I wonder if Paizo would put a blurb up on the front page about this? Or maybe this and e20 - Pathfinder related patronage products in general? I bet there is a large segment of the Paizo community that doesn't even know P20 Modern exists (or is about to exist). Maybe some day when the store is slow and there are no new product releases.
...well, at least e20 got their patronage fulfilled. :D
But I agree .... it would be nice to get a blurb on the Paizo front page.
PS
Yeah, I'd pony up for a PF Modern, especially if it didn't render all the D20M stuff I have obsolete -- I have almost everything by Wizards, as well as several 3rd party suplements of various quality (including the excellent and much-to-be-lamented D20 Mecha by Guardians of Order).
In that case
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2080655001/game-design-p20-modern-rolep laying-game
please do. And tell your friends, family, neighbors, and anyone else who will listen.
I know tomorrow is April Fool's Day, but this is NOT a joke. We will be webcasting live on Thursday, April 1st starting at 6pm PDT (GMT -8) and go on for an hour. There will be a live chat room for you to submit questions and interact with us during the show. (And we might even sort out the phone system so that you can CALL IN and talk to us live.)
You can listen to the show live (or come back later and listen to the recording) here:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stannex/2010/04/02/super-genius-radio--p20-mod ern-updatePlease help us spread the word about the show ... and then come join us.
Just a reminder that the audio live-chat is tonight at 6pm PDT (GMT -8). Stop on by ... or email us any questions you want us to answer (so you can listen for the answers later).
I wonder if Paizo would put a blurb up on the front page about this? Or maybe this and e20 - Pathfinder related patronage products in general? I bet there is a large segment of the Paizo community that doesn't even know P20 Modern exists (or is about to exist). Maybe some day when the store is slow and there are no new product releases.
We talk with the fine folks in the Paizo office about what products and projects of ours are ongoing. Mostly, and understandably, they focus on new products that are for sale through the Paizo store. (After all ... this IS their place of business.) They DO give Super Genius Games products a solid bit of attention, and we're VERY grateful for that.
Giving space to a fundraising project like P20 Modern is a little more problematic for them. It doesn't generate any immediate (or even shot term) profits. So, as good business partners, we're not going to PRESS them on the issue.
If it is important to YOU as fans ... you can always drop Paizo an email or give customer feedback on the matter. But let me be clear ... I am NOT encouraging you to pester them with the matter. I'm just saying that if something is important to you as a fan, you should let them know. A company cannot respond to customer needs that they do not see.
you know, i dont spend any time on them anymore, but has anyone tried talking about this on the wizards d20 modern boards? It might be worth trying, if people have accounts on those message boards. Certainly theres a group there that could be interested in p20 modern.
Where can I sign up to put my money where my mouth is?
Just curious ... any of you guys who have pledged .... are you on FB and/or subscribed to the P20 Modern fan page? Just trying to figure out who's who for alias = RL. =)
*bump*
My main purpose is to try to relaunch a discussion on what should be done for core classes and skills. That should be the main discussion to get people more attuned.
|
*bump*
My main purpose is to try to relaunch a discussion on what should be done for core classes and skills. That should be the main discussion to get people more attuned.
I would prefer that the classes not be focused on abilities as the previous d20 Modern was. I'd also like to see some incorporation of traits and perhaps a class that works with that similar to how fighters work more with feats than other classes and rogues key more to skills.
I would prefer that the classes not be focused on abilities as the previous d20 Modern was. I'd also like to see some incorporation of traits and perhaps a class that works with that similar to how fighters work more with feats than other classes and rogues key more to skills.*bump*
My main purpose is to try to relaunch a discussion on what should be done for core classes and skills. That should be the main discussion to get people more attuned.
Soldier for Fighter, Scoundrel for Rogue, etc?
Soldier for Fighter, Scoundrel for Rogue, etc?I would prefer that the classes not be focused on abilities as the previous d20 Modern was. I'd also like to see some incorporation of traits and perhaps a class that works with that similar to how fighters work more with feats than other classes and rogues key more to skills.*bump*
My main purpose is to try to relaunch a discussion on what should be done for core classes and skills. That should be the main discussion to get people more attuned.
I would like to see something like that as well, the stat based classes were flexible, but sometimes too much flexibility is a bad thing. Saga edition drives me crazy because the entirety of the classes are made up of feats and talents, so picking a class gives absolutely no direction. When i've introduced new players to the game its a nightmare trying to help them make a character. I like the level of flexibility in pathfinder classes, and would like to see nothing more flexible then say the super genius godling (on the high end of the spectrum). I would actually appreciate and prefer a few static class abilities, even if it increased the number of core base classes.
Speaking in generalisms, I could see the following:
Soldier
Scoundrel
Diplomat
Scholar
Medic
But I understand the reason behind stat based classes because doing what I described above may hinder someone's perception on how they want to run their class. Perhaps you want to be a brawler or a gear-head, how do you fit it in? Sometimes it's a Catch-22 for me.
Speaking in generalisms, I could see the following:
Soldier
Scoundrel
Diplomat
Scholar
MedicBut I understand the reason behind stat based classes because doing what I described above may hinder someone's perception on how they want to run their class. Perhaps you want to be a brawler or a gear-head, how do you fit it in? Sometimes it's a Catch-22 for me.
By adding to the list.
