That being said, check out Amethyst 4e. Its a sci-fantasy setting using 4e rules. Its not released yet, but there are a bunch of previews posted on the GSL boards. Looks pretty neat.
Finally, I will be honest, 4e is not the spiritual successor of d20 Modern. It is far better for running a D&D game then 3e ever was. I really love the tactical nature of combat in that game. But it is not run anything like Modern. Star Wars Saga, on the other hand, really is. It is very much the spiritual successor of d20 Modern, and it is every bit as good as 4e. I'm not saying a Modern 4e would not be great (and I certainly hope one is released), but making one yourself seems to be a lot of work. On the other hand, take Star Wars Saga, throw out the Star Wars Fluff, and pretty much use the rules as written, and boom: d20 Modern (well, future actually), but much, much, much better. I have actually done some work to this effect. I am currently building a sci-fi setting using Star Wars Saga rules (slightly modified to fit my setting better). You can check out my work in the Land of Nod link in my signature.
If WotC were to release an updated version of D20 Modern, their best bet would probably be to take Star Wars SAGA and generalize it. Perhaps even splitting it in half. First half would be typically modern and the other would be all the future tech.
Less work for them.
I already have Saga to run games using the Saga system. I can make Modern games out of that myself. I am hoping that if they release a new d20 Modern game it will be some sort of more "Modern" version of the 4e rule set. Something that factors in firearms, rules that "feel" more lethal (if not necessarily actually being so), and technology of course... but something that plays a little more like 4e. Not necessarily because I think this type of game would be better then a Saga style game (I don't. I like Saga just as much as 4e.), but rather because I want to spend my money on something new.
Steampunk Paragons
Creating 4e Clockwork Weapons, Firearms and Ray-guns
I have not really gotten it ready for public consumption yet, what with being busy with work, getting laid off, finding a new job, moving to Florida, work again, traveling back to Mississippi every weekend to visit my girlfriend, and getting married shortly, but I'll see what I can do.
Oh, and yay, WotC revised their terms of service! They now no longer claim to own all content posted by users on these forums.
On the other hand, take Star Wars Saga, throw out the Star Wars Fluff, and pretty much use the rules as written, and boom: d20 Modern (well, future actually), but much, much, much better.
I'm not familiar with the system. Can you comment briefly on the primary advantages and disadvantages of using Star Wars Saga in this way vs. the standard d20 Modern Core?
Futuristic vehicles that work, and work well.
Starship weapons that actually do enough damage to be considered a serious threat to targets that are not starships.
Much better character creation rules. As in, more interesting classes.
Combat is streamlined and much quicker to run.
Combat is far more tactical then d20 Modern combat. You actually have to think about what option you want to use, and why.
Grappling rules that are not a headache to use.
Characters are faster to stat out. You have more choices, but its easy to calculate what the choices do. No more hours spent trying to work out skill points. Skills are easy to figure out, and streamlined. Etc, etc, etc.
The condition track. One of the most amazing rules to hit d20 EVER! This one is just gold.
The new defense system. SO much better than saving throws.
GREAT splatbooks. Lots of really great new rules in each. I'm talking great DM tools for quick and easy setting building, setting background, and the like. Just great stuff.
Pretty much, its an amazing system right now. To be honest, I think Saga and 4e are the two best systems out there at this current moment in time. The key difference between the two of them is that 4e is a little more gamist, and Saga is a little more simulationist. Both, however, are really great, simple, and elegant rule systems. And, Saga is definitely (currently) the superior system for running Modern/Sci-fi setting games. Perhaps because it was built as a sci-fi setting. :P
That being said, I added in a house rule to my Land of Nod Saga games: A character does not automatically gain 1/2 their level as a bonus to all their skill checks. Rather, a character gets 1/2 their level as a bonus to all their class skill checks. If a skill does not appear on the class skill list of any of a character's classes then that character only adds the relevant ability modifier to that skill's skill checks. This way I can both have the ease of play that the Saga/4e level bonus instead of ranks system offers while simultaneously allowing me to in some manner represent the notion that there are some skills unrelated to your character or character concept which your character just does not improve in. And, if you are worried about characters taking one level in a class just to gain a large number of skill bonuses via an increased "class skill list" (I am not, but I can see why some would) you can always just add in a slight rule change which says that a character only adds 1 skill of a class to their class skill list, from multiclassing, per level of a class taken. Saga is so modular that it is very easy to adapt the system to your Modern gaming needs. Far more easy then 4e, in my opinion. 4e is a great system, but it actually seems quite a bit harder to adapt...
That being said, I added in a house rule to my Land of Nod Saga games: A character does not automatically gain 1/2 their level as a bonus to all their skill checks. Rather, a character gets 1/2 their level as a bonus to all their class skill checks. If a skill does not appear on the class skill list of any of a character's classes then that character only adds the relevant ability modifier to that skill's skill checks.
Nice ruling. I may snag that for use in my 4E D&D.
1: there is no multiplier for level 1 skill points.
2: a class skill with at least 1 rank receives a +3 class skill bonus.
3: cross class skills do not have an increased skill point cost, they just don't get that +3 class skill bonus.
It provides nearly the same features as the basic d20 modern skill system, with less book keeping for using cross class ranks, and makes the choice of what class you take first less important. In the standard d20 modern system any multi-class combination with either a tough or smart level is made stronger by taking those classes first, more-so in the smarts case (8,16 or 24 extra skill-points beats the extra 2 or 4 hp most of the time).
To each their own Cyber-Dave. I lean more towards the simulationist paradigm than does SAGA or the even more gamist 4e. Personally I am moving more towards a Pathfinder like skill system.
*Shudder*
To each their own indeed. I hate Pathfinder. Total crap in my opinion. All the problems of 3e, no real fixes, no added tactics of any serious depth (as far as I can see), but in an expensive new cover. Even those skill point changes you named don't really fix anything... I am still forced to deal with skill points! And, as they have not consolidated skills, and the last time I looked at the rules they did not increase the number of skill points gained per level (that may have changed since I last saw the rules. I have not seen the latest edition), its still super hard to acquire even the skills you need to build a basic character concept. Zero interest in it from me. What I read of the Alpha and Beta playtests really turned me off. Indeed, I liked the way they handled skills more in Alpha then what I have read from Beta. On the other hand, I love both Saga and 4e.
Ah well. Variety is the spice of life, or so they say. ;)
D20 modern was and is a tool box system for developing a wide variety of action games set in near modern to distant future worlds. Any game that is Modern without being a specific campaign setting (like Call of Cthulu, Firefly, etc) must be a tool box and not an end product.
It must have:
1. rules present and clear for GMs to easily create classes, races, gear, magic, etc. that seamlessly fit into the system without requiring significant playtesting as well as pregenerated races and classes that are generalized enough to fit as-is in a variety of settings.
2. a scalable system that works just as well with no magic or high tech as it does with full magic and alien super tech, and everything in between.
3. optional rulesets to recreate literally any movie, book, genre or concept that can remotely be considered "Modern" including magic, psionics, super powers, alien tech, cyberware and furbys
4. more support than we have been getting for most of this Decade.
a 4e style system does not meet the modern needs, and I think that their current business model would preclude producing such a system that meets the needs that I outlined.
1. If we can write our own stuff like we have for D20 modern, then we won't need to buy a new player's handbook every year like they want D&D players to do.
2. A truly scalable system is really freaking hard to do without hosing balance at some point or just having to fudge it to make it work (my preferred method) and since balance is Wizard's new mantra they would have to devote alot of time and money to really make something better than what we have.
3. Again, we won't need to keep buying annual rule books (at $30 to $40 each) just to get the flexibility we need if all the optional rules are already there. All we want are campaign books or support materials. That doesn't fit the business model.
4. If the D&D insider is the kind of support (for a modest fee) that they are looking at providing, then that is not what we really need for modern. They need to be profitable, I understand. But in order for me to pay for these services, I really have to want them and they have to make my game better. (and do it better than other tools that cost less or are free).
Will it happen? I don't know. I always called the D20 modern core rulebook "The best deal in Gaming" and I still believe that. Until a better deal comes along, I will stick with what I have.
In my opinion, D&D 4e is a really specific system for a really specific kind of game.
I agree. But, I do not agree that the system can not be modified to fit Modern style games as well as 3e did, if not a good deal better. Indeed, Amethyst is already proving that it is capable to add technology and modern day style classes into the 4e system.
1. rules present and clear for GMs to easily create classes, races, gear, magic, etc. that seamlessly fit into the system without requiring significant playtesting as well as pregenerated races and classes that are generalized enough to fit as-is in a variety of settings.
This is not required of d20 Modern. Many of us created homebrew classes for d20 Modern, but there were NO rules on how to do so in the d20 Modern book. We figured out the right formula for home brew classes on our own, and began building them. I see no reason people should not have to do so again with d20 Modern 2.0.
2. a scalable system that works just as well with no magic or high tech as it does with full magic and alien super tech, and everything in between.
The 4e system will work well as a system that can include both classes with magic, and classes without it. Martial classes, and arcane classes, but all classes have powers built using the same mechanics. Easy enough. And, 4e is far easier to turn into a no-magic item game then 3e ever was. They turned 3e into d20 Modern... no reason they can't do the same with 4th.
3. optional rulesets to recreate literally any movie, book, genre or concept that can remotely be considered "Modern" including magic, psionics, super powers, alien tech, cyberware and furbys
The d20 Modern book did not have this. Later books came out that added such options, but these books were of varying quality. d20 Apocalypse and Cyberscape are amazing. I still use them for my Saga games. d20 Future was a load of trash. It was good only as seeds for ideas which I then had to grow (via house rules) into a workable product on my own.
4. more support than we have been getting for most of this Decade.
d20 Modern needs support? For the entirety of its lifetime, the only support I really saw on an even semi-regular basis was in the form of fans and house rules.
a 4e style system does not meet the modern needs, and I think that their current business model would preclude producing such a system that meets the needs that I outlined.
1. If we can write our own stuff like we have for D20 modern, then we won't need to buy a new player's handbook every year like they want D&D players to do.
See above. Some of us will figure out how to build homebrew classes. Some wont. It will be just like it was in the 3e era. And, to top that off, even though I was quite capable of making my own classes, I still bought new books for new official classes. I see no reason people won't for a new iteration of the game.
2. A truly scalable system is really freaking hard to do without hosing balance at some point or just having to fudge it to make it work (my preferred method) and since balance is Wizard's new mantra they would have to devote alot of time and money to really make something better than what we have.
