What would you change for d20 Modern 2.0

[The Shaman]

Present more example foes, of a wider range of levels (not just 1, 5, and 10) so the DM/Gm doesn't have to do as much work

Does anyone else remember 1001 Characters, the first Traveller supplement from GDW many years ago?

I got so much use out of that Traveller book when I GM'd. I would love to exactly that same treatment for d20 Modern ordinaries, with a few heroic NPCs as well.

How many ordinaries could we fit in a 96-page softcover? Could we get close to that 1001 figure?

 

[King of Old School]

But wasn't this true of the market in general? Publishers releasing product for Dungeons and Dragons went through the same drop in sales and consequently there was a culling of the herd across the tiny industry.

The difference is that D&D had a couple of years of heavy support before the bubble burst, for good or ill. With d20M, the support proposed in the initial stages of the project pulled out before ever seeing a store shelf.

KoOS

 

[The Shaman]

With d20M, the support proposed in the initial stages of the project pulled out before ever seeing a store shelf.

I recall reading about that as well.

Would you agree that there's still room for the Modern market to grow?

 

[Flynn]

1001 Ordinaries in 96 pages?

How many ordinaries could we fit in a 96-page softcover? Could we get close to that 1001 figure?

Man, I love Traveller.

As to your question, I'd assume that you would have to fit (1001/96=10.42...) 11 statblocks per page in order to hit that desired mark. Depending on the typeface and the amount of detail, this may be possible, though it might be a bit crowded.

Just a thought,
Flynn

 

[King of Old School]

Would you agree that there's still room for the Modern market to grow?

Well, "room" isn't really the issue. I think the question is, is d20M a dynamic enough product to carry an expanded market? I don't know. The demand, for print products at least, seems to be going in the wrong direction.

Wizards is still looking for that "killer app" that will compel people to buy the d20M corebook so that they can use it (frex, Vampire: the Requiem is the killer app for the NWoD corebook). UrbArc was supposed to be that product, but wasn't; then d20F was supposed to be that product, but wasn't. I can confidently predict right now that d20 Spectaculars won't be that product. All of these supplements are mostly just servicing the existing fanbase. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you are interested in seeing the d20M print market grow then something else is required.

(A third-party supplement could also be the killer app for d20M. GWd20 could have been that product, but we all saw how that turned out.)

Is there a killer app out there for d20M? I don't know. Can the print market grow without one? I don't know.

KoOS

 

[Ranger REG]

Serious question: have you ever actually played any of the WoD games?

Had a few bad experiences with a Vampire game. Pretty much ruined my desire to play any Storyteller games.

 

[Ranger REG]

But wasn't this true of the market in general? Publishers releasing product for Dungeons and Dragons went through the same drop in sales and consequently there was a culling of the herd across the tiny industry.

True, but at least D&D had a lot more third-party publishers than d20 Modern, and with good reason: there are more Player's Handbook owners than there are d20 Modern Rulebook owners.

I don't see this as specific to d20 Modern - I also think that Modern is still looking for its breakthrough product from WotC. As good as the third-party publishers are, they don't have the same marketing presence as Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast. When WotC decides to really back Modern, everyone will benefit down the line.

Perhaps, but what direction should WotC take the d20 Modern line toward?

First, I don't think AEG was lucky - looking at the books they produced, I think they had some very good writers and did a great job capturing the feel of the genre.

Lucky to have the most competent writers there to capture a very specific modern genre or subgenre (superspy).

Second, I disagree that it's easier to write for medieval games. Consider how much "generic setting material" is available on the Modern world: even the Forgotten Realms can't touch the depth and breadth of real-world history.

That's because Forgotten Realms does not re-enact the real world, just use it as a reference point and inspiration. The rest is your imagination.

