# d20 Modern: What Would you change part II



## Vigilance (Aug 5, 2007)

I'm getting some thoughts together. Here's some of my early thoughts.

Questions and comments would be welcome. 

http://rpgdesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/modern-system-20-design-diary-1.html


----------



## Psion (Aug 5, 2007)

When you are talking about ditching pre-adventure dice rolls, is that an allusion to chucking or at least seriously redefining the wealth system in some way.

If so, good on ya.  I didn't get a whole lot out of The Game Mechanics' Modern Player's Companion, but the starting kits saved me a load of headache when it came to prepping characters.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 5, 2007)

Not just Wealth. 

Craft checks, Knowledge checks and Research checks too.

You'll still have the same amount of options. Just less randomness in stuff that doesn't really matter to actual adventure.


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 5, 2007)

Umm, what?     Well, I guess your blog post has a point, but I'm not quite sure how it'd work out ('specially since you have described yet what your plan is to get around the preliminary stuff).  I'm also not sure that some people don't enjoy the planning and preparations for an operation, but it probably depends on the players and the op.


But, random aside:   What D20 Modern needs is fixes to autofire, handling nonlethal damage/unarmed combat, and probably something to make action points more meaningful in impact.  

D20 Future, well, needs even more, like less near-invincibility of mecha and starships, especially given the Unbalance Opponent feat and how it turns melee mecha into nigh-harmless pieces of superheavy armor (I'm finding out just how long it can take to resolve a mecha fight between two experienced PCs and some mooks or even fairly skilled opponents; one PC is nearly unhittable even outside his mecha, and hardly misses with anything but his last iterative attack, and the hardness of mecha and starships makes it take an awful lot to cause any real damage....; the problem is kinda exaggerated too, by the fact that the other PC's mecha is designed after Veritechs/Valkyries, so it has a starfighter mode as well as a mecha mode, and it's kind of hard/wierd to try explaining the drastic power boost and different systems of the starship form...).

I have less difficulty handwaving or speeding through anything else besides combat, than dealing with the problems that crop up in battle.  Or with the invincible Kensei mecha I designed and put a skilled pilot in, to counter the PCs only to realize that I couldn't use it because they stood no chance whatsoever in a fight with it.....


----------



## jezter6 (Aug 5, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I'm getting some thoughts together. Here's some of my early thoughts.
> 
> Questions and comments would be welcome.
> 
> http://rpgdesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/modern-system-20-design-diary-1.html




First, I'm digging the theory behind the change. Not sure how it plays out in action, but it's a heck of an idea.

Along the same lines, Modern System 2.0 should use something like dramatic conflict from Spycraft 2.0. There should not be the 1 roll = failure for 100% of the dice rolls. When you need information FAST, and 1 failed roll means you wasted an entire day searching for it, it really sets the 'action movie' pace down to one of the most boring parts of the game: Rolling over and over until you get at least "x" on the dice. I kind of equate it to the random encounter table while travelling long distances. Watching our GM roll a hundred times over our journey was just boring and wasn't needed. Rolling (and rerolling) just to get a result that you would have continued to reroll until you got anyways shouldn't happen.

Also, I kinda like how Saga is doing skills. Now, I don't think EVERYONE should get 1/2 level to every skill, but I think some of the lamer skills that don't see action (climb, swim, etc) should either be 1) wrapped up into one physical skill or 2) everyone gets some sort of bonus in them. You either know how to swim or you don't know how to swim. And if you know how to swim, you either 'can swim' or 'are a great swimmer.' There's no need for the rank by rank granularity to the skill at all. My option there is to have a single skill or a skill group of 'everyday' skills  that every HERO gets the 1/2 level (or some kind of) bonus to. Those include the standard stuff: Knowledge (Popular Culture), Swim, Climb, Fart, Knowledge (Geeky Roleplaying Games), etc. If at any point you call yourself a 'hero' - those skills should just be customary.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 5, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Umm, what?     Well, I guess your blog post has a point, but I'm not quite sure how it'd work out ('specially since you have described yet what your plan is to get around the preliminary stuff).




Well, before you alter how the game works, and fix anything you perceive as a problem, don't you need to first figure out how the game SHOULD work and what you perceive AS a problem?

And before I propose anything like that, wouldn't it be nice to see where I was coming from?

So that's what the blog post was about.

Begin at the beginning. I'm trying to let folks know about the thoughts that have been bubbling around in my head, as someone who has run hundreds of modern games in all types of genres over the past few years. 



> I'm also not sure that some people don't enjoy the planning and preparations for an operation, but it probably depends on the players and the op.




Again, I'm not talking about limiting options. Enjoying planning and prep isn't the same as having each player make the same Research or Gather Information check in turn to try and gett a piece of key information.

I'm strictly talking about removing some of the randomness from non-critical parts of the game. 



> But, random aside:   What D20 Modern needs is fixes to autofire, handling nonlethal damage/unarmed combat, and probably something to make action points more meaningful in impact.




I'll get to those parts of the game when I get to them. Again, begin at the beginning. I wanted to look at every aspect of the game and examine all of it. This is where I started, because the gamespace is the fundamentals that everything else is built on.

From there, I've moved into skills, because that seemed like the natural progression. 

I have changed autofire and other aspects of combat in some fairly serious ways, because they do need work.

This blog post though, was basically about how I started on this process of doing something more comprehensive than a few limited fixes. 

Sorry my blog post was more preliminary than you would have obviously liked it to be.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 5, 2007)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> First, I'm digging the theory behind the change. Not sure how it plays out in action, but it's a heck of an idea.




Thanks!

I've really given a lot of thought to how the game plays and the sorts of things that slow the game down.

I basically came to the conclusion that the two things that slow down gameplay the most are die rolls and GM attention.

This is where eight lanes become one and everything queues up. If a player needs to consult the GM, get a DC set, roll a die and find out the results of his roll, that all requires time, and for me, that process isn't especially scintillating. 



> When you need information FAST, and 1 failed roll means you wasted an entire day searching for it, it really sets the 'action movie' pace down to one of the most boring parts of the game: Rolling over and over until you get at least "x" on the dice.




My thoughts exactly. 

A Knowledge check, like most skill checks, is basically a yes or no question. Does my character know who the ruler of Wakanda is, yes or no? 

Why do we need a die roll for that? Much less several? 



> I kind of equate it to the random encounter table while travelling long distances. Watching our GM roll a hundred times over our journey was just boring and wasn't needed. Rolling (and rerolling) just to get a result that you would have continued to reroll until you got anyways shouldn't happen.




Exactly. Just tell the player whether or not he knows, or even better, just have what he knows laid out on a table so the PLAYER can see if he knows the answer or not, then go from the there.

If the player really thinks he needs to know, he can try to find another avenue to that information. 



> Also, I kinda like how Saga is doing skills. Now, I don't think EVERYONE should get 1/2 level to every skill, but I think some of the lamer skills that don't see action (climb, swim, etc) should either be 1) wrapped up into one physical skill or 2) everyone gets some sort of bonus in them. You either know how to swim or you don't know how to swim. And if you know how to swim, you either 'can swim' or 'are a great swimmer.' There's no need for the rank by rank granularity to the skill at all. My option there is to have a single skill or a skill group of 'everyday' skills  that every HERO gets the 1/2 level (or some kind of) bonus to. Those include the standard stuff: Knowledge (Popular Culture), Swim, Climb, Fart, Knowledge (Geeky Roleplaying Games), etc. If at any point you call yourself a 'hero' - those skills should just be customary.




I dig Saga. It's not OGC, but when I read it, I see the designers have had some of the same thoughts I did. It was interesting to read from that perspective.

It was like watching someone play a song you're thinking of playing, and seeing the choices they made.


----------



## Psion (Aug 5, 2007)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Also, I kinda like how Saga is doing skills. Now, I don't think EVERYONE should get 1/2 level to every skill, but I think some of the lamer skills that don't see action (climb, swim, etc) should either be 1) wrapped up into one physical skill or 2) everyone gets some sort of bonus in them.




That's one thing I really dig about Spycraft 2.0 (True20 does something similar). Lots of people can swim, but how many players find it worthwhile to actually put points into it? Unless your game is explicitly like the exploits of a Navy SEAL team or the Clive Cussler novels, it normally comes up rarely enough that nobody is going to specialize in it.

But a generalized athletics skill that covers swim and climb, and extensible to handle other physical activities, players are more likely to put points into, and you don't feel like you are screwing the players if you face them with a swimming challenge. It does make the skill system less precise, but for actual play purposes, it seems to work pretty well.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 5, 2007)

I agree with a lot that has been said-except for dealing with skills. 

The  SAGA and Iron Heroes (before someone mentions it) treatment of skills are actually deal breakers for playing either game with both groups with whom I game.  As a GM, I don't so much mind having a fast NPC generation option that doesn't use skill points. However,  as player, I detest what SAGA does with skills (the removal of skill points, half level bonus, and the combining of skills). I prefer to determine just how good my character is in a skill and don't want automatic increases just, because my character increases in level. The same goes for the Iron Heroes approach where classes can improve in a group of certain skills instead of having to buy each skill in that group indivdually just because they belong to a certain class.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 5, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> But a generalized athletics skill that covers swim and climb, and extensible to handle other physical activities, players are more likely to put points into, and you don't feel like you are screwing the players if you face them with a swimming challenge. It does make the skill system less precise, but for actual play purposes, it seems to work pretty well.



I never feel like I am screwing the players if I have to put them up against a swim challenge.  If the character is supposed to be an able swimmer, than next time the player should take some of those bonus first level points and buy a rank of swimming instead of trying to max out several skills.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 5, 2007)

I don't prefer skills to advance automatically, except as a way to advance NPCs quickly, which is what I'll be doing here. 

Here's an example of what I'm doing with skills:



> *Influence (Cha)*
> This skill covers the ability to win friends and influence people. It covers everything from the ability to tell a convincing lie to the ability to treat mental illnesses through applied psychology.
> *Bluff:* This use of the Influence skill allows you to convince a target that a lie is true. In combat, this skill use can be used to perform a feint, which (if successful) grants a bonus on your next attack roll equal to your Charisma modifier.
> The DC of a Bluff check is either the target’s Perception +10 or the target’s Will save +10, whichever is higher.
> ...




Something else that's relevant to the above skill, since it's obviously a broad skill, is this:



> Specialists and Generalists
> 
> Most of the skills below are quite broad in their applications. For example the Acrobatics skill contains four separate uses and many skills have even more applications that they cover. If a character wishes, he can specialize in a single skill application. While he will not have the range of knowledge, he will be more skilled in his one specialty. A character that specializes gains +3 bonus ranks on the one aspect of the skill he specializes in, and–3 ranks in all other applications of the skill.
> 
> If a skill application requires a perk, a character can only specialize in that skill use if he has the appropriate perk.




You'll also note from the skill quoted above that opposed skill checks have gone the way of the dodo. In their place I'm using what I call "targeted checks", where the DC of a skill is set by another character's skill (so Bluff DC is Perception +10).


----------



## Gundark (Aug 5, 2007)

Hey. I read your blog there and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I thin that there should be a lot less rolling. For example for you breaking into the safe example all the nexcessary bit of info that the PCs need to accomplish the task shouldn't be rolled for. All optional stuff that isn't necessary to the completion of the task...well fine roll for that.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 6, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Hey. I read your blog there and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I thin that there should be a lot less rolling. For example for you breaking into the safe example all the nexcessary bit of info that the PCs need to accomplish the task shouldn't be rolled for. All optional stuff that isn't necessary to the completion of the task...well fine roll for that.




Yes, my basic goal is to try and remove every single dice roll that doesn't involve interaction with someone else, whether combat or non-combat.

Even then, I'm combining skills, and getting rid of opposed skill checks, with the goal of getting interactions down to a single die roll.

For example, in d20 (modern and D&D), to sneak past a guard requires four skill checks (Move Silently and Hide in Shadows for the sneaker, vs. Spot and Listen for the guard).

Now if you pull back and look at what effect this has on the adventure, it's basically a binary decision, a fork in the road: does the guard notice me or not.

We don't need four dice hitting the table for that, imo.

The way I'm going to handle it is one Stealth check, with the DC being the guard's Perception +10. If the guard is on high alert for some reason (like an alarm has been sounded), then the DC would be Perception +20. 

You have the same range of options, the DC of the Stealth check is still determined by how perceptive the guard is, but only one die roll is called for.


----------



## Psion (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yes, my basic goal is to try and remove every single dice roll that doesn't involve interaction with someone else, whether combat or non-combat.
> 
> Even then, I'm combining skills, and getting rid of opposed skill checks, with the goal of getting interactions down to a single die roll.




Getting rid of opposed skills check.   

That's been a feature of more modern skill systems, not a bug.

Unless you are talking like having one participant automatically take 10 or somesuch.



> For example, in d20 (modern and D&D), to sneak past a guard requires four skill checks (Move Silently and Hide in Shadows for the sneaker, vs. Spot and Listen for the guard).
> 
> 
> Now if you pull back and look at what effect this has on the adventure, it's basically a binary decision, a fork in the road: does the guard notice me or not.
> ...




The real culprit here is the multiple skills more than the opposed check itself.

I'm good with 2 dice, myself. Or just assuming one party takes 10.



> The way I'm going to handle it is one Stealth check, with the DC being the guard's Perception +10. If the guard is on high alert for some reason (like an alarm has been sounded), then the DC would be Perception +20.




Ah, okay. That (+20) may be generous, but the approach is sound, I think.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 6, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Getting rid of opposed skills check.
> 
> That's been a feature of more modern skill systems, not a bug.
> 
> Unless you are talking like having one participant automatically take 10 or somesuch.




You have it exactly. 

There's still opposition going on. The DC is just the targeted skill +10. 




> The real culprit here is the multiple skills more than the opposed check itself.




Two symptoms of the same problem. At first I loved opposed checks, and I still love them, in theory.

However, they make things like Conan sneaking into the Tower of the Elephant far, far too random, rather than being based on the skill of the participants.

Adding a random +1-20 bonus to skill checks, and needing to succeed at TWO of them everytime you wish to bypass a guard, makes stealth missions much more about how good of a dice roller you are than anything else.

You might as well just flip a coin every time you pass a guard. 



> Ah, okay. That (+20) may be generous, but the approach is sound, I think.




Well, I don't think it should be common or anything. And everything is subject to change. I'm almost done with the skills, but we're still in the theoretical stage of the operation here (though I don't anticipate any radical changes in playtesting- I've run plenty o' d20 Modern in my day).


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 6, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That's one thing I really dig about Spycraft 2.0 (True20 does something similar). Lots of people can swim, but how many players find it worthwhile to actually put points into it? Unless your game is explicitly like the exploits of a Navy SEAL team or the Clive Cussler novels, it normally comes up rarely enough that nobody is going to specialize in it.
> 
> But a generalized athletics skill that covers swim and climb, and extensible to handle other physical activities, players are more likely to put points into, and you don't feel like you are screwing the players if you face them with a swimming challenge. It does make the skill system less precise, but for actual play purposes, it seems to work pretty well.




See, this is one direction that SAGA is going that I _don't _ like. I don't like the idea that the guys that swim the English Channel are using the same ones rock climbing. Sure, athletics tend to draw on the same personality type, and lots of guys that swim also climb rock walls, but I don't agree that being good at one has anything to do with the other. One's ability to climb K2 has very little to do with one's ability to swim the ocean blue, at least IMHO.

Now, pairing up skills like Spot and Listen, or Hide and Move Silently, I could see. I always just assumed that these skills were so important they were split into two in order to effectively make them cost twice as much. Roll those skills into one, well ok, but make all the other skills proportionately useful to keep pace. 

But in any skill system, I feel there needs to be some granularity. I would like to play a character who was nearsighted but had uncanny hearing to compensate, or a champion climber who can't swim a stroke, just as much as I'd like to play the sharp eyed/keen eared scout or the All-American athelete.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 6, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> See, this is one direction that SAGA is going that I _don't _ like. I don't like the idea that the guys that swim the English Channel are using the same ones rock climbing. Sure, athletics tend to draw on the same personality type, and lots of guys that swim also climb rock walls, but I don't agree that being good at one has anything to do with the other. One's ability to climb K2 has very little to do with one's ability to swim the ocean blue, at least IMHO.




Not in the real world. But characters in fiction who are good at one, tend to be good at all three. Take Tarzan for example. Or Indiana Jones. 

That said, some folks raised this objection to me, and if you note above the tidbit I quoted about skill specialization, you can be that guy who's a great mountain climber and a lousy swimmer, by taking a +3 bonus on climbing and a -3 penalty on all other aspects of the Athletics skill.


----------



## Psion (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Not in the real world. But characters in fiction who are good at one, tend to be good at all three. Take Tarzan for example. Or Indiana Jones.




Yep.

If you really want to emphasize a particular aspect, I'd say that's fair game for feats. But I really think that allowing a broader level of general competence is a good idea.

That said, I don't like the SAGA approach to this. I understand why they did it, but it's a bit too coarse for my taste for PCs.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 6, 2007)

You mean giving everyone all skills at 1/2 level, with class skills getting a +5 bonus?


----------



## Psion (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> You mean giving everyone all skills at 1/2 level, with class skills getting a +5 bonus?




Yeah, that. The designers stated that they did it that way because most of their players max out scores anyways. That's fine for D&D I think, but in more skill based play, I don't think it's suitable.


Anyways, I've been thinking more about the guard/notice thing.

I'm still not too concerned about opposed rolls. It's still just a random chance, and a center weighted one at that. (i.e. a D20 vs. D20 roll has the same probability distribution as 2d20 + modifiers.)

What makes that situation sticky is that it only takes the sneaker 1 failure, and the gig is typically up.

Typically.

Y'see, you have the stereotypical situation where the guard hears something, comes over to investigate, and the protagonist either comes up with a sneaky solution to throw the guard off, or they take out the guard before they can get the alarm off.

But a worst case would be if they sounded the alarm immediately. That, I though, might be the telling difference of a "high alert" situation.

Of course, this pulls away from your theory because it's courting more rolls, but not less. But for me, roll-offs like these are gold. When running a game, I put a big premium on building tension in the game. Fear of failure is a great way to do that. Letting that hang over their heads when they think the fecal matter is about to hit the rotary impeller is a great opportunity for that.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 6, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> What makes that situation sticky is that it only takes the sneaker 1 failure, and the gig is typically up.
> 
> Typically.
> 
> ...




Don't forget scenes where the guard hears something, goes to check out the noise, fails to spot the person hiding and walks off figuring it was nothing.


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Not in the real world. But characters in fiction who are good at one, tend to be good at all three. Take Tarzan for example. Or Indiana Jones.
> 
> That said, some folks raised this objection to me, and if you note above the tidbit I quoted about skill specialization, you can be that guy who's a great mountain climber and a lousy swimmer, by taking a +3 bonus on climbing and a -3 penalty on all other aspects of the Athletics skill.




I missed your part about the skill specialization. I like the idea, but is it enough? A -3 when you have 13 ranks at level 10 doesn't seem like much of a penalty. If the system had skills costing various points per rank of each skill, a discount/point break method might be appropriate. But that is kinda the way it is now with Listen, Search and Spot all being seperate skills now.

As for getting rid of opposed checks, isn't this also done in SAGA? Or am I confusing it with the whole "acting character rolls all the dice" concept?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 6, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> I missed your part about the skill specialization. I like the idea, but is it enough? A -3 when you have 13 ranks at level 10 doesn't seem like much of a penalty. If the system had skills costing various points per rank of each skill, a discount/point break method might be appropriate. But that is kinda the way it is now with Listen, Search and Spot all being seperate skills now.




Well- whether or not it's enough will be for others to decide.

I had a couple of people who saw the direction skills were taking voice the "what if I want to be good at one thing and not another" concern, and the rule was added to address that.

If you want an exact emulation of the old skill system, you can, well, use the old skill system. 

The skills I'm using are very, very broad (the Influence skill is four d20 Modern skills, plus a totally new skill not found in d20 Modern - Networking).

By making the skills broader, I'm able to add new skills, while still reducing the actual number of skills by over 50%.

This also means I can reduce the amount of skill points granted by the classes, which makes character generation/character levelling faster, with no loss in granularity as found in d20 variants like Saga. 



> As for getting rid of opposed checks, isn't this also done in SAGA? Or am I confusing it with the whole "acting character rolls all the dice" concept?




I'm afraid I haven't read Saga that closely, partially because of what I'm writing right now. Since it's not OGC, I'd rather not come across an idea I'd like to use, but can't.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 6, 2007)

I enjoyed your blog but can't agree with a lot of what you're saying. You suggest that uncovering and breaking into the vault is just a 'nuisance' and the *real* adventure lies in the vault itself. Well, no, not in most d20M games I've run, and *especially* not in games where I've introduced complex skill checks from Spycraft 2.0. Under duress, a simple series of die rolls can have the entire group huddled around the table willing the d20 to cut them a break. I don't think I'm far off the mark in saying they wouldn't want it any other way. 

Now if they had a safe back at their base and had to get into it, no real time constraints, no danger of being discovered... under those circumstances, I'd waive the die rolls and assume they would simply have the wherewithall to get in.

And to answer your original question: I *would* look at Wealth, I would make combat with firearms more lethal (and in fact already have), and I would overhaul NPC generation, but the fundamentals of the d20 game I would leave intact.


----------



## Psion (Aug 6, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Don't forget scenes where the guard hears something, goes to check out the noise, fails to spot the person hiding and walks off figuring it was nothing.




That would also fall into the "reactions would be different if he is actually expecting trouble" thing.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 6, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> I enjoyed your blog but can't agree with a lot of what you're saying. You suggest that uncovering and breaking into the vault is just a 'nuisance' and the *real* adventure lies in the vault itself.




Hmm, that wasn't what I was trying to say actually. The act of getting *to* the vault and breaking into it is the adventure.

What isn't the adventure is making a knowledge check to learn the location of the vault, making a research check to determine the vault is made of, and making a craft check to brew an acid capable of burning through the vault's lock.

That's what I was trying to say- obviously not very well


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well- whether or not it's enough will be for others to decide.





Well, ok. But I'm one of those "others", and I just cast my vote.   





			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I haven't read Saga that closely, partially because of what I'm writing right now. Since it's not OGC, I'd rather not come across an idea I'd like to use, but can't.




Basically, instead of rolling a saving throw, the acting character has to be a static number, like a DC. So instead of a reactive Reflex save of 1d20+Ref save vs attack mode DC, the attacker rolls 1d20+mods trying to beat the defender's 10+Ref save mods. They called it something like "active character rolls all the dice" or somesuch. Your static notice DC example seemed like that (Notice skill +10).


----------



## Psion (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Hmm, that wasn't what I was trying to say actually. The act of getting *to* the vault and breaking into it is the adventure.
> 
> What isn't the adventure is making a knowledge check to learn the location of the vault, making a research check to determine the vault is made of, and making a craft check to brew an acid capable of burning through the vault's lock.




Yeah, well, in Spycraft, this is intel. You don't have this, you have no mission. For Spycraft, watch a season of Alias, and consider that everything that happens in the briefing room has no roll.

But if you want a character who has good contacts, is good at research, etc., I still think they have an important role to play. There is a brand of player (me, on occasion) who likes being able to come up with answers. Such players should have the ability to make their job easier, minimize risk, etc., by early die rolls, and feel like they contributed thereby.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 6, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yeah, well, in Spycraft, this is intel. You don't have this, you have no mission. For Spycraft, watch a season of Alias, and consider that everything that happens in the briefing room has no roll.
> 
> But if you want a character who has good contacts, is good at research, etc., I still think they have an important role to play. There is a brand of player (me, on occasion) who likes being able to come up with answers. Such players should have the ability to make their job easier, minimize risk, etc., by early die rolls, and feel like they contributed thereby.