See above. 4e already works well both as a system full of magic items, and a system with no magic items. Hell, there are rules in the DMG for how to run a game with no magic items. Want to remove magic using classes? Easy enough as well. Remove all the "arcane" power source classes from your game.
3. Again, we won't need to keep buying annual rule books (at $30 to $40 each) just to get the flexibility we need if all the optional rules are already there. All we want are campaign books or support materials. That doesn't fit the business model.
Because 3e offered all the books and flexible options with one book? Tell that to my copy of Urban Arcana, d20 Future, d20 Past, d20 Cyberscape, d20 Apocalypse, and d20 Future Tech. The only books I bought that were campaign books or support material, and not a set of optional rules and materials packaged into their own book, were d20 Dark Matter, the Menace Manual, and Critical Locations. And, that said, there is no reason why a d20 Modern 4e book line would be released using the exact same marketing strategy as 4e D&D. Considering the fact that the line is not nearly as popular, it is far more likely to be released as a stand alone product.
4. If the D&D insider is the kind of support (for a modest fee) that they are looking at providing, then that is not what we really need for modern. They need to be profitable, I understand. But in order for me to pay for these services, I really have to want them and they have to make my game better. (and do it better than other tools that cost less or are free).
You might not like D&D insider, but many do. Likewise, I am sure that if they release a quality online magazine and set of online tools, for a Modern game, many people will sign up for it.
Will it happen? I don't know. I always called the D20 modern core rulebook "The best deal in Gaming" and I still believe that. Until a better deal comes along, I will stick with what I have.
Already has. Ever since Saga I have not found a reason to play d20 Modern. The only d20 Modern line books that I own that still get use are the optional rules that are easy to integrate into Saga, aka d20 Critical Locations, d20 Apocalypse, and d20 Cyberscape.
I agree. But, I do not agree that the system can not be modified to fit Modern style games as well as 3e did, if not a good deal better. Indeed, Amethyst is already proving that it is capable to add technology and modern day style classes into the 4e system.
I dunno. It looks a lot harder to tweak 4e to suit a specific setting of your desire than you would with 3e.
Even if you do, then you might as well chuck the GSL (if you're an aspiring game publisher wanting to make a few bucks), because the GSL is about keeping your game product inline and in-sync with WotC's approach to the d20 System. IOW, you can't really think WAY outside the box. Something about gamers complaining that third-party product are not 100% compatible with WotC's game books that they are more intimately familiar with. They need parameters, boundaries, to hold them in.
No wonder boardgames and videogames are popular.
A mecha or great robot can be defeated with weapons of d20 Future, but in a apocalypse campaing is more dangerous because your firearms are weaker and scant, limited.
What if I would like a d20 modern with supernatural powers (a updated Urban Arcana, for example)? Magic againts bullets?
When a d20 Spectaculars, a soucerbook for superheroes?
And I wish a "fat" book of d20 Past.
...guess what? That's why we use 'em.
The balance can come in when it comes to price:
Total cost for a gunship: $ 20 mil.
Total cost for the martial artist: $ 10-100 worth of clothes.
I dunno. It looks a lot harder to tweak 4e to suit a specific setting of your desire than you would with 3e.
Amethyst is proving you wrong. 4 techan classes, and technological items. Its completely compatible with 4e rules.
Even if you do, then you might as well chuck the GSL (if you're an aspiring game publisher wanting to make a few bucks), because the GSL is about keeping your game product inline and in-sync with WotC's approach to the d20 System. IOW, you can't really think WAY outside the box. Something about gamers complaining that third-party product are not 100% compatible with WotC's game books that they are more intimately familiar with. They need parameters, boundaries, to hold them in.
No wonder boardgames and videogames are popular.
If WOTC tweaks the system themselves, they don't need to worry about the GSL. It is their product and they can do what they want with it. Likewise, gaming companies could then release books compatible not only with standard D&D 4e, but also with Modern 4e.
I agree though, it is harder to make a buck of tweaking WotC's work and then re-selling it then it was before...
I agree. But, I do not agree that the system can not be modified to fit Modern style games as well as 3e did, if not a good deal better. Indeed, Amethyst is already proving that it is capable to add technology and modern day style classes into the 4e system.
Oh certainly the system can be modified to fit a Modern game. It just can't be modified to fit every Modern game. While it is much more abstracted than 3e was, it relies on each class and race and power being custom crafted for the situation. You could take the ranger and re-fluff all the powers and call it a Gunslinger because it is abstract. But that doesn't make it feel right, or make it very Versatile.
You can craft a modern day class in 4e, without a doubt. You can't create enough classes in 4e to cover the multiplicity of options provided with six basic classes and twelve advanced, all of which can be combined in hundreds of ways.
One of the things that makes D20 modern work is the free wheeling multiclassing, while 4e practically eliminated multiclassing. Though the typical path to Gunslinger is Fast/GS, you can add Tough to it or Smart or mix other Advanced classes to make a very different character than what can be had with just a 4e ranger type of Gunslinger. You don't even have to take Fast hero at all.
This is not required of d20 Modern. Many of us created homebrew classes for d20 Modern, but there were NO rules on how to do so in the d20 Modern book. We figured out the right formula for home brew classes on our own, and began building them. I see no reason people should not have to do so again with d20 Modern 2.0.
But a build system is required of a 4e version of Modern. A single class in 4e is about fourteen pages long (I counted the Warlock) including paragon and epic progressions. The majority of this is the list of powers. A Modern advanced class is, what, two? three? Along with the basic that brings it to four or five pages if you want twenty custom character levels. Creating powers for 4e is relatively easy, but creating a complete list of powers for a single class that is both meaningful and balanced is a huge workload.
The 4e system will work well as a system that can include both classes with magic, and classes without it. Martial classes, and arcane classes, but all classes have powers built using the same mechanics. Easy enough. And, 4e is far easier to turn into a no-magic item game then 3e ever was. They turned 3e into d20 Modern... no reason they can't do the same with 4th.
4e won't work because every character has powers. They didn't make it low magic, they made it total magic and divided it between mage magic, fighter magic and cleric magic. The only difference between spells and exploits is the W in the Exploits. What they reduced was magic items. They reduced the effect of magic items so much that if you didn't have them, you wouldn't really notice. There is no more flying carpet, but you can get winged boots that allow you fly for twelve seconds
... once a day. That design philosophy just won't cut it in modern. That is not scalable.
The d20 Modern book did not have this. Later books came out that added such options, but these books were of varying quality. d20 Apocalypse and Cyberscape are amazing. I still use them for my Saga games. d20 Future was a load of trash. It was good only as seeds for ideas which I then had to grow (via house rules) into a workable product on my own.
I disagree. While cyberware and alien tech did come later, magic and psionics were provided in the core books as optional rulesets along with compatible Advanced classes to provide a variety of supernatural power levels. Need low magic? use the Shadow Chasers module with the Occultist. Need mid level magic? use the Urban Arcana with the Mage and Acolyte with the full spell list.
d20 Modern needs support? For the entirety of its lifetime, the only support I really saw on an even semi-regular basis was in the form of fans and house rules.
It would be nice. I'm glad you noticed that we have been unsupported for many years.
See above. 4e already works well both as a system full of magic items, and a system with no magic items. Hell, there are rules in the DMG for how to run a game with no magic items. Want to remove magic using classes? Easy enough as well. Remove all the "arcane" power source classes from your game.
I am not talking about magic items. Cutting out classes that all have magic (which would be about half the book) just to get a no magic game is not a solution. And it also would not work since it eliminates the Controller which is so very integral to the party role system. And you can't eliminate powers from the game, since there would be nothing left.
Because 3e offered all the books and flexible options with one book? Tell that to my copy of Urban Arcana, d20 Future, d20 Past, d20 Cyberscape, d20 Apocalypse, and d20 Future Tech. The only books I bought that were campaign books or support material, and not a set of optional rules and materials packaged into their own book, were d20 Dark Matter, the Menace Manual, and Critical Locations. And, that said, there is no reason why a d20 Modern 4e book line would be released using the exact same marketing strategy as 4e D&D. Considering the fact that the line is not nearly as popular, it is far more likely to be released as a stand alone product.
Actually D20 modern offered many of the options in the core book. Including a version of Urban Arcana plus Shadow Chasers and the Agents of Psi campaign modules. There was also a mini Menace Manual in there as well.
I do agree with you in that they would have to break with their current marketing model in order to successfully sell a Modern line, and I said as much before. I just don't know if they will.
You might not like D&D insider, but many do. Likewise, I am sure that if they release a quality online magazine and set of online tools, for a Modern game, many people will sign up for it.
We haven't seen Insider yet, just what they plan to do. They have the initial copies of Dungeon and Dragon magazines and a sneak peak at a few of their tools, but this is a free trial period that will end. Will everyone who likes it now like it as much when they are paying the subscription fees? Time will tell. But you are right. Many people would pay to have a Modern oriented monthly and some tools.
Already has. Ever since Saga I have not found a reason to play d20 Modern. The only d20 Modern line books that I own that still get use are the optional rules that are easy to integrate into Saga, aka d20 Critical Locations, d20 Apocalypse, and d20 Cyberscape.
I would gladly play Modern: Saga Edition over a Modern themed 4e. Perhaps that is the idea you should be trumpeting, not a 4e reinvent of Modern.
Creating powers for 4e is relatively easy, but creating a complete list of powers for a single class that is both meaningful and balanced is a huge workload.
I have attempted to create two HB classes and it is an extremely tediuous process. Especially when you are constantly crosschecking to see that your powers are original, unique, and balanced. Just duplicating abilities already possessed by other classes is pretty pointless. Better to just add more powers to each class. There is little you can modify that isn't already covered since the game has been greatly simplified from 3e combat. No sundering, no disarming, no tripping (as a basic attack anyway), no non-lethal combat. Saves can't be improved much otherwise they become ridiculously easy. Mostly you just have combinations of shifting, pushing, moving, damaging, and attacking bonuses. One of the reasons they don't need a barbarian or monk class is that their is little they can do as melee combatants that the other class don't already do.
If you're just cherry picking powers for each class you could feasiblly make a few new classes, but you definately start homogenizing the entire game.
If you really wanted to use the 4e game to recreate Modern you would have to create new class features for all six and reorginize most of the fantasy class powers.
Most of the fighter's powers already useful to a "STRONG" hero's high strength.
"DEDICATED" heros would need to take on some of the less obviously divine powers (more of a field medic) but retain the ability to inspire and heal others. They would have some of the cleric, paladin, and the wisest warlord abilities.
