What would you change for d20 Modern 2.0

[Ranger REG]

My biggest complaint about D20 Modern is that the setting books are too small for three or four settings. One setting per 97 page book would be nice.

Meh. Either them mini-campaign model options stay in (serve as campaign examples, excuses, or ideas to use FX) or all of them drop out of the rulebook.

After all, not much of Greyhawk are in the Player's Handbook, only as needed (e.g., deities and their domains for clerics).

BTW, is it true that only the vocal minority here criticized and/or questioned the existence of Urban Arcana -- much like I question the upcoming d20 Superheroes -- while the majority of customers bought the books?

 

[glass]

I think I'd be inclined to wait to see what happens with D&D 4th edition first...

I think a future edition of d20 Modern and one of D&D should be developed together, with increased compatibility. That way, they could ditch the 'converted D&D monster' listings that a lot of people seem to be complaining about, because you could use D&D monsters straight out of the MM if you so chose.

I also think there is a case for splitting modern/historical and sci-fi/space opera into separate games. The latter really has more in common with fantasy in terms of setting familiarity and party roles (and therefore character creation) than it does with the former.


glass.

 

[Plane Sailing]

BTW, is it true that only the vocal minority here criticized and/or questioned the existence of Urban Arcana -- much like I question the upcoming d20 Superheroes -- while the majority of customers bought the books?

Well, I criticised Urban Arcana and didn't buy the book; I'll leave it for you to decide whether that makes me part of the vocal minority!

Whether the majority of customers bought the books or not is between WotC and their sales figures

 

[JPL]

Except instead of focusing on vampires or demons, Shadow Chasers has the PCs chasing kobolds and goblins... IOW, exactly the same D&D "creatures of Shadow" as Urban Arcana. Like I said, same setting with different character perspectives -- in one you hunt the bad D&D creatures, in the other you interact with the good D&D creatures while fighting the bad D&D creatures (and bad humans). They're about as different as Buffy and Angel.

If you want to keep them as separate settings, then I'd agree that differentiation is the key. I'd make the SC characters strictly non-powered, with limited magic of a Cthulhu-esque vein, and the monsters much more Cthulhu-esque as well; and make the UA characters the Hellboy-esque pulp supers. But personally I'd drop one of them, as it's hard to make the case that d20M isn't "D&D Modern" when 2 of the 3 included settings are indeed D&D Modern.

KoOS

I'll have to take another look, because my recollection was that SC focuses more on vampires and werewolves and such [maybe I'm thinking more of the orginal minigame in Polyhedron]. That said...a darker, horror-based approach to goblins and kobolds [as evil fae types] would be worth doing...but I agree that focusing more on the types that don't have a strong connotation of D&D would be better.

I think the fact that PC magic is so limited in SC is a big difference from UA. In SC, magic is something that can be studied [the Occultist] or opposed [the Shadow Hunter], but it's not something that can be mastered by mere mortals. Limit the flow of magic items and throw in some risky incantation magic, and you've got something pretty close to CoC as far as magical firepower. Maybe add the fear/insanity rules --- so in UA, the supernatual can be strange and wonderful, but in SC, it is frightening stuff.

But yeah...I would prefer to have one setting that was very clearly "D&D Modern" [because that's a worthwhile campaign model], and one that was very clearly something else. Just having "the Shadow" in both settings is enough to make them seem quite similar.

 

[Flynn]

I'd Keep It In One Core Book...

The number one thing that would do different is release a Player's book, a GM's book and a Monster book.

By jamming all three into one book, you only touch on topics that need to be explored in detail and it opens up space for all of the alternate systems already mentioned.

As a voice against this suggestion, I would comment that D20 Modern is a WOTC product that only takes the one book to play. That's a much lower investment for the money-tight gamer than three separate books, and that has a lot of appeal in some circles. I would continue to desire and support a single core book concept for D20 Modern 2.0 (or whatever), with a monster manual and then a GM's book to follow, for those that want more material to work with.

If someone is writing their own system, I'd definitely point them to the model shown in D20 Modern, rather than follow the D&D model. I think you'd get better investment and interest.

YMMV,
Flynn

 

[Ranger REG]

Well...UA and Shadow Chasers certainly have overlap, but the former is more "D&D in the real world" while the latter is Buffy / Angel / Blade.

You forget Special Unit 2, (a failed UPN TV series) Ghostbusters, and most recently Supernatural and Night Stalkers (recently canceled ABC TV series remake). Also, Charmed.

 

[Ranger REG]

As a voice against this suggestion, I would comment that D20 Modern is a WOTC product that only takes the one book to play. That's a much lower investment for the money-tight gamer than three separate books, and that has a lot of appeal in some circles. I would continue to desire and support a single core book concept for D20 Modern 2.0 (or whatever), with a monster manual and then a GM's book to follow, for those that want more material to work with.

So in the end, you still end up with at least three books. LOL!

 

[Greg K]

I have no problem with The Psychic Handbook and Mythic Earth type psionic and magic systems. IMHO they "fit" the modern setting much better than the traditional D&D versions.

I have already stated that I feel the Psychic Handbook should be used, but I couldn't previously comment on Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth. Well, Ryan was kind enough to send me a copy (Thank you again Ryan).

While I only have completely read the first two chapters and chapter 4 before eagerly glancing through the other chapters, I have to agree that the magic system appears to fit a modern setting much better than the magic and psionic systems from DND. While there are one or two traditions that I most likely would never include in a game (and this just has to do with the of the type of games that I like to run ), Ryan has done an impressive job. Now, I just need to test it play.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

BTW, is it true that only the vocal minority here criticized and/or questioned the existence of Urban Arcana -- much like I question the upcoming d20 Superheroes -- while the majority of customers bought the books?

I bought it.

I thought it was largely stupid, at first, but it had some things in it I wanted ... more equipment, some useful stuff for monsters, some good monsters (and some bad), and Incantations. Incantations were very nice, and I picked it up very much in part for that.

I recently got to play it when one of my usual players decided he wanted to run a d20Modern campaign. He'd run D&D just a few months before (his first time running) and it was a good match for him.

He really got into it, and in the end, I think it turned out great. I figured it would suck, but it had a campy joy to it. Like Buffy or Angel. You KNOW it's sort of dumb, but when you're doing it, you can "embrace the dumb", perhaps. Stopping by The Prancing Pony for a big-gulp and to meet your dwarven contact ... hehheh.

--fje

 

[The Shaman]

BTW, is it true that only the vocal minority here criticized and/or questioned the existence of Urban Arcana -- much like I question the upcoming d20 Superheroes -- while the majority of customers bought the books?

I bought it on the naïve presumption that it was good as a gamer to "support the product line." :\

I've used the equipment list and the incantations rules, but Urban Arcana itself as a campaign model holds no appeal for me - my idea of modern fantasy has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons.