True20 and Modern Games

[Ranger REG]

A buddy and I are working on an SF setting and using the True20 system pretty much lock, stock and barrel.

We will have some rare psionics, and the Adept role will work fine for that. For all other character concepts, the Expert and Warrior roles should be just fine.

Want a scientist? Expert, with all of your extra feats going into more skills. Take the Skill Focus, Skill Mastery and Talented feats. Then lower your dex, str and con (if so desired).

Want an engineer? Expert with lots of craft skills.

Want a mercenary? Warrior.

Want a crafty merchant? Expert with lots of social skills and the Connected and Contacts feats.

We will be adding a few more feats (basically space and space-craft combat feats), but we are also thinking about taking the d20 Modern talent trees and incorportating them into the system as feats.

Hmm.

To borrow from d20 Modern, if one were to use True20 in a "non-FX" setting, then you're limited to two roles: Warrior and Expert. Why not include a role that is ... for lack of a better word ... motivational or bard-like. Someone who can sweet-talk or persuade people to follow, to embrace a cause, etc. A Lumimary.

 

[Skywalker]

To borrow from d20 Modern, if one were to use True20 in a "non-FX" setting, then you're limited to two roles: Warrior and Expert. Why not include a role that is ... for lack of a better word ... motivational or bard-like. Someone who can sweet-talk or persuade people to follow, to embrace a cause, etc. A Lumimary.

True 20 Experts cover all skills not just those relating to intelligence. In D20, this includes all charisma based skills.

My own opinion is that if you have no FX then you only need the 2 roles Warrior and Expert. In fact, I would even look at going with just the Expert and creating 5 combat skills (melee, ranged, unarmed, dodge and parry) or using M&M without the powers.

 

[Fate Lawson]

Yep, RR's hit it on the head. Without F/X True20 can end up like a three-legged stool with one leg missing. However, if you look closely at any genre without F/X you will see that there is a 3rd archetype that can be extrapolated to replace the missing Class. The Social Adept. This character isn't particularly Smart (Expert) or Physical (Warrior) but does manage to get things done through his or her Social abilities, whether through sheer personality or family connections or monetary resources. The Dillitant, The Personality, The Idle Rich. For me I think of Bertie Wooster. Jeeves is the Expert, Bertie is the Socialite.

 

[Skywalker]

Yep, RR's hit it on the head. Without F/X True20 can end up like a three-legged stool with one leg missing. However, if you look closely at any genre without F/X you will see that there is a 3rd archetype that can be extrapolated to replace the missing Class. The Social Adept. This character isn't particularly Smart (Expert) or Physical (Warrior) but does manage to get things done through his or her Social abilities, whether through sheer personality or family connections or monetary resources. The Dillitant, The Personality, The Idle Rich. For me I think of Bertie Wooster. Jeeves is the Expert, Bertie is the Socialite.

True 20 does not split the roles this way though. True 20 Roles are actually designed along the lines of a classless system. The idea is that the roles have very little impact on the actual concept that one creates with them. Instead, they ensure mechanical balance for those who specialise in the areas of combat and magic.

So True 20 splits PCs along the 3 major parts of the d20 system - combat, skills and magic. It does not do so along the 3 major types of PC concepts i.e. physical, mental and social. So Warriors are combat not physical and Experts are skill not mental. For example, an athlete in True 20 is more likely to be an Expert than a Warrior to get the higher Reflex and Fortitude saves and all the physical skills.

In you suggestion above, all the social abilities are skills and are so covered by the Expert. The other abilities are feats which are either General or Expert.

I am not saying one couldn't create 3 Classes based on physical, mental and social. However, to do this in True 20 you would need to replace all three classes and many of the systems that make True 20 so flexible like getting to choose any Skills rather than having Class Skill lists.

 

[Ranger REG]

I am not saying one couldn't create 3 Classes based on physical, mental and social. However, to do this in True 20 you would need to replace all three classes and many of the systems that make True 20 so flexible like getting to choose any Skills rather than having Class Skill lists.

Well, I admit not having seen the True20 System ruleset, at least outside of my copy of Blue Rose. I'm confident that Chris Pramas won't let us down by allowing the (three?) roles to be flexible and generic enough to be used in all genres. But I personally do like the idea that the most basic roles are divided by physical, mental, and social talents.

But if you want classless, heck even roleless, then stick with an adaptation of the MnM rules engine.

BTW, I'm not in favor of having class & cross-class skills but rather grant role bonus on skills based on physical, mental, or social function.

 

[carpedavid]

Yep, RR's hit it on the head. Without F/X True20 can end up like a three-legged stool with one leg missing. However, if you look closely at any genre without F/X you will see that there is a 3rd archetype that can be extrapolated to replace the missing Class. The Social Adept. This character isn't particularly Smart (Expert) or Physical (Warrior) but does manage to get things done through his or her Social abilities, whether through sheer personality or family connections or monetary resources. The Dillitant, The Personality, The Idle Rich. For me I think of Bertie Wooster. Jeeves is the Expert, Bertie is the Socialite.

I'll echo Skywalker here, and note that a "Social" class is covered quite adequately by the Expert class. They get the greatest number of skills, so give them Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Sense Motive (and two others: maybe knowledge or perform), plus starting feats of Fascinate, Inspire, Suggest, and Well-Informed - and, ta-da, you've got a socialite.

The greatest strength of the True20 system is that flavor of whatever sort is something you lay on top of the system - you don't need to build it in mechanically by creating all sorts of new classes. That's one of the things that's been turning me off of the current incarnation of D&D - every time someone wants a character with a slightly different flavor, they build an entirely new core class. Here, the classes are separated out by role: the magic user, the skill user, and the weapon user. In a non-fx system, simply dropping the "magic user" role is fine, since everything else you'd want to do is already covered by the other two classes.

