So what do you all think of the announcement at Experience that we may very well see a d20 Modern version of 4th ed? And might we finally be able to get Wizards to license from their parent company Hasbro the rights to a G.I. Joe Sourcebook? And maybe get the Supers book to see the light of Day?
Well, you know how I feel about product licensing. :thumbsdow
I'm sure almost everyone here want something new coming down the d20 Modern pipeline.
I like d20 Modern being "toolboxy", its half the reason my group plays it (the other half being d20 is all most of them know). If they remove that "toolbox" aspect of the game, I'm moving on to something else.
I'll be happy as long as they don't force some crappy setting on us.
Give me examples of d20 Modern crappy setting.
I like d20 Modern being "toolboxy", its half the reason my group plays it (the other half being d20 is all most of them know). If they remove that "toolbox" aspect of the game, I'm moving on to something else.
Toolbox only work if you have a "workplace" to play in. Not many can build their own "workplace," I mean setting.
Give me examples of d20 Modern crappy setting.
Urban Arcana, but thats just my opinion. :P
Toolbox only work if you have a "workplace" to play in. Not many can build their own "workplace," I mean setting.
Nothing wrong with an example setting or two getting some mention, like the book has now, but if the entire core rulebook gets focused on a single setting to the point is just a campaign sourcebook, it'll be bothersome.
Urban Arcana, but thats just my opinion. :P
Good stuff in that book. But it wouldn't be something I would put out as the first d20 Modern setting book.
I wasn't advocating GI Joe as Core, either; but a setting book, along with Spectaculars.
What exactly is wrong with a licensed product?
So what do you all think of the announcement at Experience that we may very well see a d20 Modern version of 4th ed? And might we finally be able to get Wizards to license from their parent company Hasbro the rights to a G.I. Joe Sourcebook? And maybe get the Supers book to see the light of Day?
GI Joe? Really? Did they say when abouts they were thinking about releasing some of this?
What exactly is wrong with a licensed product?
Everything a licensee do must be approved by the IP owners (or their licensing agents) before they can sell it.
Why don't the stores stock this stuff?! Half the fun is going into a physical store and buying the thing after searching for it and the gaming section before having to ask for directions and feel slightly emasculated that you were required to ask directions... so, yeah, no change yet, please?
It would be interesting to see Agents of PSI and Shadow Chasers expanded upon before any updates too.
Personally, I just take everything and lump it together into one big Shadow/PSI/Arcana Universe. (Is that what "toolbox" is?)
Everything a licensee do must be approved by the IP owners (or their licensing agents) before they can sell it.
Hasbro owns the IP. There would be no major hassles or hangups with a GI Joe Supplement due to that fact.
Aspiring_Lichlord: The reason you can't find the 6(?) books out is that they aren't in print anymore; meaning no new products are being sent to the printer, so there is only access to what is already printed.
And all those things you mentioned could be fixed with a new edition.
4e is a way to reel in the more open d20 Open content to the New & Improved 4e model.... meaning less open content. They couldnt just invalidate the openness of what has been published under the open logo d20, so they make a new logo & publish 'new material' under the less open (more copyrighted) 4e logo.
Hasbro owns the IP. There would be no major hassles or hangups with a GI Joe Supplement due to that fact.
Yes, Hasbro owns GI JOE IP, not WotC.
WotC will have to submit their material to Hasbro's Licensing Agent for approval before they can sell it.
Just because WotC is a Hasbro subsidiary, doesn't give WotC carte blanche to Hasbro's IPs. Trust me, I tried using my carte blanche with my dad's car when I was younger.
so... it's... tightening the leash?
Among other things, yes. It's also a way to employ the marketing model of Worlds of Warcraft and the like. Just think how much more money you can make charging a monthly fee to play D&D than you can just selling books.
I don't say that to imply that it's unethical or anything. I just find it kind of transparent. All the hullabaloo about the "improvements" that 4e will bring in seems like smoke and mirrors, to me. 3.5/d20M work quite well, with some tweaks here and there. The 4e rules will probably be a difference in style rather than an increase in quality, mind you it'll be a big difference.
so... it's... tightening the leash?
