d20 modern or Spycraft 2.0
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
DragonLancer
Hero
Psion said:
Yeah. I haven't seen SC 2.0 so far.
Jack of Shadows
First Post
Psion said:
I have to agree with Psion here. I never owned the original Spycraft but I picked up 2.0 based on all the raves about the previous edition. I haven't managed to read through the entire rulebook yet but my take so far is Advanced D20 Modern. For doing modern agency-based games SC 2.0 wins out.
However if you want to run something different like a space opera, magic in modern times, or post-apocalypse game I would go with D20 Modern.
Jack
MrFilthyIke
First Post
I loooove me some d20Modern. I love the tool kit nature of the books.
Spycraft never grabbed me like d20M. My 2cents, sure to be buried under
anti-WotC rants. :\
Spycraft never grabbed me like d20M. My 2cents, sure to be buried under
anti-WotC rants. :\
I haven't gotten my hands on Spycraft 2.0 yet.
Comparing Sypcraft 1 to d20 Modern I felt that Spycraft was better for running spy games but d20 Modern was better for anything else because of its toolkit nature. I expect that that hasn't changed too much for Spycraft 2.0 (or else it wouldn't be the awsome, flavorful spy game that it was).
Comparing Sypcraft 1 to d20 Modern I felt that Spycraft was better for running spy games but d20 Modern was better for anything else because of its toolkit nature. I expect that that hasn't changed too much for Spycraft 2.0 (or else it wouldn't be the awsome, flavorful spy game that it was).
Stormborn
Explorer
Gundark,
What do you want to do with it? If you want a modern system that has lots of support for just about any genre you can imagine, go with d20 Modern. If you are primarilly interested in espionage or modern paramillitary stuff then go Spycraft 2.0. Spycraft in many people's opinion is a better system, but if you go into it looking for the broad base of d20 Modern I think you will be disappointed.
What do you want to do with it? If you want a modern system that has lots of support for just about any genre you can imagine, go with d20 Modern. If you are primarilly interested in espionage or modern paramillitary stuff then go Spycraft 2.0. Spycraft in many people's opinion is a better system, but if you go into it looking for the broad base of d20 Modern I think you will be disappointed.
King of Old School
First Post
I really like d20 Modern and preferred it to Spycraft 1.0 by a long way. I think Spycraft 2.0 not only fixes 99% of what I didn't like about SC1.0, it fixes some of the things that bug me about d20M.
* SC2.0 has a much better, broader and deeper selection of feats and special abilities than d20M.
* SC2.0 has enough different classes that you can make pretty much any character appropriate to a cinematic action-oriented RPG with little to no multiclassing involved (but multiclassing is supported). d20M requires multiclassing to at least some extent, and for many characters the shopping list of classes can get pretty ridiculous. IMO any character with more than 3 different classes (including advanced/prestige classes) is too unwieldy to be worth the effort, and you're a lot more likely to see such characters in d20M.
* SC2.0 (also SC1.0) has much better unarmed combat and non-lethal damage rules than d20M, and a much better handling of cinematic firearms combat as well. YMMV here.
* SC2.0 (also SC1.0) has infinitely better rules for vehicles and chases than d20M, and the extension of the chase system from SC1.0 to all sorts of dramatic conflicts in SC2.0 is brilliant.
* SC2.0 allows for much quicker and cleaner generation of NPCs than d20M.
* SC2.0 has a system of "Campaign Qualities" which provide structure for GMs to modify the rules of the game to achieve a certain feel... frex, a game where it's easier or harder for PCs to survive combat or drop NPCs like tenpins, or a game where the PCs have much easier or more difficult access to the weapons and gear they want, or a game where the PCs advance in level faster or slower than the gameplay would normally indicate. Moreover, there are writeups for a number of game genres (e.g. post-apoc, cyberpunk, western) which explains which Campaign Qualities and other rules tweaks might be genre-appropriate. d20M doesn't have anything like this structure in the corebook, so while the GM is free to modify the game it's without any kind of guidance.
Ultimately my POV is this: I still think d20M is a good game and I'd still happily play it if someone wanted to run it. However, if I were running a game I'd use SC2.0 for almost any game with a cinematic mood and/or lots of combat; and frankly, for pretty much any game where d20M would be the better choice (i.e. low-combat, lower-cinematics, "Joe Average" characters) I wouldn't use a d20 system anyways -- I'd use the Storytelling System from the new World of Darkness corebook. The only instance I could see myself running d20M now is if I wanted to play one of the better minigames from Polyhedron (either Iron Lords of Jupiter or Pulp Heroes) and wasn't going to run a long enough campaign to justify converting it to SC2.0.
KoOS
* SC2.0 has a much better, broader and deeper selection of feats and special abilities than d20M.
* SC2.0 has enough different classes that you can make pretty much any character appropriate to a cinematic action-oriented RPG with little to no multiclassing involved (but multiclassing is supported). d20M requires multiclassing to at least some extent, and for many characters the shopping list of classes can get pretty ridiculous. IMO any character with more than 3 different classes (including advanced/prestige classes) is too unwieldy to be worth the effort, and you're a lot more likely to see such characters in d20M.
* SC2.0 (also SC1.0) has much better unarmed combat and non-lethal damage rules than d20M, and a much better handling of cinematic firearms combat as well. YMMV here.
* SC2.0 (also SC1.0) has infinitely better rules for vehicles and chases than d20M, and the extension of the chase system from SC1.0 to all sorts of dramatic conflicts in SC2.0 is brilliant.
* SC2.0 allows for much quicker and cleaner generation of NPCs than d20M.
* SC2.0 has a system of "Campaign Qualities" which provide structure for GMs to modify the rules of the game to achieve a certain feel... frex, a game where it's easier or harder for PCs to survive combat or drop NPCs like tenpins, or a game where the PCs have much easier or more difficult access to the weapons and gear they want, or a game where the PCs advance in level faster or slower than the gameplay would normally indicate. Moreover, there are writeups for a number of game genres (e.g. post-apoc, cyberpunk, western) which explains which Campaign Qualities and other rules tweaks might be genre-appropriate. d20M doesn't have anything like this structure in the corebook, so while the GM is free to modify the game it's without any kind of guidance.
Ultimately my POV is this: I still think d20M is a good game and I'd still happily play it if someone wanted to run it. However, if I were running a game I'd use SC2.0 for almost any game with a cinematic mood and/or lots of combat; and frankly, for pretty much any game where d20M would be the better choice (i.e. low-combat, lower-cinematics, "Joe Average" characters) I wouldn't use a d20 system anyways -- I'd use the Storytelling System from the new World of Darkness corebook. The only instance I could see myself running d20M now is if I wanted to play one of the better minigames from Polyhedron (either Iron Lords of Jupiter or Pulp Heroes) and wasn't going to run a long enough campaign to justify converting it to SC2.0.
KoOS
