Keeping this section of the forum running is certainly proof that they intend to do something at some point... Still having to wait another year is killing me. AAAAAAAAARRRGG !!!
Keeping this section of the forum running is certainly proof that they intend to do something at some point...
No, its not.
There is no definitive word of anything but heresay, lip service, and maybes.
Don't get your hopes up.
Keeping this section of the forum running is certainly proof that they intend to do something at some point...
Does the fact that the Previous Edition forums are still running mean that after 4e WotC will go back and start over again with OD&D and work their way up to 3.5? The presence of this forum means nothing except that WotC was kind enough not to give us a great big **** you.
personally, i'd love to see a player's handbook, gm guide, updated menace manual, and a couple of campaign books, but all of that seems doubtful.
It's been my dream for quite some time to attach a game or two to Phoenix. I just cannot fathom the idea of taking another three months to produce them all by myself, but I do think that would enhance the game.
this is just proof of what we have known all along:
WoC knows that the calibre of Modern gamers is so high
that we are fully capable of writing up our own adaptation and conversions to mutate Modern into other systems
( be they SWSaga, LEG:PCCS, or WoC:FightFightFight4)
We should just accept their accolades as superior gamers with appreciation:
Other games need ad nauseum splatbooks while Modern gamers code their own.
Dont try to force WoC's hand on this,
else they will have 3 guys take 2 weeks to squat out a 4eModern splatbook
with 4-6 classes with punches that kill tanks and talking yourself to be un-shot.
else they will have 3 guys take 2 weeks to squat out a 4eModern splatbook
with 4-6 classes with punches that kill tanks and talking yourself to be un-shot.
Now that would be something to see. Obviously, the class capable of that would be ninjas, and not only can their ki punches take out tanks, but give them katanas (most uber aw$ome blade EVRZ!!!!) and they can even defeat reactive armor, cut guns in half, and deflect bullets (tank shells and lasers too at later levels).
*edited by poster
You seem to have quite a bit of hate towards the new edition. Did the 4e devs do something to you? Show me on the doll where they touched you.
Some of us actually don't immediately buy the next edition of the system(s) we use. Especially when the new edition is constructed for ritalin augmented attention spans that can't handle losing and/or roleplaying. And yes, World of Warcraft is still the most apt comparison when you take into consideration the obsessively religious goal of balance that's peppered with MMORPG slang. Smart business move (sort of like abandoning a certain d20 system...), but it kills the soul of what made the franchise/line great.
In d20 Modern, odds are the Strong Hero 5 will beat the Smart Hero 5 in open combat, and that's how it should be.
Some of us actually don't immediately buy the next edition of the system(s) we use. Especially when the new edition is constructed for ritalin augmented attention spans that can't handle losing and/or roleplaying. And yes, World of Warcraft is still the most apt comparison when you take into consideration the obsessively religious goal of balance that's peppered with MMORPG slang. Smart business move (sort of like abandoning a certain d20 system...), but it kills the soul of what made the franchise/line great.
In d20 Modern, odds are the Strong Hero 5 will beat the Smart Hero 5 in open combat, and that's how it should be.
Are you saying that the new edition is objectivly constructed for ritalin augmented attention spans that can't handle losing and/or roleplaying? And are you saying that the new edition is objectivly the most apt comparison? Are you also saying that a Strong Hero 5 should objectivly always be able to beat a Smart Hero 5 in open combat? Because, if so, I have to note that those statments are all not objectivly true...
Not that I want a 4e Modern that is 100% faithful to the 4e mechanics. But, I'm just saying, there is nothing objective about any of the statments you just made...
By all means, no one is saying the system should not be played. Indulgences in bad things are fine...in moderation. I sometimes eat junk food, sometimes watch a cheesy B-movie (see my movie list) and sometimes go for a ride on a motorbike at night.
