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

[Henry]

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.

Arscott, to be fair, Ascentstudios did say in his post it's not as flexible... yet.

As for the superspies thing - it mostly has to do with the names - everything from the talents to the feats quietly whispers, "high octane" and "larger than life". The very artwork is lifted lock stock and barrel from the Spycraft CCG game. Further, the abilities themselves of the classes deal with procurement of equipment under duress (the fixer), ease of hacking and cracking(the hacker), negotiating with contacts and government agencies(the advocate), and command of team members(the pointman). I'd personally find it a bit ironic to tell someone, "other than the game's name, the artwork, the names of the feats and talents and some of the classes, and some of the class abilities, I challenge you to tell me where are the superpy tropes?"

Like the quote from "life of Brian": All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Totally beside the point, I look forward to seeing more expansion of the Spycraft system from Crafty Games. To me, this very thing is what is going to in the future make or break the idea of whether Spycraft escapes its "Superpy" pigeonhole and becomes more widely known among the d20 gaming community for other uses. The biggest hurdle you and the Crafty Ones have to overcome is the damage done by loss of momentum from the AEG troubles. it was released last year, to much praise, but so little was done on the expansions front (other than for its core market) that the excellent work done to expand the system may go to waste by it being known ONLY as a Superspy game, without any full-blown supplements to show how its done.

This is why I look forward to seeing what Crafty Games does with Farthest Star, and the other offerings. "Back to basics" was the first and most important step to me to generalizing the system for other use; I hope to see many more.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Arscott, to be fair, Ascentstudios did say in his post it's not as flexible... yet.

As for the superspies thing - it mostly has to do with the names - everything from the talents to the feats quietly whispers, "high octane" and "larger than life". The very artwork is lifted lock stock and barrel from the Spycraft CCG game. Further, the abilities themselves of the classes deal with procurement of equipment under duress (the fixer), ease of hacking and cracking(the hacker), negotiating with contacts and government agencies(the advocate), and command of team members(the pointman). I'd personally find it a bit ironic to tell someone, "other than the game's name, the artwork, the names of the feats and talents and some of the classes, and some of the class abilities, I challenge you to tell me where are the superpy tropes?"

Like the quote from "life of Brian": All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Totally beside the point, I look forward to seeing more expansion of the Spycraft system from Crafty Games. To me, this very thing is what is going to in the future make or break the idea of whether Spycraft escapes its "Superpy" pigeonhole and becomes more widely known among the d20 gaming community for other uses. The biggest hurdle you and the Crafty Ones have to overcome is the damage done by loss of momentum from the AEG troubles. it was released last year, to much praise, but so little was done on the expansions front (other than for its core market) that the excellent work done to expand the system may go to waste by it being known ONLY as a Superspy game, without any full-blown supplements to show how its done.

This is why I look forward to seeing what Crafty Games does with Farthest Star, and the other offerings. "Back to basics" was the first and most important step to me to generalizing the system for other use; I hope to see many more.

Though same may recall that it was also the engine for the Stargate RPG.

While I do say that the system can be used for more than just superspies I will agree with saying that it is 'larger than life' and 'high octane'.

Oddly, going over what I have used Spycraft for the one that I did the most work on tinkering with the system was the espionage game. Mind you this is because I have set the game in the 1880s, and there is magic... but it is espionage. The least tinkering was for my XCom game, which was espionage for the first two weeks, switched to military, and was then backburned while I was working sixty hour weeks. Sunday and today are the first days off that I have had in three weeks.

The Auld Grump

 

[Psion]

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

Orginizationally speaking, this is really wrong. The GC chapter isn't "adapting Spycraft to other genres", its "how to realize the genre you are looking for", espionage or otherwise. You select the right campaign qualities and classes from those presented earlier.

