d20 Modern and Spycraft

[Ranger REG]

I really do not understand your argument against Spycraft, Mistwell. All of us knew that this game requires any one of Wizards' core rulebook. So it's a given, that d20 Modern will more than likely appear next to Spycraft at the tabletop gaming session. This is what Wizards trying to capitalize on.

Everyone knew that in order for it to become a d20-based product, they have to have a 5% minimum Open Game Content. Having looked at the Spycraft book, the designers have been more than generous. A competent game designer can read the license page to determine which he can and cannot use, should he decided to use any of the OGC for his own product. AEG doesn't have to make the extra step to provide an electronic SRD for Spycraft. The book itself contains OGC alongside with Product Identity. (It was smart of Wizards to include that in the drafting of the license.)

The only sticking point right now is the VP/WP system. Without this being Open, it's hard to create stats for a product that can be compatible to the Spycraft rules. That is why I keep bugging the Wizards folks to make that damn thing Open.

 

[Mistwell]

I really do not understand your argument against Spycraft, Mistwell. All of us knew that this game requires any one of Wizards' core rulebook. So it's a given, that d20 Modern will more than likely appear next to Spycraft at the tabletop gaming session. This is what Wizards trying to capitalize on.

Everyone knew that in order for it to become a d20-based product, they have to have a 5% minimum Open Game Content. Having looked at the Spycraft book, the designers have been more than generous. A competent game designer can read the license page to determine which he can and cannot use, should he decided to use any of the OGC for his own product. AEG doesn't have to make the extra step to provide an electronic SRD for Spycraft. The book itself contains OGC alongside with Product Identity. (It was smart of Wizards to include that in the drafting of the license.)

The only sticking point right now is the VP/WP system. Without this being Open, it's hard to create stats for a product that can be compatible to the Spycraft rules. That is why I keep bugging the Wizards folks to make that damn thing Open.

Okay, then I will take a shot at explaining it again.

Toss out all notion that the rules of Spycraft are not open, or anything about an electronic SRD. That has nothing to do with what I am saying, whatsoever.

The point I am trying to make is that you cannot, as a third party publisher, publish a game that actually says it is for use with Spycraft without negotiating with the legal department at AEG right now. You cannot even hint at the word Spycraft on your product, as it stands right now. Sure, you could create a product that could be useful for someone who owns Spycraft, but you cannot advertise it that way, you can't tell them that it is used with Spycraft on the cover or back, and you can't put it in the catalog order form that the game store uses to order products.

And it isn't an "argument against Spycraft". I think Spycraft is a great product. I just think that AEG has made a fatal error in not opening up the system to third party publishers. And, again, don't read that in any way to mean that their rules are not open. It's the name itself that is closed. And if the name is closed, the whole system might as well be closed. Third party publishers are not going to bend over backwards to borrow bits and pieces of the rules from various OGL places just to make their product compatible with Spycraft if, in the end, they can't even tell you it is compatible with the Spycraft rules on the cover (or anywhere really). There wouldn't be any point to it, when they could just make it compatible with d20M and TELL YOU THAT RIGHT ON THE COVER.

Does that explain it any better?

 

[starkad]

Sure, AEG could be a buncha pansies and deny and be dorks about letting 3rd parties make products for spycraft... But until I see/hear about them actually DOING that... I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

Of all the d20 providers out there(including Wotc), I think I trust AEG the most so far.

 

[Cergorach]

The only sticking point right now is the VP/WP system. Without this being Open, it's hard to create stats for a product that can be compatible to the Spycraft rules. That is why I keep bugging the Wizards folks to make that damn thing Open. [/B]

Why is that sticky? The VP/WP system is only interesting for in the core rules (spycraft), please give me an example that might give legal problems.

 

[Synicism]

Originally posted by Mistwell SpyCraft has one fatal flaw - it is not SRD, and there is no license for it.

Ummm... technically, that isn't true anymore. Disparaging comments about GURPS aside, this is a good point. However, I noticed something recently. AEG has been using their Spycraft system in other games (ie Farscape) and according to the OGL in the Farscape RPG, has completely opened up the entirety of their game mechanics.

