Has enthusiasm died?

[Spatula]

I have a lot of issues with the design of Modern myself, but...

They wanted to see classes like Soldier,

In there.

Cat burglar,

Infiltrator.

Hacker,

Admittedly, there's no hacker class. But then, hacking is so simple to do by the core rules, I'm at a loss what benefits such a class would give. A straight Smart Hero with Savant (Computer Use) fills the role well enough.

PI,

Investigator.

Start characters off at level 4+ if you want to start off with the 'real' classes already in play. But you don't need levels in the Soldier class to be a soldier, or whatever. The class name is ultimately just a label, it's how you play the character that matters.

And no one was quite sure about the wealth system. The voters are still out.

I appreciate the theory behind the wealth system, but the implementation causes more problems than it solves.

We loved the allegiance system though, and even converted it to use in fantasy.

Allegiances are a nice alternative to alignment. The background skills are also a nice addition, and something I'll be using if I ever run a D&D game again.

My big beef with Modern is that the supposedly generic base classes aren't generic enough. Someone here has done some nice work on a class-less version of Modern which addresses that concern, however.

 

[d4]

No interesting settings out yet.

if/when i do get the chance to run a d20 Modern campaign, it will most likely be a setting of my own design. however, i am eagerly looking forward to both the d20 Modern version of Darwin's World and Sidewinder.

 

[takyris]

My big beef with Modern is that the supposedly generic base classes aren't generic enough. Someone here has done some nice work on a class-less version of Modern which addresses that concern, however.

I think that problem could be solved by removing some class skills from the basic classes and adding a few class skill choices to occupations. I hear Handle Animal brought up fairly often as a problem area. It's Strong, right? So you can take it out of Strong and make it available in more Occupations -- and do something similar in other classes. If you took a few skills from each Basic class and then added, say, +1 to the number of Permanent Class skills they give you, you'll be fine.

On the other hand, this never really bothered me. I just don't take skills I don't find interesting. With occupations as they currently stand, I can almost always get the class I want with the skills I want. The ability to apply any two of "Balance, Climb, Drive, Handle Animal, Repair, Ride, Survival, Swim" to somebody by giving them the Rural Occupation lets me make:

- A burly lumberjack (Strong, Climb+1, Balance)
- A sneaky hunter and his hounds (Fast, Handle Animal, Survival)
- A bearlike hermit who lives in the swamp (Tough, Balance, Swim)
- A ecologist who is comfortable in the Alaskan wilderness (Smart, Swim, Survival)
- A keen-eyed and worldly wise guide for travelers (Dedicated, Drive, Ride)
- A Greenpeace tree-hugger and activist (Charismatic, Climb, Survival)

I've also got Brawl or Firearms proficiency from that, which is great for most of my characters, and doesn't stink from a powergaming standpoint.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

I don't even care if you file off the serial number of a bugbear, slap "Yeti" on the header and give it new art. It's a matter of atmosphere.

Okay, I'm offended at that...

 

[Ranger REG]

I did NOT want to see d20 Fantasy modernized. I'll echo that I REALLY don't care for the fantasy assumptions in the game. Look, we HAVE stats for gnolls. Give me stats for Greys or Bigfoot (I hear those are in the Menace Manual, which is good, but they should have been in the core book). I don't even care if you file off the serial number of a bugbear, slap "Yeti" on the header and give it new art. It's a matter of atmosphere.

What "atmosphere"?

There is nothing specific about d20 Modern. Like Dungeons & Dragons, it's a bunch of rules, with FX as "plugins." If you want specific, get Urban Arcana, Somalia: d20, Second World, Dark Inheritance, Digital Burn, d20 Mecha etc. They're specific in providing their own game "atmosphere" using the companion d20M ruleset.

While you dislike stats for gnoll rehashed because you happened to have Monster Manual, the d20 Modern Core Rulebook pitched itself to be an all-in-one ruleset, as oppose to the three-volume D&D. It's a lot easier to carry just one book than to carry two.

