... and d20 is a game with firearms where hand-to-hand combat specialists aren´t so dangerous...
I´m sure Wizards of the Coast has a secret project of d20 Modern 2.0., but we will not see until 2010 at least. Maybe we will have a new in summer of 2009, but I´m not very sure.
... and d20 is a game with firearms where hand-to-hand combat specialists aren´t so dangerous...
Not true at all. One of the biggest problems with d20 Modern is the fact Melee characters trump ranged combatants. Its like the CoDzilla problem of 3e, but with a smaller gap in power. The best combat class in the CRB is the Martial Artist, after all.
If there is a new version of Modern, I'd rather it be more based on the SW Saga rules. I'm not entirely sold on the idea that 4e powers in a modern game will work well at all.
I've played under, say, WoD before and enjoyed the system a lot, but I don't see how it necessarily does anything d20 can't. How is the 4e setup so antithetical to Modern mechanics and/or Modern flavor??
Modern weapons would not change anything. Not even your tactics. Fighting as or against an archer is the same as a rifleman.
Modern snipers are even called "rangers."
I agree with marius4. Why wouldn't 4e work in a modern setting? You may need to reflavor some of the feats and skills. You could restrict (or add) power sources that don't fit your campaign world.
Modern weapons would not change anything. Not even your tactics. Fighting as or against an archer is the same as a rifleman.
Modern snipers are even called "rangers."
To get d20 modern to work within 4e you'd have to remove the entire Daily powers system, because D20 modern uses real life as it's back drop, and there is nothing that you, or anyone you know, can do that you can only do once per day, most of the powers themselves are pretty extra-ordinary (another thing not present in real life).
To get D20 modern to fit in 4e you'd have to cut elements out of 4e or make a modern tech setting that in no way resembles Earth.
That being said, there is a 3rd party publisher which is publishing something along the lines of a 4e d20 Modern setting. Check out Amethyst here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1075786 . Also, the same company is working on a 4e Cyberpunk game. Check out NeuroSpasta here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1130900 .
Amethyst is pretty much a d20 Urban Arcana setting. In turn, NeuroSpasta is pretty much a d20 Cyberscape setting. Both, as I said above, are written for the 4e ruleset.
Now, you would almost certainly need to watch any player who is good at power gaming a monster when given this sort of cherry picking class deluxe. But for most players I think this woul dbe a very fun way to play.
But, you would also need to figure out guns. We have started making gun stats for 4th edition use and so far we have them being on par with the core weapons as far as dice are concerned, but you design them to be used with powers. You also have to really limit range for things.
But I for one would love a 4th edition modern, or modern 2.0.
I don't agree at all that the 4E class/power system is somehow incompatible with adventure in a modern setting. 4E already surpassed the "why is the Fighter only limited to using that attack once per day?" boundary, and the actual justification for it (a limitation based on game and narrative rather than world mechanics) works just as well in a modern or sci-fi setting as in a fantastic one.
At least for a Modern Fantasy sense.
"Tame " Modern D20 is Saga Starwars sans, laser guns, starships and Force.
Fantastic Modern, would work great with 4e.
I've heard speculation to expect it Summer or October this year but Wizards has not said word one about it. So I doubt we'll see it that soon.
I would say that any new Modern game would be better suited based off of Saga rather than 4E.
A Modern game would work great based off Saga. In fact, I have a "Modern" sci-fi world I wrote and use with Saga rules in my signature. But, it would not work any "better" based off Saga then it would off 4e, it would just be different. And the thing is, I am really not sure what a Modern game based off Saga can offer us that Saga has not already. If they released a book for use with the other Saga products that just listed the stats for Modern technology, and gave some pointers on how to use the Saga mechanics and classes in a Modern/real world setting instead of a Star Wars setting, I would buy it. But, if they just re-released the Saga rules but skinned for Modern I wouldn't. It is so easy to do that with Saga yourself, there just would not be enough new material to make purchasing the product appealing.
On the other hand, making 4e into a Modern game would inherently take more work (and would require an entirely new set of classes). I would totally buy that product, because there is no possible way to make a Modern 4e game without a more voluminous quantity of new material.
That being said, either option would make an equally great (but very different) Modern game.
The difficulty is some advanced classes from d20M wasn´t for combat.
- For combat;
Soldier, Martial artist, gunslinger, daredevil, bodyguard,
- (Stealth * Infiltrator)
- No-combat;
Field scientist, techie, field medic, investigator, personality, negotiator, glamourist (UA), Shadowjack (UA), Speed Demon (UA), Ambassador (d20F), Engineer (d20F), Swindler (d20F), Mecha jocky (d20F)...
A couple of good fists sometimes are good, but some adventures aren´t mainly action but investigation, intrigue and diplomacy.
Other dificoult...what if my PC is a martial artist and has to fight without firearms againts a motocycle rider with a katana (Japanese sword). Worse, the enemy is shoting me since a helicopter.
Or my PC is soldier in a campaing of second world war, and now I haven´t ammunitions againts a war chariot/tank.
---
I´m afraid some different d20M will be necesary for diferent styles of campaigns (horror, war, thriller, superheroes, sci-fi/cyberpunk, soap opera..).
Do you imagine the epic level with d20 modern?
I see no reason why it can't be in the rules... but its not something I would run with my games. I would probably cap a 4e Modern game I run at 20th level.
The difficulty is some advanced classes from d20M wasn´t for combat.
- For combat;
Soldier, Martial artist, gunslinger, daredevil, bodyguard,
- (Stealth * Infiltrator)
- No-combat;
Field scientist, techie, field medic, investigator, personality, negotiator, glamourist (UA), Shadowjack (UA), Speed Demon (UA), Ambassador (d20F), Engineer (d20F), Swindler (d20F), Mecha jocky (d20F)...
A couple of good fists sometimes are good, but some adventures aren´t mainly action but investigation, intrigue and diplomacy.
Check the powers for many of classes you listed as "non-combat." Many of the powers they gain (not all) are combat oriented. I mean, speed demon is all about in combat powers for use with a vehicle. Its a vehicular combat advanced class. Mecha jocky is the same thing, but for fighting with mecha. Stuff like the negotiator and glamourist get some non combat utility powers, but some of their powers they gain are useful in combat as well.
