D20 Modern or Spycraft II?

[nothing to see here]

Pardon me for the tangent here, but if a person was to try to run a Shadowrun-style game using either d20 Modern or Spycraft 2.0, which system would work best?

I'd sorta lean towards d20 Modern, since OGL Cybernet is based largely on d20 Modern and d20 Modern also has Urban Arcana to work with. Question is, would Spycraft work a little better for the base classes and such? I find that I prefer an archetype system.

Thanks in advance.

At the risk of ressurecting your tangent...I should point out that there is a new edition of Shadowrun out which, as I'm sure will not surprise you, handles Shadowrun style games rather well.

To fulfill the needs of my inner rules tinkerer -- I'm currently mapping the Shadowrun rules system over the old Alternity (Star Drive) setting. Just to mix things up. Alternity is still my favorite all time modern rules system, hands down.

 

[Lhorgrim]

Update from OP

Well, I've made my decision on which game to order, and it's kind of a cop out. Many thanks to all those who posted about the different game systems.

I put in my order for D20 Modern, and I expect it to arrive next week. That said, I'm going to order Spycraft 2.0 as soon as I have the extra cash.

From the posts on this thread, and the info I've found online, I feel that D20M is the best fit for my group to get our feet wet with modern gaming. My group is familiar with D&D, so the similarity to that system is a plus for us. I don't know if my group will take to the modern genre, so the less effort expended in learning a system the better. SC 2.0 sounds like the game I want to play, but d20M sounds like the game I want to teach to absolute beginners.

My plan is to use D20M as a gateway game. If the players enjoy the game, and my campaigns, then I intend to add elements of SC 2.0 to see if the players have gotten hooked. Then I'll use the system that works best for my group's play style and abilities.

SC 2.0 seems very impressive. I see it as the "advanced" option. When players are comfortable with the basic conventions of modern era gaming, then they can add the levels of detail that are part of SC 2.0 if they choose. It seems like there is a lot to deal with in SC 2.0, like character choices that add modifiers to combat if your PCs outnumber the badguys, sliding initiatives etc. That is cool beyond words to me, but I worry that it is too detailed for a gamer that has never played a modern game before. As far as I am aware, most of my players have never played any game system but D&D 3.X.

I want the best of both worlds, and thanks to two great systems I think I can have it for about $25.00 each.

Thanks for all the posts, and the great information. I learned a great deal more about the systems' capabilities than I could have without you.

 

[Wystan]

Pardon me for the tangent here, but if a person was to try to run a Shadowrun-style game using either d20 Modern or Spycraft 2.0, which system would work best?

I'd sorta lean towards d20 Modern, since OGL Cybernet is based largely on d20 Modern and d20 Modern also has Urban Arcana to work with. Question is, would Spycraft work a little better for the base classes and such? I find that I prefer an archetype system.

Thanks in advance.

With all the Gadgets and toys I would think that a SC2 (2nd Printing) game would admirably work for a Shadowrun game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

With all the Gadgets and toys I would think that a SC2 (2nd Printing) game would admirably work for a Shadowrun game.

But I must admit, since I looked through the SR 4 rules, my need for an alternative gaming system for SR has been considerably reduced - even to the point where I am no longer interesting in pursuing a D20 Modern version of SR.

But then, I haven't played much of SR 4, and I still see the need for a lot of house rules. But most of the fundamental flaws seem to have been fixed. Their "d6" system actually seems to work.

Well, back to your regularly scheduled thread....

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Hope I'm not being snarky, not my intent. I just see a lot more folks supporting Spycraft in this thread and I felt a lot of it's strengths weren't being adressed.

I think, as was noted before, alot of that is the "new shiney" response. When people initially pick something up, they have alot of questions and reactions to it, and they naturally want to talk about it. Alot of people have picked up SC2.0, so there are more people lately interested in talking about how much they like it. Alot of people that play Modern are probably not talking much on messageboards about it, since it's been around for a while.

And, again, while there's nothing WRONG with Modern, it is the older of the two games, and SC2.0 does get some points for taking some design "mistakes" that Modern has and making good on changing them.

IMHO, Modern was too controversial. It DIDN'T change alot of things about the d20 core concepts ... HP, AC (Defense), Skill use, Feat Naming Conventions, etc. And it didn't do it during a time when the "big thing" was reworking those (AC/HP mostly). It DID change a few major things ... things, I think, many people weren't ready to change. Archetypal Classes and the Wealth system. My two d20Modern MVPs, honestly.

Honestly, I'm not really sure WHY those two subsystems are the focus of so much distaste and, sometimes, outright hate. People who are perfectly willing to accept Archetypal Classes and Point Buy Free Build just flip out and froth at the mouth at the base classes. Which, honestly, are just the mid-point between the two. It's a structured Point Buy or a free form Archetype. It's not like it doesn't WORK, or creates broken characters, or unplayable characters. I WILL say the learning curve is higher than an archetypal class, but MUCH less than a free-buy system.

So, I suppose, there's that. For some reason, some aspects of Modern can really stir a few people to outright and, as far as I've seen, unreasoning hatred. So they're negative. And there's not alot about Spycraft that's going to send anybody into convulsions of loathing.

Anyway, I'm going to get back to dismantling Spycraft 2.0 and rewriting the good parts for Modern. Today's project is the NPC generator. I think I have a few core changes that'll plug 'er right back around into CR/EL while simplifying how CR/EL are thought of.

--fje

 

[The Shaman]

No matter how well the D20M rules do or do not work, my players simply can't get excited over the classes, talents and feats as they are presented... Not when they can instead have abilities and feats like "Too Ugly to Die", "Not in the Face!", "'L337", "Spy vs. Spy", "Bald-faced Lie" and "Wuxia".'

Those 'flavorful' feats and abilities are one of the things I don't care for in Spycraft - some of them are downright cartoony to me, great for a James Bond joint, I guess, but not for any of the Modern genre games that I've run so far. Personal taste and all that.

 

[buzz]

Those 'flavorful' feats and abilities are one of the things I don't care for in Spycraft - some of them are downright cartoony to me, great for a James Bond joint, I guess, but not for any of the Modern genre games that I've run so far. Personal taste and all that.

The flavor-named feats are a pretty small number of the feats in the book.

 

[Armistice]

I wish this thread had been named d20 Modern & Spycraft II. Both games have much to offer and choosing one -OR- the other isn't really required. As has been repeated, your choice mainly comes down to personal play preferences. Those familiar with both systems like them each for different reasons. This thread has convinced me that 'Haters' of either system haven't taken the time to really familiarize themselves with what each has to offer.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

True enough.

Really it comes down to flavor - D20 Modern is as generic and flexible as they could make it, at the expense of flavor in my estimation, while Spycraft has flavor galore and reasonable flexibility, but at the expense of being less generic in its outlook. Some people really like the occassional silly feat name, and others really don't. (I am one of the former.)

Three choices, pick any two...

The Auld Grump

 

[Plane Sailing]

This thread has convinced me that 'Haters' of either system haven't taken the time to really familiarize themselves with what each has to offer.

I think you are mischaracterising this thread. I don't see 'Haters' of either system here - I just see people presenting the best aspects of the system they prefer (and in a way which was evidently of great help to the original poster).

I like non-inflammatory threads, it makes moderating much more pleasurable!

Cheers