# D20 Modern or Spycraft II?



## Lhorgrim (May 21, 2006)

I have the urge to start a modern-day style campaign, but I'm not familiar with either D20 Modern or Spycraft.  I'm looking for advice on which of these systems would better fit my game table.  I'm open to suggestions of other systems to model modern day as well. 

What I'm looking for:  I want to test the waters for my campaign by running something sort of mundane.  Present day weapons and technology, and heroic but not superpowered humans.  If the campaign takes off, I may add some Dark*Matter or Delta Green type elements, but for the start I'm trying to keep it vanilla. The movie "Heat" is an example of the type of setting I'm looking to model.

I might try to use the system to replace the Mechwarrior rules to run a Battletech RPG at some point, so if the system can be easily slotted into that role it would be a bonus for me.  

I don't mind a sytem that has magic or supernatural elements in it, as long as they can be easily sidestepped until I'm ready to make them part of my campaign.

I welcome everyone's experience on this.  I don't have a big budget for games, so I need to make this shot count.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 21, 2006)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> I have the urge to start a modern-day style campaign, but I'm not familiar with either D20 Modern or Spycraft.  I'm looking for advice on which of these systems would better fit my game table.  I'm open to suggestions of other systems to model modern day as well.
> 
> What I'm looking for:  I want to test the waters for my campaign by running something sort of mundane.  Present day weapons and technology, and heroic but not superpowered humans.  If the campaign takes off, I may add some Dark*Matter or Delta Green type elements, but for the start I'm trying to keep it vanilla. The movie "Heat" is an example of the type of setting I'm looking to model.
> 
> ...




Modern doesn't include magic "by default". All three official campaign settings have it, but most Modern GMs simply create their own campaign setting (which is very often a non-FX setting similar to real life or what is in a movie).

I have D20 Modern and Spycraft I, and run D20 Modern. I've only seen SC 2.0 in stores, though I may get it at some point. I prefer D20 Modern's class system _a lot_, and it has more consistent gun damage rules. Spycraft does some things better than D20 Modern - it has much better vehicular rules, for instance, and has rules for cover fire.


----------



## kingpaul (May 21, 2006)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> but I'm not familiar with either D20 Modern



You can get the MSRD for free to see what the d20 Modern rules look like. This is the OGC version though, so not all the material in d20 Modern, d20 Future, Urban Arcana and Menace Manual will be there.


----------



## KeithCrimson (May 21, 2006)

I enjoyed running Spycraft more than d20 modern, but I have yet to know of anyone else who picked up Spycraft 2.0

I think the feats are outstanding in the updated version.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 21, 2006)

I've got both and still consistently use d20Modern.  I'll mine Spycraft2.0 for a rule now and then, but usually not a rule I'll use all of the time.

And there are alot of rules in there.  Damage isn't damage ... there's Ballistic damage and Collision damage and Laser damage ... and Fire damage ... and Acid damage.  They're not just different types, but have different rules.  Some things are more complex, such as sliding Initiative counts and various feats and maneuvers that change that count.  

Two biggest issues I have with it are tone and classes, which are often the same thing.  SC2 is a SUPERspies game, in the tradition of James Bond.  And it plays like that.  1st level characters start "the best in their field".  Hackers only fail hacking tasks if they're in-turn hacked by a better hacker.  Everybody starts at 1st level like they're supermen and the only thing that changes as the campaign progresses, like a movie, is there are bigger explosions and more bodies the higher you go.  The bad-guys stats are based off of the level of the PCs and the GM's role is scripted in how far he should deviate.  _Biff Steele is the best agent the Agency has, and this episode he takes out Dr. Yes and four henchmutants.  Next week, Biff Steele is the best agent the Agency has and he takes out the entire governing body of D.R.A.G.O.N., for whom world-threatening Dr. Yes was but a minor flunky, and fifteen henchmutants.  Week after, Biff Steele is the best agent the Agency has, and we find out the D.R.A.G.O.N. was only a pawn of the even-more-powerful-yet-hereunto-unheard-of D.E.V.I.L. and their THIRTY henchmutants. _ Etc.

The classes are Archetypal.  Wheelman, Soldier, Face, Hacker, Guide, etc.  Each is pretty flavorful, but I don't care much for Archetypal classes.  

Some people don't like d20Modern's classes for the opposite reason ... they're ... controversial.  Each is based off of one of the six stats, and sort of focuses on what that stat does.  A character doesn't have to have a high stat in the class to take it, but it usually helps (and sometimes actually bolsters a low stat)  They don't overly guide you to a character concept, though.  If you're playing a "Wheelman" you know you're playing a wheelman, a driver, the guy that drives, and you're going to have only abilities that make you more adept at driving.  In d20Modern I've seen the same character concept built three ways with three different classes.  And I've seen three characters with the same class have three entirely different concepts.  A d20Modern "Wheelman" just takes a few appropriate feats and ranks in Drive.  It might be easiest and most effective to go at it via the Fast class, but I could make a go with it as Tough, too.  I find d20Modern to be more flexible, but that can mean it is harder for players to get into, too.

--fje


----------



## Lhorgrim (May 22, 2006)

Thanks for the responses.

I'm leaning toward D20 Modern based on what I've been able to find out about the systems.  It seems to fit my campaign ideas pretty well, and the Future supplements are available if I want to do the Battletech RPG campaign.

I won't be placing an order until payday next week, so if anyone has any other words of wisdom  I would be more than happy to hear them.


----------



## Psion (May 22, 2006)

Spycraft 2.0 is a much better rules system for generic modern action. I'll take issue with HT's qualifications of it. Were he speaking of SC 1st, I think saying its focussed on superspies is fair. But SC 2.0 has a built in system and guidelines for tweaking the tone of your action and characters, and the classes are much more "pick and choose." Spycraft 2.0 is a great engine for most modern action and espionage. James Bond, Alias, Sneakers, the Agency, 24, MI, Lara Croft, Jack Ryan, Blade Runner, Navy Seals, are all things I would happily run with SC 2.0.

But d20 modern has some great support and some people who have done some neat stuff for it.

I'd say unless you have your eyes on a specific third party product for d20 modern, use Spycraft 2.0. But if you do (frex, d20 future tech and various third party product provide lots of mecha support... if you want to do battletech), you might want to go that route.

I'm also fond of Blood & Fists by RPGObjects. If you have a taste for martial arts, check it out!


----------



## Teflon Billy (May 22, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Spycraft 2.0 is a much better rules system for generic modern action.
> 
> But d20 modern has some great support and some people who have done some neat stuff for it.
> 
> I'd say unless you have your eyes on a specific third party product for d20 modern, use Spycraft 2.0. But if you do (frex, d20 future tech and various third party product provide lots of mecha support... if you want to do battletech, you might want to go that route.)




Couldn't agree more. Spycraft 2.o is a much more generic "modern Action Genre" game that 1E was, and it has been expanded and clarified and--hell, I'll say it--improved in every way imaginable in this edition.

I totally love it.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 22, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Spycraft 2.0 is a much better rules system for generic modern action. I'll take issue with HT's qualifications of it.




I will say there's a portion at the back of the book for "tweaking" the game to do different genres.  From Western to Horror.  There's various "settings" that they talk about.

But it just didn't "catch" me.  Which is odd, I like tweaking settings.

I could be something as simple as Archetypal classes vs. Basic classes.

Or WP/VP vs. HP.

The tone was just off.  I tried doing a few things with it, like a western, but I couldn't shake the superspies thing.  A Wheelman on a horse is still a Wheelman, even if he can get "more shot" or can't pick up a Bag Full Of Guns on his way out the door.  It didn't feel "Westerny".

I aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalmost ran a Dark*Matter game with it.  They both have, y'know, agents and stuff.  Seemed like a pretty good fit.  But in the end we did d20Modern because I was the only one who had the SC2.0 book and the others were grumpy about learning a new system.

--fje


----------



## trancejeremy (May 22, 2006)

I would go with Spycraft 2.0.   The original SC was a really great ruleset, but focused too much on Mission Impossible (the show) style espionage. But they pulled back the focus a lot and streamlined the rules for 2.0 and it works extremely well for most action genres.

The only real downside to it is that its base classes aren't nearly as flexible as d20 Modern. Basically you can do anyone in d20 Modern (though I would argue not well - most characters tend to be somewhat incompetent, though since almost everyone is, it evens out), while in SC2.0, there's only 12 core classes, and if you can't find one that suits the archetype, you are out of luck.  Most action orientated archetypes are covered pretty well, but there is a definite gap.  

I was hoping 3rd party products would fill this gap, but there really hasn't been anything, 3rd party or 1st party (though that's supposed to change in the future).

OTOH, d20 Modern does have quite a lot of good stuff from 3rd parties (it's the 1st party stuff for it that is often lacking, like d20 Future)


----------



## Lhorgrim (May 22, 2006)

It sounds like this is going to be a tough call.

Both systems seem to be able to do what I want.  I wish I could playtest both systems to get the feel for them.  I don't know anyone in my area that plays either.

I played Alternity in the Star*Drive setting back in the day.  I liked that system, but WotC dropped it just as I started to play.  I assume Modern has some similarities to Alternity.  What about Spycraft?  I'm checking out the Modern SRD, and that's giving me a feel for the rules at least.  

Spycraft used to have a "Lite" version of the rules for download, but I never picked them up.  Is there anything like that for 2.0?  The current webpage directs to a "Crafty Games" page that is isn't active yet.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 22, 2006)

I have both, and find Spycraft 2.0 to be vastly superior.

It is not an espionage game so much as an action game, able to handle Indiana Jones as well as James Bond. Chases and other dramatic tasks are a blast to run, I have only seen players enjoy a chase as much with Hot Pursuit, and that has a lot of points in common with SC. 

Combat is actually fun, which is not usually the case for me. Fluid and active, with a large amount of shouting back and forth between the players (in a good way). Lethality can be easily modified by the GM.

It has made gaming fun for me. I cannot help but feel that it is the game that Modern should have been but was not. This week I started a game based on the old computer game XCom using the Spycraft rules - with the intention of changing campaign qualities and game focus week after next. (It is starting off as an espionage game, then switches to a military game once the enemy is known.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Vigilance (May 22, 2006)

I'd go with d20 Modern myself. Spycraft has a lot of strengths. A LOT of them. I have nothing but respect for the design. 

But, I think d20 Modern is more flexible. If you want one book that will let you run anything, from special ops to Buffy. 

A lot of people complain about d20 Modern having less flavor, but it is infinitely flexible and moddable, in ways that most who read the rules frankly miss.

Chuck


----------



## Committed Hero (May 22, 2006)

Spycraft works best when the party gets its equipment and missions from some kind of superior; particularly a group with special resources and experts.  If the PCs sort of find their way together, d20 Modern is easier to use.  Actually, d20 is probably "easier" to use in most senses since Spycraft is far more detailed. 

The tricky thing about SC's Campaign Qualities is that a GM can't be completely confident that they will help a campaign until she knows how the default rules work and which combination will get the results she is looking for.


----------



## Morgenstern (May 22, 2006)

If you've got some time to browse, you might find the previews for Spycraft 2.0 helpful.

http://www.spycraftrpg.com/rpg/spycraft2/index.html


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 22, 2006)

You know, an odd thing just occurred to me, Spycraft 2.0 is the only D20 based game that I have felt tempted to do a story hour for. And that most of the scenes that I remember best involved players spending and getting scads of Action Dice.

Action Dice in Spycraft 2.0 are handled in a very different way than in D20 Modern, they are more useful, and you get a lot more of them. My current Steampunk-Spycraft game was originally run using OGL Steampunk, much closer to D20 Modern than Spycraft 2.0, especially in regards to combat, chases, and the Action Dice mechanics.

Under Spycraft players have been a lot more willing to try stuff that is risky, difficult, or just plain dangerous, mostly because of the mechanics for Action Dice in the game. My games have gotten a lot noisier than they were under OGL Steampunk, or than in my current Iron Kingdoms game, so I guess my players like the Spycraft rules. I am vaguely surprised to find that I _like_ running action games, since my taste in fiction runs towards the more cerebral. Odd. :\

So I guess the real question is: What do you want your game to feel like? If you want lots of over the top action then you may prefer Spycraft 2.0, if ytou want things to be a bit more predictable when running the game, and want built in rules for magic then you may prefer D20 Modern.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Kanegrundar (May 22, 2006)

Here's another vote for D20 Modern.

While I really do enjoy Spycraft V2, it just didn't give me everything I wanted for my modern gaming.  D20 Modern is a lot more flexible to molding into whatever you want.  I do use Spycraft V2 for vehicle rules, autofire, and cover fire, but unless you're wanting to run high-octane action D20 Modern has all the tools needed to run anything else.


----------



## Aussiegamer (May 22, 2006)

If you want to think out side the box of d20M or Spycraft then give Nexus a look.

The combat system is still easy to run and the PCs get to do more in the combat than just move and hit. Their actions some what have an impact on the initiative order, they get to aim or rush an attack as well as the normal type attack.

It has magic, psionics, cybernetics, mutants and much more.

It is a bit more complex in the setting up of the campaign world, but once the basics are in place then it flows as easy as D&D or d20M does.

It is a different system thus only some parts will fit from other systems, but it is pretty easy to swap them over.

The system allows you to build pretty much waht ever you like, and as such it tends to fit the system. Unlike some systems which force you to guess the cost and DC and other factors based on the supplied materials.

Currently I am converting D&D3.5 stuff into the rule set, like shields and cash. 

So it is still in development a bit, but the basics like the combat and PC generation are pretty much done.

Hope you think outside the box and take a look.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 22, 2006)

I own and like both.

IMHO, though, its marginally easier to port things from other WotC products into D20 Modern than Spycraft 2.0. IME, you may also find it easier to find players for Modern than Spycraft- many of my gaming buddies don't touch any non WotC D20-style products.  As always, YMMV.

If you've got plans for doing a lot of material conversions or your players are WotC-snobs, D20 Modern is the clear choice.

Otherwise, its a toss-up.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 22, 2006)

*Grim Tales*

I don't own SC (1 or 2), but I've been running a D20 Modern campaign for nearly a year (I even wrote Mythic Earth, a variant magic system for D20 Modern, just so I could use it in my game), and there are enough failings that I can't recommend it.

Vehicle rules for d20 Modern are lame, and though 'Hot Pursuit' (a product available through Adamant, I believe) apparently improves on this, I haven't had a chance to try it out since I bought it.

Guns in d20 Modern don't seem good enough. The way the classes are set up, if you want to be a good shot with a gun, you either take the Strong class to get good base attack bonus but receive worthless strength-based talents, or you take the Fast class to get good AC and some arguably useful dodging abilities but a medium base attack bonus. In the game I run, the PC who uses a sword deals more damage with fewer feats spent than the gun wielder does. Range vs. melee is a balancing factor, but it just galls our gunslinger that he will pretty much never deal more than 3d6 with his pistols, while the swordsman can Power Attack and Melee Smash and add his Strength mod and deal d8+14.

The non-combat abilities of the classes are pretty weak. The Charismatic hero has an ability to inspire his allies, but until you're high-level it won't work on the entire party, since you can only get 1 or 2 people. Several classes have abilities that require checks to use which you will often fail, causing you to waste an action during combat, which is just not fun. It's balanced, I suppose, but it's not fun.

The system really could've used VP/WP. Normally there's no way for an 8th level hero to do stuff two days in a row. Day 1 he starts with 40 hit points, takes 30 damage, and then spends the next three days resting to get back HP. That's not how action movies work. In an action movie, if it doesn't kill you, you get over it within an hour. Less if you're Tom Cruise.

D20 Modern's magic system (which is pretty much just D&D Magic only you can't cast spells before 4th level) doesn't feel right for a lot of game styles. It actually kinda works for a Cyberpunk-esque modern grunge fantasy, but if you want anything mystical, mysterious, or mythic (my, my, my, what wonderful alliteration I've invented), fireballs and their ilk don't cut it.


I don't know about Spycraft, but Grim Tales fixes at least a few of those issues. Grim Tales, by Bad-Axe Games. I recommend it.


----------



## Committed Hero (May 22, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> In the game I run, the PC who uses a sword deals more damage with fewer feats spent than the gun wielder does. Range vs. melee is a balancing factor, but it just galls our gunslinger that he will pretty much never deal more than 3d6 with his pistols, while the swordsman can Power Attack and Melee Smash and add his Strength mod and deal d8+14.



Sounds like quite a few action movies I've seen.


----------



## Yuan-Ti (May 22, 2006)

If you are looking for easy to run because you and your players know D&D -- then you can learn d20 Modern very quickly. However, it has several weaknesses which have already been outlined by others (especially Ranger Wicket). I will say, like the good Ranger, I can recommend Grim Tales, which solves most of the weaknesses of d20 Modern and yet is the same basic rule set so also easy to use and easy to learn if you are already familiar with d20. 

Spycraft 2.0 is great. (I haven't played it yet, so take this with a grain of salt.) Everything about it, really, is great and it would not be difficult at all to use it to create whatever kind of game you want. However, there are a lot of rules, and a lot of options, and it requires some careful reading and it is a large book, rather expensive, which few have. So, for ease of starting a new game... well, if that is what your main concern is then I go back to Grim Tales. But Spycraft 2.0 is well thought out and is a fun set of rules. 

Plus, Grim Tales _does_ have a SRD available for character creation -- which is nice if you are getting the rulebook but your players are not. 

http://www.carcere.net/~kirintor/index.php?x=gtsrd/index

d20 Modern has an easy-to-use online SRD, as well:

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/modern/roarerbull/Home.php


----------



## Henry (May 22, 2006)

It's tough to say, other than to tell you my perceptions of "default" styles in the respective games.

If you want modern action along the lines of the movies Se7en or a James patterson Alex Cross book/movie, then Grim Tales is a good fit.

If you want modern Action along the lines of a traditional "Buddy Cop" movie, or maybe the old show Special Unit 2, then d20 Modern is a better fit.

If you want modern action along the lines of Rush Hour, Shanghai Knights, or a James Bond Film, then Spycraft 2.0 is a good system to use.

My biggest problem with Spycraft 2 is one of its strengths - the classes are very groomed for a modern Spec Ops Game, where every character is a high-end professional of some sort, even the first level dudes aren't chumps, even if weaker than 10th level ones. Unfortunately, it doesn't level room for a wider variety of characters, as the Modern /Grim Tales Classes seem to do. Spycraft's feats are such beautifully crafter, over-the-top affairs encouraging from combat-coolness and Role-play mechanical reinforcement, that I can't say anything bad about them.

My second-biggest problem are the expanded conditions. While definitely well-thought out, a DM can drown in them. tradtional D&D may have things like prone, nauseated, dazed, shaken, frightened, panicked, etc.? Well, Spycraft has vulnerable, sprawled, about four different types each of shaken, frightened, etc. in addition to all the usual d20 conditions. Fire damage has a PAGE and A HALF on its effects on characters, places, etc. While cool that it's all spelled out, it's a monster amount of new material to absorb, and all of it has bearing on most combats run. That's a little TOO precise for my tastes.

Final analysis - as an excellently crafted game, it astounds, and as a toolbox for other d20 games, it doesn't disappoint. But the learning curve for me was unbelieveably steep.


----------



## C. Baize (May 22, 2006)

I haven't played Spycraft or Spycraft 2.0, but we've been playing and running D20 Modern since it first came out. 
Actually... we don't even do fantasy anymore... we've gone completely D20 Modern. You can really run anything modern you want with it. 
Buffy: The Vampire Slayer? Done.
Starsky and Hutch? Done. 
X-Files? Done. 
Blade? Done.
The Punisher? Done.
The A-Team? Done. 
Zombie Apocalypse? Done.
D&D in the modern world? Done. 

I'm running a Stargate SG-1 (well... SG-15, actually) game. I'm running a Zombie Apocalypse game. I'm running a D20 Future game that steals from just about EVERYthing from D&D, to Stargate, to Star Wars, to Starcraft, to Aliens, to Predator, to Starship Troopers, to Wing Commander, to Starflight ][.... etc... etc... etc... I'm running a supers game (using a 3rd party product, _Blood and Vigilance_). 
I'm playing in a Paranoia / Buffy the Vampire Slayer / Blade game (based on which, my wife wrote Modern Backdrops). 
The only real limit to it is in your imagination. 
If it's flexibility you're looking for... D20 Modern has it in spades.


----------



## Yellow Sign (May 22, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> But the learning curve for me was unbelieveably steep.




I really want to love Spycraft 2.0 too. But it intimidates the heck out of me.


----------



## Dragonhelm (May 22, 2006)

Pardon me for the tangent here, but if a person was to try to run a Shadowrun-style game using either d20 Modern or Spycraft 2.0, which system would work best?

I'd sorta lean towards d20 Modern, since OGL Cybernet is based largely on d20 Modern and d20 Modern also has Urban Arcana to work with.  Question is, would Spycraft work a little better for the base classes and such?  I find that I prefer an archetype system.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 22, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Range vs. melee is a balancing factor, but it just galls our gunslinger that he will pretty much never deal more than 3d6 with his pistols, while the swordsman can Power Attack and Melee Smash and add his Strength mod and deal d8+14.





Though I will note from personal experience that the melee guy really really really doesn't want to wear any sort of armor that will slow his base movement even 5 feet.  And doesn't want to face a Fast hero with Extra Speed.

Either of those situations and someplace other than a 50'x50' empty box to play in, and it becomes frustrating for the swordsman. 

I had a bad-guy just leading a PC a merry chase.  He could move and double-tap ... the PC had to charge to catch up, but the NPC moved around a corner or the like with every move.  The PC would make a double move and try to get ahead, but the NPC would just make a double move as well and put them into the same situation.  I think it eventually came down to grappling, and then why bring the sword?

Not that I don't like Grim Tales, mind you.  GT is a mixture of D20Modern, a few things from D&D, and some stuff from Spycraft 1.0.  I would like to see a GT2 that arranges a few things differently and steals from Spycraft2.0.  

The all-time perfect game EVAR would be a heady mixture of d20Modern (especially Base Classes and Occupations) with some of the gems from SC2.0 (chases, dramatic scenes, a better Campaign Qualities section, NPC rules) with Grim Tales.

As for VP/WP, it's "okay" but I personally think it's just taking problems and shifting them up and to the left. 

The 8th level character with 40hp who lost 30 could also get patched up by Doc at the end of combat (+1d4, av. 2.5), get worked on by Doc that afternoon (Surgery +8d6, av. 28) and rest that night (8hp) and pretty much always be good to go the next morning.  It's a toss-up.  VP/WP you get all of your "juice" back in a few hours, but crits are a bigger problem, in a less-fun way, for PCs.  Especially once you get out of the pistols and get into the 3d8/3d10 stuff.  It's mainly a personal preference thing, I think.  My old group hated VP/WP after a very short period of time, my new group swears by it.

I will agree that the Charismatic hero's abilities are a little too limited in the number of people they can work on at one time.  It usually takes until 6th-8th level before he can hit everybody on the team up, and I'm usually winding down games at 12th-14th level (starting at 3rd-4th).  

Note that d20Modern's characters are rather unskilled until about 4th level.  IIRC, that was a design decision of some sort, allowing for characters right out of high school at 1st level.  I like to start at least 2nd.  Spycraft starts out at "the best of the best of the best, sir!" at 1st, with more HP (VP) standard and class abilities that slot right in to being a great Soldier, Investigator, Wheelman, etc.

--fje


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 22, 2006)

D20 Modern could use some new feats when it comes to firearms. I've been working on new pistol and shotgun feats here: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=D20_Modern_Feats

Things get worse for melee artists when you use slopes. You go up a slope at half speed, effectively cutting your charge range in half and giving the enemy twice the chances to shoot you. And then there's the Wild Bill strategy 

Heap, I found Fast works quite well for melee artists. You just don't feel right if you're not wearing concealable armor, so of course you want the boost to Defense  Plus, increased speed is insane if you mix it with Flying Kick.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 22, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Pardon me for the tangent here, but if a person was to try to run a Shadowrun-style game using either d20 Modern or Spycraft 2.0, which system would work best?
> 
> I'd sorta lean towards d20 Modern, since OGL Cybernet is based largely on d20 Modern and d20 Modern also has Urban Arcana to work with.  Question is, would Spycraft work a little better for the base classes and such?  I find that I prefer an archetype system.
> 
> Thanks in advance.