Now, the sort of "non combat powers" those classes get are easily modeled using 4e Utility powers. What is even nicer, because a 4e mechanic models combat power and utility power out of two different pools or resources, you would no longer have "combat builds" and "non combat builds," with "combat builds" being useless outside of combat and non combat builds" being useless inside combat. There are no longer the rare classes which are ONLY good at combat or ONLY good outside of combat. All characters will be able to participate in all situations. If you ask me, that is a good thing. Moreover, the basic skill/skill challenge and utility power mechanic actually allows 4e to potentially be a better system for the resolution of non-combat encounters.
I do not think anything you mentioned would not be translatable into a 4e mechanic. I think much of it would translate very nicely. Translating the non-combat elements of d20 Modern into a 4e mechanic would not be difficult. All it requires is plenty of utility powers... and 4e already has an area of its mechanics expressly labeled "Utility Powers."
Other dificoult...what if my PC is a martial artist and has to fight without firearms againts a motocycle rider with a katana (Japanese sword). Worse, the enemy is shoting me since a helicopter.
Or my PC is soldier in a campaing of second world war, and now I haven´t ammunitions againts a war chariot/tank.
There is nothing difficult about writing vehicle rules for 4e. Indeed, 4e already has mounted combat and vehicular combat rules. I don't see why some version of those rules could not be worked into a Modern rule set. Again, I don't see where the difficulty or the problem lies.
I´m afraid some different d20M will be necesary for diferent styles of campaigns (horror, war, thriller, superheroes, sci-fi/cyberpunk, soap opera..).
And I am afraid I really don't agree. Horror is an express campaign style of D&D gaming already covered in the 4e DMG. I don't see why D&D horror is possible with 4e, but Modern horror is not. I see no reason why sci-fi or cyberpunk would not work well with a 4e rule set either. Indeed, I already posted a link to a 3rd party company working on a 4e ruleset cyberpunk game called NeuroSpasta, and an Urban Arcana/Sci-fi game called Amethyst. They have already proven that 4e can be used to run sci-fi and cyberpunk games. And 4e can't run war games? Really? 4e is more tactically minded then 3e ever was. 4e would be much better at running war themed games. That is probably one of the styles of gaming that 4e would really excel at. Superhero games? The power system can easily be modeled to represent mutant powers/superhero powers. I see no reason why 4e can't be used to run a great superhero game. In fact, it seems better suited to the task then 3e ever did. Thriller? Again, easy to run with 4e. Less combat encounters, more puzzles and skill challenges, and boom, you have the making of a thriller with the 4e system. I disagree on all counts. I think 4e would be great at running every type of game you mentioned, except for maybe soap opera... and who really wants to play The Days of Our Lives the Roleplaying Game anyway?
In 3rd edition I always loved doing crossovers between Toril, Oerth, etc. and Modern settings like Urban Arcana and various Future settings. I thought it worked awesome story-wise, but combining the two supposedly-compatible systems was always a pain in the ass.
As for NeuroSpasta, although it will take longer to produce, it is a closer version to true D20 modern.
I mean, speed demon is all about in combat powers for use with a vehicle. Its a vehicular combat advanced class. Mecha jocky is the same thing, but for fighting with mecha.
But if all PCs are within a building or dungeon... the can´t ride/drive a car or a mecha.
Stuff like the negotiator and glamourist get some non combat utility powers, but some of their powers they gain are useful in combat as well.
Sometimes the enemies aren´t humans or setient beings, animals for example.
* There is a great imbalance of power with modern item. A monter like a dinosaur is more difficoult in a d20 past campaign like "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle´s Lost World" that a space opera of d20 future. A sniper could kill half-dozen of lions or a elephant...or your PC can kill a target by radiocontrol of a car or airplan with explosives (the idea isn´t mine, I saw in a movie of Dirty Harry, the black list), or you can drive a armoured van to knock enemies (overcoat hordes of zombies) down.
There is rules for vehicules and mounts... but are they enough well balanced for PXs of reward?
How is the distribution of PXs after a massive battle like the siege of a castle with catapults, or a nava fight againt a pirate ship and some canons?
* It isn´t equal.... a undead or aberration monster with rules of fear or madness is more dangerous in a horror campaign that a classic D&D adventure where your PC kills dozens of them.
The question is the right reward of XPs when PC have better or worse item. If WotC has plans abaout a d20 Superheroes (Spectaculars) it will need a lot of playtesting. It´s different a d20 campaing with the style of Sin City (with charaters like Marv and Miho) or Batman of one where there is superpower, magic or high-technology (sci-fi).
Let´s imagine a apocalypse campaing where the PCs are ordinary people who fight againt super-zombies...(like from marvel universe Earth-2149), or where a vigilante (like Punisher or the Exterminator)) has to fight againt a alien invader with a armor of tech level 8 (better that Iron Man´s).
But if all PCs are within a building or dungeon... the can´t ride/drive a car or a mecha.
So what? A DM who allows a PC to take one of these classes, and then regularly sets the up in situations where the class is useless, is a bad DM. That being said, there is nothing to say that a 4e d20 Modern won't be very similar. If vehicular operator classes/powers are introduces, and these powers have a keyword which indicates that they can only be used while the character is operating a vehicle, then the exact same situation arises. And, its just as easy to write powers for vehicular combat in 4e as it was in 3e/d20 Modern. All it requires is the creation of a new keyword. I am not really sure what you are getting at... your example doesn't prove anything, or even indicate anything really...
Sometimes the enemies aren´t humans or setient beings, animals for example.
Again, what is your point? Its irrelevant. Are you saying that the combat powers some classes got could only be used against one particular type of creature? If so, this was an example of bad game design. It was not a good feature of d20 Modern. Having classes that were only useful against one type of creature, and then having your character come up against every type of creature but that one, was an infuriating aspect of 3e and d20 Modern. I am happy they got rid of it with 4e, and would hope that they will largely get rid of it with the next iteration of Modern as well. In either case, this aspect of Modern was not any more important to the Modern genre then the rogue who can not sneak attack undead was to D&D. I'm happy they got rid of the issue with 4e D&D, and I want them to get rid of the issue with a new Modern. It would not stop the system from running well as a Modern game.
* There is a great imbalance of power with modern item. A monter like a dinosaur is more difficoult in a d20 past campaign like "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle´s Lost World" that a space opera of d20 future. A sniper could kill half-dozen of lions or a elephant...or your PC can kill a target by radiocontrol of a car or airplan with explosives (the idea isn´t mine, I saw in a movie of Dirty Harry, the black list), or you can drive a armoured van to knock enemies (overcoat hordes of zombies) down.