Yeah, they tryin' to keep us down, brotha!
Yeah, they tryin' to keep us down, brotha!
joke's on you bud, I'm not livin' in da ghetto *rolls eyes*
Yeah, they tryin' to keep us down, brotha!
It's not as much about us end-users as it is tightening the leash on the RPG industry. They basically pulled a Microsoft. They made their "platform" free, which means that it became the industry standard. MS did it with DOS and Wizards did it with D20.
Once you have the platform, now it's far, far more convenient to just use whatever runs on that platform. I'm almost entirely uninterested in learning other RPG systems at this point. If you're not using D20, you'll probably not get my money. I know that that's illogical (different systems are better suited to different genres and game settings), but there it is. Laziness wins out.
So now that theirs is the industry standard platform, now that everyone uses D20 as a matter of course, Wizards wants to reduce the freedoms in the OGL (in fact, change the OGL into something else entirely), and take that "openness" and change it into brand loyalty. They basically want to be de facto in charge of the whole RPG industry. They want to be able to make internal changes that everyone else then has to conform to. And it's working.
Between that and the fact that D20 works just fine the way it is, I have no great enthusiasm about 4e.
in the future, all resturants are Taco Bell ;)
There hasn't been product for d20 Modern since Dark-Matter. I don't know about you guys, but this news makes me hopeful there will be a new edition, which means availability of books, and hopefully d20 Spectaculars seeing the light of day.
joke's on you bud, I'm not livin' in da ghetto *rolls eyes*
Actually, that was a 60's reference to overly political activists who see a conspiracy in everything.
Among other things, yes. It's also a way to employ the marketing model of Worlds of Warcraft and the like. Just think how much more money you can make charging a monthly fee to play D&D than you can just selling books.
And that's why I don't play them pay-2-play MMORPGs. I blame it and the people that play it. And they're influencing MY favorite pen-n-paper RPG?!?!!!
There hasn't been product for d20 Modern since Dark-Matter. I don't know about you guys, but this news makes me hopeful there will be a new edition, which means availability of books, and hopefully d20 Spectaculars seeing the light of day.
Old news to me.
I went through the same experience with their Star Wars RPG (two years of absence before they introduced the Saga Edition).
After the Franchise Wars of the late 20th century,
in the future, all resturants are Taco Bell ;)
fixed :P ;)
fixed :P ;)
You're way into your Demolition Man fandom. :evillaugh
Thanx.
I ought to write that down, I use it a lot around here
But back to topic-
Thanks to the spendful masses, the new game marketing model is
Folks Pay games rather than Play games.
Spend enough in the Harms Race to out power creep your friends, just keep buying & you become better at the game.
And that's why I don't play them pay-2-play MMORPGs. I blame it and the people that play it. And they're influencing MY favorite pen-n-paper RPG?!?!!!
This fallacy really bugs me. I see it all the time in people's "Just say no to 4.0" sigs, and it's ridiculous!
People are whining that WotC is going to start charging an online subscription fee, not for regular use of the product, but for EXTRA CONTENT, which they already were paying for in a magazine subscription! Nothing's changed!
I'm thinking about changing my sig to:
If you don't want to pay for dungeon and dragon magazines just so you can use your books, add this to your sig: Just say NO to 3.5!
You're way into your Demolition Man fandom. :evillaugh
it didn't sound right,so i had to google it :P
I'm hoping that a d20 Modern, Revised book does hit using the 4e rules ... but I'm also hoping that they'll do away with the fast hero, strong hero, etc. classes and just give us classes like Soldier, Investigator, etc. Maybe setting books should carry classes specific to their setting or expand upon the classes and core rules? I'm really hoping to see a few of the old TSR settings return ... Top Secret would make a great setting for the core d20 Book or as the initial launch setting.