AAs for the superspies thing - it mostly has to do with the names - everything from the talents to the feats quietly whispers, "high octane" and "larger than life". The very artwork is lifted lock stock and barrel from the Spycraft CCG game. Further, the abilities themselves of the classes deal with procurement of equipment under duress (the fixer),

It might help if you pick up SC 2.0 for the purposes of your comparison.

ease of hacking and cracking(the hacker), negotiating with contacts and government agencies(the advocate), and command of team members(the pointman). I'd personally find it a bit ironic to tell someone, "other than the game's name, the artwork, the names of the feats and talents and some of the classes, and some of the class abilities, I challenge you to tell me where are the superpy tropes?"

And there are no advocates in non espionage genres? Is the movie "hackers" a superspy yarn? And what of the classes that are more central to the other supported genres, like explorerer or scout?

Obviously the superspy tropes have to be supported if it is going to live up to its namesake. That does not mean that is the only support that's in there.

And on a side note from another post, since when are terms like mastermind and henchmen not appropriate to other covered genres like pulp and crime drama?

 

[arscott]

Orginizationally speaking, this is really wrong. The GC chapter isn't "adapting Spycraft to other genres", its "how to realize the genre you are looking for", espionage or otherwise. You select the right campaign qualities and classes from those presented earlier.

I apologize if I misunderstood how the spycraft game is laid out. I was responding based off of earlier comments that the game can be made flexible via campaign qualities, and that campaign qualities were discribed in the back of the spycraft book. If that is untrue, then I retract my comments.

And there are no advocates in non espionage genres? Is the movie "hackers" a superspy yarn? And what of the classes that are more central to the other supported genres, like explorerer or scout?

But can spycraft emulate hackers? From my (admittedly inferior) understanding of spycraft, in order for characters to be good at computer hacking, they have to have levels in the computer-hacking class. So all of your Hacker characters are more or less the same. But in modern, you could build a Hacker by taking levels in the Shadowjack Advanced class for nifty computer-related bonuses. You could stay a single-classed smart hero to take full advantage of the Savant talent. You could go Dedicated for skill emphasis, and to get extra use out of your Action Points with Faith.

The way spycraft is set up, you have one character who is the hacker, one character who is the wheelman, one character who is the face, and so forth. That's a pretty big limit on what sorts of games you can play. Hopefully that's reduced somewhat with the back to basics rules, but when "make it more like d20 Modern" is the solution to increasing the game's flexibility, It's not hard to understand why I prefer to just stick with modern in the first place.

 

[AscentStudios]

But can spycraft emulate hackers? From my (admittedly inferior) understanding of spycraft, in order for characters to be good at computer hacking, they have to have levels in the computer-hacking class. So all of your Hacker characters are more or less the same. But in modern, you could build a Hacker by taking levels in the Shadowjack Advanced class for nifty computer-related bonuses. You could stay a single-classed smart hero to take full advantage of the Savant talent. You could go Dedicated for skill emphasis, and to get extra use out of your Action Points with Faith.

Absolutely - there's a computer skill which is open to a number of classes (and there are many ways to get it as a class skill if your classes don't) and literally any character can participate in a hacking dramatic conflict. The hacker class gives you some computers and code breaking class abilities so you have more tricks...but anyone can be a competent hacker without levels in the hacker class. Skill ranks are, by design, the most important part of being good at something in 2.0.

The way spycraft is set up, you have one character who is the hacker, one character who is the wheelman, one character who is the face, and so forth. That's a pretty big limit on what sorts of games you can play. Hopefully that's reduced somewhat with the back to basics rules, but when "make it more like d20 Modern" is the solution to increasing the game's flexibility, It's not hard to understand why I prefer to just stick with modern in the first place.

