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

[HeapThaumaturgist]

SRD d20 has "fire" as a damage type only for the purposes of resistances/immunities/vulnerabilities, but otherwise it's the same. Fire damage in Spycraft 2.0 is actually different from electrical damage or acid damage or regular lethal damage - you can be set on fire from a fire attack, for instance, and may run around screaming when you do It's a little more simulationism, but that does appeal to some folks. In fact, stuff like that was requested by our fan base.

I'll humbly disagree about magic being as core to d20Modern as superspy cinema is to SC2. The base classes don't say: "Man, I need a magic cellphone." Where-as the classes of SC2 do say, to me, "Superspies and Summer Movies". That magic fits in easily says to me, I think, that they just didn't change things that would make it fit less-well. That damage is damage is damage means you can slot in Fireball without having to take into account a room rull of Stress and how much is armor piercing and etc etc.

I applaud that the fan-base got changes through the door that made the game more to their liking ... but I do think those changes made the game less multi-genre and, as you say, more "simulationism" and better suited to the core genre it espouses. There are assumptions built into the rules about how people react to, say, getting shot or burnt or how they interact with others or have a "dramatic scene" or use a shotgun or use skills ... or what skills are included in the system and NOT included in the system. That there's a specific damage type called "Laser Damage". Etc.

That doesn't make the game BAD ... it just makes the game, when taken as a whole, feel like a Cinematic Superspies game and the campaign qualities feel like afterthoughts. They do a good job of letting somebody who REALLY likes SC2 do another genre ... they don't, however, really seem to inspire somebody who wants a generalist system to take up SC2 as that system. EDIT: Which doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think many of the things that people see SC2 as doing "better" are things that make the game better for its genre. That this, at the same time, distances it from generalism is to be expected.

--fje

 

[Insight]

I think we're getting away from the original topic, and that's fine, but I wanted to point it out.

I'm not looking to run Joe the Grease Monkey and Anne the Cheerleader fight zombies. I've done that with D20 Modern, and I'd probably use D20 Modern again - for that sort of game. I'm looking to run an ESPIONAGE game, so the question of a system's utility for some other genre is rendered rather moot.

I'm convinced enough that Spycraft 2.0 is worth at least looking at, and have purchased said game. I'm a bit disappointed that there isn't more support for it, and I wonder how much work would be involved in converting old material (someone mentioned that this had already been done...)

 

[Psion]

I'm convinced enough that Spycraft 2.0 is worth at least looking at, and have purchased said game. I'm a bit disappointed that there isn't more support for it, and I wonder how much work would be involved in converting old material (someone mentioned that this had already been done...)

Look here:
http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27928

I thought that this had been converted to a PDF, but I can't find anything other than the XP and previews converted.

There are two PDF supplements out already... Back to Basics (which is basically a conversion of d20 modern classes) and Bag Full of Guns: This is my Rifle. Farthest Star (an SF setting) and Spellbound are supposed to be out soon. World of Fire (the core superspy setting) is scheduled to enter print in September.

 

[AscentStudios]

I'll humbly disagree about magic being as core to d20Modern as superspy cinema is to SC2.

Here's the crux of my argument (aside from the fact I think a part of the issue is the game is called "Spycraft," which in a sense damns it to the 'superspy game' label): Looking just at the parts of the game...no labels, just parts...I don't see 2.0 as any more 'superspy' than d20M is 'magical.' Sure, Spycraft has gadget rules and "mastermind" and "henchman" as game terms. But when Modern has a chapter on modern day magic items and all its mini settings - one on killing monsters (Shadowchasers), one on being psychic (Agents of Psi), one on DnD critters in the modern day (Urban Arcana), etc. - involve magic/powers beyond human ability, that seems to paint d20M as a game where magic is just as much a part of the 'core setting' of Modern as spies are to Spycraft. IIRC, one of the WotC bigwigs (brain fart: can't remember his name, but I think it was the guy who pushed forward the OGL in the first place) said the core assumption of WotC was that magic is why people gamed in the first place, so that makes sense.

