D20 Modern or Spycraft II?

[Morgenstern]

If you are interested in seeing a little of the Ten-Thousand Bullets character options, there are 5-level previews of the new urban base classes available (Fixer, Lawman, Thief, Thug) in the MRD document for Living Spycraft.

 

[buzz]

As Buzz points out, if the game is 60-80% skill checks and is going to feature alot of bomb-defusing action, then a complex skill check like that is a great thing.

But what if it isn't? You can model Sam "The Bombmeister" Johnson with a single throw and a high modifier. "Yay, you easily defused the bomb!" but you can also model John P. McBadass, ACTION HERO, who snips the right wire at the last minute with his toenail clippers while hanging upside down. "I did this once while training for shadow ops in Cambodia."

I.E. one difficult roll is easier to overcome with a lucky roll and spending an Action Point/Die, while complex checks generally favor failure and high skill bonuses.

Gotcha.

I guess the question I would ask is, if Sam Johnson and J. P. McBadass are in a campaign that doesn't focus on lots of skill checks and bomb-diffusing action, what are they doing instead? I'd hpoe that they were making use of lot sof the cool d20M add-ons, like magic, cybertech, or mutations so that there's still cool stuff to do. Otherwise, I would think those pass/fail skill checks might make for a dull game.

Granted, I am still knee-deep in reading the SC2.0 book right now, and thus drunk with gamer fervor ("No, I havent' played it, but it's still the BEST GAME EVAR!!!").

 

[mcrow]

People have statted up quite a variety of characters on the Spycraft boards (Batman is the one that stands out in my memory). I think the espionage-heavy class names conceal how flexible they really are. Granted, they are far more strongly tied to the action/spy genre than d20M.

I'm sure that it quite possible to stat up all sorts of characters. I just would end up creating all my own classes to do it and I don't have that sort of time.

I'd say "robust". The default game lacks magic, superpowers, and much super-science, ergo, it's going to focus on highly skilled "normals" flexing their talents. Given this assumption, I think the added detail simply makes the core focus of the game more interesting. Skill use is probably 50%-80% of the game, so it better be detailed.

I'm more on the simple test model unless there is a real good reason to go through all the fuss. There are plenty of people who like more detailed mechanics and that is cool, but I'm not one of them.

$25.17 on Amazon, $1 cheaper than d20M. Plus, it has 155 more pages than d20M.

Got nothing for that

Man, what classes do you like? I like d20M's classes; they were one of the main selling points for me.

I'm hard to please with modern classes. It justs seemed to me that SC2 classes are to focused and d20 moderns are to broad.

This is d20M's biggest strength, IMO. The core book forms a very good blank canvas for adding on to, and there are a lot of good designers in multiple companies writing for it.

I'll be interested to see the supplements coming out for SC2.0, though. I'm also itching to see how it works in actual play. Looking foward big-time to the SC2.0 event I signed up for at GenCon.

On this we can both agree!

 

[Armistice]

I'm sure that it quite possible to stat up all sorts of characters. I just would end up creating all my own classes to do it and I don't have that sort of time.

/snip/

I'm more on the simple test model unless there is a real good reason to go through all the fuss. There are plenty of people who like more detailed mechanics and that is cool, but I'm not one of them.

/Snip/

I'm hard to please with modern classes. It justs seemed to me that SC2 classes are to focused and d20 moderns are to broad.

The one thing Spycraft does poorly is regular guy. The closest you'll get is regular guy 'action hero'. For really regular schmoes you'd use spycraft's npc system.

As for the hero types, I'm not sure what character you can't do (barring magic-user types straight from the corebook) with a combination of Origin/Class/Expert Class.

As for the complex checks, they're there if you want that level of detail. It is still d20-like. Nothing stops you from using a single check for anything at all. Point is, if you want the detail you don't have to spend the time figuring it out on your own.

One final note, I've seen tons of builds using spycraft classes, calling them narrow seems to be an artifact of the class naming convention.

 

[Committed Hero]

I'm hard to please with modern classes. It justs seemed to me that SC2 classes are to focused and d20 moderns are to broad.

Could you give an example of something in between? Not trying to harp on you, I'm just curious as to what you envision.

 

[mcrow]

Could you give an example of something in between? Not trying to harp on you, I'm just curious as to what you envision.

Well, as someone above already mentioned ,it is somewhat of a name convention problem for me.