Where as you might have had a smart hero which could be scoundrel, tech specialist or researcher. You can have a scoundrel, engineer/scientist etc. And the 'it might not fit' cuts both ways. For instance to make something akin to a pathfinder rogue you had to multiclass in d20 modern. It was a fast hero/smart hero mix. And if we are going to be using pathfinder design philosophy we should try to make it possible to fit ideas and concepts with single classes.
...and then we'll have the polymath class ... which is essentially the munchkin. ;)
****
Any thoughts on the skills? Both Xorial and I noticed -- while uncredited -- that some of Pathfinder's skill revision actually has some history in ... <drumroll> Mongoose. If anyone's familiar with the WARS sci-fi fantasy system they released back in 2005. For instance, Perception made its appearance there.
...and then we'll have the polymath class ... which is essentially the munchkin. ;)
****
Any thoughts on the skills? Both Xorial and I noticed -- while uncredited -- that some of Pathfinder's skill revision actually has some history in ... <drumroll> Mongoose. If anyone's familiar with the WARS sci-fi fantasy system they released back in 2005. For instance, Perception made its appearance there.
Well there are new skills to consider,
use computer i think has to stay on its own
but repair and disable device might be able to be rolled together in mechanics
research is a tough one, i dont know what you could roll it into, unless you just want to keep it with it's respective knowledges, but personally i dont like that idea.
I think puting spot and listen together as perception is good, but i'd like to see search instead rolled together with investigate.
Do acrobatics like pathfinder, and do 'athletics' with jump climb and swim.
Create a linguistics style skill that puts together read/write language, decipher script and maybe forgery too, though forgery in a modern setting is more then just language and writing.
Speaking in generalisms, I could see the following:
Soldier
Scoundrel
Diplomat
Scholar
MedicBut I understand the reason behind stat based classes because doing what I described above may hinder someone's perception on how they want to run their class. Perhaps you want to be a brawler or a gear-head, how do you fit it in? Sometimes it's a Catch-22 for me.
Okay. I want to say up front that I do NOT want to get involved in an extended debate of this question right here and now ... but there's a consideration that often gets left out of these discussions, and it is the very HEART of the reason that I personally believe the attribute-based classes are still the way to go.
The heart of the problem is the question "What soldier are you talking about?"
If you're playing a Full Metal Jacket campaign it's one thing, if you're playing a Green Berets campaign it's another, and if you're playing a Navy NCIS campaign it's something completely different ... and THOSE are all military-centric campaign ideas. A "soldier" is something ELSE entirely if you're playing a Law & Order campaign and something else again if you're playing a Bourne Identity campaign.
What I'm saying is, that if the goal for the product is to make a set of RPG rules that can be applied to a wide range of campaign models and even time periods, then you need the base classes to be something that will be true across ALL of those iterations. And roles as common as soldier, medic, diplomat, etc. will need a variety of implementations for use in different games.
I think the biggest problem with the d20 Modern rules as they stand is not the base classes (although I DO think they need to be better defined and more refined). I think the big problem is even with the Advanced and Prestige Classes, they seem to indicate that "one soldier fits all campaigns."
If left to my own preferences, the new-version modern RPG would still have attribute-based base classes, a VARIETY of implementations of common jobs/roles like "soldier" (to show the player several ways to do them), and an extended section on making or tweaking AdvCs and PrCs to suit your individual campaigns.
All of that is still up for debate and discussion in the P20 Modern project. But the final answer must deal with the question of "what soldier are you talking about?"
What you said, Stan!, does sound rational based from your point of view regarding the soldier. Perhaps instead of stating them as PrCs, some may want to look more of job/roles in a talent and/or feat style tree based from within the attribute base class to get that feel like they're going to proceed down toward all 20 levels without truely entering a PrC and/or multiclassing. The Rogue's talent option in Pathfinder is an excellent example.
I personally don't have issues with PrCs and/or multiclassing ... but with regard to PrCs, I would love to see them at three to five levels versus the common 10 levels.
Anywho....
What you said, Stan!, does sound rational based from your point of view regarding the soldier.
It's not just the soldier, though. The same problem crops up with just about EVERY common role.
A "medic" is vastly different things in campaigns based on E.R. or M*A*S*H or CSI or Scrubs.
A "scholar" would be defined differently in campaigns based on The West Wing or A Beautiful Mind or The Paper Chase or High School Musical.
Perhaps instead of stating them as PrCs, some may want to look more of job/roles in a talent and/or feat style tree based from within the attribute base class to get that feel like they're going to proceed down toward all 20 levels without truely entering a PrC and/or multiclassing. The Rogue's talent option in Pathfinder is an excellent example.
Finding a better mixture of base classes, occupations, and AdvCs/PrCs is certainly going to be one of the main design challenges for P20 Modern.
It's important to both give the player's options to individualize their characters AND create a balanced and predicable expectation for characters' power and skill levels for the GM to use when planning his campaign. The broader the options for individual base classes, the more difficult that will be.
I personally don't have issues with PrCs and/or multiclassing ... but with regard to PrCs, I would love to see them at three to five levels versus the common 10 levels.
The number of levels in base classes, AdvCs, and PrCs is something that we already know will be a debate even within the design team. My initial leaning is to keep everything brief (10 levels at most) and Owen's initial leaning is to at least have base classes cover 20 levels (like in PFRPG). And neither one of us is "wrong." We just have to find the answer that best suits the overall aims of the game.
