D20 Modern or Spycraft II?

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm mostly talking about relative to melee weapons. SC, if memory serves, falls into the 'guns displaced melee weapons so the must be more damaging' trap. d20 Modern's weapons are more in the melee=damage, gun=range school.

Okay, fair enough. I don't think that either system is lethal enough to be realistic in that regard, but yes, people do bleed out a lot quicker from knife wounds that gun shots. So given that both are unrealistic, but D20 gives the blade a greater damage potential I can just about buy it. (Though this is also where I prefer VP/WP to HD, wounds are potentially just a bit more serious. But on a relative blades vs. guns scale as opposed to a VP/WP vs. HD scale you are correct. In a way we were having two different discussions.)

3rd Party Support is one thing. D&D has tons of 3rd Party Support. d20 Modern has, IMO, the best 3rd Party Support in the industry. This will be tough to compete with, but I'm looking forward to what Crafty Games can put together.

Heh, I will admit that most of my problems with D20 Modern are not with third party support. (I wanted to like D20 Past so very much. I had it preordered 2 months before it came out. And then it sucked!) Maybe someday a third party publisher will do D20 Past the way it should have been. And I check the Crafty Games website almost daily to find out if they are open for business yet.

I can definitely see this. Spycraft 2.0 FEELS much faster than it is.

Word o' the gods. I run my game on a worknight. I am not worth much the next day on occassion. (Wait aminute, its 2 o'clock in the freakin' morning?!)

It's not ATB. Initiative is close to pointless after the first round. I'd run it the same as I run D&D, d20 Modern, SilCore, and most any other non-HERO tabletop RPG: initiative order is determined by where you're sitting.

As I said, I rather like the fact that initiative does not set 'after the first round', but constantly changes. But it is complex enough that I consider it one of the least attractive parts of learning the game. Once learned it is kind of cool, but until then... SO I do consider it a negative.

What is Spycraft compatible with, other than Spycraft? I like HERO and SilCore, but that doesn't make HERO compatible with SilCore. I like Spycraft and d20 Modern, but they aren't really compatible. d20 Modern is compatible with itself, all its supplements, D&D, Arcana Evolved, the Mongoose OGL games based on d20 Modern, Grim Tales... the list just goes on and on.

Yeah, in some ways it seems like a completely different game with a similar system. And I guess you could say that Spycraft is compatible with Stargate SG1... I find it amusing that Spycraft wasn't the first game 'powered by Spycraft'.

Mind you, I still like Spycraft a LOT and have mined it for idea on many occasions even when playing barely compatible games.

Whereas I am running a Spycraft game, so I feel a bit different about some of the points than you do. I had to learn that furshluginer initiative system, so I had to figure out why it was there. You, on the other hand, can afford not to learn it at all! I kind of like the initiative system (now), but I wish that I hadn't had to take so long getting it down.

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Pardon the stray shot, but if you're looking for a new system, then check out the free Test Drive 4.0 rules for Savage Worlds:

http://www.peginc.com/Games/Savage Worlds/Savage Worlds.htm#Savage Worlds Downloads

I'm almost sorry that Savage Worlds has nearly ruined me from d20 gaming. I never really "got" d20 Modern, even after I read most of it. I ran the first Spycraft lite version but never really got into it either. I think Savage Worlds would be great for the kind of "modern pulp" game you seek. I've had a blast with Tour of Darkness, their Viet Nam setting, introducing supernatural elements slowly over the past several months of weekly gaming. I think the revised core rule book could do just about any type game--easy for the GM but still engaging for the players.

I found Savage Worlds too... formless? for my tastes. It was overly simplified, and not what I wanted at all, at all. Savage Worlds ruined me for Savage Worlds gaming...

The Auld Grump, especially the Weird Science rules. 'Just treat them as magic items' was not what I wanted, no not at all.

 

[Jim Hague]

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.

With the Campaign Qualities you can set - adjusting things like the game's lethality - SC 2.0 wins hands-down for Rogue Warrior/Mack Bolan-style gaming. And SC lets you do things like create a soldier out of AIT without making him 4th-5th level, just so he gets the proper gun Feats. You can dial the realism up and down in SC 2.0 - dynamically, even, and the players get Action Dice when you do so. Likewise the deadliness. And NPCs take about 30 seconds to create on the fly...assuming you don't use the ton of them in the book. Said NPCs also dynamically scale to the PCs' power level.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Said NPCs also dynamically scale to the PCs' power level.

That's something I both like and dislike.

As I mentioned before, it really can give the system a feeling of: "Same thing, bigger explosion."

Thug Bob is always Thug Bob. When we meet some Thug Bobs at 1st level, they're about X powerful compared to the PCs. When we meet some Thug Bobs at 6th level ... they're still about X powerful compared to the PCs. They scale. They're worth the same number of XP and are the same challenge.

I'm still working my way around the Threat Level system in terms of feeling ... which is just a CR system attached to a series of tables, really. Instead of saying: "Thugs should be of a CR equal to the average party level -2." you get: "See Table X.3.1. line-item seven". If you've got the tables, it makes things quicker.

