I like D20Modern. I like it a lot, and play it whenever my group is up for it, and here's why:
1. Very little shoehorning. The hybridized class system allows you to have a decent structure to help you differentiate your character from other player's characters, but it doesn't force you to play a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, etc...
2. I can't think of an easier system to mod. The people here have made some amazing stuff for D20-whatever, and it just plugs right into the game with little trouble. Everything else I've played (Whitewolf [the new one], Battletech [and Mechwarrior], Lo5R, 4E, etc...) or browsed through seems closed-ended by comparison.
3. There is no Pun-Pun (yet...) For that matter, the only truly broken problems with the core system, that I've found, are easily remedied.
4. There is no wrong way to eat a Re-- er, I mean, there's no one best way to build any archetype. A sniper could be a BAB-maxing Strong/MA, or he could be a Dedicated/Solider, or any number of combinations. You could have a full team of the same archetype and still have a diverse group.
That's not everything, but everything that immediately comes to mind, and I'm a bit more interested in seeing what you guys have to say.
Happy posting.
3. There is no Pun-Pun (yet...) For that matter, the only truly broken problems with the core system, that I've found, are easily remedied.
I think you just give me an idea for the next uncon contest
the community
the books
3. There is no Pun-Pun (yet...)
Yes there is, its called d20 Future.
I like the fact Modern can be used as a generic toolkit system easily, and that it isn't just D&D with guns (but can be if you want it to be). :P
I know there are way better systems out there, but my players were more comfortable with d20.
And you know what?
So am I. :embarrass
I like the fact that you can use the rules to create adventures in any genre.
I like the 6 basic classes and the endless potential for advanced classes.
I like talents and talent trees.
I like the compatibility with 3rd Edition D&D (still my favorite version).
I like the way D20 modern handles magic in a modern world.
I like they way psionics work.
I like the system for Rituals.
I like the way D20 Future, Future Tech, Cyberscape and Apocalypse handle mutations and cybernetics.
I like the rules for creating your own monsters.
I don't like the fact that D20 Future was written by a bunch of different authors who apparently didn't communicate or coordinate with each other. Specifically in terms of construction rules... No construction rules for vehicles, and a different set of rules for robots, mecha and starships, none of them compatible with each other.
I don't like the fact that Mecha and Starship weapons are worse than modern weapons in terms of range and damage.
I like the fact that the problems I mentioned above are pretty easy to fix with some house rules and or 3rd party products.
And I REALLY like the fact that the message board is here, full of helpful folks with cool ideas to share.
1. It's not D&D. - My players really enjoy 4th edition, but sometimes you need a break from fantasy gaming, and Modern and its expansions really help us do that.
2. It's Not Star Wars. - again, my players and I really love star wars and what Saga brought to us, but sometimes it gets boring playing jedi and smugglers, and modern allows us to do that.
3. There is plenty of source material. - From our Deadwood style Shadow Stalkers in d20 Past, to my Supernatural meets Dog The Bounty Hunter modern campaign, and my ultraviolent Mad Max meets Firefely (Serenity for you non browncoats) d20 Apocalypse campaign, there is just so much stuff out there, and the rules set allows for versatility.
4. Familiar rules - we all know and love the rules, and so far the only changes we have are the grapple rules and we rolled Hide and Move Silently into Stealth some 6 years ago anyway. And recently I began allowing the pc's to start with triple Hit Dice at level 1.
2. Third party support
- The Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin)
- Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth (EN Publishing)
- Blood and Fists (RPGObjects)
- Modern Player's Companion (The Game Mechanics)
- Additional third party support from companies like Adamant Entertainment (some of which is now unavailable) and RPGObjects.
The reason I do not play d20 Modern anymore is because I believe that d20 game design has transcended the limits of d20 Modern. I find that anything that d20 Modern could do, Star Wars Saga or 4e D&D can do better. I find 4e D&D to be better at running heroic fantasy games, in which a character begins as a hero and then ascends to godhood, via highly narrative techniques. I find that Star Wars Saga is better at running "gritty/realistic" (albeit with a bunch of house rules in this case) style Modern/sci-fi games with a little more simulationist flavor then 4e allows, though not so much as to the point where I start noticing all the inevitable places where the rules do not mesh well with reality, despite their attempt to do so, thus forcing me to write page after page of house rules. Put plain and simply, I don't play d20 Modern anymore because I feel that whatever d20 Modern can do, another system can as well, and that other system can do it better. What is more, that other system is still a d20 system, and as such I still feel as comfortable with it as I do with d20 Modern.
