Is there no love for d20 modern?

[Ranger REG]

I asked because I'd hate to think I shelled out 100 bucks on a set of books and then have another edition come out and become the new "official" rules like the original 3.0/3.5 fiasco. That's all.

It depends on the vocal minority that want some changes to d20 Modern rules.

(FYI, I wasn't one of the rutting vocal minority that wanted 3.5e released three years after 3.0e. Not that it needed some changes ... some, it's the timing that is rutting wrong.)

From the look of the "d20 Modern 2.0" and "gun" discussions, the hyper-realists may get their wish.

Sorry, Neo. But they don't want to romanticize modern genres. There's nothing romantic about the modern days. They rather portray what's on the news, and I'm not talking about them rare human interest stories.

 

[Neo]

Sorry, Neo. But they don't want to romanticize modern genres. There's nothing romantic about the modern days. They rather portray what's on the news, and I'm not talking about them rare human interest stories.

So it seems Ranger REG.. still there are some of us who'd prefer a fun game over a realistic one.

Give the Doom & Gloom realists crowd actual guns and stick them in a field where they can run around and shoot each other.. im sure the novelty will wear off REAL quick They'll soon be begging for a fun game over a REAL one in no time...well what few left their probably are by then

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Give the Doom & Gloom realists crowd actual guns and stick them in a field where they can run around and shoot each other.. im sure the novelty will wear off REAL quick They'll soon be begging for a fun game over a REAL one in no time...well what few left their probably are by then

It's called "Anaconda" and it's in this lovely vacation spot known as "Iraq" and they can even get PAID to go there.

Anyway, some settings are grim and gritty and do well. Hey, even I like them.

Honestly, I had enough of being Mr. Average, when I play d20 Modern, I want to be a hero, not Joe Average.

If I wanted the CAW CAW! BANG! OH CRAP! I'M DEAD! playing, I'd play Rifts and wear SDC armor instead of a SAMAS suit.

I like the HP system, and the firearm damage. I'll admit it, at first I didn't like it, but once I dug deep into the system, and did some seriously brutal games, then some lighthearted, I found out that it was a GREAT toolkit.

Like I said, the only thing I'd change is the lethal/non-lethal aspect, the armored vehicles, and weapon ranges.

But that's me. For 90% of the games out there, it probably works just fine.

 

[Ranger REG]

So it seems Ranger REG.. still there are some of us who'd prefer a fun game over a realistic one.

Yeah, but we're coming to an extinction. Them rutting hyper-realists and gunbunnies are definitely taking the fun out of the game.

Give the Doom & Gloom realists crowd actual guns and stick them in a field where they can run around and shoot each other.. im sure the novelty will wear off REAL quick They'll soon be begging for a fun game over a REAL one in no time...well what few left their probably are by then

Hey, if they want realism, they can go play paintball.

Yeah, I'm being extra nice. My secret wet dream fantasy is test-fire firearms through their gut and ask for feedback. "On the scale of 'owie' to death rattle, how would you rate the .45 from the Desert Eagle?"

 

[SWBaxter]

*BANG* your dead is NOT fun

Eh, I've played games where it is. But I agree that d20 Modern isn't trying to be that kind of game, and trying to make it that kind of game is probably counterproductive.

OTOH, Sidewinder: Recoiled shootouts are basically a bang-yer-dead situation, and those work pretty well, so it can be done. The thing to remember with d20 Modern is it's a cinematic game, if there's a reality that it's trying to simulate it's the "reality" found in action movies and TV shows.

 

[Vigilance]

Eh, I've played games where it is. But I agree that d20 Modern isn't trying to be that kind of game, and trying to make it that kind of game is probably counterproductive.

Well, as the person who characterized the opinions of some Modern gamers as wanting "bang you're dead", let me make a couple of points:

1. I have no problem with that mechanically, as long as a system is HONEST about it and handles it elegantly. A lot of hyper-realists pile on effect after effect (lots of damage, then an immediate save of some sort to avoid death, possibly ability damage, then continuing damage from blood loss- often more than one of these).

My contention is that it's better to replace such effect layering, which usually just prolong the inevitable and add extra dice rolling to a combat with "bang you're dead".

At least that's fast and the player knows up front what he is getting himself into.

2. Although I personally don't like that sort of game, I agree it CAN be fun, in games where you are trying to make a certain point. The non-d20 Call of Cthulhu immediately leaps to mind. Gun battles are not a feature of the game on a regular basis.

Another issue with the hyper-realist gamers is that they often impose "Bang you're dead" rules systems on games where they expect a LOT of combat. I guess some people get a perverse pleasure out of a huge bodycount.

If you read Strutinan's original post for example, he complains about unrealistic combat in a True Lies type game. Beacuse um... when he thinks of gritty, hyper-realistic combat, Strutinan apparently thinks of the old Combat tv show and True Lies... I'm guessing.

3. I've never seen any indication that "Bang you're dead" *is* more realistic. My stepfather was a WWII commando from 38-45 who had several bullet scars he would show me (and more in places he wouldn't) as well as dozens (literally) of shrapnel scars.

