Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morgenstern" data-source="post: 504875" data-attributes="member: 5485">Sez who <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />?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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. Define beaten. Spycraft does a healthy, sustainable trade right now. Enough to merit its support for years.Do I know you <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />? 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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. 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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />.Don't worry too much about Spycraft's longevity, Mistwell <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. Having seen the line up for the next few years, I'm not even a little worried.</blockquote>

Verification