Again, I'm not getting rid of any of that.

In fact, contacts are a much bigger part of these rules than d20 Modern.

What I'm getting rid of, is rolling dice to make a Knowledge check.

You still have knowledge skills, and either you know things or you don't, and if you don't, you have a research time that will tell you how long it will take for you to find out. 

I am not getting rid of a single option from the old rules. 

My attempt to reduce die-rolls is not an attempt to reduce player choice, character types, granularity, etc.

Edit: Unless you're saying that, unless dice hit the table pre-adventure, you haven't contributed. 

I watch Alias. And what I want is MORE like that not less.

I am not talking about getting rid of intel, player prep, craft skills, etc.

I just want to decrease the amount of randomness and dice rolling involved in this aspect of the game. 

I say "I want less dice rolling in adventure prep". People say "I like adventure prep!"

Like without dice rolling, it can't exist.

The change I'm advocating is akin to doing point-buy character generation, rather than random stat-rolls.


----------



## Committed Hero (Aug 6, 2007)

I'm going on the record in favor of more die rolling, for a couple reasons.

First, to consider the Stealth check you mentioned - what if the PCs are the guards?  Who rolls the check?  If it's the GM, will the players be happy having the resolution out of their hands?  Or being surprised when an enemy gets a coup de grace attempt?

Or, a better question - if the PCs have no way to influence a check, why roll at all check?  Can't the GM just decide who wins based on how the story needs to go?  Is that fair?

One easy solution to the multiple roll problem is having the DCs incorporate the NPCs roll beforehand.  Or represent an NPC roll by checking off a number between 1 and 20, representing 20 rolls.  If she wants the party to win a roll, she'll use the highest failing roll, and vice-versa.  The trouble is, at some point a series of easy victories may end up hurting the party when it counts....


Secondly, you make the skill check an all-or-nothing proposition, when it might not have to be.  One crucial thing that's ignored in skill checks is time.  As has been mentioned in this thread, a failure could only mean a check takes longer.  The key is making this loss count.  In an open ended adventure, this is difficult.  If the party has a definite time limit, however, it could hurt.  I think it becomes a question of how to frame the extra time.

Another option is to give the party chances to spend an Action point on a GES:  A Guaranteed Expository Success.  As long as they are in the preliminary stages of an adventure, they can avoid the kinds of failure you are worrying about.


Lastly, sometimes the exposition can be the solder that welds a series of unrelated scenarios into a campaign.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 6, 2007)

Committed Hero said:
			
		

> I'm going on the record in favor of more die rolling, for a couple reasons.
> 
> First, to consider the Stealth check you mentioned - what if the PCs are the guards?  Who rolls the check?  If it's the GM, will the players be happy having the resolution out of their hands?  Or being surprised when an enemy gets a coup de grace attempt?




The PCs always roll. 

If the PC was the guard, he would roll a Perception check with a DC equal to the attacker's Stealth +10.


----------



## ashockney (Aug 7, 2007)

Vigiliance, 

I too love the show Alias.  Superb.

I've implemented the static skill check in my campaigns, and never had a problem with it.  I used your rule almost verbatim: straight up = skill +10, upperhand = skill +20.  So, I've got to say, I really like the idea.  This works particularly well with higher level skills and resolutions.  For example, I had a truenamer in my last campaign who had a series of knowledge skills, at 17th level that were +35.  This is a tremendous amount of knowledge, and for high level play, making a bunch of rolls was really quite silly.  It did help to determine the number of pieces of information to provide.

I saw your work up on the Influence skill, and I find that kind of thinking really terrific.  You did a nice job with that design.  I have a vision of all kinds of different "access" points through different race/feat/class combinations to use the different abilities.  You've created a whole cool system/setup for the skill system to really become a cool part of character creation and development. 

As far as the "combined" skill sets like "physical" I think it's a great idea.  If you're telling me that a well-trained, peak physical form, athlete isn't better at running, jumping, swimming, climbing, tests of strength, tests of endurance, etc. than your "average joe" then you're on crack.  I love your analogy though of having "SEAL" level training in a skill.  A subset of the physical skill could allow a character to perform any number of amazing and unusual feats, like holding your breath for an extended period of time, or jumping higher than anyone else, whatever that thing is that you've been specifically trained/conditioned/built to do.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 7, 2007)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Keep up the good work.




You made my day. 

Thanks!


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 7, 2007)

Okay I have a better grip on what you're saying now... I think I misconstrued your blog a little. Still very much looking forward to hearing your ideas.

Interestingly, Alias, which I freaking LOVE, is/was the model for most of my d20M games.  My goal with modern adventuring is to create that perfect mix of mission-based scenarios with an overriding conspiracy/deception metaplot. I haven't quite got there yet but I'm getting closer each time.


----------



## Psion (Aug 7, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Again, I'm not getting rid of any of that.
> 
> In fact, contacts are a much bigger part of these rules than d20 Modern.
> 
> ...




Well, related to that, there was something I did in my D&D game. I still had knowledge checks for obscure bits of knowledge, but I wanted something that the players could be more pro-active about than the reactive nature of knowledge checks.

So what I did was prepare a variety of nuggets of exposition information pertinent to the coming campaign, and then put them on index cards, each with an appropriate knowledge skill and minimum knowledge rank to know that nugget. Then, I pass out one card to each player for each rank in knowledge skill the character has.

This is a lot of work at higher levels, and I really didn't keep up with it. But I think that if you assemble a little table to this effect that would automate the GMs work a little, the basic idea is sound.



> The change I'm advocating is akin to doing point-buy character generation, rather than random stat-rolls.




You put it that way, it makes me wary, seeings how I don't like point buy too much.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 7, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Thanks!
> 
> My thoughts exactly.
> 
> ...




To avoid GM fiat.  In my entire time in the hobby, there has been nothing as frustrating as being a player where an iron-fisted GM dictated everything to either ensure that his story went as he envisioned it or to put his pet NPC in the spotlight.

I would also argue that if a knowledge check is reduced to a yes/no question it's a flaw with how the GM is handling it.   Knowledge checks could have degrees of success based on the result of the roll.  The better the roll, the more detailed the knowledge retrieved.

Barely make the check = yes you know who the ruler of Wakanda is.  Beat the DC by a certain margin and you also know some of his personal or family history, political views, &/or how he's generally viewed by his people (what's public knowledge, anyway - as in facts obtained from interviews, history books, or opinion polls, etc.).

D20 Modern can use some fixes, absolutely.  I'm not convinced the skill mechanics are one of those areas.  I think the "simplify skills" theme that seems to be all the rage these days will actually end up being detrimental to the game.  Remember Non-weapon proficiencies?  

Now, if you want to give me more reasons to use skills, ala Iron Heroes or Book of Iron Might or Dramatic Conflicts ala Spycraft 2.0, then I'm all for it.


----------



## Psion (Aug 7, 2007)

Yeah... I'm not to sold on the thought of "never roll for yes/no" questions. The entire skill system exists to answer yes/no question. A principal reason that I loathe diceless systems is I loath the implicit "you can or you can't" nature of resolution in the system. Adding "you can try" to the equation makes the resolution system infinitely better, IMO.

As for knowing who the ruler to Wakanda is... is it necessary the group know? Or just helpful? Is there an adventure if they don't know? If they need to find out quickly, could they? These are all things to consider when deciding if and how to dispense that knowledge to players. Taking all rolling out of knowledge checks seems a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me.


----------



## jonrog1 (Aug 7, 2007)

I'd suggest a hybrid system, at least for Knowledge checks, and then roll to see if you know a bit more about the subject, revealing nominally more useful goodies.  The roll-less sytem based on an idea of basic competency is something I've used in my Wealth system, which I could post if you're interested.

Also, Vigilance, I'd take a look at the skill groups for the game _Passages_.  Bloody lovely.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 7, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> As for knowing who the ruler to Wakanda is... is it necessary the group know? Or just helpful? Is there an adventure if they don't know? If they need to find out quickly, could they? These are all things to consider when deciding if and how to dispense that knowledge to players. Taking all rolling out of knowledge checks seems a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me.



I just wanted to suggest taking a look at Spirit of the Century for the advice it gives on running knowledge skills. Basically it talks about two things: one, if you're having characters make a knowledge check, you usually *want *them to succeed. At the same time, you also want to reward those characters who have put ranks into knowledge skills, so there is a sort of balancing act that has to go on.

Now Spirit has a lot more player empowerment than many gamers may be comfortable with (it gives players who have a lot of ranks in knowledge skills the ability to essentially create setting details on the fly, for instance) but I think it has some of the best advice on running games where characters need to know things, spot things and generally figure out pieces to a mystery that I have ever seen.

Just a suggestion...I'm liking this thread a lot, by the way, as there have been some very interesting ideas proposed.

--Steve


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 7, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yeah... I'm not to sold on the thought of "never roll for yes/no" questions.




Bangs head on desk.

I never said I didn't want ANY rolls for yes or no questions.

An attack roll is a yes or no question.

I want to reduce the amount of dice rolling in what I consider non-critical parts of the game.

I also want to get rid of the concept that "you can afford that car if you're lucky", or "you can know who the ruler of Wakanda is if you're lucky". To me, these things seem a little odd to be random.



> *Science (Int)*
> You are intimately familiar with a field of learning. Examples include: History, Law, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Religion and Tactics. This skill requires specialization, meaning that one specialty must be chosen when this skill is selected. Additional specialties can be added through perks, or through selecting this skill a second time. Areas the character has not selected a perk in can still be known to the character however, since the character still retains one-half his effective ranks (see the information on perks in the skills introduction above).
> 
> Depending on the character’s ranks in Science, there are certain facts he will know off the top of his head. What the character does not know, he can find out through research. If the character has access to a computer, research time is reduced by one-half.
> ...


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 7, 2007)

The final skill list has also been posted for those interested.


----------



## Psion (Aug 7, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Bangs head on desk.
> 
> I never said I didn't want ANY rolls for yes or no questions.




No you didn't, but then, you weren't to specific about what the upshot of your effort here was, neh?

I assumed I was fairly safe stating what I wouldn't want to see. If you don't fall afoul that, then by all means, more power to you. No need to abuse your desk over it.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 7, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> No you didn't, but then, you weren't to specific about what the upshot of your effort here was, neh?
> 
> I assumed I was fairly safe stating what I wouldn't want to see. If you don't fall afoul that, then by all means, more power to you. No need to abuse your desk over it.




If you saw how coffee-stained my desk was, you'd know a little more debauching wouldn't hurt it 

One of my mission statements has been to reduce die-rolls, especially in adventure prep, especially from the GM. 

I'm not trying to remake Amber Diceless or anything. 

The origin of this book comes from the recent Two Worlds RPG that I did, for inclusion in the deluxe edition of the X-Box 360 game. I did a complete d20 RPG, complete with character generation, in about 30 normal sized pages (70 pages the size of a 360 case).

The more I looked at that game, the more I liked it.

Now Modern System 2.0 isn't THAT simplified, but I do think some streamlining could make the game more fun.


----------



## buzz (Aug 7, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I just wanted to suggest taking a look at Spirit of the Century for the advice it gives on running knowledge skills.



Beat me to it! SotC has some of the best GM advice ever written, IMO.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> What isn't the adventure is making a knowledge check to learn the location of the vault, making a research check to determine the vault is made of, and making a craft check to brew an acid capable of burning through the vault's lock.



This seems less of a mechanical issue than a scene-framing and intent-setting issue. And, to get back to SotC, one of the best pieces of advice in it is that, for any check, the GM needs to first imagine its success and failure. If either one of those outcomes is uninteresting, then you should not be calling for a check.

So, in your example, if failing the Knowledge check to find the vault results in nothing but the adventure coming to a dead stop, then you should not be calling for that check. Totally ruining the adventure is not an interesting outcome.

What would be more interesting is if the Knowledge check, assuming it's needed at all, gave a result that affected the overall task in a meaningful way. The simplest example might be that the check determines _how long_ it takes for the PC to determine the location. Or maybe whether they determine that, I dunno, the vault happens to be in a building with long-forgotten coal tunnel access that maybe the enemy doesn't know about.

I think the issue is really more about scenario design, and the fact that task resolution in d20 is intent-irrelevant. The best fix, IMO, is to provide solid guidelines about calling for skill checks and designing scenarios, and to add intent and stakes-setting to the mix.

Again, back to your example... if that preamble stuff doesn't seem fun to you, _don't include it_. Start the PCs at the point they begin infiltrating the vault location, and let them use their skills to maybe retroactively determine what advantages/disadvantages they've got going at the outset.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Adding a random +1-20 bonus to skill checks, and needing to succeed at TWO of them everytime you wish to bypass a guard, makes stealth missions much more about how good of a dice roller you are than anything else.



The randomness is dependent on the skill bonus. A PC with +20 vs. an NPC with +1 is going to be no contest. A PC with +10 vs. an NPC with +10 is a toss-up, but that's okay, as they are equal in skill and both rolling that 1d20.

I think defaulting the passive skill to rank+10/+20 is stacking the deck too heavily in favor of that passive participant.

Anyway, I heartily recommend taking a look at SotC. You can get the rules for free in the SotC SRD: http://www.faterpg.com/dl/sotc-srd.html


----------



## Mokona (Aug 7, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> I would make combat with firearms more lethal



Doesn't _*Star Wars* Saga Edition_ do this?  Anything from small pistols (3d4) to large rifles (3d10) can KO nonheroic characters in one or two hits [note: a CL 1 nonheroic character has 3d4 hit points].


----------



## EditorBFG (Aug 8, 2007)

I will be watching this project eagerly.

At Big Finger Games, we have long discussed the possibility of our own revised edition of Modern, starting with concepts from our POSTMODERN line of Modern products (we would've called the game POSTMODERN as well). Our discussions all ended with the idea that Modern players didn't want the change. I'm not sure if that was true. Even modest but global changes we wanted to make in products for Modern-- such as revised Occupations where each opened up a Talent tree-- ended up on the cutting room floor for being too far from the basic game.

For me, I always wanted more from Modern. The base classes are good ideas but blandly executed-- you never really feel like your 1st level character is a bad-ass going out the gate the way you feel about your average starting D&D fighter-- Wealth is an iffy compromise, nonlethal damage is just strange, guns don't behave realistically OR cinematically, and a lot of ported over D&D rules just don't feel like the 21st century. Despite so many great concepts by the designers, it seems like someone along the way just could not let go of D&D enough to pull the trigger on a truly versatile system. For the most part it ends up feeling a lot like the "default" setting the Modern books put forward: a teenager in blue-jeans with a Greyhawk god's symbol on his belt-buckle. I want a "universal" modern system to be a lot more robust  in terms of handling different genres and settings.

I wrote a lot of things aimed at addressing these issues, but taking it as far as I wanted never seemed to be realistic.

So I'm really glad you're doing this. I've dreamed of Modern getting fixed a long time. Frankly, I'm a little jealous. Then again, if there was a company out there to make this happen in a way that mattered, it was gonna be you guys or the Game Mechanics (who, to be fair, actually wrote most of Modern in the first place) and probably not a smaller shop like ours.

That said, all our POSTMODERN products just about 100% OGC, so everything we could put out is there for taking. I'd happily comp you any products you might not have, to contribute to the project.


----------



## ashockney (Aug 8, 2007)

Vigiliance, 

You haven't exactly had the reaction that Monte had when he started releasing information in little nuggets about his Arcana Unearthed setting, are you?  I know that sure can be frustrating.  The good news is, haveing lurked around these boards for so many years, I know all these folk mean well, and intend to be helfpul.  

So, first of all, thanks again for being bold enough to share.  You're a braver man than many (many, many). 

Interesting concept about the skill basis.  I also like it in comparison/contrast with time.  Although I'm not sure I'd pin yourself in on the time frame, other than perhaps with some guidelines.  So the circumstances may be dictated by the DM, following a loose set of guidelines: 

No time to research: is this deadly viral disease airborne or ingested?

Um, let's see, Science is a trained skill - check, you could learn it automatically if you had access to research - too bad, I'd call this a moderate difficulty DC20, and using our "passive" skill check system, that means you'd need to have +20 to the skill to identify it under duress (ie, in combat), or +10 to the skill to identify it under normal condidtions.  You could identify this with time.

One question that's leaping out at me: why did you choose to place "religion" under the "sciences" field of study?

A few other tidbits (simply recommendations, overall, me like-ey): 
Chemistry separate from Science?
Acrobatics separate from Athletics?
Streetwise vs. Gather Info - I'd love to see this get teh same treatment you gave influence
Firearms, Unarmed, Weapons in skills?  Sorry, I'm not too familiar with Modern, more of a D&D dude.
Along those lines, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the inclusion of what are traditionally good yes/no die roll circumstances:
Set Trap/Disable Device
Secure/Open
which, in Modern may translate to a "security" vs. "Bypass Security" or would this all fit under "computers" as class/feat based abilities to be "unlocked"?
Along the lines of building skills in "knowledge" I wonder if you could establish a similiar building block for "fame" or "wealth" or "authority"  These could be things a character would choose to invest in, like skills, and reap some specific non-combat benefits to help expedite the adventure?  Similiarly, should there be crafting/appraising components.

Ok, I've really run on here.  Good gaming!


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 8, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Our discussions all ended with the idea that Modern players didn't want the change.




Well, I'm honestly not sure people want the change either. I only know one way to do a book, and I usually come to a feeling of how I think the book needs to be done.

My track record is pretty good, but not perfect 

I certainly think *I* am ready for a change. I've written a lot for True 20 lately and it taught me some game design lessons I think. That, combined with my experience writing the Two Worlds rpg companion to the X-Box 360 game, where I did a complete d20 game in about 30 pages, got me thinking about ways to streamline the system some. 



> For me, I always wanted more from Modern. The base classes are good ideas but blandly executed-- you never really feel like your 1st level character is a bad-ass going out the gate the way you feel about your average starting D&D fighter-- Wealth is an iffy compromise, nonlethal damage is just strange, guns don't behave realistically OR cinematically, and a lot of ported over D&D rules just don't feel like the 21st century. Despite so many great concepts by the designers, it seems like someone along the way just could not let go of D&D enough to pull the trigger on a truly versatile system. For the most part it ends up feeling a lot like the "default" setting the Modern books put forward: a teenager in blue-jeans with a Greyhawk god's symbol on his belt-buckle. I want a "universal" modern system to be a lot more robust  in terms of handling different genres and settings.




I agree with a lot of this. While d20 Modern can clearly handle a wide variety of games, there's some aspects that I'd like to have a different feel. 



> So I'm really glad you're doing this. I've dreamed of Modern getting fixed a long time. Frankly, I'm a little jealous. Then again, if there was a company out there to make this happen in a way that mattered, it was gonna be you guys or the Game Mechanics (who, to be fair, actually wrote most of Modern in the first place) and probably not a smaller shop like ours.




Thanks for that, I'm proud that folks think well of our d20 stuff. I've been a champion of the system for a long time and I still love it. 

And honestly, this is something we've discussed for a long, LONG time internally. Our Modern System SRD book almost became this in fact, but it didn't feel like it was the right time then. 

Whether it's the right time now, I never know, but I feel like it's right time for me to write this.

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 8, 2007)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Vigiliance,
> 
> You haven't exactly had the reaction that Monte had when he started releasing information in little nuggets about his Arcana Unearthed setting, are you?




Well, I guess this yet another piece of evidence that I don't have Monte's street cred, as if I needed any 



> So, first of all, thanks again for being bold enough to share.  You're a braver man than many (many, many).




Well, I've talked about a lot of stuff here in the past, just usually not this early. It's also hard to talk about some of this stuff because people can't see the whole thing. 

Mostly, I'm worried that by offering tidbits this early, folks will judge the whole book based on little nuggets. Such is life I guess. 



> One question that's leaping out at me: why did you choose to place "religion" under the "sciences" field of study?




Yeah, the name doesn't quite mesh. Basically "Science" is my catch-all like Modern's "Knowledge". I think it still works though. Religious lore is as valid a science as studying Humanities, for example. 



> Chemistry separate from Science?




Yep, just like Medicine and Legal. Remember the skills are very broad. Medicine can act like Science for life science questions, for example. 



> Acrobatics separate from Athletics?




Yep. Acrobatics is the dexterity aspects of movement (Balance, Tumble, Escape Artist) while Athletics are the strength aspects (Climb, Jump, Swim). 



> Streetwise vs. Gather Info - I'd love to see this get teh same treatment you gave influence




It does! The skills are very broad, and you can get many skill uses in more than one way.



> Firearms, Unarmed, Weapons in skills?




Yep, that's something of a departure. I'll just say that the game doesn't use skills in place of BAB. The skills do other things, both in and out of combat. 



> Along those lines, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the inclusion of what are traditionally good yes/no die roll circumstances:
> Set Trap/Disable Device
> Secure/Open
> which, in Modern may translate to a "security" vs. "Bypass Security" or would this all fit under "computers" as class/feat based abilities to be "unlocked"?




You mean would they require rolls or not? For most of them, yes. 



> Ok, I've really run on here.  Good gaming!




Thanks for the feedback.

Chuck


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 8, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> Doesn't _*Star Wars* Saga Edition_ do this?  Anything from small pistols (3d4) to large rifles (3d10) can KO nonheroic characters in one or two hits [note: a CL 1 nonheroic character has 3d4 hit points].




And in D20 Modern, a 1st-level Ordinary character has between 1d6 to 1d10 hit points, plus Constitution modifier (typically +0).  With a Massive Damage Threshold of 10 for the average Joe Human in D20 Modern; so a standard pistol's 2d6 damage (only a few are so small as to deal just 2d4 damage or less) has *two* halfway-decent chances of rendering the average Joe unconscious and dying in one shot (and has a chance of insta-death on a good critical hit).

It's at upper levels, and when dealing with Tough Heroes (not Tough Ordinaries though), that firearms become somewhat less lethal to characters (but then, most characters probably won't spend more than one feat on Improved Damage Threshold and most won't have maximum Constitution for a higher Threshold).  Most NPCs will have roughly average or just-above-average Constitution and 1 or no copies of Improved Damage Threshold, so a common firearm still has a chance of insta-KO against them.


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 8, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yeah, the name doesn't quite mesh. Basically "Science" is my catch-all like Modern's "Knowledge". I think it still works though. Religious lore is as valid a science as studying Humanities, for example.



If I might make a suggestion, let me recomend you change the name from "Science" to something like "Academics" (which I've used in my system as the catch-all for Intelligence skills that come from being well-educated). "Science" is a very different beast in almost every definition from many of the humanities and liberal arts you've included under this heading, especially in the popular view.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 8, 2007)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If I might make a suggestion, let me recomend you change the name from "Science" to something like "Academics" (which I've used in my system as the catch-all for Intelligence skills that come from being well-educated). "Science" is a very different beast in almost every definition from many of the humanities and liberal arts you've included under this heading, especially in the popular view.




That's a good idea.


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 8, 2007)

Chuck,

Is this book written or a work in progress?  Either way, I totally get your vibe.

I ran this murder mystery based on a book called The Dante Club.  Essentially the PCs were cops tracking a serial killer that was "punishing" people based on the levels of hell in Dantes Inferno.  The whole excitement of the adventure was deciphering clues, solving the mystery, and confronting the killer.