With SC2 at least I can tweak things a bit and get something close to what I'm looking for. I can change the Sleuth a bit and get Police,FBI, or maybe CIA agents out of it.

With d20 Modern you get " strong", "smart" and "fast" heroes. It's way to broad and requires a lot of fiddling with to get a class that fits a setting properly.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

With d20 Modern you get " strong", "smart" and "fast" heroes. It's way to broad and requires a lot of fiddling with to get a class that fits a setting properly.

I find that making NPCs and PCs often takes more time because of how you put together your character. (Still way less time than DnD for me, though!) However, I don't see what this has to do with a setting. These heroes fit in every setting, ranging from AD 200 Three Kingdoms China to Firefly to Caveman Adventures! (TM) and any system that includes intelligent non-monstrous PCs. Seriously, I have NPCs from each of the settings (even that last one!) that I can post here if you don't believe me.

A weird side issue:

I often visit Living Spycraft, "steal" their free adventures and convert to Modern. They've released one or two adventures for Spycraft II.

I liked Triple Play and looked at its NPCs. Here's one:

[sblock]Anas Al-Liby (Special NPC — 380 XP): Init VII; Atk VII; Def VII; Resilience VII; v/wp VII; Competence VII; Wealth V; Weapons: RSA Melee stun gun (dmg 5d4 electrical, error 1, threat 18–20, qualities: FIN), AK-47 assault rifle (dmg 3d6 lethal, error 1–2, threat 20, ammo 30M5, range 125 ft., SZ/Hand S/2h, qualities: DEP, upgrades: standard laser sight), Reutech Striker semi-automatic shotgun (dmg 2d12 lethal, error 1–2, threat 19–20, ammo 12S40, range 30 ft., SZ/Hand S/2h, qualities: NFM (S/B/F), TKD); Gear: None [except vehicles]; Qualities: feat (Baby It, Battering Blows, CQB Basics, CQB Mastery, Daredevil, Darting Weapon, Defensive Driving, Jackrabbit Start, One Hand on the Wheel, This is My Boomstick), henchman, superior attribute (Dex 18, Str 18).[/sblock]

He's the final boss. Why doesn't he have four of his ability scores? It's one thing if mooks get special rules, but final bosses should be using the same rules as PCs. I hope this isn't "expected" of Spycraft II adventures.

(I recognize maybe half the feats. New feats are good.)

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

He's the final boss. Why doesn't he have four of his ability scores? It's one thing if mooks get special rules, but final bosses should be using the same rules as PCs. I hope this isn't "expected" of Spycraft II adventures.

(I recognize maybe half the feats. New feats are good.)

As far as that NPC, that's the new NPC builder in play. You can do "regular Joe" NPCs, "Special" NPCs, and then like guest stars that you stat up as full characters.

And yes, I'm pretty sure it's expected and encouraged that most all NPCs use those NPC rules. The character has all ability scores, but IIRC, they'll all be 10 unless the quality "Improved Ability" was taken, where-upon they're 18.

All things being equal, I think they included the side-note that you can still make an NPC like a PC for the people who were uncomfortable using the NPC rules, since you can make a more POWERFUL and CAPABLE individual with those rules than by using the PC rules. There's alot of room for "Enggghhh, he's totally dude-tacular at that. 18!" in the NPC rules.

I need to hack those free and turn them into a general d20 system.

--fje

 

[mcrow]

I find that making NPCs and PCs often takes more time because of how you put together your character. (Still way less time than DnD for me, though!) However, I don't see what this has to do with a setting. These heroes fit in every setting, ranging from AD 200 Three Kingdoms China to Firefly to Caveman Adventures! (TM) and any system that includes intelligent non-monstrous PCs. Seriously, I have NPCs from each of the settings (even that last one!) that I can post here if you don't believe me.

sure the basic premis fits. There have always been people who are stronger &/or faster than the average person. The problem is they are to broad. All character types that are "strong" go here, all that are agile go under "fast", that just doesn't jive for me. Not to mention the "strong" class just sucks anyway. Talent trees, I don't like either.

 

[Falkus]

That NPC builder is what convinced me to switch over to Spycraft 2.0. It's one of the best GM tools there is. It makes it incredibly quick and easy for me to populate my adventures with minions, henchment and bystanders for the PCs to contend with, far more simpler than it ever was in d20 Modern.

Oh, and the This is my Boomstick! feat. Any game that has feat called This is my Boomstick! has to be cool.