Hmm...
If we stick with using the Pathfinder RPG for anything up to a certain technology level. You have your medieval/fantasy/reniasance(sp) past covered. Need any type of Swordsman... use a fighter... etc.
Certain roles can fit in a number of genres or even technology levels. For example:
"Warrior"...were you create a character that was all about the use of firearms with a variety of options at every level, you'd be able to build a number of character types dependent upon the type of Fire-arm he is using and what options he selected. From Civil War soldier to Modern Day marine. However the PF Fighter could actually breach genre's because he is all about using weapons of any type and might fit this "role". Given well worded feats for firearms use etc...
"Rogue" - A rogue could also easily work in a variety of genres/eras. From safe-cracker to spy. As long as there were updated rules for additional uses of the existing skills, a rogue can cover a number of "skillful" characters.
"Bard" - A bard is your charismatic character. A bard would work well as a Rock 'n Roller, Celebrity or a number of other "entertainer" or "performer" type roles. Provide a alternate class feature to spell casting and they would translate pretty well.
"Monk" - A monk could translate very well as a any type of Martial Artist. Open up the monk weapons to allow for a wider variety of modern martial arts styles and update some of the D20 modern martial arts feats.
However spell casters do not translate well to modern roles- to cover for more modern roles...
If you created a "Scientist/Researcher" character, it could cover a number of roles dependent upon what knowledge or professions were selected along with options that covered the general focus on creating/researching/using various sciences. Example (Focus on Life Sciences and you might end up with a Doctor)
A "Engineer" has also been around for a very long time. That role also covers a wide range of technology levels. From building bridges to building robots. This character would be all about the pursuit of constructing or destructing various things. Electrical/Robotic/Structural/Vehicular etc...
With classes like that as well as feats/skills that duplicated the application of skill across a variety of eras/genres you would then only need to provide the right equipment or tools to each era.
Mr. Jacobs, question then: As DeathQuaker has already mentioned, Do you feel that Green Ronin (via their True20 line) has already done this? :)
I would argue that between True20 and Modern20, the bases are already covered. The only reason to invest in a Pathfinder version is if (1) Paizo brings something new to the table, (2) you'd rather support Paizo than those other companies, or (3) You like how Paizo does things and the Modern RPG product you envision is superior to the others.
Personally, the only area where I find those other two system lacking is with support. True20 has a decent amount of 3rd party support (and yes, I've done my bit to add to it) but I wouldn't call it a hoppin' brand. Modern20 is even smaller, though there are things about the rules system I really like. If I were to use it, I'd probably work out an arrangement with Charles Rice and simply include that rules set with whatever setting I was working on and make it a standalone game.
Mr. Jacobs, question then: As DeathQuaker has already mentioned, Do you feel that Green Ronin (via their True20 line) has already done this? :)
Actually, you help James Jacobs make his point and undermine mine (which is fine :) ).
I mentioned M&M as why you wouldn't need another classless, generic, d20 based Modern system. But you're right, from what I've seen of it, True20 certainly offers a lot of what's needed in a class-based, generic, d20 based system that can easily support contemporary, sci-fi, and unconventional fantasy settings.
Which actually makes Jacobs' stance about designing a game for a specific setting stronger, since there's a d20 generic system already supported by Green Ronin.
Still, if True20 works like M&M does (I've looked at it, but no one I know has interest in playing True20, so I've never played it), it eliminates the battle grid and a lot of the tactical aspects of combat (which in M&M actually helps the cinematic nature of the game). But for people who like that sort of thing and want to keep it in their games might still want a closer-to-the-spirit of d20 Modern, I suppose. And now I've argued back on myself. I am up far too early than is appropriate for a Saturday.
Mr. Jacobs, question then: As DeathQuaker has already mentioned, Do you feel that Green Ronin (via their True20 line) has already done this? :)
Actually, you help James Jacobs make his point and undermine mine (which is fine :) ).
I mentioned M&M as why you wouldn't need another classless, generic, d20 based Modern system. But you're right, from what I've seen of it, True20 certainly offers a lot of what's needed in a class-based, generic, d20 based system that can easily support contemporary, sci-fi, and unconventional fantasy settings.
Which actually makes Jacobs' stance about designing a game for a specific setting stronger, since there's a d20 generic system already supported by Green Ronin.
Still, if True20 works like M&M does (I've looked at it, but no one I know has interest in playing True20, so I've never played it), it eliminates the battle grid and a lot of the tactical aspects of combat (which in M&M actually helps the cinematic nature of the game). But for people who like that sort of thing and want to keep it in their games might still want a closer-to-the-spirit of d20 Modern, I suppose. And now I've argued back on myself. I am up far too early than is appropriate for a Saturday.
That is actually a good question that I don't have the answer to. I know that Mutants & Masterminds was build on the True20 system, but I don't know the base True20 system very well.
I do agree with Mr. Drader though that to be viable, Paizo would have to bring something "new" to the table with any hypothetical Pathfinder Modern or Pathfinder Sci-Fi.