I learned early in the adventure that having the PCs roll investigate checks to find every clue at the multiple crime scenes was tedious.  It was much more fun to say that if the players could think of it, then they could do it.  The skill points sort of became a ceiling to apply at times when the PCs wouldn't realistically know the information.


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 8, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> What I'm getting rid of, is rolling dice to make a Knowledge check.
> 
> You still have knowledge skills, and either you know things or you don't, and if you don't, you have a research time that will tell you how long it will take for you to find out.




Knowledge is what causes Modern to fall apart.  I consider the DND skill set a weak scaffold upon which to build a modern game.  Take a random skill such as Dungeoneering from DND.  I ask the DM how many toes does an owl bear have?  He looks at my PC and says, "Wow Dungeoneering 25....An owl bear has 4 toes"

The reason this skill exists is to abstract the relative knowledge a PC has in a world without fact/truth.  The DM has no idea how many toes and owl bear has and nor do I.  But a skill of 25 says that my PC is likely to know regardless of how many toes a owl bear truly has.

This breaks in the modern world.  Take me personally.  I am a physician by trade.  I have no real knowledge of a bears, but I would have a decent nature knowledge check since I am an outdoorsman.  Lets say I need to know how many toes a grizzly bear has.  Viola....google tells me its five.  Now lets say I had never been outside my apartment and had a nature check of zero.  Viola....the same answer in the same time.  Thanks internet!

The modern era is full of knowledge.  If people don't have knowledge on a subject then they know where to look, who to get it from, etc.  Makes a lot of those checks in a modern game worthless.

In short (too late)....Carry on Chuck.  Carry on!


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 8, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> Chuck,
> 
> Is this book written or a work in progress?





Very in progress. Skills are done (hence my posting of the final skill list). I'm on to occupations, then Wealth etc etc.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 8, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> In short (too late)....Carry on Chuck.  Carry on!




Thanks, I've gotten a lot of good feedback from this thread. I really like the skills section. I'm about half-way through revamping Occupations.


----------



## buzz (Aug 8, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> Makes a lot of those checks in a modern game worthless.



Why would a player be rolling to see if their PC knows how many toes a bear has?

Unless the PC is in a round-by-round situation like combat, either their Knowledge ranks+Take10 cover the info or they use Research. The issue is simply time, which is sort of what Chuck is talking about. This is all in the current ruleset, though.

FWIW, I like the skill consolidation you're doing. I look forward to seeing more of this project!


----------



## Psion (Aug 8, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> Chuck,
> 
> Is this book written or a work in progress?  Either way, I totally get your vibe.
> 
> ...




In Spycraft 2.0, which leverages the skill system strongly, one common class ability model is the so called "flawless X". The sleuth class gets it for Investigation and Sense Motive, the Snoop gets it for Analysis and Search, and the Explorer gets it for Athletics and Culture. There are others.

What these class abilities do is, unless you really screw up, if you fail a roll, you are considered to have succeeded if the DC is less than 20+class level.

As a GM, I find the presence of these abilities a major boon when designing a mystery. It lets me put clues out there than people would normally need to roll for that I know will be crucial to the game. There's no risk of missing the clue, but the player involved feels like their character contributed in an important way.

More generally, though, my two philosophies behind making sure PCs can credibly solve a mystery in the presence of clues that could get missed (either because of rolling or because the players themselves fail to put 2 and 2 together) is:
1) Have the rolls give you EXTRA information beyond what is required, for extra benefits. For example, anyone who tries might get enough clues to stop the evil mastermind's plot, but those who get the extra clues can find out who the matermind is and put him away for good. Tiered goals, I guess.
2) Put in 3 times as many clues as the players need.


----------



## Mokona (Aug 8, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Most NPCs will have roughly average or just-above-average Constitution and 1 or no copies of Improved Damage Threshold, so a common firearm still has a chance of insta-KO against them.



So what you're saying is that complaints that *D20 Modern* firearms aren't lethal come about because Damage Threshold isn't being used (correctly at least).


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 9, 2007)

I've just posted a first look at Occupations


----------



## Trevino Anterlux (Aug 9, 2007)

I'm new to modern but not d20, I've been reading this and I'm really appreciating the ideas floating around and being crafted into fine gemstones. I find a problem I've been having with my modern game getting bogged down with the unnecessaries. I've read statements from several people on this thread that have rocked my GM world. Keep this up Vigilance, modern needs a touch up.


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 9, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> Why would a player be rolling to see if their PC knows how many toes a bear has?




I think you missed my point.  My point is that in DND you need knowledge checks in abstract and absurd subject matter such as aracana, planes, dungonering, etc.  Why?  Because it is a way for the DM to disseminate information on mythical creatures and places to the player within a context of the game...ie the owl bear example.  There is no point of reference because neither you nor the DM has ever seen an owl bear.  It's not real!  The knowledge checks allow you to escape that lack of familiarity with the subject material of the game.

In the modern world if there is something I am not familiar with I can easily access that information making a super specialist character less relevant.  To take and absurd idea.  I bet I could research in the library and internet a means to build a nuclear bomb.  The only thing stopping me would be access to components.  Then take a physicist type character.  He could build one too.  Is his knowledge of physics as significant to the game now?


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 9, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> In Spycraft 2.0, which leverages the skill system strongly, one common class ability model is the so called "flawless X". The sleuth class gets it for Investigation and Sense Motive, the Snoop gets it for Analysis and Search, and the Explorer gets it for Athletics and Culture. There are others.
> 
> What these class abilities do is, unless you really screw up, if you fail a roll, you are considered to have succeeded if the DC is less than 20+class level.
> 
> ...


----------



## buzz (Aug 9, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> I think you missed my point.



Yup, I did. My bad!   



			
				broghammerj said:
			
		

> In the modern world if there is something I am not familiar with I can easily access that information making a super specialist character less relevant.  To take and absurd idea.  I bet I could research in the library and internet a means to build a nuclear bomb.  The only thing stopping me would be access to components.  Then take a physicist type character.  He could build one too.  Is his knowledge of physics as significant to the game now?



Well, doesn't d20M basically cover this with the Research skill? The PC can learn anything, the issue is simply how long it takes to compile the info. Knowledge seems more to be what the PC can dredge up without having to hit the books first.


----------



## iwatt (Aug 9, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> In the modern world if there is something I am not familiar with I can easily access that information making a super specialist character less relevant.  To take and absurd idea.  I bet I could research in the library and internet a means to build a nuclear bomb.  The only thing stopping me would be access to components.  Then take a physicist type character.  He could build one too.  Is his knowledge of physics as significant to the game now?




Well, not that many adventures taking place in Libraries. And Research takes time.

BTW, you're vastly simplifying the task of building a nuke. The precision in making/placing the shaped charges is of huge technical difficulty, just as an example. I think you're giving book knowledge a lot more oomph that it really has.


----------



## Garnfellow (Aug 9, 2007)

iwatt said:
			
		

> BTW, you're vastly simplifying the task of building a nuke. The precision in making/placing the shaped charges is of huge technical difficulty, just as an example. I think you're giving book knowledge a lot more oomph that it really has.



Maybe.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 9, 2007)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Well, not that many adventures taking place in Libraries. And Research takes time.




True, but today I can do research from my cell phone. 

I don't really disagree with what you're saying. I just A) eliminated the dice roll for Knowledge/Research and B) combined them into one skill named Academics (which was recommended in this thread!)


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 9, 2007)

Trevino Anterlux said:
			
		

> I'm new to modern but not d20, I've been reading this and I'm really appreciating the ideas floating around and being crafted into fine gemstones. I find a problem I've been having with my modern game getting bogged down with the unnecessaries. I've read statements from several people on this thread that have rocked my GM world. Keep this up Vigilance, modern needs a touch up.




Thanks Trevino! And yeah, it's been a very good thread.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 9, 2007)

Talents, what are they good for?


----------



## iwatt (Aug 9, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Talents, what are they good for?




Say it Again!

I love talents, but I'm not sure they're anything else but class restricted feats organized in trees.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 9, 2007)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Say it Again!
> 
> I love talents, but I'm not sure they're anything else but class restricted feats organized in trees.




Right, I think the idea was to make class abilities you could choose from.

It's a fine idea, I've done it several times myself in my Legends of Excalibur/Legends of Samurai books. 

The problem with talents, imo, is that they work way more like feats than true class abilities. Laying on Hands feels like a class ability to me. Melee Smash? Not so much.

And don't even get me started on Extreme Effort. That reminds me of a feat alright. And the feat it reminds me of is Dodge.


----------



## EditorBFG (Aug 9, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Talents, what are they good for?



We just discussed this subject in the Fantasy Concepts project thread, a parallel but very different undertaking than this one, seeking to do for fantasy in some ways what you are doing for Modern.

The conclusion we came to was that talents are good for things you only want certain types of characters to have (rangers, elves, wizards, etc.), but that otherwise they are the same as feats.

Since your project is Modern, everyone is a human, and no one has a special "type" per se, so I don't think you have any need for talents at all. In a fantasy game or something like Star Wars, this would not be the case, but for Modern it is perfect. Besides, as you say, the existing talents act more like feats than class abilities (in Star Wars Saga Edition, this is not the case, but as you say, Saga is not OGC).

Now, there are two situations where you might want to do talents (or feats that behave very much like them): 

1) If you ever do a d20 Future kind of thing, you might want to have species-specific talent trees, or maybe just a path of feats for different aliens, that require you to be of that species. This preserves the uniqueness of non-human characters (in situations where you want that uniqueness).

2) Prestige Classes: If you choose to have prestige classes (and that is a big if), having multiple paths of special class abilities to choose from is much better than a static progression. Talents model this well, but you could also have a bonus feat list for the prestige class that features tiers of feats that require levels in the prestige class.

Basically, talents represent limited access feats, but I can only think of a couple situations where you want to limit access in a real world like setting. So I think this is a good call.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 9, 2007)

Yeah, it wasn't a decision we came to quickly. As those who have looked at the occupation I posted on my blog can see, it has talents. 

So basically, in the last 24 hours, we finally decided to just pull the trigger and make everything feats. 

Which means I get to do some re-writing. Such is life 

Chuck


----------



## EditorBFG (Aug 9, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yeah, it wasn't a decision we came to quickly. As those who have looked at the occupation I posted on my blog can see, it has talents.



That's funny, because I wrote most of a product that was new and rewritten occupations, each of which gave access to specific talents, but it was decided that this was too far from the existing system, and it ended up not seeing publication. So, great minds think alike, I guess!   

(And, in another eerie parallel, neither version will make it to market. But ditching talents is the right thing.)


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 10, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Talents, what are they good for?




Set to Music:

Talents! huh-yeah. What are they good for? Absolutely nothing. Uh-huh.

Talatents! huh-yeah.  What are they good for?  Absolutely nothing.  Say it again y'all

Although I like the idea of talents, the execution was lacking in modern.  I thought they were a way to differentiate characters of the same class.  In the end they were limited and essentially became feats that a PC was obligated to take.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 10, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> Set to Music:
> 
> Talents! huh-yeah. What are they good for? Absolutely nothing. Uh-huh.
> 
> ...




They did that for some of the basic classes. The problem was one of balance. Would you rather have a +2 bonus on Strength checks (not even Strength SKILLS mind you cause that would be... I got nothin') or a +1 damage on all melee attacks? 

How many Fast Heroes in existence are there who did NOT take Evasion? In just about every campaign I've run, a player will take one level of Fast Hero at some point for Evasion and +3 Defense. 

And people thought the Ranger was broken.


----------



## Psion (Aug 10, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> We just discussed this subject in the Fantasy Concepts project thread, a parallel but very different undertaking than this one, seeking to do for fantasy in some ways what you are doing for Modern.
> 
> The conclusion we came to was that talents are good for things you only want certain types of characters to have (rangers, elves, wizards, etc.), but that otherwise they are the same as feats.




Talents also comes from a different pool than feats and many typically emphasize the class more. This forces some lateral development, which I think makes for more well-rounded characters.


----------



## Psion (Aug 10, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> Although I like the idea of talents, the execution was lacking in modern.  I thought they were a way to differentiate characters of the same class.  In the end they were limited and essentially became feats that a PC was obligated to take.




Again, a good thing AFAIAC, forces lateral development instead of hyper-optimized one-note characters.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 10, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Again, a good thing AFAIAC, forces lateral development instead of hyper-optimized one-note characters.




I truly, honestly, have no idea what you're talking about here.

The system I'm using (everything is feats, classes get a feat every level, there's a general feat list and a feat list for each class) is exactly how True 20 does things, and I haven't run into a lot of "hyper-optimized one-note" characters. 

I also have no idea what you mean by "lateral development". Is that where everyone flees the base classes at their first opportunity because there's only a few good talents they want? 

I'm really not being snarky here.


----------



## ashockney (Aug 11, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Talents, what are they good for?




I'll tell you the difference I always thought between talents and feats:

Talents are those things you BEGIN your adventuring career with locked up, that really help to differentiate people, should they be effectively identified and unlocked.  Everyone has talents, but not everyone recognized their talents or chooses to use them.  As such, thematically, I've always thought they should be a little better.   I think in D&D (FRCS) they did something similiar through what they called "regional" background feats.

Feats are the "enhanced" skills that you've learned over time and perfected.


----------



## ashockney (Aug 11, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I truly, honestly, have no idea what you're talking about here.
> 
> The system I'm using (everything is feats, classes get a feat every level, there's a general feat list and a feat list for each class) is exactly how True 20 does things, and I haven't run into a lot of "hyper-optimized one-note" characters.
> 
> ...




A hyper optimized one note character example: Frenzied Barbarian Berserker. 

So, what's your character do?  Well, he can, um, swing an axe.  And, what about roleplaying?  Well, he talks to his axe...alot.  Ok, so what happens if he gets upset/attacked/confronted?  Oh, then he gets mad and is forced to swing his axe.  Ok, so at least you are like a tactical mastermind with the axe, right?  No, I pretty much either kill it by hacking it to bits, sunder it, or I may try to intimidate it by yelling really loud.  Oh? Ok, that will be fun, I guess...


----------



## ashockney (Aug 11, 2007)

*Occupations 2.5*

http://rpgdesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/occupations-umm-25.html

(sorry, not sure how to do links)

Your improved feats look exactly like what I was thinking for talents.  Excellent execution.  I'd love to have several to choose from that might make sense with how I ended up being an actor.

The whole profession gels together well.  Only seeing three professional skills made me want to have either another profession (and the related skills) or to have access to a bunch more skills.  Need to see how that pans out...

Perks:
Love it!  Love it!  Love it!  
Again, would love to see more choices (perk/talent trees)?  

I'm sure my asking for more choices is just a designers bestest dream!!!  

 

Keep it up.  It's tight.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 11, 2007)

ashockney said:
			
		

> A hyper optimized one note character example: Frenzied Barbarian Berserker.




Right, I'm not saying I haven't seen characters that were highly optimized for one thing, I was more asking how getting rid of talents and class abilities, and merging all character choices into one group called "feats", made this problem more prevalent.

Which I think is what Psion is saying.

That hasn't been my impression playing True 20, which works similarly. 

In fact, like your Frenzied Berserker example, where I tend to see that is with classes, where each class further narrows the character concept.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 11, 2007)

ashockney said:
			
		

> http://rpgdesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/occupations-umm-25.html
> 
> (sorry, not sure how to do links)
> 
> ...




Thanks for all the encouragement!

A couple things to keep in mind: Occupations are fluid. If you need a different Improved Feat, you can change jobs and gain access to new ones. I can see possibly offering a choice though... maybe pick two from a list of four or something. 

That might be hard to do for every occupation though. As for asking for more choices being my bestest dream, it's much better than not caring at all 

And I'm trying to offer a lot of choice in character development. You're going to have highly flexible classes (since everything is feats, you get to pick and choose a la carte from a general list and your class feat list), Backgrounds, Occupations and Hobbies. 

Also for the skills, those are just added to your class skill list. You'll still get most of your skills from classes. It's tough to offer a lot of skills, because I've pared the skill list down considerably. Eventually you reach a point where everyone has access to every skill.

Though that doesn't bother me too awfully much.

And again, if you want access to different skills, you can change occupations. When you change occupations, you don't forget the skills you learned, your class skill list will just change, with you no longer being able to treat the skills from the old profession as class skills, while being able to treat the new skills as class skills.

Likewise with Improved Feats, you don't forget them, they just go back to being regular feats, while a new pair of feats become improved for you.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 11, 2007)

Work continues. I'm over 30 pages. Not a bad week 

I've added one more skill: Leadership, putting the total skills at 21 (d20 Modern has 39). 

The feats, Backgrounds, and Skills sections are just about put to bed, barring any re-writes that are needed. 

I'm beginning to look long and hard at that empty section of the outline labeled "classes".


----------



## Urizen (Aug 11, 2007)

Chuck,

This project sounds like it's gonna be an outstanding piece of work.

I'm wondering, what_if anything_you'll be changing about combat?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 11, 2007)

Urizen said:
			
		

> Chuck,
> 
> This project sounds like it's gonna be an outstanding piece of work.
> 
> I'm wondering, what_if anything_you'll be changing about combat?




A lot.

Injuries are going to replace massive damage in a streamlined way that allows non-lethal and lethal damage to work using regular hit points and virtually no more book keeping than was required before.

Healing, armor, and the way firearms work is also changing again, in ways that make combat a little more realistic, a lot more cinematic, and no more complicated. 

I've sort of been known as the martial arts and combat guy in my d20M books, and I'm able to do a lot more now that I can change some of the foundations around, rather than prettying up the designs on the ceiling.


----------



## jonrog1 (Aug 12, 2007)

May I make a suggestion that's a bit "meta"?

Even if you don't have Knowledge (X) skills, I'd consider going back and grouping the skills in the write-up a certain way, so that you can bang out one introductory section on "DC's  for what you know, DC's for crafiting, etc." and then just peg the specifics to each skill in the each description.   Just feels like more efficient manual structure.


----------



## Mokona (Aug 12, 2007)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> "DC's  for what you know, DC's for crafiting, etc." and then just peg the specifics to each skill in the each description.



I'm not entirely sure what you mean but here is something (I think) that's similar.

Knowledge rolls should be part of the underlying skill.  It doesn't make sense that a mechanic knows nothing about (car) technology without Knowledge: technology.  It also confounds me, as a DM, when I have to pick between using the active skill and the knowledge skill associated with the same topic.

Treat knowledges differently.  All active skills (like mechanics) include the ability to make knowledge rolls on that topic.  However, if you character knows a topic (mechanics) from only academia and couldn't do it in practice he can take a hyper-specialized version of mechanics that only applies to knowledge rolls.  These knowledge specialties are half-price.

If you use skill points (I would use _Saga_ skill training) you get two points in knowledges for each skill point spent.  If you use _Saga_ you get skill training in two knowledges for each slot used.  I might also give a character a knowledge skill for each point of Intelligence bonus (like languages) or if it is a low language universe you could use your language slots for knowledge slots instead.


----------



## EditorBFG (Aug 12, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to look long and hard at that empty section of the outline labeled "classes".



Here's a crazy idea-- don't have any.

Seriously, if you are doing away with talents, the only classes you have are attack guy, hit points guy, defense guy, and skill guy-- maybe saves guy if you're feeling saucy that day. Sure, if you add "Reputation guy" (what a great class that would be), these basically map to the six Modern core classes, but is that a good thing?

If talents are just feats for specialized roles, it seems like the rationale for getting rid of them is that Modern characters do not necessarily conform to the extremely focused archetypes that Fantasy characters do. If this is the case, then having classes-- a form of these specialized roles-- seems like a regression.

My opinion  is kind of a matter of public record already, because _The Versatile Hero_ (and, yeah,  I know I keep referencing my own work, but only because I ended up putting so much thought into Modern over the years, much of it unused) is essentially a classless character generation system for Modern. Basically, I think a simple bit of customization in character creation would be better than an arbitrary spread of archetypes for a game designed to tackle multiple genres and settings.

I don't know if you'd do it in remotely the same way I did, but just to illustrate my point I'll put up a temporary link to a doc of Versatile Hero, stripped down to only MSRD-derived open content and OGL notice: http://gameslab.wikidot.com/local--files/start/VERSATILE_HERO_Open_Content.rtf

I'm not trying to say you should use what I did, but I think it demonstrates that, since a system like Modern boils down to a really small handful of traits as the only mechanical differences between classes (attack, saves, defense, hit points)-- traits with only come in 3 or 4 different options-- creating a means to tailor these aspects of a character can be really simple and clean, rather than the messy point-buy calculatorfests you see in other systems.

Given the rationales behind other aspects of this project, I think classes would be a big step backwards for you.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 12, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Here's a crazy idea-- don't have any.




I really, really think classes are integral to the appeal of d20.



> Seriously, if you are doing away with talents, the only classes you have are attack guy, hit points guy, defense guy, and skill guy-- maybe saves guy if you're feeling saucy that day. Sure, if you add "Reputation guy" (what a great class that would be), these basically map to the six Modern core classes, but is that a good thing?




Actually, you more or less nailed the direction I'm leaning.

Current working class names are Muscle, Speed, Tank, Brains, Empath and Star. 



> If talents are just feats for specialized roles, it seems like the rationale for getting rid of them is that Modern characters do not necessarily conform to the extremely focused archetypes that Fantasy characters do. If this is the case, then having classes-- a form of these specialized roles-- seems like a regression.




Characters in modern fiction frequently ARE however, modeled around concepts that I would consider to be a core attribute.

Willow was the "Brains", Buffy was the "Muscle",  Cordelia was the Star.

On Smallville, Clark is the Muscle, Lex is the Star, Chloe's the Empath.

I'm not listing every character, because clearly some are multi-classed 

But you get my point. It frequently is possible to identify characters in movies as being defined by being "tough" or "smart".


----------



## jonrog1 (Aug 12, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure what you mean but here is something (I think) that's similar.
> 
> Knowledge rolls should be part of the underlying skill.  It doesn't make sense that a mechanic knows nothing about (car) technology without Knowledge: technology.  It also confounds me, as a DM, when I have to pick between using the active skill and the knowledge skill associated with the same topic.
> 
> ...




Aaaaaaah, I get what you're going for now.  Essentially re-purposing all skills to be "action" or "do X with a skill" with Knowledge as the _secondary_ as opposed to the primary focus.  Neat, and I would've been too tunnel-visioned to come up with it.

The one-point/two-point spread on specialization -- you HAVE been reading Passages, haven't you?

As to the classes, those six seem right, although it feels like, and I"m just deriving this from your own writing, there's a more specific, verb-oriented definition for those that'll lock in game design a little tighter.


----------



## FraserRonald (Aug 12, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I really, really think classes are integral to the appeal of d20.




Then my approach is doomed!   

I have, however, redesigned Skills once again trying to pare them down, but keeping some that I consider important for character design and flavour.

However, I was also going to use this as a basis for a Spec Ops RPG (and, like Baroque, may never see publication), in which case I think I'd be leaning very heavily toward a skill system like you've got in Modern 2.0.

Huzzah!


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 12, 2007)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Then my approach is doomed!




Or I could be dead wrong.


----------



## Psion (Aug 12, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I truly, honestly, have no idea what you're talking about here.
> 
> The system I'm using (everything is feats, classes get a feat every level, there's a general feat list and a feat list for each class) is exactly how True 20 does things, and I haven't run into a lot of "hyper-optimized one-note" characters.




When I ran D&D with boosted feats, I found that it was necessary to make rules limiting choices of the extra feats to other than the longer feat chains, or players would plow feats into the longer feat chains with more choice end feats.

With D20 modern, I didn't feel the need to do that. With talents that serve more of a utility purpose, this gave the players a venue to add variety to the character instead of just being "real good with my axe" etc.


