But seriously theres plenty of life left in these boards. Even if D20 Modern is a moldering corpse, you'll still find pleanty of us maggots around.
Just a question, I noticed many of the posts are months old, and while I posted a couple of new ones, no one's seemed to notice. I was hoping to share ideas with and glean some wisdom from others.
yup, it can be distressing but there are lots of us out here, players lurking at the edges, waiting, hoping for new material.
Actually, since the Modern SRD is OGL, there are many other sources of great content. Adventure ideas/hooks occur every day in the internation and national news. My latest d20 Future source is Avatar, such a cool movie!
Oh well. I really loved Star Treck and Pandorum, so, I guess I shouldn't complain. That's two recent sci-fi movies that get the thumbs up from me.
Oh yeah, real crappy.
Re: d20M, I don't think it's a moldering corpse at all (although I must give kudos for the metaphor!). Since WotC abandonded it (I think that's a fair word to use), it's basically gone to seed. It's a wild animal now, and any of us can tame it at any time. Mutants and Masterminds and the Star Wars games are both heavily-altered off-shoots of the basic rules, and they have both done pretty well. Not as well as D&D, but very few games are that prolific or long-lived. But my point is that the game is the ultimate living organism now because Wizards doesn't support it. It's kind of in the public domain (not really, but in effect), which means that anyone can infuse it with life at any time.
Again, see my sig. And Cyber-Dave's. And many others. d20M lives.
Yea. I don't agree with the rating. I think the movie was awful. It had great special effects, but that is all. I was very bothered both by the film's implicit racism (even more so due to the fact that the film tried very hard to package itself as a left-wing product, but then re-inscribed the policies of imperial expansionism) and the film's reliance on deus ex machina in order to resolve its narrative. I thought it was a piece of crap. I am allowed to disagree with popular opinion now and again.
Uh huh, and that isn't the issue. Please don't mix or liken opinion to fact.
There's a difference between calling a film "crappy" and not liking it. The former is an objective view on how the film was actually made, the latter is just preference (which is okay).
Avatar isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it is well made. An Uwe Boll move is pretty much (barring masochists) the definition of crappy.
Uh huh, and that isn't the issue. Please don't mix or liken opinion to fact.
There's a difference between calling a film "crappy" and not liking it. The former is an objective view on how the film was actually made, the latter is just preference (which is okay).
Avatar isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it is well made. An Uwe Boll move is pretty much (barring masochists) the definition of crappy.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you Ragitsu. First of all, I specifically stated "I actually really hated Avatar" and "I thought it was a piece of crap," which frames my opinion as subjective. Second of all, I disagree with your framing of the term "crappy." Crappy is a slang term, a colloquialism, which is roughly synonymous with "bad." The term does not imply that it is objective, because whether something is or is not defined as "bad" depends on the subjective framework used to define that terms constitution. Something can be "bad," or "crappy," for a vast variety of reasons. Production quality is only one reason. There are plenty of others. Third of all, I don't even agree that the film was well made. It had a large budget. It's special effects were superb. However, I define the phrase "well made" in a manner that takes all aspects of the film into account, including the quality of its script/narrative. I do not consider any movie that includes implicit racism in its narrative, or that relies on the mechanic of deus ex machina to resolve its action, to be "well made."
Of course, some people have different subjective systems of value. Some people don't consider a little implicit racism to be the worst thing, especially if it is not directed at any one race in specific but rather at the concept of the aboriginal. Some people might not even realize what the film is implying. Some people don't mind dues ex machina. Some people might love the film. And that is ok. We all have different opinions. However, in my opinion, the film is crappy. It does not have a crappy production value. However, I think its script is pretty terrible (because it contains two qualities that really bother me). For me, that ruins the movie, and makes it (subjectively) crappy.
I certainly do agree with you that Uwe Boll movies are pretty crappy. Dungeon Siege had to be one of the worst experiences of my life. At least I could enjoy Avatar's special effects...
...so we can continue the original thread.
CYBER-DAVE please take your rant to PM
...so we can continue the original thread.
Amen.