The reason I do not play d20 Modern anymore is because I believe that d20 game design has transcended the limits of d20 Modern. I find that anything that d20 Modern could do, Star Wars Saga or 4e D&D can do better.
I'm glad they work for you. Neither works for me although I would borrow one or two rules from them.
If I wanted to play World of Warcraft, i'd use a PC.
Was that directed at my response? I don't consider anything about D&D 4e or Star Wars Saga to be like WoW. I also find the argument that D&D 4e is like WoW to be fairly illogical, reductive, and historically ironic. Reminds me of the claims that 3e was like Diablo, and that if people wanted to play Diablo they would use a PC. Those kinds of statements were silly then, and are silly now.
If you were not directing that comment towards me and my response to the OP question, then please ignore my response.
Greg K: There is no accounting for taste. ;) Nothing wrong with you not liking Star Wars Saga or 4e. Everyone is free to prefer whatever system they like. Some people out there still prefer 2e to any 3e product. But me, I would rather play Star Wars Saga or 4e (depending on what genre I would like to play) than d20 Modern. After playing those two games, I really don't find myself looking back. Which is sort of funny, because I originally bought the Star Wars Saga core role-playing guide so I could mine it for house rules for Modern. Now I mine d20 Modern products for house rules for Star Wars Saga.
The only real game type that I find Star Wars Saga or 4e can not run better than d20 Modern is a modern horror game. Except, for such games I have Monte Cooks World of Darkness game. And, once again, I feel that McWoD (heavily house ruled, but not any more heavily then I ever house ruled d20 Modern or any other 3e product) is better at that style of game than d20 Modern is.
;) :PNow I'm not going to argue that D20 Modern is better for heroic fantasy than 4Eor that its better for Starwars than SE. However, I will say that its easier to use D20 Modern to create any other genre than either 4E or SE. Its versatility is what I love...
I've only played 4ED&D a couple of times now, but I'm not really sold on it... not like I was after playing StarWars Saga edition the first time.
Now I'm not going to argue that D20 Modern is better for heroic fantasy than 4Eor that its better for Starwars than SE. However, I will say that its easier to use D20 Modern to create any other genre than either 4E or SE. Its versatility is what I love...
Would it be fair to equate D20Modern to the Source engine? A little dated, so it isn't quite as flashy, but ridiculously simple to mod by comparison to other games on the market?
.Would it be fair to compare D20Modern to the Source engine? A little dated, so it isn't quite as flashy, but ridiculously simple to mod by comparison to other games on the market?
I'd say so...
Actually 3E is the source engine, but Modern stripped some of the specialization away and made it truly customizable. Saga StarWars and 4ED&D re-specialized the engine for their specific genres.
But yeah, in my humble opinion, D20 Modern and its supplements make the ultimate DM's toolbox for the D20 game mechanic... you can use those rules to make ANYTHING.
Now I mine d20 Modern products for house rules for Star Wars Saga..
Really, some of my house rules were already similar to SAGA and 4e (and I did borrow a couple of others after seeing Star Wars: SE), but without having to lose skill points, over consolidate skills (imo), or use per encounter abilities. For instance:
a) increased hit points at first level (using a similar method to 4e, but not fixed hp per level);
b) an idea similar to the condition track that I had already been using (using fatigue condition, exhausted condition as then Death and Dying from Unearthed Arcana); and
c) a few consolidated skills (depending upon the campaign), but not to the degree of Star Wars or 4e
d) I had even borrowed saves as defenses and second wind (slightly modified) after seeing the Star Wars: SE Previews
The other house rules are
1. Action points: Making them work more like M&M hero points (for cinematic games). So, they give rerolls (adding 10 to any roll under 11), trigger second winds, grant extra actions,etc.. Characters just get a set amount per adventure, but, in my next game, I will be awarding additional ap as complications arise throughout the adventure.