----------



## Mokona (Aug 12, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I really, really think classes are integral to the appeal of d20.
> ...
> Current working class names are Muscle, Speed, Tank, Brains, Empath and Star.



The mass success and appeal of *Dungeons & Dragons* strongly supports your theory (I happen to agree with you) that classes are important.  Classes are fundamentally about K.I.S.S. in gaming (Keep It Simple, Silly  ).  A lot of classless systems exists and are cool but they've never taken off significantly beyond double-hard core roleplaying gamers.

Somewhere on these boards I've said it before but I'll repeat in case you didn't see it.  Characters already have six attributes (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha).  They don't need another primary fact based on those same six concepts.  Taking character classes and mapping them to the attributes drives all flavor   out of those classes.

Also, players have a hard time conceiving of character concepts that mix mis-matched attributes with attribute-derived base classes.  Lots of players find tension in character creation between having a strong fighter or a agile fighter or even a tough fighter.  Few debate if they'll have a strong Muscle, an agile Muscle, or a tough Muscle build.  

The Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Dedicated, and Charismatic hero classes of *D20 Modern* are the probably the worst    mistake R&D at *Wizards of the Coast* ever made.  I give big props to _Spycraft_ here for a better choice and execution in its class system.


----------



## Committed Hero (Aug 12, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I really, really think classes are integral to the appeal of d20.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...




Why not make classes that fit party niches instead (ie, include Eagle Eye, Sneak and Handyman in your list)?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

Committed Hero said:
			
		

> Why not make classes that fit party niches instead (ie, include Eagle Eye, Sneak and Handyman in your list)?




After much thought and discussion with Chris, we decided that somewhat generic classes, with a robust background, occupation and hobby system, would be the best approach.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

I posted a more basic occupation in my blog, but here's an example of what my players are calling "advanced occupations" (I don't and the book probably won't break them out like that-some occupations just aren't available at 1st level).

*Assassin*
You kill for profit. 
*Prerequisite:* Firearms 10 ranks or Stealth 10 ranks or Weapons 10 ranks, Sneak Attack, Critical Strike
*Professional Skills:* Firearms, Stealth and Weapons
*Improved Feats (any two):* Crippling Strike: your target suffers two points of temporary Strength damage, Critical Strike: when you inflict bonus damage with this feat, that bonus damage is increased by +3 points; Enemy: if you possess the Contract Killer or License to Kill perks you may designate any target derived from one of these perks as your “enemy”; Sneak Attack: your attack bonus is increased to 1.5 per feat, rounded down (+1 to attack rolls for one feat, +3 to attack rolls for two feats, +4 to attack rolls for three feats, etc.)
*Occupation Specific Perks:* Contract Killer: you might take work as a hit man, earning a Wealth award equal to the level of any target you are hired to kill; License to Kill: you may find work for a government agency that will aid you in assassinating specific targets chosen by that government agency


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 13, 2007)

Which I agree with.

I am of the other camp that thinks the six base classes are the best-to-date blend of Classed and Classless gaming, giving the structure and direction that aids play while not flogging Designer X's 'vision' of this or that trope archetype.

I like the "adjustable" classes of, say, Saga ... but at the end of the day I PREFER the generic classes by a great margin.

--fje


----------



## jonrog1 (Aug 13, 2007)

I prefer generic classes to, but attribute-based rater than action-based classes just rub me the wrong way.  For me, it's more useful to have a combat class than strong/Fast/Tank classes that force you to multclass weirdly.  Or at least more natural.

Fightin' guy
Knowin' Guy
Charming Guy
Powers Guy

or some such.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> I prefer generic classes to, but attribute-based rater than action-based classes just rub me the wrong way.  For me, it's more useful to have a combat class than strong/Fast/Tank classes that force you to multclass weirdly.  Or at least more natural.
> 
> Fightin' guy
> Knowin' Guy
> ...




Each of the classes will have a strength mechanically. Muscle (BAB), Speed (Defense), Tank (HP), Brains (Skill Points), Empath (saving throws), Star (Reputation)

Just saying "fightin guy" doesn't work for me. Why can't you have a "fightin guy" who's hard to hit and one who shrugs off damage, while another is really good at pressing the attack? 

Sounds like Nightcrawler, Colossus and Wolverine to me.

Since this game is almost FX free, multiple fighting and skill roles are essential. One problem (one of the few) I have with True 20 is how if you want to run historically based games without magic, you're down to two roles.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 13, 2007)

Which works alright, as well.

Right now we've got:

"Melee Fightin' Guy"
and
"Damage Takin' Guy"
and 
"Not Gettin' Hit Guy"

all rounding out the Fightin' Guy ... which may or may not be valuable, since it allows for some gradiation that one Fightin' Guy may not have.  If Fightin' Guy has full BAB progression AND better than average Defense progression AND more hit points, etc etc.    How does he balance out while allowing you to run those archetypes?  

Though if everything including BAB is a skill that can alleviate that somewhat, but I have not found that to ever work in the past.  Prior games have tried to make weapons individual skills and it just tends to break down.

--fje


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Though if everything including BAB is a skill that can alleviate that somewhat, but I have not found that to ever work in the past.  Prior games have tried to make weapons individual skills and it just tends to break down.
> 
> --fje




Yeah, I didn't go that far. I have some combat skills that provide other benefits, but you're still determining your attack roll from BAB vs. class-based Defense.


----------



## EditorBFG (Aug 13, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Each of the classes will have a strength mechanically. Muscle (BAB), Speed (Defense), Tank (HP), Brains (Skill Points), Empath (saving throws), Star (Reputation)



Well, having expressed my opinions on Modern classes, I understand why you might think you need them. While I'd rather have no classes at all, it seems like Saving Throw guy and Reputation guy are two roles that suck. Couldn't you roll good saves into Defense guy (or HP guy), and make Reputation/social stuff a function of skills?

Just as in d20, the bottom three ability scores are most often "dump stats", I think the classes based on them are likely to end up the red-headed stepchildren.

Part of the problem with Modern was, only a couple of the base classes were attractive options. If you have to have these kind of separate roles, then at least they should all be cool.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Part of the problem with Modern was, only a couple of the base classes were attractive options. If you have to have these kind of separate roles, then at least they should all be cool.




Well, making sure all the roles are cool is where I earn my money 

I will say I don't think Reputation guy will suck at all. I can understand why you might think he will, but this isn't going to be the d20M version of reputation. Reputation will give real and tangible benefits.


----------



## Aussiegamer (Aug 13, 2007)

one of the problems that exists is that you seem to still be forced into a narrow class driven outcome for a PC.

I dumped cross skills, feats for this class as free at this level.

By opening up the class system you can develop a character that you want to make, instead of forced to make.

And use burst was bad, and I fixed it for me.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

Aussiegamer said:
			
		

> By opening up the class system you can develop a character that you want to make, instead of forced to make.




Eh, I disagree. A game with 6 classes, dozens of backgrounds, even more occupations, feats at every level (allowing you to effectively choose your own class abilities) and hobbies is far from a limiting character design system.

Just because there are classes does not mean character choice is limited. 

I've ran class-less games, for years in fact (both GURPs and Hero). I greatly prefer class-based games.


----------



## jonrog1 (Aug 13, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Each of the classes will have a strength mechanically. Muscle (BAB), Speed (Defense), Tank (HP), Brains (Skill Points), Empath (saving throws), Star (Reputation)
> 
> Just saying "fightin guy" doesn't work for me. Why can't you have a "fightin guy" who's hard to hit and one who shrugs off damage, while another is really good at pressing the attack?
> 
> ...




I see your point stylistically, but we're actually on the same page -- I DO want a fightin' guy that hits hard, is hard to hit, and take a punch.  But I don't see why stylistic differences in fighting should be the bases for different classes.

I think what I'm probably burned a little by is the weird BAB choice in d20M.  So I want to make a vicious gunslinger, who's therefore FAST, but he therefore doesn't get the same BAB as a Melee guy?  Assuming all fighting guys are equally as efficient at some base level and then can be customized -- or are then customized by your classes -- to fighting style (melee/rangd/tank) then I dig it.  otherwise, I kind of agree that you're shackling your very good design onto some of the mistakes of the previous designers. 

The True20 notes  is indicative of something MOST people seem to miss in True20 --  paths.  I always approach True20 not as "I am limited to two roles", but rather "I have an infinite number of easily tuneable fighter classes, without forcing anyone into 'multiclassing'."  I think the toolkit aspect of True20 hides the actual structure paths bring -- when one looks at any of the setting books, on the other hand, including BLUE ROSE, one sees those "classes" coalesce nicely.  What True20 could use are some more "path" books.  I'm actually working on a pdf idea now, between writing gigs, for "pulp" paths.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> I see your point stylistically, but we're actually on the same page -- I DO want a fightin' guy that hits hard, is hard to hit, and take a punch.  But I don't see why stylistic differences in fighting should be the bases for different classes.
> 
> I think what I'm probably burned a little by is the weird BAB choice in d20M.  So I want to make a vicious gunslinger, who's therefore FAST, but he therefore doesn't get the same BAB as a Melee guy?  Assuming all fighting guys are equally as efficient at some base level and then can be customized -- or are then customized by your classes -- to fighting style (melee/rangd/tank) then I dig it.  otherwise, I kind of agree that you're shackling your very good design onto some of the mistakes of the previous designers.
> 
> The True20 notes  is indicative of something MOST people seem to miss in True20 --  paths.  I always approach True20 not as "I am limited to two roles", but rather "I have an infinite number of easily tuneable fighter classes, without forcing anyone into 'multiclassing'."  I think the toolkit aspect of True20 hides the actual structure paths bring -- when one looks at any of the setting books, on the other hand, including BLUE ROSE, one sees those "classes" coalesce nicely.  What True20 could use are some more "path" books.  I'm actually working on a pdf idea now, between writing gigs, for "pulp" paths.




Well, again, Im using the basic structure of True 20 in terms of a feat per level for a lot of customizability.

Im not sure why 6 mechanical frameworks to customize bothers you when 2, or 3 doesn't. 

.


----------



## Psion (Aug 13, 2007)

I am strongly in favor of keeping classes in some form, and that those classes should have a meaningful theme. One of the big reasons I disdain True20 is that the classes seem too generic.

I agree that you could find a name better than "fightin' guy" for a class, but when you consider how players think about the role a character is going to play in a party, that's what it boils down to.

I do like classes to have more meaningful flavor than is presented in D20 modern. Etherscope is a great example.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I am strongly in favor of keeping classes in some form, and that those classes should have a meaningful theme. One of the big reasons I disdain True20 is that the classes seem too generic.
> 
> I agree that you could find a name better than "fightin' guy" for a class, but when you consider how players think about the role a character is going to play in a party, that's what it boils down to.
> 
> I do like classes to have more meaningful flavor than is presented in D20 modern. Etherscope is a great example.




Occupations and Backgrounds is where most of the flavor will come from in the rules Im writing. I think there's plenty of flavor in the Assassin occupation I posted above.

The fact that you can bolt that onto 6 different classes seems like a feature, not a bug, to me.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 13, 2007)

I think Modern could have used a little more tweaking in terms of BAB.  I think either more classes should have gotten 1/1 or NO classes got 1/1.  Giving Melee Guy both good BAB and flat damage bonuses did some wonky things for making melee combat occasionally superior to ranged combat.  

I think a reason I like multiple "classes" for it is the nature of "classes".  Classes should give you a balanced breakfast of Attack Bonus, Defense Bonus, Hit Points, Save Bonuses, and Skill Points.  It's hard to balance all of those against themselves in one class that somehow can get either Good Attack, Good Defense, Good Damage Absorption, or Good Survival ... it's hard to tweak "Choose Two" with one class, where you can balance three classes against those statistics while offering the chance to blend.  

I think one of the sticky wickets with d20 BAB progressions is the lack of fractional BAB tracking.  So that, in Modern, you're rather heavily penalized for what should be something that is encouraged.  It adds some complexity, but I tend to call out +0.25, +o.75, etc and add from there.  

--fje


----------



## iwatt (Aug 13, 2007)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I think one of the sticky wickets with d20 BAB progressions is the lack of fractional BAB tracking.  So that, in Modern, you're rather heavily penalized for what should be something that is encouraged.  It adds some complexity, but I tend to call out +0.25, +o.75, etc and add from there.
> 
> --fje




Yup, fractional saves and removing the first level save boost are a great fix to the save/BAB/Defense mechanic.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I think Modern could have used a little more tweaking in terms of BAB.  I think either more classes should have gotten 1/1 or NO classes got 1/1.  Giving Melee Guy both good BAB and flat damage bonuses did some wonky things for making melee combat occasionally superior to ranged combat.
> 
> I think a reason I like multiple "classes" for it is the nature of "classes".  Classes should give you a balanced breakfast of Attack Bonus, Defense Bonus, Hit Points, Save Bonuses, and Skill Points.  It's hard to balance all of those against themselves in one class that somehow can get either Good Attack, Good Defense, Good Damage Absorption, or Good Survival ... it's hard to tweak "Choose Two" with one class, where you can balance three classes against those statistics while offering the chance to blend.
> 
> ...




Hmmm. That's interesting. 

I have been pondering in my head (cause I'm still writing up the large number of occupations the game will have) whether ANY class that doesn't get spells should have a low BAB.

I'm leaning toward no at the moment.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 13, 2007)

How do you determine who gets spells?

I like the BAB gradations, but I wish there was a more elegant system for fractional progression.  Or at least a more elegant description there-of that would be simple for people to pick up.

--fje


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> How do you determine who gets spells?




I'm saying without spells being a part of the campaign, I don't anything else a class could get is worth a low BAB.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 13, 2007)

Which is an interesting design philosophy.

That begins with the assumption of effectiveness in combat being a general prerequisite for the adventurous soul.  Though it does raise the question of what sets the "combat guy" apart from the "skills nerd" if both are equally adept at basic fighting skill?

Not that I disagree that leveling a basic BAB is necessarily a BAD choice.  I could see where all classes get 1/1 Attack Bonus with combat characters receiving talents and access to feats that generally increase their combat effectiveness to differentiate them from the skills nerds.

--fje


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Which is an interesting design philosophy.
> 
> That begins with the assumption of effectiveness in combat being a general prerequisite for the adventurous soul.  Though it does raise the question of what sets the "combat guy" apart from the "skills nerd" if both are equally adept at basic fighting skill?
> 
> ...




Well, Muscle, the BAB specialist, has feats available to give him a better than 1/1 BAB. But mostly the difference will be better BAB (Muscle), better Def (Speed) and better HP (Tank).

But basically, when I think of "skill guy" I think McGuyver. When I think Charismatic Guy, I think Face from the A-team.

They weren't front-line fighters, but they weren't wimpy liabilities either.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 13, 2007)

Of course then the problem comes that you can no longer model somebody who wants to play somebody that IS a wimpy fighter.

But that's not necessarily a defect, again.  One of the reasons I like classed systems is the class framework mandates a certain minimum efficacy level.  Where-as in a freeform system you might be able to make a character that has 0 combat effectiveness, it then comes down to the GM having to deal with greater width of variance in his planning ... I.E. the skill nerd will always have +(Amazing) to skill checks, so challenges for skills become utterly unreachable by anyone but him, while the combat brick will always have +(Amazing) to combat or HP or whatever and any combat designed to be challenging for that character becomes unbearably lethal for anyone else in the party who takes part.

A universal 1/1 BAB then forces changes to how Defense progresses.

--fje


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2007)

Well, depending on how the balance of the classes works out, I might make the mental classes somewhat whimpy. I just felt like d20M went too far. The Smart and Charismatic Hero had low BAB, Defense and pretty mediocre saves.

As someone who ran a lot of military campaigns that were heavy in combat, those classes were avoided like the Bubonic Plague.


----------



## EditorBFG (Aug 13, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, depending on how the balance of the classes works out, I might make the mental classes somewhat whimpy. I just felt like d20M went too far. The Smart and Charismatic Hero had low BAB, Defense and pretty mediocre saves.



Yeah, it did go too far. The number of players who go into a game wanting to be good at fighting clearly dwarfs the number of players who want to be lousy in a fight but good at negotiating or hacking computers. If you're going to have social guy and skill guy as separate classes-- a move I don't really understand the point of, especially regarding social guy-- they should also have combat niches to fill.

In D&D-- a game where the classes work better than d20 Modern-- even the wimps have an important combat function. Wizards can't fight personally, but put out lots of damage, clerics heal you after the fight, rogues get sneak attack, etc. If all those options are just feats now, why would anyone choose the other options when they can play attack guy or defense guy and get the same feats? I would rather play a fighter with sneak attack or a fighter with magic missile, but in D&D if I want sneak attack, I need to be a rogue. It doesn't sound like this system will work that way.

I don't think, as a design philosophy, the idea of creating character classes that a small minority of players will want to use is in any way helpful. If there are six classes-- more than you need, I think, if implemented as currently conceived-- each class should be designed with at least a reasonable possibility that 1/6 of players will want to play that class. When you step back and look at Reputation guy, can you honestly say that 1 out of 6 players is gonna go, "Yeah, that's the class I want?"

In a generic modern setting, this is hard. In D&D, by contrast, when I want to play I social guy, I think paladin or bard. Now, a paladin is a great combatant period, and a bard helps the other characters do better in combat, and is skill heavy and a spellcaster to boot. Unless you can make a Charisma character as attractive as the paladin or bard, I think the social stuff is better off ported over as an option for another class.

As you say, "Well, making sure all the roles are cool is where I earn my money", but the fact is that it was also where the Modern designers-- a very talented group of writers-- were supposed to earn their money too. And as far as making all the classes attractive options, they did not. So, to my mind, either you've already come up with a brilliant way to do what they failed to do, or adopting their basic division of class roles might be a decision that bears reconsideration.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 13, 2007)

Of course you don't want your system to model nothing but military combat gametypes.

That is, I feel, the major fault with SpyCraft 2.0.  It claims toward generalism, but everything feels heavily designed to the core James Bond Spy Movie tropes with "well you can change it this way" afterthoughts added in.  From names to stylistic choices to balance choices it is a SPY GAME with rules for doing other things.

d20Modern felt, on the whole, a little more generalist.  Still, perhaps, the action movie type of thing, but less about one genre of movies.

I've had military games where the most effective combatants were full-class Dedicated with shootist feats.

I've been toying with a flat across-the-board +1/2 Level to all Saves, Attacks, and Defense with modifications that can, from that point, be purchased or which are part of classes.

--fje


----------



## Greg K (Aug 13, 2007)

See, I like having the smart and charismatic the way they are. Yeah, if you are running a military game or other combat  heavy game, they are not getting used.  However, run another game where the strenghts of the smart or charaismatic characters strengths and not combat are heavily emphasized and strong or tough hero might not get used.

What I like about the d20 Modern structure is that if you want a strong guy who goes against type and fits the smart hero role rather than the strong hero role, you take smart hero rather than strong hero and give him a really good strength score.  Similarly, you could do the opposite and give your really intelligent guy strong hero instead of smart hero and put  his highest or second highest intelligence rather than strength.

Now my complaint is strong hero and fast hero.  I prefer the strong hero as presented in the polyhedron.  Off hand, I don't recall what bothered me with fast hero.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 13, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> As you say, "Well, making sure all the roles are cool is where I earn my money", but the fact is that it was also where the Modern designers-- a very talented group of writers-- were supposed to earn their money too. And as far as making all the classes attractive options, they did not. So, to my mind, either you've already come up with a brilliant way to do what they failed to do, or adopting their basic division of class roles might be a decision that bears reconsideration.




I think where Modern somewhat falls down is it didn't do enough to differentiate the classes based on talents INTO something that was combat-able.  There are combat-able talents for the three mental classes, but they largely are less powerful than they should have been or dispersed in different ways across several classes.

For instance, Charismatic has the "I'm A Bard" line of talents.  Unfortunately, the leadership talents are really underpowered for what you get.  The Charismatic has to burn a turn, make a check, and then can't impact his whole party until around 6th level AND cannot impact himself.  Whereas the bard can do something similar to the entire party and himself from the word Go.  

Additionally the "Aids Guys In Combat" thing was also given to the Smart hero in the Plan talent, which seems generally superior to Coordinate/Inspiration, especially early on.

--fje


----------



## Psion (Aug 13, 2007)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Of course you don't want your system to model nothing but military combat gametypes.
> 
> That is, I feel, the major fault with SpyCraft 2.0.  It claims toward generalism, but everything feels heavily designed to the core James Bond Spy Movie tropes with "well you can change it this way" afterthoughts added in.




See here Chuck... next time you tell me you never see people talking smack about Spycraft, I want you to remember this post. 

When Chuck sited this particular problem with D20 Modern, and I was nodding in the background having run into this myself. (Including presently, as I am making pregens for a gencon game). The problem with D20 Modern is that the characters are built as if skills are going to play a strong role in the system, but then they don't follow through by making non-combat activities appealing by amping up the skill system.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 13, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, depending on how the balance of the classes works out, I might make the mental classes somewhat whimpy. I just felt like d20M went too far. The Smart and Charismatic Hero had low BAB, Defense and pretty mediocre saves.
> 
> As someone who ran a lot of military campaigns that were heavy in combat, those classes were avoided like the Bubonic Plague.




I always found this was less of a problem if the players multiclassed like they were voting in a Chicago election - early and often.


----------



## Mokona (Aug 14, 2007)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> I think what I'm probably burned a little by is the weird BAB choice in d20M.  So I want to make a vicious gunslinger, who's therefore FAST, but he therefore doesn't get the same BAB as a Melee guy?



Yes, the Fast Hero base class was a glaring failure in *D20 Modern* as Gunslingers don't want to have worse BAB than Swordsmen (or apparently being strong makes you a better shot than being agile).

Mokona's rules of "good" class systems...  

1. Base Attack Bonus

All warriors have a Fighter base attack bonus whether they're an armored tank or a hard hitting brute. At least two classes should have Fighter base attack bonus progression. Perhaps base attack bonus is less important in your 2.0 system but until I believe that I would want players desiring Fighter BAB to have more than one option.

2. Skills

Classes that sacrifice basic attack proficiency (such as Base Attack Bonus) for some other focus need their other focus to be relevant in encounters.  Rogues (in *Dungeons & Dragons*) use Move Silently/Hide to gain surprise round attacks and Tumble to get in to flanking position for bonus Sneak Attack damage.  Most genres include combat so all classes need something to do that doesn't require them to dedicate rare slots to narrow/weak combat abilities.  Again, Rogues are able to dedicate only 1/8th of their class skills (or less if they have any Int bonus) to Tumble to buff their combat capacity.

3. Special Abilities

Classes should have minimal overlap in special abilities.  _*Star Wars* Saga Edition_ does a great job of breaking up the Talents.  This makes it easier to choose a class in the first place.

4.  Multiclassing

Minimize the penalties for multiclassing and you greatly enable character concepts.  Fractional BAB, &c are great steps in this direction.

5.  Flavor

Choices players are required to make during character creation should be intuitive and grokkable (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3636334&postcount=80).  It immediately makes sense that my physical and mental abilities are divided into six attributes.  It's a little disconcerting to think that my class, which is basically an archetype or a career, is something generic and meaningless.  Pushing all the flavor out of generic classes and in to professions or feat chains creates too much complexity for most players.


----------



## EditorBFG (Aug 14, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> See, I like having the smart and charismatic the way they are. Yeah, if you are running a military game or other combat  heavy game, they are not getting used.  However, run another game where the strenghts of the smart or charaismatic characters strengths and not combat are heavily emphasized and strong or tough hero might not get used.



