D20 Modern or Spycraft II?

[Greg K]

Spycraft 2.0 is the better game. It's got some really innovate (for d20, and occasionally for RPGs in general) concepts

Yeah, but d20 Modern has Blood and Fist (RPGObjects), Elements of Magic:ME (ENWorld) and Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin).

Edit: And if I payed closer attention, I would have seen the 3rd party suppport as a benefit for d20 Modern.

 

[Committed Hero]

My personal favorite is "Style over Caliber"

That's an example of a good name, no disagreement.

 

[Morgenstern]

*cough*

We have a number of third party developers working on Spycraft 2.0 projects presently . More than half a dozen have signed on at last count. I'm sure you'll recognize a couple of them *coughRoninArtscough* when we make the big announcement.

*cough*

 

[buzz]

*cough*

We have a number of third party developers working on Spycraft 2.0 projects presently . More than half a dozen have signed on at last count. I'm sure you'll recognize a couple of them *coughRoninArtscough* when we make the big announcement.

*cough*

Freaking. Cool.

 

[Psion]

But the learning curve for me was unbelieveably steep.

I don't think it's all that bad. Yeah, the book's a lot to absorb. I ran my first game last fall and TerpCon/DC Gameday, to a table of likewise neophytes. They seemed to pick things up pretty quick. The "hacker" player had never used the dramatic conflict system, but the system proved slick and intuitive. Gear picking proved much less of a task than anticipated. And the players caught on to using their skills, action dice, and character abilities rather quickly.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

*cough*

We have a number of third party developers working on Spycraft 2.0 projects presently . More than half a dozen have signed on at last count. I'm sure you'll recognize a couple of them *coughRoninArtscough* when we make the big announcement.

*cough*

Can't wait to see them! If Spycraft ever comes close to d20 Modern in 3rd party support, I might switch over to it.

Of course, prior to seeing this, I didn't know about those projects, and at the moment they aren't available. I use more d20 Modern products for core/D&D d20 than I do fantasy d20 products, so the competition is steep.

 

[Lhorgrim]

You guys are giving me excellent info, and I thank you for it.

I've never had this kind of trouble choosing between game systems before. Part of the problem is that I don't really have a concrete idea about what kind of campaign I want to run long term. I know I want to start out with no F/X elements, but I'm not sure I won't want to incorporate them later.

Several people have mentioned the firearms/ranged combat systems for both games. I'm really interested in the firearms combat aspects of the systems. I'm looking for a way to have shootouts without having a TPK. I want a mook with an AR-15 to be a significant threat, but the PCs need a way to deal with that threat without losing a character in every single combat. I would like a system that rewards the players for using sound tactics like cover, concealment, and distraction devices. I don't want a system that is so realistic that the best way to handle every situation is to avoid conflict at all costs. Which system is more deadly in these circumstances?

Has anyone read the "Rogue Warrior" book series by Richard Marcinko? I would like to be able to emulate those sorts of stories, if that helps give an idea about what I'm looking to achieve.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Several people have mentioned the firearms/ranged combat systems for both games. I'm really interested in the firearms combat aspects of the systems. I'm looking for a way to have shootouts without having a TPK. I want a mook with an AR-15 to be a significant threat, but the PCs need a way to deal with that threat without losing a character in every single combat. I would like a system that rewards the players for using sound tactics like cover, concealment, and distraction devices. I don't want a system that is so realistic that the best way to handle every situation is to avoid conflict at all costs. Which system is more deadly in these circumstances?

I think d20 Modern is the better choice for you, based on these parameters.

In Spycraft, you can exchange shots about as long as you can exchange sword swings in D&D. Unless somebody crits. Then you take WP damage and probably die in one shot - Dead, not Dying, not Unconscious, Dead. Barring FX, the character is removed from the game and isn't coming back.

In d20 Modern, you can go down to even a single non-critical hit because your massive damage threshold is very low - losing a battle because the enemy mooks get a few good shots in is VERY possible. Unlike in D&D, however, "death" from massive damage actually means being reduced to -1 hp. Since you have a full stock of hp to begin with, PCs are less likely to die outright.