If you prefer an archetype system, I guess you answered your question.    Spycraft has archetypes, d20Modern doesn't START there, but goes there with Advanced Classes.

I would say you could very much do Shadowrun with SC2.0.  You'll have to decide how to balance races and add them in (since characters already are adjusted in ways we think of as "Racial Adjustments" before play in SC, without races), add magic, and add cybernetics.

d20Modern has AdCs for many of the Shadowrun character archetypes, but you have to get there.  One product I'd suggest that doesn't CHANGE any rules, but levies some good advice is the Modern Player's Companion I and II from The Game Mechanics.  In one or both (been a few weeks) they offer up "plans" for how to build various archetypes with base classes.  I.E. "I want a journalist." "Do this ..." etc.

I suggest this because combining d20Future, Urban Arcana, and d20 Cyberscape gives you, I think, everything you need to do the Shadowrun thing.  From magic to orcs and trolls (though I'd say replace Shadowrun trolls with bugbears or replace bugbear stats with the word "Troll") to cybernetics.

--fje


----------



## Psion (May 22, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Pardon me for the tangent here, but if a person was to try to run a Shadowrun-style game using either d20 Modern or Spycraft 2.0, which system would work best?




Which _system_ would work best? Due to things like wonky gun combat and the fact that Spycraft 2.0 has a much better native hacking, infiltration, and vehicle combat/chase systems, I might shy away from d20 modern.

That said, d20 modern has better _SUPPORT_ for such games, in the form of magic, fantasy races, and cybernetics, in various supplements and third part products. That alone is pretty telling, provided you are willing to invest in the support.


----------



## Wystan (May 22, 2006)

Also on the AEG forums they explain how to make the modifications for 'Race' and 'Background' or whatever you want to call them, like 'Grizzled Veteran' and 'Gonzo Test-Subject'.

There is a ton of changes that can be done with Spycraft 2.0

Check the License to Improvise forum as well.
http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=18&sid=7b282e199bdf5b77b51ab40a0d6a8233
http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=78


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 22, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> D20 Modern could use some new feats when it comes to firearms. I've been working on new pistol and shotgun feats here: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=D20_Modern_Feats




Yea, one place the SC2 absolutely spanks d20Modern is feats.  Spycraft feats are ... evocative.  I never want to play SC2 so much as when I'm going over the feats section, and my only issue is that many of the feats just don't translate well to d20Modern so I can't photocopy that section and just pass it out.  Many of them make use of the new skill system or floating initiative scores.

(BTW, the new skill system is also a turn-off for me.  It does "fix" a few things, but mostly just changes stuff so badly it ruins compatiblity between SC2 and all other d20 products.  Plus the skills are harder to, as with everything it seems, move from Superspies to, well, anything else.)

The feats in SC2 often have fun names ... "This Is My Boomstick", they build on one another ... "Melee Basics" to advanced feats, etc.  Then again, there's a butt-ton of them.

--fje


----------



## Dragonhelm (May 22, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Which _system_ would work best? Due to things like wonky gun combat and the fact that Spycraft 2.0 has a much better native hacking, infiltration, and vehicle combat/chase systems, I might shy away from d20 modern.
> 
> That said, d20 modern has better _SUPPORT_ for such games, in the form of magic, fantasy races, and cybernetics, in various supplements and third part products. That alone is pretty telling, provided you are willing to invest in the support.




Can Spycraft's base classes work with the various forms of support that d20 Modern has?  I have all the essentials in terms of d20 Modern support, save for anything the Game Mechanics have put out.  I wouldn't mind getting their books though.  I wouldn't think adaptation would be too difficult, but I'm not as familiar with either system.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 22, 2006)

Problem with interchangability between SC and d20M is the depth of changes that SC has to base d20 gaming.

The skill system is very different, completely so.  You get ranks, but each skill is new and has "checks" with "tags" that call to different ability scores and the like.  

You'd have to either scrap the Spycraft class skill lists and replace them with d20M cognates or scrap all calls to skills in d20M products and replace them with Spycraft cognates.  Same with a few class abilities and the like that face similar broad-base changes.

--fje


----------



## buzz (May 22, 2006)

FWIW, _Spycraft 2.0_ has been nominated for this year's Diana Jones Award for Excellence in Gaming.

That's pretty high praise. This only the third time a d20/OGL product has been nominated since the award was introduced in 2001.

Me, I like both RPGs, but I would say that, as a ruleset, _Spycraft 2.0_ would be my choice for better overall product. The game's new owners, Crafty Games, have plans to expand the system with genre supplements. _Farthest Star_, a Traveller-esque SF setting, is in the works now.

That said, I really like d20M, too, and it has far more support material right now.


----------



## Psion (May 22, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Can Spycraft's base classes work with the various forms of support that d20 Modern has?  I have all the essentials in terms of d20 Modern support, save for anything the Game Mechanics have put out.  I wouldn't mind getting their books though.  I wouldn't think adaptation would be too difficult, but I'm not as familiar with either system.




I think there'd be some work there. In the case of advanced classes, about the best thing you could do is do a translation to the SC2 skill system, and then port over the class abilities and tweak as needed. It'd almost be as if the new sources are less a straight up mechanical resource and more an inspiration.

Cybernetics would be less of a problem as the gadget system is more of a point build to begin with; you could just spec out gear from other systems,


----------



## Committed Hero (May 22, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> The feats in SC2 often have fun names ... "This Is My Boomstick", they build on one another ... "Melee Basics" to advanced feats, etc.  Then again, there's a butt-ton of them.



I don't consider it an advantage when a fun feat name tells you next to nothing about what it does.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 22, 2006)

Committed Hero said:
			
		

> I don't consider it an advantage when a fun feat name tells you next to nothing about what it does.




The Spycraft I feat names ranged from good to bad.

I would call Kicking Basics not a great name. "Basics?" It's a good feat, though, and does contain the word "kick".

"The Wheel in One Hand..." and "... A Gun in the Other" are better names, IMO. (They're feats to give drivers the options to shoot in combat with reduced penalties.)


----------



## Henry (May 22, 2006)

Committed Hero said:
			
		

> I don't consider it an advantage when a fun feat name tells you next to nothing about what it does.




Geek that I am, and Evil Dead/Army of Darkness gushing fan, it tells me that the feat makes me better with shotguns.  I don't really consider it a problem, because if I did, I'd have to consider feats like "Combat Expertise", "cautious," or "Magical Aptitude" problems, as well, because they're not clear indicators of what they do.

My personal favorite is "Style over Caliber", which causes a puny James Bond-Walther-Pansy-type weapon to do respectable damage on par with a 9mm or so. Anyone with a .22 target shooting gun picks that as a must-have feat.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 22, 2006)

Spycraft 2.0 is the better game.  It's got some really innovate (for d20, and occasionally for RPGs in general) concepts and once you get used to the MASSIVE FREAKIN BOOK FULL O STUFF (not quite HERO 5r, but unless you're looking at ballistic armor, what is  ), it plays well, too.

d20 Modern is easier, faster until you're fully used to both systems, steps outside the archtype box, and is much, much more flexible.  Also, the small arms/melee rules are closer to both action movies and reality:  Guns are easier to use and have range.  Melee weapons require more skill (read, feats) to use well and do more damage.

Spycraft
+ Excellent use of the d20 rules
+ Models the major non-SF spy/action genres
+ Action dice are better than action points
+ Many innovative and useful subsystems
+ NPC generator
+ Expanded skills
- Harder to learn
- Slower until fully mastered, and maybe even then
- WP/VP
- Pointlessly complex initiative system
- Almost no 3rd party support
- About as compatible with other d20 as True20, maybe less

d20 Modern
+ Flexible base classes
+ Compatible with almost every d20 book you ever bought
+ By far the best 3rd party support around
+ Melee/small arms models most movies and real life better
+ Keeps 3.0 cover rules
+ Easy to learn
- Lacks innovative and useful subsystems
- 1st-party support tends to be magic-oriented
- Vehicles and heavy weapons are poorly handled


----------



## Greg K (May 22, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Spycraft 2.0 is the better game.  It's got some really innovate (for d20, and occasionally for RPGs in general) concepts




Yeah, but d20 Modern has Blood and Fist (RPGObjects), Elements of Magic:ME (ENWorld) and Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin).   

Edit: And if I payed closer attention, I would have seen the 3rd party suppport as a benefit for d20 Modern.


----------



## Committed Hero (May 22, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> My personal favorite is "Style over Caliber"



That's an example of a good name, no disagreement.


----------



## Morgenstern (May 22, 2006)

*cough*

We have a number of third party developers working on *Spycraft 2.0* projects presently . More than half a dozen have signed on at last count. I'm sure you'll recognize a couple of them *coughRoninArtscough* when we make the big announcement.

*cough*


----------



## buzz (May 22, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> *cough*
> 
> We have a number of third party developers working on *Spycraft 2.0* projects presently . More than half a dozen have signed on at last count. I'm sure you'll recognize a couple of them *coughRoninArtscough* when we make the big announcement.
> 
> *cough*



Freaking. Cool.


----------



## Psion (May 22, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> But the learning curve for me was unbelieveably steep.




I don't think it's all that bad. Yeah, the book's a lot to absorb. I ran my first game last fall and TerpCon/DC Gameday, to a table of likewise neophytes. They seemed to pick things up pretty quick. The "hacker" player had never used the dramatic conflict system, but the system proved slick and intuitive. Gear picking proved much less of a task than anticipated. And the players caught on to using their skills, action dice, and character abilities rather quickly.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 22, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> *cough*
> 
> We have a number of third party developers working on *Spycraft 2.0* projects presently . More than half a dozen have signed on at last count. I'm sure you'll recognize a couple of them *coughRoninArtscough* when we make the big announcement.
> 
> *cough*




Can't wait to see them!  If Spycraft ever comes close to d20 Modern in 3rd party support, I might switch over to it.

Of course, prior to seeing this, I didn't know about those projects, and at the moment they aren't available.  I use more d20 Modern products for core/D&D d20 than I do fantasy d20 products, so the competition is steep.


----------



## Lhorgrim (May 22, 2006)

You guys are giving me excellent info, and I thank you for it.

I've never had this kind of trouble choosing between game systems before.  Part of the problem is that I don't really have a concrete idea about what kind of campaign I want to run long term.  I know I want to start out with no F/X elements, but I'm not sure I won't want to incorporate them later.  

Several people have mentioned the firearms/ranged combat systems for both games.  I'm really interested in the firearms combat aspects of the systems.  I'm looking for a way to have shootouts without having a TPK.  I want a mook with an AR-15 to be a significant threat, but the PCs need a way to deal with that threat without losing a character in every single combat.  I would like a system that rewards the players for using sound tactics like cover, concealment, and distraction devices.  I don't want a system that is so realistic that the best way to handle every situation is to avoid conflict at all costs.  Which system is more deadly in these circumstances?

Has anyone read the "Rogue Warrior" book series by Richard Marcinko?  I would like to be able to emulate those sorts of stories, if that helps give an idea about what I'm looking to achieve.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 22, 2006)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> Several people have mentioned the firearms/ranged combat systems for both games.  I'm really interested in the firearms combat aspects of the systems.  I'm looking for a way to have shootouts without having a TPK.  I want a mook with an AR-15 to be a significant threat, but the PCs need a way to deal with that threat without losing a character in every single combat.  I would like a system that rewards the players for using sound tactics like cover, concealment, and distraction devices.  I don't want a system that is so realistic that the best way to handle every situation is to avoid conflict at all costs.  Which system is more deadly in these circumstances?




I think d20 Modern is the better choice for you, based on these parameters.

In Spycraft, you can exchange shots about as long as you can exchange sword swings in D&D.  Unless somebody crits.  Then you take WP damage and probably die in one shot - Dead, not Dying, not Unconscious, Dead.  Barring FX, the character is removed from the game and isn't coming back.

In d20 Modern, you can go down to even a single non-critical hit because your massive damage threshold is very low - losing a battle because the enemy mooks get a few good shots in is VERY possible.  Unlike in D&D, however, "death" from massive damage actually means being reduced to -1 hp.  Since you have a full stock of hp to begin with, PCs are less likely to die outright.

In my experience, it's actually hard to DIE in d20 Modern, but DYING happens all the time.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 22, 2006)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> I don't want a system that is so realistic that the best way to handle every situation is to avoid conflict at all costs.  Which system is more deadly in these circumstances?
> 
> Has anyone read the "Rogue Warrior" book series by Richard Marcinko?  I would like to be able to emulate those sorts of stories, if that helps give an idea about what I'm looking to achieve.




Haven't read the Rogue Warrior series.

Neither system is really "too deadly".  They use very different systems for tracking damage, however.

D20Modern uses Hit Points and the "Massive Damage Threshold".  D&D has an MDT, set at 50 points of damage.  D20Modern's MDT is set to your character's Constitution score.  When you take damage equal to or exceeding your MDT from a single attack you make a Fortitude saving throw or immediately fall to -1hp, regardless of your HP.  So, say, I have 40hp and a Con of 10.  I take 10 points of damage, provoking an MDT save and fail it.  Instead of dropping to 30hp, I drop immediately to -1hp.  

Spycraft uses a system called Vitality Points and Wound Points.  VP are like D&D HP in many ways, but represent ... your "Dude" factor.  When you get "hit" and take VP damage, you don't really get "hit", you just have to use up some Dude Factor to not get hit.  When you run out of VP, or take a critical hit, you REALLY get damaged.  Your Wound Points are equal to your Constitution score.  When they drop to -10, you're dead.

This gives 1st level characters roughly 3x the HP in Spycraft as a d20Modern character, so they have a little more longevity (having to lose all of their VP, then their 12-18 WP, before getting knocked out).

I, personally, don't like VP/WP.  All of the gun damages are cranked up to account for the extra HP, for one.  And while in d20M a crit from a gun is dangerous (and will probably provoke an MDT), it isn't crippling.  VP/WP, once you lose WP you're hosed.  With bigger weapons, you're just REALLY hosed if you get hit by a crit.

Thinking about it, SC2.0 weapons do less damage, I think, so they're probably less dangerous than I'm thinking, since it's really about superspies.

--fje


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 22, 2006)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> You guys are giving me excellent info, and I thank you for it.
> 
> I've never had this kind of trouble choosing between game systems before.  Part of the problem is that I don't really have a concrete idea about what kind of campaign I want to run long term.  I know I want to start out with no F/X elements, but I'm not sure I won't want to incorporate them later.
> 
> ...




They both work. Honestly, the best tactics in both systems is to use cover. I'm going to assume Spycraft 2 kept cover - it wouldn't make sense to get rid of it.

A mook with an AR-15 is a threat in either game. A crit in Modern is nasty - that's an average of about 18 damage (Modern PCs have fewer hp than DnD PCs and fewer hp than Spycraft characters have vp) and with that much damage, there's a good chance of forcing a save vs Massive Damage. (In fact, unless someone spent a feat on Improved Damage Threshold, that's basically guaranteed to force a save.) In Spycraft 1, at least, you would take the base damage to wp (equal to Con, at least without feats). If you had a Con of 12, taking 9 wp is very nasty.

Both systems use a class bonus to Defense - both have a change to dodge, even without cover. (It's like the shootout at the OK Corral, a real life event - experienced gunslingers couldn't hit each other from 10 feet away! That's Fast levels for you!) But using cover is virtually always better in either system.

Spycraft has rules (in the core rules) for things like cover fire and bracing.

I think Spycraft is a bit deadlier when it comes to crits, but it also usually gives you more wp. Armor in Spycraft often gives DR. Modern PCs are less likely to actually take damage (higher Defense). Because the damage values for Spycraft weapons (at least in 1.0) don't really make sense, it's nearly impossible to do a "damage per round" or "time to death" calculation comparison.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 22, 2006)

Oh, I want to clear up that I think WP/VP should work differently from how it does in Spycraft and Star Wars.

In my system, you have an HP buffer, and WP as your actual body. You _never_ take WP damage unless you're helpless or you're out of HP. If three guys hold your hand down and a Yakuza member chops it off, you'd take WP damage, but crits would just deal extra damage, not bypass your HP.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 22, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Oh, I want to clear up that I think WP/VP should work differently from how it does in Spycraft and Star Wars.
> 
> In my system, you have an HP buffer, and WP as your actual body. You _never_ take WP damage unless you're helpless or you're out of HP. If three guys hold your hand down and a Yakuza member chops it off, you'd take WP damage, but crits would just deal extra damage, not bypass your HP.




I like this better than either d20 Modern or Spycraft's damage system.


----------



## Morgenstern (May 23, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I think Spycraft is a bit deadlier when it comes to crits, but it also usually gives you more wp.




I should point out crits in Spycraft aren't purely random. Rolling a threat creates an opportunity for a crit. But instead fo it being a second roll to determine if one happens, you spend an action die to confirm the crit. This reduces the "wasting" of great rolls on shlubs, and puts the control in the player or gamemaster's hands on "is this the attack that really counts?" From the gamemaster's perspective, the fight is as deadly as you want to make it . Some later feats and class abilities let you crit with the weapons you are good with without spending an action die.



> Armor in Spycraft often gives DR.




Because you wear a bullet proof vests to get hurt less, not to not be hit at all .



> Modern PCs are less likely to actually take damage (higher Defense).




I'm not sure Modern characters have higher defense, but maybe.



> Because the damage values for Spycraft weapons (at least in 1.0) don't really make sense, it's nearly impossible to do a "damage per round" or "time to death" calculation comparison.




Huh? As the weapon's real world muzzle energy goes up, it gets a damage roll with a higher average. I'm always much more puzzled by lumping every firearm in the universe into 2d4, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10, or 2d12 for damage. The Modern designers' stated position that damage is THE primary determinant of a firearm's value always struck me as a little simplistic. In the real world we see lower damage weapons remain highly popular, often because they are easier to handle. Further, most times range increments come up, Spycraft's are considered to map to real world experience much better. Oh yeah, and first level spycraft characters choose which weapon proficiencies they have, so you won't be using up feats just to know how to point and shoot. And you don't need feats to even _try_ to burst or auto-fire with a weapon that has selectors for that right there on the side .


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 23, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> Huh? As the weapon's real world muzzle energy goes up, it gets a damage roll with a higher average. I'm always much more puzzled by lumping every firearm in the universe into 2d4, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10, or 2d12 for damage. The Modern designers' stated position that damage is THE primary determinant of a firearm's value always struck me as a little simplistic. In the real world we see lower damage weapons remain highly popular, often because they are easier to handle. Further, most times range increments come up, Spycraft's are considered to map to real world experience much better. Oh yeah, and first level spycraft characters choose which weapon proficiencies they have, so you won't be using up feats just to know how to point and shoot. And you don't need feats to even _try_ to burst or auto-fire with a weapon that has selectors for that right there on the side .




There are lots of threads on the Modern boards about how realistic guns should be (based on  muzzle energy, etc), and they usually turn into flame-fests. I'll choose game balance and/or simplicity over realism anyday. I just don't see why guns need more complicated rules than Martial Weapon Proficiency in DnD. (It's pretty easy to tell if a DnD or Modern weapon is balanced or unbalanced. Even if Weapon Locker puts out some unbalanced weapon like the Five-Seven, it's pretty easy to discuss exactly why you think it's unbalanced, rather than a vague "it's too much damage!")

(I'd like to point out that Spycraft I insulated itself to some degree from this problem by grouping weapons into broad categories. All assault rifles had the same stats, for instance, in the core rules, so people weren't choosing the M16 over (say) the AK47 just because of stats. My issue concerns the wide gulfs between things like SMGs vs pistols. I don't know why the SMG does 4d4 or 5d4 damage and the pistol does 1d10 damage.)

What do you mean by "choose proficiencies"? I only have SC 1 so far. Do you choose proficiencies in SC II, or are they given to you as part of the class package?


----------



## trancejeremy (May 23, 2006)

Weapons in Spycraft do roughly the same amount of damage as a similar weapon in d20 Modern, but it's more granular. For instance, in d20 Modern, pretty much every pistol does 2d6 damage, except the .44 Magnum and the.50 Desert Eagle, which do 2d8. In SC,  a 9mm does 1d10+1, a 10mm does 2d6, a .357 does 3d4+1, etc.  (in both games, SMGs do the same as their same caliber pistol counterparts).

Similarly, in d20 Modern an M16 does 2d6, an AKM does 2d8, and a G3 does 2d10. While in SC they do 4d4, 3d6, and 4d4+2. 

I don't think either way is objectively better.  It's certainly easier in d20 Modern, but you lose a lot of detail. But pretty much the same (and you can drop the Spycraft weapon system into d20 Modern very easily, just by buying the gun book for the original game)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 23, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Spycraft 2.0 is the better game.  It's got some really innovate (for d20, and occasionally for RPGs in general) concepts and once you get used to the MASSIVE FREAKIN BOOK FULL O STUFF (not quite HERO 5r, but unless you're looking at ballistic armor, what is  ), it plays well, too.
> 
> d20 Modern is easier, faster until you're fully used to both systems, steps outside the archtype box, and is much, much more flexible.  Also, the small arms/melee rules are closer to both action movies and reality:  Guns are easier to use and have range.  Melee weapons require more skill (read, feats) to use well and do more damage.
> 
> ...




I disagree with a few (not all) of your points, in particular :

 + Melee/small arms models most movies and real life better - I would say that in this regard they are about equal, just very different, in neither is the gun as dangerous against PCs as it is against people in real life. I prefer the way they are handled in SC, while admitting that SC is no more realistic. Against mooks (Standard NPCs in SC) Spycraft has the edge in realism/movie realism. So no + or - for ether one really.

- Almost no 3rd party support - In theory, once Spycraft finishes making its move to Crafty Games, there will be third party support. But for now that is true.

- Slower until fully mastered, and maybe even then - Mostly true, though combats seem to fly by in my games (taking longer, but with the players only looking at the clock after it is done and going 'how did it get that late?'). 

And one point that I forgot to mention previously, while learning to play Spycraft may be more challenging than learning to play D20 Modern (as I said, I don't disagree with all your points) it is a heck of a lot faster and easier to stat up NPCs and organizations for Spycraft. An adventure that took a couple of days to stat up for OGL Steampunk takes a few hours (if that) for Spycraft. It is bloody easy to run games for. 

- Pointlessly complex initiative system - The initiative system in Spycraft is one of those things (like the Gear system) that seems very complicated for a while, then something goes *click!* and you don't know why you had a problem with it in the first place. It is just very fluid, with some actions changing the initiative order. I have been working on initiative cards for my SP/SC game, since moving a card up or down in a deck of cards seems to make things easier. So I wouldn't say 'pointlessly complex', though I _would_ say 'complex' - it _does_ have a point, if not a need... I would still give it a minus, but just not use the word 'pointlessly'.

- WP/VP - I happen to _like_ VP/WP, they are much better than HP for my purposes. This is pretty much a matter of taste, some people like hit dice and others prefer VP/WP. So I would not call it either a plus or a minus for either system.

- About as compatible with other d20 as True20, maybe less - For compatability with standard D20 you are completely correct - D20 Modern is much easier to use with D&D material.

The Auld Grump, who admits that some of this is nitpicking...


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 23, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Weapons in Spycraft do roughly the same amount of damage as a similar weapon in d20 Modern, but it's more granular. For instance, in d20 Modern, pretty much every pistol does 2d6 damage, except the .44 Magnum and the.50 Desert Eagle, which do 2d8. In SC,  a 9mm does 1d10+1, a 10mm does 2d6, a .357 does 3d4+1, etc.  (in both games, SMGs do the same as their same caliber pistol counterparts).
> 
> Similarly, in d20 Modern an M16 does 2d6, an AKM does 2d8, and a G3 does 2d10. While in SC they do 4d4, 3d6, and 4d4+2.