Not to be catty about this, but what games are these, and how often have you seen them played?  

For the vast majority of games, the Charismatic hero is an unattractive option, and Smart and Dedicated heroes aren't much better. The fact is, even in low combat games, the "strengths" of the Smart/Charismatic heroes have always been better conveyed through role-playing then mechanics. Since you can't build player decision making or creativity into a class, I think they need something else.

Also, the d20 system is built around combat. You may not like it, but that's how it is built: there are more rules about how things work in combat than any other situation. Therefore, a character who is less capable in combat is less capable in the system as a whole. I love narrative systems, and I am happy to spend whole game sessions interacting instead of fighting, but classes are mechanical constructs based on the _existing_ system, not on role-playing as a platonic ideal. Therefore each class needs a combat role/advantage to be an attractive option.







			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Additionally the "Aids Guys In Combat" thing was also given to the Smart hero in the Plan talent, which seems generally superior to Coordinate/Inspiration, especially early on.



Plan made me really want to play a Smart hero when I first bought the book. Since it was my first read, I had not yet noticed that Plan required a starting Research talent-- "Linguist" or something equally sexy-- so I could not get it until 3rd level. Nor had I noticed that Smart heroes had the Wizard BAB without getting, you know, magic missile. That let that the air out of my sails real quick.


----------



## jonrog1 (Aug 14, 2007)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I've been toying with a flat across-the-board +1/2 Level to all Saves, Attacks, and Defense with modifications that can, from that point, be purchased or which are part of classes.
> 
> --fje




That's a sexy-sounding bit of game design right there, mister.

Here's the other issue with the attribute classes -- and don't think I'm piling on here, Vigilance, I really like the occupation idea you've got, and have a feeling it interacts with PC's in a way we're just not anticipating from previous design -- anyway, the point is that if you do goose up the general system to have non-combat attribute classes shine, those situations tend to exclude the combat monkeys.  So you wind up with alternating bits of shine and suckage, a sort of "oh, here's my bit of the evening' story" rather than an organic "okay, how are we going to tackle THIS?"  Again, this can be dodged with a good GM, but that's where those six classes just fall down a bit for me. (One of the reasons I like the SAGA skill system, to tell the truth)

And again, if you don't hang the single good BAB on melee guy, and/or spiffy Smart/Cha abilities pop in at first level -- which is highly probably if you're on the feat-a-level system -- then I promise to simply stfu and buy your product with the same eagerness I've bought everything else you've written.  If my lieutenant can Plan and/or Inspire, AND then go Gather INfo from the villagers and shmooze for better weapons, then sucking up the low BAB is more than fine.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 14, 2007)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> That's a sexy-sounding bit of game design right there, mister.




A question I have is:  If interative attacks as part of BAB are removed, how much is 1/1 BAB 'worth'?  At first I did not like the 1-attack style of Saga, but I realized they had, instead, split out iterative attacks into feats.  If iterative attack is a feat, selectable by Character Level instead of BAB, what does that do to BAB?

I.E. - My thought runs along the line of disassociating attack bonus, defense bonus, etc etc, from class LEVELS but attaching them to classes.  So that selecting, say, Strong, may give you access to a better attack bonus structure but that structure is not disrupted by then multiclassing into Fast or Dedicated.

--fje


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 14, 2007)

Well for my part, I haven't removed iterative attacks, but I have unhinged them from BAB. 

Also, for inspiring other people, Leadership is a skill now. 

Finally, I'm just absorbing all the class talk, rather than responding for now, because I'm still doing occupations. There's a lot of them.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2007)

I've posted a new design diary, giving a peek at how the combat skills will work, starting naturally with unarmed combat because I'm still that guy.


----------



## Trevino Anterlux (Aug 15, 2007)

A few turn offs to the d20 modern game my group had was the lack of balance between the classes. It seemed like the tough and fast heroes were vastly over powered compared to other heroes, especially a dedicated hero. A hero based on high saves is great and all, but what are they doing in battle? I might have missed something in their descriptions but from my groups observations there was a problem with class balance. I hope that the issue will be resolved in 2.0. Great thread everyone, thanks!


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Aug 16, 2007)

I propose that the name of the damage dealing class be "Thag-o-mizer" with the brainy guy be named "Bonehead".


----------



## Mokona (Aug 16, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Occupations and Backgrounds is where most of the flavor will come from in the rules I'm writing.



The _Modern d2.0_ ideas you present aren't what I'd choose but I want to say thanks.  You definitely got me to consider some new concepts.  I prefer _Saga_ and in trying to come up with points I stumbled upon the following idea...

*Breaking down a character in to its constituent parts*

1.  Initial abilities
The six attributes (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha) are one of the fundamental starting abilities that are rarely, if ever, replaced. Character species also falls into this category.

2.  Abilities that automatically scale with level
These abilities increase as the character increases in level but require no individual choices.  In standard *d20* the only choice that affects these progressions is which Class to take at each character level.  These include Base Attack Bonus, saving throws, defense, Hit Dice, Action Points, reputation, and Caster Level.  Could also include new progressions such as magic rating (magic-equivalent BAB), wealth, or initiative bonus.

3.  Temporary benefits
Abilities that characters only receive while they’re a current or active member of some group.  It seems like your occupations offer something like this while *D20 Modern* and *Dungeons & Dragons* don’t really use this except with equipment.

4.  One time choices
Feats and talents are essentially “pick your special ability” choices each time you receive one.  Once you’ve made the decision it’s locked in. They often represent some game rules to which you gain access (Craft Wondrous Item, Spring Attack, &c) or change the way default rules apply to your character (Weapon Proficiency).

5.  Continuous (or stacking) choices
The best example here is skill points (a system I’d replace with Trained vs. Untrained).  For some players in *D&D* these are effectively #2: abilities that scale with level.  For others it’s a mix of improving some highly effective skills, being a generalist, or gaining new proficiency with others.  This category is similar to and could have been considered part of #4: one time choices.  For example, attribute increases could be considered part of stacking choices but they only happen every 4th level so I’d put them in #4 above.

*Application*

I see how a major change could work given the outline above.  Classes could be divorced from any ability that isn’t strictly a level-based progression chart.  Then occupations could carry the flavor of skill points, skill selection, and temporary benefits.  You’ve already stated that every character gets a Feat at each level so that’s automatic to all characters just like attribute increase are already.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 16, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> See here Chuck... next time you tell me you never see people talking smack about Spycraft, I want you to remember this post.
> 
> When Chuck sited this particular problem with D20 Modern, and I was nodding in the background having run into this myself. (Including presently, as I am making pregens for a gencon game). The problem with D20 Modern is that the characters are built as if skills are going to play a strong role in the system, but then they don't follow through by making non-combat activities appealing by amping up the skill system.




Wouldn't the solution then, be a combination of d20 Modern class structure combined with something along the lines of Spycraft's Dramatic Conflicts?

Maybe my idea is not a perfect solution, but I agree with your analysis - if skills & skill resolution was more important/interesting, you've gone a long way to fixing the disparity.


----------



## Mokona (Aug 17, 2007)

Monte Cook's World of Darkness said:
			
		

> June 26th Preview of Monte Cook's World of Darkness
> Posted: 2007-06-26
> 
> Some people study academic subjects their entire lives. Others spend years learning acrobatics and practicing extreme sports. Still others divide their time between several fields of study. A character's focus represents her dedication to a field of interest. Four foci exist: Might, Intellect, Spirit, and Stealth.
> ...



Is this something like how _Modern 2.0_ occupations will work?  This could definitely be a great house rule (perhaps even in _*Star Wars* Saga Edition_) for the rest of us.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 17, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> Is this something like how _Modern 2.0_ occupations will work?  This could definitely be a great house rule (perhaps even in _*Star Wars* Saga Edition_) for the rest of us.




Sort of a similar idea, but a different way of doing it.



> *Military Officer*
> The military has taught you how to lead men.
> *Professional Skills:* Firearms, Influence, Leadership
> *Improved Feats:* Expert in your field (Leadership): your Reputation modifier is treated as +2 higher for purposes of this feat; Exploit Weakness: your Intelligence modifier is treated as +2 higher for purposes of this feat; Public Speaker: +2 Charisma; Teamwork: +3 bonus to attack rolls when working with your team
> *Occupation Specific Perks:* Military Rank: your standing in the military makes it easier for you to deal with your fellow soldiers, granting you a +3 on all Influence checks when dealing with other members of the military and a +3 Reputation when requisitioning gear from military contacts.




So, you have three professional skills, which are always class skills for you as long as you stay in the occupation.

You have four feats that you can select regardless of class, that are improved feats for you, again as long as you stay in the occupation.

Then you have a special perk you can only select while in the occupation.

Your ranks in the profession's skills and the number of the profession's feats you have determine how big your Wealth bonus is from the occupation.


----------



## jonrog1 (Aug 19, 2007)

I snagged Monte Cook's WoD today, actually, and plowed through it.  As described above, I rather like the "focus" aspect, serving as de facto classes, while the RACES are what we usually consider classes, with distinct "talent" trees  -- and no multiclassing.  It's very specialized to WoD, but expect that to be close to the racial variation in 4e I'd imagine.

I was wondering about yoru design style, Vigilance.  Ar eyou just posting the stuff you want to get some feedback on, or are these actually the setions you're startign with and will fill in as you go?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 19, 2007)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> I snagged Monte Cook's WoD today, actually, and plowed through it.  As described above, I rather like the "focus" aspect, serving as de facto classes, while the RACES are what we usually consider classes, with distinct "talent" trees  -- and no multiclassing.  It's very specialized to WoD, but expect that to be close to the racial variation in 4e I'd imagine.
> 
> I was wondering about yoru design style, Vigilance.  Ar eyou just posting the stuff you want to get some feedback on, or are these actually the setions you're startign with and will fill in as you go?




Well, I'm certainly looking for feedback, or else I wouldn't post anything. 

But basically, I'm posting things as I work on them, seeing how folks react to the direction. There has definitely been an influence back and forth between this thread, and the comments on my blog, and the design process. 

Allowing characters to specialize in one aspect of a skill, by gaining a +3 on one skill use while taking a -3 on the other uses, is probably the biggest compromise I've made as a direct result of this thread. 

And that's also an example of why sometimes I might not go with feedback as well. The people who felt strongly about 40+ relatively narrow skills didn't think my compromise, 22 broad skills, with the ability to specialize in specific skill aspects, went far enough.

So even though I compromised, they're likely still not happy and might not buy the book.

In the end, I just have to hope that my reputation for doing good Modern products, and the good outweighing the bad that folks see in this thread, will convince more people to give the book a shot than would have other wise. 

But if you're asking, are you seeing how I work through this thread, then I suppose the answer would be yes.

I started with an outline that basically read:

Introduction

Characters
-Backgrounds
-Occupations
-Hobbies
-Allegiances
-Reputation
-Wealth
-Action Points
-Character Classes
--PC Archetypes
---Muscle
---Speed
---Tank
---Brains
---Empath
---Star
-Ordinaries
-Skills
-Feats
-Putting it all together: Character Creation

Combat

And I've slowly been filling that in. Currently Backgrounds, Occupations, Hobbies, Allegiances, Reputation, Skills and Feats are done.

So I started with the outline and work from there, filling in things in what feels like a natural progression. 

It's hard to describe what feels natural, but basically I started with skills, because I needed to know what the final skill list would look like for Backgrounds, Occupations, Hobbies and classes.

Then I needed to see a relatively complete feat list for Occupations, because they grant improved feats, so I went there next, and so on.

Whew, I just keep talking don't I? 

Probably way more info than you wanted.   

Chuck


----------



## Wraith Form (Aug 19, 2007)

Seriously?  I'll be buying this prodcut.  You planning a stream of electrons version, a dead tree, or both?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 19, 2007)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> Seriously?  I'll be buying this prodcut.  You planning a stream of electrons version, a dead tree, or both?




PDF for starters, though we are dabbling more with POD.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 19, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, depending on how the balance of the classes works out, I might make the mental classes somewhat whimpy. I just felt like d20M went too far. The Smart and Charismatic Hero had low BAB, Defense and pretty mediocre saves.
> 
> As someone who ran a lot of military campaigns that were heavy in combat, those classes were avoided like the Bubonic Plague.



I would guess a major problem would be that the "mental classes" aren't as combat orientated as typical D20 classes. But they provide abilities that a rounded group needs (even if just for the skills they get.) But a military campaign doesn't need a rounded group (who really needs a computer guy, or a charmer?).

Another problem is the D&D 3.x mindset of "rarely multi class". A multiclassed Strong/Smart character can be a lot of fun. I always wanted to try out a Fast/Charismatic or a Smart/Charismatic, too. But I must admit, the fact that there are only 20 levels (in regular play) makes multi classing a bit less thrilling. It just takes so long to get the next cool thing in a particular class. But this problem will never cease, I suppose.

But maybe D20 Modern limited all abilities a bit too much. After reading through SAGA and its talent trees, I find the D20 Modern talents pretty dull and/or weak (but internally, I think they're balanced fine. They just pale in comparison to SAGA)
More classes with a good BAB and no classes with less than 4(5) skill points per level would have been god. The Defense progression wasn't thought out that well (okay, that only applies to the Fast Hero), and I don't know why they reduced the saving throw progression for good saving throw.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 21, 2007)

Well the classes are done.

The final class breakdown looks like this:

Powerhouse (Str, melee combat specialist, best BAB)
Speedfreak (Dex, ranged combat specialist, best Defense)
Tank (Con, melee combat specialist, best HP)
Brainiac (Int, skill specialist, most skill points)
Empath (Wis, skill specialist, best saving throws)
Star (Cha, skill specialist, best Reputation)

Classes get 4 feats at 1st level, and 1 feat for every level after 1st. 

There's a large general feat table, and each class has its own feat table with at least 10 feats (I am making every effort to have each class' feat table contain the exact same number of feats). 

Each class also has a core ability that you only get if you take your 1st character level in that class. Each core ability has one function that works all the time, and another, considerably more powerful one, that works when you spend an Action Point. 

I'm considering posting a sample class, but I'm not 100% sure how much that will help people.


----------



## Father of Dragons (Aug 21, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Classes get 4 feats at 1st level, and 1 feat for every level after 1st.
> 
> There's a large general feat table, and each class has its own feat table with at least 10 feats (I am making every effort to have each class' feat table contain the exact same number of feats).
> 
> ...



Hm ... sounds a little bit like you locked D20 Modern and True20 in a closet and waited nine months ...


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 21, 2007)

Father of Dragons said:
			
		

> Hm ... sounds a little bit like you locked D20 Modern and True20 in a closet and waited nine months ...




Well, I'm certainly taking things I liked from a number of games, including True 20, d20 Modern, Grim Tales and Spycraft. 

But yeah, in terms of big things I've borrowed, True 20 is probably at the top of the list, because it's a game that I think gets a lot right. 

And then I think what I'm doing with skills is pretty much my own, as well as the way I'm handling combat and damage. 

But yeah, the three main starting points for this book were True 20, d20 Modern and the streamlined d20 game I did for the Two Worlds X-Box 360 game (which really started me thinking about designing a game from the ground up).


----------



## Wraith Form (Aug 21, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> PDF for starters, though we are dabbling more with POD.



Well, you just feell free to PM me when you have it up for sale, aiiiight?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 22, 2007)

Preview class (the tank) is up


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 23, 2007)

So, as it stands right now, armor requires no skills or feats to use. 

I never understood heavy armor sucking three feats out of the game's "economy" and always considered it a holdover from D&D.

I'm leaning toward armor just having a strength requirement, and costing money. 

Thoughts?


----------



## beverson (Aug 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So, as it stands right now, armor requires no skills or feats to use.
> 
> I never understood heavy armor sucking three feats out of the game's "economy" and always considered it a holdover from D&D.
> 
> ...




I agree.  Spending 3 feats for heavy armor always seemed like a waste to me.


----------



## Father of Dragons (Aug 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So, as it stands right now, armor requires no skills or feats to use.
> 
> I never understood heavy armor sucking three feats out of the game's "economy" and always considered it a holdover from D&D.
> 
> ...



Hm.  This looks to be a bit of a turn around from when we discussed this issue in May on the True20 boards (in the armor & encumubrance thread).  

There, you said:







			
				rpgobject_chuck said:
			
		

> So if you want everyone to wear at least some armor, sure, make it free.
> 
> But again, why?  It would be just like a campaign where you gave everyone a free supernatural power.  Sure you could.  It would just lead to an odd sort of campaign.



Unless, of course, I misunderstood you.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 23, 2007)

Father of Dragons said:
			
		

> Hm.  This looks to be a bit of a turn around from when we discussed this issue in May on the True20 boards (in the armor & encumubrance thread).
> 
> There, you said:Unless, of course, I misunderstood you.




I don't I'm saying "you should definitely require feats for armor" there. 

I'm mostly just saying that if you're going to change something: A) you should have a reason and B) you should realize that just changing one thing can make other things go wonky and C) expect wearing heavier armor to be something everyone does. 

Also, d20 Modern and True 20 were different games, last I checked.

Spending 2 feats in a game where your character gets 23 (True 20) *IS* less onerous to me than spending 3 feats in a game where your character might get 12 (d20 Modern). But in that thread, I was talking about True 20. 

In this case, I had already gotten rid of: weapon proficiency feats (folded into the firearms skill and the weapons skill) and Vehicle Operation feats (folded into the Vehicles skill). 

In that environment, requiring a feat for armor doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't fit. It feels like the type of feat I've done away with and tied to skill elsewhere. 

In such a case, I felt like I had three basic choices: leave it a feat, find a skill to tie it to or create a new skill just for armor. 

Since I'm re-examining everything, I also just decided to ask myself if there needed to be any mechanical expenditure (eg spending character resources like skills or feats) for armor AT ALL. 

I'm still undecided too. Though I'm against a feat. I might tie it to the Athletics skill, through a perk. 

I know, I haven't talked about perks much yet. Perks are something you gain from Occupations in 2.0 that modify how your existing skills work.


----------



## FraserRonald (Aug 23, 2007)

I think armor should still have a feat, but maybe a single one for medium and heavy armor and light armor is free. Even individuals trained in combat are hampered by body armor (not talking the kind of vests that are covered under light armor), until they get used to it or are trained in it. To me, this maps directly to a feat--unless you want to roll an armor skill check every time you want to do something that inflicts (or should inflict) a penalty for encumbrance or armor. So, I think I would go with a single "Armor" feat, and allow characters to use light armor for free.


----------



## EditorBFG (Aug 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Preview class (the tank) is up



This looks like a great class, and I really like the core ability.

But I still have to wonder-- is there any possible ay Reputation guy, or even saves guy, will be this attractive to players at 1st level?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 24, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> This looks like a great class, and I really like the core ability.
> 
> But I still have to wonder-- is there any possible ay Reputation guy, or even saves guy, will be this attractive to players at 1st level?




Well- the Empath has the same attack bonus and defense bonus as the Tank, with better saves.

The Star's Reputation provides contacts as well as followers (everyone's Reputation does, but the Star will have more of that than anyone else). 

Both classes also have more skill points than the tank, though less than the Brainiac. 

I'd say the core abilities of all 6 classes are equally useful: each provides a benefit all the time, and then an even better benefit if you spend an action point. 

So, from where I'm standing right now, I *think* all the classes will be equally attractive at all levels.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 24, 2007)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> I think armor should still have a feat, but maybe a single one for medium and heavy armor and light armor is free. Even individuals trained in combat are hampered by body armor (not talking the kind of vests that are covered under light armor), until they get used to it or are trained in it. To me, this maps directly to a feat--unless you want to roll an armor skill check every time you want to do something that inflicts (or should inflict) a penalty for encumbrance or armor. So, I think I would go with a single "Armor" feat, and allow characters to use light armor for free.




Hm... ok, you guys convinced me. A feat it is.


----------



## Salcor (Aug 24, 2007)

Vigilance,
   I applaud your efforts to improve D20 Modern.  I love the system and would like to see some edits.  For the sounds of it you are making it very occupationally based.  I wonder if you have ever looked at Mechwarrior 3rd edition (classic mechwarrior).  This game was outstanding in that your character's history is what dictated skills.  So your character could start out on the farm as a child, attend high school then join the military.  And each level occupation had a requirement for attributes and skill levels to enter.  Could get a little complex for older characters, but it was a great system.


Salcor


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 24, 2007)

Salcor said:
			
		

> Vigilance,
> I applaud your efforts to improve D20 Modern.  I love the system and would like to see some edits.  For the sounds of it you are making it very occupationally based.  I wonder if you have ever looked at Mechwarrior 3rd edition (classic mechwarrior).  This game was outstanding in that your character's history is what dictated skills.  So your character could start out on the farm as a child, attend high school then join the military.  And each level occupation had a requirement for attributes and skill levels to enter.  Could get a little complex for older characters, but it was a great system.
> 
> 
> Salcor




I've never played mechwarrior, but I have played games with lifepath style character generation. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?


----------



## Salcor (Aug 24, 2007)

Yeah pretty much.  It seems like for a modern game that is probably the most accurate way of depicting skills, feats, talents, etc.  It almost seems like for this system you might be reverting to the CoC D20 way of doing it.  Perhaps your occupations and life path identify what you class skills are, and then your 'class' identifies your BAB, Saves, HPs, etc.


On another subject I was looking at your blog about adding the combat skills (firearms, weapons, unarmed).  Now you said that you are viewing those not as a skill based combat system but to identify what weapons a character can use.  So would it be that for a character to use a handgun they need firearms rank 1, and to used autofire they need firearms rank4.  Also how does that apply for unarmed combat, does unarmed rank 1 = nonlethal punching at 1d4, and unarmed rank 6 = combat martial arts with 1d4 lethal damage?


salcor


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 24, 2007)

Salcor said:
			
		

> Yeah pretty much.  It seems like for a modern game that is probably the most accurate way of depicting skills, feats, talents, etc.  It almost seems like for this system you might be reverting to the CoC D20 way of doing it.  Perhaps your occupations and life path identify what you class skills are, and then your 'class' identifies your BAB, Saves, HPs, etc.





I'm not doing a full-on lifepath. I've just broken out Occupation into two things: Background and Occupation. 

Background will give you some bonus skill ranks and some wealth, while occupations will give you wealth, perks and enhanced skill and feat access, basically modifying your class. 

This solves the idea that class=profession to me nicely, and puts classes on the job of identifying your adventuring role.

For example, if your Occupation is Assassin, do you get up close and deliver a devastating series of hits with a sword (Powerhouse), take out the target with a well-placed shot from a distance then run like hell (Speedfreak), wade in through the crowd Terminator style to get to your target (Tank), brilliantly bypass the target's alarms and slip poison into his cognac (Brainiac), weasle your way onto his cooking staff (Empath) or make the target fall in love with you and kill him on your honeymoon (Star). 



> On another subject I was looking at your blog about adding the combat skills (firearms, weapons, unarmed).  Now you said that you are viewing those not as a skill based combat system but to identify what weapons a character can use.  So would it be that for a character to use a handgun they need firearms rank 1, and to used autofire they need firearms rank4.  Also how does that apply for unarmed combat, does unarmed rank 1 = nonlethal punching at 1d4, and unarmed rank 6 = combat martial arts with 1d4 lethal damage?
> 
> 
> salcor




I actually posted the Unarmed SKill on my blog to give folks an idea of what I was going for.

As you can see, the Unarmed Skill determines your base unarmed damage, and then brings together a series of abilities (disarm, trip, grapple) that are often spread out all over d20 books in a confusing mess between combat, feats and skills. 

