D20 Modern vs. Spycraft: Tell me which one you like better

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't think either is better than the other. I prefer Modern, though. I've picked up some Spycraft rules and used in my Modern campaign - vehicle rules were "stolen" in their entirety.

 

[Insight]

Thanks for the replies thus far, and keep them coming!

 

[arscott]

I've played in a three month long Stargate (Powered by Spycraft 1.0) game, and ran a d20 modern game for about six months.

I played a doctor in the Stargate game, and was a bit frustrated by that--The Vitality/Wounds system leaves very little for the medic to do. I was also a bit unimpressed by the skill system in general. The skills seemed oddly focused--for instance, there was a spot skill, and then an entirely seperate surveillance skill. I understand that the skill system was revised significantly in 2.0, though. I was also ambivalent on the action dice system--Though the dice themselves were more versatile than their d20 Modern equivalents, Having spend dice to confirm criticals sucks a lot of the fun out of rolling a nat 20.

On the other hand, spycraft had some stand-out mechanics as well. The Car chase system seemed really cool (though with no wheelman in our party, the coolest stuff was automatically out of our reach). Likewise, the gear pick system was great, and I've developed spycraft-like rules for character gear in my d20 Modern game.

d20 Modern has a few weak spots itself--First, it's close enough to D&D that it carries over some of the D&D wonkyness--If you have problems with certain D&D rules (except for those rules that specifically relate to a fantasy setting), you'll probably have the same problems with Modern rules. The Wealth system, while vastly superior to gold and silver pieces, has some very rough edges. Nonlethal damage is a joke. And despite it's encouragement of multiclassing, lack of fractional BAB can really hinder combat advancement for certain class-combos.

Still, modern is outstanding in many ways--The Basic/Advanced class structure is very good at making flexible and organic characters, and you'll never take empty levels of anything. I'm a bit more impressed with the Modern's firearms and armor rules as well. Modern is close enough to D&D overall that it's much easier for new players to pick up on. And there's a lot of excellent support, from both WotC and third-party publishers.

 

[Psion]

Not that it bears on the question of the OP, since he's playing an espionage themed game, but I'd like to point out that while the statement that it's focused on spy-themed games, while a fair criticism of Spycraft 1.0, is incorrect of Spycraft 2.0. The campaign qualities are one of the biggest new features of the game, and it makes Spycraft very flexible for most modern action subgenres. There are numerous other strides in the system between 1.0 and 2.0. Spycraft 2.0 took the game from being my default for modern espionage to my default for most modern action genres.

I enjoy and have run both, and think they each have certain advantages. I feel Spycraft 2.0 is a more robust system that supports more of the things I would want to do, but d20 modern enjoys more support.

Things that draw me to spycraft as a default include:

• The aforementioned campaign qualities. Out of the box, the game provides a variety of means to change the feel of the game to accomodate specific campaigns that I am interested in emulating.
• Doing the accounting it takes to make an NPC in most d20 games has always been something of a burden. Spycraft has an NPC system in which most NPCs are covered in a manner that not only simplifies their writeup, it allows you to adapt them to the level of the party.
• Dramatic Conflicts. Some have mentioned the chase system, as a positive quality, which is true, but in 2.0 it doesn't stop there. The system has been expanded into the dramatic conflict systems, which models a variety of tense conflicts -- in addition to chases, you have infiltration, seduction, interrogation, brainwashing, hacking, etc. These provide many avenues for tense nail-biting conflict other than combat. And they have the additional quality that they streamline action that otherwise might require an extended amount of spotlight time on one player. For example, in one game I had, I was able to handle a hacking attempt with a satisfying level of detail in less than 5 minutes. If you've ever played Cyberpunk and twiddled you thumbs while the netrunner did his part, you know the advantage to this.
• The gear system. I prefer it to typical faux-modern accounting as well as the much rued d20 modern wealth system. (I don't dislike d20 modern wealth as much as some do, as it was an alternative to all the accounting, but it has always had its quirks.)
• I prefer action dice to action points. Action points are nice little kickers. But action dice flow more easily, are geared as rewards to the player, and are more capable of letting the PCs perform larger than life stunts.
• Related to this, how the game handles critical success and errors. Crits are not just part of combat, almost any check can get a critical success. D20 core avoids this because it can cause some wild hiccups in the action of the game. But in Spycraft, major botches are not left to chance; the game doesn't get screwed up just by a bad roll. It's entirely left to the GM discretion whether to invoke a threat or error to make like interesting.
• I feel that Spycraft handles fully automatic weapons better than d20 modern. This is something that I have always house ruled in d20 modern.
• I also feel that Spycraft handles non lethal/subdual damage better than d20 modern. This is also something that I always house rule and I know I'm not alone... I have seen many supplements, even by WotC, that conveniently forget the d20 modern nonlethal damage system.