Well actually it's 2d8, 2d8 and 2d10 for Modern (and the latter has 2/3rds the ammo capacity and uses up 5 bullets during Burst Fire). I don't know if that's enough to balance the G3, but at least I can discuss it without just saying "I feel it's too powerful".

As for pistols, both the .44 Magnum and Desert Eagle are not good choices for dual-wielding. (You can wield one with a smaller pistol, but wielding two gives bigger penalties.) Again, at least an attempt at balancing it, and the reasons behind it make sense.

As for the Spycraft pistols, I don't see why I wouldn't use a .357. There's .357 pistols with decent ammo capacity.

It's easier to memorize the Modern values, too. I guess I like the coarseness of the Modern damage system, and don't want the real-life detail. I don't think (as an example) that the longsword doing 1d8/19-20 and the short sword doing 1d6/19-20 are based on real-life measurements, but are instaed based on the general rules for martial weapons. It's pretty easy to see that the rapier is an outlier in the rules, too.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 23, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> + Melee/small arms models most movies and real life better - I would say that in this regard they are about equal, just very different, in neither is the gun as dangerous against PCs as it is against people in real life. I prefer the way they are handled in SC, while admitting that SC is no more realistic. Against mooks (Standard NPCs in SC) Spycraft has the edge in realism/movie realism. So no + or - for ether one really.




I'm mostly talking about relative to melee weapons.  SC, if memory serves, falls into the 'guns displaced melee weapons so the must be more damaging' trap.  d20 Modern's weapons are more in the melee=damage, gun=range school.



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> - Almost no 3rd party support - In theory, once Spycraft finishes making its move to Crafty Games, there will be third party support. But for now that is true.




3rd Party Support is one thing.  D&D has tons of 3rd Party Support.  d20 Modern has, IMO, the best 3rd Party Support in the industry.  This will be tough to compete with, but I'm looking forward to what Crafty Games can put together.



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> - Slower until fully mastered, and maybe even then - Mostly true, though combats seem to fly by in my games (taking longer, but with the players only looking at the clock after it is done and going 'how did it get that late?').




I can definitely see this.  Spycraft 2.0 FEELS much faster than it is.



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> And one point that I forgot to mention previously, while learning to play Spycraft may be more challenging than learning to play D20 Modern (as I said, I don't disagree with all your points) it is a heck of a lot faster and easier to stat up NPCs and organizations for Spycraft. An adventure that took a couple of days to stat up for OGL Steampunk takes a few hours (if that) for Spycraft. It is bloody easy to run games for.




Agreed.



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> - Pointlessly complex initiative system - The initiative system in Spycraft is one of those things (like the Gear system) that seems very complicated for a while, then something goes *click!* and you don't know why you had a problem with it in the first place. It is just very fluid, with some actions changing the initiative order. I have been working on initiative cards for my SP/SC game, since moving a card up or down in a deck of cards seems to make things easier. So I wouldn't say 'pointlessly complex', though I _would_ say 'complex' - it _does_ have a point, if not a need... I would still give it a minus, but just not use the word 'pointlessly'.




It's not ATB.  Initiative is close to pointless after the first round.  I'd run it the same as I run D&D, d20 Modern, SilCore, and most any other non-HERO tabletop RPG: initiative order is determined by where you're sitting.



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> - WP/VP - I happen to _like_ VP/WP, they are much better than HP for my purposes. This is pretty much a matter of taste, some people like hit dice and others prefer VP/WP. So I would not call it either a plus or a minus for either system.




Fair enough.



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> - About as compatible with other d20 as True20, maybe less - For compatability with standard D20 you are completely correct - D20 Modern is much easier to use with D&D material.




What is Spycraft compatible with, other than Spycraft?  I like HERO and SilCore, but that doesn't make HERO compatible with SilCore.  I like Spycraft and d20 Modern, but they aren't really compatible.  d20 Modern is compatible with itself, all its supplements, D&D, Arcana Evolved, the Mongoose OGL games based on d20 Modern, Grim Tales... the list just goes on and on.

Mind you, I still like Spycraft a LOT and have mined it for idea on many occasions even when playing barely compatible games.


----------



## Henry (May 23, 2006)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> Has anyone read the "Rogue Warrior" book series by Richard Marcinko?  I would like to be able to emulate those sorts of stories, if that helps give an idea about what I'm looking to achieve.




Great, pick a series I HAVEN'T read, why dont'cha?!?!  

If it's in the same grain I'm thinking it is, sounds a little more gritty in feel, but still mixed with a bit of heroics. Is that a good descriptor? Where death is a strong possiblity, but there's lots of heroism too? 

If that's accurate, two things suggest themselves:

1) Grim Tales is to me a better alternative than Modern, but it's close enough to where any Modern sources you want to use would be a cinch to slip in. Bad side of things: The players need to have a clear idea of their character concept, or they may get lost in the strong/fast/smart/dedicated/etc. business.

2) Spycraft would still work, and in some ways ( the "spec ops" classes I mentioned, plus the deluge of mercenary-style gear) be the BETTER choice. One thing not mentioned strongly (I think one person above did): Spycraft 2.0 had "Campaign Qualities" that allow you to dial the feel from gritty to wahoo in many different ways. That may be the thing you're looking for.


----------



## scourger (May 23, 2006)

Pardon the stray shot, but if you're looking for a new system, then check out the free Test Drive 4.0 rules for _Savage Worlds_:

http://www.peginc.com/Games/Savage Worlds/Savage Worlds.htm#Savage Worlds Downloads

I'm almost sorry that _Savage Worlds_ has nearly ruined me from d20 gaming.  I never really "got" d20 Modern, even after I read most of it.  I ran the first Spycraft lite version but never really got into it either.  I think _Savage Worlds_ would be great for the kind of "modern pulp" game you seek.  I've had a blast with _Tour of Darkness_, their Viet Nam setting, introducing supernatural elements slowly over the past several months of weekly gaming.  I think the revised core rule book could do just about any type game--easy for the GM but still engaging for the players.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 23, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I'm mostly talking about relative to melee weapons.  SC, if memory serves, falls into the 'guns displaced melee weapons so the must be more damaging' trap.  d20 Modern's weapons are more in the melee=damage, gun=range school.




Okay, fair enough. I don't think that either system is lethal enough to be realistic in that regard, but yes, people do bleed out a lot quicker from knife wounds that gun shots. So given that both are unrealistic, but D20 gives the blade a greater damage potential I can just about buy it. (Though this is also where I prefer VP/WP to HD, wounds are potentially just a bit more serious. But on a relative blades vs. guns scale as opposed to a VP/WP vs. HD scale you are correct. In a way we were having two different discussions.)



> 3rd Party Support is one thing.  D&D has tons of 3rd Party Support.  d20 Modern has, IMO, the best 3rd Party Support in the industry.  This will be tough to compete with, but I'm looking forward to what Crafty Games can put together.



Heh, I will admit that most of my problems with D20 Modern are not with _third party_ support. (I wanted to like D20 Past so very much. I had it preordered 2 months before it came out. And then it _sucked!_) Maybe someday a third party publisher will do D20 Past the way it should have been. And I check the Crafty Games website almost daily to find out if they are open for business yet.



> I can definitely see this.  Spycraft 2.0 FEELS much faster than it is.



Word o' the gods. I run my game on a worknight. I am not worth much the next day on occassion.  (Wait aminute, its 2 o'clock in the freakin' morning?!)



> It's not ATB.  Initiative is close to pointless after the first round.  I'd run it the same as I run D&D, d20 Modern, SilCore, and most any other non-HERO tabletop RPG: initiative order is determined by where you're sitting.



As I said, I rather like the fact that initiative does _not_ set 'after the first round', but constantly changes. But it is complex enough that I consider it one of the least attractive parts of learning the game. Once learned it is kind of cool, but until then... SO I do consider it a negative.



> What is Spycraft compatible with, other than Spycraft?  I like HERO and SilCore, but that doesn't make HERO compatible with SilCore.  I like Spycraft and d20 Modern, but they aren't really compatible.  d20 Modern is compatible with itself, all its supplements, D&D, Arcana Evolved, the Mongoose OGL games based on d20 Modern, Grim Tales... the list just goes on and on.



Yeah, in some ways it seems like a completely different game with a similar system. And I guess you could say that Spycraft is compatible with Stargate SG1... I find it amusing that Spycraft wasn't the first game 'powered by Spycraft'.



> Mind you, I still like Spycraft a LOT and have mined it for idea on many occasions even when playing barely compatible games.



Whereas I am running a Spycraft game, so I feel a bit different about some of the points than you do. I had to learn that furshluginer initiative system, so I had to figure out why it was there. You, on the other hand, can afford not to learn it at all!  I kind of like the initiative system (now), but I wish that I hadn't had to take so long getting it down.

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 23, 2006)

scourger said:
			
		

> Pardon the stray shot, but if you're looking for a new system, then check out the free Test Drive 4.0 rules for _Savage Worlds_:
> 
> http://www.peginc.com/Games/Savage Worlds/Savage Worlds.htm#Savage Worlds Downloads
> 
> I'm almost sorry that _Savage Worlds_ has nearly ruined me from d20 gaming.  I never really "got" d20 Modern, even after I read most of it.  I ran the first Spycraft lite version but never really got into it either.  I think _Savage Worlds_ would be great for the kind of "modern pulp" game you seek.  I've had a blast with _Tour of Darkness_, their Viet Nam setting, introducing supernatural elements slowly over the past several months of weekly gaming.  I think the revised core rule book could do just about any type game--easy for the GM but still engaging for the players.



I found Savage Worlds too... formless? for my tastes. It was overly simplified, and not what I wanted at all, at all. Savage Worlds ruined me for Savage Worlds gaming...

The Auld Grump, especially the Weird Science rules. 'Just treat them as magic items' was not what I wanted, no not at all.


----------



## Jim Hague (May 23, 2006)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> You guys are giving me excellent info, and I thank you for it.
> 
> I've never had this kind of trouble choosing between game systems before.  Part of the problem is that I don't really have a concrete idea about what kind of campaign I want to run long term.  I know I want to start out with no F/X elements, but I'm not sure I won't want to incorporate them later.
> 
> ...





With the Campaign Qualities you can set - adjusting things like the game's lethality - SC 2.0 wins hands-down for Rogue Warrior/Mack Bolan-style gaming.  And SC lets you do things like create a soldier out of AIT without making him 4th-5th level, just so he gets the proper gun Feats.  You can dial the realism up and down in SC 2.0 - dynamically, even, and the players get Action Dice when you do so.  Likewise the deadliness.  And NPCs take about 30 seconds to create on the fly...assuming you don't use the ton of them in the book.  Said NPCs also dynamically scale to the PCs' power level.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 23, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Said NPCs also dynamically scale to the PCs' power level.




That's something I both like and dislike.

As I mentioned before, it really can give the system a feeling of:  "Same thing, bigger explosion."

Thug Bob is always Thug Bob.  When we meet some Thug Bobs at 1st level, they're about X powerful compared to the PCs.  When we meet some Thug Bobs at 6th level ... they're still about X powerful compared to the PCs.  They scale.  They're worth the same number of XP and are the same challenge.  

I'm still working my way around the Threat Level system in terms of feeling ... which is just a CR system attached to a series of tables, really.  Instead of saying:  "Thugs should be of a CR equal to the average party level -2." you get:  "See Table X.3.1. line-item seven".  If you've got the tables, it makes things quicker.  

SC2 is very attached to "qualities".  A Thug is a Bear is a Killer Robot is a Parasite Mole ... each has a few different little "qualities" that are found in a bunch of pages in the NPC creation rules.  

  One day I'll find myself without a computer or my d20M books, have my SC2 book, and a bunch of people will mob me to run something.  Then I'll run it.  If I get a chance to go to California to see the inlaws again, I'll have to bring it.  My brother-in-law and his crew would probably love it.

--fje


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 23, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> As I said, I rather like the fact that initiative does _not_ set 'after the first round', but constantly changes. But it is complex enough that I consider it one of the least attractive parts of learning the game. Once learned it is kind of cool, but until then... SO I do consider it a negative.




My point was a bit different.

I'm coming at this from a console RPG background, where there are (or used to be, anyway) two dominant systems for handling character actions in combat.

The first is turn-based, in which all combatants act once per round and their speed determines when they act within the round.  Many turn-based console RPGs have a system similar to Spycraft's, where taking different actions changes your initiative, but at worst it means your character acts after an enemy rather than before.

The second is active-time (ATB), in which combatants act after a certain number of clockticks and their speed determines how often they act.  Some of these (most prominently Final Fantasy X) also have a system similar to Spycraft's, but in this system, a change in speed can actually result in being double-turned by a quicker opponent, or in not double-turning a slower opponent.

The HERO system is the only tabletop RPG I know of that uses an ATB system.  Being fond of ATB, I simply find ALL turn-based initiative systems very close to pointless.  Spycraft fiddles with its initiative system far more than most, so it sticks in my craw more than most.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 23, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> That's something I both like and dislike.
> 
> As I mentioned before, it really can give the system a feeling of:  "Same thing, bigger explosion."
> 
> Thug Bob is always Thug Bob.  When we meet some Thug Bobs at 1st level, they're about X powerful compared to the PCs.  When we meet some Thug Bobs at 6th level ... they're still about X powerful compared to the PCs.  They scale.  They're worth the same number of XP and are the same challenge.




Whereas this is my absolute favorite part of Spycraft.  I can't think of a single thing I want to do with a roleplaying game that this isn't perfect for.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 23, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> My point was a bit different.
> 
> I'm coming at this from a console RPG background, where there are (or used to be, anyway) two dominant systems for handling character actions in combat.
> 
> ...



Ah, so this is also a taste issue - I came into RPGs _before_ there were console RPGs. RPGs grew from wargames, where turn based systems were the norm. Mind you, there are games where you roll initiative every round, and even the Spycraft system is more consistent.

I have played a few games with ATB initiative, and found it cumbersome. (Mind you, the game that comes most freely to my mind was a homebrew system that was cumbersome on many levels...)

So, while I do not have an inherent dislike of turn based initiatives I did have problems coming to grips with the SC initiative system. So, we disliked it for different reasons. I don't think that we will ever agree completely on this one. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 23, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Ah, so this is also a taste issue - I came into RPGs _before_ there were console RPGs. RPGs grew from wargames, where turn based systems were the norm. Mind you, there are games where you roll initiative every round, and even the Spycraft system is more consistent.




I came to RPGs before there were console RPGs, too. I left them for console RPGs for years because, with the group I had for the latter, I had more rewarding roleplaying experiences.  Two months of Xenogears-based improv theater... good times.

Anyway, I also found the gameplay much better in many cases, initiative being a prominent example.  I've been dissatisfied with turn-based initiative ever since, but recognize that it can be a bit clunky without a computer to crunch the numbers.  Now I just want initiative to go away and leave me alone.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 23, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> As for pistols, both the .44 Magnum and Desert Eagle are not good choices for dual-wielding. (You can wield one with a smaller pistol, but wielding two gives bigger penalties.)




Until you bring in the d20 Future gadget system, and can have a Desert Eagle that _is_ a smaller pistol 

-Hyp.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 23, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> The second is active-time (ATB), in which combatants act after a certain number of clockticks and their speed determines how often they act. Some of these (most prominently Final Fantasy X) also have a system similar to Spycraft's, but in this system, a change in speed can actually result in being double-turned by a quicker opponent, or in not double-turning a slower opponent.




/Threadjack

Did you ever see Chaosium's Ringworld RPG? That was the first RPG I had ever seen that used something like this. Each action took a certain number of 'pulses' and the referee just counted up the pulses and you could start something new when your old action had finished. Brilliant in principle, but it didn't set the world alight in practice


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 23, 2006)

Just to illustrate that simple isn't always better ...

GODLIKE has a one-roll system.  Everything you need to know about what you're doing that round you can find in the dice pool you rolled.

Success is determined by how many matches you make ... a pair is a minor success, while five or six is much "better".

Your initiative is determined by the number you're matching, higher is better.

So a guy with two 10s goes before, but is not "better", than a guy with four 3s.

Oh, and the number you're matching determined hit location.

Very elegant in concept ... horrible in practice.

Every round was a clatter of dice with people yelling:  "10s!, no 5s!  Four 3s!  Wait, I've got a pair of 10s!"  It was really a pain to sort through and took many times longer than anything I've seen before.

Also, because of that system, for some reason you always got shot in the face before you shot somebody in the leg, because the "Head" was 10 and the "Leg" was 1-4.  

Then, if you took the most common sort of skill-super-power ... it always gave you one or more "Permanent 10s" ... meaning if you were a super-shot with pistols ... you could never NOT shoot somebody in the head.  It was a whole weird war full of people with the magic power to shoot the other guy in the face REAL FAST.

-fje


----------



## Henry (May 23, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> /Threadjack
> 
> Did you ever see Chaosium's Ringworld RPG? That was the first RPG I had ever seen that used something like this. Each action took a certain number of 'pulses' and the referee just counted up the pulses and you could start something new when your old action had finished. Brilliant in principle, but it didn't set the world alight in practice




Feng Shui does the same thing, but in "Shots." The initiative count is a dynamic chart called the "Shot Clock," and whether your action is simple (1 to 3 shots) or more complicated (4 or more shots) determines how often you go in combat. Some martial arts and shootist-types have gimmicks that allow them to take shorter actions (ever see one of those windmill or bicycle kicks in a wuxia film)? Great feel for fast-paced games.


----------



## C. Baize (May 23, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> That's something I both like and dislike.
> 
> As I mentioned before, it really can give the system a feeling of:  "Same thing, bigger explosion."
> 
> ...




Whereabouts in California?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 23, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Until you bring in the d20 Future gadget system, and can have a Desert Eagle that _is_ a smaller pistol
> 
> -Hyp.




Grrr... D20 Future balance discussion. Get it out of here!



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And SC lets you do things like create a soldier out of AIT without making him 4th-5th level, just so he gets the proper gun Feats.




You can do so at 1st-level in D20 Modern.



			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, it really can give the system a feeling of: "Same thing, bigger explosion."




You get that from the Living Spycraft adventures.


----------



## buzz (May 23, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I found Savage Worlds too... formless? for my tastes. It was overly simplified, and not what I wanted at all, at all. Savage Worlds ruined me for Savage Worlds gaming...



I can only speak from doing a read-through, not actual play, but I also found _Savage Worlds_ pretty blah, and ended up trading away the two books I bought (the core and _Necessary Evil_).


----------



## Wystan (May 23, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> In Spycraft, you can exchange shots about as long as you can exchange sword swings in D&D.  Unless somebody crits.  Then you take WP damage and probably die in one shot - Dead, not Dying, not Unconscious, Dead.  Barring FX, the character is removed from the game and isn't coming back.




Just to clear an erroneous belief here. Most enemies that the characters meet 'CANNOT' crit. Mooks cannot crit, only special NPC's can crit. Therefore most PC 'Deaths' occur in climactic battles against overpowering foes. (A crit costs an action die. This is a high cost. A PC might spend it to kill an NPC Mastermind, but the GM will usually be a bit more judicious in outright killing of players unless they deserve it. You Must Deside You Want To Crit.)


----------



## Henry (May 23, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> You can do so at 1st-level in D20 Modern.




With due respect, I can see his point: You can't do it the way you can in Spycraft. The classes , feats, origins and talents give certain features that Modern 1st level characters can't have without added material and edits. For instance, a 1st level modern soldier will be probably a strong or fast hero, probably point blank and far shot, a d8 for hit dice, and maybe melee smash or extra speed as a talent, and that's about it in the way of mechanical features that make him what he is.

A 1st level Spycraft 2.0 Soldier might start as a Daring Spec Ops (giving him +2 to Dex, -2 to INT, a bonus to init rolls AND action dice, a bonus covert feat, skills with Explosives and Tactics), and then he gets a feat to pick from, plus the bonus feat from Soldier, I believe he gets some boost from wearing armor above what any other character class gets, and plus another bonus to init. The feats themselves often offer better than what a corresponding Modern feat would (the first one that jumps to my mind are the iron will, great fort and lightning reflexes feats: they offer a +3 in the save and PLUS another ability on top!) 

Note I'm ignoring the role-playing aspect for a moment, because it kind of cancels out: ANYONE can role-play being a first level spec-op, with the DM's assistance; I'm just making the point that the 1st level Spycraft PC is slightly more capable than the 1st level modern character, because the feats, abilities, skills, etc. are "over the top" compared to their Modern counterparts. In fact, some classes (the Snoop, the Hacker, the Scout come to mind) have a special ability: They CANNOT FAIL in their main skill (computers for hacking, survival for scouts, etc.) if the DC is 20 + their level. You ever get frustrated that your ranger who's supposed to be good at tracking just flubbed with a "3" on his die roll? Well, not in Spycraft 2: Your characters are capable. Even in a failed roll (except for natural "1") you still achieve the minimum possible success.

Wish I had the book for a full comparison, but it's at home.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 23, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> With due respect, I can see his point: You can't do it the way you can in Spycraft. The classes , feats, origins and talents give certain features that Modern 1st level characters can't have without added material and edits. For instance, a 1st level modern soldier will be probably a strong or fast hero, probably point blank and far shot, a d8 for hit dice, and maybe melee smash or extra speed as a talent, and that's about it in the way of mechanical features that make him what he is.




No, they'd like have PFP and Armor Proficiency (light) and another feat.



> A 1st level Spycraft 2.0 Soldier might start as a Daring Spec Ops




Do you think starting as a SpecOp is a good idea? I don't think it's possible to be a 1st-level specop, anymore than you can be a 1st-level general, otherwise the military would be full of them. Being a SpecOp is something you build towards.

Spycraft is a more powerful setting - more vp, for instance. I don't see this as a good thing or a bad thing.


----------



## waterdhavian (May 23, 2006)

Well In modern it seems that you really need to work at becoming good at something.  Very much like a 1st level character in D&D.  In Spycraft 2.0 you can start out with some training.  It seems that it works well with story.  There is actually a 0-level in spycraft.  So really the spycraft system allows for some history.  If you're a soldier you have probably seen combat or atleast have gone through good amounts of training by the time you start at 1st level.

I am not overly familiar with Modern but from what I have seen, especially in Tony D's Mafia, you start as a nobody, until level 2 or 3 you are just another uninteresting person in the world.  When you hit 2-3 you can become part of the mafia.  I guess what I am saying is, Modern allows for more in game advancement.  Spycraft is all about already being that cool guy.

I personally like spycraft 2.0, but then I really like spy vs spy and espionage/action.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 23, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Do you think starting as a SpecOp is a good idea? I don't think it's possible to be a 1st-level specop, anymore than you can be a 1st-level general, otherwise the military would be full of them. Being a SpecOp is something you build towards.




In SpyCraft, you start as a SpecOp at 1st level because level is a completely abstract concept.  You can be a 40-year-old veteran agent who has seen it all and done it all... and is still 1st level.  Level is simply a way to give the players new gimmicks to play around with and the antagonists new ways to foil those gimmicks.  James Bond or Solid Snake can be first level characters and still be as relatively competent as they are in their respective sources.

In d20 Modern, you can't start as a SpecOp because being 1st level means you're a rookie.  d20 Modern assumes that a typical ordinary is anywhere from 2nd to 10th level and gains XP as he ages.  An average soldier may well be 5th or 6th level, and with the distribution of Heroic vs. Ordinary characters in the d20 Modern core book, most soldiers will probably be Heroic characters in a well-trained modern army.  A veteran secret agent would be in the 7+ level range, going as high as 15-20 for a James Bond or a Solid Snake.

SpyCraft's setting is (somewhat) more powerful... but it's mostly just a paradigm for looking at levels.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 24, 2006)

Yea.  Spycraft's levels don't really mesh with d20Modern levels.  D20Modern tends to map everybody on the 1 - 20 scale, Ordinary/Hero axis.  

Spycraft ... the heroes are THE HEROES (all caps).  Everybody else is, well, a skill bonus or two.  Or a BAB and a damage save.  The great unwashed masses are no threat to superspies such as they.  As pointed out, many of the classes START OUT, at 1st level, being utterly unable to fail anything but a check at the very very top edge of "doable".  They get, pretty much, a free "Take 17".  Characters start out with a few more feats and a handful of class abilities tightly focused to their archetype.

d20Modern characters don't hit their stride until 4th level, when they can choose to narrow down to an archetype.  Before that, they feat up and collect a few general abilities where they wish.