These are brought together under the skill and given a clean, unified resolution method. No more hunting for the grapple rules in one place, the trip rules somewhere else and when you find them, realizing knowing how one works doesn't help you AT ALL to figure out how the other works, because they're written like they come from completely different games. 

The Firearms and Weapons skills will be similar, bringing things under the skill that used to be all over the place, like burst fire and weapon proficiencies.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Aug 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I really, really think classes are integral to the appeal of d20.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Xander was the Zeppo.


----------



## FraserRonald (Aug 25, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Hm... ok, you guys convinced me. A feat it is.




Then my work here is done.

Hang on, *no* it isn't! I want to see how this thing freakin' turns out!


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 25, 2007)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Hang on, *no* it isn't! I want to see how this thing freakin' turns out!




Awesome! I keep having doubts about A) giving too much away or B) giving away the wrong bits and convincing everyone _not_ to buy this book 

Anyhoo... general status update: book is currently at 68 pages... combat is pretty far along (I started with lethal and non-lethal damage because... oh god).

Weapons and armor are done... movement... it's pretty much fully functioning at this point, which means my players have been unleashed on it to wreak hav- err- playtest!

Edit: Though I am currently asking myself whether this needs to be "complete". 

I'm not sure anyone really needs another explanation of dice, how to generate a character... but it's going to be damn near a self-contained game anyway. So I'm waffling.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 26, 2007)

BTW- playtesting has begun. 

There are some sample characters here and here


----------



## Roudi (Aug 26, 2007)

I am so very jealous of your playtesters right now.


----------



## tinktinktinktink (Aug 27, 2007)

I'm sure some (maybe all) of this has been covered already. Skills are too fragmented in d20 Modern:

Athletics - Climb, Jump, Swim
Persuasion - Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate

Balance should be a function of Tumble. Breaking that into a separate skill was needless fragmentation.

I'm still on the fence about Hide/Move Silently versus Spot/Listen. On the one hand, those who say that stealth becomes nearly impossible when you have four people making eight opposed rolls. On the other hand, I like the image of a guard who heard something, but comes over, can't find the source of the noise and ... falls dead of a silenced double-tap.

Knowledge skills - Get rid of some of them, please.

Advanced Firearms Proficiency and Burstfire, like Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting in D&D 3.0, should be one feat instead of two.

The driving rules in d20 Modern absolutely sucked.

Expanded use of skill points. Possibly make them reset between adventures instead of being expendable for all time and then, bam, you're out of luck.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 27, 2007)

tinktinktinktink said:
			
		

> I'm sure some (maybe all) of this has been covered already. Skills are too fragmented in d20 Modern:
> 
> Athletics - Climb, Jump, Swim
> Persuasion - Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate




Done and done (except its athletics and Influence).



> Balance should be a function of Tumble. Breaking that into a separate skill was needless fragmentation.




Done.



> I'm still on the fence about Hide/Move Silently versus Spot/Listen. On the one hand, those who say that stealth becomes nearly impossible when you have four people making eight opposed rolls. On the other hand, I like the image of a guard who heard something, but comes over, can't find the source of the noise and ... falls dead of a silenced double-tap.




I went with a Perception skill for spot listen and a Stealth skill for Hide/Move Silently. 

In any case I could combine skills, I did. 



> Knowledge skills - Get rid of some of them, please.




A lot of knowledge skills are merged into other skills, such as Chemistry, Engineering, Legal etc. 



> Advanced Firearms Proficiency and Burstfire, like Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting in D&D 3.0, should be one feat instead of two.




These are gone entirely. Autofire is a function of the Firearms skill, Two-Weapon Fighting a function of the Weapons skill. 



> The driving rules in d20 Modern absolutely sucked.




I'm not sure I want to tackle vehicles and vehicle combat in this book. It's already 68 pages and that's something I'm starting to think will get bumped. 



> Expanded use of skill points. Possibly make them reset between adventures instead of being expendable for all time and then, bam, you're out of luck.




This I'm not prepared to do, but I was so aggressive about merging skills, and allowing knowledge contacts, that there are far fewer cases of players hitting their heads on tables wishing they had skill "X" so far.


----------



## Committed Hero (Aug 27, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> A lot of knowledge skills are merged into other skills, such as Chemistry, Engineering, Legal etc.



Do you think it's possible to integrate knowledge checks into a character's background, occupation, and/or hobby?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 27, 2007)

Committed Hero said:
			
		

> Do you think it's possible to integrate knowledge checks into a character's background, occupation, and/or hobby?




Well, all three are granting skills, so if you wanted to do that, you could. 

Also, Backgrounds and Hobbies grant 4 ranks in various skills, and most feats that have a skill requirement require 4 ranks. I did this to expand the range of feat options, as well as the primary purpose of giving PCs a basic proficiency in a wide range of skills.


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 28, 2007)

Vigilance, something I've had some degree of success with thus far in my own little ruleset design was to simply fold the concept of knowledge checks into most of the other skills. For example, something like Knowledge (Nature) was subsumed into Survival, and Knowledge (Technology) became part of the Technology skill (which also encompassed Computers, among other things).

In essence, it lets a group fudge things and assume that if you have practical knowledge of something, then you also likely have some theoretical knowledge of it too. No more rolling your eyes when the local gearhead has all the ranks in Craft he needs to do his job, but can't pass a Knowledge check about his field to save his life, or for a more D&D-centric example, chuckling when the Ranger succeeds on his Survival check to know that those berries are poisonous only to respond with "I dunno" when asked what kind of berries they are.


----------



## Sketchpad (Aug 28, 2007)

Personally, I'd take a page from d20 CoC and use one class that could be hyper modified with Talent Trees ala SWSE.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 28, 2007)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Vigilance, something I've had some degree of success with thus far in my own little ruleset design was to simply fold the concept of knowledge checks into most of the other skills. For example, something like Knowledge (Nature) was subsumed into Survival, and Knowledge (Technology) became part of the Technology skill (which also encompassed Computers, among other things).
> 
> In essence, it lets a group fudge things and assume that if you have practical knowledge of something, then you also likely have some theoretical knowledge of it too. No more rolling your eyes when the local gearhead has all the ranks in Craft he needs to do his job, but can't pass a Knowledge check about his field to save his life, or for a more D&D-centric example, chuckling when the Ranger succeeds on his Survival check to know that those berries are poisonous only to respond with "I dunno" when asked what kind of berries they are.




For the most part that's what I did. Life sciences is part of medicine, physical sciences is part of Engineering, etc.

Also, Academics, my version of the knowledge skill, can be made more useful, because you can use a perk to have it apply to multiple skills.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2007)

Hey guys, just wanted to drop a line that playtesting is continuing, and that there's an assortment of new, higher level NPCs up for those interested in seeing how the characters are developing and how my players' strategies are evolving as they get to know the rules better.


----------



## Baduin (Aug 30, 2007)

I have one suggestion. Get rid of the Tank class. That is one of the most unfortunate inventions peculiar to RPG games - a character who wants to be hit. The only literary character who wants to be hit is the hero of "Venus in furs" by baron von Sacher-Masoch - and he isn't a resilient brute. In fact, he is remarkably wimpy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_in_Furs

On the other hand, there is a great deal of literary characters who are improbably resilient. Amber Diceless made me realize that - since Corwin has there Enduranceas his main ability. They are in fact exactly such characters - Corwin himself, most of Zelazny heroes, Philip Marlowe, hero of Die Hard films, even Indiana Jones, many heroes of MacLean etc.

They are not bullet proof and don't want to get hit. Get rid of Damage Reduction and Energy Resistance. But they are able to heal quicker, to fight even when wounded etc. Something like Second Wind from Saga would be better. They are also lucky - extra Action Points would be quite proper, or perhaps extra uses for Action Points.

They are emphatically not stupid muscle-bound brutes. You have Strong hero for that, anyway, and there is no need for a second class which is essentially the same. They are the most versatile characters. They are not specialized in any skill, but can do virtually anything if necessary. Some general bonus to all skills, or ability to gain a temporary competence in a skill (but only moderate competence) would reflect this well.

In short, this type of hero is best shown in a class like Factotum in D&D, not tanking classes from MMORPGs. The actor you should think of is Bogart, not Schwartzenegger.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2007)

Thanks for the input, but... (and you knew there was going to be one)

I disagree entirely on there being no characters in literature who want to get hit. 

Colossus is the character who takes hits that would level many of the X-men such as Storm or Nightcrawler. 

In fact, you could insert the Brick from any super hero team into that sentence, followed by two physically weaker members of the team. 

Goliath for Scarlet Witch, Wonder Man for Wasp, etc.

Also, what is a Bodyguard/Secret Service Agent? 

I'd also put John McClean (I think that's his name), the lead character from the Die Hard movies in this category. His defining characteristic to me is soaking up TONS of punishment. 

And finally, there is the iconic pulp boxer with the iron jaw, who absorbs tremendous punishment while winning the boxing match. 

The character who is physically resilient and soaks up punishment is much more of a literary icon than you seem to be aware of. 

Finally, I don't see the Powerhouse and the Tank as being redundant at all. More like two sides of the same coin.

In fact, I see the Powerhouse, Speedfreak and Tank as being three sides of the same coin (ok, a non-euclidean coin but still). 

They're all three combat specialists who get the job done in different ways. Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Colossus. 

And yes, that's another X-men reference, but I honestly find comics a better template for RPGs than most other types of fiction.

Most novels and films, for instance, are based around the lone hero.

Whereas comics frequently feature large groups where each character has a role to fill.


----------



## Baduin (Aug 30, 2007)

I read a book about the ways to detect lies. Apparently according to some research policemen are not better at detecting lies than normal people. Only Secret Service agents had a clear advantage - because they have to constantly observe the crowd. They have  to look for a man who will draw a weapon and react before he shoots, so they must be able to detect his intention from his face. 

In fact, Secret Service agents are not selected because they are impervious to bullets. They must have iron nerve, perfect aim and a sixth sense. Perhaps you have sometimes to throw yourself on a grenade - but it is not because you are sure you will survive.

And I hope we are not speaking about Mutants&Masterminds here? A superhero invulnerable to bullets is quite popular, but normal men generally have to do without that remarkable ability.

An iron-jawed boxer has certainly a high Constitution. But why a separate class should be necessary for him? Why should he have skills different from another strong, but glass-jawed boxer? Constitution bonus to hit-points shows the difference nicely. 

The characters who keep going regardless of situation are certainly popular - I think I mentioned some. Wolverine is a good example - although you need to remember that his invulnerability is due to supermetal and superpowers, not training. On the other hand, he certainly doesn't seem to be unskilled or stupid, I think? I would dare to say that he is quite competent. Similarly Batman, or Bond in the latest film. Both are good examples of a character class I would wish to see.

The examples of that archetypes usually aren't mountains of muscle. In fact, among normal men the highest Constitution should be typical for a marathon runners etc. They don't look like they are invulnerable to bullets.

That is why I think that the present Tough Hero or Tank class should be partially removed and partially combined with Strong Hero.

But I think there is a need of another class, both resilient and skilled. There is no lack of archetypes for it. I think a generalist who is able to do something in any situation, and who can keep going when all others lack either endurance or ideas should also be useful in a party. He could call such an archetype Hard-baked, Survivor, Die-hard or something similar.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2007)

I really have no clue where you got the idea that the Tank wasn't going to be skilled. 

I basically took a page from Grim Tales, which took the 6 base classes (each based on ability score) and extended them to 20 levels.

That seemed real popular with folks (one of those folks being me), and as I thought about it more, I realized how many characters you could model with classes based on the 6 attributes, turned into archetypes based on party roles. 

But I never meant to imply that the tank was dumb.

I basically have three variations on the combat specialist, and three variations on the skill specialist.

There might not NEED to be 6 classes, but that was the route that felt most natural to me for a variety of reasons.

Also, I think you're missing how modifiable these 6 archetypes are.

You get to pick a background, an occupation, a hobby, a class, feats and character disadvantages.

You can also change your class after 1st level through multi-classing, and change your occupation. 

So the classes are far from being a straight-jacket.

They're just there to do what classes SHOULD do (in my opinion): that is, provide party roles, niches that help smooth the process of creating a balanced party.

One of those niches, both in games and fiction, as you yourself pointed out, is "dude who can really suck up damage". 

I feel that's a perfectly legitimate niche for building a class around. 

I agree there's plenty of other archetypes I could have used, including a "generalist" archetype.

However, my personal experience is that players prefer a strongly defined niche from a class over something general. I count this as the reason no one can write a Bard class that folks are happy with.

So I went with "fighter who is good at pressing the attack", "fighter who is good at avoiding damage", "fighter who sucks up damage", "tech-based skill guy", "skill guy with great saves" and "skill guy who knows how to get folks to see his way/leader guy".

These types of options are so popular in games, we see them in games that don't even HAVE classes.

For example, Fallout assumes players will tend to fall into "melee combat boy", "ranged combat boy", "stealth boy" and "charisma boy". 

Now sure, that's 4 archetypes not 6, but variety is the spice of life.


----------



## iwatt (Aug 30, 2007)

Baduin said:
			
		

> But I think there is a need of another class, both resilient and skilled. There is no lack of archetypes for it. I think a generalist who is able to do something in any situation, and who can keep going when all others lack either endurance or ideas should also be useful in a party. He could call such an archetype Hard-baked, Survivor, Die-hard or something similar.




But isn't that what multiclassing is for? 

Most Indy builds I have seen are Tough-Smart (Tank-Brainiac). Indy is a smart guy who also happens to have a high resiliency. He isn't the msot skilled combatant, or the strongest, or the fastest. But he's tough and he's smart. And lucky 

Most Die-Hard builds I've seen are Tough-Charismatic (Tank-Star), or Tough-Dedicated (Tank-Empath). And if you saw how he defeats the hot kungfu chick or the main bad guy in Die Hard 4.0, you see a guy who definitely uses his toughness to his advantage.



Spoiler



He freaking shoots through himself for pete's sake! And I want a class that represents that


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2007)

I *so* need to see that movie.


----------



## Baduin (Aug 30, 2007)

If you need multiclassing to get an archetype, your classes are badly constructed. Classes should be archetypes by themselves. If you wish people to construct archetypes, use a point-buy system.

Also, if the hero of Die Hard shot through himself, he wasn't bulletproof. I haven't seen that 
one, so I will say only that everyone can shoot through his own body. The question is what he could do after that.

Additionately - thinking that Strong Hero is strong, Smart Hero intelligent etc is a mistake. Strength and Intelligence are described by abilities, not class. Class describes mostly training. There is no need to imagine the Tough Hero more or less intelligent than any other class. He certainly doesn't need intelligence to the same degree as the Smart hero - but the class itself don't have to assume low intelligence and lesser skills.

Also, I think a generalist would prove to be quite useful in the game - as long as he doesn't have to sing. A class build on blocking bullets with his own body makes no sense. A class with ability to heal quicker and to keep going longer does.

My suggestion for changes: The Resilience ability is right, but "once per encounter" will not do. You can say eg: "To use Resilience again you need 5 minutes of rest" or something similar. 

Will save should be higher - High or at least Medium. Hit points should be the same as for the Strong Hero. Class skills: only Athletics (Str), Firearms (Dex), Outdoorsman (Wis), Read/Write Language (None), Speak Language (None), Streetwise (Wis), Unarmed (Str) and Weapons (Str). Skill points per level - about 8 (about the same as smart hero). 

Special: when taking levels in that class you treat any skill below half character (not class) level as a class skill. That way he will know a lot of things, but not as well as the Smart Hero.

Class feats: Get rid of damage reduction and energy resistance. Fast healing and damage reduction working only against non-lethal damage would be OK.


----------



## iwatt (Aug 30, 2007)

Baduin said:
			
		

> If you need multiclassing to get an archetype, your classes are badly constructed. Classes should be archetypes by themselves.




That's were we part ways I'm afraid. IMO, multiclassing from a core of broad classes is better than a plethora of base classes. YMMV. Of course there's more than X archetypes, but you'll want to draw the line somewere. I think you're not seeing the whole picture: The Tough hero isn't about hoping he get's hit, it's about shrugging off hits if they do happen. I see that as different enough from the guy who hit's really really hard or the guy who's very hard to catch.



> Also, if the hero of Die Hard shot through himself, he wasn't bulletproof. I haven't seen that
> one, so I will say only that everyone can shoot through his own body. The question is what he could do after that.




Who ever said the Tank was bullet proof? And what he did was walk out of that fight. He's just that tough


----------



## Mokona (Aug 30, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> 6 base classes (each based on ability score)...[that] seemed real popular with folks



From where do you get the idea that this breakdown of classes is popular?



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Also, I think you're missing how modifiable these 6 archetypes are.  ...
> 
> They're just there to do what classes SHOULD do (in my opinion): that is, provide party roles, niches that help smooth the process of creating a balanced party.



*Wizards of the Coast* has clearly outlined their concept of roles for *Dungeons & Dragons* 4th Edition.  All four of those roles relate to how characters interact when dealing with opponents: Defense, Damage-dealing, Artillery/Suppression, and Leadership.  I believe that Archetype relates more to flavor or concept which is distinctly separate from Role.  Technically one archetype could be found filling more than one role or multiple archetypes could be played to fill the same role in the party.



			
				Baduin said:
			
		

> If you need multiclassing to get an archetype, your classes are badly constructed.



QFT  

Vigilance,

Can you clarify the roles you envision?  So far it sounds like you have only two roles: Combat machine vs. Skill jockey.  Then within each role you have three styles each for Combat (offense, dodge, fortitude) and Skills (technician, saving throws, leadership).

PS to all in the Tank discussion: Hit Points don't equal damage.  More Hit Points mean that you "avoid" blows just as much as DR or Armor Class.  Those three items are just mechanical methods to represent the same thing.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> Vigilance,
> 
> Can you clarify the roles you envision?  So far it sounds like you have only two roles: Combat machine vs. Skill jockey.  Then within each role you have three styles each for Combat (offense, dodge, fortitude) and Skills (technician, saving throws, leadership).




Well, you are pretty close to the way I envision the classes.

But I'd like to point out that class will definitely NOT be the only thing that defines your character and might not even be the most important thing. You'll also have a background (defining what your character did in the past), an occupation that covers what he does for a living now (these cover just about everything you'd find as an advanced class in d20 Modern and more, from Assassin, to Soldier, to Dancer, to Martial Arts Instructor), finally, you get a hobby, and then you can add character disadvantages onto that to flesh out your characters personality.

Oh yeah, and you get a class too 

So that leaves classes to do what classes do best, define party roles. Although they have flavor built in, D&D classes do this too, and the D&D classes are basically "combat boy", "skill boy" and "magic boy" in various flavors. 

Still, I've said this before and people don't seem to fully grok it, so perhaps an example will help.

As a huge Sleeper Cell fan (much more my speed that "24"), I use as my iconic character Special Agent Darwyn Al-Sayeed of the FBI, mole inside an al-Qaeda sleeper cell operating inside the United States and planning a major terrorist attack. 

We start with Background.

Now we know from the show that Darwyn was an Army Ranger before he joined the FBI, so I set his Background as "military".

This gives Darwyn 4 ranks each in three skills, selected from the following list: Athletics, Engineering, Firearms, Outdoorsman, Perception, Stealth, Unarmed, Vehicles and Weapons. 

It also gives Darwyn a little bit of Wealth. 

I select Athletics, Firearms and Stealth. Darwyn receives 4 free ranks in each of these skills, representing the training he received during his Army days. However, they are not added to his class skill list, because he's not currently a soldier.

As for what he IS, we now we move to Darwyn's occupation. 

This is clearly Spy, at least for his primary occupation (we'll talk about his bit as an FBI agent in a bit). 

This adds three skills to Darwyn's class skill list: Crime, Influence and Perception. These are considered class skills regardless of class for as long as Darwyn stays in this occupation. He can leave it whenever he chooses, though this will impose some limitations on him while he transitions from one job to the next.

But Darwyn's not changing jobs right now, he has a mission, so let's not worry about that just yet 

Darwyn's occupation also gives him 4 Improved Feats to choose. Not only can he take these feats whether or not they're on his class feat list, they work better for him than for another character, either because he uses them everyday on the job, or because he's had the benefit of special training, what have you. 

Darwyn's improved feats are: Awareness, Low Profile (this feat actually allows Darwyn to shunt his Reputation into a separate identity in its improved form), Self-Help and Sneak Attack. 

Finally, Darwyn's occupation grants him two "perks", special job bennies that can be used to grant Wealth or Reputation increases, or change the way some of Darwyn's skills work, again through special training or on the job familiarity. 

Darwyn's perks are fluid and can be changed anytime he changes occupations, but also when he advances WITHIN his occupation (gains more ranks in occupation class skills or learns an occupational improved feat). 

Now, after all this, we move to class.

Darwyn is a committed Muslim, who is defined by his strong love of his religion. He sees the events of 911 as sparking a war within Islam, a war he is committed to winning for the side that believes Islam is a religion of peace. Darwyn is quiet, reserved but when he chooses to stand his ground he is a rock that cannot be moved.

Because of these qualities, I choose Empath for Darwyn's first character class.

Now Darwyn can multi-class at any time, but his FIRST class is improtant, because it determines Darwyn's core ability. Each character only gets one of these, based on the class he takes his first character level in. 

As an Empath, Darwyn gains the Resolute core ability, that allows him to add his Empath level to a saving throw once per day. If Darwyn spends an action point, he can treat a failed saving throw as a success. 

Like I said, Darwyn's faith and his love of America, combined with a strong sense of personal duty, have made him a rock. 

Now we get to Darwyn's hobby. To establish his cover identity, Darwyn actually does a long stretch in jail, where he infiltrates a prison Muslim gang with an influential religious leader (the prison librarian) who will be Darwyn's entry into the sleeper cell.

Because of this, we decide to make Darwyn's hobby crime. He might have been a boy scout before, an elite Army Ranger turned FBI agent whose patriotism is unquestioned. But now he's been an inmate, lived with a muslim prison gang, and on the outside, spends his time in seedy locations like strip clubs and adult movie theaters to maintain his cover. 

Darwyn's hobby further expands his skill base, giving him 4 free ranks in the crime skill. Like his Background skills, this is a basic familiarity. The skill isn't added to his class skill list like his three Occupation skills (but remember one of those is Crime as long as Darwyn is a spy). 

Now we pick Darwyn's feats. We pick three of the feats from his occupation's Improved Feat list: 

Awareness- Darwyn's life depends on his ability to be a step ahead, to read situations and determine the right course of action.

next we take Sneak Attack- as part of being a step ahead, when Darwyn has to fight, he strikes before his opponent is ready; he has to put his man down quick, before he has a chance to blow his cover (or take his life).

Next we take Low Profile- Darwyn's Reputation as a highly decorated Army Ranger and FBI Agent whose loyalty is beyond reproach has been erased (Reputation reduced to 0 per the feat); but rather than being a man with no identity, Darwyn has become someone different- an Army Ranger who left the military because of his radical beliefs, ending up in prison. 

Lastly we take a 4th feat, not on Darwyn's occupational feat list, the general feat Moonlighting. This allows Darwyn to gain some of the benefits of a second occupation. We select Law Enforcement, in keeping with Darwyn's double life.

As a final step, we give Darwyn some character disadvantages.

As part of his cover, Darwyn starts seeing a single mother, Gail who he meets through the sleeper cell. 

