Is Polyhedron Lame or what??

Wolfspider said:
Well, people often mention how the traditional D&D characters are archetypes from fantasy literature--the fighter, the wizard, the thief, the priest, the barbarian, the ranger. I like to look at all the Hero classes from Shadowchasers the same way. If you look at a lot of TV shows and adventure literature, many of the characters can be described the same way. I think that they are very flexible descriptors.

Wolfspider, I hear ya, I just think the classes are too generic. I will be happy to be proved wrong, as I do plan on picking up D20 Modern when it comes out... I didn't intend my post to be a slam. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


"D&D is really the only game I play - I'd like to have the time for other stuff, but it ain't happening. It just vexes me to have a big chunk of the magazine I only get every couple of months to now be dedicated to games/settings/etc. that I won't use. "

??????

It's all d20, all it takes is a twist with the imagination and it becomes fodder for a fantasy game. Some may be looking at the stuff a little to literal. Just a quick example from the d20 Pulp game and from the top of my head.

The Gangster = Chinesee Triad or other "honor bound" theif with deep ties in the society
Private Eye = Inquisitor
The Mystic = Psion class without the baggage (whaahooo!)
The Scientist = Magic Item maker class (these guys are great NPC explanations for funky magic artifacts)
The vehicle chase rules could be used for Dragon dogfights.
Solider = a fighter based for archery.

Admitted the tech is not much use at first glace. But some may use it for more funky fantasy games. And for d20 Modern, I am sure some players are going to love begging their GM for the Vamprie and Werewolf templates. And one can think of the rest of the d20 Modern rules as optional rules, just like Dragon had generic Leveled Magic Wepons as a spin off the OA rules.

Ironicly, this hits a thread I started last week. There I stated that my year with DND has sort of made me more literal in my gaming. I seem less apt to take that plunge without consulting a rule book first. I used to be able to run whole games without touching book.
 
Last edited:

Erik Mona said:
There's every chance in the world that material that first sees the light of day in Poly will make it into the SRD.

That's very cool, Erik. Does that mean that we should expect to see a general broadening of the scope of the SRD to include, eventually, d20 material published in Polyhedron, StarWars, Wheel of Time, d20 CoC, etc.?
 


They should have merged *Dragon* and Polyhedron instead.

As a DM I want to keep Dungeon away from my players. As a gamer I want to share all the neat new mini-games in Polyhedron with them. As a bibliophile I can't just cut the magazines apart. <sigh>

/Jonas
 

One more for the chorus

I dig the new version of Polyhedron far better than the old one, and I really dig the mini-games of recent issues. It's what I want in a D20 mag, for the most part.
 

grodog said:

Does that mean that we should expect to see a general broadening of the scope of the SRD to include, eventually, d20 material published in Polyhedron, StarWars, Wheel of Time, d20 CoC, etc.?

Eric has already mentioned that some SW material is slated to go SRD, meanwhile the Psionic Handbook has gone mostly SRD, but not in such a reader friendly format as the original SRD.
 


Although I like the look of the new Polyhedron and its content.

I am a bit disappointed by it religation into just being a d20 magazine, and almost a WotC products magazine. Before the merger with the US RPGA the UK Polyhedron was doing some really good stuff supporting all sorts of game systems.

Their is life outside D20 and the RPGA should continue to support that.

Also it would be nice to actually get mine delivered. All the UK RPGA members are still waiting for thier first Dungeon/Polyhedron issue, unless they bought it in the shops.
 

Remove ads

Top