D20 Modern 1st Level "Soldier" - A kid just out of boot camp.  He has some chops, but he certainly isn't Biff Rocky-abs: Man About Town.

Spycraft 1st level Soldier - Sgt. "Tankbuster" Tankersly ... man's man with a smoking LAW on his shoulder and a cigar in his teeth.  He's the Best of the Best of the Best, SIR!  And at level 20 ... well, he's still the best of the best of the best ... he just gets a bigger rocket launcher.

They're just VERY different types of games, on some really core-level points.  Some people are just going to like one style of gaming over the other.

--fje


----------



## AscentStudios (May 24, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Okay, fair enough. I don't think that either system is lethal enough to be realistic in that regard, but yes, people do bleed out a lot quicker from knife wounds that gun shots. So given that both are unrealistic, but D20 gives the blade a greater damage potential I can just about buy it. (Though this is also where I prefer VP/WP to HD, wounds are potentially just a bit more serious. But on a relative blades vs. guns scale as opposed to a VP/WP vs. HD scale you are correct. In a way we were having two different discussions.)




Point of order - many edged weapons have the Bleed quality, so there's a reason for your competent pugilist to carry one. Losing one VP a round to a single damaging hit sucks  




> And I check the Crafty Games website almost daily to find out if they are open for business yet.




SO CLOSE. I'll be reviewing the final touches Scott and Patrick are putting on the site this evening, getting the final forum theme up, and then posting it (gods willing). Mark my words - I do NOT want this damn thing hanging over my head during my wedding/honeymoon (beginning this weekend!)


----------



## imajicastudio (May 24, 2006)

Alex congrats in advance to you and your wife. Have a safe and happy wedding and honeymoon!


----------



## scourger (May 25, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I found Savage Worlds too... formless? for my tastes. It was overly simplified, and not what I wanted at all, at all. Savage Worlds ruined me for Savage Worlds gaming...
> 
> The Auld Grump, especially the Weird Science rules. 'Just treat them as magic items' was not what I wanted, no not at all.




To each his own.  I read about it & followed it in the designer's notes, but I really didn't appreciate how much simpler it makes gaming until I read the revised book & ran a few sessions.  My prep time is down about 90%.  I think Shane nailed it with these design goals:


Shane's design goals: 

As a Game Master:

1) I want a game that it's easy to make up monsters, NPCs, magic items, weapons, etc. on the fly. If I have to look up lots of charts and tables, add up points (as a GM, not a player), and so on, it's too complicated.

2) I want a game where "mooks" are either up, down, or off the table. I don't want to keep track of wounds for lesser NPCs--only important bad guys, villains, dragons, and so on.

3) I want a game that easily handles vehicles. The vehicle rules in many games require a PHD to decipher.

4) I want a game a non-gamer friend of mine can look at and understand *at a glance.* The basic rules for Savage Worlds can be described in one sentence.

5) I want a game that has a "spine" capable of gaming any genre, but allows me to insert special rules to tailor specific genres. Horror needs detailed fright tables, for instance, and a pulp heroes game needs to be less gritty and deadly than World War II.

7) As a GM, I want to roll *one* attack die for my bad guys to see if they hit, and I don't want to do any math to it. If three orcs gang up on a hero, I want to roll 3 dice, look for hits, and be done.

As a player I want:

1) I want a game that provides real depth for characters. I want to see my character grow, gain new special abilities, and even increase my skills and attributes.

2) I want a game that handles large battles fast. If my sergeant in World War II persuades the villagers to fight beside him, I want them on the table-top, not glossed over.

Update: After going round and round on this one a bit, what I was really after was reasonable speed--but more importantly--ease. I just don't want to do a lot of bookeeping during a fight.

3) I want my NPC allies to have names and at least a "personality" trait for each. If my Lt. in Vietnam needs to send someone to scout a hill, I want to know who's "Gung Ho," "Reliable," "Shifty," "Lazy," and so on.

4) I want a little control over the dice--like Fate Chips or bennies--so the hero I've been working on for a year doesn't drop dead because of one bad die roll. Two or three I can handle, but not one.

5) "Open ended die rolls." If I get lucky and roll that high number, I want to keep rolling and feel like I just conquered the world.


----------



## Psion (May 25, 2006)

Too bad it totally falls down on player goal #1.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 25, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Too bad it totally falls down on player goal #1.




And most of those other arguments are either exagerations (like requiring PHDs) or apply to any system...

I mean, you want mooks in d20, just give them 1 hp.  Most RPG systems allow NPCs to have names and personalities so I don't even understand that point (though perhaps since SW was originally based on a wargame, their Rail Wars mini game, he's comparing it to mini games).  Large battles goes back to having mooks.


----------



## Armistice (May 25, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Too bad it totally falls down on player goal #1.



I'm not sure why savage worlds is in this thread at all. On topic, Spycraft 2 succeeds at this point...

1) I want a game that provides real depth for characters. I want to see my character grow, gain new special abilities, and even increase my skills and attributes.

...to a remarkable degree. Just ran a 'Starcraft' game (Starwars using the Spycraft 2 mod started on the AEG forums). A two player game with Jedi's, one a Scout, the other a Soldier, both 4th level. Rocked on toast. They loved what they could do at 4th level. The jedi-scout tracked down the main baddy using his awesome first level Auto-tracking ability (essentially, unless you roll a 1 you're assumed to have rolled a 20+level). The Jedi-soldier with 2 feats felt like he was fencing and the combat script wrote itself. 

For myself the bad-guy npc creation worked to perfection. Took me 2 minutes to create from scratch using the guidelines from the book. Used assassin as the base and the final battle worked on multiple levels. This guy I created went down against two to one odds but not before getting a lucky shot in critical (which of course I confirmed by spending a GC action die, this being the final fight of the evening).

After the session they got a chance to look at the even cooler things those same characters would be able to do as levels increased. Very much fun. You can develop character/story in pretty much any game depending on style of play, this is not dependant on the ruleset you use. For granular character sheet development you need a system designed to reward that style of play. Spycraft 2 does this in spades.

Final Note from the evening: Exploding Action Dice work wonders for the players and the Spirited campaign quality only makes this better. Players also loved being in control of when to confirm the threat they rolled either using skills or in combat.


----------



## buzz (May 25, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I mean, you want mooks in d20, just give them 1 hp.



Doesn't _Spycraft 2.0_ specifically contain mook rules?

As for _Savage Worlds_... of the reactions I've seen to the game, people either love it to death or just go, "Enh." (Mine was the latter.) If the OP is curious, the freebie sample rules are on the PEG website (as the first person who mentioned SW already said).


----------



## buzz (May 25, 2006)

To continue the SW drift...



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Too bad it totally falls down on player goal #1.



This was the main thing that turned me off about the game. 

E.g., many of the Disadvantages in the chargen system provide big rewards in exchange for roleplaying quirks that have no defined in-game effect. "Greedy" is a major disad, yet all it comprises is "Your character is really greedy." It may keep things fast and fun by leaving this kind of thing vague, but it just rubbed me the wrong way.

Anyway... back to the actual topic.


----------



## Vigilance (May 25, 2006)

I know in my case, it isn't an "either or" situation. Spycraft has plenty o stuff that shows up in my d20M game, as does some of Mongoose's modern-esque offerings and of course, plenty of 3rd party support.

As someone who has enjoyed modern gaming at least as much (if not more) than fantasy since the late 70's, I really see this as a time where we have an embarrasment of riches as opposed to the past.

Chuck


----------



## The Shaman (May 26, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> As someone who has enjoyed modern gaming at least as much (if not more) than fantasy since the late 70's, I really see this as a time where we have an embarrasment of riches as opposed to the past.



As a devoted _Top Secret_ player back in the day, and an equally devoted Modern player now, I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## Jim Hague (May 27, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> Doesn't _Spycraft 2.0_ specifically contain mook rules?
> 
> As for _Savage Worlds_... of the reactions I've seen to the game, people either love it to death or just go, "Enh." (Mine was the latter.) If the OP is curious, the freebie sample rules are on the PEG website (as the first person who mentioned SW already said).




Indeed it does - it's an offshoot of the _Mutants and Masterminds_ Toughness save - mooks roll d20 + Toughness bonus versus DC 10 + damage dealt - damage resistance.  Though I don't have my book in front of me, I also believe that repeated Toughness saves start applying a -1 penalty to those saves for every one made after the first.  Mooks _will_ go down.  That combined with an intuitive and fast NPC creation system is one of the things that make SC 2.0 go from Really Good to Friggin' Awesome, IMO.  And now that they've put out a PDF, the OGC is _eminently_ mineable.


----------



## CSgeekHero (May 27, 2006)

Thanks everyone!

I've spent quite a bit of time playing HERO the last couple of years and recently I got into a Mutants and Mastermnds game.
That has given me the bug for getting some of my d20, including d20 Modern, stuff out of the closet. I also read on the Traveller20 boards about potentially using Spycraft 2.0 instead of the PHB for the core book. This has led me to seek out some research on Spycraft 2.0. I've heard that Spycraft is more modern action movie oriented like d20 Modern. However, I've been skittish about investing into another book with a modern theme. However, d20M and I just don't seem to get along as most games I have played or GMed in felt like eating fast food( your hungry again in an hour). So hearing you folks breakdown Spycraft 2.0 and compare it to d20 Modern without it turning into a flamefest has given me good insights. I will get me a copy of Spycraft 2.0 for GMing and maybe give d20M another shot as a player.


----------



## C. Baize (May 27, 2006)

CSgeekHero said:
			
		

> Thanks everyone!
> 
> I've spent quite a bit of time playing HERO the last couple of years and recently I got into a Mutants and Mastermnds game.
> That has given me the bug for getting some of my d20, including d20 Modern, stuff out of the closet. I also read on the Traveller20 boards about potentially using Spycraft 2.0 instead of the PHB for the core book. This has led me to seek out some research on Spycraft 2.0. I've heard that Spycraft is more modern action movie oriented like d20 Modern. However, I've been skittish about investing into another book with a modern theme. However, d20M and I just don't seem to get along as most games I have played or GMed in felt like eating fast food( your hungry again in an hour). So hearing you folks breakdown Spycraft 2.0 and compare it to d20 Modern without it turning into a flamefest has given me good insights. I will get me a copy of Spycraft 2.0 for GMing and maybe give d20M another shot as a player.




And, hey... now it's available as a PDF, too.


----------



## buzz (May 30, 2006)

Quick update: Just wanted to post that I spent a good chunk of the holiday reading _Spycraft 2.0_, and I must say... it really kicks d20M's bootie. And I say this as someone who realy loves d20M. I have yet to see another d20-based game that makes skill use as interesting as SC2.0 does.

Once _Farthest Star_ and the reprint of the core book come out, I will be beside myself with glee.

Now I just have to convince my group to play it.


----------



## C. Baize (May 30, 2006)

Yeah. I spent a good portion of the weekend reading it, too... 
It's okay. 
There's some material worth mining. 
But I'll stick to D20 Modern.


----------



## mcrow (May 30, 2006)

I pciked up both books:
*
SC2:* i liked it for the fact that I'm sure it would make for a good MI3 type of game. For generic use though, I don't like it. Classes are not flexible for one. It is easily the most complicated d20/OGL game I have ever seen. The price IIRC was $50, not exactly a one per player book. 

*Modern:*   again don't like the classes. Chase rules are not good. on the upside there are a lot of suplements written for use with it so there are rule patches out there. The supplements are pretty good allowing you to play sci-fi,old west, psot apoc, and most anything non-fantasy. 


For the type of game the OP was thinking of playing I would pick D20 Modern jsut for the fact that has a much lower learning curve IMO.


----------



## buzz (May 30, 2006)

mcrow said:
			
		

> For generic use though, I don't like [Spycraft]. Classes are not flexible for one.



People have statted up quite a variety of characters on the Spycraft boards (Batman is the one that stands out in my memory). I think the espionage-heavy class names conceal how flexible they really are. Granted, they are far more strongly tied to the action/spy genre than d20M.



			
				mcrow said:
			
		

> It is easily the most complicated d20/OGL game I have ever seen.



I'd say "robust". The default game lacks magic, superpowers, and much super-science, ergo, it's going to focus on highly skilled "normals" flexing their talents. Given this assumption, I think the added detail simply makes the core focus of the game more interesting. Skill use is probably 50%-80% of the game, so it better be detailed.

E.g., to disarm a bomb in d20M, you roll a Demolitions check, and you either succeed or fail. In SC2.0, it's going to be a complex check involving multiple rolls that have to be completed within a certain number of rounds, with added Resolve (Concentration) checks if you're trying to do it while being shot at by terrorists. Failing them can increase your error range and eat up time.

To me, the latter is more interesting, assuming things like disarming bombs are a main focus of the game.



			
				mcrow said:
			
		

> The price IIRC was $50, not exactly a one per player book.



$25.17 on Amazon, $1 _cheaper_ than d20M. Plus, it has 155 more pages than d20M.



			
				mcrow said:
			
		

> again don't like [Modern's] classes.



Man, what classes do you like?  I like d20M's classes; they were one of the main selling points for me.



			
				mcrow said:
			
		

> on the upside there are a lot of suplements written for use with it so there are rule patches out there. The supplements are pretty good allowing you to play sci-fi,old west, psot apoc, and most anything non-fantasy.



This is d20M's biggest strength, IMO. The core book forms a very good blank canvas for adding on to, and there are a lot of good designers in multiple companies writing for it.

I'll be interested to see the supplements coming out for SC2.0, though. I'm also itching to see how it works in actual play. Looking foward big-time to the SC2.0 event I signed up for at GenCon.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 30, 2006)

Complex Checks are something I really liked from Alternity that I actually ported over to d20, well, right away.

  So I'll agree that has a general leg up.  

I need to put together a full-on probability-conversion for d20Modern, showing what the complex-check DCs should be for common DCs listed in the various skill descriptions.  

I've been working with d20M alot and, honestly, it causes me to actually respect the decision not to use complex checks.

As Buzz points out, if the game is 60-80% skill checks and is going to feature alot of bomb-defusing action, then a complex skill check like that is a great thing.  

But what if it isn't?  You can model Sam "The Bombmeister" Johnson with a single throw and a high modifier.  "Yay, you easily defused the bomb!" but you can also model John P. McBadass, ACTION HERO, who snips the right wire at the last minute with his toenail clippers while hanging upside down.  "I did this once while training for shadow ops in Cambodia."

I.E. one difficult roll is easier to overcome with a lucky roll and spending an Action Point/Die, while complex checks generally favor failure and high skill bonuses.

That is, I think, a major reason for the "Can't Fail This" class abilities.  IIRC, they tend to guarantee consistent high rolls for complex checks the class will often be making.  I.E. fixing the fact that those complex checks are usually weighted to "the house".

Just a thought I had.  D20Modern seems really well suited to doing alot of different genres, because many genre conventions were just left out.  I'm working on a wild-west-type game and was in the process of creating a complex (and totally sweet, mind you) system for duels and quick-drawing your gun, etc etc.  And I realized ... it's already there.  If you want to be good at it, you take Quick Draw and Improved Initiative and have a high dex and spend an AP on your initiative roll.  I didn't really need a whole new system, just a little section talking about it.  

Some things I do change, of course.  D20Modern is "action hero" focused and doesn't do the whole:  "Ah! Y'shot me." one-shot-drop like westerns do, so I cranked the MDT down to 10 and added an ability that can force an MDT on a flatfooted character under certain circumstances (and spending an AP).  I.E. The guy that loses the draw will have a reasonable chance of ending up at -1hp.  

But that, again, is the point.  You don't want my wild-west genre convention in your high-flying action game.  It's more gritty than would be fun ... unless gritty is what you were looking for.  

SC2.0 is an absolutely superb Superspies game.  Top of the line.  

That very fact starts to trip it up when it goes to do other things.

--fje


----------



## 2WS-Steve (May 30, 2006)

One additional plus for SC 2.0, I think, is that when 10,000 Bullets comes out it should be easier to run more generic modern campaigns, since it sounds like that campaign is designed around Sin City style characters and classes.


----------



## Morgenstern (May 30, 2006)

If you are interested in seeing a little of the Ten-Thousand Bullets character options, there are 5-level previews of the new urban base classes available (Fixer, Lawman, Thief, Thug) in the MRD document for Living Spycraft.


----------



## buzz (May 30, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> As Buzz points out, if the game is 60-80% skill checks and is going to feature alot of bomb-defusing action, then a complex skill check like that is a great thing.
> 
> But what if it isn't?  You can model Sam "The Bombmeister" Johnson with a single throw and a high modifier.  "Yay, you easily defused the bomb!" but you can also model John P. McBadass, ACTION HERO, who snips the right wire at the last minute with his toenail clippers while hanging upside down.  "I did this once while training for shadow ops in Cambodia."
> 
> I.E. one difficult roll is easier to overcome with a lucky roll and spending an Action Point/Die, while complex checks generally favor failure and high skill bonuses.



Gotcha.

I guess the question I would ask is, if Sam Johnson and J. P. McBadass are in a campaign that doesn't focus on lots of skill checks and bomb-diffusing action, what are they doing instead? I'd hpoe that they were making use of lot sof the cool d20M add-ons, like magic, cybertech, or mutations so that there's still cool stuff to do. Otherwise, I would think those pass/fail skill checks might make for a dull game.

Granted, I am still knee-deep in reading the SC2.0 book right now, and thus drunk with gamer fervor ("No, I havent' played it, but it's still the BEST GAME EVAR!!!").


----------



## mcrow (May 30, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> People have statted up quite a variety of characters on the Spycraft boards (Batman is the one that stands out in my memory). I think the espionage-heavy class names conceal how flexible they really are. Granted, they are far more strongly tied to the action/spy genre than d20M.




I'm sure that it quite possible to stat up all sorts of characters. I just would end up creating all my own classes to do it and I don't have that sort of time. 




> I'd say "robust". The default game lacks magic, superpowers, and much super-science, ergo, it's going to focus on highly skilled "normals" flexing their talents. Given this assumption, I think the added detail simply makes the core focus of the game more interesting. Skill use is probably 50%-80% of the game, so it better be detailed.




I'm more on the simple test model unless there is a real good reason to go through all the fuss. There are plenty of people who like more detailed mechanics and that is cool, but I'm not one of them. 






> $25.17 on Amazon, $1 _cheaper_ than d20M. Plus, it has 155 more pages than d20M.



 Got nothing for that




> Man, what classes do you like?  I like d20M's classes; they were one of the main selling points for me.



 I'm hard to please with modern classes. It justs seemed to me that SC2 classes are to focused and d20 moderns are to broad.




> This is d20M's biggest strength, IMO. The core book forms a very good blank canvas for adding on to, and there are a lot of good designers in multiple companies writing for it.
> 
> I'll be interested to see the supplements coming out for SC2.0, though. I'm also itching to see how it works in actual play. Looking foward big-time to the SC2.0 event I signed up for at GenCon.



  On this we can both agree!


----------



## Armistice (May 31, 2006)

mcrow said:
			
		

> I'm sure that it quite possible to stat up all sorts of characters. I just would end up creating all my own classes to do it and I don't have that sort of time.
> 
> /snip/
> 
> ...




The one thing Spycraft does poorly is regular guy. The closest you'll get is regular guy 'action hero'. For really regular schmoes you'd use spycraft's npc system.

As for the hero types, I'm not sure what character you can't do (barring magic-user types straight from the corebook) with a combination of Origin/Class/Expert Class.

As for the complex checks, they're there if you want that level of detail. It is still d20-like. Nothing stops you from using a single check for anything at all. Point is, if you want the detail you don't have to spend the time figuring it out on your own.

One final note, I've seen tons of builds using spycraft classes, calling them narrow seems to be an artifact of the class naming convention.


----------



## Committed Hero (May 31, 2006)

mcrow said:
			
		

> I'm hard to please with modern classes. It justs seemed to me that SC2 classes are to focused and d20 moderns are to broad.



Could you give an example of something in between?  Not trying to harp on you, I'm just curious as to what you envision.


----------



## mcrow (May 31, 2006)

Committed Hero said:
			
		

> Could you give an example of something in between?  Not trying to harp on you, I'm just curious as to what you envision.




Well, as someone above already mentioned ,it is somewhat of a name convention problem for me. 

With SC2 at least I can tweak things a bit and get something close to what I'm looking for. I can change the Sleuth a bit and get Police,FBI, or maybe CIA agents out of it. 

With d20 Modern you get " strong", "smart" and "fast" heroes. It's way to broad and requires a lot of fiddling with to get a class that fits a setting properly.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 31, 2006)

McCrow said:
			
		

> With d20 Modern you get " strong", "smart" and "fast" heroes. It's way to broad and requires a lot of fiddling with to get a class that fits a setting properly.




I find that making NPCs and PCs often takes more time because of how you put together your character. (Still way less time than DnD for me, though!) However, I don't see what this has to do with a setting. These heroes fit in every setting, ranging from AD 200 Three Kingdoms China to Firefly to Caveman Adventures! (TM) and any system that includes intelligent non-monstrous PCs. Seriously, I have NPCs from each of the settings (even that last one!) that I can post here if you don't believe me.

A weird side issue:

I often visit Living Spycraft, "steal" their free adventures and convert to Modern. They've released one or two adventures for Spycraft II.

I liked Triple Play and looked at its NPCs. Here's one:

[sblock]Anas Al-Liby (Special NPC — 380 XP): Init VII; Atk VII; Def VII; Resilience VII; v/wp VII; Competence VII; Wealth V; Weapons: RSA Melee stun gun (dmg 5d4 electrical, error 1, threat 18–20, qualities: FIN), AK-47 assault rifle (dmg 3d6 lethal, error 1–2, threat 20, ammo 30M5, range 125 ft., SZ/Hand S/2h, qualities: DEP, upgrades: standard laser sight), Reutech Striker semi-automatic shotgun (dmg 2d12 lethal, error 1–2, threat 19–20, ammo 12S40, range 30 ft., SZ/Hand S/2h, qualities: NFM (S/B/F), TKD); Gear: None [except vehicles]; Qualities: feat (Baby It, Battering Blows, CQB Basics, CQB Mastery, Daredevil, Darting Weapon, Defensive Driving, Jackrabbit Start, One Hand on the Wheel, This is My Boomstick), henchman, superior attribute (Dex 18, Str 18).[/sblock]

He's the final boss. Why doesn't he have four of his ability scores? It's one thing if mooks get special rules, but final bosses should be using the same rules as PCs. I hope this isn't "expected" of Spycraft II adventures.

(I recognize maybe half the feats. New feats are good.)


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 31, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> He's the final boss. Why doesn't he have four of his ability scores? It's one thing if mooks get special rules, but final bosses should be using the same rules as PCs. I hope this isn't "expected" of Spycraft II adventures.
> 
> (I recognize maybe half the feats. New feats are good.)




As far as that NPC, that's the new NPC builder in play.  You can do "regular Joe" NPCs, "Special" NPCs, and then like guest stars that you stat up as full characters.

And yes, I'm pretty sure it's expected and encouraged that most all NPCs use those NPC rules.  The character has all ability scores, but IIRC, they'll all be 10 unless the quality "Improved Ability" was taken, where-upon they're 18.  

All things being equal, I think they included the side-note that you can still make an NPC like a PC for the people who were uncomfortable using the NPC rules, since you can make a more POWERFUL and CAPABLE individual with those rules than by using the PC rules.  There's alot of room for "Enggghhh, he's totally dude-tacular at that.  18!" in the NPC rules.

I need to hack those free and turn them into a general d20 system.