If it wasn't, we'd be talking about adding new classes into the system regardless of whether a particular setting has fx.

 

[Denaes]

I agree with both CarpeDavid & Skywalker

The Expert covers anyone who is skilled in something. Be it theivery, diplomacy, merchantry, music, etc.

To create a social Role would be to copy & paste the Expert and rename it Social. It's the same thing mechanically. Socialites arn't inherantly any less combat talanted than a merchant, electrician, blacksmith, etc. They can choose their saves, so that's not an issue. They can choose their skills and purchase feats to give them bonuses to whatever skills they feel are important.

One note to make, Adept doesn't just cover magic users, but also those who are inherently supernatural from what I recall.

 

[Stormborn]

We are getting to the crux of my concern for True20 in modern settings. The Adept. To leave it out seems to leave the system incomplete. On the other hand a pure magic using class, from level 1 on, also seems wrong for a modern game. Now I realize thats a personal prefrence, but to me if you have these full spellcasters running around its no longer even a fictionalized version of the real world, its Waterdeep with I-Pods and Ice Cream.

So, do you say that no one can take Adpet at 1st level? That too seems contrary to the system.

The modern rules in True 20 seem like an add-on. The core conciet seems to be to model Fantasy Role Play. Which it seems like it would do very well. I am not entirelly sure there can be a Generic RPG that fits everything. Someone said the beauty of True 20 is that you lay the flavor on top of its rules. I don't know if you can do that. The designers mostly likely had a direction in mind, however broad it might have been, and that was probablly DnD like Fantasy. The further from that direction you go the less applicable the sytem seems to be.

Edit: And as long as we are talking about the adaptability of the Expert role, if FX are feat and skill based, why not just let the Expert fill the magic user role as well? In fact, if you do away with the feat restrictions all together you end up with a Combat option and a Skill option that cover everything, no need for an Adept at all.

 

[Denaes]

For True20 the initial concept was modern supers (M&M). It was then adapted to Romantic Fantasy which is so magic light, lethal and cinematic (with conviction) that it's pretty much fantasy that is nothing like D&D.

Adepts arn't spell-slingers. They use supernatural abilities which transcend spells, but at the same time arn't nearly as effective in a specific application but are more generic overall.

It would work like so in a modern setting:

The Adept would be allowed if the GM were to allow magic.

If the GM did not want specialized magic users, then the Adept would serve no purpose as thats what the Role does.

If the GM Wants magic and not the Adept, the Warrior & Expert can still take the Wild Talant (or something like that) Feat and choose magic/powers that they just won't be as good at.

If the GM wanted no magic (perfectly reasonable in a Modern Setting) then they wouldn't allow the Adept or that Feat.

There isn't anything wrong with that. The only problem I've found with True20 is that it doesn't do spells if that's what you want. It's a Feat based magic system which isn't nearly as flashy or over the top... but down right lethal.

If you go with Adept and/or Adept Powers, you still might want to limit things to psychic powers, less flashy (controling elements & magic healing).

I'm not sure how having a magic using class makes modern Waterdeep with inane technology.

What really defines fantasy we commonly role play in (but not always) is magic, fantasy races & lower levels of technology.

What really defines strict modern is modern technology & weapons, no other races (ie elves & dwarves) & no magic.

Now from there you can go with Modern Sci-fi & Modern Fantasy. Modern Fantasy is more like Modern with Magic.

Allowing access to the paranormal Adept powers does not make "Waterdeep with I-Pods and Ice Cream" - but waterdeep without fantasy races, flashy magic, stone/wood houses & monsters and with modern technology including weapons, mass transportation, law enforcement & education. Which even if set in "Waterdeep 500 years later" or "Modern Waterdeep" would still bear little resemblance Waterdeep in D&D.

This is a choice every GM makes when running a modern game. Do I include supernatural elements and to what extent. Some systems won't handle this choice at all. True20 does quite well with various degrees without houseruling things.

 

[carpedavid]

Someone said the beauty of True 20 is that you lay the flavor on top of its rules. I don't know if you can do that. The designers mostly likely had a direction in mind, however broad it might have been, and that was probablly DnD like Fantasy. The further from that direction you go the less applicable the sytem seems to be.

Actually, I've got about half a dozen settings that are not at all D&D like (a couple of sci-fi settings, a space-swashbuckling setting, and an asian fantasy setting) in development that I could see using True20 for without any trouble.

I stll think that dropping the adept role completely, while it seems wasteful (why'd I pay $12 for a book that I'm only using two-thirds of?), leaves a full and complete system. You can still allow for minor magic by limiting people to taking the Wild Talent feat. In fact, for a system where magic is unpredictable, this solution works particularly well.

Edit: And as long as we are talking about the adaptability of the Expert role, if FX are feat and skill based, why not just let the Expert fill the magic user role as well? In fact, if you do away with the feat restrictions all together you end up with a Combat option and a Skill option that cover everything, no need for an Adept at all.

Honestly, I can see with doing away with both the warrior and adept roles, and keeping the expert as the only role. You could then open up the restricted feats to this one class, and you'd probably be fine.

Edit: the game-balance function that that the Adept role provides is that most power effects are based on the user's Adept level. The Wild Talent feat allows the user to employ a power at his full character level, but at the cost of a potential loss of control.

Therefore, the reason that you wouldn't want to do away with the Adept and simply open things up is, basically, game balance.