Here's where I see the challenge for writing for Modern games: when you say "dungeons and dragons," everyone has a relatively common frame of reference, even if the details vary considerably. When you say "modern," it's all about the details, wherein the subgenres (espionage, military, criminal investigation, monster hunting, &c.) tend to define the game for many players. That's why I believe the breakthrough setting will be something like Dark*Matter that brings together a number of these subgenres in a way that offers a little something for everyone, but taps into a different audience than the one looking for "D&D with guns."

IOW, while Greyhawk is distinctly D&D, you want a campaign setting that is distinctly d20 Modern.

Sure, I have no objection to that. Question is: why is WotC taking so long to develop one?

 

[C. Baize]

True, but at least D&D had a lot more third-party publishers than d20 Modern, and with good reason: there are more Player's Handbook owners than there are d20 Modern Rulebook owners.

Or maybe because there was a built in fanbase from the highest selling RPG of all time?

Perhaps, but what direction should WotC take the d20 Modern line toward?

Why choose a particular direction? I rather enjoy the toolkit technique.

IOW, while Greyhawk is distinctly D&D, you want a campaign setting that is distinctly d20 Modern.

Like Urban Arcana, or Shadow Chasers, or Blood and Relics, or Pinebox, or any of a number of other distinctly D20 Modern settings?

Sure, I have no objection to that. Question is: why is WotC taking so long to develop one?

Perhaps they don't see it as a viable selling point?

 

[Ranger REG]

Or maybe because there was a built in fanbase from the highest selling RPG of all time?

Which still reinforced my previous statement.

Why choose a particular direction? I rather enjoy the toolkit technique.

So do I. But some fickle d20 Modern gamers prefer a better "playground" than Urban Arcana to jump into.

Like Urban Arcana, or Shadow Chasers, or Blood and Relics, or Pinebox, or any of a number of other distinctly D20 Modern settings?

Again, some fickle d20 Modern gamers strictly want WotC-designed and -labeled setting book, not counting Urban Arcana which is dismissed by them as being "Modern D&D."

I'm not against you.

Perhaps they don't see it as a viable selling point?

I understand WotC's POV. I just don't totally and entirely (100%) agree with it. A setting book can help promote the core rules product, even if the setting book sales slump eventually (like Spycraft's Shadowforce Archer, which is not exactly appropriate for Spycraft but more appropriate for d20 Modern's FX, IMHO).

 

[C. Baize]

Which still reinforced my previous statement.

In a way, though my point I guess was more along the lines of "It's a safe pool to jump into" rather than taking a chance to write for an unknown quantity. A situation which magnified itself, really.
"I'm not going to write for it, because it's new and unknown."
"Look! I was right, nobody else is writing for it, either!"
Never realizing that others were in the same mindset they were to begin with... Wait and see. Well... with nearly every publisher "waiting and seeing", only the most innovative companies supported D20 Modern. And now because everyone "waited and saw", D20 Modern is a much smaller pool with some very loyal adherents to particular companies, it would appear.

So do I. But some fickle d20 Modern gamers prefer a better "playground" than Urban Arcana to jump into.

"Better" is so subjective...

Again, some fickle d20 Modern gamers strictly want WotC-designed and -labeled setting book, not counting Urban Arcana which is dismissed by them as being "Modern D&D."

Yeah... the "It's only official if it's from WotC" crowd... I don't suppose I'll ever understand them.

I'm not against you.

I know. It's why I'm discussing instead of arguing.

I understand WotC's POV. I just don't totally and entirely (100%) agree with it. A setting book can help promote the core rules product, even if the setting book sales slump eventually (like Spycraft's Shadowforce Archer, which is not exactly appropriate for Spycraft but more appropriate for d20 Modern's FX, IMHO).

It MAY be that they fell victim to the same mindset that kept a lot of 3rd party publishers from dipping their toes into the pool...
They waited and saw, and the lack of an inundation of support (to the level of D&D) turned a bunch of gamers into Chicken Littles telling that the sky was falling on D20 Modern because there was "no support".
I still see that as weird... I used the same few books for upwards of a decade without buying more, and it was fine.
What do you suppose it is that makes people cry about the end of a line if a dozen products per day aren't released for it?