--fje


----------



## mcrow (May 31, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I find that making NPCs and PCs often takes more time because of how you put together your character. (Still way less time than DnD for me, though!) However, I don't see what this has to do with a setting. These heroes fit in every setting, ranging from AD 200 Three Kingdoms China to Firefly to Caveman Adventures! (TM) and any system that includes intelligent non-monstrous PCs. Seriously, I have NPCs from each of the settings (even that last one!) that I can post here if you don't believe me.




sure the basic premis fits. There have always been people who are stronger &/or faster than the average person. The problem is they are to broad. All character types that are "strong" go here, all that are agile go under "fast", that just doesn't jive for me. Not to mention the "strong" class just sucks anyway. Talent trees, I don't like either.


----------



## Falkus (May 31, 2006)

That NPC builder is what convinced me to switch over to Spycraft 2.0. It's one of the best GM tools there is. It makes it incredibly quick and easy for me to populate my adventures with minions, henchment and bystanders for the PCs to contend with, far more simpler than it ever was in d20 Modern.

Oh, and the This is my Boomstick! feat. Any game that has feat called This is my Boomstick! has to be cool.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 31, 2006)

mcrow said:
			
		

> sure the basic premis fits. There have always been people who are stronger &/or faster than the average person. The problem is they are to broad. All character types that are "strong" go here, all that are agile go under "fast", that just doesn't jive for me. Not to mention the "strong" class just sucks anyway. Talent trees, I don't like either.




Though the whole point is to dip a little here and there.  You're not supposed to say:  "This guy is strong, so he's a Strong hero."  

Maybe he has a Strength of 16 and a Wisdom of 10 ... but if he's an investigative type, he's probably best served with Dedicated, and some Strong if the abilities there suit the concept.  In many ways, the Base Classes can also serve to COVER weaknesses, instead of just highlight strengths.  I've seen alot of characters that would be described as "strong" instead end up with levels in "Tough", because the strength they're thinking of might be physical resilience.

A Smart character might not have a huge Intelligence score.  Maybe you needed some skill points and a flair for languages to go with that debonair and Charismatic spy.  

The classes aren't really about the CHARACTER'S ability scores, but their own abilities.  They highlight the score they're related to, but really they're a methodology for gathering class abilities together to fit the concept.  It's a "Choose Your Own Adventure" of class design.

IMHO, it's about twice as good a system as an archetypal system could ever even HOPE to be, and about seventy-thousand times as good as a point-buy system can manage.  

Honestly, at this point I get depressed every time I end up playing D&D or any other archetypal system, because I'd rather work with the d20M/GT model.

And I have an irrational and unholy loathing for point-buy systems.     

One reason I reject SC2.0 out of hand.  The classes are great for a spy game, but if I've got to redesign them every time the genre changes a few degrees to the left or right I'm going to be busy all week ... why not system that's largely genre-independant.  

--fje


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 31, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> As far as that NPC, that's the new NPC builder in play.  You can do "regular Joe" NPCs, "Special" NPCs, and then like guest stars that you stat up as full characters.
> 
> And yes, I'm pretty sure it's expected and encouraged that most all NPCs use those NPC rules.  The character has all ability scores, but IIRC, they'll all be 10 unless the quality "Improved Ability" was taken, where-upon they're 18.
> 
> ...




Nah. Raw power wasn't the big issue. Sure maybe this guy is actually more powerful than the PCs of the right level for that adventure (I can't tell), but he's _boring_. Not entirely - he has nice feats, like kicking arse with a shotgun - but he has no class abilities. If he's a leader (he is, too), why doesn't he have levels in the Pointman class? If he's an intelligence analyst (which any terrorist head honcho needs to be), why doesn't he have abilities that reflect that - all he has are "skill [Roman numeral]". If he's so smart (and he should be, since he's a terrorist leader), why does he have Int and Wis of 10?



			
				McCrow said:
			
		

> Not to mention the "strong" class just sucks anyway. Talent trees, I don't like either.




You haven't even played the system - proven by this comment.

I personally think talent trees are great. Hey, flexibility!


----------



## Razuur (May 31, 2006)

Spycraft II all the way.  Our group really didn't like D20 modern all that much.

Razuur


----------



## Pbartender (May 31, 2006)

Armistice said:
			
		

> The one thing Spycraft does poorly is regular guy. The closest you'll get is regular guy 'action hero'. For really regular schmoes you'd use spycraft's npc system.




Yeah...  But most people don't want to play a regular schmoe in an RPG, they want to play an Action Hero.  "We play Regular Schmoes in Real Life, so why play one in an RPG?" is the usual reason.  I'll honestly say that if you want to play a regular schmoe -- some people do and that's fine -- SC 2.0 is definitely *NOT* the game for you.

I'll have to dig up some of my game notes at home, and see if I can find stats for PCs and NPCs from some of the different Spycraft adventures I've run.  If you can ignore the spy-oriented names of classes and abilities and feats and such, it's surprisingly easy to run a wide variety of modern genres...  So far, I've done Espionage, Westerns, Science Fiction, Space Opera, Horror, Post Apocalyptic, Kung Fu, and Pulp Super Hero. 

The biggest problem I've run into so far is modifying the Mission Caliber-based gear system, when the PCs don't really have specific missions to perform...  Of course, the Freelance and Stockpiling options go a long way to alleviating that problem, and a very simple House Rule does the rest.


----------



## Pbartender (May 31, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Nah. Raw power wasn't the big issue. Sure maybe this guy is actually more powerful than the PCs of the right level for that adventure (I can't tell), but he's _boring_. Not entirely - he has nice feats, like kicking arse with a shotgun - but he has no class abilities.




But he could, if you wanted him too.  You can give an NPC any PC's class ability you want.



			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> If he's a leader (he is, too), why doesn't he have levels in the Pointman class? If he's an intelligence analyst (which any terrorist head honcho needs to be), why doesn't he have abilities that reflect that - all he has are "skill [Roman numeral]". If he's so smart (and he should be, since he's a terrorist leader), why does he have Int and Wis of 10?




You're right.  Looking at that stat block, without any other background information, I don't see a terrorist leader, I see an important and powerful thug, bodyguard or hitman.  I think the problem isn't so much the way SC 2 NPCs get made, but that this particular villain wasn't properly built for the role he's supposed to be playing.

Let me see if I can find a few better examples of SC 2 NPCs for you...


----------



## Pbartender (May 31, 2006)

From page 454 of the SC 2.0 rulebook, which can be found as a PDF preview on the Alderac website...

Standard NPCs:

Thug (Standard NPC — 33 XP): Init IV; Atk V; Def VI; Resilience V; Damage Save: VI; Competence: VI; Skills: None; Wealth: III; Weapons: 1 × Caliber I; Gear: None; Vehicle: None; Qualities: specialty (Criminal).

Tool-Pusher (Standard NPC — 9 XP): Init II; Atk II; Def I; Resilience I; Damage Save: II; Competence: IV; Skills: Electronics VI, Mechanics VI, Science (Fabrication) II; Wealth: II; Weapons: None; Gear: 3 × Caliber II; Vehicle: None; Qualities: meek (–17), non-combatant.

Tribal Warrior (Standard NPC — 48 XP): Init IV; Atk V; Def V; Resilience VII; Damage Save: VI; Competence: VIII; Skills: Survival VII; Wealth: None; Weapons: 1 × Caliber I; Gear: None; Vehicle: None; Qualities: camouflaged (forest or jungle), specialty (Tribesman).

Zombie (Standard NPC — 36 XP): Init II; Atk V; Def II; Resilience IV; Damage Save: VII; Competence: I; Skills: None; Wealth: None; Weapons: None; Gear: None; Vehicle: None; Qualities: all thumbs, clumsy, construct, damage reduction 5.

Special NPCs:

Arms Dealer (Special NPC — 78 XP): Init IV; Atk V; Def V; Resilience IV; v/wp: IV; Competence: VII; Skills: Networking VII, Streetwise VIII; Wealth: VII; Weapons: 5 × Caliber IV; Gear: 2 × Caliber II; Vehicle: 1 × Caliber III; Qualities: feat (Burglar, Criminal Contacts).

Assassin (Special NPC — 82 XP): Init VII; Atk VII; Def VI; Resilience V; v/wp: V; Competence: VI; Skills: Blend VII, Sneak VII; Wealth: V; Weapons: 3 × Caliber IV; Gear: 1 × Caliber III; Vehicle: None; Qualities: feat (Darting Weapon, Faceless, Garrote Style, Knife Style, Traceless), unnerving (+2d4). 

Burglar (Special NPC — 85 XP): Init VI; Atk III; Def VII; Resilience VI; v/wp: V; Competence: VII; Skills: Acrobatics VII, Athletics VI, Blend VI, Security VII, Sneak VII; Wealth: III; Weapons: 1 × Caliber I; Gear: 3 × Caliber II; Vehicle: 1 × Caliber I; Qualities: feat (Burglar, Equilibrium Basics, Ghost Basics, Spider
Basics, Spider Mastery).

Conspiracy Hunter (Special NPC — 61 XP): Init IV; Atk III; Def V; Resilience VI; v/wp: III; Competence: V; Skills: Analysis V, Investigation V, Networking V; Wealth: III; Weapons: 1 × Caliber II; Gear: 4 × Caliber II; Vehicle: 1 × Caliber II; Qualities: all thumbs, specialty (Stranger), talented (Brainy).

Crime Lord (Special NPC — 76 XP): Init II; Atk II; Def II; Resilience III; v/wp: III; Competence: IX; Skills: Intimidate VIII, Networking VIII; Wealth: X; Weapons: None; Gear: 1 × Caliber IV; Vehicle: 1 × Caliber IV; Qualities: fearsome, feat (Silver Spoon, Well-Funded), inferior attribute (–2 Str, –2 Con), mastermind, sluggish (–10 ft.), specialty (Criminal), story-critical.

Doctor (Special NPC — 73 XP): Init III; Atk I; Def IV; Resilience III; v/wp: II; Competence: IX; Skills: Analysis VIII, Medicine IX; Wealth: IX; Weapons: None; Gear: 1 × Caliber IV; Vehicle: 1 × Caliber III; Qualities: specialty (Doctor), strong-minded (+8), superior attribute (+8 Int), talented (Privileged).

Driver (Special NPC — 77 XP): Init VII; Atk V; Def VI; Resilience V; v/wp: V; Competence: VI; Skills: Drive IX, Mechanics VI; Wealth: IV; Weapons: None; Gear: None; Vehicle: 1 × Caliber III; Qualities: feat (Baby It, Daredevil, Defensive Driving, Offensive Driving), specialty (Motorhead), superior attribute (+8 Dex), talented (Agile).

Femme Fatale (Special NPC — 45 XP): Init III; Atk II; Def V; Resilience III; v/wp: II; Competence: V; Skills: None; Wealth: VII; Weapons: 1 × Caliber I; Gear: None; Vehicle: 1 × Caliber IV; Qualities: captivating, feat (Gorgeous, The Look), foil (+0), seductive, talented (Graceful).

Forger (Special NPC — 56 XP): Init IV; Atk III; Def VI; Resilience III; v/wp: III; Competence: IX; Skills: Analysis VIII, Falsify VIII; Wealth: V; Weapons: None; Gear: 4 × Caliber III; Vehicle: None; Qualities: None.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Yeah, SC2.0 is not exactly part of the "papers and paychecks" genre.



Part of the aspiration of the system was to make 1st level competant so you didn't uniformly have to start at 5th+ level if you wanted to make a competant action hero or spy. This is part of the fallout of that.

The NPC system makes room for it for NPCs. But it's probably not the best system if you want to play everyday people as PCs.

(I wonder is TB is reading this thread. I now read "regular guy" as "regulah guy" thanks to your little story at last gencon...)


----------



## Armistice (May 31, 2006)

It bears noting again that the Spycraft NPC system allows for breaking the PC mold in all the best ways. Schmoe npc's take little to no time at all to stat up. 'Boss' npc's can use all the tools of the pc's in addition to the regular npc system. If I recall correctly any PC ability given to a special Npc simply increases the base xp total by the level at which that ability would be available to a PC. 

Frex, if you wanted a bad guy, who was fast on his feet and was hardly ever caught unawares, you could take the assassin quoted above and add the Evasion I (2nd) and Uncanny Dodge II (8th), increase the base xp value by 10 fill in the adjusted numbers for threat level and off you go. 

'Level' doesn't matter at all for npc's (except to scale them vs. the players threat level) and you can run the adventure for different level groups without changing the statblocks.


----------



## Armistice (May 31, 2006)

You know what would be nice, especially for those of us who sometimes use elements of both systems. Someone most familiar with d20 Modern post a 'concept' character with stats (can be from any era), make brief notes about how the system (i.e. feats and talents) allow the character to breathe life into the concept. Someone most familiar with Spycraft would reciprocate, as in redo that character in Spycraft terms with accompanying explanation.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 31, 2006)

Pbartender, I've read the SC II intro PDF already. None of the listed NPCs are named, classed heroes. Let's go with a complicated concept. Can you replicate this guy: http://d20npcs.wikia.com/wiki/CR_15_Bodyguard_Leader and this guy: http://d20npcs.wikia.com/wiki/CR_6_Sergeant


----------



## Pbartender (May 31, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Pbartender, I've read the SC II intro PDF already. None of the listed NPCs are named, classed heroes.




Well...  That's kind of the point...  You add a name and background to the stats.  And unless the bad guy is your campaign's equivalent of Darth Vader, they don't normally need classes.  In SC 2 generating a PC or NPC using class levels can take quite some time, since there are so many options available.  The whole idea behind the NPC generation rules is to streamline that process for NPCs used by the GC.  And it works well.  I can usually make stats blocks for all the NPCs for an adventure in minutes.

Anyway...



			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Let's go with a complicated concept. Can you replicate this guy: http://d20npcs.wikia.com/wiki/CR_15_Bodyguard_Leader and this guy: http://d20npcs.wikia.com/wiki/CR_6_Sergeant




Yes, I'm sure I can... as standard NPCs, special NPCs or as PCs with classes (although that would take a considerable amount of time).  I don't have my rulebook handy at the moment, but I'll give it a try tonight when I get home from work.


----------



## mcrow (May 31, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> You haven't even played the system - proven by this comment.
> 
> I personally think talent trees are great. Hey, flexibility!




I don't know about you, but I can tell whether or not I like a class without playing it. 

Since I don't like the way talent trees work, its going to be hard for me to like any d20 modern classes. 

I'm not saying you can't like them, I just don't like them.

SC2 classes at the least work great for their intended purpose and implied setting. The structure and mechanics of the classes are cool to, but they are just not as flexible as I would like.


----------



## C. Baize (May 31, 2006)

mcrow said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I can tell whether or not I like a class without playing it.
> 
> Since I don't like the way talent trees work, its going to be hard for me to like any d20 modern classes.
> 
> ...




Yeah. I like the Talent Trees... because really, they're just choosable class features. Or you might consider them class specific feats.
I dig how flexible they are. 
You get to choose at every level.
To each their own, though. Just sounds like if flexibility is what you're after, the D20 Modern Base Classes have it in spades. 
Might try Grim Tales... from what I've heard, it's all about flexibility. 
I don't have it yet, but I'll likely get it at some point.


----------



## Armistice (May 31, 2006)

mcrow said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I can tell whether or not I like a class without playing it.
> 
> Since I don't like the way talent trees work, its going to be hard for me to like any d20 modern classes.
> 
> ...





Allright, I'm doing the Seargeant as full special npc (i.e built entirely with class levels) It'll be up soon. As for implied setting as in all of modern or near-future times then I'll agree with this statement. I'd love an example of a 'flexible' character concept. I'll take up the gauntlet and realize him in Spycraft terms (without bending the rules). 

[Boring rainy day at home, all work/chores done so take advantage.]


----------



## Pbartender (May 31, 2006)

Armistice said:
			
		

> Allright, I'm doing the Seargeant as full special npc (i.e built entirely with class levels) It'll be up soon. As for implied setting as in all of modern or near-future times then I'll agree with this statement. I'd love an example of a 'flexible' character concept. I'll take up the gauntlet and realize him in Spycraft terms (without bending the rules).
> 
> [Boring rainy day at home, all work/chores done so take advantage.]




Using the cheat sheets that I have on hand, here's the sargeant as a Standard NPC...



> Sargeant (Standard NPC — 60 XP): Init III; Atk V; Def V; Resilience V; Damage Save: VII; Competence: V; Skills: Intimidate VI, Impress VI, Notice II, Survival II, Tactics V;
> 
> Wealth: V; Weapons: 1 × Caliber 3; Gear: 3 × Caliber 1; Vehicle: None;
> 
> Qualities: camouflaged (any one terrain), damage reduction 1, feat (2 feats), superior attribute (+2 Str, +2 Dex), specialty (Recruit), talented (Grizzled).




I didn't fill in the 2 feats, since I don't have my rulebook with me, but I know that there are several feats that would stand in for Brawl and Remain Concious...  Maybe Armistice can find them for me.

I picked Grizzled and Recruit as the most appropriate talent and specialty for a sargeant, although there's others that would work as well...  Burly, Caustic, Disciplined, Fierce, Reliable, Resolute, Retired, or Veteran for talents and Hunter, Instructor, Mercenary, Outdoorsman, Rescuer, Sailor, Special Ops, or Warrior for specialties.

A Threat Level 6 (roughly equivalent to CR 6) version of this sargeant might look something like...



> Sargeant (Standard NPC — 60 XP): Init +2; Atk +4; Def +4; Resilience +3; Damage Save: +11; Competence: +3; Skills: Intimidate +9, Impress +9, Notice +5, Survival +5, Tactics +7;
> 
> Wealth: Lifestyle 3 (Average)/Possessions 10 (1 × Caliber 4, 3 × Caliber 3, 3 × Caliber 2, 5 × Caliber 1)/Spending Cash 2 ($400); Weapons: 1 × Caliber 3; Gear: 3 × Caliber 1; Vehicle: None;
> 
> Qualities: camouflaged (any one terrain), damage reduction 1, feat (2 feats), superior attribute (+2 Str, +2 Dex), specialty (Recruit), talented (Grizzled).


----------



## Falkus (May 31, 2006)

And here's my take the bodyguard as a special NPC

Bodyguard Leader Branden McKendrick (Special NPC, EXP: 183)
Init: IV; Atk: VIII; Def: X; Resilience: VII; VP/WP: IX; Competence: VIII; Wealth: None
Proficiencies: Handgun, Unarmed
Equipment: Beretta 92f, 3 magazines, trendy low-profile armor, Caliber III tactical radio
Qualities: Damage Reduction x3, Extended Training
Feats: CQB Basics, CQB Mastery, martial arts (dexterity), Quick Draw, Tac Squad basics, Tac Squad Mastery, Tac Squad Supremecy, 
Skills: Blend VII, Intimidate VII, Notice X, Resolve X, Tactics X
Class abilitities: Strategem, Take the Hit II x3, Ten against Ten Thousand
Superior abilities: Strength 12, Dexterity 14, Constitution 14, Intelligence 13, Wisdom 12, Charisma 14


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 31, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> And here's my take the bodyguard as a special NPC
> 
> Bodyguard Leader Branden McKendrick (Special NPC, EXP: 183)
> Init: IV; Atk: VIII; Def: X; Resilience: VII; VP/WP: IX; Competence: VIII; Wealth: None
> ...




I'm a bit confused by this character now. So I have to ask a few things:

What is his _equivalent_ CR? Eg if something is worth 183 XP, how much of a challenge is he to, say, 3rd-level characters? 10th? 15th? I'm sure this is covered in Spycraft rules.

Atk VIII - if he didn't have Martial Arts (Dexterity), would his martial arts attack bonus be the same as his gun attack bonus?

This character's Modern version specifically took feats to boost his firearms damage. Is this listed here somewhere?

What is the difference between the Squad Leader feats and Strategem?


----------



## buzz (May 31, 2006)

I would also suggest people check out some key threads on the AEG/Spycraft boards.

The conversions document updates most of the books published for SC1.0, including _Dark Inheritance_ and the _Stargate_ RPG. It also includes revised ruels for psi and magic, and hwo to integrate D&D spells into SC2.0.

The Star Wars 2.0 thread provides a conversion for playing SW with SC2.0.

The FAQ and errata thread has lots of info on class creation, too.


----------



## Falkus (May 31, 2006)

> What is his equivalent CR?




He's a special NPC. He scales to the level of the PCs.



> Eg if something is worth 183 XP, how much of a challenge is he to, say, 3rd-level characters? 10th? 15th? I'm sure this is covered in Spycraft rules.




183 EXP makes him a rather signicant threat, especially since this character is designed to be working with a sizable team of other bodyguards.



> Atk VIII - if he didn't have Martial Arts (Dexterity), would his martial arts attack bonus be the same as his gun attack bonus?




No, it would be slightly lower, since he'd be adding his strength bonus instead of his dexterity bonus.



> This character's Modern version specifically took feats to boost his firearms damage. Is this listed here somewhere?




Not really, but the CQB basics gives him certain advantages. I could give him the Style over caliber feat, which lets him do 1d10+2 damage with any handgun.



> What is the difference between the Squad Leader feats and Strategem?




Strategem increases the initiative count of each of his teammates by 1 at the start of each round, while the tac squad feats give him and his teammates certain abilities when his team has the numerical advantage, such as having all of their opponents count as being flanked.


----------



## Pbartender (May 31, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> What is his _equivalent_ CR? Eg if something is worth 183 XP, how much of a challenge is he to, say, 3rd-level characters? 10th? 15th? I'm sure this is covered in Spycraft rules.




It works a bit differently than that...  the XP just tells you, in very general terms, how powerful an NPC is.  The Threat Level of the mission (which is normally based on the average level of the party), determines the exact bonuses of all those roman numerals.  Higher roman numeral equates to bigger bonus, but higher Threat Level also increases the bonus.  That means you can quickly and easily use the same stat block for 1st level characters as you can for 20th level characters, and the NPC should provide roughly an equivalent challenge to either party.

For example...

Bumping my Standard NPC sargeant up to Threat Level 15, gives us:



> Sargeant (Standard NPC — 60 XP): Init +5; Atk +11; Def +9; Resilience +7; Damage Save: +14; Competence: +5; Skills: Intimidate +18, Impress +18, Notice +9, Survival +9, Tactics +15;
> 
> Wealth: Lifestyle 3 (Average)/Possessions 10 (1 × Caliber 4, 3 × Caliber 3, 3 × Caliber 2, 5 × Caliber 1)/Spending Cash 2 ($400); Weapons: 1 × Caliber 3; Gear: 3 × Caliber 1; Vehicle: None;
> 
> Qualities: camouflaged (any one terrain), damage reduction 1, feat (2 feats), superior attribute (+2 Str, +2 Dex), specialty (Recruit), talented (Grizzled).




Knocking him down to Threat Level 1 gives us:



> Sargeant (Standard NPC — 60 XP): Init +0; Atk +0; Def +1; Resilience +1; Damage Save: +9; Competence: +2; Skills: Intimidate +4, Impress +4, Notice +2, Survival +2, Tactics +3;
> 
> Wealth: Lifestyle 3 (Average)/Possessions 10 (1 × Caliber 4, 3 × Caliber 3, 3 × Caliber 2, 5 × Caliber 1)/Spending Cash 2 ($400); Weapons: 1 × Caliber 3; Gear: 3 × Caliber 1; Vehicle: None;
> 
> Qualities: camouflaged (any one terrain), damage reduction 1, feat (2 feats), superior attribute (+2 Str, +2 Dex), specialty (Recruit), talented (Grizzled).




The actual experience gained from encountering this fellow is based on the base XP of the stats block (60 in this case) and the Threat Level of the mission.


----------



## mcrow (May 31, 2006)

Since I started following this thread I reread through parts of both books and have to ammend my thoughts a bit.

SC2: I think I was a little unfair about the classes being too rigid. Given the examples in this thread (and a closer read of the classes and character generation sections of the book) I think SC2 has enough flex in it to accomadate most near modern game types. Really dig the mission design section, cool stuff. 

D20 Modern: I can't really back off of my statements here. I still don't like talent trees or the strong,fast, smart hero stuff either. 

I think I will be spending soem time tinkering with SC2.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (May 31, 2006)

Y'know what I just thought of that would be perfect to run with Spycraft?