Modern has been brought away from magic a bit, now - due nearly entirely to the work of third party publishers' work and 4 years' development time - but that's all after the fact. Spycraft 2.0 has not had the time to develop in that way yet, thanks to the shake ups on the AEG > Crafty transfer and so on. So I think simply saying Spycraft "can't do multigenre like Modern" is less accurate a statement than "it ISN'T as multigenre as Modern...yet."

I applaud that the fan-base got changes through the door that made the game more to their liking ... but I do think those changes made the game less multi-genre and, as you say, more "simulationism" and better suited to the core genre it espouses. There are assumptions built into the rules about how people react to, say, getting shot or burnt or how they interact with others or have a "dramatic scene" or use a shotgun or use skills ... or what skills are included in the system and NOT included in the system. That there's a specific damage type called "Laser Damage". Etc.

I don't think these "assumptions" are not so much genre tropes as they are either observed behaviors or specific rules to govern situtations which players may encounter, which Modern does not address. I'm pretty sure in a real-life d20 land, the Modern character would use a shotgun the same way as the Spycraft character would, no matter the genre - it's just that Spycraft the game codifies and governs certain effects at a different level of detail than Modern does.

That doesn't make the game BAD ... it just makes the game, when taken as a whole, feel like a Cinematic Superspies game and the campaign qualities feel like afterthoughts. They do a good job of letting somebody who REALLY likes SC2 do another genre ... they don't, however, really seem to inspire somebody who wants a generalist system to take up SC2 as that system. EDIT: Which doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think many of the things that people see SC2 as doing "better" are things that make the game better for its genre. That this, at the same time, distances it from generalism is to be expected.

--fje

OK. Well all I can say to that is that campaign qualities and the like are core to the game and very specifically designed into the game to make it multigenre, not "afterthoughts." That said, I respect your opinion, and so agree to disagree

EDIT: Insight, my apologies for dragging the thread into a debate over Spycraft itself. I'll knock it off.

Spycraft will continue to receive continuous support from the Crafty Games team - now that we're at the point where we can actually start putting out product - as well as Powered by Spycraft publishers, who have submitted a number of interesting and downright exciting proposals for products. As for converting old material - much of that material has been distilled down into a hearty broth and put into the 2.0 core book itself!

As for espionage-specific reference material - mastermind Patrick Kapera has composed an absolutely boxorz-roXorzing Tradecraft chapter in the upcoming World on Fire supplement (print and PDF) which will fill in all the missing spy-specific stuff into a big steaming pile of spysy goodness. Relevant older material which did not make it in will doubtless be appearing in supplements as the need/demand arises. So fret not about support - we've got a lot more to say about this game yet

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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

Whereas I am of the opinion (since confirmed by play) that Spycraft is an excellent action roleplaying game. A somewhat broader category than 'spy roleplaying game'. While most spy movies are action movies not all action movies are about spies.

To date I have used it for a mystery game, a pulp game, an alien invasion game, and, yes, a spy game. You can do Indiana Jones just as easily as James Bond. (And possibly easier than doing Smiley's People.) Heck, I have considered both Aliens and Terminator using the system.

I would say that it is in fact a more high powered game than D20 Modern, and I found its feel a great deal more enjoyable (purely personal taste there). The players are willing to take much bigger risks, and I have found them more than willing to spend Action Dice.

The long and the short of it is that D20 Modern never 'grabbed me' in the same way that Spycraft does. Add that to my bitterness over the waste of dead trees that was D20 Past and my choice is clear. Though there are many ways that I actually prefer the mechanics of D20 Modern to those of D&D it never made me want to go and run a nice long campaign with it.

The Auld Grump

 

[Kanegrundar]

I think we're getting away from the original topic, and that's fine, but I wanted to point it out.

I'm not looking to run Joe the Grease Monkey and Anne the Cheerleader fight zombies. I've done that with D20 Modern, and I'd probably use D20 Modern again - for that sort of game. I'm looking to run an ESPIONAGE game, so the question of a system's utility for some other genre is rendered rather moot.