I think you underestimate the flexibility of the Spycraft class. The wheelman drives, yes...but he can fight, has a broad array of skills that can build him up to being a stuntman, inventor, heavy weapons expert, or a host of other expert classes. Add over 2500 (?)talent/specialties splits and 300 feats into the mix and spycraft characters tend to look quite different, regardless of their classes Same goes for all the other classes, particularly the pointman (who even lets you choose class abilities AND class skills!). Back to Basics is in no way necessary to play an interesting game of Spycraft, but it does address the interests of a different audience We're all about the options.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Absolutely - there's a computer skill which is open to a number of classes (and there are many ways to get it as a class skill if your classes don't) and literally any character can participate in a hacking dramatic conflict. The hacker class gives you some computers and code breaking class abilities so you have more tricks...but anyone can be a competent hacker without levels in the hacker class. Skill ranks are, by design, the most important part of being good at something in 2.0.

But here's one of my questions. At 1st level, the "Hacker" hacker gains the "L33t" ability, which, if my reading is correct (book open in front of me) basically states that, at that moment, he doesn't fail a Computers check of DC 21 or less unless that failure is also an 'error'. I.E. unless the Hacker-guy rolls a 1 or the not-a-Hacker-hacker rolls a (what, 18+ with full ranks?) the Hacker always "wins". This is for DC checks and for opposed checks, of which "Dramatic Conflicts" are a type. It seems to me, from reading, that if you are "A Guy With Computers Ranks" in a 'Dramatic Conflict: Hacking' scene with a "Hacker" ... you lose. Unless the guy with just ranks is significantly ahead of the hacker in levels/ranks, to the point that he can regularly top that "20+Level" cap of the 'never-fail' class ability, simple averages suggest that he can't win.

Unless I'm seriously under-grasping how dramatic conflict opposed checks work, which I hope I'm not, but is certainly possible. And not that the "Hacker" 'shouldn't' win or whatever, just that the simple class ability seems to suggest to me that you really can't be a hacker without being a Hacker, ranks aside (since non-hackers also hit the rank cap faster than a Hacker, who gets a raised cap as time goes on).

--fje

 

[Pbartender]

Nope, that's pretty close, HT. The Hacker class is certainly the easiest way to make an exceptional hacker, just as the the Wheelman is the easiest way to make a driver and the Faceman is the easiest way to make a con-artist. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't make those roles out of other class/origin/feat combinations, and have them rival the standards... They'll just be doing it in a different way.

To use arscott's example, I've players build character geared toward computer hacking using the Hacker, the Scientist, the Pointman, and the Snoop. I've had Hackers in my game that represented everything from corporate software programmers, professional electronics technicians, smart-assed teen-aged Haxx0rz, military code-breakers, and state-of-the-art burglars.


To address the 'L337 ability during a hacking Dramatic conflict...

Those particular types of abilities are very handy at low levels. However, it's not tough to run across non-Hacker NPCs who can beat a DC of your Hacker level +20 on a modestly regular basis. Those sorts of abilities (several classes get them), are more of a safety net to avoid failing mundanely simple tasks, than an automatic success.

 

[Psion]

Alex has answered some of these, but I wanted to add my own 2 cents:

But can spycraft emulate hackers?

As in the movie "Hackers"? It certainly can't do a worse job than the movie.

From my (admittedly inferior) understanding of spycraft, in order for characters to be good at computer hacking, they have to have levels in the computer-hacking class. So all of your Hacker characters are more or less the same. But in modern, you could build a Hacker by taking levels in the Shadowjack Advanced class for nifty computer-related bonuses. You could stay a single-classed smart hero to take full advantage of the Savant talent. You could go Dedicated for skill emphasis, and to get extra use out of your Action Points with Faith.

I'd say that the hacker class abilities would certainly be desirable if the GC's goal is to make a game where all the PCs have levels in the hacker class. And, as stated above, I certainly think that when you are talking about a party with a single profession, d20 modern's non-professional classes provide a means of expressing distinctions between characters. That said, outside of advanced classes, I think smart hero (given its savant talent) is a strongly preferable base class for a hacker character, I think both games are in the same boat. Further, given that Spycraft's dramatic conflict system directly supports computer espionage, I'd lean towards using spycraft for such a game.

Spycraft doesn't penalize multi-classing, any more than d20 modern does. There are also expert classes (like schemer and inventor) and other classes that have a good synergy with the hacker class.