Again, what is your point? There is no reason something like this can not be implemented easily with a 4e Modern. If higher PL items have higher damage dice, their increase in power will be even more obvious in a 4e Modern game (via the multiplied damage weapon powers mechanic). Likewise, if a GM gives players vehicles, their increase in power will likewise be immediately evident. The 3e system did not inherently have an "imbalance between the power of items at various progress levels." That entire mechanic was created via d20 Modern and rules for Modern/Future equipment. There is no reason something similar will not exist for a 4e Modern. Just like d20 Modern required some new rules from 3e, a 4e Modern will require a few new rules from 4e D&D. That doesn't mean it would be any harder to write a Modern system based off 4e D&D then it was to write such a system based off 3e D&D. Likewise, it doesn't mean that the 4e system would be any worse at running a Modern game. As I feel the 4e system is largely superior to the 3e system in every way, I actually think it would be better at running a Modern game. Indeed, its modular mechanics seem to make it easier to repackage the 4e system as Modern game if you ask me...
There is rules for vehicules and mounts... but are they enough well balanced for PXs of reward?
They were not balanced well enough for XP of reward in d20 Modern and d20 Future. The vehicular rules, Mecha rules, and Starship rules of d20 Modern and d20 Future caused major problems. I would say that the base rules for mounts and vehicular combat in 4e are a good sight better then the equivalent rules were in 3e D&D, though, which already means it will be less work to convert them into Modern vehicular rules. Certainly I think it will require some work, but much less then what was required to write the 3e to d20 Modern vehicular rules (which pretty much had to be written from scratch). And hopefully the 4e rules in this area of the game will work better then the 3e->d20 Modern rules did. That was not an area of the d20 Modern game that was lauded for its high quality in the first place!
I will, however, say that the best vehicular rules I have seen to date are those of Star Wars Saga. They mesh with the rest of the system fantastically.
How is the distribution of PXs after a massive battle like the siege of a castle with catapults, or a nava fight againt a pirate ship and some canons?
4e D&D does not have rules for mass combat. In the situations that you just described, in 4e D&D, a group would gain rewards for the individual encounters (which are part of this larger siege/naval battle) that they take part in and not for the larger scale war. Additionally, if there were particular military goals that the group needs to accomplish during the encounters, and if they accomplish these goals (basically causing the overarching narrative to depict their victory no only over encounters, but at war) they will get bonus exp (ad outlined in the DMG). The pirate ship encounter is actually small enough that it could easily be run as just a single encounter (and the two ships would essentially become the battle map for the combat between the players, any NPC allies they might have, and the crew of the opposing ship). And honestly, the rules for EXP distribution for such situations in 4e works pretty well. Again, however, I don't see the point of your question... your question in no way helps your stated case (that 4e would not make for a good Modern gaming system). What am I missing?
* It isn´t equal.... a undead or aberration monster with rules of fear or madness is more dangerous in a horror campaign that a classic D&D adventure where your PC kills dozens of them.
Yes. And for this reason reason there are different 4e creatures stated at different strengths. Indeed, there are creatures of different strengths stated even at the same level (from minion, to regular, to brute, elite, or even solo). And the 4e system is modular enough that it would be quite easy to add madness or fear rules if one wanted to (just like it was easy to add such rules to the Ravenloft setting for 2e or 3e D&D). Again, your are not really backing up your case that 4e would not work well for a Modern game.
The question is the right reward of XPs when PC have better or worse item. If WotC has plans abaout a d20 Superheroes (Spectaculars) it will need a lot of playtesting. It´s different a d20 campaing with the style of Sin City (with charaters like Marv and Miho) or Batman of one where there is superpower, magic or high-technology (sci-fi).
No more different then it was with the 3e system, and no harder to write rules for which use the 4e system. Certainly some new rules will be required. Perhaps some rules that adjudicate alterations to XP gain based on the PL or monetary value of a groups equipment will be required, for example... but these rules needed to be written for d20 Modern in the first place, and lets be honest, they often did not work so well for d20 Modern. There is no reason that something that does not work AT LEAST as well (if not a good sight better) could not be written for the 4e system. Again, I don't see how you are in any way indicating that 4e could not be used to create a new d20 Modern game.
Let´s imagine a apocalypse campaing where the PCs are ordinary people who fight againt super-zombies...(like from marvel universe Earth-2149), or where a vigilante (like Punisher or the Exterminator)) has to fight againt a alien invader with a armor of tech level 8 (better that Iron Man´s).
See everything I wrote above. It applies to this as well. It seems to me that you are getting the possibility of a system to work for a particular genre of game with the question of whether rules for such a genre of game already exist. Certainly there is nothing in the 4e D&D game to run games at higher progress levels. But there was nothing in the 3e D&D system that inherently worked well for a Modern game either. They had to retool that system to create d20 Modern. And in my honest opinion, retooling 4e into a Modern game would be a good sight easier to do. Indeed, as I have mentioned repeatedly, 3rd party publishers are already doing just that. There are two products slated to be released in the upcoming year, for the 4e system, that run Modern style games. One runs a sci-fi vs. fantasy Urban Arcana game (Amethyst) and the other runs a Cyberscape style game (NeuroSpasta). As Cyberscape style games are cyberpunk games, this already proves your assertion that 4e would not be usable as a system for cyberpunk games wrong.
The only thing that is inherent about the 4e system is that its combat resolution mechanics require group cooperation, and are fairly tactical. Well, that and the system ensures that classes are always roughly balanced against each other in combat; it divides combat ability and utility ability into two separate resource pools, and does not allow you to really sacrifice one for the other (though arguably utility powers are divided into the more and less combat oriented powers). As a result, no matter what game you use the system to run, its combats will require group cooperation and will be fairly tactical. Everything else is Lego. All it requires is the modular changing of a few blocks to build a new structure. And, as 4e is a good sight more modular than 3e was, it would be easier to do this with 4e than it was with 3e.
Well, the major issue with porting d20 Modern into 4E is the class system. Part of what made d20 Modern a great system, by my perspective, was the inclusion of open-ended classes, each one representing a different Ability score. The closest that could come from a port over would be to have only 4 classes: Defender, Controller, Striker, and Leader. While this could work, the game would then have to function independently of D&D, as throwing in Warlords and Rangers would cut off the class dynamic.