So you might say I am sold on Spycraft 2.0. But I try to recognize what d20 modern is good at, and it has its place. I would use d20 modern if:

• I wanted to run a game with heavy supernatural elements, as the presence of FX seems to be implicit in many d20 modern products. Or
• The campaign I was looking to run was particularly well supported by a certain d20 modern supplement or group of supplements. Or
• I want to run a campaign where all players are the same profession (like the deep sea mining crew in the Abyss) or lack a profession (i.e., a high school setting.) In these sorts of game, the non-professional d20 modern base classes shine. Elsewise, I find their distinctions less useful to me.

Elsewise, Spycraft 2.0 would be my first choice.

 

[Psion]

I've played in a three month long Stargate (Powered by Spycraft 1.0) game, and ran a d20 modern game for about six months.
(...)
I'm a bit more impressed with the Modern's firearms and armor rules as well.

I was surprised to see anyone favorably compare d20 moder's firearms and armor rules to SC who has played both... but then saw you were basing your comparison on Stargate. This is another vein in which only knowing SC 1.0 will lead you astray. I still wince at Modern's autofire rules, in which armor does nothing against a spray of automatic fire. SC 1.0 had some wonkiness with the armor, but that's gone now.

 

[Committed Hero]

So you might say I am sold on Spycraft 2.0. But I try to recognize what d20 modern is good at, and it has its place. I would use d20 modern if:

• I wanted to run a game with heavy supernatural elements, as the presence of FX seems to be implicit in many d20 modern products. Or
• The campaign I was looking to run was particularly well supported by a certain d20 modern supplement or group of supplements. Or
• I want to run a campaign where all players are the same profession (like the deep sea mining crew in the Abyss) or lack a profession (i.e., a high school setting.) In these sorts of game, the non-professional d20 modern base classes shine. Elsewise, I find their distinctions less useful to me.

I think this is a pretty good guideline.

I would use Spycraft if:

• I wanted characters to be fairly competent while still playing at low-levels if needed
• The game I envisioned was episodic and patron-driven, with missions and, to a lesser extent, gear handed down by someone/group of superior rank
• I expected an emphasis on highly technical skill use, or dramatic situations that the Spycraft rules examine in more detail
• I wanted to keep things fairly modern in time, not back more than 25 or so years.

Otherwise I would stay with d20 Modern.

 

[jaerdaph]

Those were very useful guidelines, Psion and Committed Hero. Thanks.

 

[Insight]

I'm glad to see that no one is out and out bashing D20 Modern (or Spycraft for that matter). I really hate it when threads spiral out of control. These posts have been on topic and well thought out.

After the above, and reading both the AEG and Craft Games sites, I am inclined to give Spycraft a try. One thing that hasn't been mentioned much in the posts is that AEG and Crafty have come up with what look like pretty cool Spycraft supplements. Not just random samplings, either - things I would actually use.

 

[Psion]

After the above, and reading both the AEG and Craft Games sites, I am inclined to give Spycraft a try. One thing that hasn't been mentioned much in the posts is that AEG and Crafty have come up with what look like pretty cool Spycraft supplements. Not just random samplings, either - things I would actually use.

There aren't many supplements out for Spycraft 2.0 yet (by my count, there's 2 at the moment.) SC 1.0 had a scad of them. The ones that were more informational might still be of use (I personally still get lots of use out of the mission generators in Agency and the organization generator in Spycraft, and I hear others like the militaries book), but many of the more mechanical ones are outdated, but have had their more interesting mechanical bits folded into the SC 2.0 rules.

That said, Scott Gearin went to a lot of trouble typing up an update for a lot of this material. If there is something that strikes you fancy from the 1.0 material that isn't in the 2.0, there's a good chance Scott's converted it. (I can point you to the conversion if you are interested.)

 

[Henry]

I prefer d20 Modern or Grim Tales (sort of the same things) for most of our gaming needs, but I'm seriously mulling over offering more Spycraft to my group, because it fits the "more power" craving of our power-gamers and butt-kickers, but yet offers the DM the ease of using NPCs.

The two parts to me that are most cumbersome to Spycraft (as I've beaten this horse before) are the initiative modifiers, and the multiple status and damage conditions. This game handles dramatic conflicts beautifully; it handles op-attack difficulties in simple fashion; it empowers players to want to be good at MANY skills, not just a select core of perceived useful ones; and it always keeps giving the neat toys to players that make them keep coming back for more. But the 50 pr 60 status conditions (all the classic d20 stat conditions, plus about what seems to be 20 or 30 more), the damage conditions (e.g. a whole page just to fire damage!) and the initiative modififers, slow me down considerably. Again, it could be just lack of experience with the system, and the fact that, without spells and supernatural abilties, more space can be lavished on these details.