually use it to flesh out a campaign idea that was kicking around in my head, and realized it didn't come anywhere close to what I would need to make the campaign work.

Just awful dreck. No use for it at all, in book form or as part of the MSRD.

 

[arscott]

I liked it, apparently for the same reason that everybody else dislikes it.

I payed attention in History class, and I have access to a library and to the internet. I don't need some historical reference guide to play a game set in the past. It provided a reasonably inclusive list of PL3-4 weapons and armor. It gave me two more FX classes in line with the occultist. It gave me a pulp scientist! Honestly, I was willing to buy a product just for that.

It's easy to point at d20 past and say "I'd rather have the civil war" or "I'd rather have imperial rome". But no to people would 'rather have' the same thing. They made the decision to not step on d&d's toes with this, and it's a decicion that makes perfect sense. And in three campaing models, they managed to touch on cavaliers, pirates, westerns, victorian horror, and WWII pulp. Sure, it's not particularly innovative, but Wizards never does anything innovative. They're in the business of tried and true. And that's not going to change anytime soon.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

and no adventures.

There are several short adventures in the book. They may not be full-length modules or Dungeon-sized adventures, but they're there.

I really enjoy d20 Past. It does what I think MORE RPG books should do - leave you wanting more. Too many big, thick, 250-400 page hardbacks are out there that are chock-full of drivel and dreck, and which cost $40-50+. I'm much more enthusiastic about d20 Past's model, which actually seems a lot like GURPS's model - short sourcebooks that don't spoon-feed or lead by the hand.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I liked it, apparently for the same reason that everybody else dislikes it.

I payed attention in History class, and I have access to a library and to the internet. I don't need some historical reference guide to play a game set in the past. It provided a reasonably inclusive list of PL3-4 weapons and armor. It gave me two more FX classes in line with the occultist. It gave me a pulp scientist! Honestly, I was willing to buy a product just for that.

It's easy to point at d20 past and say "I'd rather have the civil war" or "I'd rather have imperial rome". But no to people would 'rather have' the same thing. They made the decision to not step on d&d's toes with this, and it's a decicion that makes perfect sense. And in three campaing models, they managed to touch on cavaliers, pirates, westerns, victorian horror, and WWII pulp. Sure, it's not particularly innovative, but Wizards never does anything innovative. They're in the business of tried and true. And that's not going to change anytime soon.

Quoted for truth.

Again, I'd rather have a short book like this, that inspires further exploration of the concept, than some exhaustive tome that tries to cover everything and ends up being a mess. I'd love to see it inspire more such books, from WotC or others, that cover different time periods in a brief, concise way.