I think, XVgreymanVX, you'll find that, while there aren't all that many of us here, we are people who really like this system. I for one have found it to be wonderfully adaptable while still familiar enough to most gamers that they can jump into a session without having played before and still get into the swing of things pretty quickly.
-Nate
But if you would like a more direct and "on topic" response (despite the fact that YOU brought up Avatar first, Rustam): obviously people are still playing Modern, because people here have responded stating that they do in fact play Modern. Personally, I still get use out of my Modern books, but not for playing Modern itself. I use my d20 Cyberscape, d20 Apocalypse, and Critical Locations purchases to augment Star Wars Saga games (which I pretty much feel is a cleaned up and improved version of the d20 Modern game engine). I use pretty much all of my Modern books when running a game of Monte Cooks World of Darkness (which is pretty much d20 Modern, but with a different system of PC character generation). About the only aspect of the d20 Modern game that no longer benefits me at all is its classes. I no longer run games in which PC characters are generated with d20 Modern classes. When running modern or future games, I feel that a modified version of the SAGA character generation system works best. When running horror games, I like to use a modified version of Monte Cook's World of Darkness. When running fantasy games, I like to use D&D 4e. I do still like to hang around these forums, however. A lot of posters that I really like hang around here, and I like reading what they have to say, and discussing things with them.
Just a question, I noticed many of the posts are months old, and while I posted a couple of new ones, no one's seemed to notice. I was hoping to share ideas with and glean some wisdom from others.
What did you have in mind? Running modern day campaigns? (meaning after the age of sail) What would you pick as a "favorite" genre?
CYBER-DAVE please take your rant to PM
Dude, that was not a rant. That was a fully thought-out assessment of the film, and as CD points out, a film someone else brought up. Disagree with his assessment if you like, but do it directly and honestly. Accusing Dave of ranting isn't cool. If you want to move to PM, just say "Let's continue on PM because this conversation is off-topic."
I've said what I wanted to say about Modern. Basically, it's become the underlying fabric of a lot of game-play, and I think that's about right. It was always a very generic game, by design. It was supposed to help us play whatever game you like, and that's what we did.
Yeah, the Future Tech supplement is pretty decent actually.
unlike the main future book right?
Yeah, the Future Tech supplement is pretty decent actually.
unlike the main future book right?
I really thought we moved beyond that. Or, is me using it somehow going to get me in trouble
?I was mostly gleaning house rules for now. I'm new to Modern, and I'm looking to run a game for my wife and 14 year old step-sister, Urban Arcana style.
The thing is that I generally know 3.5 best, but a thousand D&D plots don't translate too well in a modern setting. I was considered a cross between the typical Urban Arcana/Shadowrun game and X-files.
My wife knows that we're going to play a modern/fantasy mix (she's playing a half-elf), but I'm only letting my step-sister know about the modern, to surprise her when things are not what she expected them to be.
I know that Cyber-Dave is using Modern for help with his SW Saga game, but just how compatible are the classes between SW Saga and D20 Modern? I've noticed that just because the product says D20 does not mean it's always compatable or easy to use.
How would you go about mixing the Cuthuhlu (sp?) d20 spells with Modern FX?
Boiled down, that's what I'm really looking for at the moment, conversion guides and house rules.
I already posted an idea on the AC as DR and one of the Wealth threads, and I'd like some criticism on them. Those are the two bigger things I'm curious about. I do NOT like the wealth system as written, and it seems that many others don't either. And armor should provide damage reduction, not some abstract way to avoid getting hit altogether. (Yes, I realize this is an old and tiresome argument, forgive me.) I like the idea of using the current armor bonus as defense AND damage reduction, and possibly uping the weapon damage to 3d.
I know that Cyber-Dave is using Modern for help with his SW Saga game, but just how compatible are the classes between SW Saga and D20 Modern? I've noticed that just because the product says D20 does not mean it's always compatable or easy to use.