I was thinking that there would be six base classes just like modern: Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Dedicated, and Charismatic. But your suggestion would work just as well. I think that such a modularization of the classes into four basic classes defined by role would allow for a more open-ended, free-flowing system that could more easily be adapted for other settings, worlds, systems, campaigns, etc. It would be quite reminiscent of True20's division of classes simply into Warrior, Expert, and Adept.
Don't try to port d20 Modern over. Instead, can you use 4e in a modern setting? Yes you can.
First remember that PC are exceptional people better than the vast majority of the population. Restrict power sources, races, or equipment if needed. Add or reflavor existing equipment like firearms and vehicles. Remember to use skill challenges. Car chases, research, etc would be a skill challenge - see the DMG for detailed examples.
For a contemperary setting, like X-Files or Stargate, limit characters to humans and martial power source. BBEG might have limited access to other power sources to surprize and challenge characters.
Other "low power" settings (HP Lovecraft, Adventure!, Deadlands, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 7th Sea) would keep some power sources, just describe them as rare beyond PC. Still only humans.
For a modern fantasy setting, like Shadowrun, you wouldn't need to restrict races. Power sources are a metagame concept so characters don't know about them. Martial and ki are viewed as the same; while elemental, shadow, psionic, divine, and primal are seen as subsets of arcane.
Superhero (Heroes, Abarrant, Marvel, DC) would be similar. Limit to humans. Power sources are unknown to the public; instead viewed as genetics, chemical accident, etc.
Far future settings would just be based on what power sources you keep. Races = aliens. Warhammer 40K - martial, arcane, psionic; Fading Suns - martial, divine; Aeon Trinity - martial, psionic, arcane, elemental (all reflavored as "Psi"); Star Drive - martial, psionic, elemental, primal; Cyberpunk or Terminator or Firefly - martial and ki; Star War/Star Trek/Babylon 5/Battlestar Galatica - mostly martial and ki, other power sources would be rare if at all and reflavored as force, miracles, psi; Rifts - everything.
For cybernetics you could create a new power source - a lot of work and probably wouldn't fit in many settings. Or create multi-class feats - like spellscars or weapon specializations from the Gladiator article. Or create new equipment. Or reflavor magic items.
You can add a new stat if you want to for insanity, taint, corruption, etc.
Power level of enemies? Restrict "magic items" and masterwork to enemies. Terminators have titanium exoskeletons (godplate armor) while PC only have SWAT armor (scale armor). Eldar have lasguns (lightning crossbow +2) while PC only have pistols (crossbow). PC can't remove armor from robots and can't get ammo for alien weapons. Or you can tie "magic items" and masterwork to PL instead of character level.
Mecha could be new vehicles or reflavor monters from the MM that characters control/pilot. The Balor Battlesuit - The Green Dragon Fighting Platform - Eye of the Beholder Spybot. Be creative.
Internet and avatars would be reflavored planes of existance.
One is the "story-telling" factor. Nothing of action or fights, (for example social interactions). It´s specially backgroud.
The other is the combat or "miniature". Only fighting againts enemies (nothing of creation of potion, repairing vehicles, buying a house or similar).
---
The speciality of WotC are the side "miniature game". Gamers can create our own background from comics, novels, tv series, cinema...but if we invent a new monster, race, feat or spell it needs a PEACH, a playtesting to find the right level of power.
A gobling PnC with a gun or rifle in the top of a dune buggy (wich is driven by other gobling) is more dangerous that only with a knife....have they to have got the same value of PXs of reward? I don´t think it. I´m afraid d20 Modern 2.0. need two values of px for sentients characters. One without firearms, and a second for weapons or vehicules.. I mean each powerful firearms would be like a special template. When PCs survives a attack with canons, (but the enemie, for example a attack copter, hasn´t been defeated) they had to rewarded like to have beaten a letal tramp of dungeon.
Let´s imagine a oficial videogame of d20 Modern. Some advanced class would be more useful that other in some adventures or campaings.
I would create a pc with a double file, one would be the stats for a miniature game, and the second for the "story-telling" field. A PC could have got a "miniature" advanced class, and a "utility" (no-combat) advanced class.
----
In Lovecraft´s Call of Cthulh short story the monster awakened, but a sailor then rams the boat into it bursting it. How many PXs would be for the PC?
Let´s imagine a PC like Disney´s Mulan. In a snowed zone, she causes an avalanche and buries the hordes or enemy army....how many PXs with only a shot or movement!!!
In my view the current rpgs have two faces, sides or facets.
One is the "story-telling" factor. Nothing of action or fights, (for example social interactions). It´s specially backgroud.
The other is the combat or "miniature". Only fighting againts enemies (nothing of creation of potion, repairing vehicles, buying a house or similar).
---
The speciality of WotC are the side "miniature game". Gamers can create our own background from comics, novels, tv series, cinema...but if we invent a new monster, race, feat or spell it needs a PEACH, a playtesting to find the right level of power.
A gobling PnC with a gun or rifle in the top of a dune buggy (wich is driven by other gobling) is more dangerous that only with a knife....have they to have got the same value of PXs of reward? I don´t think it. I´m afraid d20 Modern 2.0. need two values of px for sentients characters. One without firearms, and a second for weapons or vehicules.. I mean each powerful firearms would be like a special template. When PCs survives a attack with canons, (but the enemie, for example a attack copter, hasn´t been defeated) they had to rewarded like to have beaten a letal tramp of dungeon.
Let´s imagine a oficial videogame of d20 Modern. Some advanced class would be more useful that other in some adventures or campaings.
I would create a pc with a double file, one would be the stats for a miniature game, and the second for the "story-telling" field. A PC could have got a "miniature" advanced class, and a "utility" (no-combat) advanced class.
----
In Lovecraft´s Call of Cthulh short story the monster awakened, but a sailor then rams the boat into it bursting it. How many PXs would be for the PC?
Let´s imagine a PC like Disney´s Mulan. In a snowed zone, she causes an avalanche and buries the hordes or enemy army....how many PXs with only a shot or movement!!!
I disagree with you that games have two facets, "story-telling" and "miniature." I think that is a far oversimplified way of looking at things, and one which completely overlooks the fact that 4e, for example, became far more centered on narrative AS WELL as tactical combat. In my opinion, the best method of conceptualizing the building blocks of any RPG provides them with three facets. Those three are gamism, narrativism, and simulationism. 4e is heavily gamist and narrativist, but tends to be a little light on the simulationism.
