D&D 3E/3.5 D20 Modern: Edition Experience - Did/Do You Play d20 Modern? How Was/Is it?

[Robby24]

I did not play ...
But in the world of cyberpunk (a nondescript strategy (with soldiers who do not understand)) there is something unrealistic. I understand that d6 is used there to a greater extent, but there are times when you need d20 (the systems are different, but the fact is a fact) - the post-nuclear world, the universe, actions are not limited to planet Earth.
But we did not stop there - I became a leading desktop strategy with soldiers. Impossible? Not everything is so close to saying that nothing happens without me.

 

[atanakar]

I drive modernity alive. Players like my modules. Although sometimes they disappoint me themselves, there are times when you try, you think up something, you try to twist the plot, and players avoid this moment simply by applying some modern technologies. Therefore, I find the D20 Modern interesting.
But the D20 Modern Future is more interesting for its breadth, but unfortunately, it is problematic to play on it in real life even with the number of players of 6-7 people.
D20 Modern Past is also a peculiar and very interesting thing. All the same, this is not fantasy, and after several successful adventures, when the heroes for the most part achieved their goal, the new campaign looks silly. Here, modernity wins.

I really enjoy running Modern before computers (web) and cellphones. From 1899 to 1979.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Between D&D 3.0 (2000) and 3.5 (2003) WotC published a game called d20 Modern (2002) wanting to capitalize on the design of the d20 (OGL) system and also offer a system that supported other genres and tropes than D&D. You could characterize it as pulp action hero role-playing. It had quite an impressive run with no less than 11 books released to support it. The last scheduled book (working title) Supers was never published.

d20 Modern Roleplaying Game	Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb and Rich Redman	ISBN 0-7869-2836-0	1 November 2002
Urban Arcana	Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Eric Cagle and Dave Noonan	ISBN 0-7869-2659-7	1 May 2003
d20 Menace Manual	JD Wiker, Eric Cagle and Matthew Sernett	ISBN 0-7869-2899-9	1 September 2003
d20 Weapons Locker	Keith J. Potter	ISBN 0-7869-3132-9	1 February 2004
d20 Future	Christopher Perkins, Rodney M. Thompson and JD Wiker	ISBN 0-7869-3423-9	1 August 2004
d20 Past	James Wyatt	ISBN 0-7869-3656-8	1 March 2005
d20 Apocalypse	Eric Cagle, Darrin Drader, Charles Ryan, Owen K.C. Stephens	ISBN 0-7869-3273-2	1 June 2005
d20 Cyberscape	Owen K.C. Stephens	ISBN 0-7869-3695-9	1 September 2005
d20 Future Tech	Rodney Thompson and JD Wiker	ISBN 0-7869-3949-4	1 February 2006
d20 Critical Locations	Eric Cagle, Owen K.C. Stephens and Christopher West	ISBN 0-7869-3914-1	1 May 2006
d20 Dark•Matter

Um one big problem, you're missing:

"I played this system, and I didn't like it".

I can't vote until that's in, because I thought that while d20 Modern had some clever ideas (badly implemented) and awesome art, and a fun setting, it was pretty awful game. We did try it but ugh, it just felt all wrong for something actually set in the 20th/21st century.

 

[Retreater]

What @Ruin Explorer said.

 

[atanakar]

Um one big problem, you're missing:

"I played this system, and I didn't like it".

I can't vote until that's in, because I thought that while d20 Modern had some clever ideas (badly implemented) and awesome art, and a fun setting, it was pretty awful game. We did try it but ugh, it just felt all wrong for something actually set in the 20th/21st century.

Crap! And done.

 

[AndromedaRPG]

I had voted, "I played it, and remember liking it." When it had come out, I enjoyed it, and wanted to use it for a lot of things (d20 Future especially). As the years go on, my opinion of d20 has...decreased. I still like it for fantasy (D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder), but I feel levels just don't work for modern/sci-fi. Genesys has since captured my imagination for these style games.

 

[Horwath]

played it once.

didn't liked it.

I prefer World of Darkness for modern adventures.

 

[atanakar]

I had voted, "I played it, and remember liking it." When it had come out, I enjoyed it, and wanted to use it for a lot of things (d20 Future especially). As the years go on, my opinion of d20 has...decreased. I still like it for fantasy (D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder), but I feel levels just don't work for modern/sci-fi. Genesys has since captured my imagination for these style games.

Agreed, classic levelling is probably not the best system for modern environments. Probably why multi-classing is so open.

We played a game of FFG's Edge of the Galaxy once. We didn't like the dice mechanic but I do understand why some players really like it.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My suggestion for a new d20 Modern is a game mechanic close to the optional rule Gestalt characters from 3.5 Unearthed Arcana. There is a main class, and the secondary class doesn't help to become stronger (no more hit points or bonus for save and attack) but only to know more things, for example new languanges, and maybe some feat. This could allow games about superheroes where the main class can't leveling up because it's too powerful, but the PCs still can use XPs to know more things. Or sci-fi modules with transhumanist tech (mind uploading and digital inmortality, for example Eclipse Phase and Altered Carbon) where the main class would be "body" or morph, and the memory loaded in a cortical stack would be the secondary class.

And WotC should talk with the 3PPs for optional modules, for example a different list of abilities scores (my house rule is adding Acuity (perception + astuteness), spirit (courage/willpower + faith/hope/divine grace/karma/fate/luck), and sometimes like the option: technique (visual-hand coordination but speed isn't necessary, for example stealth checks, handcrafting, playing music, dance or maneuvers of martial arts).

 

[wingsandsword]

I played it, I ran campaigns in it, I liked it a lot. I'm pretty sure I have every book officially published for it, and a few of the better 3rd party OGL offerings made for it.

I ran a year-long Dark*Matter campaign with it.

It did have things I didn't like so much. . .the nonlethal/subdual damage system wasn't very good, and the wealth system was widely misunderstood (I understood it, but there were SO many people who didn't get it). I am ambivalent on the Basic/Advanced/Prestige class system it used, and sometimes wished it had a more conventional base class system. Urban Arcana, as a setting, seemed a little goofy, but I thought there was SO much good stuff in UA to use for other games.

I liked there was a fully D&D compatible modern day/sci-fi RPG, it was good for crossover games (among other reasons).

I'm sad that WotC had to discontinue it, and always wished they'd continued that game.