So even if there's no SRD, you could still use their system under the OGL.

 

[Ghostwind]

Actually, there is a thrid party publisher doing Spycraft material now - Paradigm Concepts. Yes, they negotiated the contract with AEG but it does show that there will be outside support for Spycraft other than what AEG puts outs (which is a lot).

As for saying that third party publishers cannot develop material for Spycraft, you are wrong. There is enough open content rules within that book that anyone can sit down and construct a supplement or adventure based on the ogc rules and offer it as a modern day d20 espionage product. The legal issues come into play when you want to use the Spycraft name itself.

Saying that d20 Modern will outdo Spycraft because of the SRD is putting the cart before the horse. First and foremost, there has to be a solid market for modern day material in order for any 3rd party publisher to succeed. Secondly, considering the number of publishers who have come forth and announced some kind of d20 Modern product, you will likely see a flooded market within a year's time. Spycraft has built up a substantial following (as evidenced by the success Living Spycraft is enjoying) because it is well written and fits a niche that wasn't exploited before. AEG has given the line considerable support and some really solid products such as the Modern Arms Guide.

d20 Modern is a good book, don't get me wrong. But Spycraft edges it in overall quality and presentation. However, there is no reason why you cannot incorporate stuff from both into your personal campaign worlds. That's what I did. I am using feats from Spycraft for one of my epic characters along with the Tough class from d20 Modern (and a few other things). It makes for a really interesting character.

 

[Ranger REG]

The point I am trying to make is that you cannot, as a third party publisher, publish a game that actually says it is for use with Spycraft without negotiating with the legal department at AEG right now. You cannot even hint at the word Spycraft on your product, as it stands right now. Sure, you could create a product that could be useful for someone who owns Spycraft, but you cannot advertise it that way, you can't tell them that it is used with Spycraft on the cover or back, and you can't put it in the catalog order form that the game store uses to order products.

I could make the same argument for such game as Dragonstar or Judge Dredd, both of which are d20 product compatible to any one of the Wizards core rulebook.

The thing is you're comparing a standalone core rulebook to a supplement rulebook. Yes, Wizards' will go far in this market, because they took the core rulebook business approach, providing a platform or "Operating System" for third-party d20-compatible products.

I mean it is just like you're comparing Windows XP to Neverwinter Night for PC.

And it isn't an "argument against Spycraft". I think Spycraft is a great product. I just think that AEG has made a fatal error in not opening up the system to third party publishers. And, again, don't read that in any way to mean that their rules are not open. It's the name itself that is closed. And if the name is closed, the whole system might as well be closed. Third party publishers are not going to bend over backwards to borrow bits and pieces of the rules from various OGL places just to make their product compatible with Spycraft if, in the end, they can't even tell you it is compatible with the Spycraft rules on the cover (or anywhere really). There wouldn't be any point to it, when they could just make it compatible with d20M and TELL YOU THAT RIGHT ON THE COVER.

Again, I could make the same argument for other great third-party d20-compatible products. Do you think a game designer/publisher can actually advertise that their product is compatible to say Dragonstar?

I mean is that what you're trying to say, using Spycraft as an example? If so, then yes, I agree with you. Not all d20 gamers are going to play Spycraft. But there is a market out for them, and they do have a fan following: some hardcore, some not. It's still a great game, despite the requirement for any Wizards' core rulebook.

 

[Mistwell]

I could make the same argument for such game as Dragonstar or Judge Dredd, both of which are d20 product compatible to any one of the Wizards core rulebook.

The thing is you're comparing a standalone core rulebook to a supplement rulebook. Yes, Wizards' will go far in this market, because they took the core rulebook business approach, providing a platform or "Operating System" for third-party d20-compatible products.

I mean it is just like you're comparing Windows XP to Neverwinter Night for PC.

Again, I could make the same argument for other great third-party d20-compatible products. Do you think a game designer/publisher can actually advertise that their product is compatible to say Dragonstar?