Ideally, the Pathfinder Modern would be a modular sandbox, allowing Modern, Past, and Future campaigns of all kinds of stripes. I REALLY love the idea of Strong Hero, Fast Hero, etc. I also like the Starting Occupations idea to flesh out the character concepts. I'd want more Talent Trees for the base classes (right now, a Strong Hero with an average Dex is a better ranged combatant than a Fast Hero with a high Dex. Does that seem right to you?).
Maybe change the rules a bit to give Strong Heroes Good BAB for melee & CMB and Medium BAB for ranged & CMD, and give Fast Heroes Medium BAB for melee & CMB and Good BAB for ranged and CMD. And maybe a rule for Tough Heroes where their BAB increases from Medium to Good if they're at less than half their hit points?
|
There are some Pathfinder-izing like skills and CMB/CMD that could be ported in. But, overall the times my groups use d20 Modern/Future the beauty is its ultimate flexibility and ability to create anything with just a few tweaks.The funny thing about that is you can do the same with 3.5/Pathfinder. Granted the classes come with fluff attachments but those are easily broken away.
I agree, you'll get no argument. What I meant is d20 Modern has source material to have a ready library of tech, science, vehicles, and the like there. Sure, added to a Pathfinder game we'd get the same great results I'm sure. And one flavored to a specific 'world' would be super, I agree.
|
|
1) I am interested in a "Modern" Pathfinder RPG because:
A) I specifically prefer the rules conceits of d20 Modern (Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc., talent trees, other mechanics stuff).
B) I am excited by the idea of a "Pathfinder" Modern RPG, regardless of mechanics.
B. I think D20 Modern was great and I've always been sad that Wizards underutilized it.
|
|
I'm pretty sure that if we do a modern or sci-fi game, we'll not take the "generic" approach. We won't try to build a game that could be rules for ANY setting... the SRD already does that, actually. It'd be best if a sci-fi/modern game picks its world and presents rules for that specific world, I think.
I've got two words for you (not suck it!)...
ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
You know... this thread's inspired a wicked idea for me.
Starwars/Pathfinder crossover, with Golarion as a planet in the Unknown Regions where the campaign is focused.
Great.
Of course, you can't publish it, and should be very careful about posting it. Lucas Arts is AMAZINGLY militant about protecting its Intellectual Property.
After looking at my anime shelf... I just realized.
I suddenly reaaly really want to recreate Escaflowne in a game.
Swordman running around... some in giant robot armor. Fighting Dragons...and other men in giant robot armor.
Dragons vs. Robots ... too cool!
|
|
One of the problems with d20 Modern is that it doesn't know what kind of game it wants to be. Is it a modern-day spy game? An apocalyptic game? A space opera game?
It's this generalist approach that actually drew me to d20 Modern. Low magic, no magic, sci-fi, horror, post-apocalypse, etc. You could make it fit.
I also like the character class concept from d20 Modern. Granted, you can change the names, but I like open the opportunities are with d20 Modern classes. Throw in occupations and talent trees, and you've created your foundation.
The biggest thing for me is to make Pathfinder and Modern compatible. The easiest way of doing this is to give class bonuses to armor class for Pathfinder. I propose 1/2 Base Attack Bonus = Base Defense Bonus for Pathfinder/D&D classes. I've been using this rule in my campaign for a couple of years and it's worked well.
But please - we don't need to have redundancy in spells between settings. Rather, if you want to devote space to Modern-based spells - great. I just don't need two references to Fireball. ... or magic items for that matter!
|
|
You know... this thread's inspired a wicked idea for me.
Starwars/Pathfinder crossover, with Golarion as a planet in the Unknown Regions where the campaign is focused.
Great.
Of course, you can't publish it, and should be very careful about posting it. Lucas Arts is AMAZINGLY militant about protecting its Intellectual Property.
I actually ran a short Star Wars campaign (in RCR) that included psionics. Illithids, githyanki and githzerai emerged from the Unknown Regions. Their grasp of psionic powers really screwed with the Jedi. (We actually used Psionics as is from Expanded Psionics Handbook and it worked!)
|
I actually ran a short Star Wars campaign (in RCR) that included psionics. Illithids, githyanki and githzerai emerged from the Unknown Regions. Their grasp of psionic powers really screwed with the Jedi. (We actually used Psionics as is from Expanded Psionics Handbook and it worked!)
That sounds like a lot of fun! I'd love to do some head-explodie on some snooty Jedi and Sith. I have a friend who would probably pay me cash to run a Star Wars game but I just can't bring myself to do it even though I really like most of the SAGA system and 'Star Wars' as a whole. Having an alternate to the Jedi/Sith cliche of wholesome goodness and ebil would add a new dynamic to the story as well.
Thanks for the idea! I doubt I'll ever get to do anything with it with school and life in the way but I will file it away for further consideration. It's nice to know that the XPH works right out of the box. What if I used Pathfinder classes but with the SAGA system minus the damage track? Not for a Star Wars campaign but for another spaced based science fantasy world from ye olden days.