 

[d4]

While you dislike stats for gnoll rehashed because you happened to have Monster Manual, the d20 Modern Core Rulebook pitched itself to be an all-in-one ruleset, as oppose to the three-volume D&D. It's a lot easier to carry just one book than to carry two.

i think what he was talking about (and i believe this is a fair objection) is that the monsters chosen to be in the d20 Modern core rulebook support mainly the "D&D in the modern world" campaign model and don't work very well for a "modern myths and legends" type of campaign.

if you take the average non-gamer off the street and ask him to name some "monsters", chances are he's not going to name gnolls, kobolds, mind flayers, and yuan-ti. he's going to say stuff like zombies, vampires, werewolves (all in the d20 Modern book, thankfully), but also bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Grays, and such which aren't in the book.

the stats that they give aren't really that significantly different from the versions in the Monster Manual, and i'd assume that anyone who wants to play "D&D in the modern world" is already going to have a copy of the MM anyway. so it seems like a waste of space in that regard. also, if they really did want new versions of those monsters, i think they should have waited to put them in Urban Arcana, which specifically is a "D&D in the modern world" style of campaign, rather than displacing monsters (such as the aforementioned bigfoot and Gray) which would be more appropriate over a wider range of d20 Modern campaigns.

the selection of monsters chosen for d20 Modern enforce the the misapprehension that the game is just for "D&D in the modern world" which is unfortunate.

 

[garyh]

I was going to reply to Ranger REG, but d4 actually managed to nail all my points perfectly, better than I did in my pervious post. Thanks, oh di of pyramidal shape!

 

[Razuur]

Josh:

I get you ike the classes, the problem is you are one of the few people I know who do. I, like spatula, like the theory behind the classes, the money system, etc. But the theory doesn't excite my players. they see boring. They see, I just stole his wallet, how does that affect my wealth? They see d&D monsters in a modern setting - which they think is ssoooooo stupid.

Ranger:

having all of those D&D monsters sets an atmosphere. Arguably, most people who have the D20M book proibably have the monster manual. It was a waste of space. Like d4 and garyh, it really feels like D&D in the modern world.

Now that said, D&D takes a particular slant on fantasy - magic casting rangers, clerics vs priests, magic abounding.... I guess, D20 modern isn't the generic toolkit, but the D&D feel in the Modern world, complete with kobalds and gnolls and mind flayers. That is great if that is what you are looking for, but I think that most people are looking for a generic D20, which it tries to do, just not well.

On top of that, compared to the fantasy genre, the D20 modern industry is really just not taking off like its older brother. WOTC and 3rd party publishers are not really putting out an aggressive schedule.

Razuur

 

[Mythtify]

I think the classes work just great as is. Are the names of the basic classes exciting, no. They do work for greating characters in any type of game that you want to play. The basic classes are pretty inovative compared to what you see in the other non-D&D games from WoTC.


I understand the comments about the D&D monsters in the core book. The mence manual has all of the monsters types, from boogey men, grays, and big foot. Would they have fit better in the core book? Probaly. Though d20M is meant to appeal to D&D players.

Anyway, I feel that d20M is a great game.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

I guess, D20 modern isn't the generic toolkit, but the D&D feel in the Modern world, complete with kobalds and gnolls and mind flayers. That is great if that is what you are looking for, but I think that most people are looking for a generic D20, which it tries to do, just not well.

That D&D feel is all in your head, honest! If you don't use those monsters or spellcasting, then where's the D&D feel? You don't have to use them and there are some creatures in there that either weren't in D&D, or are regular animals. In addition, you don't have to use the wealth system either, it's easy enough to get rid of (and I say that as someone who doesn't like doing my own mechanics). I use it, but I know a lot of people don't like it.

Most of the monsters in D&D started out in mythology and folktales first. In fact, they predate D&D by centuries! In light of those facts, it's not really fair to say things like mummies, medusas, golems, gargoyles, vampires, etc. are part of the D&D feel. There wouldn't be much left for D20 Modern if they couldn't use those legendary monsters; and let's face it, some people are going to want to use them. Some of those people DON'T have the D&D books or don't want to lug the monster manual around with their D20M stuff.

Now for the dead horse; The reason there are so many D&D monsters in D20M was for people who don't play D&D and to grab the crossover customers from D&D (which is also the reason why Urban Arcana came out first).
I suggest you take a look at the Menace Manual if you are still interested D20M. It has Grays, Bogey Men, Alien Probes, Alien Hybrids, Mothfolk, Revenant, Sasquatch, and a host of other aliens and strange creatures. Yeah, there are a few creatures that were also in D&D, but so what. I like it quite a bit.
I too think a lot of those creatures should have been in the core book and the medusas and trolls and whatnot should have been saved for UA, but I do understand why they did things this way.
*shrug* What'cha gonna do?