It's not just the soldier, though. The same problem crops up with just about EVERY common role.
A "medic" is vastly different things in campaigns based on E.R. or M*A*S*H or CSI or Scrubs.
A "scholar" would be defined differently in campaigns based on The West Wing or A Beautiful Mind or The Paper Chase or High School Musical.
I apologize; I should have clarified that the soldier was a good example; not that it was an exclusive one.
The number of levels in base classes, AdvCs, and PrCs is something that we already know will be a debate even within the design team. My initial leaning is to keep everything brief (10 levels at most) and Owen's initial leaning is to at least have base classes cover 20 levels (like in PFRPG). And neither one of us is "wrong." We just have to find the answer that best suits the overall aims of the game.
The answer lies somewhere in the middle. But of course, how that course is eventually decided is, as you've said all along, are the voices of the participating patrons...
Whereever the hell they are now before it went live. :P
What you said, Stan!, does sound rational based from your point of view regarding the soldier.It's not just the soldier, though. The same problem crops up with just about EVERY common role.
A "medic" is vastly different things in campaigns based on E.R. or M*A*S*H or CSI or Scrubs.
A "scholar" would be defined differently in campaigns based on The West Wing or A Beautiful Mind or The Paper Chase or High School Musical.
Perhaps instead of stating them as PrCs, some may want to look more of job/roles in a talent and/or feat style tree based from within the attribute base class to get that feel like they're going to proceed down toward all 20 levels without truely entering a PrC and/or multiclassing. The Rogue's talent option in Pathfinder is an excellent example.Finding a better mixture of base classes, occupations, and AdvCs/PrCs is certainly going to be one of the main design challenges for P20 Modern.
It's important to both give the player's options to individualize their characters AND create a balanced and predicable expectation for characters' power and skill levels for the GM to use when planning his campaign. The broader the options for individual base classes, the more difficult that will be.
I personally don't have issues with PrCs and/or multiclassing ... but with regard to PrCs, I would love to see them at three to five levels versus the common 10 levels.The number of levels in base classes, AdvCs, and PrCs is something that we already know will be a debate even within the design team. My initial leaning is to keep everything brief (10 levels at most) and Owen's initial leaning is to at least have base classes cover 20 levels (like in PFRPG). And neither one of us is "wrong." We just have to find the answer that best suits the overall aims of the game.
Still hate the attribute based classes in d20 modern though I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately (not that it makes a difference in the development of the final product or anything) it makes or breaks the game for me personally.
Perhaps a different approach then? Instead of going with a 'scoundrel, soldier, etc etc' or 'fast hero, strong hero, etc etc' a more customizable and flexible approach can be made? It would run similarly to Call of Cthulhu d20. Where the player would choose between an offensive or defensive character then get either more skill points or an extra combat feat depending. Maybe something like:
Offensive: High base attack, small skill advancement, free combat feat/ability.
Balanced: Moderate base attack, and either a high skill advancement or a moderate skill advancement and a utilitarian feat or ability.
Defensive: Low base attack, high skill advancement, skill based feat or ability.
There could still be an emphasis on attributes with abilities focused on attributes but requiring a player to meet pre-requisites instead of being a part of a specific class. This would allow for a truly flexible character without requiring one to think of 'what sort of soldier am I' or having to use those damnable attribute classes.
I don't know... that's my two bits.
...What I'm saying is, that if the goal for the product is to make a set of RPG rules that can be applied to a wide range of campaign models and even time periods, then you need the base classes to be something that will be true across ALL of those iterations. And roles as common as soldier, medic, diplomat, etc. will need a variety of implementations for use in different games...
Stan!, I agree with you wholeheartedly that role-based classes like "Sodlier" and "Medic" won't work very well for a system that has to cover so much ground. However:
For instance to make something akin to a pathfinder rogue you had to multiclass in d20 modern. It was a fast hero/smart hero mix. And if we are going to be using pathfinder design philosophy we should try to make it possible to fit ideas and concepts with single classes.
I also agree with Kolokotroni, which is why I think that the stat-based base classes are not the way to go. There has to be a better way to accomplish your stated goal of flexiblity.
Personally, I think that a good place to start is with the question, "How does my character approach problem solving?" Here are a few examples:
- Brute Force
- Quick Thinking, Unconventional Thinking, & Trickery (aka, Cleverness)
- Critical Analysis & Insightful Planning (aka, Superior Strategy)
- Effective Team Building & Coordination (aka, Leadership; or in a darker sense, Manipulation)
- Gut-Instinct Impulsiveness
- Hard Work & Perseverence
Classes based on the answer to this question would be suitably flexible to allow for soldiers (or scholars, or medics) of every stripe, while still allowing roles to be based on a single class. You can probably look at each of these categories and think of a famous (real or fictional) soldier who fits (e.g. Odysseus was clever, Rommel was a supreme strategist, Jayne from Firefly used a brute force approach, etc) These problem-solving approaches are somewhat aligned with attributes, but most of them can't be shoehorned into the old attribute-based classes:
- Brute Force : STR
- Quick Thinking, Unconventional Thinking, & Trickery (aka, Cleverness): INT & DEX
- Critical Analysis & Insightful Planning (aka, Superior Strategy): INT & WIS
- Effective Team Building & Coordination (aka, Leadership; or in a darker sense, Manipulation): CHA & WIS
- Gut-Instinct Impulsiveness: DEX & WIS (and, to be honest, lots of luck!)