The term "bad things" is also subjective. I see nothing objectively bad about 4e. I see nothing that indicates, let alone proves, that those who enjoy it enjoy it like someone enjoys junk food, a cheesy B-movie, or riding their motorbike at night. Personally, I think 4e is probably the best heroic fantasy based RPG I have ever seen released. I have some issues with it, but all in all, I think it is an amazing game. My judgement is of course subjective, not objective. But I would kindly ask you not to imply that I have a ritalin augmented attention span, or can't handle losing or roleplaying, or to colonize my tastes by making empirical claims as to the objective nature of my enjoyment, unless you can prove that those statements are true. By all means, hate 4e. There isn't any reason why you must like the game. There is nothing about the game that makes it objectively better or worse than any other edition of the d20 system. We all have different tastes. We all want different things from our games. There is nothing wrong with any of us receiving our subjective pleasures from different sources, as our subjective pleasures are different, and will thus rely on different types of stimulation. But, unless you can prove that your statements are objective (in which case who am I to ask you not to state the objective truth), I would kindly ask you not to make them in a manner that implies that they are. Unless your statements are actually an objective statement of fact (and I am saying they are not), it is highly insulting to claim that they are. By doing so you have implicitly insulted a large number of the posters on these boards. I personally think you are a much better poster than that.
But I would kindly ask you not to imply that I have a ritalin augmented attention span, or can't handle losing or roleplaying, or to colonize my tastes by making empirical claims as to the objective nature of my enjoyment, unless you can prove that those statements are true.
I didn't. You did. Plenty of things are used by demographics other than those they are intended for.
By the way, I wasn't aware opinion (which isn't always positive) became verboten. Did you?
But I would kindly ask you not to imply that I have a ritalin augmented attention span, or can't handle losing or roleplaying, or to colonize my tastes by making empirical claims as to the objective nature of my enjoyment, unless you can prove that those statements are true.
I didn't. You did. Plenty of things are used by demographics other than those they are intended for.
By the way, I wasn't aware opinion (which isn't always positive) became verboten. Did you?
Considering the fact that you phrased all of those statements as objective, and then dodged a negative response when I asked you if you were claiming that all of your statements were objective, thus implying that you do in fact believe that those are objective truths, yes, you did imply that I was all of those things. You see, I like the new edition. That means that I am the new editions target audience. If the new edition is constructed for ritalin augmented attention spans that can't handle losing and/or roleplaying, seeing as I am the new editions target audience, the implication is that I likely have a ritalin augmented attention span and can't handle losing and/or roleplaying. In fact, even had you constructed that opinion as a subjective truth, you would have still implied that those things are likely to be true about me; you would have simply implied that that is your subjective opinion of me rather than a likely objective truth about my identity. If that is who 4e was constructed for, and I like 4e, thus indicating that 4e was constructed for players like me, then it becomes very likely that that is who I am. Thus, you have implicitly insulted me. I would appreciate it if you please didn't. Thank you. Because, I am not on ritalin, I love roleplaying, and I am ok with losing. I don't appreciate it when people tell me otherwise, via explicit or implicit statement, simply because they happen to not like the same games as me.
And yes, I was aware that insulting opinions, which is to say opinions that frame the individuals on this site in an insulting manner, were verboten. Flaming and baiting is explicitly against the CoC. Starting edition wars with flames and baits has gotten a large number of posts on these forums deleted.
Hate 4e all you like. Hell, post your subjective opinions as to why you hate 4e all you like. I am just asking you to please make sure that while you are doing so you make explicit or implicit insulting statements only about 4e (ie: I feel it is a terrible game, I feel it is too balanced, its pacing makes me feel like I need ritalin to even me out when I play it, it is boring, I feel that it has no mechanics that reinforce or aid role-playing, I feel it is too easy and there is no risk of death, or so on and so forth) and not about the people who enjoy it and play it (ie: it was made for people who have ritalin augmented attention spans that can't handle losing and/or roleplaying). I don't think that that is a lot to ask...
You seem to have quite a bit of hate towards the new edition. Did the 4e devs do something to you? Show me on the doll where they touched you.
P.S. Since I am asking Ragitsu to play nice, I feel I need to say something about this line as well. I understand why you posted what you did. I understand how frustrating Backstabbists comments can be. However, in all fairness, he didn't insult anything but the 4e game. He made no real comments about the people that play it. He has every right to make the statements he made, even though I don't agree with them either. Implying that Backstabbist was sexualy molested, and is a child, because he made some statements you don't agree with, is quite a bit much. Please, don't do so.