2) Skills:
a) Complex skills (Unearthed Arcana)
b) Tweaking a couple of skill uses (e.g, Tumbling in combat not being a static DC)
c) minimal skill consolidation (depending on the campaign)
3) Automatic Weapons: tweaked
4 . Martial Arts: using Blood and Fists (RPGObjects)
5. FX: using the following in place of the standard fx rules
a) Elements of Magic:Mythic Earth (EN Publishing) for magic
b) Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook in place of psionics)
7. NPC creation: I use Foe Factory: Modern (Adamant) or just don't sweat the small stuff for unimportant NPCs.
The only thing that I don't have are talent trees for Prc. However, again, I also don't have to deal with the, imo, overly condensed skill list, removal of skill points (and the +1/2 level ability) or per encounter abilities- all of which I dislike.
The only real game type that I find Star Wars Saga or 4e can not run better than d20 Modern is a modern horror game. Except, for such games I have Monte Cooks World of Darkness game. And, once again, I feel that McWoD (heavily house ruled, but not any more heavily then I ever house ruled d20 Modern or any other 3e product) is better at that style of game than d20 Modern is.
Personally, I like the following d20M supplements from RPGObjects:
- Blood and Blades: A profilers guide to slashers (heck, you even get Freddy, Jason, Michael Meyers, Chucky and several others with the serial numbers filed off).
- Blood and Brains: The zombie hunters guide
- Blood and Spooks: The Ghost Hunter's Guide
You can't. All you can do is delete all the current text and then leave a message.
Thanks. I hate that, when you go to edit, it says edit or delete.
The only thing that I don't have are talent trees for Prc. However, again, I also don't have to deal with the, imo, overly condensed skill list, removal of skill points (and the +1/2 level ability) or per encounter abilities- all of which I dislike.
Talents in Saga/a plethora of powers to choose from in 4e are one of the key selling points of those two systems for me.
The condensed skill list is another major selling point for me. Sure, you get a couple odd situations in which someone wants a character to be good at one aspect of a condensed skill but not another. Things is, those situations are easy to overcome with some DM fiat, and they are no less odd then the situations in which with a spread out skill list with more specific names you end up with no skill that appropriately fits a given situation. I mean, if you have listen and spot instead of perception, what happens if you need a perception skill check with a tactile or olfactory aspect of your perceptive ability? Also, when you couple the uncondensed skill list with the lack of skill points, the result was that players had a sad lack of capability. With a lot of characters, once you picked the few skills necessary to your concept (some social skills, skills for thievery, athletic skills, etc) the result was that you had no skill points for anything else.
As for the removal of skill points/an introduction 1/2 your level as a bonus to skill checks, one of the best moves that both Saga and 4e made. I hated skill points with a passion. They were one of my least favorite areas of the rules. Coupled with monsters being built using the same rules as PCs, skill points made my life a royal headache when stating NPCs. They were unnecessarily complex for my players who needed to create a character at higher levels (because their regular PC had died), and they made my life double checking my players character sheets a pain as well. In a game where every number you gain is based on your level and flat bonuses from items, class abilities, and feats, there is no reason why there should be one sub-system that works in a totally backwards way. My hatred for the skill point system was only exacerbated by the problems it created for stating out skill based encounters. Characters were so specialized that they either passed every skill check with that skill, or so untrained that placing a use of a skill into the quest basically amounted to telling my players that they automatically failed. I much prefer the Saga/4e way of doing things. I even house ruled skill points out of Monte Cook's World of Darkness (because I hate them so much).
And the per encounter capabilities introduced with 4e was a brilliant method of balancing encounters, and I like the way it is based around narrative instead of simulationist tactics of encounter progression.
Those are some of the very reasons why I refuse to play d20 Modern anymore. Those aspects of Saga and 4e, among others, have spoiled me. I can't bring myself to play games without (some combination of) them anymore.
Personally, I like the following d20M supplements from RPGObjects:
- Blood and Blades: A profilers guide to slashers (heck, you even get Freddy, Jason, Michael Meyers, Chucky and several others with the serial numbers filed off).
- Blood and Brains: The zombie hunters guide
- Blood and Spooks: The Ghost Hunter's Guide
Monte Cooks World of Darkness is close enough to d20 Modern that if I were to use some supplement I would use it with Monte Cooks World of Darkness instead of d20 Modern. The basic system of Monte Cooks World of Darkness is much better for horror games, in my opinion.
Its personal taste, but like I said: I run three types of games. Those three types of games are sci-fi games, modern horror games, and heroic fantasy games. For all those three types of games I have a system that meets my needs better than d20 Modern can. For modern horror I have McWoD. For heroic fantasy I have 4e D&D. For sci-fi I have Star Wars Saga (with which I throw out the Star Wars fluff, and add in some house rules to make the system more gritty). There is just no type of game for which I need d20 Modern anymore. There is no type of game for which d20 Modern can meet my needs in a manner that is superior to the way another game can do so. The system is to dated for use for me.