Yes, let's all just take a big step backward in development!
d20 Modern only works BECAUSE of the ability score-based classes. When they were first developing it, they had classes like Soldier, Investigator, Police Officer, etc... and you know what? They ended up with over SIXTY base classes! Archetype-based classes simply don't work in a semi-realistic modern setting, because there are simply too many archetypes.
Top Secret + Modern Setting with archetype-based classes? I think that's called Spycraft.
And that's why I don't play them pay-2-play MMORPGs. I blame it and the people that play it. And they're influencing MY favorite pen-n-paper RPG?!?!!!
The companies aggressively push technology and game designs that work only if we pay monthly, and it's all part of a major economic/technological shift from ownership culture (haves/have nots), to an access culture. I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the consumers.
I despise predictive analysis of all kinds, the experts know nothing, but think they know everything because they took the class of some hack who thinks the same. Down with forecasting experts, down with them I say!!!
If you don't want to pay for dungeon and dragon magazines just so you can use your books, add this to your sig: Just say NO to 3.5!
Why?
I still like my 3e (3.5e after 2005).
The companies aggressively push technology and game designs that work only if we pay monthly, and it's all part of a major economic/technological shift from ownership culture (haves/have nots), to an access culture. I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the consumers.
Well, forgive me for being more of a curmudgeon than the late great Gygax, but last I checked, I don't need high-tech to play RPG.
The companies aggressively push technology and game designs that work only if we pay monthly, and it's all part of a major economic/technological shift from ownership culture (haves/have nots), to an access culture. I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the consumers.
I'm not blaming ALL the consumers.
Yes, let's all just take a big step backward in development!
d20 Modern only works BECAUSE of the ability score-based classes. When they were first developing it, they had classes like Soldier, Investigator, Police Officer, etc... and you know what? They ended up with over SIXTY base classes! Archetype-based classes simply don't work in a semi-realistic modern setting, because there are simply too many archetypes.
Top Secret + Modern Setting with archetype-based classes? I think that's called Spycraft.
Well, I'm not in favor of 60+ base classes, but I am in favor of 60+ archetype-based talent trees for no more than 10 base classes.
Like I have said before, the talent trees have been underutilized. d20 Modern laid the foundation and introduction, but Star Wars Saga Edition took a leap forward with it.
last I checked, I don't need high-tech to play RPG.
Exactly. You're proving my point. You don't need high tech, but Wizards is introducing more and more of it anyway, and proposing to charge monthly for it. Now, I'm not saying that's immoral. Frankly, some of their tech looks awfully useful. It is, however, part of a really quite obvious strategy to shift the market to on-line services that they can charge for on a predictable, regular schedule (because putting out yet another "Complete Book of Horseshoes" every month and hoping you'll buy it just isn't doing the job).
I'm not blaming ALL the consumers.
As long as we blame the state of the market on producers as well, then I'll shut up about it, but blaming only the consumers is just silly as all hell.
Why?
I still like my 3e (3.5e after 2005).
So do I. I was making a sarcastic parallel to the reactionary and illogical "Just say NO to 4.0" sigs I see.
It doesn't matter if it's a printed magazine, or online subscription, it's all supplemental.
Well, I'm not in favor of 60+ base classes, but I am in favor of 60+ archetype-based talent trees for no more than 10 base classes.
Even 10 seems a bit much. How often do you run a game with 10 players?
I think 6 is a good way to go, provided they're generic enough to be flexible, but not too bland. d20 Modern's base classes WOULD be bland, except they put the onus on the player to provide flavour and what not.
Sure, my character sheet may say Smart 3/Dedicated 2, but the character would be described as an Archaeologist.
Like I have said before, the talent trees have been underutilized. d20 Modern laid the foundation and introduction, but Star Wars Saga Edition took a leap forward with it.
I can't disagree with you there!
But yeah, if they came out with 4e Modern, I'd buy it as soon as i was able to.
because putting out yet another "Complete Book of Horseshoes" every month and hoping you'll buy it just isn't doing the job)
uh, if they are not into printing books, they shouldnt be publishing a set of pen & paper game books.
