D20 Modern vs. Spycraft: Tell me which one you like better

Here's the situation. I own D20 Modern, and have both played and run games in this system. My group knows D20 like the back of their collective hands. I am eyeing running a spy-flavored modern game.

Keep in mind that I neither own Spycraft nor have played it. I get the general idea, but that's about it, and this general idea is what is making me even think about using it over D20 Modern.

I'm looking for responses from people who have played both D20 Modern and Spycraft 2.0. to give the benefits/drawbacks of both for running a spy-flavored game.

I personally have played D20 Modern and Own SpyCraft and Spycraft 2.0. I much prefer the feeling of Spycraft. When you play the game you are a competant (insert word for current genre choice), in D20 Modern you are a schmuck that has to get quite a few levels before you come into your own.

I won't try to sway you one way or the other (I'm obviously biased ), but I'd like to note you also have the option of using Spycraftized versions of the d20 Modern basic classes with Back to Basics. If you choose to go to Spycraft, these might help ease the transition of your players to the new system That's what it's there for!

Spycraft offers a lot more character development options and operational mechanics specifically tailored to modern espionage. I like it a lot better. And, although I haven't seen it yet, I'm pretty excited about Crafty Games' Back to Basics booklet, because -- if I had one complaint about Spycraft -- it's that the character classes are too focused on a the "mission impossible" type team archetypes.

Carl

Spycraft is the new-shiny on the block, of course.

For my part I think it is a solid system with some interesting advances in "gaming technology".

But, again, for my part I think it did alot of stuff that didn't need to be done.

But for doing a spy game I'm sure it would do very well. It's very specifically geared toward that genre. And, as others have said, you start off as "the best of the best of the best, SIR!" with several classes getting the ability to not fail at their core skill at 1st level.

I've run a short few things but my major group has been doing AoW. I'm honestly not sure if I'll ever run a SC2 "campaign" because, in the end, there doesn't seem to be a heavy reason to learn what amounts to a whole new system with fiddly-bit rules.

But I don't regret purchasing the book. I found it very interesting. Many parts of it I like, but there are way way too many fiddly little rules in there that I don't. The damage types, the floating init, different skill system, etc. When I can get a few dollars to rub together (darn you moving expenses) I might pick up the basic classes thing and see if it sparks an unreasoning fire in my loins for the SC action.


--fje

First off, let me emphasize that you can have a fun experience either way.

My personal belief is that Spycraft is definitely better by itself for a spy-themed game -- but if your group knows d20 Modern well already, I don't know that it's better ENOUGH that it's worth learning a new system with some major rules differences. They aren't insurmountable, but they will definitely have your group looking at the book during combat again, even if you'd reached the point of being able to whip through d20 Modern combats by now.

To answer the critique of d20 Modern that said that d20 Modern characters are weak at low levels... yes. Which is why (and this should have been made clear in the book) one of the most important things a GM does when starting a campaign is set the starting level. For a super-spies-type game, you might want to set your heroes at 10th level and run a slow-advancement campaign -- or 8th level, maybe, if they're advancing at the normal rate. The average bad guy guard should be 2nd level, with lieutenants and bosses scaling up from there.

Give your average thug an assault rifle (or, if that doesn't make sense, assume that the guards are trained well and give them Point Blank Shot and Double-Tap as starting feats (with Firearms proficiency from an occupation)) and they still won't hit often, but if they do, it's still possibly scary for the PCs. (This is if you're concerned that 10th-level characters wouldn't be scared by 2nd-level guards, even in large numbers.)

As I said, though, I think you'll be satisfied either way.

HeapThaumaturgist said:

Spycraft is the new-shiny on the block, of course.

For my part I think it is a solid system with some interesting advances in "gaming technology".

But, again, for my part I think it did alot of stuff that didn't need to be done.

But for doing a spy game I'm sure it would do very well. It's very specifically geared toward that genre. And, as others have said, you start off as "the best of the best of the best, SIR!" with several classes getting the ability to not fail at their core skill at 1st level.

I've run a short few things but my major group has been doing AoW. I'm honestly not sure if I'll ever run a SC2 "campaign" because, in the end, there doesn't seem to be a heavy reason to learn what amounts to a whole new system with fiddly-bit rules.

But I don't regret purchasing the book. I found it very interesting. Many parts of it I like, but there are way way too many fiddly little rules in there that I don't. The damage types, the floating init, different skill system, etc. When I can get a few dollars to rub together (darn you moving expenses) I might pick up the basic classes thing and see if it sparks an unreasoning fire in my loins for the SC action.


--fje

Click to expand...

Power level aside, the 'spies only' riff is not only old, it's incorrect. SC 2.0's a rulebook for modern-day and post-modern games, and has the best suite of tools for such bar none. And for sticklers to Modern, Back to Basics runes the game even further, to the point where d20 Modern as a book is superfluous - with BtB in hand, it's easy to convert stuff like the Blood And... series over to a tighter, more comprehensive rules-set that doesn't have the baggage of D&D hanging around its neck.

I'll have to get BtB. That's the one thing I like about d20 Modern more - the base classes are more flexible.

Well I prefer Modern (big shock I know, I can hear the gasps and mutters in the audience all ready)

Despite the Back to Basics book by the Distinguished Competition, which gives a more generic class structure, I still think this misses one of the two key strengths of the Base Class-Advanced Class structure of modern.

While the players are just being normal joes, the game master can decide what type of campaign he wants to run. See, with his players starting in base classes, he can let them explore and see what types of missions interest them before deciding if America will descend into anarchy as part of a gritty military/post-apoc campaign, or if the PCs will discover Things Man was Not Meant to Know and enter an occult conspiracy game, or maybe they'll enter a psychological experiment in college for extra credit that is really a government research project and gain psychic abilities.

While you could do all that genre switching with Spycraft, my read of the rules tells me it would be a little problematic in a few ways:

1. Spycraft classes give you some pretty nice rewards for sticking with a single class a long time, rewards you might miss through the multiclassing involved in a genre switch from basic classes to Spycraft classes

2. With Spycraft you'd have to use some outside books to add the supernatural elements

3. You'd have less in the way of adventure support (not an issue for the dedicated home-brewer but I certainly like the ability to pick up a product for a plot line or complete adventure).

Let me conclude my praise of d20 Modern with two points:

1. Both d20 Modern and Spycraft II are knockout designs. You won't be stuck with a BAD rule set no matter which one you pick up.

2. I have written several professional d20 Modern books, in fact it's more of how I make my living than anything else (I do some fantasy books as well- but not nearly as many as I do for d20 Modern). So feel free to assign a level of bias to my statements.

Chuck

Jim Hague said:

Power level aside, the 'spies only' riff is not only old, it's incorrect.

Click to expand...

In the interest of full disclosure, SC2 has campaign qualities in the back of the book that list ways to tweak the system for other genres.

I still feel, however, that at its core SC2 is a superspies genre game. There has been enough done to the rules, and the assumptions of characters/physics/combat/gear/etc that, out of the box, it still FEELS like a superspies game. And, honestly, power-level is part of that. BtB may alleviate some parts of it, specifically superspies-themed classes, but I can't speak to that since I don't currently own that product.

Doesn't make the game any less fun, and certainly many people will find it fits their needs, just saying why I, myself, continue playing d20Modern even though I own the SC2 game book.

--fje