d20 Super Heroes --- coming in July '06 from WOTC

[C. Baize]

No, no, no..
Slavering fanboys are in a class all their own.
Not just anyone who disagrees with me.

 

[Ranger REG]

You mean, like people who play wizards and clerics?

Especialy people who play wizards (loves enchanting a Gandalf-like sword) and clerics (once they stop embracing the obsolete 1e mindset that all clerics can't shed blood).



But while I'm not so hot about gunbunnies -- especially posters on this messageboards -- wanting more detailed in-game effects for firearms to fill a World Book Encyclopedia, I'm also not so hot about making firearms more generic than they are currently listed in the d20 Modern Core Rulebook. Even if we're talking about a supplement book, I wouldn't question the existence of a modern arms book.

HOWEVER, I do question d20 Superhero. Not one of those "WTF?!?!!" type of questions, just a "huh?" type.

 

[King of Old School]

Except, of course, that some people LIKE classes and levels and hit points for supers.

Sure. Some people think the Palladium house system is clean and logical, too. Some people think GURPS is too artsy-fartsy and not "realistic" enough, and would rather play something like Phoenix Command. There's no accounting for personal taste.

My personal tastes run towards systems that eliminate closed choices and unnecessary complexity.

KoOS

 

[King of Old School]

Especialy people who play wizards (loves enchanting a Gandalf-like sword) and clerics (once they stop embracing the obsolete 1e mindset that all clerics can't shed blood).

I think you'll find that plenty of magic-oriented players couldn't care less about swords.

Me, I love 'em and very rarely do I play a fantasy character who doesn't use 'em. But there's no accounting for personal taste.

KoOS

 

[C. Baize]

Sure. Some people think the Palladium house system is clean and logical, too. Some people think GURPS is too artsy-fartsy and not "realistic" enough, and would rather play something like Phoenix Command. There's no accounting for personal taste.

My personal tastes run towards systems that eliminate closed choices and unnecessary complexity.

KoOS

And some people even like M&M for supers.
You're right. There's no accounting for taste.

The Anti-Fanboy.
....
Well... not really... but I'm not a fanboy of M&M. I'm a Blood and _______ junkie.

 

[buzz]

...I'm also not so hot about making firearms more generic than they are currently listed in the d20 Modern Core Rulebook.

I don't want them to be more generic. I want them as-is, except where it says "Glock", I think it should just say "Automatic Pistol".

I also would have nothing against a supplement that added rules that made guns more distinct, thus warranting an encyclopeida full of them. I still don't know if I would buy it, though. I just don't need that much detail.

As for class/level systems and supers... all I can say is that, while I have not yet seen such a system that did supers to my liking (not dissing DNW, B&V, or FC2F; I have not read them), I'm not going to make any grand pronouncements. You never know when a good design is going to come along and knock your preconceptions on their tuchus.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Classes just DON'T WORK for superheroes. When will people learn?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Classes haven't yet worked well for superheroes"?

I've got a lot of respect and affection for HERO, M&M, and SAGA (despite only ever having actually played the last, and that in its DL incarnation ), but I'm not convinced that a class-based supers system couldn't be made to work in some fashion.

And d20 Modern's basic class structure, if paired with an 'overlay' system or something similar for powers, just might be the one to do it.

Matthew L. Martin

 

[C. Baize]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Classes haven't yet worked well for superheroes"?

I've got a lot of respect and affection for HERO, M&M, and SAGA (despite only ever having actually played the last, and that in its DL incarnation ), but I'm not convinced that a class-based supers system couldn't be made to work in some fashion.

And d20 Modern's basic class structure, if paired with an 'overlay' system or something similar for powers, just might be the one to do it.

Matthew L. Martin

*coughBlood&Vigilancecough*

 

[woodelf]

Even as a paraphrase, that misses an important point: i said "D20M is only better than Spycraft for running 'modern D&D'"--in all of my comparisons, i never intended to say that any of the WotC stuff is crap. With rare exception, i don't think that--I think most of it is good. I just don't think any of it is awesome. By way of analogy, I didn't say "Rush sucks", i said "in every way in which Rush is good, there is another band that is better,"--and i'll let you pick the measuring stick.

This is generally considered 'damning with faint praise'. It's also dissembling and widely considered a fairly cowardly debating tactic to adopt. You made a value statement, now you're backpedaling and refusing to back up what you've said. Nobody's misunderstanding you; you're simply not willing to back your opinions up, and state them as facts.

Here's the direct quote--i just went and double-checked to make sure i was remembering what i wrote correctly:

Spycraft is better than D20 Modern for everything but "modern D&D"--and Spycraft+[something fantasy] is gonna be better than either. Spycraft 2.0 is better than that.

I'm not backpedaling--i never said "D20 Modern isn't good for anything but modern D&D"--that's someone's misreading. Looking back at my post, the only WotC product i said outright was poor is Forgotten Realms--and i stand by that assessment. The rest, i merely said there was something better, without giving either of the compared products a 10-scale rating or otherwise indicating their overall quality. If you want to read that as the lesser of the two compared products "sucks", that's your prerogative, but it's not what i wrote, nor is it what i intended. It is not an accident, or veiled meaning on my part, that i didn't actually say that.

Now, do you want me to produce my supporting arguments? I'll do it. But it's gonna be 5 or 10 screenfuls for you to read, and it's not really germaine to this topic, so i thought i'd politely leave them out, and point out that, regardless of whether or not you accept my claims, the germaine point is that it is not necessarily unreasonable to dismiss a work from a known entity before the work even exists. You mistake politely downplaying my argument for backpedaling--I was trying to be polite and not clutter up the thread with a lengthy comparison of RPGs, when it became clear that i was not among like-minded people and therefore the claims would need support to be accepted. But if people actually want to argue the point....

And, yes, i am damning with faint praise--because i believe that's exactly the level of praise the products deserve. They are good, they are worthy of some praise--but not much, when smaller companies with fewer resources can produce better works pretty much every time WotC and someone else tackles the same topic. I don't think WotC stuff sucks. I think it's good--which makes it a notch below the best stuff out there, and is at least two notches below what i expect from the biggest RPG company out there. There stuff should be the best on the market--they have the resources to hire the best artists, the best writers, to actually hire editors--and it's not.

edit: and i was serious about you (the generic you) picking the measuring stick: tell me what criteria you want the games judged on and, so long as its about content and not something near-tautological like "which game is produced by WotC" or "which game is most like D20M", i'll take a stab at persuading you that the competitor does it better.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Friendly moderator note - please everyone remember to keep any disagreements civil, don't call anyone names and don't ascribe motives to other people - assume that they are doing their best to post reasonably and logically, just like you are

Thanks