"FAST" hero's would delve into the dexterity exploits of the ranger and rogue.
"SMART" heros would need to change some of the Rogue powers to INT based rather than DEX (Exploit Weakness and so forth) and maybe take on a few of the Warlords powers. Techie character's could invent small gizmos that replicate "arcane" powers.
"CHARISMATIC" heros would take on many of the Rogue's decieving powers as well as some of the Paladin powers. Then you could either modify or create fresh Paragons that are not tied to specific classes and do the same for Epic tier.
"TOUGH" heros would need the Martial Power book to find enough CON utilizing powers unless they can also have access to warlock powers.
The wizard, warlock, and cleric would be additional classes or trimmed down to Paragon size.
Oh certainly the system can be modified to fit a Modern game. It just can't be modified to fit every Modern game. While it is much more abstracted than 3e was, it relies on each class and race and power being custom crafted for the situation. You could take the ranger and re-fluff all the powers and call it a Gunslinger because it is abstract. But that doesn't make it feel right, or make it very Versatile.
Opinion, and speaks only to your personal tastes and not the requirements of a d20 Modern game or possibilities of a 4e d20 Modern game.
You can craft a modern day class in 4e, without a doubt. You can't create enough classes in 4e to cover the multiplicity of options provided with six basic classes and twelve advanced, all of which can be combined in hundreds of ways.
I REALLY don't know that I agree with this. 4e classes are FAR more versatile then 3e classes. They offer far more options in terms of builds. Its true that 4e offers a lot less in terms of multiclassing. Certainly a Saga system of multiclassing is far closer to the spirit of the first edition of d20 Modern then the 4e system is. That does not mean that that is necessarily what the 4e system should be like however. Whatever they make, if it works well as a system for running modern games I will be happy. I am not adverse to switching my paradigm in regards to the way certain things are done, such as multiclassing.
One of the things that makes D20 modern work is the free wheeling multiclassing, while 4e practically eliminated multiclassing. Though the typical path to Gunslinger is Fast/GS, you can add Tough to it or Smart or mix other Advanced classes to make a very different character than what can be had with just a 4e ranger type of Gunslinger. You don't even have to take Fast hero at all.
It is one of the things that made the first edition of d20 Modern work well. That largely speaks to the fact that the first edition of d20 Modern was born out of a 3e design philosophy. It so happens that this design philosophy actually worked better for d20 Modern games then D&D games. This does not necessarily mean that this will or should be necessary from a 4e d20 Modern game. If one is made it will be born out of a 4e paradigm of game design. It will have some differences. These differences don't mean it will be a worse game. It might be better. I like the sort of Modern rules Amethyst has been previewing up to now. So, again, how ones multiclassing, and exactly how much one should be able to multiclass, will really depend on their design philosophy for a 4e d20 Modern game. Personally I hope for more multiclassing... but less can still work quite well. Especially if you are trying to capture 4e style game-play in a Modern era.
But a build system is required of a 4e version of Modern.
A build system? I am not sure I understand. Explain.
A single class in 4e is about fourteen pages long (I counted the Warlock) including paragon and epic progressions. The majority of this is the list of powers. A Modern advanced class is, what, two? three? Along with the basic that brings it to four or five pages if you want twenty custom character levels. Creating powers for 4e is relatively easy, but creating a complete list of powers for a single class that is both meaningful and balanced is a huge workload.
So what? It does not prove that a 4e d20 Modern game would not work well. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that house ruling in 4e style games will look a little different then house-ruling in 3e style games. You won't see complete classes. Instead you will see new builds for classes and a set of powers designed specifically for that build. Much easier to do. Its also, mechanically, about as comprehensive as creating an entirely new class for 3e.
4e won't work because every character has powers. They didn't make it low magic, they made it total magic and divided it between mage magic, fighter magic and cleric magic.
And this statement is total bologna. The fighter, rogue, and warlord, do not cast spells or use magic in any shape or form.
The only difference between spells and exploits is the W in the Exploits.
Irrelevant. This speaks to mechanics and not fluff. There is no reason that magic and non-magic abilities should not work under similar mechanics. It makes it easy to integrate both magic and non magic classes in a simple manner, and it makes it easy to remove a particular class if one so chooses. That being said, there is still a difference between magic and non magic powers in 4e. Magic powers generally tend to have their own damage dice, non magic powers tend to work off a weapons damage dice, magic powers have their own listed range, non magic powers tend to work of a weapons range, magic powers often target large areas of effect, non magic powers usually can only target a single target or else a very small area of effect. Non magic powers rely on items, magic powers are only aided by items. This sort of deviation between magic and non magic powers would work just as well in a Modern game.
What they reduced was magic items. They reduced the effect of magic items so much that if you didn't have them, you wouldn't really notice. There is no more flying carpet, but you can get winged boots that allow you fly for twelve seconds
... once a day. That design philosophy just won't cut it in modern. That is not scalable.
It would cut it just fine in Modern. You just don't prefer the aesthetic. Your preference does not speak to what would or would not work as a Modern game. It is quite possible YOU might not enjoy a 4e style Modern game. That does not mean it would not be a good game.
I disagree. While cyberware and alien tech did come later, magic and psionics were provided in the core books as optional rulesets along with compatible Advanced classes to provide a variety of supernatural power levels. Need low magic? use the Shadow Chasers module with the Occultist. Need mid level magic? use the Urban Arcana with the Mage and Acolyte with the full spell list.
The sort of "options" that d20 Modern provided with just the core rulebook could be provided just as easily with a 4e Modern game. If they made the game completely compatible with 4e, then it could be done as simply as bringing in 4e classes. Hell, they could release a "4e Modern PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual" one year as their 4e books. You want pure Modern? Use those books only. You want sci-fi? Use the splat book they release some time down the line. You want Urban Arcana? Mix the other D&D books with those books. That being said, even if they don't make the rules mesh perfectly, its as simple as creating a few "campaign" write ups and releasing a couple classes for those campaigns. A "modern wizard," some sort of occultist, a psi-character, exactly what they did for d20 Modern.
It would be nice. I'm glad you noticed that we have been unsupported for many years.
To be honest, I don't really think you can expect to see any real support any time in the near future either... but it would be nice if we got some. However, I am willing to bet that when a new Modern is released (if it is) there will be quite a bit of an outcry. There will be gamers willing to accept the new paradigm of the game, and gamers who will not. Those who will not will feel personally insulted that the game does not cater to their very specific tastes.
I am not talking about magic items. Cutting out classes that all have magic (which would be about half the book) just to get a no magic game is not a solution. And it also would not work since it eliminates the Controller which is so very integral to the party role system. And you can't eliminate powers from the game, since there would be nothing left.
1) You don't need to have a controller in a group. Its beneficial, its not necessary.
2) If they release a d20 Modern game, or a 4e d20 Modern game, I expect them to release a non magical striker, defender, leader, and controller, that all rely on technological devices. Hell, Amethyst is already doing so with their third party product. Psi or magic based classes would be in addition to these techno-base classes, and would only only be allowed if they fit a GM's chosen campaign.
3) There is no need to eliminate powers.
Actually D20 modern offered many of the options in the core book. Including a version of Urban Arcana plus Shadow Chasers and the Agents of Psi campaign modules. There was also a mini Menace Manual in there as well.
And, as I pointed out above, all these things could be included in a 4e version of d20 Modern to the same extent that they were included in the 3e version of d20 Modern.
I do agree with you in that they would have to break with their current marketing model in order to successfully sell a Modern line, and I said as much before. I just don't know if they will.
They will not necessarily have to break from the current marketing model. They might. They might not. Depends on what they try and do with a 4e Modern, and whether they try and release it as a one shot product with an occasional suppliment (ala our original d20 Modern) or as a fully supported product line (ala D&D and Saga).
We haven't seen Insider yet, just what they plan to do. They have the initial copies of Dungeon and Dragon magazines and a sneak peak at a few of their tools, but this is a free trial period that will end. Will everyone who likes it now like it as much when they are paying the subscription fees? Time will tell. But you are right. Many people would pay to have a Modern oriented monthly and some tools.
Actually, we have seen a big portion of insider. Some of the tools are still not available, but about half of what is being offered is. That half is already being sold. The trial is already over, and access to what is available is already being paid for... and people are buying.
I would gladly play Modern: Saga Edition over a Modern themed 4e. Perhaps that is the idea you should be trumpeting, not a 4e reinvent of Modern.
I would gladly play a Modern: Saga Edition as well. The question is, why would I bother buying that product? I can already use the Saga system to do this! Its quite easy to do. All that is really necessary is that one throw out the fluff, and use their own. Remove one die form the weapons (making them do 2d base instead of 3d base) if you are making the game take place closer to modern day times. If I am going to buy a new product, it needs to be new. If they make a d20 Modern game based off Saga edition that is actually full of something NEW I will buy it. Saga is an amazing game, and it runs modern games very well. I am currently using it to do so. However, if they just take the Saga rules, and repackage them with new fluff, I will not buy the game. I can do that for myself, and already have... On the other hand, as you have pointed out, making 4e run as a Modern game takes more work. I am not willing to do that work myself. So, if they actually go through the work of re-working 4e as a Modern game with Modern themed classes I will definitely buy it! It won't be D&D 4e, it will be something new. And, as I have played 4e, and I know I love the game, I would gladly play a Modern version of the game. That doesn't mean I would stop playing Saga versions of Modern though :P. I love Saga way too much. Still, variety is the spice of life.
But, the point is, from a business perspective, it will be harder for WotC to convince me to buy a Saga-like version of Modern then it will be for them to convince me to buy a 4e version of Modern. One is something that I can create for myself using the Saga books, the other is something I can not create for myself. One is thus appealing to me as a product by its very nature, the other has to offer something a little more.
That being said, if they offered a supplement that included stated Modern technology and vehicles using Saga's rules, I would buy it. I am just not so interested in buying a repackaged version of Saga's classes. Saga already did a great job with them... I don't need a new version unless it is actually an improvement.
So, I guess what I am saying is, I would be happy with a Modern Saga or a 4e Modern. Both would be great games. Both would be different games. Modern Saga would be closer to the spirit of the original d20 Modern, but its also already quite possible to run such a game using the Saga rules. 4e Modern will probably be further from the spirit of d20 Modern, but it will be new enough to instantly catch my interest.