- Hard Work & Perseverence: CON & WIS
Even this list of associations is misleading, however: consider an engineer trying to solve the problem of putting a person into space. The "brute force" engineer wouldn't try to use his STR to pick the person up and throw him into space; he would use his INT to build a big huge expensive rocket, which is exactly what we have done for most astronauts so far. Now, however, some people (like Scaled Composites) are trying to find other, less-"brute force" methods to put people into space.
I think that if you use core classes based on problem-solving approaches rather than attributes, and if you build enough options into each class, you could completely eliminate the cumbersome (and not-very-Pathfinderish) Advanced Classes, sticking instead to just Core & Prestige Classes.
|
At first I liked being able to talk about "smart heroes" and "strong heroes" because it seemed to fit well with familiar archetypes, but it ended up being a rut that was hard to get players out of once you started taking prestige classes. Besides, I'd REALLY like the classes in P20 Modern to closer to the standard Pathfinder classes in case I ever wanted to port someone from one campaign to the other.
So here's my suggestion. Most d20 Modern campaigns are pretty human centered, with quite a few being exclusively human. Why not treat Smart, Quick, Strong, etc. as races instead of classes? Or, I guess, subraces would be more accurate. That way you could have your smart human doctor and your smart human soldier as well as your strong human soldier. It would almost work like a template. Humans could start off with no bonuses or penalties to attributes, but then when you add Smart you get +2 to Int and select a Smart-feat from a list. If you add Strong you get +2 to Str and select a Strong-feat. And you'd be free to select any class you wanted. Obviously, some classes would fit better with some attribute focuses, but that's the way it is right now in Pathfinder/3.5 - halflings make good rogues because of their Dex bonus, but you can play a dwarf rogue if you want.
In a way, these race templates remind me of the heroic paths in the Midnight RPG. Because there was so little magic, players would have gotten really behind the curve without some extra help, so each character picked a "heroic path" like Iron Bones or Chosen of the Earth. At each level, besides your class improving, you picked up a little power based on your path. Iron Bones got bonuses to Fort saves and eventually picked up some DR (IIRC). Chosen of the Earth might get some attack bonuses when touching dirt and might eventually be able to communicate with Earth creatures. Don't quote me on the specifics, but you get the idea - a destiny that the character was growing into.
Now at first I said this was for humans, but the more template-y / heroic path-y this becomes, the easier it is to apply it to any race. Strong dwarf fighter, Dedicated gnoll cleric, etc.
Anyway, just trying to think outside the box and find a way to keep two things we like - standard classes/compatibility with Pathfinder and heroic archetypes/consistency with d20 Modern.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think I agree with Stan!'s point, but wonder if the way to handle the issue is something a bit different than a simple ability based classes/non-ability based classes. An example would be having a single generic class for levels 1-3 for all characters, with LOTS of options for feats/talents/special abilities, that would let you customize within that generic class. In addition to abilities like the D20 Modern talent trees and rogue talents, some could be things like basic magic/psionics etc, or bumping up your BAB from medium to good, or a saving throw from poor to good. You could also easily layer on a flaw system, letting a character select 1 flaw (such as reducing BAB from medium to poor) in exchange for another talent.
Then, upon hitting 4th level, you'd have to take an advanced/prestige class (and over time a series of them), somewhat similar to the careers system of the Warhammer Fantasy RPG (at least 1st edition, haven't kept up with newer versions).
In a way, these race templates remind me of the heroic paths in the Midnight RPG. Because there was so little magic, players would have gotten really behind the curve without some extra help, so each character picked a "heroic path" like Iron Bones or Chosen of the Earth. At each level, besides your class improving, you picked up a little power based on your path. Iron Bones got bonuses to Fort saves and eventually picked up some DR (IIRC). Chosen of the Earth might get some attack bonuses when touching dirt and might eventually be able to communicate with Earth creatures. Don't quote me on the specifics, but you get the idea - a destiny that the character was growing into.
It's been awhile since I've looked at my Midnight h/c. I'll have to take a look at that to refresh my thoughts based on what you brought up here.
Actually, everyone brought up a lot of good points. Hopefully each one of you signed up for the patronage ... or are going to do so. =)
|
Every single character has a particular 'core' about them--a defining quality or trait that is something they naturally came into, something they trained hard to achieve, or a bit of both. Even for individuals that seem at the 'lower' tier of activities, there are things that that person is good at (or sometimes exceptional at). Going with either stat-based or role-based classes explains this concept in their own ways, but the broader the concepts go, the broader the classes have to be as well.
Going with what Stan! has stated, I'm a firm believer of Stat-focused classes because, to me, they fit the bill of being universally adaptable to any scenario. You could say a character is a rogue or a scoundrel--but those are occupations or concepts, not defining qualities. I think the classes need to focus on what the character is good at, not an over-arching name or label at what he's expected to do in a given situation. When you put a label of 'fighter' or 'soldier' onto something, you immediately assume that he's SUPPOSED to be good at fighting. If you put the label of strong hero, you don't immediately get that assumption; The only thing you start off with is, yes, he's strong. How strong? In what area? As what focus? A character might be a strong hero, but he might know nothing about fighting; He might be the kind of person that just drives railroad stakes into the ground all day. He might be someone that doesn't work with power tools at a construction site. These aren't exclusive, but rather, just examples. This leaves the qualities of a character open, without people automatically assuming what they're good at, leaving options and techniques open for creative players and characters.