In any case, however, I don't really see what you are getting at. Are you still trying to claim that 4e would not make a good Modern RPG? Nothing in your last post indicated that in the least... I am just not quite sure, what are you trying to say?
The speciality of WotC are the side "miniature game". Gamers can create our own background from comics, novels, tv series, cinema...but if we invent a new monster, race, feat or spell it needs a PEACH, a playtesting to find the right level of power.
4e has made it easier to use the system for making new monsters, races, feats, and spells. There may be some individuals who find the previous system(s) easier for their personal brain functioning style, but by and large these things are much, much simpler now for most gamers. Heck, I think it's objectively and demonstratively easier since non-gamers are more likely to understand how to do it now! :P
A gobling PnC with a gun or rifle in the top of a dune buggy (wich is driven by other gobling) is more dangerous that only with a knife....have they to have got the same value of PXs of reward? I don´t think it. I´m afraid d20 Modern 2.0. need two values of px for sentients characters. One without firearms, and a second for weapons or vehicules.. I mean each powerful firearms would be like a special template. When PCs survives a attack with canons, (but the enemie, for example a attack copter, hasn´t been defeated) they had to rewarded like to have beaten a letal tramp of dungeon.
You are right. Two goblins on a rifle-mounted dune buggy ARE more of a challenge than one goblin with a knife. PCs (generally) should get MORE reward/experience for the dune buggy goblins, NOT the knife goblin.
HOWEVER.....
...nowhere in 4e is this contradicted or ruled against. In 4e language, the dune buggy goblins are a higher encounter level than the knife goblin. It doesn't matter that dune buggies and rifles don't exist in the standard fantasy setting. So, rifle-mounted dune buggy goblins or crossbow-fitted worg goblins BOTH would give more XP than a goblin with a knife. Again, it doesn't matter what the fluff is (rifles or crossbow, etc.); the 4e rules still hold water. We just need some balanced mechanics for rifles (maybe higher damage and longer range than crossbows) and for dune buggies (maybe higher speed and AC but less maneuverability than worgs).I was thinking that there would be six base classes just like modern: Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Dedicated, and Charismatic. But your suggestion would work just as well. I think that such a modularization of the classes into four basic classes defined by role would allow for a more open-ended, free-flowing system that could more easily be adapted for other settings, worlds, systems, campaigns, etc. It would be quite reminiscent of True20's division of classes simply into Warrior, Expert, and Adept.
When I chewed on this a while ago (to no avail - I could not swallow it), I pictured it in two "layers" or "steps" - Role and Central Ability. This ended up creating a dizzying array of combinations (which is why it got too much to think about) but the idea was basically that you could picked a Role - for instance, Defender - and then decided whether you'd be a Strong Defender, a Fast Defender, a Tough defender, etc.
I'm not sure that's the way to go, obviously. It might also make sense to limit options, for example (in other words, Defenders can be Strong or Tough or Dedicated). It just seems like an interesting angle to take.
But even without that, the existing game can handle modern with some tweaking. The hardest part is to figure out how melee-primary classes will work in a setting with a lot more ranged combat, but even then, you can look at how the existing classes work and see what feels right - is the Rogue the close-in guy? Do fighters use guns?
Sometimes PCs (of d20M) are ordinary people, without firearms, who have to survive the attacks of a boggeyman/psico-killer, and other games are soldiers in Korea War, or warriors of the road in a post-apocalypse setting.
--
It doesn't matter that dune buggies and rifles don't exist in the standard fantasy setting.
Rifles could be a auto(itself)crossbow. In Races of Dragons there was spell of level 1 with that efect, and there is a auto-reload crossbow in arms and equipment guide. The buggy could be like a weaker version of juggernaut contruct (Monster Manual II, 3.0. ed). I have a crazy idea about a flying cycle with cavorite, the metal with anti-gravitiy propeties (from H.G. Wells the first man on the moon)...or a skate-boar like back to future II.
A suggestion about the firearms would diferent levels, like PCs. I say a Colt 46, for example, of level 5, or for parangon levels, is more powerful that a Colt 46 for characters of level 1. Then the DM can calibrate the power of firearms for the wished type of campaing.
* I think the biggest difficoult would be possible d20 spectaculars (=superheroes), because some players will want character with superpowers (like fast healing), ....and firearms and perhaps hi-tech of fallen defeated enemies (like alien invader or some mad scientific). A higher score to go up levels then? (like in 2nd ed for diferent classes).
I'd love to run a game for people who want to play games about the real world, whether its action, drama, or romantic comedy. I realize that D&D is the big breadwinner, but I think that a Modern RPG would sell very well if it weren't so, well, nerdy! If you want to kill orcs, play D&D! I want me some terrorists and net hackers and sharks-with-fricking-lasers-on-their-heads!
If anything, I just want the idea behind the class system to be retained and for monsters/XP to be handled as it is in 4E.
So I think if they do a modern 4e they might take a page from World of Darkness and have 1 core rule book for a fairly mundane world and then add more supernatural stuff as supplements.
Do you imagine Ravenloft with a "pinch" of the videogame Clive Barker's Jericho?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Barker's_Jericho
----
There are different types of games of d20M;
- with or without FX (magic and psionic). The FXs can have got diferent levels.
- with or without hi-tech, like cybrnetic implants.
- Current age, near future or the past.
- Melee or ranged combat. (Marv and Miho, from Sin City comic/film, are good example of hand-to-hand fighters in modern setting)
- Civil life (guns aren´t usual) or war zone (with heavy weapon and military vehicules).
----
The most of the role playing games and videogames have fantasy or sci-fi elements. (Who played a Psi-ops campaing or Dark Matter?)
If WotC publishs a new Urban Arcana....the people who bought D&D books will not want spend the money to having got the same races and spells.
If WotC publishs a d20 World of Darkness (I would buy it)...it would be accused of lack of originality. (It would better a campaing of monster PCs in a fantastic world, like the demiplane of dread/Ravenloft). Ravenloft is better for games of monster PCs (vampires vs werewolf, dark feys, prometheans/ warforged-like, mummies, witch hunters, ghosts...
WotC doesn´t need buying copyrights from other company (Shadowrun even), because WoD is "Shadow Stalker" setting but with monster PCs . It would possible a pulp fictional world like the noir/jazz age (20´s - 50´s) equivalent to 7th Sea...The adventage of a fictional world is supernatural beings can change the History, and they haven´t to be hidden (vampires can be dictators and lycantropes terrorist groups).
