How is modern?

[Bran Blackbyrd]

now despite everything i've just said, i've got to laugh at sentiment like this. do i want realism in my roleplaying games? heck no! i game to get away from reality. i want my games to run more like action movies than real life

I agree, that quote was just an argument I've seen people use.

Ohhh. The irony of that statement ....

The d20 Modern designers WANTED to make such changes. ... The reason why it didn't happen?

Feedback from the fans.

And this is why the age of instant feedback cuts both ways. :/
Which brings me to my next point;

but I felt like adding it would just irritate Bran. That was neither my intent nor my desire. They had Star Wars long before Modern, so the form Modern takes is a large change already.

Facts don't usually irritate me, though the manner in which they are presented sometimes does. Also, as I said, I am well aware of when D20 SW came out, I bought it. Also, you seem to have misunderstood something I said; for the record I did NOT say that one needed real-world experience to support the current system, but that that seemed to be your opinion. My reason for this? You readily stated your inexperience in the area of automatic weapons, but ask for everyone's credentials when they say they are content with the rules that are already in place. That was what prompted my comment.
I think that reciting a litany of real-world experience as a basis for one's stance on a game of pretend to be more than a little silly, but since I'm apparently still under your microscope... I am not, nor have I ever been in the military. However I have handled a variety of firearms including but not necessarily limited to; various shotguns, handguns in .357, .22, .45 and other calibers, rifles in .22, .17, 7.99mm, etc. and a few automatic weapons (many years and a few laws ago).

The main thing that irritates me here is that many of these gripes will never be resolved. Never. But a new thread about these issues crops up every few weeks.

Just for kicks, let's look at what could possibly change.
1: WoTC does nothing. People continue to gripe.
2: WoTC re-releases D20 Modern but with the VP/WP system. Everyone who thought it was fine as-is complains.
3: WoTC re-releases D20 Modern with both sets of rules. People complain that they should have picked one system and that having both in there makes the statblocks hard to read.
4: WoTC releases D20 Modern with the VP/WP system but continues to publish the original book as well so people can choose whatever they want. People complain that this will divide the D20M community and that the company's resources could be better put towards new products.
5: A free PDF is released by WoTC that totally spells out how VP/WP is to be used with D20M. Proponents of the VP/WP system gripe about how that system should have been used to begin with and that having the rules in the book would have been more convenient than toting around print-outs of the PDF and the books.

Well, you get the idea. There's no way that everyone is going to be happy. Though I am guilty of partaking in this particular hijack, enough threads are started on the issues of auto/burst fire, non-lethal attacks and WP/WP that those concerns could have been mentioned here without completely co-opting this thread into the debate.
At least it didn't turn into a brawl on whether or not it should have been a classless system.

 

[Khur]

And this is why the age of instant feedback cuts both ways. :/

With this statement I couldn't agree more. This seems to be the "real" trouble between you and I. I'm glad it finally seems to have worked out for the better.

Also, you seem to have misunderstood something I said; for the record I did NOT say that one needed real-world experience to support the current system, but that that seemed to be your opinion. My reason for this? You readily stated your inexperience in the area of automatic weapons, but ask for everyone's credentials when they say they are content with the rules that are already in place. That was what prompted my comment.

Sorry. That's cool. I think I cleared up the real reason I wanted credentials, didn't I? Long story short, it was not to naysay anyone but to form a more educated opinion on the subject myself. It's fine if you've never been in the military, like I said before. Neither have I, but you seem to have even more gun experience than I do. More information for me to base ideas on.

The main thing that irritates me here is that many of these gripes will never be resolved. Never. But a new thread about these issues crops up every few weeks.

You're quite right, and the designers at WotC are justified in sticking to one system. I don't believe they should change it officially, now that they've committed. That wouldn't be good (at least not for a few years, ala 3.5 D&D). I didn't realize that a new thread about this subject pops up every few weeks. Yet, even if one does, someone who starts a new one on the same subject hardly deserves to have ire aimed at them for it. Wanting to discuss the system is not the same thing as wanting to replace it. Taking a position, though, elicits more responses--which is valuable. That's why I didn't just ask what people thought.

I'm not a big proponent of suggesting that someone should have to read an entire message board to make sure their post has never come up before either (and I'm not suggesting you are). In a friendly situation, it seems those so inclined can involve themselves in the discussion again for the benefit of the ignorant. Those who are tired of the rehash can abstain.

Quite frankly, I really like the "Massive Damage Threshold" element of hit points better than VP/WP. It's a simpler system with a familiar name, and it actually serves to make the game a little less deadly than the VP/WP system (when guns and such "high-damage" implements are considered) excepting at low levels. That's cinematic.

Well, you get the idea. There's no way that everyone is going to be happy. *snip* At least it didn't turn into a brawl on whether or not it should have been a classless system.

You're totally right. The thing is, I am happy. I just wonder about things and I'm interested in what others have to say about my harebrained-to-brilliant ideas. Next time I'll try and be more careful about hijacking.

Thanks for taking the time to talk more about this Bran, even though portions of it irritate you. I appreciate your input, even if you thought at first I didn't. My "microscope" was just to find out where you were coming from, not to invalidate your points. Everyone has reasons for what they believe. I just like to know those.

As another note, speaking of hijacking, do people really "brawl" over this stuff? Is it that serious?