That's why I think we should go with Stat-based classes, anyway. Someone might have a more valid viewpoint on it than I do.
My concern with stat based classes is that as shown in the d20 modern NPC's, it requires alot of multiclassing. Just look at the npcs for police officer, terrorist, criminal, and doctor. The are all multiclass. If you go with 6 stat based classes (or just 6 very broad base classes) you have to make multiclassing a core part of character design. This is obviously counter to some of pathfinder's design principles. Since one of p20 modern's goals is to build off of pathfinder's advances, this is something we have to seriously consider.
Second and most importantly (to me) is that if you only have a small number of base classes they have to be REALLY flexible. That means almost everything is going to be a choice. If the class is all talents and feats (like say saga edition) you get no direction from the class as to where to take your character. Just look at 'jedi' from saga edition. This could mean literally thousand of talent/feat combinations. It can be overwhelming to anyone not particularly fond or skilled at building a character. There are a couple members of my group that dont enjoy saga edition because its too complicated to make a character.
This is particularly an issue because of super genius' current business model. If their p20 modern products follow a similar line as their pathfinder products, talents/feats/alternate class features will be spread across alot of different products. Keeping track of it as a dm (what my players can do, and what my npcs can do) as well as a player (what should i make my character do).
We dont want it to seem like a chore to make a character, it should be relatively easy to achieve your character concept with our system. I dont think that is possible with extremely flexible base classes like what exists in saga edition.
My concern with stat based classes is that as shown in the d20 modern NPC's, it requires alot of multiclassing. Just look at the npcs for police officer, terrorist, criminal, and doctor. The are all multiclass. If you go with 6 stat based classes (or just 6 very broad base classes) you have to make multiclassing a core part of character design. This is obviously counter to some of pathfinder's design principles. Since one of p20 modern's goals is to build off of pathfinder's advances, this is something we have to seriously consider...
You've really hit the nail on the head here: one of the great things about Pathfinder is that you really can take a character all the way to 20th level in a single class, and have that character be very effective. I love multiclassing, and my characters almost always turn out to be a byzantine patchwork of core- and prestige classes, but I still love this aspect of the Pathfinder base classes. The old d20 Modern system of advanced classes is mutually exclusive with the principle of having core classes that are playable through 20th level. That's why I think that P20 Modern should employ something other than stat-based core classes. I still like my idea based on different approaches to problem solving, but I really just threw that out there as one possible idea: my main desire is for a better idea, whether it be mine or someone else's.
...If the class is all talents and feats (like say saga edition) you get no direction from the class as to where to take your character. Just look at 'jedi' from saga edition. This could mean literally thousand of talent/feat combinations. It can be overwhelming to anyone not particularly fond or skilled at building a character...
However, I totally disagree with you on this point. The talent trees in SWSE are a form of direction as to where to take your character: you can build a great character simply by picking one or two talent trees and just filling them out in order. If an inexperienced gamer knows that he wants to play a gambler, or a starfighter pilot, or a computer slicer, or a repair mechanic, or a street brawler, the talent trees will tell him exactly how to build that character. You still have to pick your feats, but that's true of any d20-based system. If the talents weren't organized into trees I'd say you have a point, but they aren't just a hodge-podge of bewildering choices: they are clearly categorized collections of neatly organized choices.
The beauty of the talent trees is that they work for experienced gamers as well as newbies. While the newbie can simply pick one or two trees and follow them all of the way to 20th level, an experienced gamer can pick and choose from different talent trees, or even different classes. If you want to, you can ignore those clear categories and choose from the talents as you please. It's hard to design a system that simultaneously provides guidance and flexibility, but I think that SWSE pulls it off masterfully.
I'm also surprised that you would find the SWSE classes too broad, but consider the Pathfinder classes good. I think that the Pathfinder classes offer almost as many choices as the SWSE classes. There is either a feat or a class feature to choose at pretty much every level. Even at character creation, some of the classes offer wildly divergent choices: just look at the Cleric domains, or the Sorcer bloodlines.
However, I totally disagree with you on this point. The talent trees in SWSE are a form of direction as to where to take your character: you can build a great character simply by picking one or two talent trees and just filling them out in order. If an inexperienced gamer knows that he wants to play a gambler, or a starfighter pilot, or a computer slicer, or a repair mechanic, or a street brawler, the talent trees will tell him exactly how to build that character. You still have to pick your feats, but that's true of any d20-based system. If the talents weren't organized into trees I'd say you have a point, but they aren't just a hodge-podge of bewildering choices: they are clearly categorized collections of neatly organized choices.
But the talents can all be taken individually, they are split in multiple books, and in many cases they do very different things. As of rebelion era there were like 60 something jedi talents. To fill a maximum of 10 talent spots (but in reality it is fewer since you were bound to go into a prestige class). Do i really need to point out how many friggan permutations 60 into 10 is?