In my experience, it's actually hard to DIE in d20 Modern, but DYING happens all the time.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I don't want a system that is so realistic that the best way to handle every situation is to avoid conflict at all costs. Which system is more deadly in these circumstances?

Has anyone read the "Rogue Warrior" book series by Richard Marcinko? I would like to be able to emulate those sorts of stories, if that helps give an idea about what I'm looking to achieve.

Haven't read the Rogue Warrior series.

Neither system is really "too deadly". They use very different systems for tracking damage, however.

D20Modern uses Hit Points and the "Massive Damage Threshold". D&D has an MDT, set at 50 points of damage. D20Modern's MDT is set to your character's Constitution score. When you take damage equal to or exceeding your MDT from a single attack you make a Fortitude saving throw or immediately fall to -1hp, regardless of your HP. So, say, I have 40hp and a Con of 10. I take 10 points of damage, provoking an MDT save and fail it. Instead of dropping to 30hp, I drop immediately to -1hp.

Spycraft uses a system called Vitality Points and Wound Points. VP are like D&D HP in many ways, but represent ... your "Dude" factor. When you get "hit" and take VP damage, you don't really get "hit", you just have to use up some Dude Factor to not get hit. When you run out of VP, or take a critical hit, you REALLY get damaged. Your Wound Points are equal to your Constitution score. When they drop to -10, you're dead.

This gives 1st level characters roughly 3x the HP in Spycraft as a d20Modern character, so they have a little more longevity (having to lose all of their VP, then their 12-18 WP, before getting knocked out).

I, personally, don't like VP/WP. All of the gun damages are cranked up to account for the extra HP, for one. And while in d20M a crit from a gun is dangerous (and will probably provoke an MDT), it isn't crippling. VP/WP, once you lose WP you're hosed. With bigger weapons, you're just REALLY hosed if you get hit by a crit.

Thinking about it, SC2.0 weapons do less damage, I think, so they're probably less dangerous than I'm thinking, since it's really about superspies.

--fje

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You guys are giving me excellent info, and I thank you for it.

I've never had this kind of trouble choosing between game systems before. Part of the problem is that I don't really have a concrete idea about what kind of campaign I want to run long term. I know I want to start out with no F/X elements, but I'm not sure I won't want to incorporate them later.

Several people have mentioned the firearms/ranged combat systems for both games. I'm really interested in the firearms combat aspects of the systems. I'm looking for a way to have shootouts without having a TPK. I want a mook with an AR-15 to be a significant threat, but the PCs need a way to deal with that threat without losing a character in every single combat. I would like a system that rewards the players for using sound tactics like cover, concealment, and distraction devices. I don't want a system that is so realistic that the best way to handle every situation is to avoid conflict at all costs. Which system is more deadly in these circumstances?

Has anyone read the "Rogue Warrior" book series by Richard Marcinko? I would like to be able to emulate those sorts of stories, if that helps give an idea about what I'm looking to achieve.

They both work. Honestly, the best tactics in both systems is to use cover. I'm going to assume Spycraft 2 kept cover - it wouldn't make sense to get rid of it.

A mook with an AR-15 is a threat in either game. A crit in Modern is nasty - that's an average of about 18 damage (Modern PCs have fewer hp than DnD PCs and fewer hp than Spycraft characters have vp) and with that much damage, there's a good chance of forcing a save vs Massive Damage. (In fact, unless someone spent a feat on Improved Damage Threshold, that's basically guaranteed to force a save.) In Spycraft 1, at least, you would take the base damage to wp (equal to Con, at least without feats). If you had a Con of 12, taking 9 wp is very nasty.

Both systems use a class bonus to Defense - both have a change to dodge, even without cover. (It's like the shootout at the OK Corral, a real life event - experienced gunslingers couldn't hit each other from 10 feet away! That's Fast levels for you!) But using cover is virtually always better in either system.

Spycraft has rules (in the core rules) for things like cover fire and bracing.

I think Spycraft is a bit deadlier when it comes to crits, but it also usually gives you more wp. Armor in Spycraft often gives DR. Modern PCs are less likely to actually take damage (higher Defense). Because the damage values for Spycraft weapons (at least in 1.0) don't really make sense, it's nearly impossible to do a "damage per round" or "time to death" calculation comparison.