Were I to make pregens for such a game, I could forsee maybe:

• A straight up hacker
• An intruder or hacker/intruder who could be the Tom Cruise MI character that penetrates physical security to get access to a computer
• A hacker/advocate or hacker/faceman to be the "social engineer"
• A hacker/snoop to plant bugs, deal with surveilance and espionage
• A hacker/schemer (expert class) to be the "man with a plan"
• A hacker/inventor to be the hardware expert.

The way spycraft is set up, you have one character who is the hacker, one character who is the wheelman, one character who is the face, and so forth. That's a pretty big limit on what sorts of games you can play.

See, this is what I was talking about when I referred to the structure of the GC chapter. What you describe is only the essence of one of the genres listed therein. In addition to a list of inspirations and a narration of what the genre is like, the genres therein list, for each genre:

• the campaign qualities common to that genre (i.e., a set of rules tweaks that make the feel more like the genre in question.) And,
• a list of classes that are common to the genre. The "espionage" genre has a list very much like the one you started listing. Other sample genres, like conspiracy, apocalyptic, military, near future, and so forth, have a different list of classes that help define the genre.

 

[Henry]

It might help if you pick up SC 2.0 for the purposes of your comparison.

I did. All of what I mentioned is there in full color in the first 4 chapters, from the cool feat names to the spy-supporting classes, to the "equipment by mission" system, and the art was almost completely lifted from the CCG card game. Not saying it didn't look beautiful -- I'm saying it came from a card-game about super-spies, and it showed.

And there are no advocates in non espionage genres? Is the movie "hackers" a superspy yarn? And what of the classes that are more central to the other supported genres, like explorerer or scout?

One element, by itself, does not make a genre; It's ALL of these elements, put together, that screams "super-spy genre." Take that book's first 8 or 9 chapters, by itself, and hand it to a gamer whose never heard of "Spycraft", and I'd be hard pressed to believe he wouldn't come away from it thinking either "Top Secret" or "James Bond".

Oh, and "Hackers" WAS an espionage yarn, without the spies -- it was a hacker's fantasy of what they WISH hacking and cracking was really like.

Obviously the superspy tropes have to be supported if it is going to live up to its namesake. That does not mean that is the only support that's in there.

Absolutely in agreement; but that doesn't mean the basic ruleset doesn't have the look at feel of "high-cinematic spies". You'd have to use several campaign qualities to run "The Human Factor" as opposed to "Thunderball," which you could run with nary a change to the core rules. If you don't see the strong "high-cinema spies" overtones to 80% of the book, then we just have to disagree; I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, I'm saying it's plain as day.

 

[Psion]

I did.

I was referring to the fact you mentioned fixer, which is a base class in the SC 1.0 core book, but not the SC 2.0 core book.

One element, by itself, does not make a genre; It's ALL of these elements, put together, that screams "super-spy genre."

Ah, but the included elements go BEYOND the superspy genre.

Take that book's first 8 or 9 chapters, by itself, and hand it to a gamer whose never heard of "Spycraft", and I'd be hard pressed to believe he wouldn't come away from it thinking either "Top Secret" or "James Bond".

I would hope so.

I would also hope that they would also see that explorers and scouts would let them support the likes of Indiana Jones or AVP or National Treasure or Laura Croft more than James Bond or MI.

Oh, and "Hackers" WAS an espionage yarn, without the spies -- it was a hacker's fantasy of what they WISH hacking and cracking was really like.

See where I am getting here, though? Hackers is not James Bond or MI. These are all part of a larger "modern action/thriller" meta-genre with many overlapping constituents. Devious masterminds are part of pulp action epics just as much as superspy tales, and car chases and wheelment are just as much part of the 2 Fast 2 Furious and Canonball Run as James Bond and Ronin. And so forth.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't support superspies and does it well. I am arguing that to peg it as just that is to ignore many of the innovations that occured in this edition.