They are not compatible at all. You need to choose whether you are going to use a SW Saga class system or a d20 Modern class system at campaign start, and then you need to stick with that system for the rest of the game. The two are related, but not compatible. If you end up using a Saga system as your base, then you will use the Modern products for extra equipment and the rules for things like fallout and/or VRNet and/or advanced cybernetics rules. Using the Modern rules will also require a little house-ruling here and there (to make the two product lines fit together properly).
I already posted an idea on the AC as DR and one of the Wealth threads, and I'd like some criticism on them. Those are the two bigger things I'm curious about. I do NOT like the wealth system as written, and it seems that many others don't either. And armor should provide damage reduction, not some abstract way to avoid getting hit altogether. (Yes, I realize this is an old and tiresome argument, forgive me.) I like the idea of using the current armor bonus as defense AND damage reduction, and possibly uping the weapon damage to 3d.
It is too bad most of my old house rule work for d20 Modern is effectively gone. I used to have a nice system of house-armor rules that used armor as a bonus to AC. But if someone hit you despite the fact that you were wearing armor, they didn't automatically miss (unless they missed by a certain margin). Instead the armor granted you a certain amount of DR which was realistically calculated off the armors NIJ rating in real life...
That being said, for Monte Cook's World of Darkness, I tend to just use a system in which the armors bonus to defense is transformed into a straight DR value. However, the "maximum dexterity bonus" gets translated into an a defense penalty. An armor's defense penalty depends on whether it is light, medium, or heavy armor. Light armor imposes a -1 penalty to defense, medium armor imposes a -2 penalty to defense, and heavy armor imposes a -4 penalty to defense.
Yeah, the Future Tech supplement is pretty decent actually.
unlike the main future book right?
I really thought we moved beyond that. Or, is me using it somehow going to get me in trouble ?
it was a normal question,sorry i didn't phase it better,lol but here you go: Compared to d20 future how much better is future tech?
it was a normal question,sorry i didn't phase it better,lol but here you go: Compared to d20 future how much better is future tech?
In my opinion, both a lot, and not much. It has some great ideas in it. But those ideas are built on the foundation of d20 Future. Which means, ultimatly, that you still need to create a huge host of house rules in order to get a lot of the information in Future Tech to operate in a manner that I personally, and subjectively, consider acceptably operational.
Yeah, the Future Tech supplement is pretty decent actually.
unlike the main future book right?
I really thought we moved beyond that. Or, is me using it somehow going to get me in trouble ?
it was a normal question,sorry i didn't phase it better,lol but here you go: Compared to d20 future how much better is future tech?
Ahem. Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I didn't realize someone would swoop in and answer for me via proxy.
It's not so much "better" as it is mostly free of fluff and expanding on d20 Future with technology I find immensely useful in my games.
Ahem. Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I didn't realize someone would swoop in and answer for me via proxy.
Ahem. I wasn't answering for you via proxy. I didn't realize that I had accidentally clicked on a PM.
I thought it was an open question to the community. I was simply giving my 2 cents. I thought I had pretty clearly indicated that my 2 cents were just my opinion, and thus others might feel differently.
Ahem. Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I didn't realize someone would swoop in and answer for me via proxy.
Ahem. I wasn't answering for you via proxy. I didn't realize that I had accidentally clicked on a PM. I thought it was an open question to the community. I was simply giving my 2 cents. I thought I had pretty clearly indicated that my 2 cents were just my opinion, and thus others might feel differently.
When you directly quote someone, the next lines in response are to and/or from them. Not much ambiguity there.
(Just so you know, that message was for you, and not Cocoa The Monkey).
When you directly quote someone, the next lines in response are to and/or from them. Not much ambiguity there.
(Just so you know, that message was for you, and not Cocoa The Monkey).