*Kids Next Door: The RPG*

Dunno why I just had that thought, but that could be a hillarious game.

I think I watch too much Cartoon Network, anymore.  

--fje


----------



## Lhorgrim (May 31, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Y'know what I just thought of that would be perfect to run with Spycraft?
> 
> *Kids Next Door: The RPG*
> 
> ...




When I first read "Kids Next Door" RPG, my mind registered "Kids in the Hall" RPG.  
What a strange game that would be...


----------



## Armistice (May 31, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Pbartender, I've read the SC II intro PDF already. None of the listed NPCs are named, classed heroes. Let's go with a complicated concept. Can you replicate this guy: http://d20npcs.wikia.com/wiki/CR_15_Bodyguard_Leader and this guy: http://d20npcs.wikia.com/wiki/CR_6_Sergeant




Sarge 2.0
[SBLOCK]Name:  Sarge
Class Levels: Soldier 4 
Origin: Veteran Serviceman (1/session free request check, 7 extra skill points; bonus Officer feat, handgun and rifle proficiencies, +1 w/ attack checks using Suppressive Fire).

Notes: I wanted to see how close I could get with a straight 'soldier build'. I think this works in spirit. He's a team leader by example, while still allowing room for an officer to polish off the rough-edges. Sarge is an astute judge of character and can work the green machine like few others, to get what his squad needs. Getting the job done while under fire is par for the course. He never quits, and he'll, 'leave 'em standing in a puddle of their own piss' if anyone in his squad looks like they aren't giving their all.

Attributes: 
STR 	DEX 	CON 	INT 	WIS 	CHA 	SPEED 	INIT
+1 	+1 	+1 	+1	+1 	+1 	30 	+6 (+5 class, +1 dex)
12 	12 	13 	12 	12 	13 	X 	X

FORT 	REFL 	WILL 	ATTACK DEFENSE
+3 	+2	+5 	+4 	13 (+2 class, +1 dex, melee/fireams DR 5/7)

Vitality/Wounds : 35/13
Stress Threshold: 12 
Subdual Threshold: 13

Action Dice: 3d4
Reputation: 2
Request Check : +5, Knowledge Check : +5, Gear Check: +5
Focuses & Fortes: Profession (Military - forte), Science(Engineering - forte).
Proficiencies: (7) blunt, handgun(forte), hurled, rifle(forte), unarmed (forte), tactical.
Contacts : Various Military Contacts.
Interests : Medicine, Gambling, Golf.

Class Abilities (page 49)
   Accurate (Core): Each time you spend an action die to boost an attack check, you roll and add the results of 2 dice.
   Fight On x2: Choose 2 bonus 'Combat' feats.(Armor Basics, Battle Hardened)
   Fortunes of War I: DR 1/- can be doubled for up to 3 rounds per session.
   Armor Use I: You're at home in armor. +1Def when wearing armor and your ACP decreases by 1. Gain one free Caliber 1 armor pick.   

Skills (42 Ranks)
Athletics 1, Drive 2, Intimidate 7, xMedicine 2, Networking 7, Notice 4, Profession 4, Resolve 4, Search 3, Sense Motive 7, Survival 3, Tactics 3.

Feats 
   Guts: +4 bonus with variety of exertion checks. Unaffected by fatigued condition penalties. Resistant to critical injuries (roll d10 instead of d20 on Table of Ouch).
   Officer (Origin): +2 insight bonus all skill and Knowledge checks with Intimidate and Tactics, base threat range with these skills is 19-20.
   Armor Basics(Partial): DR vs. melee weapons increase by 1, ACP decrease by 1, defense penalty decrease by 2.
   Talented(Diplomat): Networking and Sense Motive are class skills. Further, purchasing 1 skill rank with one also gains you 1 skill rank with the other.
   Battle Hardened: Gain 2 points of damage resistance vs. Stress damage. You only suffer -1 penalty when targeted by Cover fire or Suppressive fire.

Wealth 2 
Lifestyle 2, 
Possessions 2, 
Spending Cash 1

Personal Gear: Personal Vehicle. Housing. Standard equipment for a soldier. Of note Tactical Vest 3/6 (all penalties negated by class&feats). Choose 12 items personal kit. 

Mission Gear: (1W, 1S)

Attacks 			Atk 	Dam 		Err/Thr 	Rng 	Recoil 	Modes 	Hand 	Ammo
Unarmed 			+6 	1d6+1 	 	1/20	 -- 	-- 	-- 	-- 	-- 
Colt M1911 		+6 	1d12	 	1/19 	25 ft 	11 	 	1h 	7M7
M16A2 		 	+6 	4d4 	 	1-3/19 	125 ft. 	10 	S 	1h 	30M5[/SBLOCK]

Sorry about the delay, but others know I'm home and I had to run 'urgent' errands .

I am so glad I can use the npc rules to do this instead. There's just no need to stat out a full character unless I'm pre-generating for PC's. I could have gone several ways with this and all without multi-classing. The Scout, Wheelman and Explorer could have worked equally well. Heck, I've made a legitimate combat officer based on the Scientist class. 

I didn't see the need to take him past 4th level, 'cause at 6th he looks more like SGT. Slaughter! 

Any questions about Sarge 2.0?

P.S: Anyone know how I put this in a dropdown field?

ETA: Some number crunching corrections and explanation.


----------



## Henry (May 31, 2006)

Armistice said:
			
		

> P.S: Anyone know how I put this in a dropdown field?




Use SBLOCK instead of QUOTE. I've edited your above post as an example.


----------



## mcrow (May 31, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Use SBLOCK instead of QUOTE. I've edited your above post as an example.




Thanks, nice to know how to do that.


----------



## Armistice (May 31, 2006)

Thanks a bunch Henry!


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 31, 2006)

I'm so stealing that Talented thing


----------



## Vigilance (May 31, 2006)

mcrow said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I can tell whether or not I like a class without playing it.
> 
> Since I don't like the way talent trees work, its going to be hard for me to like any d20 modern classes.
> 
> ...




Edit.

Chuck


----------



## Deekin (Jun 1, 2006)

The Question is, how well does spycraft handle undead mutant psionic alien mages?  My players tried to kill me after they encontered that.  D20 Modern is one of the most flexable d20 systems in existance, almost as good as the old Alternity system. Spycraft does a limited thing,  (superspy action), and does that well, but D20 Modern can do anything. as a plus, it is cross compatable with almost any other book put out by wizards. I can cross over anything without much effort. I needed Garydi shadow magic for an adveture, so I grabed my Tome of Magic, and pulled some stuff strait out of that.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 1, 2006)

Deekin said:
			
		

> The Question is, how well does spycraft handle undead mutant psionic alien mages?  My players tried to kill me after they encontered that.  D20 Modern is one of the most flexable d20 systems in existance, almost as good as the old Alternity system. Spycraft does a limited thing,  (superspy action), and does that well, but D20 Modern can do anything. as a plus, it is cross compatable with almost any other book put out by wizards. I can cross over anything without much effort. I needed Garydi shadow magic for an adveture, so I grabed my Tome of Magic, and pulled some stuff strait out of that.



No, Spycraft handles action. Superspy is one type, but it handles a lot more than that. Indiana Jones is just as easy to stat up as James Bond. There are rules online for Spycraft Star Wars. There is at least one Firefly game out there using Spycraft. One of the core settings for Spycraft 1st ed. included psionics and magic.

On the other hand, D20 Modern can handle anything - And make it boring! Superspy nonaction! Magic wielding fantasy nonaction! Superhero nonaction! Undead mutant psionic alien mage nonaction! The possibilities are beginingless!  Sorry, but I would rather use Spycraft and actually enjoy my game.

As for magic - I am working on converting E.N. Publishing's Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth to Spycraft, and not finding it all that hard.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

Deekin said:
			
		

> The Question is, how well does spycraft handle undead mutant psionic alien mages?  My players tried to kill me after they encontered that.  D20 Modern is one of the most flexable d20 systems in existance, almost as good as the old Alternity system. Spycraft does a limited thing,  (superspy action),




Again, no it really does more than that.

If we were talking about SC 1.0, I'd be nodding my head in agreement.

But SC 2.0 is really much more flexible. SC 1.0 was my default engine for Superspy action. SC 2.0 is now my default system for all modern action.



> and does that well, but D20 Modern can do anything. as a plus, it is cross compatable with almost any other book put out by wizards. I can cross over anything without much effort. I needed Garydi shadow magic for an adveture, so I grabed my Tome of Magic, and pulled some stuff strait out of that.




This, I'll grant you. As I said upthread, what D20 modern has is support. I think, especially, third party publishers make the game what it is. Run me some Blood & Fists or Second World, I'll be at the table.

(That said, don't totally count Spycraft out here. Using the Dark Conspiracy plugin... which is available for free... SC will plug in to any typical d20 magic system stuff.)


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 1, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> No, Spycraft handles action. Superspy is one type, but it handles a lot more than that. Indiana Jones is just as easy to stat up as James Bond. There are rules online for Spycraft Star Wars. There is at least one Firefly game out there using Spycraft. One of the core settings for Spycraft 1st ed. included psionics and magic.
> 
> On the other hand, D20 Modern can handle anything - And make it boring! Superspy nonaction! Magic wielding fantasy nonaction! Superhero nonaction! Undead mutant psionic alien mage nonaction! The possibilities are beginingless!  Sorry, but I would rather use Spycraft and actually enjoy my game.
> 
> ...



 I've been using D20 Modern since it first came out and I've never had a boring game.  I guess it's just a matter of personal taste.  :shrug:


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 1, 2006)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I've been using D20 Modern since it first came out and I've never had a boring game.  I guess it's just a matter of personal taste.  :shrug:



Sorry, more of a reactionto Deekin's post than an actual attack on D20 Modern. He was making broad, sweeping, inaccurate statements and I felt the need to do the same with added hyperbole. 

I actually liked the sound of D20 Modern more while it was in development than what actually appeared. (Some of the same things that are in Spycraft actually - Vitality Points and wounds, and armor that gives damage resistance rather than making it harder to be hit, etc. were supposed to be in D20 Modern early on, then WotC changed their minds.)

While not my cup of tea Modern is not a bad game, and it _is_ very adaptable. But I like the feel of SC2 better, chases, combat, and even hacking all seem more enjoyable. Though admitedly the one game of D20 Modern I ever played in was dull as dishwater, this was the fault of a DM who had no idea of how to get the players going in the direction that he wanted the game to head. The only thing about D20 Modern that I hate was the gods awful D20 Past supplement (the whole reason I bought D20 Modern in the first place.)

The Auld Grump

But yes, it is a matter of personal taste.


----------



## Armistice (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> <snip>
> This, I'll grant you. As I said upthread, what D20 modern has is support. I think, especially, third party publishers make the game what it is. Run me some Blood & Fists or Second World, I'll be at the table.
> 
> (That said, don't totally count Spycraft out here. Using the Dark Conspiracy plugin... which is available for free... SC will plug in to any typical d20 magic system stuff.)




Psion, I think you meant Dark Inheritance 

You can find the Dark Inheritance magic and etc. conversion at the old AEG boards Here. If you take a look through the rest of that thread you can find a total Psi conversion as well. The fluff is all hardcopy form though (soon to be available as .pdf's I understand). As an added bonus, the Grammaton Cleric from Equilibrium is at the end of that thread. He makes a fantastic baddy!

Truth be told, the most useful d20 Modern item I own is the Menace manual as great inspiration. I actually get more use out of it now than before because of the speed at which I can convert things I like using the new 2.0 npc rules.

I think we can all agree that, system preference aside, d20 Modern easily wins the support argument with its oodles of 3rd party offerings of varying quality. What are some of the absolute best, I mean completely top of the line, heads and shoulders above the rest, d20 Modern supplements. Remember you've got to think they were 4.5 or 5 stars. If I'm going to buy 'em to convert I want the cream.

I've already mentioned Blood & Fists, what are the others?


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 1, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Sorry, more of a reactionto Deekin's post than an actual attack on D20 Modern. He was making broad, sweeping, inaccurate statements and I felt the need to do the same with added hyperbole.
> 
> I actually liked the sound of D20 Modern more while it was in development than what actually appeared. (Some of the same things that are in Spycraft actually - Vitality Points and wounds, and armor that gives damage resistance rather than making it harder to be hit, etc. were supposed to be in D20 Modern early on, then WotC changed their minds.)
> 
> ...



 Heh.  No worries.  

Vitality and Wound Points and armor as DR are two changes that I made in my (D20 Modern) games.  

I do agree that there are things that SC2.0 does better.  Chases, autofire rules, the way skills are set up, and scalable NPC's are all done better than D20 Modern.  I haven't played D20 Modern since I picked up SC2, but the next time I do I'll be using the chase and autofire rules.  

I'm firmly in the camp that likes D20 Modern better.  I have a LOT of tools to play any kind of game I want with it.  That kind of moldability is great for a kitbashing gamer like me.  

I will agree that D20 Past was a bit of a letdown, but I still found a lot of it useful for my games.  With a little tweaking of feats and such, the Advanced Classes have become very usable for my Sci-Fantasy setting.  I still think a lot of the problem with D20 Past was that it didn't do what people were expecting.  What it did contain has been useful to me at least.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> This, I'll grant you. As I said upthread, what D20 modern has is support. I think, especially, third party publishers make the game what it is. Run me some Blood & Fists or Second World, I'll be at the table.
> 
> (That said, don't totally count Spycraft out here. Using the Dark Conspiracy plugin... which is available for free... SC will plug in to any typical d20 magic system stuff.)




Coming soon to Spycraft 2.0...

*World on Fire *- Espionage.
*10,000 Bullets *- Pulp Noir.
*Farthest Star* - Science Fiction.
*Shatterpunk *- Cyberpunk.
*Crucible *- Monster Hunters.
*Spellbound *- Magic.
*Throw Down* - Kung Fu.
*Bag Full of Guns* - New Gear and Weapons.
*Flags* - Real World Organizations.

Not to mention the free Master Conversion Document which has converted rules for Psionics, Magic and other goodies.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Coming soon to Spycraft 2.0...
> 
> *World on Fire *- Espionage.
> *10,000 Bullets *- Pulp Noir.
> ...




Which is wonderful. But I am so jonesin' for things in some of these books, I'm gonna have to say "bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush" for the moment...


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

Armistice said:
			
		

> Psion, I think you meant Dark Inheritance




Yeah. That.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Which is wonderful. But I am so jonesin' for things in some of these books, I'm gonna have to say "bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush" for the moment...




Oh, I won't argue with that...

For my group, the preference for SC over D20 Modern is a percieved thing...  The names and descriptions alone from SC invoke visions of action and excitement.  No matter how well the D20M rules do or do not work, my players simply can't get excited over the classes, talents and feats as they are presented...  Not when they can instead have abilities and feats like "Too Ugly to Die", "Not in the Face!", "'L337", "Spy vs. Spy", "Bald-faced Lie" and "Wuxia".'

Like somebody else said earlier...  it's a matter of style and preference.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Which is wonderful. But I am so jonesin' for things in some of these books, I'm gonna have to say "bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush" for the moment...




And not to mention, Modern has the Modern Dispatch, a weekly e-zine made by 12 to Midnight, Adamant, Roning Arts and RPGObjects that is approaching 100 issues of game and adventure support. 

So even if you took away ALL the supplements for Modern, just the Dispatch would be hard to catch up to.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 1, 2006)

*What is amazing about Modern*

Here's what's great about d20M.

I have seen folks go back and forth about which system can handle X or Y concept, and that's all well and good and a good litmus test on some level for a game. But since both games can handle lots of character concepts, because they're both well-designed games, that's not very instructive.

What is amazing about d20M to me is that you can do the SAME concept so many different ways.

[Sblock]Strong Martial Artist (Strong Hero 3/Martial Artist 3): CR 6; Medium-size humanoid; HD 3d8+6 plus 3d8+6; HP 40; Mas 14; Init +1; Spd 30 ft; Defense 15, touch 15, flatfooted 14 (+0 size, +1 Dex, +4 class); BAB +6; Grap +11; Atk +9 melee (1d6+5, weapon), or +7 ranged (1d6+0, weapon); FS 5 ft by 5 ft; Reach 5 ft; SQ ; AL none; SV Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +2; AP 3; Rep +0; Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8.
   Occupation: Military (Knowledge [Tactics], Move Silently)
   Skills: Balance +4, Climb +6, Craft (structural) +4, Escape Artist +4, Handle Animal +2, Hide +4, Intimidate +2, Jump +9, Knowledge (Tactics) +5, Move Silently +5, Swim +6
   Feats: Archaic Weapons Proficiency, Combat Martial Arts, Combat Throw, Defensive Martial Arts, Dodge, Mobility, Power Attack, Simple Weapons Proficiency
   Talents (Strong Hero): Melee Smash, Improved Melee Smash
   Talents (Martial Artist): Living Weapon 1d6, Flying Kick
   Possessions: weapon, weapon; Wealth +6[/Sblock]

This guy is all about offense. Good HP, excellent BAB, Melee Smash makes his unarmed damage 1d6+5 without using Power Attack.

[SBlock]Fast Martial Artist (Fast Hero 4/Martial Artist 2): CR 6; Medium-size humanoid; HD 4d8+4 plus 2d8+2; HP 33; Mas 13; Init +3; Spd 40 ft; Defense 19, touch 19, flatfooted 16 (+0 size, +3 Dex, +6 class); BAB +5; Grap +7; Atk +7 melee (1d6+2, weapon), or +8 ranged (1d6+0, weapon); FS 5 ft by 5 ft; Reach 5 ft; SQ ; AL none; SV Fort +2, Ref +8, Will +1; AP 3; Rep +1; Str 14, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8.
   Occupation: Adventurer (Jump, Survival)
   Skills: Balance +11, Escape Artist +11, Hide +13, Jump +9, Move Silently +13, Survival +6, Tumble +9
   Feats: Archaic Weapons Proficiency, Combat Martial Arts, Defensive Martial Arts, Dodge, Mobility, Simple Weapons Proficiency, Spring Attack, Stealthy
   Talents (Fast Hero): Increased Speed, Improved Increased Speed
   Talents (Martial Artist): Living Weapon 1d6, Flying Kick
   Possessions: weapon, weapon; Wealth +6[/SBlock]

This guy is all over the field of battle. Doesn't do as much damage as the Strong Martial Artist, nor does he have as good a BAB. However his movement and defense are higher allowing him to take much better advantage of his Flying Kick class ability, Mobility feat and Spring Attack feat. He also has much better skill selection. His saves are also worse overall. 

And you could do martial artists based off the Tough, Dedicated, Smart and even Charismatic classes as well.

d20M doesn't pick your archetype and slot him into a combatant or non-combatant. It lets YOU do that.

I know some will say "but feats!"

Sure, a game could allow you to customize your character using feats, but the basic classes in d20M go well beyond that, influencing your character's BAB, saves and skill points. And of course talents (the class abilities that let the Strong Martial Artist do more damage and the Fast Martial Artist move faster) are abilities you can't acquire anywhere else.

Watching a character in combat, you can feel the "legacy" of his basic class in how he plays and what things he's good at when he's 15th level, even if he and another character took the exact same advanced class.

In other words, d20M models the majority of movies better than any other game. Did you ever watch Saving Private Ryan, or Bloodsport, or Lethal Weapon and try to slot the main characters into their classes?

In many cases you end up with "Soldier, Soldier, Soldier, Soldier". But each is a different KIND of soldier. Hence the ability to use basic classes to make each soldier a completely different kind of character, some of whom won't be combatants at all.

Chuck


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

In a way, chuck, I agree. I probably don't think this is as significant as you, but I've brought up a point similar to this when people bash d20 modern. I don't think I'd call this "modeling better" -- because there is more to modeling than chargen, and I won't get into how much more a beautiful thing I think the spycraft skill system is -- so much as "going beyond classes as professions."

Sometimes modelling a class as something other than a profession is something that you need. This can be a real useful tool if the GM wants to have the whole party be the same or similar professions, but allow them to distinguish themselves. The example I usually give here is the Abyss. The main characters are a crew of deep sea mining explorers. But each has a distinct personality.

That said, Chuck, back on the other hand, I _will_ say "but feats". And I'll also say "but talents" and "but specialties." One thing Spycraft is NOT in danger of is every soldier being the same. Talents and specialties are conceptually rich, and force you to differentiate your character from other characters of the same class at level one, something that I think the do more effectively than 6 attribute classes.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> That said, Chuck, back on the other hand, I _will_ say "but feats". And I'll also say "but talents" and "but specialties." One thing Spycraft is NOT in danger of is every soldier being the same. Talents and specialties are conceptually rich, and force you to differentiate your character from other characters of the same class at level one, something that I think the do more effectively than 6 attribute classes.




I've said this before, but let me be clear: I have nothing bad to say about the Spycraft design.

So what you mean "but feats and specialties" is that they do the same thing. As for doing it more effectively... imo every single d20 Modern advanced class is 6 classes, because each pairing with a basic class spins it into a different niche. That's hard to top. 

My experience has been the people who complain about d20M usually have not played it at all, or only played a few sessions. The strengths of the system slowly grow on you as you work with it and see all the different ways you can advance your character as he grows and all the different roles you can springboard him into. 

d20M isn't the game where you start out as Ethan Hunt at 1st level. It's the game where you start out as an incredibly shy nerd named Willow Rosenberg and several years later can frighten just about anyone with a display of your magical power. Of course your other equally geeky friend can't do much of anything except take a punch like nobody's business, but Xander never left the basic classes. He like the Robust talent too much I guess. 

Now I can model Buffy's slow character growth in d20M *and* and I can do The Unit *and* I can do Best of the Best.

I think Spycraft could model any of those as well, but on the first, it can't model the low end of the Spectrum, which I enjoy a lot. 

As for support. I keep seeing people say "there will be support" and I'm sure there will be. Sprcraft is too good a game for that not to happen. I've advocated it for RPGObjects myself. 

But I think people underestimate the sheer volume of support. If the four most prolific modern designers switched to Spycraft full time tomorrow, it would take 4 years to draw even. 

We're trying to figure out how to celebrate the fact that the freaking *EZINE* Chris and I started a couple years back, which was a monthly then and has grown into a weekly produced by the 4 top companies in Modern support should support its 100th issue. 

I guess it's too bad all us designers wasted all this time on a boring clunky game huh? 

Chuck


----------



## mcrow (Jun 1, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Here's what's great about d20M.
> 
> I have seen folks go back and forth about which system can handle X or Y concept, and that's all well and good and a good litmus test on some level for a game. But since both games can handle lots of character concepts, because they're both well-designed games, that's not very instructive.
> 
> ...




I agree both games are very good "modern" games. As Psion said, i don't believe that with either system you are in danger getting stuck with cookie cutter characters. It's more the execution,flavor, and style that spycraft has that makes it better IMO. I think that in the end you can take either system and come up with a game that has the feel you are after.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 1, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I think Spycraft could model any of those as well, but on the first, it can't model the low end of the Spectrum, which I enjoy a lot.




Yup...  They're both great games, but with significantly different styles.

Different Strokes for Different Folks and all that...



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> But I think people underestimate the sheer volume of support. If the four most prolific modern designers switched to Spycraft full time tomorrow, it would take 4 years to draw even.




That's the benefit of being a game backed by WotC, eh?    

That alone will prevent Spycraft from competing with D20M in the area of secondary products...  It's like saying, "D&D has a lot more support than Iron Heroes!"  Of course it does.  That doesn't mean that one's necessarily a better game than the other, but it does mean that there's a lot more secondary material to draw from, if the game itself doesn't suit you perfectly.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So what you mean "but feats and specialties" is that they do the same thing.




Don't jim pinto on me here. (If you don't understand that, ask me in the chatroom some day...) I don't see talents and specialities as the same thing as feats. In fact, I think they more strongly resemble the backgrounds you wrote for the legends line. They define more what the character _is_ than what the character _can do_.



> My experience has been the people who complain about d20M usually have not played it at all, or only played a few sessions. The strengths of the system slowly grow on you as you work with it and see all the different ways you can advance your character as he grows and all the different roles you can springboard him into.