SM
|
If and when we do something like this, I can pretty much guarantee that we will NOT be keeping the "Fast Hero, Strong Hero, etc." setup. It's a lot more fun to have character classes whose names actually mean something, like "Wizard" or "Rogue."
Also... the wealth system has to go.
I'm relatively certain that if we do a modern or sci-fi game that it'll be closer to Pathfinder's rules than d20 Modern's was to D&D, in other words. Or if not, it'll be something COMPLETELY different.
But yeah... Fast Heroes are boring.
I agree completely. The fast, smart hero classes annoyed my group to no end. We want classes that "mean something". I don't want it to be "closer to the Pathfinder's rules", I want the same system. I, like many other fans, have adapted rules to play in various settings so I know that professional game designers could make it work.
I'm curious.
Please choose one of the following. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate a little bit on your thoughts on the following question, if you would.
1) I am interested in a "Modern" Pathfinder RPG because:
A) I specifically prefer the rules conceits of d20 Modern (Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc., talent trees, other mechanics stuff).
B) I am excited by the idea of a "Pathfinder" Modern RPG, regardless of mechanics.
I would prefer something that does not change, but adds to the Pathfinder system. I want the ability to create a mixed genre game, to drop a character from the PfRPG, into which ever setting I want without having to modify anything. I want the same magic system in all settings. New variants can be added for different classs, but I don't want an all new system for a different setting. As I said before I can't stand the d20 modern class system and I do not want a repeat of that.
As for settings I would love to see a Rifts style game. Palladium has an incredible setting and I have yet to see any system recreate the epic feel without using a "tool box" system like Hero or Gurps. I want to be able to play pulp, sci-fi, apocalyptic, fantasy, and horror settings with the same rules without having to create everything myself.
I'm curious.
Please choose one of the following. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate a little bit on your thoughts on the following question, if you would.
1) I am interested in a "Modern" Pathfinder RPG because:
A) I specifically prefer the rules conceits of d20 Modern (Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc., talent trees, other mechanics stuff).
B) I am excited by the idea of a "Pathfinder" Modern RPG, regardless of mechanics.
If the game becomes as successful as it appears it may, something like this is definitely within the realm of possibility in the medium to long term.
Please pick one of the choices above and expound a bit on the way you voted the way you did.
Thanks!
B... though I wouldn't mind a strictly Pathfinderized ModernD20 game I do want some changes especially to the wealth rules...I want money not wealth roles. It's one thing I dislike about Buffy/Angel & the WoD games.Plus I don't want to be tied to an organization unless it fits the setting I choose to run or play in.Plus rename the lame classes..strong, quick ??? What kind of class names are they ? Get rid of the miniature/tactical combat/movement rules...my biggest gripe with 3.0/3.5 & it's kin.
I'd love to see a PFRPG based version of Jame's game..I love post-apocalyptic games. In fact I'm working on my own for use with ICE's old Cyberspace rules.
Please choose one of the following.
A) I specifically prefer the rules conceits of d20 Modern (Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc., talent trees, other mechanics stuff).
Now, I hafta elaborate.
I love having a few, really flexible systems. The d20 modern classes can work in almost any modern settings. I love the flexibility of trait classes/talents/advanced classes, and I use it for a lot of games.
But d20 Modern is clunky as written. I suspect it was a d20 3.25 for WotC, and despite some great authors (you could get them for a new P20 Modern game, right?) the source books often do not feel clean.
But the Pathfinder RPG *does* feel clean, and it fixes a lot of core issuses with the d20 game in general. combine that improved Next general d20 rules with adventures and source materials with paizo's high quality and willingness to push past 'appropriate for all ages" mentality that Wotc suffered from, and I'm in love.
But I need you to maintain backwards compatability, just exactly as much as you did for d20 to Pathfinder. So don't throw out those classes or talents. Just Paizoerize 'em.
|
|
But I need you to maintain backwards compatability, just exactly as much as you did for d20 to Pathfinder. So don't throw out those classes or talents. Just Paizoerize 'em.
I concur 100%. Backwards compatibility is KEY. If people don't like the names of the base classes, you can keep the classes and give them new names. That said, the names don't bother me one bit. It's not the class that defines the character, it's the character's actions that define the character.
Still, I hope that Paizo would pay a bit more attention to the skills. Frankly, Paizo didn't do enough to simplify skills in Pathfinder. (Performance, Profession and Craft still have WAY too many subsets.) To move into d20 Modern, the litany of skills really need to be simplified.
I wrote most of this in reply to another thread, but I think it's applicable here too:
As much as I am enjoying Pathfinder, I really am not all that excited about a modern version. Why? Because the d20 system and firearms do not, and will never combine well. The six second combat round in particular is the biggest problem. If they made combat rounds into a 1 second segment, where you could either move 5 feet or attack, this might be a bit more workable.