Coupled with monsters being built using the same rules as PCs, skill points made my life a royal headache when stating NPCs.
Don't sweat the small stuff.:D
They were unnecessarily complex for my players who needed to create a character at higher levels (because their regular PC had died),
Well, if your players are having problems, then lack of skills points is a good thing for you. For I, my players, and several groups I know, the lack of skill points are deal breakers.
and they made my life double checking my players character sheets a pain as well.
To double check the math or to see what skills they have? If the former, trust your players unless you supsect them of cheating (and, then, why are you playing
or so untrained that placing a use of a skill into the quest basically amounted to telling my players that they automatically failed.
Then, don't make your adventures to rely on one skill check for success- especially, if the players have a low rank. You are the DM, base skill adventures on the skills your players have and their skill ranks- they tell you what your players want to do. And, there is nothing wrong with one person, getting a moment to shine if they are that good at a skill.
Furthermore, failure does not have to be a bad thing unless you tie the success of the adventure to one roll. Failure can simply add complications or make the players to make a new plan and approach the situation in a different manner (which is why I hated Rodney's reasoning for the new SAGA skill system- it smacked of railroading his players.
And the per encounter capabilities introduced with 4e was a brilliant method of balancing encounters, and I like the way it is based around narrative instead of simulationist tactics of encounter progression.
If you say so, then they are for you. Personally, I prefer something more freeform like Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc) and skill stunts (Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc) or Skillful Stunts (a small pdf from Adamant that was $1).
Those are some of the very reasons why I refuse to play d20 Modern anymore. Those aspects of Saga and 4e, among others, have spoiled me. I can't bring myself to play games without (some combination of) them anymore.
Well, to me as a DM (which I do almost exclusively) and a player, those very same things are what keeps me away from SW:Saga (which I otherwise like) and 4e (which, imo did a few things right, but so much wrong).
Its personal taste
I completely agree
The system is to dated for use for me.
I wouldn't call it dated (except the fx system), but, then again, I find any type of level bonus system for skills rather than skill points to be dated.
Don't sweat the small stuff.:D
I should not have to ignore rules to make a game manageable to run.
To double check the math or to see what skills they have? If the former, trust your players unless you supsect them of cheating (and, then, why are you playing
To double check their math. And its not that I don't trust them, its that I tend to know the games I play better than my players. They make mistakes. They are honest mistakes, but those mistakes either give them an unfair advantage or shoot themselves in the foot. In both cases, those mistakes are things I like to fix. Double checking for those mistakes, and fixing them, is a good deal easier with both Saga and 4e.
Then, don't make your adventures to rely on one skill check for success- especially, if the players have a low rank. You are the DM, base skill adventures on the skills your players have and their skill ranks- they tell you what your players want to do. And, there is nothing wrong with one person, getting a moment to shine if they are that good at a skill.
Furthermore, failure does not have to be a bad thing unless you tie the success of the adventure to one roll. Failure can simply add complications or make the players to make a new plan and approach the situation in a different manner (which is why I hated Rodney's reasoning for the new SAGA skill system- it smacked of railroading his players.
I should not have to include only those skills that players have chosen to train for them to have any chance of success. This is especially true in d20 Modern/any 3e game where the combination of very few skill points and very specific skills on the skill list lead to the party as a whole being trained in very few applications of the skill system.
While I always try and gear my encounters towards what my players want to do, their shining moment should not equate to "automatic success."
Even when failure simply means adding complications (which is usually all it means in my games), including a skill that they are not trained in should not usually equate to automatically forcing this complication upon my group.
I just much prefer the Saga and 4e skill system. If I really want a particular game to include a mix of bonuses form nothing to specialized, its easy for me to include a house rule that essentially does as much with Saga or 4e. In my Land of Nod setting you only gain a +1/2 your level with skill checks to class skills. But removing the unnecessary complexity of the skill point system from any 3e d20 system product is virtually impossible.
If you say so, then they are for you. Personally, I prefer something more freeform like Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc) and skill stunts (Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc) or Skillful Stunts (a small pdf from Adamant that was $1).