I mean is that what you're trying to say, using Spycraft as an example? If so, then yes, I agree with you. Not all d20 gamers are going to play Spycraft. But there is a market out for them, and they do have a fan following: some hardcore, some not. It's still a great game, despite the requirement for any Wizards' core rulebook.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Spycraft is just like Dragonstar and Judge Dredd. It won't find widespread support among third party publishers, and will eventually be beaten by the competition that does find that support. I would make the exact same criticism of Dragonstar and Judge Dred, only I don't need to. Nobody is even talking about those two games much anymore.

The big difference in our two positions, I think, is that AEG COULD allow third party publishers to put out products for their system, but decided to go the stand alone route instead by not allowing third parties to publish products explicitly for use with their system without extensive negotiation. The stand alone route can make you money, but it's a risky path to take to begin with. It becomes far more risky when there is competition that is NOT stand alone, and one that uses your same core rules set (d20). We are not talking d20 as windows to Spycrafts Neverwinter Nights. We are talking d20M compared to Spycraft, both of them software that fit on the same d20 platform, except that anyone is allowed to make applications to work with d20M, while Spycraft is proprietary.

 

[Morgenstern]

Spycraft... won't find widespread support among third party publishers...

Sez who ?
There is a lot of modern-day setting writing going on out there, and as a core set of mechanics, Spycraft can suport a lot of them very cleanly. The Shadowforce Archer books have done very well in demonstrating that with a new base class or two you can alter the whole feel of the system, while still having a streamlined firearms combat, a massive pool of feats to draw on, and a skill system with criticals. Take the Explorer class from Hand of Glory and you can do Indian Jones-type action right now, no waiting. That took two pages and some trust in the GCs who want to do that at their tables. Imagine what a third party publisher with a powerful idea can do with the system in a hundred pages. I've seen it already, and frankly, I wish I'd written it. It's that cool 8).

Devlopers look at the tools they're given to work with. Spycraft is a very good tool .

...and will eventually be beaten by the competition that does find that support.

Define beaten. Spycraft does a healthy, sustainable trade right now. Enough to merit its support for years.

The big difference in our two positions, I think, is that AEG COULD allow third party publishers to put out products for their system, but decided to go the stand alone route instead by not allowing third parties to publish products explicitly for use with their system without extensive negotiation.

Do I know you ? Because all of the negotiation I've been party to has been pretty straight forward. AEG does allow third party folks to put out products. Are you aware of some failed proposal I'm not privvy to? Don't think companies don't have to jump through some (minimal) hoops to put a "D20 System" stamp on their books, or that D20 Modern doesn't have some rather explicit rules about what you can and can't do in a book that's going to claim kinship to it. Why you insist that having to take a few hours to talk to AEG to assure them you aren't doing kiddy porn in your book and then slapping "Spycraft" on the cover is some how going to kill off creativity among those folks who are interested in doing a Spycraft-based product is simply beyond me . The kind of negotiations involved are right there on the order of due diligence in any serious publishing activity. How many D20 publishers who go to print do you think haven't stopped to talk to WotC to make sure everything they're doing is permisible under the license? There are certainly a few who didn't in the past, and had to recall their books. Ouch.

Heck, take a look at some of the web pages out there. There is some decidely slick Spycraft campaigns and alternate rule sets out there, and they don't get stepped on for mentioning "this is stuff for Spycraft". We put links to their pages from the main Spycraft page when we find out about them .

Don't worry too much about Spycraft's longevity, Mistwell . Having seen the line up for the next few years, I'm not even a little worried.

 

[Ranger REG]

Why is that sticky? The VP/WP system is only interesting for in the core rules (spycraft), please give me an example that might give legal problems.

Well, if you're going to make generic espionage adventure or mini-campaign book that is unoffiically compataible with Spycraft, complete with character stats, the VP/WP is crucial to a NPC character stat block. Although I'm sure veteran gamers know how to convert basic HP to VP/WP, most gamers who buy pregenerated published adventure modules are newbie gamers just trying to get the feel of the game before they go solo (i.e., create their own adventures and setting).

So until VP/WP becomes OGC, I guess you'll have to stick with the HP for now.