I have run quite a few d20 modern settings, and I always kept devising new firearms rules. I also find that in modern settings, there's more of a desire to keep the rules "realistic". And this is where firearms typically fail again.
Here's a scenario that made me introduce a lot of new firearms rules into d20 Modern. A group of mutant street toughs (had barbarian like powers) rushed the group of PC's. The PC's got pretty decimated by it, but the issue was, that they all had automatic weapons, and in reality, a group of 8+ men/creatures, rushing 30 feet towards automatic rifle toting soldiers would get shot up pretty severely before they even closed half the distance.
With a LOT of rules changes, firearms can be satisfactory in a d20-based system, but they will never be good or even somewhat-realistic. (In my campaign my party were soldiers, and I used RPO's Blood & Guts resources, which really helped the effectiveness of the player characters.
Aside from the combat round mechanics, the next thing that fails is the hit point system. If I shoot a level 1 character with 3 bullets... they are dead. If I shoot a level 10 character with 3 bullets, its a minor flesh wound. The reason we are given for this "decrease of damage" is because the 10th level character is supposedly rolling with the damage. They are bullets. You aren't rolling with them. If the attacker rolled a successful hit, it means your Dexterity was not high enough to keep you safe / dodge out of the way.
So, in order to make a d20-based system work with firearms you need to rework the combat round mechanics and the hit point system.
If you can do that, then I don't care what the setting is based on -- I'll play it!
d20 Modern balances out firearms rules by having the Massive Damage Threshold equal your Con score and not 50. So, for an average PC with an 11 Con is still 6% likely to possibly die from an "average" 2d6 gun. (3 out of 36 to take 11 or 12 points of damage, 25% chance to make the DC Fort 15 fort save at 1st level....it's been a while since I did stats....)
And bigger guns do more damage. Desert Eagles do 2d8, Rifles can do 2d10 or 2d12.
Anyways, on a crit, guns are very lethal, almost always forcing a Massive Damage Save.
*SNIP*
Here's a scenario that made me introduce a lot of new firearms rules into d20 Modern. A group of mutant street toughs (had barbarian like powers) rushed the group of PC's. The PC's got pretty decimated by it, but the issue was, that they all had automatic weapons, and in reality, a group of 8+ men/creatures, rushing 30 feet towards automatic rifle toting soldiers would get shot up pretty severely before they even closed half the distance.*SNIP*
And the guys can still got shot up pretty good before they close the distance. If a fully trained group of PC's had their weapons out... with "declared actions" to "shoot anything that moves" you'd have bursts of full-auto fire going off and filling your mutants full of holes.
However... if the PC's do not have their weapons up and "at the ready"... 30 feet really isn't that long a distance. If you are suddenly surprise rushed you might not get your weapon drawn or readied before they can close in.
Just like real life... how that scenario plays out is all dependent on who is aware of who... how prepared both sides are... etc.
Based on the language in d20 Modern and on my own experience, I interpret d20 Modern's rules to simulate "action movie" style combat, and not "realistic" combat at all. The fact that you can drop a mook in a single shot or two, but a 10th level hero just takes (or dodges) the bullets and keeps coming is exactly how it should be, IMO.
If our action fantasies panned out like "real" combat, we'd see Arnold Schwarzenegger or Vin Diesel have his brains splatted against the wall within the first five minutes of the story. Who wants to see that?
A Modern-style RPG in the vein of d20 Modern is supposed to let us fit into the shoes of that kind unstoppable hero (or amazingly agile hero, or the hero who just smiles so brilliantly the enemy can't even shoot). If you re-write the rules so that Rambo gets dropped with a single bullet, or James Bond dies instantly the first time he gets tortured, I personally feel you've missed the point.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
If our action fantasies panned out like "real" combat, we'd see Arnold Schwarzenegger or Vin Diesel have his brains splatted against the wall within the first five minutes of the story. Who wants to see that?
*raises hand*
Me! I'd like to see that. ... Oh, the question was rhetorical.
If our action fantasies panned out like "real" combat, we'd see Arnold Schwarzenegger or Vin Diesel have his brains splatted against the wall within the first five minutes of the story. Who wants to see that?
*raises hand*
Me! I'd like to see that. ... Oh, the question was rhetorical.
*sigh* Sorry, perhaps I should have used a better example. And I know it's a joke, but I find it really frustrating when I try to make a point and people just completely undermine my attempt by making fun of what I have to say. It's why I don't post here very often. It might be fun for you, but I find it very disrespectful. It's upsetting when no one takes your ideas seriously; disagreement is one thing, just mocking someone else for the lulz is another, and the people at this board should be better than that.
(Disclaimer: PMS, right now, and no chocolate in sight.)
The idea is that just as we go to see an action film to (usually) see the heroes survive against odds that would kill a normal person 30 times over, we'd play a game like d20 Modern to play that kind of hero who survives those kind of odds. Insert your favorite action star/superhero/invincible flumph to illustrate the point here.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
*sigh* Sorry, perhaps I should have used a better example. And I know it's a joke, but I find it really frustrating when I try to make a point and people just completely undermine my attempt by making fun of what I have to say.