In terms of a "Modern Saga" though, I honestly think what I would like more is a Saga supplement that includes the stats for current day Modern equipment using modern's rules. I don't see what could be done with the character creation system that would really be an improvement over Saga (if you were sticking with the Saga paradigm). However, if, upon flipping through the book, I decided that it really did have some drastic improvement to offer, I would buy it... though I would be a little miffed about all the money I have already spent on Saga books just to run a Modern game using the Saga rules. :P
I've already construced a Sci Fantasy game that works using the fourth edition rules (and works well. Heck I didn't even change classes or powers) so I know for a fact the Fourth Edition Chassis can work with a sci fantasy at the very least as well as it does a normal fantasy game.
My modern fantasy is more like a super hero esque game you get five talents, all in Heroic tier, in addition to your powers. (Talents like Super human str which give you a +5 on str checks etc)
I'm working on presently ditching classes, and making everything into a point based purchase system so you can mix and match to create your ideal super hero. Though this last part is optional.
The "hard" part about making a Modern d20 is assigning where you want your weapons to be at.
I heard Modern d20 is supposed to be coming early to mid next year. (Don't hold me to it.. just what I've heard)
If that's true then I'm very excited. Even if I somehow finish my project by then. :D
I personally prefer the 3.X Modern/D&D for campaigns, as I've found the system creates much more unique characters than 4E... That and it doesn't shoe-horn the crap out of players. I absolutely hate that all I get for playing a fearless, twin-bastard-sword-wielding berserker is a +1 to damage (if I have the feat)... unless I'm a ranger, which then allows me to even hit with both of my weapons in the same round... but then that shoehorns me into yet another role.
Don't get me wrong. I like 4E... but it feels too much like... well, a game instead of an interactive story.
I can't pass judgment on Saga because, though I have borrowed and read it, I have never played it. It looked a bit simple for my taste, though. I like D20Modern where it is. D20Future, however, could use a healthy dose of Saga as far as ships are concerned.
I do like the Pathfinder skill variant that Nadaka posted, though. I think I'll steal that... and possibly look at the rest of the system.
Cyberdave - Some of us like the complicated skill system, and house-ruling, and the like.
God knows I have written enough house rules in my time. However, the skill point system was a joke. From the point of view of a GM, it wasted SO much of my time when I was quest building. There is no good reason why a base skill bonus should not be based of level when pretty much everything else in the game is. That being said, everyone is welcome to their opinions. You don't need to agree with mine. This does not mean, however, that the 4e ruleset will not make an excellent modern game. At most it means that it will make a 4e ruleset that you personally would not enjoy. I know I would however... It would be a very different game from the first edition of d20 Modern though.
I personally prefer the 3.X Modern/D&D for campaigns, as I've found the system creates much more unique characters than 4E...
Funny. I find the exact opposite. I find that 4e creates far more unique characters. Especially in D&D. In D&D 3e two 10th level rogues are pretty much the same thing. In D&D 4e two 10th level rogues will be totally different creatures depending on their power choices.
That and it doesn't shoe-horn the crap out of players.
That is what I found 3e did... Why should every 3rd level rogue get evasion (I pulled the level and ability out of my backside, so they are not accurate... but I am sure you get the point I am making)? d20 Modern did a lot to fix that with talents... but then for some reason it went right back to this rigidity with its advanced classes. Still, it did allow for more multi-classing then 4e does.
I absolutely hate that all I get for playing a fearless, twin-bastard-sword-wielding berserker is a +1 to damage (if I have the feat)...
The ability to choose which weapon you attack with each round, and a +1 to damage with the attack with any weapon (because the weapon you attack with is always assumed to be the one in the best position to make the attack) is plenty. And, as you said, you can always play a ranger. You can also play a tempest build fighter, or "multi-class" into ranger, perhaps with the "two weapon warrior" feat. Moreover, none of these options "shoehorn you into yet another role."
Don't get me wrong. I like 4E as a team-based table-top brawler... but I like 3E and its kin better for long-running campaigns. To quote another poster's sig: "I played 4E and I liked it. It was a great wargame!"
Well, I think it makes an amazing role-playing game. I actually think it makes a pretty poor wargame. Wargames are about a player vs. player scenario, and include armies (or at least small battalions or skirmish forces) played by each of these players. They are not about a communally built narrative. Considering the fact that 4e IS about a communally built narrative, and has none of the other features I expect from a wargame, I really don't share your opinion or estimation of the games qualities. I will admit, however, that it is a combat heavy role playing game. For games that are a little less combat heavy I prefer to use the Saga system.
I can't pass judgment on Saga because, though I have borrowed and read it, I have never played it. It looked a bit simple for my taste, though. I like D20Modern where it is. D20Future, however, could use a healthy dose of Saga as far as ships are concerned.
Once Saga came out, and I bought the game (originally to plunder it for house rules for vehicles in d20 Modern), I never looked back to d20 Modern (except, ironically, for house rules on cybernetics, VRNets, and running post-apocalypse games). To be honest, I would not use 4e to run every style of Modern game. I think I would use 4e exclusively for more epic/combat heavy or sci-fantasy style games. Stuff like Warhammer 40k, or else a combat heavy post-apocalypse style game. However, any style game I could run effectively with d20 Modern I can run better with a Saga rule set. The game (in my estimation) is superior to d20 Modern in every possible way.
I do like the Pathfinder skill variant that Nadaka posted, though. I think I'll steal that... and possibly look at the rest of the system.
Each their own. Our opinions obviously won't align. I think pathfinder is trash. It fixes none of the core problems of the 3.5 system.
God knows I have written enough house rules in my time. However, the skill point system was a joke. From the point of view of a GM, it wasted SO much of my time when I was quest building. There is no good reason why a base skill bonus should not be based of level when pretty much everything else in the game is. That being said, everyone is welcome to their opinions. You don't need to agree with mine. This does not mean, however, that the 4e ruleset will not make an excellent modern game. At most it means that it will make a 4e ruleset that you personally would not enjoy. I know I would however... It would be a very different game from the first edition of d20 Modern though.
I never said it wouldn't make a good Modern game... I just mentioned I'd prefer to stay away from that direction of development.
Funny. I find the exact opposite. I find that 4e creates far more unique characters. Especially in D&D. In D&D 3e two 10th level rogues are pretty much the same thing. In D&D 4e two 10th level rogues will be totally different creatures depending on their power choices.
Heh, I suppose being "brought up" in Modern spoiled me a bit, along with the fact that all of my D&D GMs blew off the multiclassing limitations (excepting the classes that have rules about it) and let me use the classes as building blocks for my character.
I haven't played a single base class from level 1 to 20 (or 1 to 10 in Modern) simply because I can't stand sticking to a preset concept. In 4E, I'm stuck and I hate that. Also, by shoehorning, I mean pushing me into roles like "striker, defender, controller, etc..." with only a few options to diversify myself from others of the same class. Why can't I be as much (50/50) striker as defender, or as much controller as buffer?
That is what I found 3e did... Why should every 3rd level rogue get evasion (I pulled the level and ability out of my backside, so they are not accurate... but I am sure you get the point I am making)? d20 Modern did a lot to fix that with talents... but then for some reason it went right back to this rigidity with its advanced classes. Still, it did allow for more multi-classing then 4e does.
Advanced/Prestige classes are for people who want to take on aspects of a certain concept. Though I'd rather the Soldier class have three trees of soldier (gunman, tactician, and combat tech), I can do just fine by taking Soldier along with a few other classes to fit my character.
In D&D 3E, I can still make some fun and viable concepts with multiclassing. for instance we have the Mystic Ninja: (SwordsageX/RogueX/Shadowsun NinjaX), or (RogueX/WizardX), or one of many other combinations.
The ability to choose which weapon you attack with each round, and a +1 to damage with the attack with any weapon (because the weapon you attack with is always assumed to be the one in the best position to make the attack) is plenty.
Not for me.
And, as you said, you can always play a ranger. You can also play a tempest build fighter, or "multi-class" into ranger, perhaps with the "two weapon warrior" feat. Moreover, none of these options "shoehorn you into yet another role."
See, I just can't get around a silly thing like, "You can't attack with two weapons at the same time without "X" class feature." Well why not? I don't have that class feature, and I can certainly hit hard with both hands in the space of a second or two. Now, I might not land both shots all the time in real combat, and my left will also hit softer than my right, but then both might actually hit... or maybe my right misses and my left hits something important. In 3E terms, I don't have the TWF feat, so my hits aren't as accurate, but I can still try.
Well, I think it makes an amazing role-playing game. I actually think it makes a pretty poor wargame. Wargames are about a player vs. player scenario, and include armies (or at least small battalions or skirmish forces) played by each of these players. They are not about a communally built narrative. Considering the fact that 4e IS about a communally built narrative, and has none of the other features I expect from a wargame, I really don't share your opinion or estimation of the games qualities. I will admit, however, that it is a combat heavy role playing game. For games that are a little less combat heavy I prefer to use the Saga system.
First, D&D is a set of rules with a lot of fluff tied to it. Sure, that fluff might make for a good story (or story potential), but it's truly just an optional part of the game. That said, you can just as easily make the game a communally built narrative as you can make it the weekly pencil and paper bashfest. To me, the mechanics seem to lean toward the latter option IMHO, due to their focus on battle (though skill challenges are a neat idea.)
Have you by chance played Mordheim? It's Warhammer, but with small-unit tactical skirmishes instead of large-scale battles. It's actually a lot of fun, and more the type of game I'd see 4E emulating as a wargame. Give each player a handful of heroes and henchmen to form squads (it shouldn't take all that much time if your starting at low level), set up a scenario, and have at it. Hell, you could make it into a communal narrative AND a tactical game if you have your players pick a "captain" who they roleplay...
That sounds like a lot of fun, actually... but I digress...
Once Saga came out, and I bought the game (originally to plunder it for house rules for vehicles in d20 Modern), I never looked back to d20 Modern (except, ironically, for house rules on cybernetics, VRNets, and running post-apocalypse games). To be honest, I would not use 4e to run every style of Modern game. I think I would use 4e exclusively for more epic/combat heavy or sci-fantasy style games. Stuff like Warhammer 40k, or else a combat heavy post-apocalypse style game. However, any style game I could run effectively with d20 Modern I can run better with a Saga rule set. The game (in my estimation) is superior to d20 Modern in every possible way.
I can't really reply here as I have not played it before.
However, I agree I could see a 4E style 40K RPG.
Each their own. Our opinions obviously won't align. I think pathfinder is trash. It fixes none of the core problems of the 3.5 system.
Could you list these problems? Several of the things you hate about 3E are things I enjoy. :P
On another note: I never expected our opinions to align on this issue. Our gaming styles are a bit too different for that.