I'm convinced enough that Spycraft 2.0 is worth at least looking at, and have purchased said game. I'm a bit disappointed that there isn't more support for it, and I wonder how much work would be involved in converting old material (someone mentioned that this had already been done...)

For Espionage, you can do no wrong with SC2. It's absolutely perfect for that genre.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

The long and the short of it is that D20 Modern never 'grabbed me' in the same way that Spycraft does.

That pretty much sums up my opinion right there.

Brad

 

[arscott]

Here's the crux of my argument (aside from the fact I think a part of the issue is the game is called "Spycraft," which in a sense damns it to the 'superspy game' label): Looking just at the parts of the game...no labels, just parts...I don't see 2.0 as any more 'superspy' than d20M is 'magical.' Sure, Spycraft has gadget rules and "mastermind" and "henchman" as game terms. But when Modern has a chapter on modern day magic items and all its mini settings - one on killing monsters (Shadowchasers), one on being psychic (Agents of Psi), one on DnD critters in the modern day (Urban Arcana), etc. - involve magic/powers beyond human ability, that seems to paint d20M as a game where magic is just as much a part of the 'core setting' of Modern as spies are to Spycraft. IIRC, one of the WotC bigwigs (brain fart: can't remember his name, but I think it was the guy who pushed forward the OGL in the first place) said the core assumption of WotC was that magic is why people gamed in the first place, so that makes sense.

Modern has been brought away from magic a bit, now - due nearly entirely to the work of third party publishers' work and 4 years' development time - but that's all after the fact. Spycraft 2.0 has not had the time to develop in that way yet, thanks to the shake ups on the AEG > Crafty transfer and so on. So I think simply saying Spycraft "can't do multigenre like Modern" is less accurate a statement than "it ISN'T as multigenre as Modern...yet."

That's an absolutely ridiculous assessment of D20 Modern and it's flexibility.

D20 modern is a generic game, with a few chapters in the back for people wanting to run magic games.

Spycraft is a superspies game, with a few chapters in the back for people wanting to run generic games.

And yet you're claiming that Spycraft is as flexable or more flexible than Modern? That seems like a stretch.

 

[AscentStudios]

That's an absolutely ridiculous assessment of D20 Modern and it's flexibility.

D20 modern is a generic game, with a few chapters in the back for people wanting to run magic games.

Spycraft is a superspies game, with a few chapters in the back for people wanting to run generic games.

And yet you're claiming that Spycraft is as flexable or more flexible than Modern? That seems like a stretch.

If you referring to Spycraft first edition, I would totally agree with you. But if you are talking about Spycraft 2.0, we'll have to agree to disagree. Spycraft 2.0 IMNSHO is a cinematic game with a superspy past. My challenge to those that think Spycraft 2.0 is just for superspies is to tell me where these superspy tropes are in the book? I'm genuinely curious what material makes so many feel that's the case. There are a lot of rules there which support spy (and other action) games, but I'm not seeing much "spy-only" material.

But admittedly, I am very close to it . All I want to do is seperate opinions from facts, as many have strong opinions one way or another but there only seem to be a handful of people who own or have played both games. That whole "east side-west side" thing, y'know

 

[Pbartender]

My challenge to those that think Spycraft 2.0 is just for superspies is to tell me where these superspy tropes are in the book? I'm genuinely curious what material makes so many feel that's the case.

Primarily, Alex, it's all in how the rules were packaged... Many of the names for Classes, class abilities, feats, gear and so-on invoke superspy images: "Faceman", "Wheelman", "Snoop", "Intruder", "Spookshow", "Tradecraft", "henchmen", "minions", "Interrogation"... Even the title "Spycraft". You get the idea, you mentioned these sorts of game terms yourself.

Thing is, sure, if you ignore those labels, Spycraft is a great generic action-adventure game. Trouble is that it's easier for some people to ignore those sorts of things than others... It's not really their fault, it just sticks in the backs of their minds, no matter how hard they try. It's not an easy habit to break -- assuming you WANT to break it. I've had it happen to me more than once, though not with Spycraft 2.0...