That's the second time you've put words in my mouth (so to speak) and twisted what I said to somehow make a point. Enjoy using your ch1466-esque mountains of text on someone else, because i'm done in this thread for now.
If those are not the words you wanted to speak, then in the future, please don't phrase statements about 4e's fans that are insulting. I don't know that you intended to insult anyone, and I certainly don't believe that you intended to intentionally insult me. I think highly of you Ragitsu. That is why you are on my friends list. But what you wrote was insulting, whatever your intent may have been. I was offended by what you wrote. I am just asking you to please insult the game if you are going to insult the game; that is to say, please make sure your phrasing insults the game and not the people who play it.
And, who or what is ch1466?
Also, when have I ever put words in your mouth? I mean, I don't even agree that I have put words in your mouth with this discussion. I have simply told you what the phrasing you wrote tells me, be it your intent or not. But, this is the only discussion we have had where we have even discussed how your phrasing can be read. So, what is this second time you are talking about?
P.S. Since I am asking Ragitsu to play nice, I feel I need to say something about this line as well. I understand why you posted what you did. I understand how frustrating Backstabbists comments can be. However, in all fairness, he didn't insult anything but the 4e game. He made no real comments about the people that play it. He has every right to make the statements he made, even though I don't agree with them either. Implying that Backstabbist was sexualy molested, and is a child, because he made some statements you don't agree with, is quite a bit much. Please, don't do so.
You're right, my apologies. Morbid humor from work starting to spill over to home. No offense intended.
EDIT: And wow, looking over all the posts that came since, I'm sorry I said anything at all. Hey guys, it was just a joke (I still like you stabby, 4e hate and all, well maybe not that but I'll forgive you for not embracing the One True EditionTM), I seriously was not trying to start an edition war. Seriously. I suppose I should have known better...
Edition wars are unless. If WoTC puts out a new system its proven that the new system will be the default system for discussion on the forum. Those who don't like the system just leave the board after a while or limit their interventions to the legacy forums.
Until then let's start 2010 with a clean slate folks!
Back to OP
So one poster actualy has «semi concrete» information from the horse's mouth. And this info leads to conclude that there wil be nothing new in 2010. No new stuff also for Star Wars. It could be that WoTC/Hasbro is feeling the economic crunch and is concentrating on its money maker [4E] for the near futur. It makes economic sens.
I think, they do have Star Wars books out in 2010 though. Galaxy of Intrigue, Unknown Regions, and Scavenger's Guide to Droids as well.
Indeed. Found a thread on the SW forum. Scavenger's is already out. So WoTC is concentrating on well established brands... Since Modern is generic and was never linked to a brand its harder to "market" I guess.
Galaxy of Intrigue and the Unexplored Regions are the last two sourcebooks listed for the publication of the Saga game. It is very possible that those will be the last two Saga books to be published...
Could it be they would "relaunch" SW with 4E rules in May 2011? First Saga book came out in May 2007...
By all means, no one is saying the system should not be played. Indulgences in bad things are fine...in moderation. I sometimes eat junk food, sometimes watch a cheesy B-movie (see my movie list) and sometimes go for a ride on a motorbike at night.
With all due respect, that is going a bit far. No onle likes having a beloved hobby referred to in a way that essentially calls it a "guilty pleasure". I agree with Dave that you are usually more reasonable and level-headed than that, and that you most likely didn't intend to be offensive; so I won't take it as such. It is worth noting however, that I would be inclined to take offense if the comment had come from a source I was less familiar with.
You seem to have quite a bit of hate towards the new edition. Did the 4e devs do something to you? Show me on the doll where they touched you.
P.S. Since I am asking Ragitsu to play nice, I feel I need to say something about this line as well. I understand why you posted what you did. I understand how frustrating Backstabbists comments can be. However, in all fairness, he didn't insult anything but the 4e game. He made no real comments about the people that play it. He has every right to make the statements he made, even though I don't agree with them either. Implying that Backstabbist was sexualy molested, and is a child, because he made some statements you don't agree with, is quite a bit much. Please, don't do so.
