Does anybody still play d20 Modern/Future/Past/Apocalypse

[Lwaxy]

While not my first or second choice for modern setting games, d20M (with a few house rules) is my second choice for running a d20/OGl modern setting game for those that want a class/level based system (it is right behind True20).

I kind of count them as one, as I have houseruled everything anyway

 

[innerdude]

I have it, and played a couple of games with it. It was fun, but I really can't see myself ever playing it again. The problem, fundamentally, is that for just about anything I'd care to do, either "Savage Worlds" of "World of Darkness" will do the same job with a bunch less hassle.

I totally agree about Savage Worlds. Anything I ever saw out of the short, 5-6 session campaign we ran in d20 modern is that Savage pretty much bests it in every playable measure (elegance, consistency, no classes = character specialization as you see fit, the overall threat of death and injury being higher and more permanent).

Haven't yet tried WoD, though a buddy of mine is trying to put together a Werewolf game. Heck, I'd much rather play GURPS as a modern game than d20, and I don't even particularly like GURPS.

Although, I'm thinking Runequest / BRP modern conversion could work pretty well too.

 

[Lwaxy]

Ugh, GURPS.

I find d20 as versatile as D&D, it basically is the same anyway.

SW is something I never got along with well, even when playing Deadlands or Sundered Skies. We usually end up doing d20 versions in the end. It's probably because I know the system for so long and really suck at learning new rules

 

[giant.robot]

I voted "used to play but no longer". I really wanted to love D20 Modern. I thought it might be able to be the generic game I could get my D20 True Believer friends to play. I unfortunately found it to be very disappointing in actual play. Some of my problems with the system have to do with the D20 rules themselves or at least how they were expressed in Modern. The rest of my problems were around how Modern was designed and presented.

Things like the broken multiclassing mentioned in this thread were a bit deal. A player could have a character concept, try to build that concept with Modern's generic and advanced classes, and then find the result was unplayable because their BAB or saves were awful. Feats were necessary to do anything remotely interesting or at times realistic in combat. This meant it took several levels to simply fire more than one bullet from a gun during a 6 second combat round. Like D&D there were way too many skills for the number of skill points given per level. Again it takes several levels to become a somewhat proficient adventurer. I think it can be boiled down to saying D20 Modern forced the use of the zero-to-demigod D&Dism in genres where it did not belong.

In terms of design I agree with the old rpg.net review saying the game was really D&D Modern. There are styles of campaigns supported in the core book and everything else is left as an exercise for the reader. This meant to serve particular styles or genres you had to go buy whole games supporting them. Using Modern to run a sci-fi game wasn't as good as just using D20 Star Wars. Likewise Spycraft was a better system for a modern spy setting. The Modern campaigns were tried to get running tended to fall apart because of this.

I would have preferred D20 Modern to be written more like Unearthed Arcana. It could have been a bunch of rule variants, equipment lists, and just game play suggestions to serve a bunch of different contemporary genres.

 

[Skytheen]

Just made a char for a modern/spycraft game, too.

I believe we'll be hearing a lot more Spycraft soon with Third Edition ramping up for early next year!

 

[Stormonu]

I agree with [MENTION=93119]giant.robot[/MENTION]. I had previously picked up Spycraft prior to d20 modern and after reading through d20, decided against playing it. Especially after attempting to run a d20 Star Wars game and seeing how the d20 rules were a bad fit (IMO) for the genre. And then there was Gamma World d20 by S&S - ugh.

I also think one of the reasons I really never got into d20 modern was I could never come up with a good campaign idea. Though now that I think about it, maybe it would work for a GTA campaign ... naw, probably not. Savage Worlds is my go-to game nowadays.

 

[Greg K]

I ran it for many years, and wrote many of those 3rd party support supplements.

It's a great system. I actually miss it, but currently have two other campaigns and not enough time for THOSE.

Charles, you wrote many of the best d20M supplements and put WOTC's to shame!
Are you still designing products for any games?

 

[Greg K]

Things like the broken multiclassing mentioned in this thread were a bit deal. A player could have a character concept, try to build that concept with Modern's generic and advanced classes, and then find the result was unplayable because their BAB or saves were awful.

That is a playstyle issue. Many people have concepts that don't require the character to be extremely competent at combat .

In actually, Modern era covers many decades. The range of power level and combat competency depends upon which era and specific influences you are trying to model. Combat competency, thereforer is more a matter of feat qualification, the Level/BAB/Defenses the GM sets for the foes, and the level of the campaign in general (which helps set the tone).

 

[WayneLigon]

So have you played it? Do you still? Did it gain any traction at all?

We tried it several times and tried like hell to make it work, but until you hit something like eighth level and can start getting your campaign-specific spiffy power class you're pretty much worthless.

 

[giant.robot]

That is a playstyle issue. Many people have concepts that don't require the character to be extremely competent at combat.

You're not wrong but BAB is something that can qualify you for some advanced classes and feats. This puts some advanced classes, feats, and prestige classes out of reach of players that picked the "wrong" base classes. A player that picks base classes according to their character's concept can end up with a sub-par game play experience. They can end up with "can't get there from here" combinations which is just no fun.

In actually, Modern era covers many decades. The range of power level and combat competency depends upon which era and specific influences you are trying to model. Combat competency, thereforer is more a matter of feat qualification, the Level/BAB/Defenses the GM sets for the foes, and the level of the campaign in general (which helps set the tone).

Going back to what I said above, in a system like GURPS or BRP you can more easily build a character to your concept of them. You can easily build a Kung Fu Master Research Scientist and the rules support that. That particular D&Dism doesn't really belong in the general purpose base classes. I found this to be a downside to Modern because it brought the "unskilled peasant" trope into genres where it wasn't appropriate. It might be something you want to use if you're building a particular game (say Star Wars or Spycraft) where you've got feat and skill lists tailored to a particular style of play. I just don't think it worked well for the default rules.

The GM also shouldn't be hamstrung in picking foes or challenges because some characters are built with "wrong" base class combinations. This doesn't have solely to do with combat as characters can be hamstrung with too few skills or the "wrong" feats to be effective at non-combat tasks. This is just an expression of a complaint I've had for a long time about the D20 system. There's a lot of traps and players tend towards power-gamey optimization rather than potentially sucking at everything. This often means characterization falls by the wayside.

As an example: Dana Scully. She's a licensed M.D. yet spends enough time at the range to qualify with her firearm for the FBI. Building this type of character is difficult in Modern because of how the classes are structured and when and where characters gain feats and skill points.