Anyhow, I see you didn't read the kinder, friendlier version of my post. lol! I didn't mean to set you off on a rant, dude. I'm tired from work, and it took me a few tries to say what I wanted without looking like a jerk. >_>
I never said it wouldn't make a good Modern game... I just mentioned I'd prefer to stay away from that direction of development.
Fair enough.
Heh, I suppose being "brought up" in Modern spoiled me a bit, along with the fact that all of my D&D GMs blew off the multiclassing limitations (excepting the classes that have rules about it) and let me use the classes as building blocks for my character.
I haven't played a single base class from level 1 to 20 (or 1 to 10 in Modern) simply because I can't stand sticking to a preset concept. In 4E, I'm stuck and I hate that. Also, by shoehorning, I mean pushing me into roles like "striker, defender, controller, etc..." with only a few options to diversify myself from others of the same class. Why can't I be as much (50/50) striker as defender, or as much controller as buffer?
1) Your DM might have blown off the multiclassing limitations, but they were still present in the rules. If your DM blew off the multiclassing limitations with a house rule in 3e, he can do so just as easily with a house rule in 4th.
2) Almost all classes have powers that actually fit with a secondary role. Its possible to be a fighter and be an effective "striker" for example, same with a wizard in fact. Likewise, its possible to be a Cleric and be an effective controller. There is not as much shoehorning as you are presuming even if one sticks to a single class...
3) But a character does not have to stick to a single class. It is very possible to divide your abilities 50/50 between two roles. Pick a class to multiclass into, take all the multiclassing feats, and then paragon path multiclass, and you will have a character who is about 50/50 between two classes (and thus two roles). Actually, a tempest fighter with rogue paragon multiclassing or vice versa would work very well as a 50/50 defender/striker.
Advanced/Prestige classes are for people who want to take on aspects of a certain concept. Though I'd rather the Soldier class have three trees of soldier (gunman, tactician, and combat tech), I can do just fine by taking Soldier along with a few other classes to fit my character.
In D&D 3E, I can still make some fun and viable concepts with multiclassing. for instance we have the Mystic Ninja: (SwordsageX/RogueX/Shadowsun NinjaX), or (RogueX/WizardX), or one of many other combinations.
Fair enough. But likewise, I can build virtually any character concept between two classes and the powers those two classes offer me. And, as for your multiclass D&D combinations, I am willing to bet some of those combinations required free-form multiclassing house rules. Again, allow me to add in a house rule that removes the two class only limit on multiclassing in 4e, and I can free-form build any concept like that as well.
Not for me.
No offense, but that is a little silly. You are caught up on the way the mechanics once worked, and thus have a conceptual block that does not allow you to accept a new (but equally acceptable) method of modeling two weapon fighting. Also, you are completely ignoring the ability to multiclass for ranger weapon powers, or build tempest build fighters (who gain two weapon fighting powers from the fighter class)...
See, I just can't get around a silly thing like, "You can't attack with two weapons at the same time without "X" class feature." Well why not? I don't have that class feature, and I can certainly hit hard with both hands in the space of a second or two. Now, I might not land both shots all the time in real combat, and my left will also hit softer than my right, but then both might actually hit... or maybe my right misses and my left hits something important. In 3E terms, I don't have the TWF feat, so my hits aren't as accurate, but I can still try.
And here is a perfect example of what I was talking about in regards to a conceptual block. In real life I can easily throw more then one punch in 6 seconds with ONE hand. In fact, I can throw more then 6. Obviously the number goes down in a real fight (where I am not punching the air), but its still more then one. 3e only allowed me to attempt a single punch at 1st level. By your logic, that makes no sense. I should still be able to try! But I can't. Why? Its because the rules are abstract. That one chance to attack and hit indicates a number of punches thrown. It actually indicates weaving in and out of a fight, trying to get a hit in. I might throw 3 or 4 punches in that 6 seconds, but only one has any real chance of connecting. Why should duel wielding be worked any differently in terms of mechanics? In 4e, if you duel wield, you might actually be swinging with each weapon during any given round. However, only one "attack" during any given round has any mechanical chance of actually affecting the opponent. Characters who are good at this technique, however, gain higher damage with that one attack. Characters who take powers that reflect specialization at this type of fighting style are the ones who get a mechanical chance to actually effect a target with both weapons in one round. Such powers can be found in both the fighter and ranger classes. There is nothing more or less logical about this approach then that used in 3e. However, because you are used to the way 3e did it you prefer it. Its a conceptual block on your part, not a failing on the part of the 4e rules... There is nothing about the 3e mechanic which is any more logical. Its just different.
First, D&D is a set of rules with a lot of fluff tied to it. Sure, that fluff might make for a good story (or story potential), but it's truly just an optional part of the game. That said, you can just as easily make the game a communally built narrative as you can make it the weekly pencil and paper bashfest. To me, the mechanics seem to lean toward the latter option IMHO, due to their focus on battle (though skill challenges are a neat idea.)
Have you by chance played Mordheim? It's Warhammer, but with small-unit tactical skirmishes instead of large-scale battles. It's actually a lot of fun, and more the type of game I'd see 4E emulating as a wargame. Give each player a handful of heroes and henchmen to form squads (it shouldn't take all that much time if your starting at low level), set up a scenario, and have at it. Hell, you could make it into a communal narrative AND a tactical game if you have your players pick a "captain" who they roleplay...
That sounds like a lot of fun, actually... but I digress...
I admit, 4e is a combat heavy game. But, the truth is D&D has always been a combat heavy game. That being said, the game features a number of players working in a group and a DM who storytells. There is no winning or loosing the game. If the DM kills the players, his quest is finished, and the game ends. Its a lose lose for everyone. All the DM's quest writing after the point of death is lost. Just like every edition before it, 4e is communal. The players play together with the DM, and together they tell a story. The sort of game you are describing is certainly possible (though I think it will take a few house rules to run effectively), but it is not the intent of the rules. 4e is not built to be a wargame any more then any other edition of D&D. Its an RPG. It is, however, a combat heavy RPG; that I admit.
On a side note, I have never played any Warhammer product. I always thought the game was neat, but to be honest I am not a wargamer. I'm cool with combat heavy RPG's, but that's just because combat in an RPG is yet another aspect of narrative. Its like the action in an action movie. Its still part of the story. I have always leaned towards RPGs. I am, however, looking at the new Dark Heresy warhammer RPG. It looks neat. Thing is, I don't know if I would like the system... so I am sort of on the fence about buying it for now.
I can't really reply here as I have not played it before.
However, I agree I could see a 4E style 40K RPG.
Yea. See. I am thinking maybe what I really want to do is just play a 4e sci-fantasy game. Which then begs the question, is Dark Heresy worth the price for fluff alone?
Could you list these problems? Several of the things you hate about 3E are things I enjoy. :P
Problems I had with 3e:
1) Way to complex and painstaking to run (from the GM side of the game table).
2) Too many auto-win abilities. I'm not a big fan of "save or die" effects, or their charm/domination equivalents.
3) The balance of the D&D 3e rules was awful. Casters were gods with interesting and fun mechanics, martial characters were weaklings who had only one boring ability they would use from round to round: basic attack.
4) Too many subsystems. The rules were not elegant. They did not work under one unified set of mechanics, and this meant that players (and me as the GM) would constantly forget how a rule worked and be forced to look it up (over and over and over again).
5) The rules were not logically unified. In one place something would work one way. In another it would work totally differently. Prefect example (from d20 Modern) is the lack of coherence between the vehicle, mecha, and starship rules.
6) Grapple rules; yuck they are awful in 3e.
7) I honestly found the combat in 3e a little boring. Fights were won and lost based on character sheets and not decision. It often seemed like there was no real decisions to make (unless you were playing a caster, in which case there was plenty... but I was never a big caster fan). It just was not tactical enough for me. I usually found myself creating quests specifically geared towards avoiding fighting, and then just allowing my PC's to kill targets with a single hit, because I did not want to run fight scenarios ever.
I basically felt that the core of 3e was rotten. I had documents as thick as published books filled with house rules I wrote in my attempt to fix all the problems I had with the system. I'm not talking about new classes (which is the sort of house rules I like writing). I'm talking about house rules to the core system itself. This left me feeling a little cheated. I paid for the books. I should not have had to write so many house rules to make the games run in a manner I deemed acceptable. Even then, things still did not work in a manner I was totally happy with. In Saga I have 3 pages of house rules... maybe 4. Maybe 2 pages on starships. This is also largely because I converted the system to run in a slightly more gritty/hard sci-fi manner. I don't want the system to run the game it was intended for. That being said, the system works perfectly as is to run the game it was intended for. I would probably include only 1 or 2 rules if I was actually running a Star Wars game. For 4e I have 3 house rules. Exactly 3. Each house rule is pretty much one sentence. That is what I felt was necessary to make the system run as an acceptable vehicle for a heroic pulp fantasy narrative. The systems are elegant. They are clean. And what is more, they work out of the box... at least for me.
On another note: I never expected our opinions to align on this issue. Our gaming styles are a bit too different for that.
Yea, that is fair. Variety is the spice of life.
Anyhow, I see you didn't read the kinder, friendlier version of my post. lol! I didn't mean to set you off on a rant, dude. I'm tired from work, and it took me a few tries to say what I wanted without looking like a jerk. >_>
No problem. Don't worry about it. I hope I did not come off sounding like a jerk in anything I wrote. I'm pretty tired myself. Being a new dad is tough. :P My wife tells me I just love to argue over the internet... so I would take anything I say with a grain of salt. :P
1) Your DM might have blown off the multiclassing limitations, but they were still present in the rules. If your DM blew off the multiclassing limitations with a house rule in 3e, he can do so just as easily with a house rule in 4th.
2) Almost all classes have powers that actually fit with a secondary role. Its possible to be a fighter and be an effective "striker" for example, same with a wizard in fact. Likewise, its possible to be a Cleric and be an effective controller. There is not as much shoehorning as you are presuming even if one sticks to a single class...
3) But a character does not have to stick to a single class. It is very possible to divide your abilities 50/50 between two roles. Pick a class to multiclass into, take all the multiclassing feats, and then paragon path multiclass, and you will have a character who is about 50/50 between two classes (and thus two roles). Actually, a tempest fighter with rogue paragon multiclassing or vice versa would work very well as a 50/50 defender/striker.
Meh, that's a bit long-term for me. Would a house-rule to allow 3E-esque multiclassing break the system too badly?