The difficulty of a d20 WoD is the same with d20 spectaculars (superheroes), the balance of powers and levels for characters. WoD PC are creatures with supernatural powers, more powerful that mortals. Will we see the return of monster class (from Savage Species)?
When 3.5 came out, I made my own 3.5 version of Modern.
When Saga came out, I began a Modern Saga conversion. (I posted a lot of my notes on the Modern board, but apparently the post fell off sometime recently.)
Now that we have 4e, while I like it for D&D, I'm in between on how it pertains to Modern.
There are definitely lessons to be learned in how 4e is designed that should carry over to any re-invention of Modern as well as some mechanics. Some stuff, I'm unsure of.
Start with Saga as the basis for mechanics. Immediately interject 4e's HP system. Probably leave out healing surges and just stick with how Saga handles it. (Maybe not...) Look to incorporate 4e's lack of a BAB bonus. Use the power stat block to spell out actions like Basic Melee Attack and Charge. Proliferate this throughout the rules. Toss Saga's movement rules... either 1,2 as in 3.x, 1,1 as in 4e or Hex.
I think with the changes that we've seen in Saga and 4e, a classless Heroic tier in a new Modern would work well. Though it wouldn't be required. Saga's multiclassing would be a must for any Modern system that used classes though.
4e's crit system (maxing damage) would be best, but Saga's condition track is a must.
Minion rules are an absolute grab in Modern. Best new monster mechanic in 4e. Lots of room for it in a cinematic system like Modern. 4e Stat blocks are great too.
Don't like it from a feel stand point, but from a balance perspective, the STR/CON, DEX/INT and WIS/CHA to defenses is a good move. Definitely maintain Saga's Defense system of only Fort, Reflex and Will. AC just isn't needed.
Urban Arcana, Shadow Chasers and Agents of Psi all fall back on the Daily and Encounter power design formula. I have a hard time seeing many Daily powers outside of the extraordinary realms of Modern. Rebalancing would be needed to grant more access to Encounter and Utility abilities for more mundane characters and campaigns. Likely tied to feats.
A lot of work, but I think a hybrid Saga-4e Modern would be fantastic.
A lot of work, but I think a hybrid Saga-4e Modern would be fantastic.
If they made a game out of the best aspects of Saga and 4e, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
For the records, a d20 version of World of Darkness already exists. It was released by White Wolf. And, just like I see no reason for WotC to needlessly sell of its intellectual property, I see no reason for White Wolf to needlessly sell off theirs... I don't think anyone should expect another d20 World of Darkness product for quite a long time. And if one is released, I expect it to be released by White Wolf.
Sigh. What I mean't was that d20 modern could have 1 book for rules, charcter creation and setting. And then they could expand on that mundane world and add supernatural books as an option for people who wanted fantasy,horror and sci-fi.
I was in no way suggesting what you stated.
Sigh. What I mean't was that d20 modern could have 1 book for rules, charcter creation and setting. And then they could expand on that mundane world and add supernatural books as an option for people who wanted fantasy,horror and sci-fi.
I was in no way suggesting what you stated.
My post was not directed at you. It was directed at Luis_Carlos and his comments about WotC releasing a d20 World of Darkness.
Considering the current publishing schedule of 1 setting per year, I highly doubt anything like this will show up from Wizards. It will be left for 3rd party publishers I think.
I don't think I consider d20 Modern 2.0 to be a setting, but a complete core game as D&D and Star Wars Saga.
I greatly want to see the return of Modern in 4e, but I strongly feel that it needs to be fully compatible with the D&D core rules. If they simply can't bring themselves to bring out a 4e Modern that's fully compatible, if it has to be different, then I personally say screw doing a Modern game and just give us a Campaign Setting Guide and Player's Guide for Urban Arcana that gives us a fleshed-out modern day Earth setting that is slowly being encroached-upon by the Tides of Shadow (and rules for guns & modern armor.)
I know it might seems harsh, and I apologize for stepping on anyone's toes, but all this talk about how they can change the system for the sake of Modern working just aggravates me, 'cause it means that I'd have to go through all the same conversion crap that was my main issue in running 3e. Since it all takes place within the same cosmology/continuity, I want it to be treated as such (just the GURPS 4e does with its core setting.)
For high-level PCs (upper Paragon tier and up) crossing into the various D&D worlds (Toril, Oerth, Eberron, Earth, etc.) really shouldn't be that terribly difficult. It should just be about knowing the correct portal addresses / Sigil "doorway" or having a spelljammer and knowing about the world you're wishing to go to. And with that being the case, I also want it be that easy to put the two sets of rules together (i.e. I really don't want it to be two seperate rule systems at all.)
Especially if they decide to just have Urban Arcana and similar "high-power" settings (even most Future settings would probably be on the same power level), then I really feel that the 4e rules would work perfectly fine. And anything not defined by the rules, adjudicated by the DM.
...[3e d20Modern] was supposed to be compatible with D&D, but using the two together was always a major pain in the ass.
...just give us a Campaign Setting Guide and Player's Guide for Urban Arcana that gives us a fleshed-out modern day Earth setting that is slowly being encroached-upon by the Tides of Shadow (and rules for guns & modern armor.
Ha. This (a campaign guide) is right on the money for what I want
, so no worries about my toes. Dark Sun has a really different feel from FR, but why on earth, or Athas, or Abeir-Toril, would I want to learn a completely new ruleset? (Unless I actually wanted a completely separate game, of course, which I personally don't but others may.) I don't think a modern feel requires that much change. A new campaign guide sounds perfect!New mechanics like firearms have already been mentioned. DMG pages 150-1 cover core assumptions about "the world" and making alterations. For a modern campaign setting, one might make the following changes (just an example):
- 1) The world is mostly real. All characters must take martial as their primary class, with other classes available only through multiclassing. Modern firearms are more common than swords and maces.
- 2) No change. The world is ancient. (Or not; either way would work.)
- 3) The world is geographically well known. Mystery is found more in the specifics of particular places, the intrigues of organizations, or in places "beyond" (i.e., the planes).
- 4) Monsters are are rare and terrifying, perhaps the result of mutations, experiments, or warped realities and dimensions (i.e., the planes).
- 5) No change. Adventurers are exceptional.