Cause that is how it works,
Publishers try to guess what will sell, they print it, and then hope it does sell.
The trouble starts when you try to publish more books just to have books published, rather than noticing nobody is buying the Horseshoe Compendium to replace Complete Ferrier that obsoleted Tome Of Horseshoes.
But it does come back on the connsumer,
the kids ARE buying Horseshoe Compendium just because it is out... that, and for some reason they managed to stuff a unbalanced powercreep +10Tohit Fighter3/Ranger3 Feat in the horseshoe book. Why? So folks will have to buy a book about garbage like horseshoes just to get the UberFeat deJour... till the next splat comes out with an even more unrelated super feat.
I can only assume that a new version of Modern will be released utilizing the new mechanics and such from D&D4E to some degree or another.
That will make the game different enough for me and my group to not play it. We already harbor ill feelings toward 4E...
I have been thinking about tooling around and making my next D20 Modern game with redesigned classes modeled after military kits. It looks to be rather daunting, so I may just end up abandoning it altogether and moving on to a different system... Star Wars Saga is looking real nice... I never played it or read it, but word around the campfire is that it is a very good system... and I can fluff out any Star Warsy elements I don't want...
Have a wonderful day!
When I have more time, I'd like to develop a hybrid system using the elements from each to make my own vision of the perfect d20 system.
Why?
I still like my 3e (3.5e after 2005).
Right, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 3.5 D&D/D20M are, as far as I can tell, not broken.
EDIT: It almost seems that Mr. Gygax's death is.... nah, that'd just be asking for a conspiracy theory, but now that he's gone we might see WotC go the route of Disney and Games Workshop (aka conforming to the most profitable demographic)
Right, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 3.5 D&D/D20M are, as far as I can tell, not broken.
That and 3e can still run for two more years.
Still, I hope that 4e is not a PnP version of Vista, though Microsoft have extended tech support period for XP owners (like me).
Even 10 seems a bit much. How often do you run a game with 10 players?
Dude, your group do not HAVE to fill all the classes in the book.
But more option is better. 10 is a good number of choices, 60 is like staring at a Costco-sized shelves full of candies (too overwhelming). :P
uh, if they are not into printing books, they shouldnt be publishing a set of pen & paper game books.
Yes, thank you for making my point for me. That's why they're changing their distribution model to include the web!
Cause that is how it works,
Publishers try to guess what will sell, they print it, and then hope it does sell.
They do a hell of a lot more than that! They market and advertise so as to create the desire to buy the book. Publishers aren't just standing there with books, hoping we buy them. They have market research, they have ad campaigns, they have side publications (Dragon, Dungeon), and they have ways to exert control over the the market itself. That's why they instituted the OGL. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. It was a way to yoke practically the whole RPG industry to their game system.
It is, as I've already explained, the exact same thing that MS did with DOS. They gave it away to IBM, who then loaded it onto all the PCs they sold, which meant that every computer came with the base software on which they could load... Windows! which was written for DOS and effectively became the only game in town.
It's a really quite brilliant strategy. Don't attain market dominance by virtue of a superior product (as if!), just leave the consumer in a position where they have to expend the least effort to use your product. Hello DOS, hello d20. The difference, I think, is that DOS was a cobbled-together pile of shite and d20 is actually very good for high-fantasy RPGs.
But it does come back on the connsumer,
See above, but you are right about one thing. One of the ways that Wizards pushes their expansion books is by allowing the power level to creep upwards, which is exactly the same thing that they did with the Magic cards. If you buy the newest packs/books, you can "win" the game (be the most powerful, have the largest phallus, etc.).
Dude, your group do not HAVE to fill all the classes in the book.
But more option is better. 10 is a good number of choices, 60 is like staring at a Costco-sized shelves full of candies (too overwhelming). :P
More choice is good, but I prefer more quality over quantity. With D&D3.5's 8 archetype-based classes, you can make maybe 20 different characters, just from the core classes. With d20 Modern's 6 generic base classes, you can easily make that many and more.