Fair enough. But likewise, I can build virtually any character concept between two classes and the powers those two classes offer me. And, as for your multiclass D&D combinations, I am willing to bet some of those combinations required free-form multiclassing house rules. Again, allow me to add in a house rule that removes the two class only limit on multiclassing in 4e, and I can free-form build any concept like that as well.
Nope, no freeform multiclassing houserules involved. Play a human, or keep the two base classes of either build at close levels and you're good. If you're patient, and really it isn't that bad, you can just screw balancing your character out and take an XP penalty... which will leave you only a short distance behind the group due to the way XP is calculated.
IIRC, at least in errata, PrCs don't enter the equation when determining whether you take an XP penalty from multiclassing.
No offense, but that is a little silly. You are caught up on the way the mechanics once worked, and thus have a conceptual block that does not allow you to accept a new (but equally acceptable) method of modeling two weapon fighting. Also, you are completely ignoring the ability to multiclass for ranger weapon powers, or build tempest build fighters (who gain two weapon fighting powers from the fighter class)...
I've already said that I like 4E. I just like 3E more because I like the way "the mechanics once worked". Maybe that's just because I'm used to it, or maybe it really does suit my style of play better. I'm inclined to believe that it's the latter, due to having played both systems (and honestly giving 4E a better chance than I did 3E when my friends started playing a D&D campaign instead of Modern).
And here is a perfect example of what I was talking about in regards to a conceptual block. In real life I can easily throw more then one punch in 6 seconds with ONE hand. In fact, I can throw more then 6. Obviously the number goes down in a real fight (where I am not punching the air), but its still more then one. 3e only allowed me to attempt a single punch at 1st level. By your logic, that makes no sense. I should still be able to try! But I can't. Why? Its because the rules are abstract. That one chance to attack and hit indicates a number of punches thrown. It actually indicates weaving in and out of a fight, trying to get a hit in. I might throw 3 or 4 punches in that 6 seconds, but only one has any real chance of connecting. Why should duel wielding be worked any differently in terms of mechanics? In 4e, if you duel wield, you might actually be swinging with each weapon during any given round. However, only one "attack" during any given round has any mechanical chance of actually affecting the opponent. Characters who are good at this technique, however, gain higher damage with that one attack. Characters who take powers that reflect specialization at this type of fighting style are the ones who get a mechanical chance to actually effect a target with both weapons in one round. Such powers can be found in both the fighter and ranger classes. There is nothing more or less logical about this approach then that used in 3e. However, because you are used to the way 3e did it you prefer it. Its a conceptual block on your part, not a failing on the part of the 4e rules... There is nothing about the 3e mechanic which is any more logical. Its just different.
You make a good point, however, I've never been a fan of the level of abstraction in either edition. In my games, and my group's games, HP does not represent morale. It represents actual vitality. Hits, unless they trigger massive damage, are grazes and shallow wounds, things that can believably heal within days.
I can understand abstraction in the name of balance, but I'd prefer as little of it as possible in my games. I've often played with the idea of allowing every character all four attacks, but taking all the normal penalties for iterative attacks. It at least gives them the shot, though it's hardly worth it.
I admit, 4e is a combat heavy game. But, the truth is D&D has always been a combat heavy game. That being said, the game features a number of players working in a group and a DM who storytells. There is no winning or loosing the game. If the DM kills the players, his quest is finished, and the game ends. Its a lose lose for everyone. All the DM's quest writing after the point of death is lost. Just like every edition before it, 4e is communal. The players play together with the DM, and together they tell a story. The sort of game you are describing is certainly possible (though I think it will take a few house rules to run effectively), but it is not the intent of the rules. 4e is not built to be a wargame any more then any other edition of D&D. Its an RPG. It is, however, a combat heavy RPG; that I admit.
It just seems that, with the lack of social abilities outside of skills, combat took over the game completely. Why not allow the rogue some social recovery or edge techniques, perhaps giving a bonus to, or even re-roll one check? Why not give the fighter abilities that boost intimidate for a check or two? That's totally possible with the ability system in the game, but it was not done? Why not?
If I was going to run a 4E game, I'd have to write a list of social abilities half as long as the combat abilities... Of course, if I'm not careful, that'd probably shoe-horn like I've been trying to avoid.
On a side note, I have never played any Warhammer product. I always thought the game was neat, but to be honest I am not a wargamer. I'm cool with combat heavy RPG's, but that's just because combat in an RPG is yet another aspect of narrative. Its like the action in an action movie. Its still part of the story. I have always leaned towards RPGs. I am, however, looking at the new Dark Heresy warhammer RPG. It looks neat. Thing is, I don't know if I would like the system... so I am sort of on the fence about buying it for now.
I haven't looked at DH at all. I simply played the (now abandoned, I think) Mordheim: a sort of post-apocalyptic setting taking place in a city that was the site of a meteor strike. Buildings have cracked and crumbled, and men have mutated and melted. You play as a warband trying to make the most of the situation, for whatever reason your group fights (there are mercs, witchhunters, priestesses, and all sorts of other sides wanting to get their hands on Weirdstone whether to destroy it, use it, or sell it for cash.)
I like it because it's more complex than warhammer on an individual level. You have Heroes, who level up and gain all sorts of fun and helpful abilities, and you have henchmen who level up as a group and mostly enhance numerical stats in doing so.
Yea. See. I am thinking maybe what I really want to do is just play a 4e sci-fantasy game. Which then begs the question, is Dark Heresy worth the price for fluff alone?
It may verywell be. My friend kept up on the Warhammer 40K fluff for awhile, and I must say, from what he tells me of it, it is quality fluff. The series has a rich, albeit dark, history and setting that sets the stage for a variety of campaigns.
Problems I had with 3e:
1) Way to complex and painstaking to run (from the GM side of the game table).
I haven't had much trouble, but then as a DM/GM I "cheat" and don't always follow the stats in the book, or completely stat out unique encounters. Why should I even do as much work as is required in 4E (much less 3E) statting a villain who's only going to last a single encounter? Sure, I stat up the reoccurring baddies, but one-shot villains? They're not worth that kind of effort.
Besides, this approach makes it easier to challenge my players, and I haven't gotten a (truly serious) complaint yet.
2) Too many auto-win abilities. I'm not a big fan of "save or die" effects, or their charm/domination equivalents.
A lot of GMs prefer to have abilities like that to "put the fear of God" into their players. Likewise, some players like the edgy/gritty feeling those abilities give.
3) The balance of the D&D 3e rules was awful. Casters were gods with interesting and fun mechanics, martial characters were weaklings who had only one boring ability they would use from round to round: basic attack.
This is why I <3 the ToB. It gave the new martial classes a large amount of new options to go with, without forcing special attacks on those who just want to hit hard and deal damage. Now I think casters could still use a bit of nerfing (goodbye 9th level spells?), but the sublime maneuver system really did breath some life into melee fighters. I applaud WotC for taking that and running with it in 4E... but I wish they would have done something different for spellcasters, preserving their feel a bit better. I don't know how they should have done it, but I just don't like the way they handled it. The least they could have done is called the "Wizard" a "Sorcerer" and saved the Wizard title for a later supplement, maybe a weaker "caster" class with a larger variety of moves.
You're going to call this a conceptual block, I suppose. I just miss having a class with that kind of variety around, even if I never played it.
4) Too many subsystems. The rules were not elegant. They did not work under one unified set of mechanics, and this meant that players (and me as the GM) would constantly forget how a rule worked and be forced to look it up (over and over and over again).
My group never had a big problem with this, but then we all made a point to memorize rules that our characters make use of commonly or semi-commonly. One of my friends had the roll to distance chart for jumps memorized. That was just crazy. >>
5) The rules were not logically unified. In one place something would work one way. In another it would work totally differently. Prefect example (from d20 Modern) is the lack of coherence between the vehicle, mecha, and starship rules.
Okay, now this I can agree with you on. D20Future in general sucked like a vacuum (especially the starship rules). Mecha rules are more suited to powered armor than the tank-like Battlemechs (from battletech) or anything of that nature.
I still need to borrow Future Tech to see if the "Mecha as Tanks" rules are any good.
6) Grapple rules; yuck they are awful in 3e.
I agree they could have been better. They required too many rolls, but again my group never really had a problem. I guess we're just exceptional at rule memorization.
7) I honestly found the combat in 3e a little boring. Fights were won and lost based on character sheets and not decision. It often seemed like there was no real decisions to make (unless you were playing a caster, in which case there was plenty... but I was never a big caster fan). It just was not tactical enough for me. I usually found myself creating quests specifically geared towards avoiding fighting, and then just allowing my PC's to kill targets with a single hit, because I did not want to run fight scenarios ever.
My group doesn't pay attention to CRs for anything but experience, so we've had to fight some very, very nasty stuff for our levels before. That type of battle does take strategy, though I must agree that melee characters needed more options. The ToB should have come sooner, like at the launch of 3.5.
I basically felt that the core of 3e was rotten. I had documents as thick as published books filled with house rules I wrote in my attempt to fix all the problems I had with the system. I'm not talking about new classes (which is the sort of house rules I like writing). I'm talking about house rules to the core system itself. This left me feeling a little cheated. I paid for the books. I should not have had to write so many house rules to make the games run in a manner I deemed acceptable. Even then, things still did not work in a manner I was totally happy with. In Saga I have 3 pages of house rules... maybe 4. Maybe 2 pages on starships. This is also largely because I converted the system to run in a slightly more gritty/hard sci-fi manner. I don't want the system to run the game it was intended for. That being said, the system works perfectly as is to run the game it was intended for. I would probably include only 1 or 2 rules if I was actually running a Star Wars game. For 4e I have 3 house rules. Exactly 3. Each house rule is pretty much one sentence. That is what I felt was necessary to make the system run as an acceptable vehicle for a heroic pulp fantasy narrative. The systems are elegant. They are clean. And what is more, they work out of the box... at least for me.
Sorry for a short reply to a text wall, but could you tell me what those three rules are? I'm just curious.
Yea, that is fair. Variety is the spice of life.
Yup, and the cause of many an argument, as it seems. :P
No problem. Don't worry about it. I hope I did not come off sounding like a jerk in anything I wrote. I'm pretty tired myself. Being a new dad is tough. :P My wife tells me I just love to argue over the internet... so I would take anything I say with a grain of salt. :P
Congrats on becoming a father. May your child inherit your enjoyment of RPGs. :P
Anyhow, you haven't sounded like a jerk yet, though the way you phrase things seems a bit concrete. That is, when you refer to things as "problems", you state it as though they were problems for everyone, and not just problems in your opinion. I'm probably guilty of the same thing, though... >_>
Random observation: I think our posts are getting too long, and preventing others from entering the discussion due to boredom or lack of sufficient interest to read our behemoths and reply. lol!