- 6) Only humans are playable...or the standard races appear and biologically are human, but are just random humans born with different "gifts" such as "elven" accuracy, "dwarven" resilience, etc. (These could possibly work in the place of strong heroes, tough heroes, etc. LOL...not sure what I'd do about the dragon breath ability, though!
) - 7) "Not everyday" magic is replaced by not everyday high technology, and actual magic is even more rare. Alchemy may be in while rituals may be out. (::muah, muah:: Auf Wiedersehen. :P)
- 8) This is a great unknown.
- 9) These entities are even more distant and subtle.
Granted, that's hardly a d20 Modern campaign taken care of. It would take more crunching to know for sure, but I still don't think a new system is required to capture the feel.
Although I really liked some of the 3e Modern mechanics, I major problem with the system was the fact that it was indeed a seperate system from D&D proper. It took place within the same cosmology/continuity (Urban Arcana especially) and was supposed to be compatible with D&D, but using the two together was always a major pain in the ass.
I greatly want to see the return of Modern in 4e, but I strongly feel that it needs to be fully compatible with the D&D core rules. If they simply can't bring themselves to bring out a 4e Modern that's fully compatible, if it has to be different, then I personally say screw doing a Modern game and just give us a Campaign Setting Guide and Player's Guide for Urban Arcana that gives us a fleshed-out modern day Earth setting that is slowly being encroached-upon by the Tides of Shadow (and rules for guns & modern armor.)
I know it might seems harsh, and I apologize for stepping on anyone's toes, but all this talk about how they can change the system for the sake of Modern working just aggravates me, 'cause it means that I'd have to go through all the same conversion crap that was my main issue in running 3e. Since it all takes place within the same cosmology/continuity, I want it to be treated as such (just the GURPS 4e does with its core setting.)
For high-level PCs (upper Paragon tier and up) crossing into the various D&D worlds (Toril, Oerth, Eberron, Earth, etc.) really shouldn't be that terribly difficult. It should just be about knowing the correct portal addresses / Sigil "doorway" or having a spelljammer and knowing about the world you're wishing to go to. And with that being the case, I also want it be that easy to put the two sets of rules together (i.e. I really don't want it to be two seperate rule systems at all.)
Especially if they decide to just have Urban Arcana and similar "high-power" settings (even most Future settings would probably be on the same power level), then I really feel that the 4e rules would work perfectly fine. And anything not defined by the rules, adjudicated by the DM.
That is not what I want, and it seems to be what most of the d20 Modern crowd (down in the d20 Modern forum) REALLY don't want. I am not interested in a fully compatible 4e Modern game. I am interested in a new iteration of Modern that capitalizes on the advances in the system made by Saga and 4e, but utilizes those advances to create a system that is best for gritty Modern gaming (and not heroic fantasy). That being said, that is what Amethyst (3rd party publisher) is doing, and I will be buying Amethyst, so I am not fully opposed to a fully compatible Modern system either. Its just not the path I want WotC's re-release of d20 Modern to take.
That's what Modern was, though, Alter_Boy. The magic stuff was all supplementary "If you're playing this setting" kind of inclusions, but was pretty strongly recommended against including in settings that didn't match the one it was designed for.
I'd have to disagree. Two out of the three campaign settings were based on a modern world with magic in it (one killed them, the other interacted with them), and the third was psionics. The book always had a sense of paranormality to it.
I alway felt that the Modern Experience would be served better if the campaign settings were "Spy Thriller", "Urban Crime", "Military shoot-em-up", and other things almost completly divorced from magic and monsters.
I can actually see a compromise here:
For those roleplaying gamers who yearn for simply a Modern day game, WotC could create a new Modern game that serves to be a realistic and/or action movie type game completely devoid of D&D fluff & mechanics. (Although personally, such a thing would make me wonder why players who think that way don't just go out and buy some other modern-day-Earth style rpg already on the market, or play a game like GURPS which can fully create that style of play without making changes to the system.)
For those gamers like myself who prefer all the settings within the D&D cosmology use the same rules (and thus be fully compatible), WotC could simply create the Urban Arcana campaign setting for D&D (and perhaps others to follow later if Urban Arcana sells well.)
For this setting, they could either use an updated version of the 3e Urban Arcana storyline (which was that a planar conjunction is causing traditional D&D races and monsters from other worlds [Toril, Oerth, etc.] to be shunted off through Shadow into the part of the Material Plane corresponding to a modern-day-Earth setting) or they could create a whole new campaign setting storyline involving an alternate timeline Earth in which travelers from other planes have been arriving for some time (planar travelers from Sigil, etc.)
In a setting such as this, many of the D&D classes that already exist would still work in my opinion (Arcane classes really wouldn't have to change at all because magic exists in the world even if "normal" humans haven't had much oppurtunity to train in its traditions, Divine classes would be made of new arrivals to the world who carry their faith with them [or people trained by them], Primal classes would simply be tapping into the primal spirits of Earth instead of [Toril, Oerth, etc.], and Martial characters would be unchanged since their abilities simply represent extensive physical training and action movie stunts.) Plus new classes could be added such as techno-mages (either representing Arcane students who blend magic with technology, or representing people who use pulp-style technology to mimic magical effects.)
I know it might seems harsh, and I apologize for stepping on anyone's toes, but all this talk about how they can change the system for the sake of Modern working just aggravates me, 'cause it means that I'd have to go through all the same conversion crap that was my main issue in running 3e. Since it all takes place within the same cosmology/continuity, I want it to be treated as such (just the GURPS 4e does with its core setting.)
Since when do D&D and d20 Modern -- specifically Urban Arcana -- take place in the same cosmology?
AFAIC, they got transplanted into the Urban Arcana setting by means of the portal. It's not Greyhawk 2008.
As for bringing up GURPS, it was designed from the ground up to be a multi-genre system. D&D is not. That's why the old motto, "D&D is d20, but d20 is not D&D," still resonate even today.
Um.... I thought we weren't allowed to adapt 4E rules to other genre's (Future/Modern), or has that limitation of the GSL been relaxed?
You are allowed to adapt, as long as your rules are fully compatible with the 4e PHB, DMG, and MM. See Amethyst and NeuroSpasta.
Since when do D&D and d20 Modern -- specifically Urban Arcana -- take place in the same cosmology?
AFAIC, they got transplanted into the Urban Arcana setting by means of the portal. It's not Greyhawk 2008.