He also told me that he considered a knife much more dangerous than a gun. His exact comment: "Two men can stand in an alley and shoot at each other all day. When they run out of ammo and pull their knives, only one is walking out."

He also told me he had killed more men with his knife than his gun.

Again, I neither know nor WANT to know much about the realities of combat, but I do consider hyper realism to be more complicated and less fun than similar systems that allow the PCs to be heroes.

Chuck

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Good points all, Chuck.

I was just thinking more about "lethality as realism", and was contemplating things much along the points you're making.

Alot of DEATHS attributed to guns, I think, are what game mechanics would term more as CDGs or surprise attacks of some type. Close range, non-combative situations in which one person is entirely in control of what is going on and where/how another person is going to receive the bullet.

Which led me to think back to a recreation-of-history bit I saw a while back on the infamous Shoot-Out At the OK Corral. What I came away from that show with is this: The shoot-out happened at ranges of 30' or less. An inordinate number of bullets were fired that never hit ANYBODY. And that it was really the surprise factor and luck that led to victory on one side or the other.

And the science behind that worked for me. Adrenaline and fear. People are so jacked up that their fine motor control goes out the window. Primal flight reflexes and all that. So people standing 15' apart might unload on eachother and hit nothing but air, as they're MORE concerned with hoping not to get shot than they are on hoping they shoot the other guy.

Which holds with your father in law's recollection of WWII, and my father's seldom-told tales of 'Nam. Pop got shot a few times, and shot at a few more people, but mostly where most of the dying went on was when he was firing something big and nasty at folks who were little more than shapes in the distance.

Not that people don't get killed with gun. Lots of them every day. But I don't think alot of them are in situations where both sides are armed and firing at eachother in reasonably small spaces ... I.E. RPG Combat Model.

I don't often see mechanics for "Whizzing Yourself In Panic While Firing" or "Jacked Up On Adrenaline Till You Can't Shoot Straight". Folks get all concerned about damage and shock and bleeding and recoil and caliber and powder load and how strong you have to be to effectively fire a particular weapon ... but what about lovingly crafted rules for body-chemical-induced panic, shell-shock, and voiding yourself after getting shot?



--fje

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

One thing that would amuse me is a Fortitude check to avoid puking when the character is coming down off the adrenaline rush.

"Well, Bob, you didn't save. You vomit in front of the cameras and all over a cameraman."

Happened to me. Every. Damn. Time.

 

[Psion]

#1. Real-world violence generally sucks. As an ex-public defender married to a cop, I understand that now a lot better than I did ten years ago, when I was just another idiot who had never been in a real fight but was a damn nerd expert on the subject. When there are men younger than me, and braver than me, experiencing the real thing in Iraq, I am not gonna sit around rolling dice and thinking that what I'm doing is anything more than storytelling.

#2. Simulationist RPGs generally suck. They suck as simulations, and they suck as RPGs. You cannot simulate fear and adrenaline and confusion, and I've come to think that maybe that's what it's really all about in a real fight. Combine the aforementioned nerd hubris with a supposed emphasis on "realism" and you end up with a supposedly "Smart Hero" accidently sawing his own arm off with a chainsaw.

Keep the emotions real, and the action cinematic.

:Applause:

Thanks for putting a fine point on it.

 

[Pbartender]

... but what about lovingly crafted rules for body-chemical-induced panic, shell-shock, and voiding yourself after getting shot?

Look up Spycraft 2.0 -- Stress Damage.

At best, stress damage prevents you from taking 10 or 20, and you take a -4 penalty to all Wisdom and Charisma checks. At higher levels of stress damage, that -4 penalty begins to include Initiative checks, Reflex and Will saves, and Attack checks. Plus, to take penalties to being able to use your Action Dice. At worst, stress damage will also temporarily drain levels.

Plus, the more stress damage you accumulate, the tougher it is to heal. A handful of stress damage will heal at 1 point per minute. One you get stress damage over five times your Wisdom, it takes a week to heal each point... you could be shell-shocked for months.

Painful types of damage (like explosions, falling, fire, acid or electricity) deal some stress damage. Also, in combat, you can use a Threaten action to inclict stress damage on an opponent. Some feats (Glint of Madness, Stone Cold, Undermine) and special abilities (Fearsome, Horrific, Unnerving) also enhance stress damage or add stress damage to a normal attack.

~~~

Which brings up a point more relavent to the original discussion.

Our group played a few games of D20 Modern when it first came out, but ended up giving it up. The players, you see, found the system rather uninspired and dull. D20 Modern is very generic... Too generic, for their tastes. It's not even that the rules or the system are boring, but the names and descriptions of the classes, abilities, feats and such simply didn't excite their interest.

I know it's a rather superficial complaint, but it certainly does make a big difference in their enjoyment of the game, if they can say "My Grizzled Veteran Soldier just picked up the feat Hard Core, now I've got all the prerequisites for Too Ugly to Die!" or "My Witty Playboy Faceman has Not In The Face! and Bloodstain Resistant now, so maybe he won't get hit in combat so often."

It boils down to... D20 Modern is very versatile. It will model practically any modern genre well. But, in any specific genre, there is some other game that models it far, far better.