The beauty of the talent trees is that they work for experienced gamers as well as newbies. While the newbie can simply pick one or two trees and follow them all of the way to 20th level, an experienced gamer can pick and choose from different talent trees, or even different classes. If you want to, you can ignore those clear categories and choose from the talents as you please. It's hard to design a system that simultaneously provides guidance and flexibility, but I think that SWSE pulls it off masterfully.
I just think a class should have some set features. I really dislike how scattered the saga feats are. If you want to be good with a light saber, or good at hiding, or good at talking there are tons of ways to do it spread among multiple talent trees. And given how often the talent trees dont really do similar things mechanically, or even thematically, they dont provide any guidance at all.
I'm also surprised that you would find the SWSE classes too broad, but consider the Pathfinder classes good. I think that the Pathfinder classes offer almost as many choices as the SWSE classes. There is either a feat or a class feature to choose at pretty much every level. Even at character creation, some of the classes offer wildly divergent choices: just look at the Cleric domains, or the Sorcer bloodlines.
Again the permutations for talents are mind boggling, add in bonus feats and we are talking the realm of the ridiculous. Classes should not (in my mind) be completely customizable, there should be some set features that give the class its general feel. No pathfinder class is completely lacking in set features, and even in the case of bloodlines and specialization schools, once you pick you are set, there isnt a hundred things to choose from for every single level. Some talents with talent trees is fine, but the whole damn class as talent trees would be a product i'd be far less interested in.
Edit:
The scattered problem appeared in d20 modern too. Look at many of the talent trees and you find abilities that are kind of thematically linked but there is no guarantee a player will want all of them for their character.
Like the fast hero defensive tree, evasion, ok, uncanny dodge 1 and 2 kind of fit, i might want them, but opportunist? Thats a whole other ballpart, thats an offensive ability.
But the talents can all be taken individually, they are split in multiple books, and in many cases they do very different things. As of rebelion era there were like 60 something jedi talents. To fill a maximum of 10 talent spots (but in reality it is fewer since you were bound to go into a prestige class). Do i really need to point out how many friggan permutations 60 into 10 is?
I think you're missing my point entirely here. You are correct that there are a mind-boggling number of possible talent combinations. It's not quite 60 permuted into 10, because of the prerequisites, but that's also beside the point. The point is that you don't have to consider all of the possible permutations. You don't have to sift through every possible talent in every possible book and find the optimum combination for the very exact character concept you have in mind. (Well, technically speaking, if you are a powergaming min-maxer with OCD, then you literally do have to do that, but that doesn't apply to most people). If you're talking about someone who either doesn't know or doesn't care about building the "perfect" character (i.e., someone who cares more about playing a role and having fun than he does about rules minutiae), then the number of combinations doesn't really matter. You are correct that the talents can be taken individually, that they don't have to be taken as entire trees, but those trees exist for a reason: they serve as a form of guidance for "normal" gamers who don't want to deal with the hassle of sifting through a zillion choices. Those people can decide on their character concepts, pick classes that fit reasonably well, choose a few talent trees that best fit their concepts, and then stick with those choices all the way through 20th level. They will probably have more fun than Mr. OCD powergamer.
A few examples:
I want to play a Jedi who resolves conflicts nonviolently whenever possible, but who can kick serious butt when violence does ensue.Well, the Jedi class is the obvious choice for me. Let's look at the talent trees: The Jedi Consular tree is right up my ally with all of the negotiation skills, and the Lightsaber Combat tree will let my character kick butt when required. Hmm, that adds up to ten talents, which is enough to take me all the way to 20th level. All I have do do now is decide which order to take them in, and I think I'll work that out as I level up each time.
Optimal? Hell, no! Good enough to play and have fun? Absolutely. Easy? As easy as it gets!
Here's another one:
I want to play a master computer slicer who travels the galaxy under-cover as a high-stakes gambler.Scoundrel is clearly the class to use for this character. What talents are available? Well, the slicer tree is a no-brainer, and the Fortune tree looks like it will fill out my character's gambling capabilities. That totals eight talents, so I'll eventually need to pick two more if I go to 17th level or beyond. If it comes to that, I'll just pick a couple from the Misfortune tree.
See how simple this is? It's not perfect, but it sure is good enough!
One last one:
I want a character who grew up in a tough neighborhood. He became a first-rate street-fighter who can take a lot of punishment, but also learned that teamwork and smarts are the best way to win a fight.This character is all about fighting, so Soldier looks like the right class. How about talents? The brawler tree is a perfect match for his street-fighting background, and the commando tree looks very teamwork- and tactics-oriented, so I'll use those two. There are twelve talents total in those two trees, which is two more than I'll ever be able to choose; I'll pick the talents that seem most useful as I level up, and in the end I'll wind up skipping the two that matter least to my character.
As you can see, building characters from talent trees is only as complicated as you make it. If you don't like choosing from a nearly limitless set of options, then don't! Scope down your choices to make it easy on yourself, and focus on the stuff that matters to you. You can literally think of the talent trees as "sub-classes," and then they become almost as fixed as the character features in Pathfinder. Is this how I build my characters? No! I rather enjoy sifting through a lot possibilities and taking little bits from many different classes, talent trees, and prestige classes. That's what I love about SWSE: it lets me build characters my way, but still makes it easy for people who don't want to deal with all of the complexity.