Though she should be part of his cover, she becomes much more and her relationship with Darwyn, a man she believes to be an ex-con working as a bag boy, threatens both their lives, as some local Los Angeles police stumble onto Darwyn, who they believe to be a radical Muslim, and attempt to use her to find out information on Darwyn without going to the FBI (who they don't want to "hog" the credit for this major bust the cops think they've lucked onto).

As Darwyn's player, I represent this state of affairs through the Dependent disadvantage, and the Secret disadvantage. 

Darwyn should discard Gail the moment she becomes a liability to his cover and not an asset but he won't. He also has a secret that he must keep from her, to prevent the sleeper cell from killing her to protect their "comrade".

These disadvantages provide no up-front benefit.

Instead, when they activate and make Darwyn's life even more wonderful than normal, Darwyn gets an Action Point as a reward for his trouble. This allows Darwyn to spend his action points much more freely, since he doesn't just have to wait to gain a level to recover his AP.

Of course, with a life like Darwyn's, he needs all the AP he can get.

Whew, I just keep talkin don't I?

Still, I hope this demonstrates that the character generation system is a lot more than picking from 6 classes, I hope it's a system everyone who buys the book loves as much as my players have.


----------



## tinktinktinktink (Aug 31, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I disagree entirely on there being no characters in literature who want to get hit. Colossus is the character who takes hits that would level many of the X-men such as Storm or Nightcrawler. In fact, you could insert the Brick from any super hero team into that sentence, followed by two physically weaker members of the team. Goliath for Scarlet Witch, Wonder Man for Wasp, etc. Also, what is a Bodyguard/Secret Service Agent? I'd also put John McClean (I think that's his name), the lead character from the Die Hard movies in this category. His defining characteristic to me is soaking up TONS of punishment. And finally, there is the iconic pulp boxer with the iron jaw, who absorbs tremendous punishment while winning the boxing match. The character who is physically resilient and soaks up punishment is much more of a literary icon than you seem to be aware of.




Absolutely.

Another fine example is Marv, from Sin City. His main line is, "I can take it. Come on, get in close. I can take it."

Oh, and I just realized that in my last comment about expanded use for skill points, what I meant to say was Action Points. Big mistake on my part.

I want to see expanded uses for Action Points. I'm considering giving people less, but allow them to reset or continue building up between adventures.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 31, 2007)

tinktinktinktink said:
			
		

> Another fine example is Marv, from Sin City. His main line is, "I can take it. Come on, get in close. I can take it."




Yeah, as a sort of neo-pulp, Sin City is rife with characters like that. Marv is reminiscent of RE Howard's boxing hero from the "Iron Man". 



> Oh, and I just realized that in my last comment about expanded use for skill points, what I meant to say was Action Points. Big mistake on my part.
> 
> I want to see expanded uses for Action Points. I'm considering giving people less, but allow them to reset or continue building up between adventures.




Well, I have beefed up AP, and I've also got multiple ways of recovering them without gaining a level. 

When your character disadvantages activate, you get an action point. If you have a contact (through your Reputation), the GM can also put that contact in danger, and if you go to his aid, you get an AP.

One of my personal problems with AP, since they activated class abilities and feats (and I've stuck with that), was that players hoarded them like crazy.

So I've laid out at least three ways, besides levelling, for you to recover AP.


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 31, 2007)

I like that you're using drawbacks as a method of regaining action points remniscent of _Mutants & Masterminds_ complications. It's something I've seen great success with... players who would otherwise not be interested in coming up with a backstory will at least want to have _some_ defined complications if only to be able to get Hero Point rewards from the GM. It's a mechanic that has worked extremely well for my group.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 31, 2007)

Yeah, this disadvantage system is one I've used many times, but in previous incarnations disadvantages actually gave XP. 

I liked that system, but seeing how Virtues and Vices work in True 20 got me thinking about using AP as a reward.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 4, 2007)

I'm going to be on the next episode of Accidental Survivors talking about Modern 2.0


----------



## Roudi (Sep 4, 2007)

WORD!

I'll be looking forward to that.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 6, 2007)

I've posted some new NPCs from playtest, including characters from the 3rd round of the grand melee (8th level characters).


----------



## Trevino Anterlux (Sep 6, 2007)

*Awsome*

Vigilance, 

             Just wanted to say I am very impressed with what you and your thread members have accomplished, well done! I especially like the action point recovery through good role playing, it will be a great motivator to help push those less active role players out of hiding and explode in the moment. The versatility you're bringing to the table with the occupations, skills feats perks and hobby is fantastic! I've been a passive reader for the most part but wanted to share with you my excitement. One quick thing though... please look over the driving rules eventually. Work your magic over there.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 6, 2007)

My actual plan on vehicles was to give them their own book. I have some very different ideas of things I want to do with vehicles. For now, this release is going to focus on characters and character level interactions (meaning there will be equipment of the weapons and armor variety). 

So for now, vehicles are just a way to get around. But as I said, I have some pretty specific ideas about how vehicle combat should work, so I will get there. 

And thanks for the compliments. Folks seem to like what I'm doing as they see more of it, which is an exceedingly good feeling!


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 6, 2007)

I love the 'Core Ability' rule, I think that's been something I've been looking for for quite a while, without even realising it.


----------



## broghammerj (Sep 8, 2007)

Chuck, 

With all this 4E talk, it got me thinking about your longterm plans with this book.  Is this something that will replace RPG Objects current books?  Will they convert to Modern 2.0?  Will you make it OGL so other companies can build on it?  There are a myriad of other similar questions along those lines.  Just curious what you are thinking?


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 8, 2007)

Well, this is a big deal for us and it's something we're going to support. I am already pondering whether or not to do a NEW setting, or convert one of our existing settings for Modern 2.0

I have also already decided how Modern 2.0 B&Fists will work, and I think it's going to blow some peoples' doors off. It's going to be even better than the existing version. 

The book will definitely be OGL, and I have (pre-release no less) sent it to numerous d20 Modern publishers in the hope that they will like it enough to use it.

We're also mulling over a True 20-esque sub license that will allow folks who want to use it to use our trade dress and get marketing support from us. 

As for "replacing" our current books, I'm not sure what you mean by that. We're not going to pull any of our old books. Doing a Modern 2.0 version of B&Fists will affect the d20 Modern B&Fists just as much as the True 20 version of B&Fists did.


----------



## broghammerj (Sep 8, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> As for "replacing" our current books, I'm not sure what you mean by that. We're not going to pull any of our old books. Doing a Modern 2.0 version of B&Fists will affect the d20 Modern B&Fists just as much as the True 20 version of B&Fists did.




By replaced I mean will Darwin's World be updated to Modern 2.0 and all future books released as 2.0, blood + (fill in the blanks) will all be released as 2.0, etc.  Will RPG objects d20 modern support decline?


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 8, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> By replaced I mean will Darwin's World be updated to Modern 2.0 and all future books released as 2.0, blood + (fill in the blanks) will all be released as 2.0, etc.  Will RPG objects d20 modern support decline?




The short answer is, that the market will decide that. 

We probably will do a Darwin's World conversion to Modern 2.0, just as we converted DW and B&Fists to True 20.

Those are our premier products, so converting them will give us a good way to judge interest. 

Edit: I will say though, a tie might very well go to Modern 2.0. I've been writing d20 Modern books, more or less full time, for going on 5 years. The new mechanics and the new options they open up have been a breath of fresh air, and my home group seems to be loving the game as well. 

Chuck


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 9, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I'm going to be on the next episode of Accidental Survivors talking about Modern 2.0




And the new episode is up! Head on over to hear Chuck's comments on Modern 2.0 and game design interspersed with the self-important babblings of the hosts.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 9, 2007)

I thought you said you were going to edit you guys out? 

Just kidding!

I had a blast, thanks for having me on guys!

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 11, 2007)

Elite NPCs (12th level) are now up!


----------



## ogre (Sep 14, 2007)

Vigilance,
Nice work so far, I like what I've read about your changes. One thing that I found enlightening was the move to take 'proficiencies' out of feats and into skills. It makes me wonder why 3E ever did that in the first place. I mean, being proficient is hardly 'feat-like'. 
Anyway, are there other feats that would make better skills? I agree with weapons, and armor, are there more?
Also, did you decide to make them skills for simplicity rather than introducing proficiencies back into the game? Do you see an issue with 'non-combat' classes gaining combat skills too easily?


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 14, 2007)

Thanks ogre!

I got rid of the proficiency feats for weapons and armor because I felt like they were a legacy of a class based system that didn't really fit in the modern world. 

There are some other things I folded into skills, like the d20M fast hero talents that increased your movement, those are now part of the Athletics skill. 

Except, to make it cleaner, I made several movement modes for humans: running, climbing, swimming and jumping. 

So as you gain ranks in Athletics, your run speed, climb speed, swim speed and jumping "speed" (distance) increase. 

Similarly, endurance is now part of the Athletics skill. 

Burst Fire, which was a feat, and Double Tap, are part of the Firearms skill. 

Power Attack is part of the Weapons and Unarmed skill, Shield use is part of the Weapons skill, and Two-Weapon fighting is part of the Weapon skill. 

Most of these require perks, which are things you get from your occupation in Modern20. Everyone gets two perks, and you can take a feat to get more perks. 

Best of all, perks can be changed over time, so you aren't locked into your perks. 

Explaining why your job's on the job training involves two-weapon fighting? That's the fun part!

So as you can see, things that are basically facets of being good with weapons, unarmed combat and firearms that are folded into the skills.

THis means that a character with 4 ranks in Weapons but a +15 BAB is a tremendously gifted natural fighter, but there would be things a character with a +10 BAB and and 10 ranks in Weapons would be better at (like targeting a specific area of the body or counterattacking). 

As for non-combat classes gaining combat skills, only one of the classes has a poor BAB (the Star), and only one has a good BAB (the Powerhouse). The other four classes have a medium BAB.

So while the Brainiac and Empath are considered skill specialists, they can become excellent combatants in their own right.

In fact, during the character balancing playtests, both the Brainiac and Empath did well in the combat roles their players chose. The Brainiac was an assassin and the Empath a martial arts specialist. 

BTW... for those wondering why the Star has a low BAB, all the classes were built to be equal, with Defense, BAB and Reputation balanced. Each class either has a low, a medium and a high, or two mediums and a low. 

So the Star has a low BAB, a medium Def, and a high Rep. 

But he also did VERY well in playtesting, winning several of the combats with his group of well-armed (the Star is *the* class for high Wealth) followers (recruited with the Star's high Reputation) that were very well coordinated (with the Star's high Leadership skill). 

In fact, the Star was the only class in the playtest that had to be made less powerful TWICE. 

And the players advocated nerfing him down again, but I felt the Star was just doing well because he had numbers on his side, and because being a party coordinator and fixer (the guy who goes out and gets the equipment for the combat characters) was his role, so he always had the best equipment.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 14, 2007)

And btw... playtesting is done, and the full range of NPCs is up at my blog. All 6 classes, with NPCs of 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th level.


----------



## ogre (Sep 14, 2007)

Appreciate the extended response. What are you doing up so late  Must be somewhere else in the world, at least I hope your not on night shift like me, blahhhh

So, yeah I think I'm falling in RPG love with it! Now, my big question... can I use it for non-personal use? Are you going to publish it OGL? The reason I'm asking is because I have been working on a d20 PA game for some time now and I think the skills system work fit perfectly. Of course, with the onslaught of 4E, I suppose when I finally release it, the 3E version will be an alternative, as I plan on converting to 4E asap and hopefully riding the wave . Anyway, I've got a playtest session starting this Sunday and lasting the next 8 weeks (a campaign test so to speak), so if it's available, I might try some of it. One main difference, I have setting specific classes
Now, I'm not one to steal peoples stuff, so just set me straight before I do anything rash.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 14, 2007)

It will be OGL.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 23, 2007)

So... what would people like to see for campaign settings?

Do we need a modern campaign setting?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So... what would people like to see for campaign settings?
> 
> Do we need a modern campaign setting?



This is a very difficult question.

I think, a good setting is required if you want to continually create material for it. For a real success, you need a few adventures for the game, otherwise many people will shy away due to the big preperation need. Rule Books are fine and dandy, but if I don't have a story to use them with, they are worthless.


D&D has a great advantage over d20 Modern - the D&D settings have been established a long time ago, and people are also accustomed to its "implied setting" (even if you don't use a specific setting). 
It's a lot harder to point out something like this for the Modern World. There are just so many things you can do in the Modern World, and it's hard to find a D&D implied setting equivalent for D20 Modern. 

In some way, D&D has an "everything including the kitchen sink"-approach to its setting. It got magic, dark gods, monsters of all kinds and all mythologies.

A D20 Modern setting that is equivalent to this needs to combine a lot of modern elements:
- Espionage (Realistic & James Bond Like)
- Private Detective / Film Noir Stories)
- Law Enforcement
- Gangsters and other Criminals
- High Level Action (Martial Arts & Shot them up)
- Tactical Military (Mercenaries or Soldiers)
- Superheroes (Heroes, X-Men, Genetic Engineering)
- Conspiracy Theories (X-Files, Alien Invasions, Secret Organizations)
- Sci Fi / Fantasy Elements (including Alternate Histories, like "Cold War didn't end/turn hot", "Fatherland", "Terrorists Nuke Washington DC", Dragons terrorize Europe)

To put this all together in a campaign setting _and_ in a rule setting isn't that easy.
Mechanically, the Superheroes part needs probably be cut to a lower level (Dark Angel Style instead of Heroes or even X-Men). 

The rest? It might work. The question is - how do you present it in a way that makes it clear that you can do it all. How do you create a back story that is complex enough to fit it all in, and yet not too over-defined and not too important to the setting (so it's easy to ignore it if you don't like it.)

How much focus do you want to give on current themes in the world ("War on Terror" is big today, but how does it interact with conspiracies, magical beings, superheroes? Can it be an offending to some if you include the theme and mix them? Will the setting make sense without them? Maybe people are more interested in older stories - like the Cold War spying.)

The above list isn't well thought out. Make a better one and polling the themes might be interesting to find the most interesting campaign setting.

What I think is generally a good idea:
Research the real themes you use enough so that people who know about them don't get annoyed by all the wrong "facts" put in the game. Alternately, put in a disclaimer "this is not Earth, it's a parallel world. Many things are as they are with us. But a few things only appear to be that way, and other things are outright different. 

Basically, if someone designs a D&D fantasy setting the first time, he can make up all kinds of stories and history to the setting he likes. You can't do it as easily with the modern world, because the modern world has a real history. If you diverge from it, people will notice it, and if you don't present it correctly and make clear where our knowledge of the real world diverges from the game world, people might find it ... well, annoying, uncomfortable. It's especially difficult because gamers can have very different types of knowledge for a topic, and if they base their expectations on it, and the setting diverges without notifying for it (or accounting for the expectation and give an explanation why it is actually different, contrary to what even a normal person in that world would assume), it's annyoing.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 25, 2007)

Hm... thanks Mustrum. Your post just gave me an idea of what might actually work.


----------



## Mokona (Sep 25, 2007)

Despite the modern moniker I would use _Modern 2.0_ rules for science fiction or fantasy games.

For sci-fi settings thing Marc Miller’s _Traveller_, _Star Frontiers_, _*Star Wars*_, or _Rifts_.

Modern rules also work for Steampunk fantasy games.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 25, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> Despite the modern moniker I would use _Modern 2.0_ rules for science fiction or fantasy games.
> 
> For sci-fi settings thing Marc Miller’s _Traveller_, _Star Frontiers_, _*Star Wars*_, or _Rifts_.
> 
> Modern rules also work for Steampunk fantasy games.




Yeah, one of my plans is to do a new version of my Prometheus Rising setting, which is a science fiction setting and one of my favorite settings I've ever run.

That would add sci-fi equipment, some alien races, starships and such to the mix.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 25, 2007)

Big Stuff.


----------



## direrodent (Oct 4, 2007)

A stupid and somewhat unimportant question about Modern20:

Since it appears to be an OGL, rather than D20, release, is Modern20 a stand alone game, with character generation and such, or does it require D20 Modern to use?

Doesn't really matter, since I own D20 Modern, just curious I guess.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 4, 2007)

direrodent said:
			
		

> A stupid and somewhat unimportant question about Modern20:
> 
> Since it appears to be an OGL, rather than D20, release, is Modern20 a stand alone game, with character generation and such, or does it require D20 Modern to use?
> 
> Doesn't really matter, since I own D20 Modern, just curious I guess.




It does contain character generation and experience rules, but the experience system in the game is somewhat more freeform than that found in most d20 games.


----------



## direrodent (Oct 4, 2007)

Excellent, I'll surely be checking it out soon. I'm always open to new ideas for handling XP. 

Thanks for the quick reply.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 6, 2007)

I got a final PDF today for last minute proofreading. 

We are SO close.

Also, I'd like to take this chance to thank everyone who posted to this thread. No matter how many times you posted, each and every one was a big help, and every one of your screen names will appear under "special thanks" in the book.


----------



## Baduin (Oct 7, 2007)

As regards setting, I have some suggestions (with the assumption you want to have a Modern, not SF setting, ie not a setting with interstellar star travel):

1) Create one setting. Every DM can create his own setting. Some want to roleplay in a favourite book, but you won't get IP rights, so this is immaterial. If anyone else is interested in a professional setting, it is because they want to have it ready to play and don't have to pay too much attention to it. In other words, if a GM wants some specific setting, he will create it himself. Accordingly I suggest a single setting, but broad enough to use for different purposes and different types of campaigns.
2) Since you will not be able to use a licenced setting, the best way to design one is to start with the kinds of games you can roleplay in it. There are two main activities in a modern RPG game - investigation and combat. You want investigation to take place in a fairly well-known setting - with cities, libraries etc, and usually with police. Alternatively, it can take place in a wilderness, with scarce population - but it will tend to quickly turn into combat. 
As for combat, it should take place in some spot when the players won't be afraid of police and won't be able to call for help.
Optimally, there should be also exploration - strange vistas, exotic temples, traps etc. And treasure, including powerful weapons you cannot buy in a shop.
Finally, you need a way for the PCs to gain money without a steady job.
3) It suggests the world should be similar but not identical to our own. Moreover, it should be divided into two zones - one more or less civilised, and the second wholly out of control.
4) The solution - you need a mixture of Stalker and Warhammer Dark Future, and perhaps TORG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torg

In Stalker novel by Strugatski brothers, Earth have been in a short contact with an alien reality (UFO landing or interdimenishional contact - it is not known). As the result there appeared destroyed Zones, filled with deadly natural hazards and incomprehensible alien technology, some of it quite magical. 

5) Short description of the proposed setting: 

Alternative Earth, technology level a bit more advanced that modern, but more variable (you can get some  SF artefacts if you pay enough, but day-to-day technology is obsolete from our point of view). States, rulers etc are called the same, but aren't identical (the President of USA is called Bush, but he is not the same person). The borders can be different, but it should be left open. 

This Earth have been touched by an alien reality. As the result there appeared Zones, where reality works according to a bit different rules. You can find there monsters, deadly traps (reversed gravity, high gravity etc, acids, illusion, deadly artifacts) and wonders - some incredibly expensive. No official forces would enter a Zone, so inside you are on your own (cell-phones don't operate). Some Zones are quite extensive (there should be a big one in the Amazonian jungle, in Kongo etc), some small (there can be a mini-Zone which covers a few buildings in a city). They are used by criminals, would-be wizards etc. Some Lovecraftian horrors can dwell inside or come out and prey on a city, also vampires etc. PCs are by default free-lance specialists who search Zones for anything valuable (you can find there longevity potions, universal cures, and even artifacts granting wishes - and much more valuable things). They can be also secret agents or private detectives.

It is not commonly known, but some Zones can be used as a gateway to quite different realities. Those other planes are filled mostly with ruins, monsters and few crazed survivors, however.

As a result of that irruption, many states have fractured. Capital cities are mostly under control, but in the out-back there rule militias etc. Even in USA there are some completely lawless areas which are not a part of Zones. Middle East is in the grip of a much more terrible insurgency. The Egypt is controlled by it already, and it influences much of Africa.

Their leader is known only as Black Mahdi. It is rumoured that he has been killed and managed a resurrection.  It is certain that his followers are sure that he can give them eternal life. As the result, he has many recruits from the West, some of them high military officials or scientists. They already managed to use a synthetized pox and advanced computer viruses against USA, and some desert states are nearly depopulated as the result (luckily, they didn't managed to deploy it on the coasts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Worm
http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/Dark-Winter.asp
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north573.html
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MayJun07/Hammes.pdf


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 8, 2007)

Well, I'm rather late to the party, but this thread was an interesting read nonetheless.

A couple of thoughts -

1. Depending to some degree on the referee, d20 _Modern_ already handles the issue of "too many" rolls with taking 10 or 20, which in turn also requires differing degrees of time investment. The Research, Knowledge, and Craft checks cited in the example of the bank vault can all be resolved by taking 10 on the roll, and if the character is struggling with the first two, then s/he can take 20, increasing the time required to find the answer - I would also argue that, if materials are not an issue, such as working in a well-stocked laboratory, a referee could allow the Crafting character to take 20 as well.

2. One of the ways I referee Knowledge and Research checks is to create a series of answers, each with its own DC, so one roll can reveal a little or a lot of information, depending on the degree of success. The "president of Wakanda" is a DC 10 Knowledge (current events) skill check (in other words, one for which a character with at least one skill rank will nail automatically by taking 10), or a DC 2 Research check (and I'd waive the time required if the character has Internet access, if that indeed is the only question being asked) - a successful skill check for either could also reveal a lot more information as well, depending on the roll.

In both of these cases, I don't have a problem playing more-or-less by the RAW, with a couple of minor tweaks based on my read as referee of what's actually happening in the game at the time the checks come up. I don't see these as barriers to "getting to the adventure."

And on that note . . .

3. I disagree that skill checks in prep are in fact a barrier to getting to the 'real action' - for many of the games I've run using d20 _Modern_, preparations are very much an active part of the adventure, not something to be 'got through' to get to the action. Mysteries, horror, espionage - all may require a good deal of in-game legwork, and for me that time spent on Research or Gather Information or Knowledge or Craft checks is very much genre appropriate and a part of the action, not apart from it.

4. I ran a Charismatic soldier in a military game - it's not always about the physical classes.

5. I resolved the "four checks" by allowing players to take the average of their characters' Hide/Move Silently bonuses and Spot/Listen bonuses, calling the combined skill bonus SNEAK and WATCH respectively - one roll for each, cut down on some of the randomness.

(I like the suggestion of reducing this to one roll, using DC = (skill) + 10, but hey, rolling against the players is fun, too!)

6. An alternative to combining skills is to grant more skill points instead - one idea I've toyed with but not tried yet is allowing a character additional skill points that may only be applied to class skills. For example, a Tough hero with 12 INT gets 4 skill points per level - my idea was to give the character two additional skill points (1/2 the skill points earned for the level, rounded down) that could only be applied to Tough class skills.

I'm not wild about some of the combined skills - too broad, to me - and I like the idea that certain base classes are better at some types of skills than others. I think that allowing a Tough hero to invest skill points in Intimidate as a class skill, but not Diplomacy or Bluff, makes sense and reinforces the archetype - lumping those together as 'Influence' definitely takes away from that in my opinion, even with the Perks rule (at least as I understood it - perhaps I missed something?).

And in the pet peeve department . . .

7. The class names are too precious by half. Some people find that 'flavorful' - I find it cloying. (This is one of the many reasons I dislike _Spycraft_ as well - way too cutesy for my tastes.)

Clearly I'm not who this game is aimed at - my own two-pages of house rules for d20 _Modern_ are more than adequate for my needs. Best of luck with your project, though.