The difference, I think, is that DOS was a cobbled-together pile of shite and d20 is actually very good for high-fantasy RPGs.
HERESY! DOS was a far better OS than Windows up until Win98!
...and I could set my own DMA&IRQs, I have plenty of them little jumpers in my desk drawer.
I won't likely use a new D20 modern unless there is something very special, I hope some of the games on these forums will still use the current one.
edit: Oh, and I like the burger wars version better than the franchise wars, it gives the suggestion that the best way to win the war is not to get involved.
. I don’t honestly think that those guys know/care about the how’s’ and why’s of why ‘we’, the currently players, play d20Modern.They admitted to making the 4thEdition based entirely around high-action cinema, and to some lesser extent the meta…gaming I guess, that comes with it. Aka: I am a hero I cannot die unless I say so.
They would most likely make the ‘new’ d20Modern more like Last Action Hero… Hells I feel old now.
edit: Oh, and I like the burger wars version better than the franchise wars, it gives the suggestion that the best way to win the war is not to get involved.
Rat-burgers for everyone!
With d20 Modern's 6 generic base classes, you can easily make that many and more.
Only if you reinforce it with archetype-based talent trees, in addition to generic talent trees (like Uncanny Dodge).
D20 Modern is the only reason I even visit these boards any more, and WoTCs contempt for Modern players makes me seriously consider walking away from d20 altogether and playing Hero System for all fantasy, modern and sci-fi.
The d20 system has never really impressed me mechanically. I played D&D because I loved the settings and stories. I played d20 because a friend of mine started a really good campaign. Ultimately I don't need WoTCs rule sets; WoTC need customers, and they haven't gotten one penny of mine since I bought GHotR.
If 4E/SAGA works for you, by all means happy gaming, but many of us will never buy anything with the 4E taint.
Honestly the idea those ‘people’ (the kindest word I can think of) screwing up Modern sparks the anger that I felt for the maggot that messed up the Resident Evil movies
They admitted to making the 4thEdition based entirely around high-action cinema, and to some lesser extent the meta…gaming I guess, that comes with it. Aka: I am a hero I cannot die unless I say so.
They would most likely make the ‘new’ d20Modern more like Last Action Hero… Hells I feel old now.
Rat-burgers for everyone!
I tend to echo Magus' feelings on this. I detest Saga, 4th Ed
How can you detest Saga when it's based on d20 Modern concept?
How can you detest Saga when it's based on d20 Modern concept?
I don't think dumbing down the skill system among other things is a d20 modern concept.
It runs much quicker and more smoothly than 3.x d20 mechanics. Sure, the skills are simplified, but simplified mechanic does NOT = dumbed down.
Why should a game's mechanics be so complicated that you have to refer to the rulebook 2 or three times per encounter?
I don't think dumbing down the skill system among other things is a d20 modern concept.
Why not? Cyber-Dave offers a conjectured Consolidated Skill System for use with d20 Modern.
I think some skills need to bundled into one, like Persuasion (a combination of Diplomacy and Intimidation), or Stealth (a combination of Hide and Move Silently).
(*Yes, I know about the Thievery or Thieving Skill in 4e, and even I think it's way too much.)
I'm pretty sure you and I have had this very same conversation before. I'm not going to convince you that 4E/Saga sucks and is dumbed down. You in turn are never going to convince me that 4E/saga is a net improvement. You vote with your dollars, and I hope you enjoy your game. I will vote with my dollars and find something that I enjoy. It just won't be 4E.
Happy gaming!;)
I was really skeptical about Saga, but my friend wanted a copy so I picked it up and read through it, then immediately went out to buy myself a copy.
It runs much quicker and more smoothly than 3.x d20 mechanics. Sure, the skills are simplified, but simplified mechanic does NOT = dumbed down.
Why should a game's mechanics be so complicated that you have to refer to the rulebook 2 or three times per encounter?
It didn't require an edition change to introduce talent trees.
Is it any clearer to you now or are you just trying to stir the pot?