Dave, I understand that "show me on the doll" humor is not up your alley (if it ever was, I imagine that becoming a parent has changed that for you), and that you may find it distasteful. That being said, I don't think any of us are inclined to believe that Bone_Naga was legitimately implying that Stab-a-lab-a-ding-dong had been molested. Rather, that his vitriol against 4e appears to be on such a hair-trigger that it seems to others that he has been somehow injured/sleighted by them. That's how I understood it anyway.
Could it be they would "relaunch" SW with 4E rules in May 2011? First Saga book came out in May 2007...
That is the worst RPG product idea i've ever heard of (except that which will not be named). The Star Wars SAGA RPG is great at what it does, and does not need to be revamped. Also, you can expect the fan outrage to be significant.
Dave, I understand that "show me on the doll" humor is not up your alley (if it ever was, I imagine that becoming a parent has changed that for you), and that you may find it distasteful. That being said, I don't think any of us are inclined to believe that Bone_Naga was legitimately implying that Stab-a-lab-a-ding-dong had been molested. Rather, that his vitriol against 4e appears to be on such a hair-trigger that it seems to others that he has been somehow injured/sleighted by them. That's how I understood it anyway.
Its sort of irrelevant. That doll is only used by police officers and doctors to find out if children have been subject to sexual abuse. Therefore, it implies sexual abuse, and calls backstabbist a child (because only a child needs a doll. Adults can simply say that they have been subject to abuse, injury, or slight, and explain when and how). That makes it an implicit insult against backstabbist. I'm not saying that the author of that statement was trying to be some evil mechanist out to imply insult. I'm saying that what he wrote, regardless of his intent, implied insult. If you don't like it when Ragitsu calls your favorite hobby a guilty pleasure, how much more insulting is it when someone tells backstabbist that because he doesn't like your favorite hobby he is a sexually molested child?
I don't want Ragitsu implying that I have a ritalin augmented attention span, and that I can't handle role-playing or losing, because I like 4e. Similarly, its only fair that nobody implies that backstabbist is a sexually molested child because he doesn't. I also find backstabbists hate of 4e to be irrational. But that is a subjective judgement. He obviously finds his hate fully rational. None of us have an objective value judgement of any particular game engine, and our value judgments do not always align. This forum belongs to all of us. What that means is that if anyone wants to insult a product, they have the right. Nobody here has the right to insult an individual, however. Not through explication or implication. It is against the CoC.
Galaxy of Intrigue and the Unexplored Regions are the last two sourcebooks listed for the publication of the Saga game. It is very possible that those will be the last two Saga books to be published...
Could it be they would "relaunch" SW with 4E rules in May 2011? First Saga book came out in May 2007...
Could be. I wouldn't be happy if they did. I like about 10 years for the lifespan of any given game. Four years would upset me a bit. I would not buy the new Star Wars books if that turns out to be the case (and I own every Saga book published, and plan on buying every book to be published in the future). Also, I don't know that I think that 4E (as written) would be the best ruleset to represent Star Wars. I certainly prefer the Star Wars game engine to the 4E game engine when running my own sci-fi games. That doesn't mean that I don't think 4E can't be modded to become an amazing game engine for sci-fi games! But I do think that a lot of Star Wars players are attached to their Saga engine, and would be very upset if four years after the publication of the first Saga book they release a new edition of Star Wars. I think it would be a bad business decision on WotC's part. But I could be wrong...
Personally, I am hoping for a 4e Modern game in 2011. Its probably a far-fetched hope. But I now have my system for running heroic fantasy (4e). I have my system for running gritty modern/sci-fi games (a modified version of the Saga game engine). I have a system for running Star Wars (Saga game engine). I could use a system for running heroic action movie games set in modern day times. Also, I am curious to see what changes the developers would make to 4e in order to make it work as a Modern game engine (because, currently, it doesn't). Then again, with Dias Ex Machina comming out with Amathyst and Neurospasta, soon I won't even need that.