If our action fantasies panned out like "real" combat, we'd see Arnold Schwarzenegger or Vin Diesel have his brains splatted against the wall within the first five minutes of the story. Who wants to see that?
*raises hand*
Me! I'd like to see that. ... Oh, the question was rhetorical.
I wasn't making fun of what you had to say. I thought you made your point clearly and I agree with it.
It's why I don't post here very often. It might be fun for you, but I find it very disrespectful. It's upsetting when no one takes your ideas seriously; disagreement is one thing, just mocking someone else for the lulz is another, and the people at this board should be better than that.
I'm sorry that you feel this way but what you see as disrespectful mockery, I see as good-natured joshing.
(Disclaimer: PMS, right now, and no chocolate in sight.)
My new office filing cabinet is full of chocolate. Big bags of chocolate. I wonder if it is poisoned.
The idea is that just as we go to see an action film to (usually) see the heroes survive against odds that would kill a normal person 30 times over, we'd play a game like d20 Modern to play that kind of hero who survives those kind of odds. Insert your favorite action star/superhero/invincible flumph to illustrate the point here.
The idea was quite clear the first time. That's the reason 'action points' are called 'action points'.
d20 Modern balances out firearms rules by having the Massive Damage Threshold equal your Con score and not 50. So, for an average PC with an 11 Con is still 6% likely to possibly die from an "average" 2d6 gun. (3 out of 36 to take 11 or 12 points of damage, 25% chance to make the DC Fort 15 fort save at 1st level....it's been a while since I did stats....)
And bigger guns do more damage. Desert Eagles do 2d8, Rifles can do 2d10 or 2d12.
Anyways, on a crit, guns are very lethal, almost always forcing a Massive Damage Save.
Combine that with the burst fire feat (+2 [weapon] die of damage) and a M16 does an average of 18 points of damage with a 3 round burst. That will force a massive damage save on to avoid dropping to -1 and dying on almost anyone.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The biggest thing for me is to make Pathfinder and Modern compatible. The easiest way of doing this is to give class bonuses to armor class for Pathfinder. I propose 1/2 Base Attack Bonus = Base Defense Bonus for Pathfinder/D&D classes. I've been using this rule in my campaign for a couple of years and it's worked well.
But I need you to maintain backwards compatability, just exactly as much as you did for d20 to Pathfinder. So don't throw out those classes or talents. Just Paizoerize 'em.
If, in this more perfect future, Paizo did a Pathfinder Modern would people want it to be compatible with d20 Modern or compatible with PRPG?
The biggest thing for me is to make Pathfinder and Modern compatible. The easiest way of doing this is to give class bonuses to armor class for Pathfinder. I propose 1/2 Base Attack Bonus = Base Defense Bonus for Pathfinder/D&D classes. I've been using this rule in my campaign for a couple of years and it's worked well.If, in this more perfect future, Paizo did a Pathfinder Modern would people want it to be compatible with d20 Modern or compatible with PRPG?But I need you to maintain backwards compatability, just exactly as much as you did for d20 to Pathfinder. So don't throw out those classes or talents. Just Paizoerize 'em.
PathfinderRPG. :)
The biggest thing for me is to make Pathfinder and Modern compatible. The easiest way of doing this is to give class bonuses to armor class for Pathfinder. I propose 1/2 Base Attack Bonus = Base Defense Bonus for Pathfinder/D&D classes. I've been using this rule in my campaign for a couple of years and it's worked well.If, in this more perfect future, Paizo did a Pathfinder Modern would people want it to be compatible with d20 Modern or compatible with PRPG?But I need you to maintain backwards compatability, just exactly as much as you did for d20 to Pathfinder. So don't throw out those classes or talents. Just Paizoerize 'em.
Both. 'cause I like to have my cake and eat it to. Or at least... as compatible as Pathfinder is with 3.5.
Ideally... you'd be able to put characters from both systems in the same game with little thought for balance.
I wasn't making fun of what you had to say. I thought you made your point clearly and I agree with it.
*sigh* Sorry, perhaps I should have used a better example. And I know it's a joke, but I find it really frustrating when I try to make a point and people just completely undermine my attempt by making fun of what I have to say.
I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. But all I saw was the joke; I didn't get the telepathic message that you agreed with me. :) Without the other acknowledgment, it looks to me like you're not actually interested in what I have to say, just in goofing off. And sometimes goofing off is fine (obviously, I have trouble sometimes taking things too seriously) but a context needs to be provided. Tone is very hard to interpret in a medium like this.
I've noticed a lot in gamer boards people tend to tease (and teasing is HARD to get right in a typewritten medium) or argue. Agreement or defense of another person happens, but less often. Maybe if more positive comments were made about what other people have to say, people like me would be less likely to assume that when the teasing happens, it's malicious or disrespectful in nature.