One of my buddies who owns Modern was very interested. Don't know if he'll pre-order thou.
+1
One of my buddies who owns Modern was very interested. Don't know if he'll pre-order thou.
+1
Therein lies the problem methinks. =(
Just got off Skype with Stan! We talked at length about P20 Modern for episode 9 of Know Direction, due out Friday, April 16th.
Cool. I look forward to listening to it.
Just thought I'd mention here that Super Genius Games has just released Building Blocks: Active Reputation, a modern OGL product. This ISN'T a preview of P20 Modern ... rather it's a supplement for d20 Modern, but it IS meant to show that we are already thinking and writing in the modern vein. It contains variant rules for using the Reputation score as an ACTIVE statistic (rather than just the passive use spelled out in the core rules).
If you want to discuss Active Reputation, there's a product-specific thread elsewhere on the boards ... but I thought that people following this thread might like to know about it's arrival.
I have played ModernD20 Extensively, I have had to put it down because the games needs an update badly. I have been impressed with pathfinder and if you need people to throw in on this project I know I could get at least 5 people including myself
I have played ModernD20 Extensively, I have had to put it down because the games needs an update badly. I have been impressed with pathfinder and if you need people to throw in on this project I know I could get at least 5 people including myself
Right here. The more the merrier!
16 days remaining and only 11.5% of the goal met, though. :/
But we're dealing with Super Geniuses ... here's to hoping that there's an alternative plan in the works if this doesn't pan out.
You can have generic classes without having ones based on str, dex, etc.
Two thoughts:
Going with generic traditional roles you would have 4 core classes=
Combat Hero
Arcane Hero
Divine Hero
Skilled Hero
2nd would be more specific but tied to fighting style, not tied to a specific Genre:
Stealth fighter
Born Leader
Mystic
Divine Warrior
Unarmed Master
Natural Hunter
Perfect Sniper
Regarless, they would keep feats/talents so even within each class you could customize the character.
here's to hoping that there's an alternative plan in the works if this doesn't pan out.
Yeah, I hope so. I was also hoping that those of us who got iconics would be offered first refusal on the equivalent for any new project (assuming this one didn't go ahead).
Peace,
DoD Kev'
(aka tfad)
Yeah, I hope so. I was also hoping that those of us who got iconics would be offered first refusal on the equivalent for any new project (assuming this one didn't go ahead).
Peace,
DoD Kev'
(aka tfad)
Question - are you the same tfad that released his own take on Pathfinder Psionics?
I don't want to speak on their behalf, but I did ask Hyrum and Stan! that same question back on their last blogtalkradio on April Fool's.
Question - are you the same tfad that released his own take on Pathfinder Psionics?
Yeah, that was me. Although it was less "my own take" and more "updated to match what was in the Beta".
I'm a real psionics fan and we use a lot of it in my group. We needed something to work with along side the new Beta versions of the classes in order to participate in the playtests. Thus the update was born and I figured, hey, why not release it. "My own take" is a little different, mostly regarding the Psion (we have an undisciplined option to match our fluff on how psionics works), but the others are pretty close - but we didn't think it was right to playtest something next to house ruled classes unless it was done in the same way as what was presented in the Beta.
Short answer - yes, that was me. ;)
DoD - Kev'
Question - are you the same tfad that released his own take on Pathfinder Psionics?Yeah, that was me. Although it was less "my own take" and more "updated to match what was in the Beta".
I'm a real psionics fan and we use a lot of it in my group. We needed something to work with along side the new Beta versions of the classes in order to participate in the playtests. Thus the update was born and I figured, hey, why not release it. "My own take" is a little different, mostly regarding the Psion (we have an undisciplined option to match our fluff on how psionics works), but the others are pretty close - but we didn't think it was right to playtest something next to house ruled classes unless it was done in the same way as what was presented in the Beta.
Short answer - yes, that was me. ;)
DoD - Kev'
Cool! Michael Johnson 66 has been working on his take on Gamma World - Ruins & Wastelands: After the Cataclysm - and was trying to wrestle with what to do with psionics. I just happened to send him a copy of your "take" on it yesterday to assist. One thing that I didn't notice right off the back .... how did you handle the issue of not using XP to fuel certain psionic abilities any longer? What did you do in its place?
Also - have you updated your docs since?
I just happened to send him a copy of your "take" on it yesterday to assist.
Thanks - pass it around, spread the love. I seriously love psionics and am continually horrified at the lack of good press/supplements it receives.
how did you handle the issue of not using XP to fuel certain psionic abilities any longer? What did you do in its place?
Same thing as suggested in the Beta, which was a conversion to GP. I can't find the formula in my Beta at the moment, but, IIRC, it was XP x 5 = in GP. Just treat the GP cost as a material component as you would with any arcane spell. It's not 100% elegant, but it works.
Personally, my group likes XP costs - it is fun when you can spend your XP on something other than leveling up (e.g. Training Schools in Dragonstar, Mutations in Oathbound, etc.). I would have preferred to see more XP spending options rather than the removal of the mechanic. Perhaps even a new way to multiclass; buying bonuses with XP would be nice. Ah well. :D
have you updated your docs since?
