Tablet Pics
And another, with some commentary..
I really like how the tablet makes it easier to be creative with drawing - unlike with pen/paper, I'm not afraid to put more onto the paper with the knowledge that any mistake would require very careful editing out in GIMP. In some cases my pre-tablet comic has differences from the scanned paper copy, but I've kept that type of editing to a minimum. With the one comic I've done so far on the tablet, I was able to be far more adventurous, knowing that control-Z would cure anything.
My knowledge of GIMP is still very shallow - I need to learn more about layers, figure out how to use the buttons on the tablet, etc.
The tablet's config still needs work - the cursor vibrates when it's close enough to the right edge and I still need to use xrandr to turn off the laptop's main display if I want the stylus to work correctly on the screen. Despite not having as much screen real-estate though, I like looking at the smaller screen more than my laptop's ... sigh.
After playing it a bit (not as a DM, which I usually was back in my DnD days), I've come to the conclusion that D20 Modern (and likely the entire D20 genericised DnD setting) is both not much like DnD in the ways it is (was? I haven't seen 4th edition yet) and is lousy.
D20 leaves the essentials of combat mechanics alone, but alters two central aspects of DnD - character classes and character abilities. D20 modern, as I understand it, was designed to provide a framework under which a DM might choose to run a DnD-like campaign set in a world different enough from fantasy novels that many game mechanics would need to be redone. One in particular is character classes - of all the classes only the fighter carries well to the future (although a DM would need to work out mechanics for firearms and other modern weapons). The way they did this in D20 is to largely eliminate character classes, instead having a "class" for each attribute, these classes not being that different (hit dice still depend on class, but otherwise a class is a bundle of proficiency-boosts). They then tagged these classes with uninspiring, difficult-to-imagine names like "Brave Hero" or "Dedicated Hero". In essense, everyonme's a fighter. There being no real classes, fitting any interesting variation between character roles goes to feats and what used to be proficiencies, which is clumsy at best. Conclusion: They screwed up.
They also reworked proficiencies (now called skills), reducing the feeling of there being a huge number of them for people to customise to their heart's content down to there being a short-ish list that pretty much fits with checkboxes and levels on a character's sheet. They also decided that having both feats and proficincies was not enough, now there are special abilities too.
Being flexible isn't bad, but genericising classes doesn't really work well, and the proficiency reduction makes one feel that one's playing a videogame (with the usual comparatively-shallow-feeling-of-variati
Does this mean you don't want to play anymore?
While I agree the system is flawed and I agree with much of your point, I have yet to come across a system that I thought was awesome in all respects. While the extensiveness of RoleMaster's character creation probably provides a lot of room for customization, the 8 pages of character sheets are just a little ridiculous. Especially if you die and need to re-roll. Trade-offs need to be made.
Actually, what I really suspect, is that the D20 Modern system was created to be friendly and approachable to non-gamers, or non-serious gamers, hence the tidiness of it all.
I'm personally rather fond of the Rifts/Palladium system, though that could be nostalgia. It was the first system I learned. I'm curious what you'd think of it. If we ever get to play the Heroes Unlimited Campaign, you'll have to let me know what you think of the game mechanics. It's a D20 based system, but very different from DnD in its application.
Re: Does this mean you don't want to play anymore?
I'd be slightly more enthused about going back to free game nights or trying another system (Cyberpunk 2020 was pretty neat, and some DnD 2nd/3rd edition hybrid with plenty of DM imagination is a nice system too) - the first because we could hopefully get Chris and Will to join us (and the variety in games is nice), the second because I'm not particularly interested in levelling my character in D20Modern (nor really about anything the system itself has to offer). At least as of now though, the post-apocalypse thing combined with D20 make it more about hanging out than anything else.
Re: Does this mean you don't want to play anymore?
I'm getting a feeling that the current campaign, though set in an apocalypse sort of setting, is going to steadily move into steampunk territory, with a blend of old and new technology, based on what people have scrounged together over the years. From there it'll prolly continue steadily onward with regards to technology until it becomes more futuristic than apocalyptic. The apocalyptic setting was just a place to start. I could be wrong, but I think that's the path he's taking, if that's any consolation.
Re: Does this mean you don't want to play anymore?
The combat mechanics of CP2020 are indeed awesome - they're probably my favourite part of that system (although the "classes" are pretty creative too).
Re: Does this mean you don't want to play anymore?
While the CP2020 system is generally very well designed, it always bothered me that the core of CP - the netrunner, was the character most difficult to play and GM. I mean, cyberpunk is built off hackers, but hacking in the game is slow, time consuming, and boring. It was always more useful to use an NPC for that.
One thing I really like about CP2020 is the lack of an alignment system. I was never fond of DnD's system, and in general I don't think alignments in that fashion are very useful. Though the Rifts/Palladium alignment is particularly well thought out. I also like that instead of neutral there's a "selfish" alignment, where a person is just looking out for themselves (but not necessarily in a bad way). I found the entire alignment listed here:
http://wadesigns.net/rifts/Alignment.html
But you'll have to excuse their poor web design.
Re: Does this mean you don't want to play anymore?
I have a paper copy of Rifts TMNT - never played it but have had it for years. :)
During my short-lived DMing session, I was trying to give the feel of much more realistic social struggles, and was hoping to eventually develop it to the point where people would argue over and lightly identify with a side (or organise their own). I guess it didn't quite last long enough for that.
Re: Does this mean you don't want to play anymore?
Also, I don't think the rifts notion of evil is based solely on mental illness or being antisocial, they're examples of value judgments and personal standards. The abberant alignment is almost exactly the same as the principled alignment, the only difference being what side of the society's law you fall on.
Re: Does this mean you don't want to play anymore?
Those types of conflicts do crop up in life, but they take second seat to something much more interesting (at least to me). What's missing in most roleplaying "morality tales" is the story of multiple actors that are "recognisably good" through simpler eyes but have deep incompatibilities with each other that make conflict and struggle of various sorts necessary - it's struggles like these that are much more interesting - paladins fighting paladins, people of one ideal fighting another.
In the struggle for survival and dominance, one doesn't need to stop to think and hand around flowers to be intellectually honest.
I guess on abberant versus principled, the description there still feels a bit dishonest - when you ask "what would happen were the abberant to win", it still feels different than an "alternate-world principled", by their description.
I think we agree on the broader scale of things that alignment is a troublesome idea in gaming (and maybe philosophically).