Fair enough. I hope you aren't acusing me of that. I know its strengths, and I think I've enumerated them quite a few times. I also know its frustrations.



> I think Spycraft could model any of those as well, but on the first, it can't model the low end of the Spectrum, which I enjoy a lot.




That's fair enough too, but I will rejoinder that I don't think, despite what Alex Flagg may tell you, that a 1st level character can reasonably be called an Ethan Hunt. But 1st level spycraft characters are certainly meant to be a cut above.



> But I think people underestimate the sheer volume of support. If the four most prolific modern designers switched to Spycraft full time tomorrow, it would take 4 years to draw even.




I've tried to communicate that as well.



> I guess it's too bad all us designers wasted all this time on a boring clunky game huh?




What? You write for GURPS now? 

(Okay, quit pelting me, GURPS fans. I was trying to make a funny and it was convenient...)


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 1, 2006)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> That's the benefit of being a game backed by WotC, eh?




It certainly wasn't just that. The response was very slow at first.

As someone who was there from day 1, getting one of pre-release SRDs I can tell you a much faster jumping on was expected by WOTC. 

In the early days it was basically RPGObjects and The Game Mechanics.

The rules were a big departure from standard d20, so they took some digesting and a lot of folks, frankly, weren't convinced the system would fly.

But the d20 Modern 3rd party support had little to do with WOTC imo. Designers certainly aren't afraid to come up with a variant system if they don't like it. It's a testament, believe it or not, to the quality of the RULES and how us "early adopters" showed the strengths in those rules others missed at first.

The fact that they're still missing those strengths is pretty depressing.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> That's fair enough too, but I will rejoinder that I don't think, despite what Alex Flagg may tell you, that a 1st level character can reasonably be called an Ethan Hunt. But 1st level spycraft characters are certainly meant to be a cut above.




Oh I agree with that. And I have had mixed feelings how long it takes to become a badass in d20M. On the other hand, no game I've ever ran modeled Buffy Season 1 well *at all* except d20M and it's a beautiful thing to see characters slowly grow into something very different from what they intended.

Often because the campaign went in a different direction than intended.

One of the best campaigns I ever ran was a stealth X-files game in which the PCs were never EVER told it was an X-files game. They were told it was a Silence of the Lamb-style FBI profiler game (and sometimes it even was). 

Along with low level play, the ability to radically switch genre mid-stream is another HUGE strength of d20M (especially with all those 3rd party books). 



> I've tried to communicate that as well.




Hope I'm not being snarky, not my intent. I just see a lot more folks supporting Spycraft in this thread and I felt a lot of it's strengths weren't being adressed.



> What? You write for GURPS now?
> 
> (Okay, quit pelting me, GURPS fans. I was trying to make a funny and it was convenient...)




Ouch. I actually love GURPs, ran it for years and writing for it has always been on my list of career goals 

Chuck


----------



## mcrow (Jun 1, 2006)

I have played some D20 Modern and a few one-shots of SC2.

I will point out that I'm certain that I don't have nearly as much playing time with either of the games as most of the posters here. I have not used or seen any of the TP publsihed stuff for D20 modern and didn't use any supplements for SC2. So my comments are what I think when comparing core rulebook vs core rulebook. I'm sure that if you compare all published d20 modern material VS all published SC material that d20 modern would easily appeal to more players than SC2. 

For the record I never said either game sucked or was bad. Parts of each may be bad but overall both are good games.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 1, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Pardon me for the tangent here, but if a person was to try to run a Shadowrun-style game using either d20 Modern or Spycraft 2.0, which system would work best?
> 
> I'd sorta lean towards d20 Modern, since OGL Cybernet is based largely on d20 Modern and d20 Modern also has Urban Arcana to work with.  Question is, would Spycraft work a little better for the base classes and such?  I find that I prefer an archetype system.
> 
> Thanks in advance.




At the risk of ressurecting your tangent...I should point out that there is a new edition of Shadowrun out which, as I'm sure will not surprise you, handles Shadowrun style games rather well.

To fulfill the needs of my inner rules tinkerer -- I'm currently mapping the Shadowrun rules system over the old Alternity (Star Drive) setting.  Just to mix things up.  Alternity is still my favorite all time modern rules system, hands down.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Jun 1, 2006)

*Update from OP*

Well, I've made my decision on which game to order, and it's kind of a cop out.  Many thanks to all those who posted about the different game systems.

I put in my order for D20 Modern, and I expect it to arrive next week.  That said, I'm going to order Spycraft 2.0 as soon as I have the extra cash.

From the posts on this thread, and the info I've found online, I feel that D20M is the best fit for my group to get our feet wet with modern gaming.  My group is familiar with D&D, so the similarity to that system is a plus for us.  I don't know if my group will take to the modern genre, so the less effort expended in learning a system the better.  SC 2.0 sounds like the game I want to _play_, but d20M sounds like the game I want to teach to absolute beginners.

My plan is to use D20M as a gateway game.  If the players enjoy the game, and my campaigns, then I intend to add elements of SC 2.0 to see if the players have gotten hooked.  Then I'll use the system that works best for my group's play style and abilities.

SC 2.0 seems very impressive.  I see it as the "advanced" option.  When players are comfortable with the basic conventions of modern era gaming, then they can add the levels of detail that are part of SC 2.0 if they choose.  It seems like there is a lot to deal with in SC 2.0, like character choices that add modifiers to combat if your PCs outnumber the badguys, sliding initiatives etc.  That is cool beyond words to me, but I worry that it is too detailed for a gamer that has never played a modern game before.  As far as I am aware, most of my players have never played any game system but D&D 3.X.

I want the best of both worlds, and thanks to two great systems I think I can have it for about $25.00 each.

Thanks for all the posts, and the great information.  I learned a great deal more about the systems' capabilities than I could have without you.


----------



## Wystan (Jun 1, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Pardon me for the tangent here, but if a person was to try to run a Shadowrun-style game using either d20 Modern or Spycraft 2.0, which system would work best?
> 
> I'd sorta lean towards d20 Modern, since OGL Cybernet is based largely on d20 Modern and d20 Modern also has Urban Arcana to work with. Question is, would Spycraft work a little better for the base classes and such? I find that I prefer an archetype system.
> 
> Thanks in advance.




With all the Gadgets and toys I would think that a SC2 (2nd Printing) game would admirably work for a Shadowrun game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 1, 2006)

Wystan said:
			
		

> With all the Gadgets and toys I would think that a SC2 (2nd Printing) game would admirably work for a Shadowrun game.



But I must admit, since I looked through the SR 4 rules, my need for an alternative gaming system for SR has been considerably reduced - even to the point where I am no longer interesting in pursuing a D20 Modern version of SR. 

But then, I haven't played much of SR 4, and I still see the need for a lot of house rules. But most of the fundamental flaws seem to have been fixed. Their "d6" system actually seems to work. 

Well, back to your regularly scheduled thread....


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jun 1, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Hope I'm not being snarky, not my intent. I just see a lot more folks supporting Spycraft in this thread and I felt a lot of it's strengths weren't being adressed.




I think, as was noted before, alot of that is the "new shiney" response.  When people initially pick something up, they have alot of questions and reactions to it, and they naturally want to talk about it.  Alot of people have picked up SC2.0, so there are more people lately interested in talking about how much they like it.  Alot of people that play Modern are probably not talking much on messageboards about it, since it's been around for a while.

And, again, while there's nothing WRONG with Modern, it is the older of the two games, and SC2.0 does get some points for taking some design "mistakes" that Modern has and making good on changing them.

IMHO, Modern was too controversial.  It DIDN'T change alot of things about the d20 core concepts ... HP, AC (Defense), Skill use, Feat Naming Conventions, etc.  And it didn't do it during a time when the "big thing" was reworking those (AC/HP mostly).  It DID change a few major things ... things, I think, many people weren't ready to change.  Archetypal Classes and the Wealth system.  My two d20Modern MVPs, honestly.

Honestly, I'm not really sure WHY those two subsystems are the focus of so much distaste and, sometimes, outright hate.  People who are perfectly willing to accept Archetypal Classes and Point Buy Free Build just flip out and froth at the mouth at the base classes.  Which, honestly, are just the mid-point between the two.  It's a structured Point Buy or a free form Archetype.  It's not like it doesn't WORK, or creates broken characters, or unplayable characters.  I WILL say the learning curve is higher than an archetypal class, but MUCH less than a free-buy system.  

So, I suppose, there's that.  For some reason, some aspects of Modern can really stir a few people to outright and, as far as I've seen, unreasoning hatred.  So they're negative.  And there's not alot about Spycraft that's going to send anybody into convulsions of loathing.

Anyway, I'm going to get back to dismantling Spycraft 2.0 and rewriting the good parts for Modern.    Today's project is the NPC generator.  I think I have a few core changes that'll plug 'er right back around into CR/EL while simplifying how CR/EL are thought of.

--fje


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 2, 2006)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> No matter how well the D20M rules do or do not work, my players simply can't get excited over the classes, talents and feats as they are presented...  Not when they can instead have abilities and feats like "Too Ugly to Die", "Not in the Face!", "'L337", "Spy vs. Spy", "Bald-faced Lie" and "Wuxia".'



Those 'flavorful' feats and abilities are one of the things I don't care for in _Spycraft_ - some of them are downright cartoony to me, great for a James Bond joint, I guess, but not for any of the Modern genre games that I've run so far. Personal taste and all that.


----------



## buzz (Jun 3, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Those 'flavorful' feats and abilities are one of the things I don't care for in _Spycraft_ - some of them are downright cartoony to me, great for a James Bond joint, I guess, but not for any of the Modern genre games that I've run so far. Personal taste and all that.



The flavor-named feats are a pretty small number of the feats in the book.


----------



## Armistice (Jun 3, 2006)

I wish this thread had been named d20 Modern & Spycraft II. Both games have much to offer and choosing one -OR- the other isn't really required. As has been repeated, your choice mainly comes down to personal play preferences. Those familiar with both systems like them each for different reasons. This thread has convinced me that 'Haters' of either system haven't taken the time to really familiarize themselves with what each has to offer.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 5, 2006)

True enough.

Really it comes down to flavor - D20 Modern is as generic and flexible as they could make it, at the expense of flavor in my estimation, while Spycraft has flavor galore and reasonable flexibility, but at the expense of being less generic in its outlook. Some people really like the occassional silly feat name, and others really don't. (I am one of the former.)

Three choices, pick any two...

The Auld Grump


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 5, 2006)

Armistice said:
			
		

> This thread has convinced me that 'Haters' of either system haven't taken the time to really familiarize themselves with what each has to offer.




I think you are mischaracterising this thread. I don't see 'Haters' of either system here - I just see people presenting the best aspects of the system they prefer (and in a way which was evidently of great help to the original poster).

I like non-inflammatory threads, it makes moderating much more pleasurable!

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think you are mischaracterising this thread. I don't see 'Haters' of either system here - I just see people presenting the best aspects of the system they prefer (and in a way which was evidently of great help to the original poster).



I though he talked more about general "haters", like they might be found in other threads or boards(, not people of this thread). 



> I like non-inflammatory threads, it makes moderating much more pleasurable!
> 
> Cheers



But what about agressive posters that just want to vent a bit? These poor people have no place here - That's discriminating!


----------



## Henry (Jun 5, 2006)

And just to totally stir the pot a bit, one game that has increasingly interested me for the past two years has been Grim Tales -- which meshes both d20 Modern and Spycraft to create a fascinating union of grit and fantasy that appeals to me greatly. To me, if Spycraft were "high fantastic" modern and d20M were "low fantastic" modern, Grim Tales would fall somewhere in the middle. 

I'll stop the confusing there. Lhorgrim, I think you'll be pretty pleased with your choices.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 5, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> The flavor-named feats are a pretty small number of the feats in the book.



And yet they seem to be the ones most often cited as examples of what makes chargen in _Spycraft_ "better" (= preferable or more enjoyable to a particular gamer, as opposed to objectively superior) than d20 _Modern_. 

Re-read the thread, *buzz* - the difference in feat styles ("boring +2 to two abilities" v. "cool and flavorful") is mentioned repeatedly as a distinction between the two games.

I agree with those posters who suggest that this is a significant difference between the systems - as I said, it's one of the reasons that my personal preference is for d20 _Modern_.


----------



## buzz (Jun 5, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I agree with those posters who suggest that this is a significant difference between the systems - as I said, it's one of the reasons that my personal preference is for d20 _Modern_.



Okey-doke. My point was simply that, flavorful as the game is, it's not like every other feat has a whimsical, wacky name.

I'd be curious to go through my d20M supplements and see if there are any similarly flavorful names.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jun 5, 2006)

D20 Modern took a page from D&D and stuck with terse and descriptive names.  Originally, D&D was going to go the route of the creative names (There was a "Too Ugly To Die" in there, IIRC.) but it seems like perhaps a distinct design choice was made to go another way.  

A big difference I've noticed is Spycraft "feats" are usually about 2x-3x more powerful than a d20 feat.  "This Is My Boom Stick", for instance, lets you: Use the shotgun as a heavy club, use a shotgun one-handed at half penalty, ups all saves vs. the shotgun by four points, and every time you shoot somebody they fly back 5'.

That's quite a bit of additional material.  Great Fortitude bundles together Toughness AND nets a +3 save bonus on top.  Etc.

I was going through Spycraft last night and converting a few feats, and I found myself stripping about half their benefits to make them suitable for Modern.  

The work goes on.

--fje


----------



## Armistice (Jun 5, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I though he talked more about general "haters", like they might be found in other threads or boards(, not people of this thread).





Yep. Got it in one. I wasn't calling out anyone from this thread, which has been remarkably civil. 



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Okey-doke. My point was simply that, flavorful as the game is, it's not like every other feat has a whimsical, wacky name.




I checked the Spycraft book and the feat names are remarkably standardized and follow that standard pretty closely. The 'flavorful' ones are usually Legacy from 1.0 and will mostly be descriptive of the feat or a shout-out to the movies. Aside from the often mentioned, "This...is My Boomstick", phrase type feat names are only found in the Chase and Chance feat trees (frex: One Hand on the Wheel..., ...A Gun In The Other and The Dice are Hot). Other than that, all the other trees are pedestrian. Not really sure how this is an issue. Even a mild familiarity with pop culture makes even the short phrase (a tiny percentage of the total feats in the book) feats pretty self-explanatory.

The above concern is on the order of complaining that the D20 Modern classes are generically 'named'. I could care less what they're called, my concern is how they work mechanically and the style of play those mechanics most easily represent.


----------



## buzz (Jun 5, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> A big difference I've noticed is Spycraft "feats" are usually about 2x-3x more powerful than a d20 feat.  "This Is My Boom Stick", for instance, lets you: Use the shotgun as a heavy club, use a shotgun one-handed at half penalty, ups all saves vs. the shotgun by four points, and every time you shoot somebody they fly back 5'.
> 
> That's quite a bit of additional material.  Great Fortitude bundles together Toughness AND nets a +3 save bonus on top.  Etc.



You have to keep in mind SC2.0's use of VP/WP, fwiw, which makes things work a little differently.

Also, any judgement of feats needs to keep in mind prerequisites. d20M's selection is probably not as broad yet, but in D&D we see very powerful feats all the time... coupled with stiff prereqs that keep them in line with PC level. There a lot more feats, most with prereq trees, in SC2.0 than in d20M core.

That said, yeah, SC2.0 PCs have a bit more "oomph". Of course, they also have to deal with error ranges (i.e., fumbles) and a GM with his own pool of action dice. And when a scene is shifted to "dramatic" (an actual scene mode in SC2.0 that makes everything more deadly and challenging), the odds become deliberately stacked against the PCs.

_Iron Heroes_ is actually quite similar this way. There's lots of over-the-top aspects of the system, but they're met with commensurate challenges.

(I finished reading all of SC2.0 this weekend, so I'm still honeymooning. I got plenty of d20M love left, nonetheless.)


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jun 5, 2006)

But even with WP/VP, Spycraft is very specific in neutering all but "key" type NPCs from being in any way a threat to the PCs beyond annoyance.  NPCs can only crit if they're Special NPCs, and then only if given a specific attribute that allows for such, AND the PCs don't have any feats or abilities that cause the GM to spend loads of his (smallish) pool of APs.

Note that "normal" NPCs have Damage Saves instead of WP/VP, so the +4 DC from Boomstick equates out to, more or less, +4 damage "most of the time".

--fje



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> You have to keep in mind SC2.0's use of VP/WP, fwiw, which makes things work a little differently.
> 
> Also, any judgement of feats needs to keep in mind prerequisites. d20M's selection is probably not as broad yet, but in D&D we see very powerful feats all the time... coupled with stiff prereqs that keep them in line with PC level. There a lot more feats, most with prereq trees, in SC2.0 than in d20M core.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 6, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> But even with WP/VP, Spycraft is very specific in neutering all but "key" type NPCs from being in any way a threat to the PCs beyond annoyance.  NPCs can only crit if they're Special NPCs, and then only if given a specific attribute that allows for such, AND the PCs don't have any feats or abilities that cause the GM to spend loads of his (smallish) pool of APs.
> 
> Note that "normal" NPCs have Damage Saves instead of WP/VP, so the +4 DC from Boomstick equates out to, more or less, +4 damage "most of the time".
> 
> --fje




I guess that Step 1 of NPC Creation (that's pp. 441-443), focusing on the NPC's concept, including things like motivations, strengths and weaknesses is 'neutering' from the roleplaying perspective?  That the call for each and every NPC to be memorable to the PCs is just...what?  Granted, there's no gnoll pimps or Special Forces-garbed kobolds, but come _on_.  

You're factually incorrect, too - the _Treacherous_ Quality (pp. 451) isn't applied to solely to Special NPCs.  That's the one you're complaining about, by the by - the ability for NPCs to gain GC-activated criticals.  For that matter, those 'neutered' NPCs carry the same - or better - equipment as the PCs, making them fairly significant threats, even without the _Treacherous_ NPC Quality.  

Consider the SWAT writeup, or the Special Forces trooper - each one poses a significant threat to PCs individually, complete with some nasty NPC Qualities (like the CQB Feats and Marksman Feats) to bolster the equipment they're carrying.  All of the sudden, those Vitality Points don't look like they'll stand up so well when the PC is facing someone firing at them with an assault rifle or chucking grenades. 

You're making a bogus argument, Heap.  If you don't like the system, fine, great, super; the Game Police aren't going to come and take D20 Modern away from you.  But for pete's sake, man, don't make statements like the ones above, because you're just plain wrong.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 6, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> Okey-doke. My point was simply that, flavorful as the game is, it's not like every other feat has a whimsical, wacky name.
> 
> I'd be curious to go through my d20M supplements and see if there are any similarly flavorful names.



It's not a problem of "whimsical, wacky" names, but rather whimsical, wacky abilities that may be suited to superspy/espionage genre settings but little else. Unfortunately I don't have my 1e book handy or own the 2e book to cite specific examples at the moment, but in culling through 1e for material to inject into my Modern games, it jumped out at me again and again how many _SC_ abilities were just too over-the-top for the style of games that I like to run.

Again, I don't think that makes _SC_ bad - it just means that I don't care for it.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 6, 2006)

Aha!  I found a few of my notes from the last Chicago Gameday I attended.  I ran a Spycraft 2.0 game that was a spoof of Wild Wild West -- A spoof of a spoof, you say?  Anyway, for anyone interested in seeing a few pre-generated characters and NPCs from a Spycraft adventure geared toward the gunslinging cowboy spaghetti western genre, I'm attaching the Word document...


----------



## Armistice (Jun 6, 2006)

That's some cool stuff there Pbartender. I especially like the creative way you managed to 'westernize' some of the gear. Whiskey flask stimulants indeed. Good job.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jun 6, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> I guess that Step 1 of NPC Creation (that's pp. 441-443), focusing on the NPC's concept, including things like motivations, strengths and weaknesses is 'neutering' from the roleplaying perspective?  That the call for each and every NPC to be memorable to the PCs is just...what?  Granted, there's no gnoll pimps or Special Forces-garbed kobolds, but come _on_.
> 
> You're factually incorrect, too - the _Treacherous_ Quality (pp. 451) isn't applied to solely to Special NPCs.  That's the one you're complaining about, by the by - the ability for NPCs to gain GC-activated criticals.  For that matter, those 'neutered' NPCs carry the same - or better - equipment as the PCs, making them fairly significant threats, even without the _Treacherous_ NPC Quality.
> 
> ...




My humble and heartfelt appo-polo-logies, droog.  

There goes the happy-shiny feeling of the thread.  The brotherhood.  The camaraderie.  The LOVE.  Why can't we all just get along?  Etc, etc, e pluribus unum, yadda yadda, ad infinitum.

What I was pointing out was that, in general, the "deadliness" of VP/WP is, by and large, mitigated by the effective neutering of standard NPCs by keeping them from bypassing VP and hitting directly to WP.

As opposed to, say, SWRPG where your random Stormtrooper could "accidentally" give a PC the bosh with a lucky crit with a blaster rifle.  

I wasn't taking a whizz on your beloved system, nor rabidly defending the tarnished honor of my girlfriend D20Modern.

That you like the "Step 1" is great fun for you and yours.  I didn't bring it up.  That we know what John P. Mook had for lunch and that his deepest fear is not being liked by others and that's why he groups with at least (Number Of PCs x2) Minions of his same stats is ... great.  I wouldn't call him emotionally or role-playing-perspectively neutered.  Didn't say that's what I thought, though, did I?

Standard NPCs are there to be an annoyance.  They have a Damage Save to speed up how fast the PCs can knock them down.  They can't crit without a specific attribute that represents a "contract killer, trained assassin" or the like (I.E., everybody shouldn't have it).    The SWAT team might come in with 1d10+1 SMGs, but the PCs average d10s on VP, as well.  

Not that it's bad.  Not that the game isn't a shining jewel amidst the bric-a-brac upon one's gaming shelf.  Just that, on the average, the NPCs don't go around bumping off the PCs ANYWAY ... so while the system uses VP/WP and the GM gets Action Dice, it doesn't mean we crank up "Bodies" unless the PCs have buckets of multi-benefit feats.  

It means the multi-benefit feats are a SpyCraft convention because that's the style of play it adheres to.  The PCs are meant to be very capable action heroes of high class and caliber.  Sort of James Bonds.  (If I get a chance to be on the player side of the fence, I want to play a Russian Pointman/Faceman with "Style Over Caliber" and "Bloodstain Resistant" and a PSM.)  James Bond doesn't get gunned down by the Kalishnakov-toting Ruskies, he runs through the library while they blow all of the books to fluttering scraps around him.

--fje


----------



## Morgenstern (Jun 6, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Standard NPCs are there to be an annoyance.  They have a Damage Save to speed up how fast the PCs can knock them down.  They can't crit without a specific attribute that represents a "contract killer, trained assassin" or the like (I.E., everybody shouldn't have it).  The SWAT team might come in with 1d10+1 SMGs, but the PCs average d10s on VP, as well.
> 
> ...
> 
> It means the multi-benefit feats are a SpyCraft convention because that's the style of play it adheres to.  The PCs are meant to be very capable action heroes of high class and caliber.  Sort of James Bonds.  (If I get a chance to be on the player side of the fence, I want to play a Russian Pointman/Faceman with "Style Over Caliber" and "Bloodstain Resistant" and a PSM.)  James Bond doesn't get gunned down by the Kalishnakov-toting Ruskies, he runs through the library while they blow all of the books to fluttering scraps around him.




I swear, I keep thinking you're talking about 1st edition . The point he's making, and I think its a fair one is that NPCs don't _have_ to be mere annoyances nor do you have to let players shine like gods in comparison to their opponents. That is presumption of playstyle that is just not true in the second edition. There are credible (heck, downright savage) opponents stated up ready-to-go in the book and building your own is so easy as to be a non-issue. Damage saves can easily be set high enough to make NPC virtually bulletproof (and that before putting on an actual bullet proof vest!) and giving them "tough" one or more times (increasing the number of damage saves before they go down) can actually make them quite a bit more resilient than the players are. Opponents that thickl are simply worth a few more more XP, encouraging players to try something other than the gettum/frontal assualt.