I dont know how iorn might did things, but I don't like skill stunts. I don't know if the skill stunts you are referring to is the same method I played with for a while, but for a while I played with the concept of stunts that require a skill check to perform. This is a more simulationist method of doing things. The problem with this method, for me, is this: it promotes characters to always try and use stunts that they can easily perform over and over, and it promotes characters never using those "hard to pull off" stunts, even occasionally, because statistically they always fail on such stuns (thus wasting an action) when they need to succeed. I prefer having the really easy to use stunts which players can always succeed at just being at-will, the moderate difficulty stunts being per encounter, and the really hard stunts being per day. This ensures that when you really need to succeed at a stunt you will be able to. It will not turn players away from using the really hard to use stunts, because if they need to use that stunt they know they will be able to succeed at doing so. They just wont get to use it again during the same day. Likewise, it ensures that characters do not do the same thing over and over again, which is nice, both from the point of view of tactical management and cinematic/narrative development in such combat encounters.
Well, to me as a DM (which I do almost exclusively) and a player, those very same things are what keeps me away from SW:Saga (which I otherwise like) and 4e (which, imo did a few things right, but so much wrong).
Fair enough. Me and you have very different tastes. Like I said, I don't think I could ever bring myself to play in a game with skill points ever again. But that is just me, and my personal preference.
The system is to dated for use for me. I wouldn't call it dated (except the fx system), but, then again, I find any type of level bonus system for skills rather than skill points to be dated.
From a historical point of view, its dated. The skill point system in a d20 system (and in this case I use the term d20 system to retroactively describe even the D&D system published by TSR) has a specific historical time period of prevalence. It came into existence in late 2e with the players option rules, made it into 3e and 3.5 edition, and turned off a lot of players in the process. I always hated this aspect of 3e products, even when I loved those products. But the system was so integrated into the game that I could not think of a good way to get rid of it. It was too integrated into the leveling rules for a quick and easy house rule to fix the problem. I was better off just living with it. When I saw what Saga and 4e did I was ecstatic.
Well, in all honesty, I had spent so much time convincing myself that the skill point system was a necessary part of d20 Modern that at first I was not sure if a Modern game would work well without skill points. Then, the more I played Saga and 4e, the less I felt attached to the use of skill points even in d20 Modern. Now, I can't abide their use anywhere. I wasn't happy when I first saw them introduced as a standard rule in D&D, and I am not happy having to use them in d20 Modern.
...Well, in all honesty, I had spent so much time convincing myself that the skill point system was a necessary part of d20 Modern that at first I was not sure if a Modern game would work well without skill points. Then, the more I played Saga and 4e, the less I felt attached to the use of skill points even in d20 Modern. Now, I can't abide their use anywhere. I wasn't happy when I first saw them introduced as a standard rule in D&D, and I am not happy having to use them in d20 Modern.
My sentiments exactly. The skill system in Modern (D&D3.5) is very cumbersome. I prefer the shift to talent trees in Saga. Its more in tune with a class based RPG.
@cyber-dave : If memory servers me correctly skills in D&D appeared in 2E as a response to the likes of Call of Chtuluh which was a «real» skill based game. Each skill used successfully during a game could be raise +1% after the session. IMHO skills in D&D have always felt like a patch ... Microsoft style.
I don't like class-based RPG's very much, but don't like the classless systems out there, either. Oddly my favorite system is a classless AD&D 2e (using the DMG custom class rules to create a fighter/mage/thief/cleric class).
@cyber-dave : If memory servers me correctly skills in D&D appeared in 2E as a response to the likes of Call of Chtuluh which was a «real» skill based game. Each skill used successfully during a game could be raise +1% after the session. IMHO skills in D&D have always felt like a patch ... Microsoft style.
Yea, I know. Check out the second last paragraph of my last post. :P
From a historical point of view, its dated. The skill point system in a d20 system (and in this case I use the term d20 system to retroactively describe even the D&D system published by TSR) has a specific historical time period of prevalence. It came into existence in late 2e with the players option rules, made it into 3e and 3.5 edition, and turned off a lot of players in the process. I always hated this aspect of 3e products, even when I loved those products. But the system was so integrated into the game that I could not think of a good way to get rid of it. It was too integrated into the leveling rules for a quick and easy house rule to fix the problem. I was better off just living with it. When I saw what Saga and 4e did I was ecstatic.
Although I didn't know it was in response to Call of Cathulu... but it does make sense.