SC2 is very attached to "qualities". A Thug is a Bear is a Killer Robot is a Parasite Mole ... each has a few different little "qualities" that are found in a bunch of pages in the NPC creation rules.

One day I'll find myself without a computer or my d20M books, have my SC2 book, and a bunch of people will mob me to run something. Then I'll run it. If I get a chance to go to California to see the inlaws again, I'll have to bring it. My brother-in-law and his crew would probably love it.

--fje

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

As I said, I rather like the fact that initiative does not set 'after the first round', but constantly changes. But it is complex enough that I consider it one of the least attractive parts of learning the game. Once learned it is kind of cool, but until then... SO I do consider it a negative.

My point was a bit different.

I'm coming at this from a console RPG background, where there are (or used to be, anyway) two dominant systems for handling character actions in combat.

The first is turn-based, in which all combatants act once per round and their speed determines when they act within the round. Many turn-based console RPGs have a system similar to Spycraft's, where taking different actions changes your initiative, but at worst it means your character acts after an enemy rather than before.

The second is active-time (ATB), in which combatants act after a certain number of clockticks and their speed determines how often they act. Some of these (most prominently Final Fantasy X) also have a system similar to Spycraft's, but in this system, a change in speed can actually result in being double-turned by a quicker opponent, or in not double-turning a slower opponent.

The HERO system is the only tabletop RPG I know of that uses an ATB system. Being fond of ATB, I simply find ALL turn-based initiative systems very close to pointless. Spycraft fiddles with its initiative system far more than most, so it sticks in my craw more than most.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

That's something I both like and dislike.

As I mentioned before, it really can give the system a feeling of: "Same thing, bigger explosion."

Thug Bob is always Thug Bob. When we meet some Thug Bobs at 1st level, they're about X powerful compared to the PCs. When we meet some Thug Bobs at 6th level ... they're still about X powerful compared to the PCs. They scale. They're worth the same number of XP and are the same challenge.

Whereas this is my absolute favorite part of Spycraft. I can't think of a single thing I want to do with a roleplaying game that this isn't perfect for.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

My point was a bit different.

I'm coming at this from a console RPG background, where there are (or used to be, anyway) two dominant systems for handling character actions in combat.

The first is turn-based, in which all combatants act once per round and their speed determines when they act within the round. Many turn-based console RPGs have a system similar to Spycraft's, where taking different actions changes your initiative, but at worst it means your character acts after an enemy rather than before.

The second is active-time (ATB), in which combatants act after a certain number of clockticks and their speed determines how often they act. Some of these (most prominently Final Fantasy X) also have a system similar to Spycraft's, but in this system, a change in speed can actually result in being double-turned by a quicker opponent, or in not double-turning a slower opponent.

The HERO system is the only tabletop RPG I know of that uses an ATB system. Being fond of ATB, I simply find ALL turn-based initiative systems very close to pointless. Spycraft fiddles with its initiative system far more than most, so it sticks in my craw more than most.

Ah, so this is also a taste issue - I came into RPGs before there were console RPGs. RPGs grew from wargames, where turn based systems were the norm. Mind you, there are games where you roll initiative every round, and even the Spycraft system is more consistent.

I have played a few games with ATB initiative, and found it cumbersome. (Mind you, the game that comes most freely to my mind was a homebrew system that was cumbersome on many levels...)

So, while I do not have an inherent dislike of turn based initiatives I did have problems coming to grips with the SC initiative system. So, we disliked it for different reasons. I don't think that we will ever agree completely on this one.

The Auld Grump

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Ah, so this is also a taste issue - I came into RPGs before there were console RPGs. RPGs grew from wargames, where turn based systems were the norm. Mind you, there are games where you roll initiative every round, and even the Spycraft system is more consistent.

I came to RPGs before there were console RPGs, too. I left them for console RPGs for years because, with the group I had for the latter, I had more rewarding roleplaying experiences. Two months of Xenogears-based improv theater... good times.

Anyway, I also found the gameplay much better in many cases, initiative being a prominent example. I've been dissatisfied with turn-based initiative ever since, but recognize that it can be a bit clunky without a computer to crunch the numbers. Now I just want initiative to go away and leave me alone.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As for pistols, both the .44 Magnum and Desert Eagle are not good choices for dual-wielding. (You can wield one with a smaller pistol, but wielding two gives bigger penalties.)

Until you bring in the d20 Future gadget system, and can have a Desert Eagle that is a smaller pistol

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The second is active-time (ATB), in which combatants act after a certain number of clockticks and their speed determines how often they act. Some of these (most prominently Final Fantasy X) also have a system similar to Spycraft's, but in this system, a change in speed can actually result in being double-turned by a quicker opponent, or in not double-turning a slower opponent.

/Threadjack

Did you ever see Chaosium's Ringworld RPG? That was the first RPG I had ever seen that used something like this. Each action took a certain number of 'pulses' and the referee just counted up the pulses and you could start something new when your old action had finished. Brilliant in principle, but it didn't set the world alight in practice