Who knows. I guess only time will tell.
I doubt that anyone will ever come up with an RPG that works just as well for all genres, at least not without many and various optional rules built in. Every genre has different needs, different generic expectations to satisfy. D&D has been honed over decades to simulate fantasy-action. d20M does a great job of simulating contemporary action movies. From what I hear, Saga replicates the space-opera feel of Star Wars. I like the idea of a basic RPG "engine" with a whole bunch of different flavours for different genres of gaming, which is in effect what we have.
The Hero System comes pretty close, though I think it works best for superheroes; it has exactly what you say, lots of optional rules that one can plug'n'play in for genre simulation. Unfortunately, it's so horribly complicated that I have trouble wanting to run or play it anymore; 4e proved to me that a game doesn't have to be complex to be fun.
And d20 Modern can stay as generic action without NEEDING a setting in the core rulebook. I'd rather have more options and subtract to get simpler, than have fewer options and have to add on.
There is nothing wrong with generic.
I did not say it was wrong. I said its hard to maket for WoTC. No more no less. We are speculating on where WoTC might do with Modern. Hence the GI Joe theory.
There is nothing wrong with generic.
I did not say it was wrong. I said its hard to maket for WoTC. No more no less. We are speculating on where WoTC might do with Modern. Hence the GI Joe theory.
Let us hope that is the case.
Cheers!
I did not say it was wrong. I said its hard to maket for WoTC. No more no less. We are speculating on where WoTC might do with Modern. Hence the GI Joe theory.
That was my thought, too. Mind you, it's an educated guess at best. I have no idea what their internal decisions are, but it seems reasonable to think that they're going to lean on recognisable brands, and d20M just never became as recognisable as D&D or Star Wars.
...and d20M just never became as recognisable as D&D or Star Wars.
Modern was a missed opportunity. They went for the easy solution (Urban Arcana) instead of focusing on the modern/sf aspect of the book. A GI Joe hardcover would have generated alote of interest.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... . You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
Please do not repost messages that have been deleted. If a message has been deleted, it is because it was a violation of the Code of Conduct. Reposting a message after it has been removed can result in the loss or suspension of posting privileges.
Modern was a missed opportunity. They went for the easy solution (Urban Arcana) instead of focusing on the modern/sf aspect of the book. A GI Joe hardcover would have generated alote of interest.
I didn't see it that way. Urban Arcana to me looked like d20 Buffy, which was still very big at the time. I'm a little surprised it didn't catch on better, although I think it's one of the more popular d20M settings, if I'm not mistaken. All things considered, I can't fault them for backing that horse. It's the closest modern equivalent of D&D, and therefore requires the easiest learning curve, and there were at least a couple of popular examples of it at the time.
I still think the problem is that d20M didn't clearly label itself as a particular genre, which to me means that it wasn't "generic" enough. It should have been called "d20 Action Movie," or words to that effect. Then people would have known what in the heck it was. Urban Arcana advertises its genre right in the name: city fantasy. More books along those lines might have worked. I would have liked them, anyway. d20 Sci-Fi, d20 Pulp Adventure, d20 Cops and Robbers, d20 Army, d20 Superheroes. It could have been an almost infinitely expandable franchise.
Alas.
I didn't see it that way. Urban Arcana to me looked like d20 Buffy, which was still very big at the time. I'm a little surprised it didn't catch on better, although I think it's one of the more popular d20M settings, if I'm not mistaken. All things considered, I can't fault them for backing that horse. It's the closest modern equivalent of D&D, and therefore requires the easiest learning curve, and there were at least a couple of popular examples of it at the time.
Buffy. I see your point of view. My contention is that after a good start with the first book they killed the game be turning away from modern and tried to slap D&D on it. Many people I know were turned off at that point. They were disappointed that WoTC had abandonned they reason they loved the game...Modern. They didn't want to play D&D with guns. Many adopted Spycraft D20 instead...