And I don't mean to be picking on you particularly, Tarren Dei, but it just seemed an opportunity to point out what I think goes wrong in communication in forums like this.
And again, I'm sorry for misinterpreting you and jumping on you for it.
Aaaaaanyway... back on topic.......
With regards to compatibility, I almost think there's room for two different games here, to please different kinds of gamers. One system more compatible with d20 Modern but focuses largely on Modern and Sci-Fi ONLY (or maybe with some "magic" but more of a cyberpunk/steampunky kind of related magic, not related to high fantasy). Classes and abilities based on Action genre themes.
The other system could be "Pathfinder Modern" and essentially the successor to "Urban Arcana" -- take the actual Pathfinder ruleset as a whole with its classes, races, etc. but throw in your firearms rules, modern equipment, vehicle combat, etc.
The reason I think of this is because I think what some people want out of "P20 Modern" IS solely the Urban Arcana thing, just with Pathfinder rules. (That's NOT what I want, at all--I never had any interest in Urban Arcana, save a brief flirtation with using d20 Modern rules in a RIFTS-like setting--but it seems to me that's what some players are looking for when we talk about this.)
But I don't think those kind of high fantasy systems (and particularly the classes) mesh well with some contemporary and "future" action settings, and I think a different system for that could be a little more backwards compatible at least to d20 Modern and Future.
But that also well complicates the issue. I know Paizo's producing a modern game is probably in the somewhat distant future as it is; I wouldn't expect them to develop two separate games.
That's the blessing and curse of d20 Modern, I guess--I love that the rules can be used for all kinds of campaigns, but that also means nearly everyone has their own, very different vision of what d20 Modern should be like.
D20 Modern being an adaptable system is a strength. A base rulebook to support the most generic modern settings, with splatbooks for specific niche settings. I think this approach was what WoTC was planning to take before they pulled the plug.
I'd like a faeriepunk module that dealt with Old World animal spirits dealing with immigrant Celtic Faerie Courts, vampires, werewolves, etc. Kind of like a cross between Charles de Lint's Newford series and Jim Butcher's Dresden Files.
|
Several years back, before d20 Modern even, I wrote up a post-apocalyptic "Cthulhu meets Road Warrior meets Fallout" type game called "Unspeakable Futures." It was a blast. I recently updated these rules to Pathfinder's ruleset and ran a game at Paizocon a month or so ago, and had PCs with pet robots, making sneak attacks with shotguns, doing a car chase along a narrow mountain road, and blowing up mutants and mi-go with rocket launchers. It was a blast, and the PRPG rules handled it very well.
We've got a lot of other things to take care of before we do much of anything in a print format with a sci-fi or modern game version of the PRPG, but as far as I can tell, the rules will handle it pretty well.
Holy Krikees! This sounds like too much fun. Now I'll have to add Paizocon to my Con rotation if there is going to be this kind of crazy gaming goodness going on...
TtO
I just want to see Dragonstar resurrected with Pathfinder. :)
|
|
I'm curious.
Please choose one of the following. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate a little bit on your thoughts on the following question, if you would.
1) I am interested in a "Modern" Pathfinder RPG because:
A) I specifically prefer the rules conceits of d20 Modern (Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc., talent trees, other mechanics stuff).
B) I am excited by the idea of a "Pathfinder" Modern RPG, regardless of mechanics.
If the game becomes as successful as it appears it may, something like this is definitely within the realm of possibility in the medium to long term.
Please pick one of the choices above and expound a bit on the way you voted the way you did.
Thanks!
B.) I'm excited by the idea of a modern role playing game, being given care and treatment and attention to detail the way Pathfinder has been treated by Paizo.
When i sit down and think about it, there's no base-world campaign for Modern that I would immediately identify with as being "Pathfinder", and can't quite imagine Absalom in modern times with guns and punks orcs rolling around on motorcycles. But a RPG abstracted better than d20 Modern's Fast/Smart/Tough hero system with trees , with prestige classes , and more on par with other genres ( so you could have a cross over with modern/fantasy and be on an even challenge ) would be quite interesting.
I know it's been touched on before. I know you all have a lot of irons in the fire. However, after seeing the Pathfinder RPG in all its glory, I'm begging you to do a Pathfinder-treatment of D20 Modern.
I have total faith that you could do the same improvements and treatments for the modern, pulp, and sci-fi genres.
I know there is a lot of 3rd-party stuff out there and that their are alternatives like True20 (which I like but I still like D20 Modern more) and Modern20 (which I cherry-pick for rules but it changed too much IMO), but there's something about D20 Modern that just clicks for me.
Even though fantasy RPGing is my genre of choice, I find myself evaluating characters in fiction, video games, TV, and movies through the lens of D20 Modern base classes. (She's a Fast/Charismatic, he's a Strong/Fast, he's a Dedicated/Tough, etc.)
I realize it'd be smaller print runs and serves a smaller audience than fantasy, but damn I'd love to have it.