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

With this statement I couldn't agree more. This seems to be the "real" trouble between you and I. I'm glad it finally seems to have worked out for the better.

It's sort of the old saying, "You can't please all of the people all of the time.", In this day and age of ultra-connectivity WoTC can end up with thousands of opinions dumped on them in a few days. One has to wonder if some products would be better if WoTC didn't listen to feedback. Certainly there must be situations where they tried to please too many people and ended up feeling they could have done better if they hadn't worried so much about the reactionary and very vocal net-crowd.
Maybe they don't let it get to them, but that's got to be a tall order.

As another note, speaking of hijacking, do people really "brawl" over this stuff? Is it that serious?

Verbally, yes. I've seen it get that bad here. Then the mods shut down the thread. Some subjects are so touchy that if the mods shut down the thread someone will start up another to keep arguing... And this is one of the friendliest forums you'll find. But some subjects are hot-button issues and people are only human...or demihuman...or awakened squirrels.

 

[Khur]

Certainly there must be situations where they tried to please too many people and ended up feeling they could have done better if they hadn't worried so much about the reactionary and very vocal net-crowd. Maybe they don't let it get to them, but that's got to be a tall order.

Don't you think pros can separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to stuff like that? I mean, while one has to be passionate to spend hours in game design (it can't pay that well), so I suppose emotion can run high, but some complaints are hard to take seriously. This especially applies to the ones without any reasoning ala, "Man, the car chase rules in Modern suck. The designers must have been daft!"

I'm sure almost this exact thing has been said, and I hope no pro bothered to answer such a pointless jibe.

Verbally, yes. I've seen it get that bad here. Then the mods shut down the thread. Some subjects are so touchy that if the mods shut down the thread someone will start up another to keep arguing... And this is one of the friendliest forums you'll find. But some subjects are hot-button issues and people are only human...or demihuman...or awakened squirrels.

Man, some gamers take it way too seriously, methinks. What I mean is that someone else's opinion needn't affect one so. If you think something is right, you do it for your game. Live and let live. To restate your point before, from a different perspective, there's more than one way to skin a cat ... er ... squirrel.

Thanks for talking Bran!

 

[ledded]

Some good, and reasonably civil , discussion here guys.

And I agree with you, some folks just get a bit too serious over the wrong things. While I have been known to argue a point like a deranged pit-bull wrangling a fresh hambone at times, I usually can debate someone without resorting to personal attacks or childish insults (however, pointed sarcasm does crop up from time-to-time ). Most of these debates have not been over a specific existing game mechanic that I like/dont like, as our group uses the ones that are good (majority) and simply house rules the ones we dont care for.

The only in-book rule things I tend to get worked up over are specific things like weapon weights/descriptions that could have been correct if someone had only taken the time to research them, and similar stuff that can affect gameplay. And I realize that I'm fairly neurotic about that, as most folks simply dont care how much a greatsword really weighs or the real difference between full plate and plate mail.

As far as the complaints that these designers get, I do think that they seperate the wheat from the chaff as well as can be expected. Look at the differences between the Star Wars d20 Core Rulebook and the Revised CR. They literally took tons of suggestions and incorporated them into a new book, making the hard decisions that didnt make everyone happy but still responded to the feedback (good and bad) that they received. Although I did see a recent Rich Redman article on the Wizards site that was interesting in that he quoted and answered what I thought were a couple of pretty stupid questions, and did so toungue-in-cheek without being offensive to the party in question. So they may read some of the more unsubstantiated complaints but I think they take 'em with a grain of salt, more or less.

And as far as people 'brawling' over this stuff, I have seen some pretty nasty threads on some of the different boards sometimes. I'm glad that we can debate something with passion on these boards without getting smacked down, while the moderators seem to know when to close something that gets totally out of hand. Others, like the wizards boards, have much more heavy-handed moderators, but that isnt necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

Don't you think pros can separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to stuff like that?

Sure. Realistically, a lot of complaints/suggestions are probably BS and the designers just ignore it. However, sometimes designers probably get torn between two groups with good suggestions. Take VP/WP and its counterpart. Unless the designers have the luxury of extra pages which they can use to include both systems (and they usually don't), they have to pick a group to disappoint.
Even pros probably try to please too many people at once sometimes. You can't include the spices everyone wants without the soup starting to taste like crud. I see this more often with videogames though. One group wants the rockets to move faster, another group thinks they're fine. Then the game designers change it and it ruins the game for somebody.

One wonders how long it would take us to memorize the rules if our books could be patched as seamlessly and as quickly as video games.
"How much damage does that spell do?"
"2d8"
"Check the book"
"Oh, it's 3d6 now... They must have released a patch."
"Dude, turn off the auto-update. It's confusing the hell out of me."

 

[A GM Named Mike]

Getting back to the original question...d20 Modern rules!

It offers incredibly diverse roleplaying opportunities. My current game is 1950's B-movie sci-fi and horror, I have a Baywatch/Pacific Blue game in the works, I'm looking forward to d20 Future for a "Planet of the Apes"-type campaign, and if I had the time I'd tackle a d20 Modern/Ghostwalk blend.

The only time I open my D&D books is to rip skills and feats for my Modern campaign.

 

[C. Baize]

I open my D&D books for critters.
I like tossing D&D critters at the players when they're not expecting it....