I still think the problem is that d20M didn't clearly label itself as a particular genre, which to me means that it wasn't "generic" enough. It should have been called "d20 Action Movie," or words to that effect. Then people would have known what in the heck it was. Urban Arcana advertises its genre right in the name: city fantasy. More books along those lines might have worked. I would have liked them, anyway. d20 Sci-Fi, d20 Pulp Adventure, d20 Cops and Robbers, d20 Army, d20 Superheroes. It could have been an almost infinitely expandable franchise.
Much like GURPS expension books. Actualy they did use that approach with Future
and failed miserably with Past... They only got it semi-right with Apocalypse and Cyber. But the books lacked depth. The cancelled D20 Super migh have saved the game... We'll never know..LOLI think you're right that they kind of tried to go the genre route, but they fell short when they did it merely in terms of past/present/future instead of going with identifiable genres. Spectacular, the superhero game, could have been quite fun. It's really a shame it was never made.
I've heard from people who actually pre-ordered it. My cynical side tells me that WotC didn't actually have any intention of supporting Modern for the long haul, that it was really just a no-consequences place to play with 3e in preparation for 3.5e, much as I think they did with Alternity before 3e, and Saga before 4e (am I getting that chain of influence right? I haven't played either Saga or 4e, so I'm just calling out the chronology as I know it). D&D is their main brand and I can't blame them for putting the bulk of their support behind it.
And really, Modern receives a lot of support, just not from Wizards, and a lot of that support is in the form of Free Stuff that you can download. It's a little clunky sometimes, which sucks, and you don't get a glossy book, which also sucks. But... FREE! I like things that are free, myself.
Sorry, but that's a copout: most generic systems (HERO was mentioned, but there's also GURPS among others. Mutants and Masterminds can handle quite a few genres) can be scaled back to be as complex or simple as you like. The hardest part seems to be character generation, though that gets easier after a few have been created.
along with wirtting up just about everything you need for your setting at least for GURPS
on the 25th of this month it will be the three year aniiversy of anything slightly aimmed at modern being posted to the website,I suggest on that day we get THE WHOLE D20 MODERN FANBASE that we can reach and get them to email WotC or heck, everyone WRITE them
Wizards of the Coast
Attn: Game Support
P.O. Box 707
Renton, WA 98057-0707
letting them know that we still love d20 modern and would love something new for it.
...My cynical side tells me that WotC didn't actually have any intention of supporting Modern for the long haul, that it was really just a no-consequences place to play with 3e in preparation for 3.5e...
Hum... I always wondered IF the Modern "base class model" had taken root in the community would D&D 3.5 have adopted it? Another we'll never know the answer to...
Sorry, but that's a copout: most generic systems (HERO was mentioned, but there's also GURPS among others. Mutants and Masterminds can handle quite a few genres) can be scaled back to be as complex or simple as you like. The hardest part seems to be character generation, though that gets easier after a few have been created.
along with wirtting up just about everything you need for your setting at least for GURPS
on the 25th of this month it will be the three year aniiversy of anything slightly aimmed at modern being posted to the website,I suggest on that day we get THE WHOLE D20 MODERN FANBASE that we can reach and get them to email WotC or heck, everyone WRITE them
Wizards of the Coast
Attn: Game Support
P.O. Box 707
Renton, WA 98057-0707
letting them know that we still love d20 modern and would love something new for it.
Well, I use ready made settings or settings that exist in pop culture, so that's rarely an issue
.I'd love to get new d20 Modern books, but I really doubt Wizards is going to produce anything with the system we love. Like the tale of the Monkey's Paw: be careful what you wish for.
Hum... I always wondered IF the Modern "base class model" had taken root in the community would D&D 3.5 have adopted it? Another we'll never know the answer to...
I remember reading in the original Star Wars d20 manual (not Saga) that they explicitly treated every product line as a place to test out different mechanics, that they put a health bar into Star Wars partly (but not entirely) to see if people liked it better. Same goes for a lot of Saga's changes being adopted in 4e, as I understand it. It just so happens that they're less likely to experiment with D&D because it's their cash cow. I really can't blame them for that, either. 4e is very popular. Whether I personally want to play it or not is largely irrelevant to the company's desire to satisfy the gaming desires of the largest number of people. (BTW, I'm going to actually try 4e myself sometime in the next month or so. I'm deliberately keeping an open mind. I'm trying to think of it like the movie of a beloved book. It doesn't have to be the same. It just has to be good.)