Paizo fans, tell me you wouldn't want the following (apologies for poorly-riffing the Pathfinder meme):
"Explorer: The Role-playing game of Modern adventure" (Pulp, Modern)
-- Genre sourcebooks include:
Sci-fi. C'mon sci-fi treatments from Paizo? Do I even need to say more? Especially with Planet Stories inspriation?
Pulp. You already tap this source of gaming goodness with Pathfinder, so you're capabilities are already proven here. You could even do a pulp-era version of the Pathfinder Society.
Horror You sprinkle this in to great effect now. Logue & Pett unleashed?!? Failed sanity checks abound!I realize you've probably already kicked this around and have an idea or two or perhaps that door's already closed. However, a Pathfinder fan can dream and after seeing the great job done with the Pathfinder RPG, I know the D20 Modern/Future OGL torch would be in good hands with Paizo as well.
I totally want a d20 Modern book made by Paizo...I'm totally dedicated to your books now that I have the Pathfinder RPG book...Ô mighty god of incredible quality books ;p
*sigh* Sorry, perhaps I should have used a better example. And I know it's a joke, but I find it really frustrating when I try to make a point and people just completely undermine my attempt by making fun of what I have to say. It's why I don't post here very often. It might be fun for you, but I find it very disrespectful. It's upsetting when no one takes your ideas seriously; disagreement is one thing, just mocking someone else for the lulz is another, and the people at this board should be better than that.
(Disclaimer: PMS, right now, and no chocolate in sight.)
The idea is that just as we go to see an action film to (usually) see the heroes survive against odds that would kill a normal person 30 times over, we'd play a game like d20 Modern to play that kind of hero who survives those kind of odds. Insert your favorite action star/superhero/invincible flumph to illustrate the point here.
Not to sound harsh, but you'll need to speak for yourself. Personally, I don't go to movies which look like the main character is going to kick down the door, holding two machine guns in each hand, with a rocket launcher in his back pocket, and face off against ten thousand mooks, all while making witty commentary. It's why I don't read Salvatore. That type of "action" bores the heck out of me. I don't want a hero who can get shot fifty times and keep making one liners (unless it's Bruce Willace...we all have our weaknesses). And I don't play d20 modern to simulate those situations.
One of my biggest complaints against D&D is the BS hit point system. People walking through burning buildings because they're high enough level, humans grapling giants, people punching dragons to death. I don't like it, but ultimately I can deal with it. As far as something like d20 modern goes...I refuse.
I would love to see Paizo do their own modern game, especially with all the Cthuhlu themes that get thrown around by their designers. But I'm not going to buy it if you can take a LAAW shell to the chest at tenth level. If it's horror based, and the party can't get to the point where they don't fear the monsters because of comparative CR scores, I'm not interested. If it's action based, and by action the list of movies to watch for reference is the matrix, the marine, and xxx, I'm not interested.
Honestly, I think there is an empty niche in the realm of horror survival games with solid game mechanics. Maybe I just don't get out enough, and there's more than the little I've seen, but all the "zombie" games I've come across are simpler than WoD...which is not a good thing.
*sigh* Sorry, perhaps I should have used a better example. And I know it's a joke, but I find it really frustrating when I try to make a point and people just completely undermine my attempt by making fun of what I have to say. It's why I don't post here very often. It might be fun for you, but I find it very disrespectful. It's upsetting when no one takes your ideas seriously; disagreement is one thing, just mocking someone else for the lulz is another, and the people at this board should be better than that.
(Disclaimer: PMS, right now, and no chocolate in sight.)
The idea is that just as we go to see an action film to (usually) see the heroes survive against odds that would kill a normal person 30 times over, we'd play a game like d20 Modern to play that kind of hero who survives those kind of odds. Insert your favorite action star/superhero/invincible flumph to illustrate the point here.
Not to sound harsh, but you'll need to speak for yourself. Personally, I don't go to movies which look like the main character is going to kick down the door, holding two machine guns in each hand, with a rocket launcher in his back pocket, and face off against ten thousand mooks, all while making witty commentary. It's why I don't read Salvatore. That type of "action" bores the heck out of me. I don't want a hero who can get shot fifty times and keep making one liners (unless it's Bruce Willace...we all have our weaknesses). And I don't play d20 modern to simulate those situations.
One of my biggest complaints against D&D is the BS hit point system. People walking through burning buildings because they're high enough level, humans grapling giants, people punching dragons to death. I don't like it, but ultimately I can deal with it. As far as something like d20 modern goes...I refuse.
I would love to see Paizo do their own modern game, especially with all the Cthuhlu themes that get thrown around by their designers. But I'm not going to buy it if you can take a LAAW shell to...
BS Hit point system eh? If its that much of an issue just add in the standard massive damage rule from D20 Modern. If a character takes damage equal to or greater than their CON score, they need to make a FORT. save or drop to zero HP and go into shock.