Yes. And I quoted trappedslider, which makes it pretty clear that my response was to trappedslider. Which means that "the next lines" after my quote were "in response...to and/or from" trappedslider. Trappedslider originally asked you a question, but this is a public forum. That means any and all questions are open to response from ANY member of this community. If somebody doesn't want responses from the entire community, but only from one single poster in it, they send that poster a private message. Trappedslider didn't do that, so we can infer that he probably wanted opinions from anyone/everyone here. If he didn't, I must ask, why didn't he send a private message? If he didn't want responses from anyone else but you, he should have sent you a private message. That is the way forums operate. So, what is the problem here? Why, exactly, is it a problem that I responded to trappedslider's question? I am really not sure what you are upset about, or why you are being so ornery about this. Am I reading a tone into your posts that you did not intend? Are you just joking around? And if not, and you are genuinely upset about the fact that I answered trappedslider's question, I am really not understanding why. When trappedslider asks a question inside a public forum, why would you not expect people to answer with their own 2 cents? And, why would it upset you that I have done exactly that? It is not like I said, "Ragitsu thinks this," so it is not like I have colonized your subjectivity with my own opinions. I really don't understand what is bothering you...
The question was both to Rag,wince i did quote him and to any who wished to answer it,and both your answers were good enouhg for me.
Re: d20M, I don't think it's a moldering corpse at all (although I must give kudos for the metaphor!). Since WotC abandonded it (I think that's a fair word to use), it's basically gone to seed. It's a wild animal now, and any of us can tame it at any time. Mutants and Masterminds and the Star Wars games are both heavily-altered off-shoots of the basic rules, and they have both done pretty well. Not as well as D&D, but very few games are that prolific or long-lived. But my point is that the game is the ultimate living organism now because Wizards doesn't support it. It's kind of in the public domain (not really, but in effect), which means that anyone can infuse it with life at any time.
Again, see my sig. And Cyber-Dave's. And many others. d20M lives.
I thought of the metaphor because although D20 Modern is dead as a WotC product, its fertile remains have allowed many smaller products to grow and pupate into wonderful little flying things.
I'm so messed up
Its almost getting to the closing chapter. After that we'll switch to a 4E+[Modern+SAGA] mixture.
Novelty is a powerful drug when you've been role-paying for a very long time...
I have a Modern Apocalypse/Mutant Heroes game going on. Characters are level 12.
Its almost getting to the closing chapter. After that we'll switch to a 4E+[Modern+SAGA] mixture.
Novelty is a powerful drug when you've been role-paying for a very long time...
You could go with Metamorphosis Alpha althought I haven't heard anything about it since the press release.
I have a Modern Apocalypse/Mutant Heroes game going on. Characters are level 12.
Its almost getting to the closing chapter. After that we'll switch to a 4E+[Modern+SAGA] mixture.
Novelty is a powerful drug when you've been role-paying for a very long time...
You could go with Metamorphosis Alpha althought I haven't heard anything about it since the press release.
OMG ! I remember that game (shows how old I am...). Its not a novelty per say BUT I may be temped for nostalgia's sake.
I think a lot of the inactivity here comes from the long-time forum regulars having more or less exhausted all there is to discuss in relation to many of the subjects surrounding d20 Modern. Every so often we get a fresh face or two and discussion booms briefly, but more often than not these newcomers end up unknowingly beating dead horses that the long-time regulars have already beaten to a fine paste, which sometimes means long-time regulars then feel less inclined to post in these threads, the newcomers lose interest, run out ways to continue discussion, or just have their question answered, and the activity spurt soon fades away.
At least, that's how I have observed things.
(Sidenote: IMHO Avatar was a disappointing movie. It was just a bad rehash of Dances with Wolves (or Pocahontas) with pretty special effects that were apparently enough to wow the mindless masses into thinking it was actually any good and not just a terrible mess of tired tropes and bad acting. Sorry to bring it up again. :P)
(Sidenote: IMHO Avatar was a disappointing movie. It was just a bad rehash of Dances with Wolves (or Pocahontas) with pretty special effects that were apparently enough to wow the mindless masses into thinking it was actually any good and not just a terrible mess of tired tropes and bad acting. Sorry to bring it up again. :P)
Oh, my, god, yes!
As for Avatar I enjoyed it. It depends what you were expecting. This is why I ask people not to act solely on my reviews.
Unfortunately, my group has been torn apart due to several small drama fissures which have ultimately resulted in one gargantuan drama chasm, and finding a new group has proven difficult.