Not in any official capacity, no. I'm about 60% or so of the way through collecting everything together so our group can get our house rules printed bound at Lulu or similar. Also, I've done a lot of work for Dance of Dice (which is why I'm now using the alias), some of it psionic, but we're currently stuck in development-heck. :(
Peace,
DoD - Kev'
|
|
Ok, so here the deal. Totally willing to commit cash to this, just need a month or so before that can happen. The wife is for it too, so make that a +2 from me, once we got the gold. Things I'd like to see are pretty specific ideas, and if they've already been covered, my bad, I saw so many in the past 13 pages that my mind is having trouble retaining them all.
As an active Marine, one thing that would be big for me is attachments to weapons as opposed to 'magical enhancements' i.e. where PF has a longbow with flaming burst, PF Modern may have an M16 with an M203 grenade launcher. Just throwing that out there.
Also, and I'm just throwing this out there, but perhaps PrC's that require OTHER PrC's to focus on specializations more? For instance, a Soldier 3 takes MMA Fighter 5 and Sniper 5, allowing the Ultimate Special Recon Killer PrC to be available. Granted, I would NOT expect to see any of this in the Core, but perhaps in something more akin to one of the Complete series of books. Which I would also gladly purchase.
Anyways, hope to hear more good things coming from here soon. After all, this thread was the reason that I had to make an accnt.
-Sac
PS: Double checked the old coffers and decided I can afford a $50 for now, after checking the site. I hope my small contrib helps, and if I had known about this earlier, maybe it would be ME that got to make Sex Machine.
|
Contributor
|
Ok, so here the deal. Totally willing to commit cash to this, just need a month or so before that can happen. The wife is for it too, so make that a +2 from me, once we got the gold. Things I'd like to see are pretty specific ideas, and if they've already been covered, my bad, I saw so many in the past 13 pages that my mind is having trouble retaining them all.
As an active Marine, one thing that would be big for me is attachments to weapons as opposed to 'magical enhancements' i.e. where PF has a longbow with flaming burst, PF Modern may have an M16 with an M203 grenade launcher. Just throwing that out there.
Also, and I'm just throwing this out there, but perhaps PrC's that require OTHER PrC's to focus on specializations more? For instance, a Soldier 3 takes MMA Fighter 5 and Sniper 5, allowing the Ultimate Special Recon Killer PrC to be available. Granted, I would NOT expect to see any of this in the Core, but perhaps in something more akin to one of the Complete series of books. Which I would also gladly purchase.
Anyways, hope to hear more good things coming from here soon. After all, this thread was the reason that I had to make an accnt.
-Sac
PS: Double checked the old coffers and decided I can afford a $50 for now, after checking the site. I hope my small contrib helps, and if I had known about this earlier, maybe it would be ME that got to make Sex Machine.
I think Sex Machine should have psionics. Especially vibratory telekinesis.
[ I was also hoping that those of us who got iconics would be offered first refusal on the equivalent for any new project (assuming this one didn't go ahead).
We haven't been engaging in that kind of negative thinking yet ... but I think, in as much as we can figure out a way to DO that, we would like to. We certainly WANT to show support and loyalty to those who have given us that level of trust and encouragement.
I'm not sure HOW we can make that work logistically ... but we'll definitely do our best to find an answer to that question ... IF it becomes necessary.
BTW, for those who might be interested, we're having ANOTHER episode of Super Genius Radio this Thursday (4/22/10) at 5:30pm PDT (GMT -8). Come on by with any questions you've got and we'll do our best to give you full and complete answers ... or at least be mildly entertaining while we hem and haw.
The show will be found here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stannex/2010/04/23/super-genius-radio--p20-mod ern-in-the-home-stretch (or, for those of you who prefer a tinier url, here http://tinyurl.com/y5tjjly)
Speaking in generalisms, I could see the following:
Soldier
Scoundrel
Diplomat
Scholar
MedicBut I understand the reason behind stat based classes because doing what I described above may hinder someone's perception on how they want to run their class. Perhaps you want to be a brawler or a gear-head, how do you fit it in? Sometimes it's a Catch-22 for me.
Okay. I want to say up front that I do NOT want to get involved in an extended debate of this question right here and now ... but there's a consideration that often gets left out of these discussions, and it is the very HEART of the reason that I personally believe the attribute-based classes are still the way to go.
The heart of the problem is the question "What soldier are you talking about?"
If you're playing a Full Metal Jacket campaign it's one thing, if you're playing a Green Berets campaign it's another, and if you're playing a Navy NCIS campaign it's something completely different ... and THOSE are all military-centric campaign ideas. A "soldier" is something ELSE entirely if you're playing a Law & Order campaign and something else again if you're playing a Bourne Identity campaign.
What I'm saying is, that if the goal for the product is to make a set of RPG rules that can be applied to a wide range of campaign models and even time periods, then you need the base classes to be something that will be true across ALL of those iterations. And roles as common as soldier, medic, diplomat, etc. will need a variety of implementations for use in different games.
I think the biggest problem with the d20 Modern rules as they stand is not the base classes (although I DO think they need to be better defined and more refined). I think the big problem is even with the Advanced and Prestige Classes, they seem to indicate that "one soldier fits all campaigns."
If left to my own preferences, the new-version modern RPG would still have attribute-based base classes, a...
+1
I just listend to the know direction interview with Stan! on the way in to work this morning. I will have to listen to that podcast more often. I hope it helps get the word out on p20 modern.