Similarly, you can ratchet players down quite a bit. The default may be willfully and deliberately summer blockbuster, but there are campaign qualities to drop back to TV show scale (heck, it's called "small screen") or even all the way down to more dangerous and bloody than real life - in a consistant, easily understood way. We didn't somehow miss that D20 Modern enthusiasts have been telling us for years that they like playing regular joes. Happy to oblige .

As to feats like "This... Is my Boom Stick!", it needs to be understood in the context of the rest of the Ranged Combat feat tree. The leading choices for firearms butt kicking combat effectiveness are the 3-part chains: CQB Basics-Mastery-Supremacy, Marksmanship Basics-Mastery-Supremacy, Sharpshooter Basics-Mastery-Supremacy, and Follow-up Shot and Hail of Fire. These feats give you your bread and butter benefits and apply equally to all guns. Scattered around the edges are a couple of stand-alone feats the focus on a single narrow weapon type. These are the shtick feats. If you want to be good with guns, you work one of those chains. If you want to be the guy that makes a shotgun dance or a flamethrower sing, you only need to spend one feat to pick up all the odd-ball little perks that are unique to that weapon. Lets look at "This... Is my Boom Stick!" (that's the actual name of the feat - quotation marks and all) ~

Shotgun as club - Ok, so after you've put a couple of blasts into the advancing wall of chemo-zombies, it's nice to be able to Babe Ruth one in the head without breaking stride. Powerful? Not really - it's a fricken' _club_, yeah? But damn if it doesn't make you feel cool when you do it .

Fire a Shotgun with one hand 1 hand at a -2 to hit - Ok, now this is a game where shields are really, really uncommon, so why aren't you using both hands? Because you're doing something cool with the other one like typing in a password, hanging on to a buddy who's been knocked over the rail of a catwalk, or maybe clutching the all important maguffin you just picked up to your chest. The point is this is a trivial benefit - it's letting you use a shotgun (at a penalty!) the same way your buddy would use a pistol. But it gives you options when you need that other hand. It says "I've got style."

+4 to the DC of Damage and Takedown saves - So, if you are shooting at goons _*with a shotgun*_, wouldn't you like to know that they are going to die?! And if they don't die, at the very least they are gonna be knocked on their butts in a pool of their own blood? Yeah, this is the meat and potatoes of the feat for the combat min/maxer, but it doesn't work so well against folks with w/vp - meaning it lets you clear obstacles (literally - it's _great_ for blowing doors off their hinges) but it doesn't let you just plow right through the final fight with impunity.

When you hit an opponent with a shotgun, they are pushed back 5 ft. - Remember those chemo-zombies? Now your buddies are especially glad you brough Ol' Bessie. And that punk you left in a pool of his own blood? He didn't just crumple - you knocked him on his butt. Tactical value? Some. Sheer glee factor? I'm calling it about a 9.2 .

Finally, the large picture of a guy with a smoking double-barreled shotgun right below the feat also helps sorta suggest what it does in case the movie quote is unfamiliar .


...And if you think we didn't put a whole lot of thought into feat names, I'll point out that with only two exceptions (from late edits I didn't catch), EVERY SINGLE FEAT CHAIN IN THE BOOK is in alphabetical order.
Every Basics -> Mastery -> Supremacy chain.

_...and all the ones with seemingly irregular names..._

Advanced Skill Mastery -> Grand Skill Mastery -> Perfect Skill Mastery.
Combat Expertise -> Expert Disarm.
Quick Draw -> Snake Strike.
All or Nothing -> Better Luck Next Time -> Fortune's Fool.
Fortunate -> Fortune Favors the Bold -> Lady Luck's Smile.
Lucky Break -> Misfortune -> Peculiar Dodge.
Driving Instincts -> Professional Driver - Closed Course.
Offensive Driving -> Relentless Pursuit.
Bludgeon -> Whack.
Deadly Precision -> No Quarter.
Executioner -> Merciless.
Silver Spoon -> Well Funded.
Political Clout -> Political Favors -> Political Immunity.

That's *not* an accident. They appear in the book both in alphabetical order and in the order you can take them so if you're just reading through causually, you know that any prerequisite you see is somewhere earlier in that section, and any follow on feats, well, they follow it in the book. And they look good when you write them on your character sheet . Neat. Tidy.

Definitely worth the extra time and care that went into naming them .


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 6, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> ...nor rabidly defending the tarnished honor of my girlfriend D20Modern.



Dude, just ignore that stuff on the bathroom walls - we all know she isn't like that.


Unless, you know, she gets a couple drinks in her. Then she gets kinda freaky.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 6, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> Lets look at "This... Is my Boom Stick!" (that's the actual name of the feat - quotation marks and all) ~
> 
> Shotgun as club - Ok, so after you've put a couple of blasts into the advancing wall of chemo-zombies, it's nice to be able to Babe Ruth one in the head without breaking stride. Powerful? Not really - it's a fricken' _club_, yeah? But damn if it doesn't make you feel cool when you do it .
> 
> ...



And this is why I like d20 _Modern_.

It's great that gamers have a selection of modern RPGs to choose from, eh?


----------



## solkan_uk (Jun 6, 2006)

I sold all my d20 modern stuff after I played Spycraft once.
I sat down and thought, well, what can D20 Modern do better, and couldn't think of anything.

Yes Spycraft uses archetype characters, and yet I have an easier time coming up with stats for any movie/book/series/comic character in Spycraft than I do in D20 Modern. I used to like D20 Modern a lot, it was good, but better came along.

The Archetype thing is only a problem when you get into a certain D&D mindset. In D&D a character with the Paladin class is known as a Paladin in the game (though I don't like that idea either, would the average guy know whether your a Paladin, Fighter/Cleric, Straight Cleric or even Straight Fighter if you're a member of the Order of Paladins?) whereas in Spycraft you are a Hero, maybe your a little better shot, or a better at driving etc - you're not an Archetype you're a character.

D20 Modern also uses archetypes, though their not quite as obvious. It's difficult to make a Strong Hero without ending up with "Melee Smash" or the like, the classes seem more limiting in that than in Spycraft.

Regardless, I'm here late in the day and you've made your decision. Enjoy your game.


----------



## Morgenstern (Jun 6, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And this is why I like d20 _Modern_.



That seems odd to me, but there's certainly no arguing with it . Best I can offer is at least I'm ussually pretty accessible to explain how or why something came to be .



> It's great that gamers have a selection of modern RPGs to choose from, eh?



Total *-100%-* agreement . My shelves are loaded with games and I'm always on the prowl for more.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 6, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> That seems odd to me, but there's certainly no arguing with it .



What is "cool" with a high "sheer glee factor" to you is too over-the-top for me and the style of game that I enjoy. Lemme attempt to 'splain...

"Cinematic" describes both _Charlie's Angels_ and _The Bourne Identity_, but I hope we would agree that they are very different movies. "...Boom Stick" is much closer in feel and execution to the former than the latter, IMHO, and that's not what I'm looking for in a roleplaying game.

In my games shotguns don't blow doors off hinges - they blow holes in them instead. The wounded don't go flying through the air - they fall where they're hit.

Does that help to explain my preference a bit more?







			
				Morgenstern said:
			
		

> Best I can offer is at least I'm ussually pretty accessible to explain how or why something came to be .



Most appreciated!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 6, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> ...And if you think we didn't put a whole lot of thought into feat names, I'll point out that with only two exceptions (from late edits I didn't catch), EVERY SINGLE FEAT CHAIN IN THE BOOK is in alphabetical order.
> Every Basics -> Mastery -> Supremacy chain.
> 
> _...and all the ones with seemingly irregular names..._
> ...



Except this one. Unless you have a different alphabet than I do. 

But the concept is pretty clever


----------



## mcrow (Jun 6, 2006)

The flavor and style of SC2 is part of what makes it a cool game IMO. 

It also has some really cool mechanics for chases and the like. I like armor as DR, and I know you can adapt d20 modern to use DR. 

I think SC2 would make a great base for a matrix style game. 

Besides the other things I have said that I don't like about d20 modern, I think it's a little boring. It just doesn't make me excited to make a character the same way as SC2 does.


----------



## Armistice (Jun 6, 2006)

Re: HeapThaumaturgist vs. Jim Hague...if that is as heated as it gets I'll count myself lucky especially after 7 pages. I don't think anyone was deliberately trying insult anyone. I've found that especially over the internet it is best to cultivate a thick skin and a forgiving attitude. We're still good. 

Here's where preference comes in for me. My gamers' preferred playstyle is action adventure blockbuster. Occasionally they will enjoy a more sedate session. Otherwise they prefer to be action heroes, especially if they are forced to tolerate a setting without magic. For myself, running that type of adventure is easier and more fun for me using Spycraft. 

That being said, often the issues I find being brought up against Spycraft seem to be holdover's from the 1st edition of the game. Conversely d20 Modern's detractors often don't take into account that because of the huge popularity of the system, many 'issues' with d20 Modern are literally a single high quality .pdf away from a fix. Frex, I couldn't see how to make a legitimate 'Big Screen Martial Artist' with d20 Modern until I purchased Blood & Fists. I firmly believe that d20 Modern's best argument is the sheer volume of quality supplements available for it.

My preference is Spycraft because of the aforementioned play style and the fact that barring far-future and high-fantasy, I have been able to realize any game I would play with my players straight out of the core book. Campaign Qualities & Npc Creation are icing on the cake.


----------



## Morgenstern (Jun 6, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Except this one. Unless you have a different alphabet than I do.
> 
> But the concept is pretty clever




Professional Driver - Closed Course is the name of a single feat, not me leaving out an arrow between two feats . It's the little message you see at the bottom of car commercials when they are out doing their immaculately perfect stunts that you really shouldn't try at home .


----------



## mcrow (Jun 6, 2006)

part of the problem here is maybe some posters are comparing core book vs core book while others are comparing core books+PDFs+supplements(d20 modern) vs core book(SC2).

I think if I were to pick up a couple PDFs, I could make d20 modern do almost all of what like about SC2.


----------



## Gundark (Jun 6, 2006)

Spycraft 2 is light years ahead of d20 modern. while it is a bit crunch heavy, it makes the actual running of the game quick and smooth...not to mention prep time is cut significantly


----------



## AscentStudios (Jun 6, 2006)

Cool! I got name dropped by Psion!  Now I'll have to say, "Spycraft can still do low level movie superspy action, no matter what Alan Kohler thinks!"   

RE: The issue of flexibility of d20M vs. Spycraft 2.0

From my desktop:

*Charismatic Hero*
Charismatic Heroes survive not by the strength of their arm or the force of their will, but by their appearance, vast resources, and ability to get along with (or manipulate) others. Common archetypes of the Charismatic Hero include celebrities, con men, femme fatales, kingpins, politicians, salesmen, and smugglers. 
*Vitality: * 1d10 + Con modifier per level. 
*Starting Weapon Proficiencies:* 3

*Class Skills*
The Charismatic Hero’s class skills are Blend, Bluff, Bureaucracy, Cultures, Drive, Falsify, Impress, Manipulate, Networking, Profession, Sense Motive, and Streetwise. 
*Skill points at 1st level: * (6 + Int modifier) x 4.
*Skill points at each additional level: * 6 + Int modifier. 

*Core Ability*
_Charismatic:_ When you roll an action die to add to the result of a Charisma-based check, you roll 2 dice instead of one. Further, once per round at your initiative count, you may spend 1 action die and target a special NPC or standard NPC type. You may immediately make an Impress/Influence, Impress/Persuasion, Intimidate/Domination, Manipulate/Slander, or Networking/Endorsement check against this target as a free action. The effects of this check and any disposition changes that may result last until the end of the scene. 

*Class Abilities*
*Knack: * At Levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19, you gain one Charismatic Knack of your choice.
*Bonus Feat: * At Levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18, you gain a bonus feat from the Chance or Style trees. 
*+1 Charisma:* At Levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, your Charisma score is increased by 1.​

and a Knack Tree:

*Charm (Charismatic)*
You have an undeniably magnetic personality.
_Charm I: _ Impress is always a class skill for you. Further, you gain an insight bonus to Impress checks equal to your Charm Tier.
_Charm II:_ When you are the Prey in a seduction, the Lead is increased by 1. When you are the Predator in a seduction, the Lead is reduced by 1 (see Spycraft 2.0, page XX).
_Charm III: _ You gain the _captivating _ NPC quality.  
_Charm IV: _ Before Strategies are chosen during each Conflict round of a seduction, you may force your opponent to choose a different Strategy than he chose during the last round. This ability may not be used if he has no other option available to him. When you use this ability, you must also choose a different Strategy than you chose during the last round.
_Charm V: _ Once per session when you tell 1 lie to any NPC, the NPC believes it as truth for a number of minutes equal to your Charismatic level. After this time, the target may begin to question the lie, depending upon the current circumstances (and per the GC’s discretion). This ability may not support any statement the target absolutely knows to be a lie (e.g. “the sky is green” when it’s a clear day and you’re both outdoors). 
If you use this ability on a special character of equal or higher career level, the special character may make a Will save (DC 10 + your Charismatic level). With success, he sees through your deception when it’s presented.​
While it may not be for everybody, this project certainly will offer those looking for looser class structure (and, I like to think, some cool new takes on the Modern SRD's concepts) the ability to use Spycraft all they like


----------



## Psion (Jun 6, 2006)

AscentStudios said:
			
		

> Cool! I got name dropped by Psion!




Yeah, there's a feat.


----------



## AscentStudios (Jun 6, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yeah, there's a feat.



 OK, challenge taken. 

*Name Dropped by Psion*
Your affiliation with one of ENWorld's high priests garners you favor with its faithful. 
*Prerequisites:* Post count 50+, Profession (Game Designer) 8 ranks, Reputation 25 or higher. 
*Benefits:* You gain 5 Reputation/$250,000 Net Worth. Further, you gain a +1 bonus to all Impress checks targeting characters with the ENWorld allegiance. Finally, once per session as a free action, when making an opposed skill check against an NPC with the ENWorld allegiance, you may call upon your positive review from Psion. You may roll the check twice, keeping the result you prefer. 

Happy?


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 7, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> My humble and heartfelt appo-polo-logies, droog.
> 
> There goes the happy-shiny feeling of the thread.  The brotherhood.  The camaraderie.  The LOVE.  Why can't we all just get along?  Etc, etc, e pluribus unum, yadda yadda, ad infinitum.
> 
> ...




Wow, that was ...mature.  As for you bashing SC 2, well, your own words speak for themselves, I think - words like 'neutered' and 'Anyway, I'm going to get back to dismantling Spycraft 2.0 and rewriting the good parts for Modern.'.  Naw, that's not loaded language at _all_.  



> That you like the "Step 1" is great fun for you and yours.  I didn't bring it up.  That we know what John P. Mook had for lunch and that his deepest fear is not being liked by others and that's why he groups with at least (Number Of PCs x2) Minions of his same stats is ... great.  I wouldn't call him emotionally or role-playing-perspectively neutered.  Didn't say that's what I thought, though, did I?
> 
> Standard NPCs are there to be an annoyance.  They have a Damage Save to speed up how fast the PCs can knock them down.  They can't crit without a specific attribute that represents a "contract killer, trained assassin" or the like (I.E., everybody shouldn't have it).    The SWAT team might come in with 1d10+1 SMGs, but the PCs average d10s on VP, as well.




Morg responded to this quite ably, including your rather puzzling dismissal of things like Campaign qualities.  But hey, why bring reality into this, right?  Never mind that something like Fragile makes those 1d10+1 SMGs loom large.  Nope, let's not bring accursed facts into this.  Because that would mean acknowledging it's simply a difference in preferences, instead of your snide denigration.



> Not that it's bad.  Not that the game isn't a shining jewel amidst the bric-a-brac upon one's gaming shelf.  Just that, on the average, the NPCs don't go around bumping off the PCs ANYWAY ... so while the system uses VP/WP and the GM gets Action Dice, it doesn't mean we crank up "Bodies" unless the PCs have buckets of multi-benefit feats.
> 
> It means the multi-benefit feats are a SpyCraft convention because that's the style of play it adheres to.  The PCs are meant to be very capable action heroes of high class and caliber.  Sort of James Bonds.  (If I get a chance to be on the player side of the fence, I want to play a Russian Pointman/Faceman with "Style Over Caliber" and "Bloodstain Resistant" and a PSM.)  James Bond doesn't get gunned down by the Kalishnakov-toting Ruskies, he runs through the library while they blow all of the books to fluttering scraps around him.
> 
> --fje




Again, see Morgenstern's response - you're making a narrow little assumption here, and I'm sure you know what assumptions lead to.  I never bashed D20 Modern (though I make no secret of disliking the system), but you can't seem to construct a civil argument that actually addresses the Spycraft system, choosing instead resorting to cheap snarkery and a One Way attitude that's going nowhere.  You're sticking to guns that have no ammunition, Heap.  Campaign Qualities alone blow the arguments you're making out of the water - namely that SC 2 is stuck with a single style of play.  Perhaps you missed the genre suggestions in the book?

You don't like the game?  Super.  There's D20 Modern right there on the shelf for you.  But don't sit there and go all _ad absurdum_ when discussing SC's merits and flaws.   It's just plain dumb.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 7, 2006)

AscentStudios said:
			
		

> OK, challenge taken.
> 
> *Name Dropped by Psion*
> Your affiliation with one of ENWorld's high priests garners you favor with its faithful.
> ...




I think I'd be happy to forego the reputation and just take the $250k net worth


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 7, 2006)

Jim, Heap -- it's okay to disagree, guys. Just don't take offense at the fact that you don't agree, and don't let light-hearted bantering turn into an argument. Sometimes people forget, but we're friends here.


----------



## AscentStudios (Jun 7, 2006)

2WS_Steve said:
			
		

> I think I'd be happy to forego the reputation and just take the $250k net worth




Hah! Touche. Only problem is, you can only spend it in $50k chunks. So make sure that new pair of Levi's and copy of _Deadlands Reloaded _ is worth it...


----------



## Morgenstern (Jun 7, 2006)

...and it's all in IRA acounts to set you up when you retire - there is a _substantial_ penalty for early withdrawl.

It does however put it in perspective that the kinds of fees freelance characters charge means the really don't screw around picking up every loose bullet and going through the badguy's pockets for their wallets all the time - doing the job well is worth way more than cashing in the enemy's empties .


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jun 7, 2006)

AscentStudios said:
			
		

> Cool! I got name dropped by Psion!  Now I'll have to say, "Spycraft can still do low level movie superspy action, no matter what Alan Kohler thinks!"
> 
> RE: The issue of flexibility of d20M vs. Spycraft 2.0




You write it, I'll buy it.

You do enough work taking all the stuff I like from d20Modern and making it easy for me to use in SC2.0, they might get a convert.

Or, at least, a Frankenstein Monster not unlike the intricate meshings of Catholic Christianity and traditional African religious faiths that is Voudon.

RPG Houngan ... dat's me.

--fje


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 7, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> Professional Driver - Closed Course is the name of a single feat, not me leaving out an arrow between two feats . It's the little message you see at the bottom of car commercials when they are out doing their immaculately perfect stunts that you really shouldn't try at home .



I should have noticed the difference between "-" and "->" - but in Germany, we don't have such kind of disclaimers on commercials. (Either we don't have the spot itself, or it is assumed that no sane German would do that to his car  )


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 7, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> As for magic - I am working on converting E.N. Publishing's Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth to Spycraft, and not finding it all that hard.
> 
> The Auld Grump




[jedi mind trick] And you will post this work when you're done [/jedi mind trick]


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 7, 2006)

AscentStudios said:
			
		

> RE: The issue of flexibility of d20M vs. Spycraft 2.0
> 
> From my desktop:
> 
> ...




And I've been waiting increasingly impatiently for this project. Any idea as to when I will be able to pay you good money for it?


----------



## AscentStudios (Jun 7, 2006)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> And I've been waiting increasingly impatiently for this project. Any idea as to when I will be able to pay you good money for it?




I'm finishing up the first draft now. After that, it's into the layout, editing, and playtesting queue, then off to market. So I'm thinking sometime in July?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 7, 2006)

Gooooood


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 7, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> ... in Germany, we don't have such kind of disclaimers on commercials. (Either we don't have the spot itself, or it is assumed that no sane German would do that to his car  )



In the United States, there is no presumption of sanity.


----------



## Morgenstern (Jun 8, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> In the United States, there is no presumption of sanity.




Quoted for truth.

*Back to Basics* is looking to be a nifty little project. One of Alex's very nice couches is there are a few overlap knacks - chains that two basic classes both have acess to. It deliberately creates a little bleed over where the six basic concepts come closest to each other and increases the flexibility of each class for accomplishing _your_ goals when taken separately.


----------



## Psion (Jun 8, 2006)

At this time, Spycraft 2.0 is at the top of the hot seller's list over at RPGnow.

Well done, guys!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 9, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> At this time, Spycraft 2.0 is at the top of the hot seller's list over at RPGnow.
> 
> Well done, guys!



Yeah, I intend to get the PDF this week. I am also waffling on getting the new printing when it comes out, even though I already own two copies of the first printing. (One got water damaged, and became my 'loaner copy'. I remember the odd feeling of non-annoyance when I discovered the damage, deciding _instantly_ that I was buying a second copy... I think that subconciously I had already made that decision, the water damage was merely an excuse...)

If I do I will give away the water damaged copy to one of my players, with the stipulation that they run a game of it so I can get to play!

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* As an aside, I gather that the biggest change is to the Gear rules. And the new rules are included with the free errata on the Crafty Games website. Thanks guys! 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Morgenstern (Jun 9, 2006)

I would describe the biggest change as the _presentation_. The errata got folded in but a fair amount of that was stray typos. The silver ghosted images behind the text are turned way down for those who were having trouble separating them from the text as they read, and the gear tables have been combined to eliminate the page flipping problems - it reduced the overall number of charts in that chapter by about a third. The gear rules didn't change all that much (just the bits of errata that we had before hand, including reinserting the missing jet fighter and hand gun). The reduction in tables in turn freed up a couple pages of space for a new description of gearing up - a much more step-by-step explination that should beat down that "first time out confusion" that was a bit too common among new players .


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 9, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> I would describe the biggest change as the _presentation_. The errata got folded in but a fair amount of that was stray typos. The silver ghosted images behind the text are turned way down for those who were having trouble separating them from the text as they read, and the gear tables have been combined to eliminate the page flipping problems - it reduced the overall number of charts in that chapter by about a third. The gear rules didn't change all that much (just the bits of errata that we had before hand, including reinserting the missing jet fighter and hand gun). The reduction in tables in turn freed up a couple pages of space for a new description of gearing up - a much more step-by-step explination that should beat down that "first time out confusion" that was a bit too common among new players .




Hmmm, not having seen the new printing I will pass on making comments on the watermarks, etc. (I never had any problem with them. I rather like them  ) But the Gear rules, while not mechanically changed much, are outlined in a much clearer fashion - so I would still call it changes to the rules, not the rules mechanics, but the way you progress through them.

It took your 'teddy bear' post on the old Spycraft forums tp allow me to make sense of them. I was being eaten by the teddy bear.  Thanks for that post by the way, I have used it more than once to help players through the system.

The Auld Grump


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jun 9, 2006)

Finally finished my d20Modern conversion of the Spycraft 2.0 NPC creation system.

So far, limited testing suggests its working as intended.  

If anybody is interested I'll split off its own thread and post up a pdf.

--fje


----------



## Roudi (Jun 9, 2006)

Consider me interested.


----------



## Armistice (Jun 9, 2006)

Gotta love OGL 

I'm all in favor of d20 Modern speeding up NPC generation. I'll post my comments in your new thread.


----------



## buzz (Jun 9, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> I would describe the biggest change as the _presentation_...



I fully intend to pick up a copy of the new printing at GenCon prior to the _Farthest Star_ event for which I signed up. Doubly so, now that I've read the above.

My original copy will likely become a prize for a future Chicago Gameday. I got it for free (effectively; Amazon gift cert), so I might as well pass on the love.


----------