*shrugs* I think it's workable for high fantasy games like Pathfinder and D&D and Starwars and all that...but anything where a semblince of realism would be nice...just doesn't work well for me. Not only are people able to take buckshot up close and personal at point blank in with the hitpoint system (yes, I know, they could make their massive damage test...and it's possible for a human to survive a shot gun blast at point blank in real life...one I believe is based on other aspects of how "tough" the character is, the other is based on luck...so they represent eachother horribly), they aren't affected (assuming they make their save). You fight just as well at full as you do at one. I understand it's a game, and you can't make it 100% realistic...but I've been beat up before...there should be something in the rules about getting your rear handed to you, and you not being at the top of your game afterward.
I realize why they don't. It's incredibly hard to balance out a system that would work with d20 leveling. -4 to hit at 20th level isn't that big of a deal, but it's detrimental to your abilities at 1st. I've been wracking my brain, trying to come up with something for my home games from the day I bought Pathfinder at Gencon...A large scale overhall would be required...which would be a lot of work, which is half my point.
If Paizo decides to make a modern type game, and all they do is patch up d20 modern like they did D&D...well, I'm not buying it. I could do that. Sure, I'll by the setting books, cuz frankly the Paizo crew is the most creative group of people I've seen in the gaming industry in a long long time. For me to be willing to shell out money for a set of rules though, a simple update isn't going to be enough.
One of my biggest complaints against D&D is the BS hit point system. People walking through burning buildings because they're high enough level, humans grapling giants, people punching dragons to death. I don't like it, but ultimately I can deal with it. As far as something like d20 modern goes...I refuse.
I used to call BS on this as well, till a friend pulled an OLD OD&D book and pointed out a very small paragraph. 4e talked at length about this because they jacked player HP so high, but I don't recall 3.5 discussing it in the same length or treatment. Its been discussed before I know, but it occasionally bears repeating:
Hit Points are a misnomer. They are not a measure of how often you can get hit. "Going up a level" doesn't mean Bob can be stabbed 3 times instead of one to kill him. Basically, "Hit Points" are more like a combination of your physical ability AND your energy, stamina. A level 10/15/whatever can run through a burning building because they have the stamina, the endurance, from slogging through god-knows-what to reach this level. They don't just walk through flame, they dodge, duck, weave, etc. all of which depletes their stamina. Inhaling smoke takes its toll, getting clobbered with a falling beam, all of that takes the wind out of the character. Its not like the character is on fire for the several minutes they're in the building. When the character goes down for good, that's when the blade actually connects, when Bob catches fire and is critically burned, etc.Likewise, dodging a hail of gunfire and making it through signifies expert ducking and weaving, an especially strong hit might have been a bullet grazing the character, but otherwise without a massive hit its unwritten and unspoken that the character just isn't hit, but they are burning other physical resources to compete in that combat scenario.
I understand the explanation presented in the book, that hitpoints don't exactly equate to toughness, but to heroic stamina...which in my opinion makes even less sense. There's a fatigued condition, an exhausted condition, and then hitpoints. There are mechanics that cause exhaustinon and fatigue, which both affect your character to some degree. They give penalties to represent your character not being at their best. Hit points are an all or nothing deal. You either have some, and fight at full capacity...even though you've been taking damage, which equates to bieng worn down...or you run out and fall to the ground (yep, I know you suffer penalties for being at 0, but this comes up so often that I feel perfectly fine completely ignoring it). It's not a representation of toughness or heroic stamina...it's an off switch.
Games like shadowrun and to some extent world of darkness...you have a set number of "hit points" or damage boxes you can handle, that is universal just about across the board. As the boxes fill up (you take damage) you suffer penalties to your actions. Your body or stamina attribute is rolled to resist incoming damage (assisted by armor), and whala...we have something that works out fairly well....but would not transfer over to a d20 based system without overhalling the rules to the point that it's no longer a d20 system.
hmmm...derailing this just a hair aren't I?
I guess in an attempt to get back on topic...I'm in the camp that hopes Paizo doesn't go the generic route. I hope they make a gener game with a very specific setting, like they did with Golarion. My personal preference would be if they did a horror game, similar to call of Cthuhlu...though decidedly NOT exactly like Call of Cthuuhlu. Something story driven and not so combat heavy (combat heavy being Pathfinder/D&D, not CoC)
This thread has hit the archives at least twice... so no worries about thread de-rails at this point.
Another suggestion... if you are worried about the "getting beat up" aspect. Perhaps in addition to the d20 modern damage rule... perhaps include a house rule that gives you the fatigued or exhausted conditions based on how many HP you have. It would show you wearing down after taking multiple "near-misses" and prevent the "fight at 100%" until you drop problem.
Say... start becoming fatigued at 50% health... and exhausted at 25%.
Or, simply co-opt the Damage Track from Star Wars Saga - so that as you suffer injury and fatigue, you also suffer penalties to your skills and actions.
Sure, it's not Open Content, but there are numerous modifications of it out there that are.
P20 Modern, it's gonna Pathfinderize d20 Modern!!
This sounds so awesome that even I'm interested in modern!!