Random observation: I think our posts are getting too long, and preventing others from entering the discussion due to boredom or lack of sufficient interest to read our behemoths and reply. lol!
I haven't had a look at 4E yet, but I'm interested.
As for DH, I can tell you that after playing d20 Modern with a huge amount of houserules, making it very simulationistic, I really enjoy the simplicity of DH, although the various skills take a while to understand. I can honestly recommend buying Dark Heresy, and as soon as you think you've encountered some problems or are tired of a certain rule, you should check up on www.darkreign40k.com, where there are tons of houserules and additional equipment, etc...
Meh, that's a bit long-term for me. Would a house-rule to allow 3E-esque multiclassing break the system too badly?
Yes, it would. Multiclassing does not work anything like 3e multiclassing. You could easily add in a house rule that allows one to take as many multiclass feats as they want though... it would virtually totally remove the need to ever Paragon multiclass, and I don't know exactly what it would break, but it should not be TOO bad. I wouldn't do it personally, but still... Even without such a house rule though, if you take as many multiclassing feats as you can early on you will end up with a character who is 1/3 another class. By level 10 that will quickly become 1/2.
You make a good point, however, I've never been a fan of the level of abstraction in either edition. In my games, and my group's games, HP does not represent morale. It represents actual vitality. Hits, unless they trigger massive damage, are grazes and shallow wounds, things that can believably heal within days.
I can understand abstraction in the name of balance, but I'd prefer as little of it as possible in my games. I've often played with the idea of allowing every character all four attacks, but taking all the normal penalties for iterative attacks. It at least gives them the shot, though it's hardly worth it.
See, I am totally cool with abstraction. What I mind is when a system does not know what it is doing. In one area it is abstract, in another its attempts to simulate things ultra-realistically. The result is a patchwork game that does not seem uniform. The result is holes of logic. The result is not realistic. My philosophy of game design has always been cohesion. A set of rules should be uniform. I can buy that characters can only have any hope of success with a single attack per round, unless they have a power or ability that reflects a far greater level of capability with this tactic. I cannot buy believability in the idea that if I attack with both hands I always have a chance of hitting with both, because in real life you can swing with both in a six second period, but I can't hope to have any chance of hitting with one hand more then once (without some sort of power or ability that allows me to do so) even though I can swing more then once with one hand in a six second period as well. 4e is uniformly abstract. I am totally cool with that. Its cohesive. 3e didn't know if it was coming or going. It was not cohesive or uniform in its design philosophy at all. It felt like it was designed by a handful of designers, each who was given the task of designing one specific area of the rules, and none of whom could agree on a common philosophy of game design meant to drive the mechanics of the setting. That is how I define problematic game design...
Now, obviously there is more then one way to fix this problem. One could go the route of more realism, or more abstraction. You obviously don't like the more abstraction route. That is fair. I just don't care either way. I am ok with realism, and I am ok with abstraction, as long as the rule system is cohesive and uniform in its design philosophy.
But, one thing that I do value VERY highly is that the rules be fun. Fun, for me, usually means that they are simple to operate. Rules that become too complex tend to bog down the game. Rules that attempt to perfectly simulate reality often tend to become too complex to be fun in practice. They often also create "traps" for players. A trap would be an option which is incredibly stupid, but is cloaked as a possibility. Players that actually crunch numbers will realize that the option is a bad one. New players, however, will see an option and fall into the trap of trying it (even though mechanically there is no good reason to ever do so). I've learned this first hand while designing house rules. These are problems which turn me off game systems. These are problems which do not exist in 4e, and did in 3e. Its why I prefer 4e.
That being said, I love Saga just as much as 4e, and it does make more of an attempt to simulate than 4e does. It does so using a uniform philosophy and a cohesive rule set, however.
It just seems that, with the lack of social abilities outside of skills, combat took over the game completely. Why not allow the rogue some social recovery or edge techniques, perhaps giving a bonus to, or even re-roll one check? Why not give the fighter abilities that boost intimidate for a check or two? That's totally possible with the ability system in the game, but it was not done? Why not?
Actually, it was done. All social abilities work of skills. This is true. But, all combat abilities work of the attack roll. The skill check is to non-combat encounters what the attack roll is to combat encounters. There are, however, utility powers which give bonuses to skill checks, which allow certain skill checks to be used in new and interesting ways, and which allow a skill check to be re-rolled. By the end of the game, a character has only 1 less utility power then they do "combat" powers. That being said, I will agree with you, I do sort of want more non-combat encounter utility power options for some classes (and ideally for all classes). Defenders did sort of get the short end of the stick with such powers. I really hope that they come out with a splat book in the future specifically geared towards skills, skill challenges, and new utility powers (for all classes) geared towards skills and skill challenges. But, even adding more of these myself is less house rule work then what I required for 3e. What is more, its the sort of house rules I don't mind writing... its house rules which are purely additional in nature. With 4e I am not forced to house rule the core engine mechanics of the system itself. With 3e I often was.
I haven't had much trouble, but then as a DM/GM I "cheat" and don't always follow the stats in the book, or completely stat out unique encounters. Why should I even do as much work as is required in 4E (much less 3E) statting a villain who's only going to last a single encounter? Sure, I stat up the reoccurring baddies, but one-shot villains? They're not worth that kind of effort.
Besides, this approach makes it easier to challenge my players, and I haven't gotten a (truly serious) complaint yet.
Um... "cheating" is actually the 4e method. :P What you did with 3e is the official method of designing creatures in 4e. Creatures are not stated out with levels in classes or the like. Instead, they are given a level and whatever abilities are required to flavor the NPC. If you want to give the NPC the feel of a certain class, their are NPC templates which add certain powers to the NPC in order to give them that sort of feel. It is the easiest, most beautiful, elegant, and fun manner of NPC design ever (at least for me). Makes it very easy for me to build encounters, new NPCs, and the like. I really like the way they worked in the "recharge" mechanic on NPC powers as well. Adds a very nice elements to combat encounter powers. It nicely models why monsters don't always use their most powerful abilities in combat narratives, but will often use such powers more then once.
A lot of GMs prefer to have abilities like that to "put the fear of God" into their players. Likewise, some players like the edgy/gritty feeling those abilities give.
I have never equated a gritty feeling with instant death. Instant death sucks for everyone, including me as a DM. It removes a character from play, and destroys all the hard work I put into creating narrative for that character. To me, gritty means that it often feels like the character is seriously hurt, or close to death, but usually without actually killing the character. Running out of healing surges and being unable to heal ones character during a fight feels a lot more "gritty" to me then anything 3e ever offered.
I have also never enjoyed playing as a player with a DM who likes to put "the fear of God" into his/her players. I find such DMs have lost sight of the point of the game, and have stopped trying to play a game about building a communal narrative. Instead they are playing a players vs. DM "wargame," and its not a fun wargame at that. Such DMs try to save the best abilities for their own warband, which in my opinion is a little cheap.
I also find that such abilities kill roleplaying. Its hard to get attached to a character when a single roll might end that character without ever giving the player any sort of opportunity to defend themselves against this event with anything but a single roll. I mean, honestly, how am I supposed to get attached to a character in a game where I am going to turn around a corner, bump into a Medusa, be given no opportunity to make any choice to defend myself, fail a die roll, and be turned to stone (read: die). Death should never be the result of a single die roll. Death should always, in some shape or form, be the result of poor decision making on the players behalf. Save or die effects remove that decision making process.
This is why I <3 the ToB. It gave the new martial classes a large amount of new options to go with, without forcing special attacks on those who just want to hit hard and deal damage. Now I think casters could still use a bit of nerfing (goodbye 9th level spells?), but the sublime maneuver system really did breath some life into melee fighters. I applaud WotC for taking that and running with it in 4E... but I wish they would have done something different for spellcasters, preserving their feel a bit better. I don't know how they should have done it, but I just don't like the way they handled it. The least they could have done is called the "Wizard" a "Sorcerer" and saved the Wizard title for a later supplement, maybe a weaker "caster" class with a larger variety of moves.
You're going to call this a conceptual block, I suppose. I just miss having a class with that kind of variety around, even if I never played it.
A class with that kind of variety will necessarily step on the toes of all other classes, just like the way the wizard did until 4e. That being said, the 4e Wizard is still the most versatile of any class. It is not a sorcerer. It is definitely a wizard in flavor. It is the only class that can choose which daily or utility powers it has memorized from a day to day basis.
My group never had a big problem with this, but then we all made a point to memorize rules that our characters make use of commonly or semi-commonly. One of my friends had the roll to distance chart for jumps memorized. That was just crazy. >>
I applaud your group... but it should not be necessary in order to make a game playable.
Okay, now this I can agree with you on. D20Future in general sucked like a vacuum (especially the starship rules). Mecha rules are more suited to powered armor than the tank-like Battlemechs (from battletech) or anything of that nature.
I still need to borrow Future Tech to see if the "Mecha as Tanks" rules are any good.
The Mecha as Tanks rules are ok, but as they are built on the already very flawed mecha rules, they are not great. You would be better off just using the Saga vehicle rules.
I agree they could have been better. They required too many rolls, but again my group never really had a problem. I guess we're just exceptional at rule memorization.
Again, I applaud your group, but this should not be necessary. Both Saga and 4e did a much better job at dealing with grappling rules.
Sorry for a short reply to a text wall, but could you tell me what those three rules are? I'm just curious.
Characters that are bloodied take a -1 penalty to all d20 rolls (I am considering adding this as a penalty to all defenses, but I am not 100% certain whether I want to do that yet).
You do not regain all your healing surges with an extended rest. Instead you regain a number of healing surges equal to 2+your constitution modifier.
When you are carrying a heavy load you are not "slowed." Instead your speed is reduced by 2 squares, and you cannot use the run or charge actions.
Congrats on becoming a father. May your child inherit your enjoyment of RPGs. :P
Thank you! I have my hopes for her RPGing future. I have my hopes.
Anyhow, you haven't sounded like a jerk yet, though the way you phrase things seems a bit concrete. That is, when you refer to things as "problems", you state it as though they were problems for everyone, and not just problems in your opinion. I'm probably guilty of the same thing, though... >_>
Yea. They are obviously just my opinion. I'm just explaining my opinion in relation to yours. That is all.