...BTW, I'm going to actually try 4e myself sometime in the next month or so. I'm deliberately keeping an open mind. I'm trying to think of it like the movie of a beloved book. It doesn't have to be the same. It just has to be good.)
The common mistake people make with 4E is that they forget they can do RP actions inside combat. They rely too heavily on powers. Skill challenges are quite fun if DMed and RPed properly. If you just roll dices its rather blah. The feeling I get when I DM 4E is very similar to OAD&D. You're a fighter thats it. If you want dept of character you need to create an «old school» 500 word background. Have fun !
Yeah, that lines up with some comments I've heard, that the book just doesn't say anything about role-play, so if you want to do it, there's all the room in the world for it, but it's not something they spend gobs of time on, and therefore it's easy to just forget that it's an option. My friend is going to DM it; he said "It's not our D&D, but then what is?" He has a point. [/derail]
The RP stuff is in the DMG. Its full of hints and tips on how to RP, character motivation and how to create a campaign. Its written for new players but reads nicely and brings back old memories for long time DMs.
Now if the DM doesn't teach RP to his players they'll never develop the skill. For them D&D will remain a tactical borad game with a feable storyline. On the other for an experienced DM 4E is extremely fun to run with. The only thing missing I find is some kind of character talent tree system to give more depth/variability to the classes.
Oh and its D&D. Its just that the blocks are not arranged in the same order. French film maker JL Goddard (new wave 60s) once said "A movie needs a beginning, a middle and an ending BUT they don't need to be in that order"
I also find that the DMG has a lot of helpfull hints for RPing. The DMG book line is really the role-playing resource for 4e. The DMG 2 even has rules on how to award EXP for roleplaying, which is actually a first for D&D (up until now it has just been DM fiat from what I remember).
The skill challenge system is also very hit and miss. If you run it like a RP tool, it can be great fun. (IE: you can't roll a skill check until you think of a creative way to role-play using it, and do so.) If you use it as a replacement for role-playing, it is quite bland. (IE: Ok, well, this is a skill challenge... so I am going to roll diplomacy. Is 16 a success?)
Also with regard to skill challenges, it occurs to me one could encourage better rp in those situations by granting a +2 bonus for checks that are well-explained or well-complimented by player rp preceeding it. In this way, it becomes an aid for teaching players to interact with the rp world in increasingly better ways.
As Orion put it before, 4e leaves the rp to the imagination, discretion, and personal taste of the players and DM. I personally find this liberating whereas some see it as ignoring rp altogether. Ultimately, i feel that the system provides ample opportunity for those inclined to rp to do so; whereas others are free to drop the rp aspect and play it like a miniatures/boardgame. Looking at it this way for the first time, I think it's a good idea that opens up the market area for the game. A lot of people will be playing D&D, some of them will do it w/o rp, and the rest of us get to enjoy a product that is more heavily supported than it would otherise be. Seems like a win-win to me.
Getting back to the thread topic, I do wish WotC would either poop or get off the pot. If they plan to support Modern, lets see something; even it's just news about what they're working on for the future. If they don't want to do anything with it; then for the love of god sell it to another company that will run with it.
Getting back to the thread topic, I do wish WotC would either poop or get off the pot. If they plan to support Modern, lets see something; even it's just news about what they're working on for the future. If they don't want to do anything with it; then for the love of god sell it to another company that will run with it.
I don't think they even need to sell it. If a company wants to support the existing material, they can do that through the OGL. If they want to update it, well there's apparently someone creating a SAGA conversion, and Deus Ex Machina is doing a cyberpunk game (which you could probably just drop some of the future stuff and run it in a modern setting) and a modern/fantasy mesh with the 4e rules.
The talent trees are actually there in the form of powers. The vast number of powers you choose as you level is the same thing as choosing new talents. Only problem is, not enough of those "talents" have non-combat applications. That bothers me. Otherwise, 4e is pretty wicked fun for a heroic fantasy game. Could be a little more gritty... but my group uses some house rules for that.