Why not? Cyber-Dave offers a conjectured Consolidated Skill System for use with d20 Modern.
I think some skills need to bundled into one, like Persuasion (a combination of Diplomacy and Intimidation), or Stealth (a combination of Hide and Move Silently).
(*Yes, I know about the Thievery or Thieving Skill in 4e, and even I think it's way too much.)
I'm pretty sure you and I have had this very same conversation before. I'm not going to convince you that 4E/Saga sucks and is dumbed down. You in turn are never going to convince me that 4E/saga is a net improvement. You vote with your dollars, and I hope you enjoy your game. I will vote with my dollars and find something that I enjoy. It just won't be 4E.
As I was typing, I had the same feeling...
Personally, I'm a big fan of certain elements from both d20 Modern/D&D and from Saga. I've been toying with making a hybrid system which would basically function as a d20 3.75
I don't think dumbing down systems and destroying settings is a d20 modern concept.
Don't forget babying players and removing any and all hints of danger towards PCs.
I don't think dumbing down systems and destroying settings is a d20 modern concept.
Then elaborate what you constitute as "dumbing down is bad" for d20 Modern. An example or two (or more) would be helpful to see clearly where you're coming from.
The new skill system, I think, is actually better for an action-hero-styled game (which is to say, lots of modern-setting games) than the old skill system. Not because it's simpler, but because rather than put you in the position of being specialized with glaring incompetencies or mediocre across the board, it builds both general across-the-board competence with specialization in your favoured skills right into the system without having to choose between the two. Action heroes, as a rule, excel in their specialties while still being competent outside of them. The old skill system didn't capture this point very well. The new skill system assumes it. Even outside of playing "action heroes" per se, building the assumption that experienced people are better than inexperienced people at things that anyone can do, barring special training or talent (see: skill training and high ability scores) on an inexperienced person's part, works well for many modern settings. It's also good simply from the perspective of game design, as it means you can make a challenge non-trivial for an expert while still making it non-impossible for the non-experts.
Healing surges and second winds are also about as perfect as it gets. Action heroes get mangled, suck it up, and press on all the time, usually without the magical healing that so often serves this role in fantasy games. Healing surges are Bruce Willis points. Again, it's also good even if you're not playing "action heroes" per se: most modern settings don't have magical healing or the like, which doesn't translate to most GMs or players wanting long downtimes while waiting for natural healing. In many media, this is dealt with via "heroes only get hurt when it's important to the plot, with most attacks that would be deadly to ordinary people missing, grazing, or otherwise not having quite the same effect on the heroes." In games, the dice control when the heroes get hurt. Hit points and healing surges become the game equivalent of plot protection.
So, yeah. If d20 Modern doesn't get an update with the 4E rules, I may be forced to homebrew it. As far as classes go, I don't think I'd like to see a massive proliferation of base classes, but exactly what classes are used should probably depend on whether the same role system (defender, striker, controller, leader) is kept: if it is, four base classes, one for each role, would probably be sufficient. I'm not sure this would fit so well outside of a fantasy setting, however. Honestly, I think I'd rather see a classless adaptation--or, at the very least, "cobble together your own class using these building blocks"--with things like increased base HP, extra healing surges, beginning defense boosts, etc. being features selectable on an individual basis.
Also, even if unarmed damage boosts and unarmoured AC bonuses never get their due in D&D4E, they're a necessity for a modern toolbox system. Seriously.
If I end up not liking it, I can still play the ones I have now, and maybe I can pirate stuff from the new--
Just my opinion.
4E doesn't really seem "dumbed down" to me, from what I've seen of it. Streamlined, sure. But a lot of what I'm seeing in 4E seems perfect for a modern setting.
Hm. You actually make some very good points, here. I'm keeping an open mind, and so far I must admit that I'm seeing as much stuff that I like as stuff that I don't like about 4e. XP bonuses for things other than combat, for example, are really a good idea. I don't know that the improvements that I like actually require a whole new edition, though, so I'm still hedging my bets. But still, you do make some good points, here.