Random observation: I think our posts are getting too long, and preventing others from entering the discussion due to boredom or lack of sufficient interest to read our behemoths and reply. lol!
Nah. We got Tama to post a response. :P
I did enjoy the argument, though. Let's hope whatever they do with Modern 2E appeals to us both, and more importantly the rest of their other existing fans somehow. :P
...and if it doesn't - we'll just keep on writing page after page of houserules until we do. :D
And all the Modern Community said: amen.
Amethyst is proving you wrong. 4 techan classes, and technological items. Its completely compatible with 4e rules.
Those are easy.
I mean tinker with the rules, like what you're doing with d20 Modern.
Those are easy.
I mean tinker with the rules, like what you're doing with d20 Modern.
Actually, RangerREG, those are the hard part... Once I am provided with basic techan classes, so I don't have to do the hard work and create new defender/striker/leader/controller martial classes that work with technology and modern day devices, the rest is the easy part. Making slight tweaks to the core system to make it more gritty, less gritty, more magical, less magical, and the like, is very simple. I'm not going to be buying Amethyst to run Amethyst (though I certainly might if I like their fluff), I'm buying it to run an epic sci-fantasy of some sort.
I don't play "D&D With Cars and Guns," nor do I want to play D&D with cars and guns, if I did, I'd be playing D&D and statting cars and guns for it, not a whole different game.
What makes current d20 Modern the most appealing to me is its flexibility, if someone wants to play D&D with guns they can, if you want to play grim realistic cop drama you can as well, all with the same system. Take that away and force the game to completely become "The Over the Top Wacky Action Movie RPG" and you take away what made d20 Modern good.
Just my completely unrelated to other posts and not responding to anyone in particular two cents.
Modern D20 -is- a wacky over the top Action movie.
That's actually the design intent behind it. I mean all of the starting classes even are names of the movie hero archetypes for crying out loud.
You don't have to include "magic" straight out of the gate, starting off with something as simple as saying "Nothing but Martial classes" for a start completely changes the over all theme of the world.
I want the ability to run a Modern Fantasy without having to do much work. Modern D certainly does not accomplish this, nor does Saga. Presently speaking I'm doing this project on my own (much like I did my sci fantasy and still am doing) which sucks. Hard. (I'm only one man after all, who has an incredible amount of settings workloads).
My Modern Fantasy and Superhero idea are merged at the moment (for simplicity.. I'd go INSANE if I added another project).
What's nice about Fourth Edition is it's incredibly modular and modifiable. The base chassis works (the premise behind the power system, roles, new skills ((thank you Saga... thank you)). It fortunately does not require nearly as much work as you'd think (if I axed my other projects for the time being I'd probably be done in short order if I kept at it) to make a Modern D20 using the 4e chassis.
Modern D20 is not realistic. Just like 3e wasn't.
Modern D20 -is- a wacky over the top Action movie.
I disagree. d20 Modern can be realistic, and it can be a wacky over the top Action movie. It is or is not either. I'm working on/running a fairly realistic game, and I've played in realistic games all using the d20 Modern rules.
That's actually the design intent behind it. I mean all of the starting classes even are names of the movie hero archetypes for crying out loud.
Pure coincidence, the classes are named after the standard 6 ability scores with "hero" tacked on.
You don't have to include "magic" straight out of the gate, starting off with something as simple as saying "Nothing but Martial classes" for a start completely changes the over all theme of the world.
I agree, I just preferred Modern's presentation of magic as a option and not an integrated part of the core mechanics.
I want the ability to run a Modern Fantasy without having to do much work. Modern D certainly does not accomplish this, nor does Saga. Presently speaking I'm doing this project on my own (much like I did my sci fantasy and still am doing) which sucks. Hard. (I'm only one man after all, who has an incredible amount of settings workloads).
Purely anecdotal, I've played in a Modern Fantasy game that d20 Modern accomplished very well, and a superhero game that went great as well (for all of the 2 sessions the superhero game lasted before things got busy and we just never picked it up again :P). Don't take this the wrong way but in this instance the problem may not lay with the system.
What's nice about Fourth Edition is it's incredibly modular and modifiable. The base chassis works (the premise behind the power system, roles, new skills ((thank you Saga... thank you)). It fortunately does not require nearly as much work as you'd think (if I axed my other projects for the time being I'd probably be done in short order if I kept at it) to make a Modern D20 using the 4e chassis.
As long as they give me some leeway to make things be as down to earth or off the wall as I want (like, dare I say, GURPS) to minimize my workload then ok, but I can't help but doubt that'll happen. If a new Modern comes out to be as modular and modifiable as you imply than I'll be ok with it. I don't mind writing new rules or tweaking others, a houserule here and a new mechanic there is no big deal. But I will take up another system if I have to re-write the ENTIRE game to accomplish what I want.
Modern D20 is not realistic. Just like 3e wasn't.
Modern D20 -is- a wacky over the top Action movie.
Not the way I run it.
There isn't just one reality level (over the top = superheroic), there are three. Written in the rulebooks.
Just take out the scifi weapons (or reflavor them) ditch the space ships and th Force and you're pretty much good to go.
"Down to Earth" is Saga.
Super Hero/over the top is more of a Fourth Edition Chassis based thing.
If I were to run a "Down to earth" system I'd use the best system currently suited for it. Star Wars Saga with some mods (or rather deletions)
That being said, I hope WotC doesn't make a 4e version of d20 Modern. I have a need (although it's somewhat irrational) to play the "latest" version of a game. Once 4e came out, I immediately dropped 3.5. I can't really explain why, but that's what I did. Even though I enjoy 3.5 so much more than 4e, I have trouble picking it up again. Maybe I have a subconscious need to feel like I am with the latest trend or "in-style". I don't know, I'm not a psychologist. Anyway, if d20 Modern gets updated, I'll have trouble playing it again even if I hate the new version.
I have also played SAGA and while it uses similar mechanics as Modern, I feel that they two should be kept separate. If you want to play in the Star Wars universe, play SAGA (It IS an awesome game). If you don't want to play Star Wars but still want a Modern/Future setting, use d20 Modern, don't mess around with SAGA. Leave it as is.
This opinion is coming from someone who always tries to play by the book and rarely makes house rules. But hey, that's just my two cents. Try not to spend it all in one place. Also, please don't use my two cents to help fund something stupid like a $15B car industry bailout.
One semi-related note: I'll be hosting my first campaign in d20 Modern (or any system for that matter) next month. So, I might be back to ask for help/advice regarding GMing.
I have also played SAGA and while it uses similar mechanics as Modern, I feel that they two should be kept separate. If you want to play in the Star Wars universe, play SAGA (It IS an awesome game). If you don't want to play Star Wars but still want a Modern/Future setting, use d20 Modern, don't mess around with SAGA. Leave it as is.
Oh good god no. Saga is a much better sci-fi/Modern gaming system then Modern could ever hope to be... Land of Nod would not exist yet without the Saga system. I would still be writing house rules for the Modern system trying to get it right.
This opinion is coming from someone who always tries to play by the book and rarely makes house rules. But hey, that's just my two cents. Try not to spend it all in one place. Also, please don't use my two cents to help fund something stupid like a $15B car industry bailout.
I hate to break it to you, but the Modern community is the community that is least likely to "play things by the book." If there was one thing we were known for it was house rules. I mean, its not like we got any rule support from the company... and half the rules out of the book are broken... so we just set about making things work ourselves.
One semi-related note: I'll be hosting my first campaign in d20 Modern (or any system for that matter) next month. So, I might be back to ask for help/advice regarding GMing.
First piece of advice, get over your "by the book" attitude. Nothing from d20 Future works "by the book." A lot from d20 Modern works, but doesn't work as well as it could. And, to be honest, Saga works better (in every shape and form)... but that last bit is just my personal opinion.
Also, I won't be using d20 Future in my campaign as it will be taking place in 2012 and the world hasn't advanced much. I'll only be using the core book, Urban Arcana, and bits and pieces from some other books.
I would definitely agree that SAGA is better for future stuff, but that's not what I'm aiming for, at least not in this campaign. The one SAGA campaign I played in was awesome though.
Thanks for the tips/advice, I appreciate it. I'll try to be more open-minded about house rules.
One of these days I'll actually get around to borrowing the Saga core and ship construction book... Then maybe I'll bring something back to Modern (if that's even legal to do) from that system.
That said, I must agree with Cyber-Dave in that the D20Modern community is the least by-the-book community, but that's not a bad thing. There are several people here, like myself, that focus on the fun kinds of stuff (like making new talent trees, classes, and feats, system mods, etc...) to make the system even more flexible than it already is.
I'm currently running a D20Modern game by the book, save for a couple special rules to make the Shadow Chasers campaign a little more interesting, and it's moving along smoothly (well, smoothly when we can actually get together and game.)
I have to disagree with the broadness of Cyber-Dave's statment. Modern works just fine without the supplements. The corebook is great, actually. Future, however, is steaming pile of crap as far as balance goes. Ah, future, how much potential you had, and how badly you stomped it into the dirt by making new systems for every new mode of combat/travel. *sigh* And even D&D with guns and cars (Urban Arcana, which I greatly enjoy) did a better job with power creep than Future.
One of these days I'll actually get around to borrowing the Saga core and ship construction book... Then maybe I'll bring something back to Modern (if that's even legal to do) from that system.
I remember when I thought like you. :P I remember when I first picked up the Saga core book with no intention using the book to run a Saga game. I just wanted to rip off a few rules, like the condition track, and see if the vehicle rules were worth stealing. I remember reading the book from front to back. I remember comparing what I had just read to what I thought was "working fine." I remember saying, "huh... fancy that." The next thing I knew, I was using Saga instead of Modern, and stealing small bits and pieces of Modern (or rather its supplements) for my Saga system games/setting.
Modern might work fine without supplements... but Saga works better.
We'll see what my reaction is if I ever purchase the book. Again, I've already read through (a decent portion of) SAGA and found it wasn't quite my thing. The ship rules were intriguing, though, at least as a starting point.
You sound like the "seasoned veteran of foreshadowing" plot devise found in many a D&D game and fantasy novel. :P j/k
We'll see what my reaction is if I ever purchase the book. Again, I've already read through (a decent portion of) SAGA and found it wasn't quite my thing. The ship rules were intriguing, though, at least as a starting point.
You can kid all you like. I AM a plot device! :P
I actually did modify the Star Wars Saga starship rules very slightly. You can find my modifications in my Land of Nod setting in my signature.