Yes and no. Its true that some talents were converted to powers. But the huge difference between talents and powers is that the ifrst is not regulated by a number of uses per day, encounter etc. That's the crux of the problem for me. Modern activities need a far greater number of at-will talents.
Getting back to the thread topic, I do wish WotC would either poop or get off the pot. If they plan to support Modern, lets see something; even it's just news about what they're working on for the future. If they don't want to do anything with it; then for the love of god sell it to another company that will run with it.
I don't think they even need to sell it. If a company wants to support the existing material, they can do that through the OGL. If they want to update it, well there's apparently someone creating a SAGA conversion, and Deus Ex Machina is doing a cyberpunk game (which you could probably just drop some of the future stuff and run it in a modern setting) and a modern/fantasy mesh with the 4e rules.
Granted that's certainly true, but it seems to me that the CRB is getting rare enough that it should be reprinted or at least made available as a PDF. It seems the only way either of these will happen is if the line gets sold to another company. I would also love an art upgrade to go with it (and some fixing of the wealth system), but that's a moot point. Supporting a game whose last printing of the CRB was at least 3 years ago; seems like an unhealthy business decision if you can't reprint the CRB.
The talent trees are actually there in the form of powers. The vast number of powers you choose as you level is the same thing as choosing new talents. Only problem is, not enough of those "talents" have non-combat applications. That bothers me. Otherwise, 4e is pretty wicked fun for a heroic fantasy game. Could be a little more gritty... but my group uses some house rules for that.
Yes and no. Its true that some talents were converted to powers. But the huge difference between talents and powers is that the ifrst is not regulated by a number of uses per day, encounter etc. That's the crux of the problem for me. Modern activities need a far greater number of at-will talents.
Under the 4e system there are powers that can be used at will; effectively being restricted to the nearly unlimited use of once a round for every round of play (putting them nearly equal with your description of a talent). The problem is that there aren't many at-will non-combat abilities as I would like to see.
Just sayin'.
Sure, but then you have the same problem; those books are getting harder and harder to find, as well. There are millions of copies of them, so it's not nearly the same scale as not having the d20M CRB (and I'm now very glad I bought one when I did!), but the point is that there's no legal way to archive and replicate those XP/level-progression rules, but there is a legal way to build our own, and frankly I think that the ones we built are a lot simpler.
Don't forget the Price Gougers, I want Book 'A' and its Out-of-Print and Seller Site 'B' has sellers posting.... I can understand 10-15$ increase to the MSRP but when a seller triple, quadruples, quintriples the MSRP price then its just greed, outright gluttonous greed!
Seriously who has 250$ spare funds around for a book or get this 1,415$ for an Out-of-Print Anime DVD
Sorry I rambled there....
Not exactly off-topic. There is a fine line between mark-up and gauging. The reality is, though, that we have other options. I don't want to spit in Wizards' face(s), so I won't spell it out, but are we really afraid that we'll lose access to those books?
Free PDFs of "Alternity" books can easily be found on the web. So can "StarFrontiers". My thinking is that after a reasonable number of years WoTC will not stop circulation of digitized PDFs as long as they are distributed freely. Its just not worth the hasle for them more so if the e20 project is published down the road. After that date d20Modern becomes obsolete, thus freegame, virtualy speaking of course!
Personally, I am hoping for a 4e Modern game in 2011. Its probably a far-fetched hope. But I now have my system for running heroic fantasy (4e). I have my system for running gritty modern/sci-fi games (a modified version of the Saga game engine). I have a system for running Star Wars (Saga game engine). I could use a system for running heroic action movie games set in modern day times. Also, I am curious to see what changes the developers would make to 4e in order to make it work as a Modern game engine (because, currently, it doesn't). Then again, with Dias Ex Machina comming out with Amathyst and Neurospasta, soon I won't even need that.
Who knows. I guess only time will tell.
A-M-E-T-H-Y-S-T. Just sayin'
You will have some measure of modern/sci-fi rules for 4E in 2010, April in fact.