No, it's not Greyhawk 2008... that would be entirely different from Urban Arcana. Instead Urban Arcana was a campaign setting that revolved around the fact that creatures from some of the other more "fantasy" worlds (such as Oerth and Toril) were being essentially "dropped off" onto a modern day Earth setting by way of the Tides of Shadows (the same "Tides" that were talked about briefly in Tome of Magic and other 3e products, and which function near identically to the Mists of Ravenloft).
That simple fact, that main linchpin of the campaign setting, places within the same multiverse / cosmology as Oerth, Toril, Eberron, Krynn, Gothic Earth (from Masque of the Red Death), Athas, and any other D&D campaign setting worlds that I'm forgetting at the moment.
One of the issues 4e was supposed to solve was the not-always-as-compatible-as-they're-supposed-to-be cosmologies of the different campaign setting worlds. If this is true for The World (the core setting), Forgotten Realms, and Eberron... then why should Urban Arcana or Gothic Earth be any different?
And I know some people have an issue with the Tiers of play not working in a modern setting. I personally don't see the issue... At the end of the Heroic tier / the beginning of Paragon, you're dealing with your action-movie hero types (John McClane from Die Hard... Blade... hell, even Charlie's Angels), but by the time characters up in the epic levels, you're no longer dealing with action movie stuff... you're out traveling through Sigil and other planes and dealing with cosmic events. So, by the time you're that high level, the fact that your character is from modern day Earth is mostly fluff and an explanation for why he has a modern-themed class such as Gunslinger or some such.
Besides, if you're looking for proof that Earth is in the same multiverse / cosmology as the other D&D worlds (besides Urban Arcana's backstory and the old Masque of the Red Death campaign) you could just turn to D&D fiction. The "Ravenloft: The Dominion" novel series consists of stories bridging that gap.
The titles in the series for those that are interested:
- Heaven's Bones
- Mithra's Court
- The Sleep of Reason
- Black Crusade (this last is being published in serial format on the website because cut-backs forced WotC to cancel this series before its time... there were about 5 or so other books planned in the series before it got the ax)
Um.... I thought we weren't allowed to adapt 4E rules to other genre's (Future/Modern), or has that limitation of the GSL been relaxed?
That's the D&D 4e GSL.
Some of us were hoping for a more generic d20 GSL, to be accompanied with the new d20 Modern RPG.
One of the issues 4e was supposed to solve was the not-always-as-compatible-as-they're-supposed-to-be cosmologies of the different campaign setting worlds. If this is true for The World (the core setting), Forgotten Realms, and Eberron... then why should Urban Arcana or Gothic Earth be any different?
AFAIC, Urban Arcana is NOT a D&D labeled setting. It's a d20 Modern labeled setting/toolbox. The only commonality between published D&D settings and Urban Arcana are the fantasy creatures and the company that publish both of them.
The sames goes for Dark*Matter, PSI, Shadow Chasers, Star Law, Star*Drive, etc.
I'm guessing people are complaining that Star Wars Saga is not fully 4e compatible, right? :rolleye2: Tough noogie for that, thankfully.
Generally, I want the d20 System to be modular. That way I can remove the D&D flavored Hit Point System and replace it with a more modern gritty health system mechanics. The only constant in many different d20 System based Game Products is this: d20 + modifier vs. AC/DC. If I can't do that, then I'm not dropping money.
Tweak the Rules to Fit the Setting, Not the Other Way Around.
So, does that means all 3rd-Party Products using the GSL must fit within the same cosmology as WotC's published settings? Should Star Wars be in the same cosmology as Forgotten Realms when George Lucas didn't want it to be (or should any longtime diehard SW fans should not expect it to be)?
I HOPE ... NOT!
AFAIC, Urban Arcana is NOT a D&D labeled setting. It's a d20 Modern labeled setting/toolbox. The only commonality between published D&D settings and Urban Arcana are the fantasy creatures and the company that publish both of them.
The sames goes for Dark*Matter, PSI, Shadow Chasers, Star Law, Star*Drive, etc.
I'm guessing people are complaining that Star Wars Saga is not fully 4e compatible, right? :rolleye2: Tough noogie for that, thankfully.
Generally, I want the d20 System to be modular. That way I can remove the D&D flavored Hit Point System and replace it with a more modern gritty health system mechanics. The only constant in many different d20 System based Game Products is this: d20 + modifier vs. AC/DC. If I can't do that, then I'm not dropping money.
Tweak the Rules to Fit the Setting, Not the Other Way Around.
So, does that means all 3rd-Party Products using the GSL must fit within the same cosmology as WotC's published settings? Should Star Wars be in the same cosmology as Forgotten Realms when George Lucas didn't want it to be (or should any longtime diehard SW fans should not expect it to be)?
I HOPE ... NOT!
And all that proves that you didn't at all get my point. It's the story and compatibility I worry about, not "every d20 product using their cosmology." But then I thought that was obvious from my posts.
I have absolutely no problem with there being modern-day d20 games... my problem is that I want Urban Arcana and other such campaign settings (which have very obvious story connections to D&D) to be fully compatible. And, abviously, I very much want to see the return of Urban Arcana and maybe some other similar campaign settings.
I have absolutely no problem with there being modern-day d20 games... my problem is that I want Urban Arcana and other such campaign settings (which have very obvious story connections to D&D) to be fully compatible. And, abviously, I very much want to see the return of Urban Arcana and maybe some other similar campaign settings.
I want Urban Arcana to be fully compatible with the new d20 Modern RPG, not D&D. As I said, not ALL of the entire D&D mechanics fit within certain modern genre roleplaying.
Again, D&D is d20, but d20 is NOT D&D.
And that's that.
See Amethyst and NeuroSpasta.
Wow. Looking at the Dias Ex Machina site, that stuff looks a million times more interesting than any of the books WotC has planned. It really is a shame that they are doing their best to stick to vanilla fantasy.
Wow. Looking at the Dias Ex Machina site, that stuff looks a million times more interesting than any of the books WotC has planned. It really is a shame that they are doing their best to stick to vanilla fantasy.
Vanilla fantasy? Not sure what that means.
NeuroSpasta is intended as a pure modern/sci-fi setting and I hope to kill many birds with one stone with it.
The GSL indicates you can't alter or redefine definitions but it says nothing about a Modern 4ED game needing to be 100% compatible with D&D. So it is entirely possible to circumvent many of the issues people have about 4th Edition and its potential of converting to a modern or sci-fi setting.
Thanks for the vote in confidence and I hope to justify your faith.