----------



## Mokona (Oct 9, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> every one of your screen names will appear under "special thanks" in the book.



That's very kind, thanks!   



			
				Baduin said:
			
		

> It is not commonly known, but some Zones can be used as a gateway to quite different realities. Those other planes are filled mostly with ruins, monsters and few crazed survivors, however.



Funny, for about a week now I've been mentally building a campaign set in Victorian times with a Stargate that leads to the *Forgotten Realms* map (a post-apocalyptic version of it).  It would feel very similar like a gateway leading to ruins, monsters, and a few crazed survivors.  Odd.    

The whole idea of a fractured earth time-space is cool and with adventures zones it's very _City of Heroes_.  I'd be happy to see Vigilance apply his smarts to making a uniquely new take on the TORGish campaign concept.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 9, 2007)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Well, I'm rather late to the party, but this thread was an interesting read nonetheless.
> 
> A couple of thoughts -




Hey Shaman, thanks for the thoughts.

In general, I think some folks read the stuff I'm saying here and use that to reach conclusions far beyond what I actually think about d20M, or tried to do in Modern20.

Such is the nature of internet communication (or lack thereof). 

I haven't tried to get rid of preparation, merely streamline it. Reducing the amount of dice rolling in preparation by no means should be taken as a statement that I think in-character preparation should go away and die a lonely death. 

Along the same lines, I by no means feel (and I'm fairly certain I never said) that d20 Modern was "all about the physical classes".

I just feel that a class should get something pretty special in return for a slow attack bonus and a slow defense bonus, which a few of the mental classes in d20M have.

If you look at D&D, as a counter-example, classes with the worst BAB typically are spellcasting classes.

Conversely, I think the abilities the Smart and Charismatic Hero get are much more in line with those of other characters, certainly in line enough that they shouldn't have both a bad BAB and a bad Defense progression.

I mean, the Smart Hero has the Defense Bonus at 10th level that a Fast Hero has at 1st level. 

I was simply pointing out that some of the class balance is wonky, in my opinion.  

That doesn't equal "all about the physical classes" imo. 

It was just one example, of many, of places where I was correcting issues I had with d20M. If I didn't have any issues, I wouldn't have taken several months, and a lot of productivity time that could have been risked on other money-making ventures, to write this book. 

It was certainly more work than, say, a sourcebook for an established game would have been. So if I didn't have a take on how the game could be improved, I wouldn't have gone down this road. 

This isn't to say that my take is the only take, I certainly hope no one took that away from comments I made in this thread. But I have been running d20 Modern for a long time, since before the books were released in fact, since Wizards was kind enough to hook me up with a pre-release copy of the rules. 

I've also spent a lot of time tinkering with those rules and getting inside the mechanics. 

Again, I'm sure others have different takes than mine, equally valid. 

This is a book that I hope will do for d20M what Monte's alternate PHB did for D&D.

Certainly it won't be to everyone's taste, but I think for some it will be a nice alternative.


----------



## mrswing (Oct 11, 2007)

Saw it, bought it.

Hope you do really well with it!


----------



## SteveC (Oct 12, 2007)

I just wanted to say that I picked this up, and it looks very interesting. It will actually take me a bit to go through all of this, but it looks like you have another winner!

--Steve


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 12, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I just wanted to say that I picked this up, and it looks very interesting. It will actually take me a bit to go through all of this, but it looks like you have another winner!
> 
> --Steve




Thanks, I hope you like it!

Chuck


----------



## Dr. Halflight (Oct 12, 2007)

Charles, I really am pleased & impressed by Modern20.  I like it at least as well Star Wars Saga Ed & its exactly what I wanted from True20.  Any plans to for including Magic or Psionics in the near future?  Right now i'm looking closesly at either Psychic's Handbook or SW Saga's powers.


----------



## The Dude (Oct 12, 2007)

I am currently running a bastardization of Blood & Relics and Project Javelin, as well as a superheroes vs. terrorism and pirates-in-space games.  Just as soon as I can house rule a few things, I will be converting all three of my tables over.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 12, 2007)

Dr. Halflight said:
			
		

> Charles, I really am pleased & impressed by Modern20.  I like it at least as well Star Wars Saga Ed & its exactly what I wanted from True20.  Any plans to for including Magic or Psionics in the near future?  Right now i'm looking closesly at either Psychic's Handbook or SW Saga's powers.




Thanks a lot!

On Magic, actually, a couple of my colleagues, David Jarvis and David Gallant have dibs on that and I think their ideas are really rocking.


----------



## Dr. Halflight (Oct 12, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Thanks a lot!
> 
> On Magic, actually, a couple of my colleagues, David Jarvis and David Gallant have dibs on that and I think their ideas are really rocking.




I can't wait to see what they work up.  I hope sales indicate more Modern20 Soon!


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Oct 15, 2007)

I'm a little late to the party but here's my 2 cents for setting.

Go with something like Bureau 13 / Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense / Section 9 (Jackie Chan Adventures), etc. Then you can toss in all sorts of bizarre stuff and not be wrong like the Hellboy movie suggested that Area 51 was actually in New Jersey. Jackie Chan Adventures especially had pretty much everything but the kitchen sink - ninjas, demons, vampires, the Monkey King, demon ninjas, time travel, Luchadors, sci fi, spy stuff, chi wizards, etc.

Naturally there has to be at least 1 bad guy group conspiring against the good guys (mentioned above). But also have some neutral parties like a version of the Knights Templar defending the Grail and other religious artifacts, not necessarily Judeo-Christian even, or any number of conspiracy groups that believe the world will end on December 21, 2012 (Mayan Calender), either working to prevent it or bring it sooner. For something less fantastic, there are others that want to bring about the New World Order or plain want to rule the world like a James Bond villain or heck, Dr. Drakken or even Duff "World's Deadliest Golfer" Killigan. Ok, maybe not him.

Great. I just muddied the water. Shoot for something middle of the road with options to tweak it into something lighthearted like Jackie Chan Adventures or grimmer like Millenium / X-Files. Ok, I suppose Dark*Matter could be modified.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 15, 2007)

Well, my first impulse was to go with settings that would each contain crunch useful to generic campaigns in general.

Someone on my blog suggested I do toolkits, GURPs style. So, Horror20, Military20 and so forth.

I'm honestly debating that.


----------



## Mokona (Oct 15, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Someone on my blog suggested I do toolkits, GURPs style.



D20 *Wizards of the Coast* already used this approach (_D20 Apocalypse_, _D20 Cyberscape_).  Which means it should work fine.

Perhaps you could differentiate your products by slicing the toolkits a little more narrowly.  Would it work financially to separate cybernetics from VRNet and also from droids?  Furthermore, the cybernetics appropriate to _Ninjas & Superspies_ are different than those for _Rifts_ style far-future games.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 15, 2007)

Dr. Halflight said:
			
		

> I can't wait to see what they work up.  I hope sales indicate more Modern20 Soon!




Hiya Dr. Halflight. This is david Jarvis. Right now I'm hard at work on Vehicles20. Here's an idea of what is changing with regards to vehicles as I strive to create a fun-amped up vehicles supplement for M20.

__________________

_The format for vehicle stat blocks has expanded, adding all pertinent information about the vehicle. The new block contains the vehicle’s armor rank, max hard points, and the toughness save, available stunts, potential upgrades, restriction classes sensor suites and defense mechanisms.

Size determines the vehicle’s Max hard Points, the defense modifier and the toughness modifier.

Vehicles no longer have hit points. Vehicles now degrade by one or more categories each time the vehicle armor fails toughness save. Succeeding on a toughness save indicates the vehicle’s armor absorbed the damage.

Hard points have been added to vehicles. Hard points determine how many weapons can be placed on a given vehicle.

Armor replaces vehicle hardness. Additionally armor has two descriptors; *Weapon immunity and DR.* 
Weapon immunity indicates which weapons are effective against a given vehicle. This entry scales by armor rank. When weapons actually do damage a vehicle, the Damage Reduction entry determines how much damage reduction applies to any damage the crew/ passengers might suffer.

Vehicle Maneuverability has changed drastically. A vehicle’s standard maneuverability rating now defines how well the vehicle can maneuver in any given situation and can degrade if components which contribute to the vehicle’s maneuverability (such as tires) take damage.

Vehicle initiative bonuses now degrade by -1 each time the vehicle’s maneuverability rating drops.

Stunts are now categorized by vehicle. A penalty to the Vehicles skill check is applied when attempting a stunt not available to a certain vehicle.

Chase rules have been restructured for speed and simplicity, focusing on dramatic resolution rather than an overly complex rule set which bogs down the game. GM’s will be provided with rules to quickly build exciting, cinematic chase scenes for your game.

A vehicle construction system has been implemented, allowing you to design new types of vehicles.
_
___________________

*Magic20* is also going to have alot of really fun stuff.  Lately I've been inspired by the *Supernatural* tv series. It's gritty and decidedly_low_magic, which I think fits perfectly into what Charles Rice has in mind. You'll likely see _modernized_ variants on his Legends of Sorcery system. There will be a great deal of focus on rituals, specifically ways to make them easier to use and also ways to make them more applicable to adventuring.

For instance, the time it takes to cast a ritual also translates to the length of time a ritual's effect will be active. So say you do a ritual version of Enhance ability. Instead of lasting a minute/level, it might last an hour per level, or maybe even a day per level, depending on how long it takes to perform the ritual.

We'll also be handling the creating of charms and minor FX items a bit differently. You'll need a perk to be able to create a specific type of item, but that item will have great utility in the game. The more perks you take, the more types of items you'll be able to create.

The types of creatures you'll find are going to be firmly rooted in  Folklore and legend. There won't be and Orcs or Ogres in this baby.

Overall I think Vehicles20 and Magic20 are going to be a really fun supplements!


----------



## mikelaff (Oct 15, 2007)

Hey David,
Any release date on Magic20?


----------



## Urizen (Oct 15, 2007)

mikelaff said:
			
		

> Hey David,
> Any release date on Magic20?




Not yet. It's still in the planning stages while I work feverishly on Vehicles20. If all goes well I anticipate having it ready by the beginning of December.


----------



## Dr. Halflight (Oct 15, 2007)

Thanks for the previews David!

I'm super excited about MA20, V20 & Magic20!  And citing Supernatural as inspiration is great to hear.  Keep up the good work, because you guys have already got my money


----------



## elrics (Oct 15, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, my first impulse was to go with settings that would each contain crunch useful to generic campaigns in general.
> Someone on my blog suggested I do toolkits, GURPs style. So, Horror20, Military20 and so forth.
> I'm honestly debating that.




Seems to me you could legitimately get two dips from the well with this approach.  Start off with Modern20 Psionics (a general toolkit for kewl brain powerz in Modern20), and follow it up with The Hunters, a Modern20 Psionics Campaign Model (complete with campaign background, NPC collection, and minor alterations/expansions to the Modern20 Psionics system that tweak it for the Hunters universe).


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 15, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> D20 *Wizards of the Coast* already used this approach (_D20 Apocalypse_, _D20 Cyberscape_).  Which means it should work fine.
> 
> Perhaps you could differentiate your products by slicing the toolkits a little more narrowly.  Would it work financially to separate cybernetics from VRNet and also from droids?  Furthermore, the cybernetics appropriate to _Ninjas & Superspies_ are different than those for _Rifts_ style far-future games.




If I went with the toolkit approach, I'd probably go broader. 

If folks are interested in that approach, I'm assuming they'd rather I make the book broad enough so they can do *their* thing with it. 

I'd still like to get a few campaign models under my belt, maybe I'll do some mini-campaign models for the Modern Dispatch.

Hmmm.


----------



## jezter6 (Oct 15, 2007)

Due to the wild unpopularity of d20 Future, I think Future20 needs to get put up faster than Magic20. 

Don't forget a Gear20 to go with Vechicle20. I need my Blood and Circuits juices for Modern20 as well!


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 15, 2007)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Due to the wild unpopularity of d20 Future, I think Future20 needs to get put up faster than Magic20.
> 
> Don't forget a Gear20 to go with Vechicle20. I need my Blood and Circuits juices for Modern20 as well!





Future20 is definitely an interesting idea.

One of my issues in thinking about how we move forward is when is the right time to do that first non-Modern book.

There's a temptation when doing a book like this, that has a lot of nice new mechanics in its foundation, to say "and now here's Future20! and here's Fantasy20!"

Part of the temptation comes from the fact that those books would probably sell really, really well. 

Another part of the temptation is, as a designer, I want to show that these rules can do ANYTHING.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right call, at least not right away. 

Future is more of a gray area than fantasy, but my gut still tells me a focus on Modern gaming is most important right out of the gate, which is one reason why FX in Modern20 is limited to the optional Magic skill and that's it.


----------



## jezter6 (Oct 15, 2007)

Hrmm, well then...I guess my question is to Dave Jarvis - 

Can Vechicle construction rules in Ve20 be used for starships?


----------



## Urizen (Oct 15, 2007)

My plan is to cover vehicles of ALL modern / post modern genres, to give you everything you need  for vehicles right from the jump.

So yup. You'll see creation rules in there for spaceships.


----------



## jezter6 (Oct 15, 2007)

You're my new hero.


----------



## Mokona (Oct 16, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Another part of the temptation is, as a designer, I want to show that these rules can do ANYTHING.
> 
> But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right call...



You present a very interesting question.  Should _Future20_ be a supplement to _Modern20_ like the _Eberron Campaign Setting_ is an expansion to *Dungeons & Dragons*?

Or,

Is future, science fiction roleplay gaming better served by its own rules?  In this case _Future v.2.0_ would be its own core rules related to _Modern20_ in the same fashion that _D20 Modern_ is related to *Dungeons & Dragons*.

Material can be ported between _D20 Modern_ and *D&D* but they're not perfectly balanced for that situation.  This enables each (fantasy vs. modern) to do their home setting best and perhaps work for each other's setting for enterprising Dungeon Masters.  _D20 Future_ and _D20 Modern_ use the same base so they claim to be perfectly compatible but perhaps it is a fiction that one system can perfectly span both ends of the "Modern-Far Future" spectrum.

Technically we have three systems right now: fantasy *D&D*, present day _Modern20_ (or _D20 Modern_), and science fiction _*Star Wars* Saga Edition_.

This question would make a good poll topic.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 16, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> You present a very interesting question.  Should _Future20_ be a supplement to _Modern20_ like the _Eberron Campaign Setting_ is an expansion to *Dungeons & Dragons*?
> 
> Or,
> 
> ...




Personally, I think the best way to go about this is to first decide_what_content should be covered in a Future20 book.

For instance, should combat change in some way?

Should skills be expanded?

How about occupations and backgrounds, what is needed there?

Are you looking for weapons, new vehicles, new races?

Would the existing core classes need expansion?

Should there be a setting with it?

If the_core_system is solid (and I personally think it is), then a future book, wouldn't be much more than a setting/genre-specific supplement rather than a core book.


----------



## jezter6 (Oct 16, 2007)

I picked this up today while at work. Only gave it a side glance, but from all the other adaptations of adding some of True20ism into Modern20, I was really hoping for a quality damage save mechanic instead of hit points. I'm kinda bummed about that, but hopefully more reading will pick me back up later tonight.

Let the house ruling begin!!!


----------



## elrics (Oct 17, 2007)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> I was really hoping for a quality damage save mechanic...



You're in luck!  Check out the Hit Location and Injury rules on pp. 81-82...just as fast as True20's damage save mechanic, but far less abstract.



			
				jezter6 said:
			
		

> ...instead of hit points.



With Modern20, it's not "instead of," it's "in addition to."  Best of both worlds!


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 17, 2007)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> I picked this up today while at work. Only gave it a side glance, but from all the other adaptations of adding some of True20ism into Modern20, I was really hoping for a quality damage save mechanic instead of hit points. I'm kinda bummed about that, but hopefully more reading will pick me back up later tonight.
> 
> Let the house ruling begin!!!




What can I say, I like hit points.

I did add some things that I think make combat more dynamic and make it feel different than D&D combat (which was one of my big goals). 

I think hit locations, called shots, injuries and recovery saves all add up to some nice dynamic combats.


----------



## Salcor (Oct 17, 2007)

From what I have read of the rules so far I like.  I am especially looking forward to the Magic20 and Vehicle20 books.  One of the things I have always pondered is how magic and psionics differ, and I like the way you are describing magic.  That leaves a lot of the mental 'schools' open to psionics. 

Now talking about Future20, I think that basic modern mechanics work well for a future setting as best we all know it.  I do think that there needs to be a little more devision of technology and the 'kinds' of science fiction that you are playing in.  At one point in the past here there was a discussion about different types of technology areas, and the different things that characters can do in each of those areas.  For example, when you look at Alternity it broke out different types of 'technology' and the different items and actions that are available at different PLs with that technology. (I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.)  

I would also love to see a developed Modern20 campaign setting, something that you can sink your teeth into.  I know it is difficult to do since people like different modern adventures.  Perhaps your idea for 'mini-campaign' might be better. I guess I am looking for a central setting that people can write adventures for.  The hunter setting sounds like a great place to start.

Well this is my 2 cents.

Salcor


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 17, 2007)

Thanks Salcor!

Just a heads up for those who don't read my blog or check the RPGObjects site obsessively: 

1. We updated Modern20 to version 1.1 today, incorporating some tweaks from early feedback. You can download the updated version  for free from RPGObjects.com or from RPGNow.

2. There's a character sheet for Modern20 up here.

Chuck


----------



## jezter6 (Oct 17, 2007)

elrics said:
			
		

> You're in luck!  Check out the Hit Location and Injury rules on pp. 81-82...just as fast as True20's damage save mechanic, but far less abstract.
> 
> 
> With Modern20, it's not "instead of," it's "in addition to."  Best of both worlds!





We'll have to see I guess. I'm not sure a hit location table is just as fast, but I do need to give it a much more thorough readthrough.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 17, 2007)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> We'll have to see I guess. I'm not sure a hit location table is just as fast, but I do need to give it a much more thorough readthrough.




Vehicles20 will have combat be more in line with the true20 combat system, with some changes of course. There will also be a Hit location table.

One thing about Hit location tables. You only need them if you are making called shots. When you do, the DC's and effects applied to each location are already provided for you to help things run faster.


----------



## Salcor (Oct 17, 2007)

Chuck,
  I do have a question about the Firearms skill, perks, and BAB in general.  First in the equipment section it says that a character is proficient with a number of firearms equal to his skill.  So does that mean a character with 1 ranks in firearms can only choose one group (handguns, long arms, heavy weapons).  And a character with 3 ranks in firearms is proficient with all areas?  Also does number of attacks not become interative with level as in in normal D20 (ie at BAB +6, the characters get +6/+1 attacks?)  Or is it cumalitive with perks like double tap?  Also, when dealing with changing occupations and the perks associated, it a character is playing a soldier, then wants to say progress on to a special operations occupation, do they keep the total number of perk points they had (to include those gained from career advancement), or do they start over with just the 2 perk points?  Is this mechanic to simulate a lack of proficiency in that area?

Salcor


----------



## Dr. Halflight (Oct 17, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> What can I say, I like hit points.




And I'm glad you do.  My total & complete dissatisfaction with True20/MM's Damage Save Mechanic is the reason I bought Modern20


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 17, 2007)

Salcor said:
			
		

> Chuck,
> I do have a question about the Firearms skill, perks, and BAB in general.  First in the equipment section it says that a character is proficient with a number of firearms equal to his skill.  So does that mean a character with 1 ranks in firearms can only choose one group (handguns, long arms, heavy weapons).  And a character with 3 ranks in firearms is proficient with all areas?




Modern20's weapon proficiency is more akin to old school weapon proficiencies. 

If you have three ranks in firearms, you're proficient with three *specific* firearms. 



> Also does number of attacks not become interative with level as in in normal D20 (ie at BAB +6, the characters get +6/+1 attacks?)  Or is it cumalitive with perks like double tap?




Modern20 doesn't use iterative attacks per se. You'll notice that there is only the one base attack listed on the class tables. The tables don't say +6/+1, just +6.

Every 5 levels, a character can make an additional attack as a full attack, regardless of BAB.

So a 6th level character can make 2 attacks as a full attack, the first attack at +0, the second at -5.

However, this only applies to "muscle-powered" weapons, like melee weapons and the bow, not mechanical weapons, like crossbows and firearms. 

Firearms and crossbows have a set firing rate, regardless of level.

Any character with a semi-automatic weapon can attack twice per round through double tap, whether 1st or 20th level. The first attack is at -0, the second attack at -5.

The Double Tap perk just makes you better at that. 

Similar any fully automatic firearm can be fired 3 or 5 times (attacker's choice- for simplicity all Modern20 characters are considered capable of the three shot burst), with penalties of -5/-10/-15/-20.

The Burst Fire perk doesn't change how many times the weapon can fire, it just helps negate that bonus. 



> Also, when dealing with changing occupations and the perks associated, it a character is playing a soldier, then wants to say progress on to a special operations occupation, do they keep the total number of perk points they had (to include those gained from career advancement), or do they start over with just the 2 perk points?  Is this mechanic to simulate a lack of proficiency in that area?
> 
> Salcor




Changing occupations doesn't net you any more perks. 

When you change occupations, you have a "grace period" of 30 days during which you keep your old perks. After 30 days, the perks from your old job go away and you can once again select 2 perks. 

These could be the same perks, or different perks.

Perks are meant to represent skills you have that others don't because you work with them on your job every day. They're part occupational training, part "I can do this because I'm a professional". 

That's why Stars get 4 perks. They're quite literally "star employees". 

This is also why the feat for additional perks is called Career Advancement. If you have more than 2 perks you're really good at what you do. 

Speaking of changing your perks, the other way to change your perks (besides changing your occupation and waiting 30 days) is to get better at your occupation, simulating a promotion or new opportunity. 

You can do this by gaining skill points in one of an occupations three skills, gaining an occupation's improved feat or increasing the number of perks you have. 

Hope this helps, these were excellent questions btw.

Chuck


----------



## Dr. Halflight (Oct 18, 2007)

Chuck,

I'm probably being dense & just missed it, but does a single Perk apply to the whole Skill or do you need multiple Perks per Skill?  For example: Do I a) take a Perk in Firearms or b) does that Perk only give me a choice between Burst Fire, Double Tap,  or Called Shot for Firearms?

Thanks in advance!

Doc


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 19, 2007)

Dr. Halflight said:
			
		

> Chuck,
> 
> I'm probably being dense & just missed it, but does a single Perk apply to the whole Skill or do you need multiple Perks per Skill?  For example: Do I a) take a Perk in Firearms or b) does that Perk only give me a choice between Burst Fire, Double Tap,  or Called Shot for Firearms?
> 
> ...




It's one perk for each skill use that requires it.

So having Burst Fire, Double Tap and Called Shot would require three perks. 

One thing to keep in mind though, is that if you don't have the perk, you can still use the skill for that purpose, your effective ranks are cut in half (this is explained on page 30 of the M20 rules). 

A lot of the questions I get are about perks, and its occuring to me that I did a less than adequate job explaining this new mechanic I dropped on folks lol.

I'm looking at the rules now to see where I could possibly explain them better.


----------



## Dr. Halflight (Oct 19, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> A lot of the questions I get are about perks, and its occuring to me that I did a less than adequate job explaining this new mechanic I dropped on folks lol.
> 
> I'm looking at the rules now to see where I could possibly explain them better.




First, thanks for the quick reply.  Second, Perks as Focused skill uses is how I initially understood the rule, but I was about 80% certain.  I'd suggest, if you decide to clarify, doing it under the Perks section of Skills.


----------

